With malice towards none

Falsification of official document is a grave offense that warrants dismissal from service of a government personnel. To be guilty however, it must be shown that: the offender makes in a document statements in a narration of facts; the offender has the obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated; the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false; and the perversion of truth in the narration of facts was made with wrongful intent of injuring a third person. In this case of Lina, the last two requirements above enumerated are not established. Let’s see why.

Lina was the Community Affairs Officer IV in her home City. When Executive Order No. 790 was issued granting and extending the veteran preference rating in civil service examination to any one child of a veteran, Lina filed an application to avail of said preference. She filed it because she knew from the affidavits of three other military officers that her father was a World War II veteran who served with the rank of Sergeant at the 85th Infantry Regiment Cebu Command Area 82nd division of the Philippine Army from June 1942 to April 1945.In fact her father while alive, and later on her mother tried to seek confirmation and recognition of such services but failed to do so.

Nevertheless Lina still filed her application for preference rating. But aware that her father’s veterans status was not yet confirmed, she just submitted those affidavits. And when such application was referred to the Philippine Veterans Affairs Office (PVAO), the latter even issued a Master List and Certification that her father was a World War II veteran with the rank of private. So the Civil Service Commission granted Lina the benefit of 10 percent additional preference rating and a Career Service Professional Eligibility.

Later on however, when the CSC and the PVAO undertook a revalidation of their records to ascertain the truthfulness of the claims of supposed children of veterans who were given 10 percent preferential rating, they discovered that the name of Lina’s father was not in the PVAO’s official records of veterans.

So the CSC formally charged Lina with dishonesty and falsification of official documents. And after hearing she was found guilty and dismissed from the service.

Was the CSC correct?

No.

There can be no conviction for falsification of a public document if the acts of the accused are consistent with good faith. A crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing the act complained of be innocent. In this case, Lina was undoubtedly in good faith when she claimed she was a daughter of a world war II veteran. Aware that her father’s veteran’s status was not yet confirmed, she submitted the affidavits of the superiors and contemporaries in the military of her father to prove that he indeed served during the war. In fact PVAO itself recognized her father’s services by issuing a master list and certification.

Moreover, one of the elements of falsification, that the facts narrated by the offender be absolutely false, is lacking in the instant case. The affidavits of her father’s superiors and contemporaries give some semblance of truth to her claim. In fact while her case was pending appeal, the Military Service Board of the Department of National Defense already confirmed the military services of her father.

Lina should therefore be exonerated of the charges filed against her and paid all her back salaries for a period not exceeding five years (Relucio vs. Civil Service Commission et al. G.R.147182 November 19, 2002).

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]