LAYNO VS PEOPLE

LAYNO VS PEOPLE
G.R. No. 93842. September 7, 1992
FACTS: The petitioner was the incumbent municipal mayor of Lianga, Surigao del Sur, on 16
March 1980, having been elected to that position in the elections held in that year. As chief
executive of the municipality, he had the authority to appoint employees in the municipal
government of Lianga. On 16 March 1980, the petitioner appointed Fernando Y. Layno, his
legitimate son, meat inspector in the office of the municipal treasurer of Lianga. He signed the
appointment document—Civil Service Form No. 35—twice, first as the appointing authority and
second, as the personnel officer, certifying “(t)hat all the required supporting papers pursuant
to MC 5, s. 1974, as amended, have been complied with, reviewed and found to be in order.”
Thereafter, the appointment paper, together with the required supporting documents, was
forwarded to the Davao Regional Office of the Civil Service Commission and was received by the
said office on 17 May 1980. On 20 May 1980, the OIC, Jorge Mindanao, acting by authority of
the Commission, approved the appointment of Fernando Y. Layno. Three (3) days later, the
approved appointment was returned to the office of the petitioner.
The appointee, however, neither assumed the position to which he was appointed nor
collected the salary corresponding to it.
Petitioner assails the Sandiganbayan in not giving weight nor credence to his defense that he
did not sign nor issue the certification in question. He claims that the lone witness for the
prosecution, Amando R. Pandi, Jr., who identified his signature on the said certification is
incompetent to testify on the matter because he admitted during the trial that he never saw
petitioner actually affixing his signature on the questioned certification. Petitioner further
claims that the said witness is biased and prejudiced and that his testimony is incredible,
unreliable and undeserving of belief. He argues that Pandi did not testify voluntarily but was
actually instructed by the incumbent mayor who was his (petitioner's) political opponent for
the mayorship of the Municipality of Lianga in the last local election and that Pandi is a relative
of the incumbent vice-mayor against whom petitioner has a long-standing political feud.
ISSUE: Whether petitioner is guilty of the crime of falsification of public document
HELD: YES. Under Sec. 22, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, the handwriting of a
person may be proved by any witness who “has seen writing purporting to be his upon which
the witness acted or been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of
such person.” Otherwise stated, any witness may be called who has, by sufficient means,
acquired knowledge of the general character of the handwriting of the party whose signature is
in question. Prosecution witness Amando R. Pandi, Jr. was competent to testify on the signature
of petitioner on the certification, Exhibit “B” because in the course of his employment as
municipal secretary and designated personnel officer in the municipal government of Lianga,
Surigao del Sur, he had seen records under his charge bearing the long and short signatures of
the petitioner, and, as such, he had acquired knowledge of the general character of the
handwriting of the petitioner, xxx
Moreover, the Sandiganbayan’s conclusion that the signature on the certification in

question is the signature of the petitioner was not only based on the testimony of Amando R.
Pandi, Jr. Section 22, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence further provides that
“(e)vidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by a comparison, made by the
witness or the court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom
the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.” Pursuant
thereto, the Sandiganbayan compared the signature on the certification with the signatures of
the petitioner on documents filed with the court, and which were proved to be genuine.

LAYNO VS PEOPLE - Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LAYNO VS PEOPLE - Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

LAYNO VS PEOPLE - Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 93842. September 7, 1992

ISSUE: Whether petitioner is guilty of the crime of falsification of public document

Moreover, the Sandiganbayan’s conclusion that the signature on the certification in

You might also like