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.:

1975

while driving a car along Shaw Boulevard, Mandaluyong, Rizal, petitioner Michael T.
Dava, then holder of non-professional driver's license No. 1474427  with official receipt
1

No. 7023037,  bumped pedestrians Bernadette Roxas Clamor and Dolores E. Roxas,
2

causing death to former and physical injuries to the latter.

CLAMOR - DEAD

ROXAS - PHYSICAL INJURIES

 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

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.  The Ministry of Defense later
4

indorsed Roxas' request for assistance to the Constabulary Highway Patrol Group
(CHPG).

SGT. LISING AND VIDUYA of the highway patrols 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  with official receipt No. 0605870  issued by
5 6

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 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

Prosecution witnesses

Caroline Vinluan . registrar of Bureau of Land Transportation (BLT) testified that

the form was genuine but the signature of the issuing official was fake

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.  He added that any license that was not included their office
11

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,  the signature of
13

the issuing official was fake.  He "believed" certain persons had been apprehended for
14

"plasticization" of licenses outside their office  and that sometime November, 1976,
15

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.  He 16

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.

THE DEFENSE

Felizardo Manalili. A friend of Dava and his former co-trainee 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"  the fixers who roamed around the compound. When he as them how
37

much it would cost to secure a driver's license, he told that it would amount to
P70 .00.  He agreed to pay amount and gave the fixers the personal data of Dava.
38 39

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:

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.
ELEMENTS ART 172

(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.  Except for last, all of these elements have been proven
55

beyond reason doubt in this case.

DAVA “THAT MANALILI WAS THE ONLY ONE GUILTY”

1ST ELEMENT: WITH KNOWLEDGE (INDUCED MANALILI)

HE KNEW THAT HIS LICENSE WAS CONFISCATED AND SUBMITTED TO THE

FISCAL, AND HE KNEW THAT IT IS ILLEGAL TO OBTAIN A SECOND ONE

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.  Through this misrepresentation and capitalizing on Manalili awareness of the
56

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.  As it was in truth petitioner
57

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.  The patent irregularity in obtaining driver's license No. 2706887
58

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.  In 59

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
2ND ELEMENT PUBLIC DOCUMENT

AS TESTIFIED BY VINLUAN (A REGISTRAR OF BLT) THE FORM WAS GENUINE

ONLY THE SIFNATURE OF THE ISSUING OFFICER WAS FAKED, STILL IT IS A
PUBLIC DOCUMENT

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.  Thus, when driver's license No. 2706887 was filled up with petitioner's
61

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.

3RD ELEMENT - THE USE! WHE PATROLMAN LISING AND VIDUYA APPREHENDED
HIM AT THE UNIWIDE DEPT. STORE HE USED THE FALSIFIED DRIVER’S LICENSE
TO SHOW THAT HE HAS A LICENSE.

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.

4TH ELEMENT - CAUSE DAMAGE - violation of public faith

It is immaterial whether or not there was damage cause or intent to cause such
damage, because 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

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,  should be applied in his favor:
63

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.  His explanation, however, is
64

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.