G.R. No.

73905 September 30, 1991

MICHAEL T. DAVA, petitioner,
vs.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and the INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, respondents.
KV. Faylona & Associates for petitioner.

FERNAN, C.J.:p
On October 19, 1975, while driving a car along Shaw Boulevard, Mandaluyong, Rizal, petitioner
Michael T. Dava, then holder of non-professional driver's license No. 1474427 1 with official receipt
No. 7023037, 2 bumped pedestrians Bernadette Roxas Clamor and Dolores E. Roxas, causing death to
former and physical injuries to the latter.

As a consequence of said incident, Dava was brought to Mandaluyong Police headquarters where
his driver's license was confiscated by Cpl. Daniel Severino who later submitted Dava's driver's
license to the fiscal's office in Pasig, Rizal. license was thereafter presented as prosecution evidence
in criminal case for homicide and serious physical injuries reckless imprudence filed against Dava in
the then Court First Instance of Rizal in Pasig. 3
On April 12, 1978, Antonio Roxas, the brother of Bernadette and the father of Dolores, saw Dava
driving a maroon Volkswagen (beetle-type) car with plate No. AD-902 B. Knowing that Dava's
driver's license was used as an exhibit in court and that no traffic violation receipt had been issued to
Dava, Roxas sought the help of then Minister of Defense Juan Ponce Enrile in apprehending Dava
for driving without a license. 4 The Ministry of Defense later indorsed Roxas' request for assistance to
the Constabulary Highway Patrol Group (CHPG).
At around 7:30 in the evening of July 21, 1978, M/Sgt. Domingo Lising and S/Sgt. Arturo Viduya of
the CHPG saw the maroon Volkswagen car described by Roxas parked in front of the Uniwide
Department Store near the then Nation theater in Cubao, Quezon City. When the driver and his
companion arrived, Lising and Viduya confronted them and asked the driver for his license. They
were shown non-professional driver's license No. 2706887 5 with official receipt No. 0605870 6 issued
by Agency 2L Pampanga in the name of Michael T. Dava. When asked about the source of his license,
Dava informed them that his officemate had secured it for him.
Lising and Viduya invited Dava to the CHPG office in Camp Crame, Quezon City for questioning.
Dava refused to give a statement upon the advice of his lawyer. Lising then submitted a spot report
to Col. Maristela stating therein that "subject had violated Section 31 of RA 4136 for false
representation in the application of a driver's license intended to be used as a legal license." 7 In his
affidavit of apprehension dated November 16, 1978, Lising stated that he was 'about to book him for
violation of Section 31 of Rep. Act 4136, when subsequent investigation revealed that the Driver's License
above-mentioned is a Fake and a Falsity' and therefore a case for falsification and use of falsified

documents under Section 172 of the Revised Penal Code should be filed against Dava. 8 Lising
concluded that Dava's driver's license was fake because when he compared it with the xerox copy of
Dava's license which was attached to the record of the criminal case in Pasig, the signatures and the
dates of birth indicated in the two licenses did "not tally." 9

Accordingly, an information for falsification of a public document was filed against Dava in the then
Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch V at Quezon City. 10 One of the prosecution witnesses was
Caroline Vinluan of the Angeles City branch of the Bureau of Land Transportation (BLT). He testified that
hen was then the registrar of the said office when Dava's driver' license was brought to him by lawyer
Jose Francisco who was interested in knowing whether it was genuine or fake and if was issued by the
Angeles City agency of the BLT. He examine it and found out that it was "fake or illegally issued" because
form No. 2706887 was one of the fifty (50) forms which had been reported missing from their office
sometime in November, 1976 and that it was never issued to any applicant for a license. 11 He added that
any license that was not included their office index card was considered as "coming from illegal source'
and "not legally issued by any agency." 12
Vinluan stated that although the form used for the license was genuine, 13 the signature of the issuing
official was fake. 14 He "believed" certain persons had been apprehended for "plasticization" of licenses
outside their office 15 and that sometime November, 1976, agents of the National Bureau of Investigation
raided the house of a certain person who had in his possession some of the forms which had been
missing from office. 16 He concluded that the license was fake because the form was issued by the central
office to the Angeles agency, the license appeared on its face to have been issued the San Fernando,
Pampanga agency. 17
Dava was convicted of the crime charged. He appealed to then Court of Appeals 18 which affirmed the
lower court's decision on January 29, 1982. Dava filed a motion for reconsideration of the said decision
contending that the lower court had no jurisdiction to try the case. On April 27, 1982, the Court of Appeals
reversed and set aside its decision and issued a resolution the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, as prayed for, our decision is hereby reconsidered and set aside, and
another judgment shall be entered annulling the proceedings in the court a
quo without prejudice to the refiling of the charges with the proper court. (Rollo, pp.
35-36.)
Consequently, the case was refiled with the Regional Trial Court of Pampanga, Branch 47 at San
Fernando as Criminal Case No. 2422. The information for falsification of a public document reads as
follows:
That on or about the 12th day of April, 1978, and for sometime prior thereto, in the
municipality of San Fernando, province of Pampanga, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused MICHAEL T. DAVA, a
private individual, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously falsify or
cause to be falsified, a Non-Professional Driver's license with Serial No. 2706887
covered by Official Receipt No. 0605870, dated January 24, 1978, a public
document, by making it appear that the signatories therein who are officials of the
Pampanga LTC Agency participated in the preparation thereof, when in truth and in

fact they did not so participate and the accused made use of the same knowing it to
be falsified.
ALL CONTRARY TO LAW.
At the trial, the prosecution presented Antonio Roxas who testified on how he saw Dava driving a car
and that, knowing that Dava's license had been confiscated as a result of the filing of the homicide
and serious physical injuries through reckless imprudence case, he thereafter sought the assistance
of then Minister Enrile in apprehending Dava for driving without a license. 19 For his part, Domingo
Lising, who apprehended Dava, narrated in court how he first saw Daya driving a car along Banahaw and
N. Domingo Sts. in Quezon City until he finally confronted Dava at the vicinity of the Araneta Coliseum
and confiscated his driver's license. As earlier stated, he conclude that the driver's license shown to him
by Dava was fake because he noticed that, when compared with the license attached to record of the
criminal case filed against Dava, the license confiscated bore a different signature and date of birth. 20
Daniel Severino, a sergeant of the Mandaluyong police, testified that he investigated the traffic
incident along Shaw Boulevard on October 19, 1975 which involved Dava and the two relatives of
Antonio Roxas. He himself confiscated Dava's no professional driver's license No. 1474427 which
he later turn over to the fiscal's office. 21
In the course of Severino's testimony, the defense counsel informed the court that, upon a resolution
of the Court of Appeals, Dava was allowed by the lower court having jurisdiction over Criminal Case
No. 16474 to withdraw his driver's license 1474427 from the records of said case. 22 When confronted
by the court, Dava volunteered that he withdrew said license in December, 1982 and surrendered it to the
BLT Western District Office so that he could renew his license. 23 Hence, the evidence presented before
the Court was a mere xerox copy of said license 24 which also bears a notation that Dava received original
driver's license and its receipt on December 15, 1982. 25
Victor Martin, who had been the head of the San Fernando Pampanga branch of the BLT and whose
name appears registrar thereof in official receipt No. 0605870 which was supposed to be attached to
Dava's driver's license No. 270688 admitted that the form of the said license was genuine although
he could not tell whether its contents were likewise genuine because it was "opened" and
"spliced." 26 He asserted, however, that since the said form "did not emanate" from his office and "a
facsimile was not printed" over his name, said license was "not OK". 27
Martin said that he was informed by the property section of the BLT regional office that the number in
the license was one of "the numbers requisitioned by (the) Angeles City agency." 28 He affirmed that
drivers license No. 2706887 "was not issued by (their) agency" 29 although when recalled to the stand, he
admitted that the "2L" filled in the space for "Agency Code No." on the face of license No. 2706887
referred to the San Fernando agency. 30 Martin also confirmed the genuineness of official receipt No.
0605870 although it was his assistant who signed it for him 31 and affirmed that the amount of P10.00
indicated therein had been collected and received by his office. 32
Lawyer Jose Francisco testified that he went to the Angeles City office of the BLT to see its chief and
inquire about the number of driver's license issued to Dava and whether said office had indeed
issued them. According to him, the head of the office, Caroline Vinluan, advised him to verify from
the index card in the possession of the License Division head whether the Angeles City agency had

indeed issued Dava's license. 33 Thereafter, the officer-in-charge of the License Division of the BLT in
East Avenue, Quezon City, Leonardo R. Medina, issued a certification dated December 24, 1979 to the
effect that non-professional drivers license No. 2706887 in the name of Dava was "not registered in (their)
Index Card." 34
Francisco also informed the court that Carolino Vinluan, the former head of the Angeles City BLT
agency, had died on May 12, 1980. 35 He offered in evidence Vinluan's death certificate as Exh. J.
Another evidence presented by the prosecution was the transcript of stenographic notes of the
testimony of Carolino Vinluan which was taken on January 8, 1980 at the trial of Criminal Case No.
Q-10759 before the then Court of First Instance Rizal, Branch V at Quezon City. It was marked as
Exh. K said exhibit was part of the record of Criminal Case No. 10759 which was transmitted to the
Regional Trial Court Pampanga. 36
The defense presented only one witness: Felizardo Manalili. A friend of Dava and his former cotrainee at the Sandoz Philippines, a pharmaceutical firm, Manalili testified that Dava quested him to
secure a driver's license for him because he had none. Manalili went to the San Fernando office of
the Land Transportation Commission (LTC) where he used to secure own license. At the LTC branch
office, he was "approached" 37 the fixers who roamed around the compound. When he as them how
much it would cost to secure a driver's license, he told that it would amount to P70 .00. 38 He agreed to
pay amount and gave the fixers the personal data of Dava. 39
After an hour, the fixers gave Manalili the license which was inside a plastic jacket. (Manalili
identified the license as Exh. B.) He examined it and found out that it looked "like a genuine and
authentic driver's license" to him. The license, which opened and unsealed, bore a signature in the
portion which showed the name Romeo Edu and contained all the personal data of Dava. Because it
did not bear the signature of Dava Manalili immediately gave the license to Dava and told him to sign
it immediately. Dava did so in Manalili's presence. 40
On March 22, 1984, the lower court rendered a decision 41 finding that the license in question was "fake
or spurious", that was not duly issued by any proper government licensing age and that the accused
directly participated in the commission of the falsification or caused said falsification. The court took into
account the facts that Dava was "in dire need' of a license because of his work as a detailman; that he
received his genuine license from the court only on December 15, 1982, and that Dava himself personally
requested his friend, Manalili, to secure the license for him. It arrived at the conclusion that since Dava
was the possessor or user of the fake license, he himself was the forger or the one who caused its forgery
or falsification. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, this Court finds the accused Michael T. Dava guilty
beyond reasonable doubt, as principal of the came of Falsification of a Public
Document, as defined and penalized under the provisions of Article 172 of the
Revised Penal Code, and considering the absence of any mitigating or aggravating
circumstance, hereby sentences him under the Indeterminate Sentence Law to suffer
an indeterminate imprisonment of one (1) year and eight (8) months of prision
correecional as minimum, to four (4) years, nine (9) months and ten (10) days
ofprision correccional as maximum; and to pay a fine of Two Thousand Five Hundred
(P2,500.00) Pesos, Philippine Currency, plus the costs of this suit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dava appealed to the then Intermediate Appellate Court, 42 which on September 30, 1985 affirmed in in
toto the decision of the trial court. On February 27, 1986, the appellate court denied Dava's motion for the
reconsideration of said decision finding that no new grounds had been raised therein. Hence, the instant
petition for review on certiorari.
Petitioner assails herein the reliance of the courts below on the testimony of Carolino Vinluan on the
ground that being a part of the annulled proceedings in Criminal Case No. Q-10759, it may not be
considered as admissible in evidence as it cannot qualify as a "testimony at a former trial" under the
provisions of Section 41, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
We find petitioner's contention to be meritorious. The resolution of the then Intermediate Appellate
Court in CA-G.R. No. 24312-CR, expressly annulled the proceedings had in Criminal Case No. Q10759 for lack of jurisdiction of the Quezon City court over the case. That ruling is founded on solid
jurisprudence. We had time and again held that in the absence of proof that the party raising the
issue of lack of jurisdiction is barred by estoppel, 43 a decision rendered by a court without jurisdiction is
a total nullity. 44 Being worthless in itself, all the proceedings founded upon it are equally
worthless. 45 Hence, the testimony of Vinluan is not only inadmissible in evidence but may well be
considered as totally nonexistent.
With the testimony of the late Carolino Vinluan out of the way, is there sufficient evidence to warrant
the conviction of petitioner for the crime charged?
The information specifically charges the petitioner with having made it appear in his driver's license
No. 2706887 that "officials of the Pampanga LTC agency participated" in in-preparation and with
having used the said driver's license knowing that it was falsified. The charges therefore are found
on the provisions of Article 172 (1) of the Revised Penal Code which punishes any private individual
who shall commit any the falsification enumerated in Article 171 specifically paragraph 2 thereof
which penalizes the act of causing it to appear that persons (public officials) have participated in any
act proceeding when they did not in fact so participate. The information also charges Dava with
having knowingly used a false document under the last paragraph of Article 172.
The evidence at hand proves that petitioner, misrepresenting that he had no driver's license, asked
his friend, Manalili, to secure one for him. Sometime in November, 1976, Manalili, who used to get
his own driver's license in San Fernando, Pampanga, was able to secure petitioner's driver's license
No. 2706887 through fixers at the Land Transportation Commission (LTC) agency in said
locality. 46 On January 24, 1978, petitioner renewed his license at the said office by paying the amount of
P10.00 for which he was issued official receipt No. 0605870. 47
In the renewal of drivers' license, the practice then was simply to present an official receipt showing
that at the previous year the licensee had paid for his driver's license to any agency of the LTC, and
to pay the renewal fee. As long as the transaction did not involve the issuance of "another form," a
driver did not have to fill up an application form for the renewal of a license. The said agency would
then issue an official receipt evidencing the renewal of the license but the driver's license itself would
not be changed. 48

Thus. on January 24,1978, when driver's license No. 2706887 together with official receipt No.
864321 49 were presented to the San Fernando LTC agency, the personnel therein issued official-receipt
No. 0605870 in the name of petitioner. Although the receipt was not personally signed by office registrar
Victor Martin but by his assistant, the receipt50 was genuine and the amount indicated therein was actually
paid to and collected by the San Fernando agency. 51The driver's license itself may not have been issued
by said agency 52 but its form was likewise genuine. However, according to Martin, it was 'not OK'
because it "did not emanate" from his office and "a facsimile was not printed over" his name
therein. 53 Moreover, according to the officer-in-charge of the license Division of the Bureau of Land
Transportation in East Avenue, Quezon City, non-professional driver's license No. 2706887 in the name of
Michael Dava Tolosa "is not registered" in their index card. 54
Hence, while there is no doubt that driver's license No. 2706887 was a spurious one, the evidence
do not pinpoint the petition as the actual falsifier. Unfortunately, however, there are pieces of
evidence which prove beyond reasonable doubt at he caused the falsification and made use of the
falsified driver's license knowing it to be so.
The elements of the crime of using a falsified document in transaction (other than as evidence in a
judicial proceed penalized under the last paragraph of Article 172 are following: (a) the offender
knew that a document was falsified by another person; (b) the false document is embraced in Article
171 or in any of subdivisions Nos. 1 and 2 of Article 172; (c he used such document (not in judicial
proceedings), and (d) the use of the false document caused damage to another or at last it was used
with intent to cause such damage. 55 Except for last, all of these elements have been proven beyond
reason doubt in this case.
It is not disputed that it was petitioner himself who requested Manalili to get him a license. He
misrepresented to Manalili that he has not at any time been issued a driver's license. 56 Through this
misrepresentation and capitalizing on Manalili awareness of the dire necessity of obtaining a driver's
license the shortest time possible to enable petitioner to perform duties as detailman, petitioner was able,
in a very subtle clever manner, to induce Manalili to deal with "fixers" in securing the subject driver's
license. For indeed, there was no way Manalili could obtain a drivers license in so short a without having
to deal with "fixers." Thus, as petitioner calculated, Manalili, who appeared to have been motivated by a
sincere desire to help a friend, did not hesitate to deal with three fixers whom he knew were not
employees of the LTC to whom he paid P70.00 for the license even if the legal fee then was only
P15.00. 57 As it was in truth petitioner who induced and left Manalili with no choice but to seek the aid of
fixers, the fact that it was Manalili and not petitioner who dealt directly with said fixers cannot exculpate
petitioner from the charge of falsification. He is, beyond reasonable doubt, a principal by inducement in
the commission of said crime.
Petitioner cannot feign ignorance of the spurious character of his second driver's license No.
2706887. Having already obtained a driver's license, he knew that it was not legally possible for him
to secure another one. Otherwise, there would have been no need for him to misrepresent to his
friend Manalili that he was not then a holder of a driver's license. But even with this
misrepresentation, petitioner cannot even begin to believe that Manalili would be able to secure a
driver's license through legal means in about an hour's time. 58 The patent irregularity in obtaining
driver's license No. 2706887 was more than sufficient to arouse the suspicion of an ordinary cautious and
prudent man as to its genuineness and authenticity. In fact, Manalili testified that he himself was surprised
when the fixer handed to him the plastic jacket of the driver's license of Michael Dava on November 4,

1976, a few hours after he had sought the fixer's assistance. 59 In those days, all plastic jackets emanated
from the LTC Central Office, which accounted for the delay in the release of the license applied for. Under
these circumstances, no "reasonable and fairminded man" would say that petitioner did not know that his
license was a fake. 60

A driver's license is a public document within the purview of Articles 171 and 172. The blank form of
the drivers license becomes a public document the moment it is accomplished. 61 Thus, when driver's
license No. 2706887 was filled up with petitioner's personal data and the signature of the region of the
San Fernando LTC agency was affixed therein, even if the same was simulated, the driver's license
became a public document.
The third element of use of the falsified document is proven by the fact that when petitioner was
apprehended by Lising on April 12, 1978 it was in his possession and it was what he presented
Lising to show that he had a license. Because he was a detailman who did his job with the use of a
car, it is probable that from November 4, 1976 (its date of issuance) until April 12, 1978, petitioner
used driver's license No. 2706887.
The driver's license being a public document, proof of the fourth element of damage caused to
another person or at least an intent to cause such damage has become immaterial. In falsification of
public or official documents, the principal thing being punished is the violation of the public faith and
the destruction of the truth proclaimed therein. 62
In his attempt at exculpation, petitioner asserts that the following ruling in People vs.
Sendaydiego, 63 should be applied in his favor:
The rule is that if a person had in his possession a falsified document and he made
use of it (uttered it), taking advantage of it and profiting thereby, the presumption is
that he is the material author of the falsification. This is especially true if the use or
uttering of the forged documents was so closely connected in time with the forgery
that the user or possessor may be proven to have the capacity of committing the
forgery, or to have close connection with the forgers, and therefore, had complicity in
the forgery (U.S. vs. Castillo, 6 Phil. 453; People vs. De Lara, 45 PMI. 754; People
vs. Domingo, 49 Phil. 28: People vs. Astudillo, 60 Phil. 338; People vs. Manansala,
105 Phil. 1253). In the absence of a satisfactory explanation, one who is found in
possession of a forged document and who used or uttered it is presumed to be the
forger (Alarcon vs. Court of Appeals, L-21846, March 31, 1967, 19 SCRA 688;
People vs. Caragao,
L-28258, December 27, 1969, 30 SCRA 993). (Emphasis supplied.)
We agree with the petitioner that the presumption enunciated in the Sendaydiego case is not
absolute as it is subject to the exception that the accused should have a satisfactory
explanation why he is in possession of a false document. 64 His explanation, however, is unsatisfactory
as it consists mainly in passing the buck to his friend, Manalili. As stated above, Manalili himself could not
have acted on his own accord without the prodding of petitioner.
We cannot help but comment on petitioner's allegations on the role of fixers in government agencies.
To him, a fixer is a "necessary evil" who could do things fast for the right amount. He is "not

necessarily involved in the commission of forgery or falsification of official documents" and he shares
his fees with "insiders." 65
Fixers indeed appear as undetachable fixtures in government licensing agencies. Why they
proliferate is a sad commentary not only on our bureaucracy but also on our own people. While not
all fixers are engaged in illegal activities for some simple serve as "facilitators," they nonetheless
provide sources for exploitation of the unknowing common people who transact business with the
government and for corruption of the gullible government employees. Their unwanted presence must
be dealt with accordingly and the soonest this is undertaken by our government agencies the better
for all of us.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the respondent appellate court is hereby affirmed. Let a copy of this
decision be served on that Department of Transportation and Communication. Cost against the
petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Gutierrez, Jr., Feliciano, Bidin and Davide, Jr., JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1 Exh. G.
2 Exh. G-1.
3 Criminal Case No. 16474; Exh. F.
4 Exh. A.
5 Exh. B.
6 Exh. B-1.
7 Exh. D.
8 Exh. E.
9 TSN, November 29, 1983, pp. 15-17.
10 Criminal Case No. Q-10759.
11 Exhs. K, K-2, K-4, K-11.
12 Exh. K-4.

13 Exh. K-5.
14 Exh. K-10.
15 Ibid.
16 Exh. K-11.
17 Ibid., Exh. K-6.
18 CA-G.R. No. 24312-CR.
19 TSN, September 27, 1983 & October 13, 1983.
20 An examination of Dava's two licenses reveals that there is al a discrepancy on
the data regarding his height. In license No. 270688 it is indicated that Dava is 6 feet
2 inches tall while in license No. 1474427, he is 5 feet 8 inches tall. (TSN, November
29, 1983).
21 TSN, December 8, 1983.
22 Ibid., pp. 9 & 13.
23 Ibid., P. 10.
24 Exh. G.
25 Exh. G-1.
26 TSN, December 8, 1983, p. 29.
27 Ibid., p. 22.
28 Ibid., p. 25.
29 Ibid., p. 28.
30 TSN, January 10, 1984, p. 2.
31 Exh. B-1.
32 TSN, December 8, 1983, p. 31.
33 TSN, December 20, 1983, p. 7.
34 Exh. 1.

35 TSN, December 20, 1983, p. 12.

36 TSN, November 8, 1983, p. 7.
37 TSN, January 17, 1984, p. 20.
38 Ibid., p. 21.
39 Ibid., p. 23.
40 Ibid., pp. 23-30.
41 Penned by Judge Florencio Florenda.
42 Justice Juan A. Sison, ponente, with Justices Federico B. Alfonso, Jr. and Lorna
S. Lombos-de la Fuente, concurring.
43 Technically, petitioner was barred from raising the issue of la of jurisdiction for the
first time on appeal (PNB vs. IAC, G.R. 62831-32, July 31, 1986, 143 SCRA 299).
But, inasmuch as the prosecution did not question the appellate court's resolution
annulling t proceedings in Criminal Case No. Q-10759 on the ground of lack
jurisdiction of the lower court, and went along with the refiling an trial of the case in
Pampanga, the said resolution of the appellant court should be respected.
44 Solid Homes, Inc. v. Payawal, G.R. No. 84811, August 29, 1989, 177 SCRA 72.
45 Estoesta, Sr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 74817, November 1989, 179 SCRA
203.
46 TSN, January 17, 1984, p. 16.
47 Exhs. B-1 and H.
48 TSN, December 8, 1983, pp. 22-23, 32-33.
49 See: Exh. B-1.
50 Exh. B-1.
51 TSN, December 8, 1983, pp. 21, 24 and 31.
52 Ibid., p. 28; TSN, January 10, 1984; Exh. H.
53 TSN, December 8, 1983, p. 22.
54 Exh. I.

55 Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Book 11, 1975, ed., p. 219.
56 TSN, January 17, 1984; pp. 16-17.
57 Ibid., pp. 62; 64-65.
58 Ibid., pp. 24-25.
59 Ibid., pp. 68-69.
60 See: Alarcon vs. Court of Appeals, 125 Phil. 1110, 1112 (1967).
61 U.S. vs. Asensi, 34 Phil. 750 (1916).
62 Sarep v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 68203, September 13, 1989, 177 SCRA 440,
449; Syquian v. People, G.R. No. 82197, March 13, 1989, 171 SCRA 223 citing
People v. Po Giok To, 96 Phil. 913.
63 L-33252, L-33253 & L-33254, January 20, 1978, 81 SCRA 120, 141.
64 Petition, p. 19.
65 Petition, p. 18.