Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=40380:g-r-nos-121047-57-august-16,-2000-ponciano-layug-v-sandiganbayan,-et-al&amp;catid=1396&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 14:21:24+00:00

Document:
PONCIANO LAYUG, Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
Science IV-O	4:00	5:00 pm"
did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with grave abuse of confidence and by taking advantage of his official position prepare and submit his daily time record for June, 1986 by making it appear that he attended aforesaid classes during the said period of June 18 to 30, 1986 when in truth and in fact he failed to attend said classes to teach and for which he is legally bound to disclose the truth, to the damage and prejudice of the government.
"That on or about the month of July 1986, in Digos, Davao del Sur, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, Accused Ponciano Layug, a duly appointed Secondary School Teacher of the Davao del Sur National High School, hence, a public school teacher and as such was assigned to teach Youth Development Training I scheduled on Monday, Wednesday and Friday between the hours of 7:15 in the morning to 9:15 in the morning and on Tuesday and Thursday between the hours of 7:30 in the morning to 9:30 in the morning, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously and with grave abuse of confidence and taking advantage of his official position prepare and submit his daily time record for the month of July 1986 by making it appear that he attended the aforesaid classes from the 3rd day of July to the 31st day of July, 1986, when in truth and in fact he failed to attend and teach said subject and for which he is legally bound to disclose the truth, to the damage and prejudice of the government.
In Criminal Cases Nos. 14446 to 14450, the informations filed are similarly worded as that in Criminal Case No. 14445, except for the particulars as to the month and year 4 indicated in each daily time record.
"(1)	in Criminal Case No. 14444 — to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from TWO (2) YEARS FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision correccional, as minimum, to EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor as the maximum; to pay a fine of P1,000.00 and to pay the costs of said action.
"(2)	In Crim. Case No. 14445 — to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision correccional, as the minimum, to EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor as the maximum; to pay a fine of P1,000.00 and to pay the costs of said action.
"(3)	in Crim. Case No. 14446 — to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision correccional, as the minimum, to EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor as the maximum, to pay a fine of P1,000.00 and to pay the costs of said action.
"(4)	In Crim. Case No. 14447 — to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision correccional, as the minimum, to EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor as the maximum; to pay a fine of P1,000.00 and to pay the costs of said action.
"(5)	In Crim. Case No. 14448 — to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision correccional, as the minimum, to EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor as the maximum; to pay a fine of P1,000.00 and to pay the costs of said action.
"(6)	In Crim. Case No. 14449 — to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision correctional, as the minimum, to EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor as the maximum; to pay a fine of P1,000.00 and to pay the costs of said action.
"(7)	In Crim. Case No. 14450 — to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision correctional, as the minimum, to EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor as the maximum; to pay a fine of P1,000.00 and to pay the costs of said action.
"(8)	In Crim. Case No. 14451 — to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision correctional, as the minimum, to EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor as the maximum; to pay a fine of P1,000.00 and to pay the costs of said action.
"(9)	In Crim. Case No. 14452 — to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision correccional, as the minimum, to EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor as the maximum; to pay a fine of P1,000.00 and to pay the costs of said action.
"(10)	In Crim. Case No. 14453 — to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision correccional, as the minimum, to EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor as the maximum; to pay a fine of P1,000.00 and to pay the costs of said action.
"(11)	In Crim. Case No. 14454 — to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision correccional, as the minimum, to EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor as the maximum; to pay a fine of P1,000.00 and to pay the costs of said action.
On June 4, 1986, Presto filed with the Tanodbayan (Ombudsman) TBP Case No. 86-01001, 15 a complaint for estafa through falsification of public documents against petitioner. Presto alleged that petitioner made it appear that he had completed the required number of hours of work in his daily time records (hereinafter DTR) for the months of January to April 1986, notwithstanding that he only worked for a short period of time. 16 After his arraignment, petitioner learned that he was charged with eleven (11) more counts of falsification of public document pertaining to his daily time records for June 1986 to April 1987, that were docketed as TBP Case No. 87-02474.
On May 19, 1986, petitioner filed with the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports, Region XI in Davao City complaints for harassment and oppression and for unjustifiable refusal to release vacation salaries against Presto under Administrative Cases Nos. R-0758-XI-86 and R-0766-XI-86. The cases were consolidated with the complaint filed by Presto against petitioner for dishonesty under Administrative Case No. R-0764-XI-86.
On September 17, 1991, the Regional Trial Court 30 rendered a decision ordering the dismissal of the case and the counterclaim. The trial court directed payment to petitioner of his salary for work correspondingly rendered from January 5, 1989. 31 The latter date had been fixed by this Court in the Decision of February 7, 1990 in G.R. No. 82272 (Layug v. Quisumbing), 32 arising from petitioner’s preventive suspension by the DECS Regional Director and approved by DECS Secretary Lourdes Quisumbing.
In that case, the Court held that a teacher may not be compelled to accept and neither may he demand to be given an assignment not specified in his appointment. However, interruptions in the administrative investigation caused by petitioner’s own fault or upon his own request would not be counted in computing the 90-day statutory limit of suspension. Hence, for his refusal to accept assignments given to him by the regional director, petitioner was not entitled to receive salary for the period of idleness; he may receive salary only from January 5, 1989 when he reported for work.
On March 30, 1990, the prosecutor filed with the Sandiganbayan eleven (11) counts of falsification of public document 33 against petitioner.
Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charges. 34 The prosecution thus presented Ramon Presto, Lourdes Magbanua, Benedicto Cruz, Ruperto Escarcha and Celestina Hipe as its witnesses.
On March 31, 1995, the Sandiganbayan promulgated its decision finding petitioner guilty of eleven (11) counts of falsification of public documents.
Petitioner asserts that the facts narrated in his daily time records were not absolutely false. Hence, there was no falsification as there was "some colorable truth" in the daily time record. Moreover, in filling up his daily time record, petitioner acted in good faith. Proof of this is that he filed a petition for mandamus to compel the school head to release his salary for school year 1986-87. On the other hand, it was the school principal who was impelled by improper motives in testifying against petitioner. As this Court noted in its decision of June 16, 1995 in G.R. No. 114138 (Layug v. Sandiganbayan), 36 despite his knowledge of the irregular attendance of petitioner, he (Presto) did not take extra care to segregate and scrutinize petitioner’s DTRs starting January 1986, so as to give himself (Presto) justification not to sign the same.
There is no proof that petitioner unduly benefited from his daily time record. On the contrary, what appears on record is the fact that petitioner was deprived of his salary from June 1986 to April 1987, the period of time material in these cases. In fact, petitioner had to resort to our courts before he could get the salary that was due him in proportion to the time he actually rendered services to the government.
The court allowed petitioner to receive the amount of P6,000.00 for services he actually rendered. It sufficiently proves that his daily time record was not absolutely false. In other words, there was a color of truth in the entries in petitioner’s daily time record as he did report for work at the DSNHS. The truth that he taught within his official time of work is even buttressed by the prosecution evidence that two teachers, Hipe and Badilles, had to take over the English subjects assigned to him.
There is no proof beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner is guilty of falsification of public document. From the facts of all the cases that had been filed by either petitioner or Presto, there* could have been a lack of cordiality between them. Petitioner’s recalcitrance might have aggravated the situation that resulted in his, commission of acts that may be grounds of an administrative cased. 51 However, under the facts established by the prosecution in these cases, the acts attributed to petitioner may not be the foundation of a successful criminal prosecution. The evidence presented did not provide moral certainty that petitioner committed the eleven (11) counts of falsification of public document charged.
In view of the foregoing, the presumption is that petitioner Ponciano Layug is innocent. Such presumption continues until his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. 52 Verily, although the evidence for the defense may be weak, criminal conviction must come from the strength of the prosecution’s evidence and not from the weakness of the defense. 53 The proofs presented do not meet the set criterion to justify petitioner’s conviction for the offense.
WHEREFORE, we REVERSE and SET ASIDE the decision of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Cases Nos. 14444 to 14454. Petitioner Ponciano Layug is hereby ACQUITTED of eleven (11) counts of falsification of public document for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
1.	Promulgated on March 31, 1995 in Criminal Cases Nos. 14444 to 14454.
2.	Sandiganbayan Record in Criminal Case No. 14444, Vol. 1, pp. 1-2.
3.	Sandiganbayan Record in Criminal Case No. 14445, pp. 1-2.
4.	August 1986 in Crim. Case No. 14446; September 1986 in Crim. Case No. 14447; October 1986 in Crim. Case No. 14448; November 1986 in Crim. Case No. 14449 and December 1986 in Crim. Case No. 14450.
5.	Second Division, Justice Romeo M. Escareal, ponente, Justices Minita Chico-Nazario and Roberto M. Lagman, concurring.
8.	TSN, November 19, 1991, p. 7.
12.	TSN, November 19, 1991, pp. 5-12.
14.	Exhs. K-2 to K-10.
15.	With the then Tanodbayan.
16.	Record of Crim. Case No. 14444, p. 29.
26.	TSN July 9, 1992, pp. 18-50.
28.	Exh. R. Certification of Benedicto V. Cruz.
30.	Branch 19, Digos, Davao del Sur, Sp. Civil Case No. 2425, presided over by Judge Dominador F. Carrillo.
32.	182 SCRA 46 .
33.	Docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 14444-14454.
35.	Filed on July 31, 1995.
36.	245 SCRA 123 .
37.	191 Phil. 153, 163 .
38.	Syquian v. People, 171 SCRA 223, 230 , citing Cabigas v. People, 152 SCRA 18 ; Leyson v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 134990, April 27, 2000.
39.	People v. Po Giok To, 96 Phil. 913, 918 .
40.	Suan v. Resuello, 65 SCRA 301, 303 .
41.	Beradio v. Court of Appeals, supra, at p. 168.
43.	TSN, July 10, 1992, p. 25.
45.	TSN, supra, p. 22.
47.	Amora, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 200 Phil. 777, 783 .
48.	182 SCRA 46 .
49.	TSN, supra, at p. 34.
50.	Lecaroz v. Sandiganbayan, 305 SCRA 396, 408 .
official document is considered a grave offense which warrants the penalty of dismissal.
52.	Enriquez v. People, G.R. Nos. 119239 and 119285, May 9, 2000.
53.	Ibid., citing Layug v. Sandiganbayan, 245 SCRA 123 .

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.