Liabilities of personnel who alter their daily time record RE: ADMINISTRATIVE CASE FOR FALSIFICATION OF OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS AND DISHONESTY AGAINST RANDY S. VILLANUEVA [A.M. NO. 2005-24-SC : August 10, 2007] Falsification of an official document such as the DTR is considered a grave offense. It also amounts to dishonesty. Both falsification and dishonesty are grave offenses punishable by dismissal from the service, even for the first offense,15 [Rule IV, Section 52-A (1) and (6) of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases promulgated by the CSC through Resolution No. 991936 dated August 31, 1999 and implemented by CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, series of 1999; Concerned Employee v. Generoso, A.M. No. 2004-33-SC, 24 August 2005, 467 SCRA 614.] with forfeiture of retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits) and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in government service.16 [Office of the Court Administrator v. Breta, A.M. No. P-05-2023, 6 March 2006, 484 SCRA 114, 117, citing Office of the Court Administrator v. Sirios, A.M. No. P-00-1419, 17 October 2001, 367 SCRA 312, 319.] In some cases, the Court refrained from imposing these penalties in the presence of mitigating factors.17 [Servino v. Adolfo, A.M. No. P-06-2204, 30 November 2006.] Furthermore, falsification of an official document is punishable as a criminal offense under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code and dishonesty is a malevolent act that has no place in the judiciary. 19 [Servino v. Adolfo, A.M. No. P-06-2204, 30 November 2006.] ------------------------------------------The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (Republic Act No. 6713) enunciates the state's policy of promoting a high standard of ethics and utmost responsibility in the public service. And no other office in the government service exacts a greater demand for moral righteousness and uprightness from an employee than in the Judiciary.1 [Civil Service Commission v. Sta. Ana, A.M. No. OCA-01-5, 1 August 2002, 386 SCRA 1.] ------------------------------------------Falsification of daily time records amounts to dishonesty; dishonesty, being in the nature of a grave offense, carries the extreme penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification for reemployment in government service.3 [Office of the Court Administrator v. Magno, A.M. No. P-00-1419, 17 October 2001, 367 SCRA 312.] Indeed, dishonesty has no place in the Judiciary.4 [Cabanatan v. Molina, A.M. No. P-01-1520, 21 November 2001, 370 SCRA 16.] However, such an extreme penalty cannot be inflicted on an erring employee, especially so in cases where there exist mitigating circumstances which could alleviate his or her culpability.5 [Office of the Court Administrator v. Sirios, A.M. No. P-02-1659, 28 August 2003, 410 SCRA 35.] In this case, since respondent Andria Forteza-Crisostomo readily acknowledged her offense, apologized and promised to reform her ways, and considering further that this is her first offense, the Court finds that the penalty of three months' suspension from the service will suffice.6 [Office of the Court Administrator v. Sirios, A.M. No. P-02-1659, 28 August 2003, 410 SCRA 35.] ---------------------------------------OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. MARIAN D. TORRES, MARICAR D. TORRES AND COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION) [G.R. NO. 168309 : September 25, 2008] The existence of malice or criminal intent is not a mandatory requirement for a finding of falsification of official documents as an administrative offense. What is required is simply a showing that private respondents made entries in their respective DTRs knowing fully well that they were false. The offense is in the nature of malum prohibitum, such that respondents' commission of the act with full knowledge of the falsity of the entries on the DTR is sufficient to hold them liable. The element of damage is also not absolutely necessary, since this case does not pertain to the felony of Falsification under the Revised Penal Code. Further, it remains arguable that there could have been damage caused the government, as public money was paid for hours of work not actually rendered. -------------------------------------PONCIANO LAYUG, Petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents. G.R. Nos. 121047-57. August 16, 2000 There is authority to the effect that a fourth requisite, i.e., that the act of falsification was committed to the damage of a third party or with intent to cause such damage, may be dispensed with as regards falsification of public or official document. The reason for this is that in falsification of public document, the principal thing punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed.39 However, the daily time record that a public official or employee must fill up is a public document which has characteristics distinct from other public documents. It should contain a "true and correct report of hours of work performed, record of which was made daily at the of arrival at and departure from office."40 As to its nature and purpose, this Court has said: x x x. The evident purpose of requiring government employees to keep a time record is to show their attendance in office to work and to be paid accordingly. Closely adhering to the policy of no work no pay, a daily time record is primarily, if not solely, intended to prevent damage or loss to the government as would result in instances where it pays an employee for no work done. The integrity of the daily time record as an official document, however, remains untarnished if the damage sought to be prevented has not been produced. X x x (w)hile it is true that a time record is an official document, it is not criminally falsified if it does not pervert its avowed purpose as when it does not cause damage to the government. It may be different in the case of a public document with continuing interest affecting the public welfare which is naturally damaged if that document is falsified where the truth is necessary for the safeguard and protection of that general interest. x x x."41 (Italics supplied.) As such, in the prosecution of cases involving falsification of daily time records, it is imperative that there be proof of damage to the government. Such damage may take the form of salary paid to the accused for services not rendered.42 Ex-Oro councilor, sister get 6-10 years in prison for graft ALWEN SALIRING July 24, 2018 FORMER Cagayan de Oro City councilor President Elipe is set to appeal the Sandiganbayan decision convicting him for graft charges by exhausting all other legal remedies. Elipe said he may ask the court to reconsider its decision or run to the Supreme Court. The anti-graft court fourth division has found Elipe and his sister, Pristine Quizon, guilty for graft and falsification of public document. In a 15-page decision penned by Associate Justice Reynaldo Cruz and promulgated last July 6, the Sandiganbayan sentenced the siblings with indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of six to 10 years with perpetual disqualification from holding any public office. They were also made to pay a fine of P5,000 for the falsification charges. The case stemmed from former city administrator Dionnie Gersana's filing of a complaint against the siblings before the Office of the Ombudsman. Elipe said his sister was working as his secretary at that time under flexi-time. Gersana, in his complaint, said Quizon’s date and time record (DTR) made it appear that she reported for work during the dates October 25, 29, and 30, 2013 for the payroll period October 16 to 31 2013. But a travel record from the Bureau of Immigration showed that Quizon had been out of the country on October 25, 2013 and came back to the country only on October 30, 2013. The Ombudsman said that despite being fully aware of Quizon's absence, Elipe still approved and certified the DTR as true and correct, "making it appear that he verified the hours indicated therein." As a result, Quizon was able to receive her salary, corresponding to the dates she was absent from work, in the amount of P1,894.08. "It is also undisputed that both Elipe and Quizon have to take advantage of their respective official positions to make the falsification possible, as they both have to intervene in the preparation of the assailed DTR," part of the Sandiganbayan ruling read. "Finally, the falsity of the DTR entries prepared by both accused has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, as accused Quizon was admittedly out of the country and could not have rendered work on the said dates indicated therein," the decision added. "Nadawat na nako ang decision pero wala ko pa mabasa and I leave it to my lawyer kung unsa next move kay we will exhaust all legal remedies like mag file ta motion for reconsideration or sa Supreme Court," Elipe said. "We maintain nga we did nothing wrong and gibuhat lang namo ang among trabaho," he added. Elipe said the case he is facing was, in a way, politically motivated. He said his political detractors wanted him barred from holding public office. "Syempre naguol ta but kini pagsulay ug naghinaot ta nga mogawas ang hustisya kay klaro man ang tuyo ani nga pangitaan kog paagi sa mga taong dunay politikanhong katuyuan nga dili gyud ko makahupot og katungdanan (Of course, we feel bad, but this is just a trial and we hope that justice will prevail because it was very clear that our political adversaries will find all means for me not to hold any public office)," Elipe said. DEPED ORDER 49, S. 2006 Section 2. Grounds for Disciplinary Action – An administrative complaint may be filed for any of the following grounds for disciplinary action: a. Dishonesty Section 15. Preventive Suspension – Upon motion of the complainant or Motu Proprio, the proper Disciplining Authority may issue an Order of Preventive Suspension upon issuance of the Formal Charge immediately thereafter to any subordinate officer or employee under his authority pending an investigation, if the charges involve: a.Dishonesty b. Oppression c. Grave Misconduct d. Neglect in the Performance of Duty; or e. If there are reasons to believe that the respondent is guilty of charges which would warrant his removal from the service. Section 58. Classification of Offenses – Administrative offenses with corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave or light, depending on their gravity or depravity and effects on the government service. A. The following are grave offenses with their corresponding penalties: 1. Dishonesty : 1st offense – Dismissal 2017 RACCS Section 29. When Issued; Grounds. The proper disciplining authority, upon motion or motu proprio, may issue an order of preventive suspension against the respondent upon issuance of the formal charge or notice of charge, or immediately thereafter, if: A) The charge involves: 1. Dishonesty; Section 50. Classification of Offenses. Administrative offenses with corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave and light, depending on their gravity or depravity and effects on the government service. A. The following grave offenses shall be punishable by dismissal from the service: 1. Serious Dishonesty; B. The following grave offenses shall be punishable by suspension of six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year for the first offense and dismissal from the service for the second offense: 1. Less serious dishonesty; Xxxxx E. The less grave offense of Simple Dishonesty is punishable by suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense; six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year for the second offense; and dismissal for the third offense. Republic Act No. 7836 Sec. 23. Revocation of the Certificate of Registration, Suspension from the Practice of the Teaching Profession, and Cancellation of Temporary or Special Permit. — The Board shall have the power, after due notice and hearing, to suspend or revoke the certificate of registration of any registrant, to reprimand or to cancel the temporary/special permit of a holder thereof who is exempt from registration, for any of the following causes: (a) Conviction for any criminal offense by a court of competent jurisdiction; Article 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister. - The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts: 1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric; 2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate; 3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them; 4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts; 5. Altering true dates; 6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning; 7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original document when no such original exists, or including in such a copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original; or 8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official book. The same penalty shall be imposed upon any ecclesiastical minister who shall commit any of the offenses enumerated in the preceding paragraphs of this article, with respect to any record or document of such character that its falsification may affect the civil status of persons.