Fake driver’s license

DearPAO, Denver hit my daughter while he was driving under the influence of alcohol. His driver’ s license was confiscated and appropriate him. After three months, I saw a certain sedan collide with a truck. I was surprised to know that Denver was the driver of the sedan, and he was able to present a driver’ s license to the police responding to the traffic incident when in fact his driver’ s license was previously confiscated. Assuming find out that Denver’ s driver’ s license is fake, what is the appropriate case that will be filed against him?

Quinn

Dear Quinn,

Denver may be held liable for violating Section 26 of Republic Act (RA) 10951, which amended Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines. Section 26 of RA 10951 states that:

“The penalty of pr is io nc or re cc iona lin its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than One million pesos ( P1,000.000) shall be imposed upon:

“1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the falsifications enumerated in the next preceding article in any public or official document or letter of exchange or any other kind of commercial document;

“2. x xx.

“3. x xx .”

A driver’s license is considered as a public document. This is in consonance with the pronouncement of the court in the case of D av a vs. People of the Philippines and Intermediate Appellate Court (GR 73905, Sept. 30, 1991), where the Supreme Court through Chief Justice Marcelo Fernan stated that:

“A driver’s license is a public document within the purview of Articles 171 and 172. x xx

“X xx.

“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 (USvs.Castillo, 6, Phil. 453; Peoplevs.DeLara,45 PMI.754; Peoplevs.Domingo, 49 Phil .28: People vs. Astudil lo ,60 Phil .338; People vs. Man ans ala, 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( Al ar con vs. Court of Appeals, L -21846, March 31,1967, 19 SCRA 688; Peoplevs.Caragao,

L-28258, Dec. 27, 1969, 30 SCRA 993). (Emphasis supplied)”

Applying the above-cited decision in your situation, Denver may be held liable for the use of falsified documents under Section 26 of RA 10951, amending Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines. His driver’s license was previously confiscated by the police, however, he had presented another driver’s license which may came from illegal sources. Denver who was in possession of a forged document and had used the same is presumed to be the forger or author of falsification.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Editor’ s note: Dear PA O is a daily column of the Public Attorney’ s Office. Questions for Chief Acostamaybesenttodearpao@ manilatimes.net