Melencio Gigantoni y Javier, petitioner

vs.
People of the Philippines and Intermediate Appellate Court, respondents
162 SCRA 158; G.R. No. 74727 June 16, 1988

Facts:
On or about May 14 or 15, 1981, Petitioner Melencio Gigantoni, an employee of two private
companies namely Black Mountain Mining Inc. and Tetra Management Corporation went to the Philippine
Air Lines (PAL) office. He falsely represented himself as an agent of CIS, Philippine Constabulary (PC-
CIS) who was in-charge in investigating a kidnapping case and requested that he be shown records of
passenger manifests for Manila-Baguio-Manila flights covering the period February 1 to 3, 1981. He
explained that he was at the tracking stage. To further convince the PAL officials, he exhibited his ID card
showing that he was a PC-CIS agent so the request was granted. When Gigantoni was no longer around,
the PAL officials inquired about the latter’s purpose. Upon verification with the PC-CIS office, the PAL
officials learned the Gigantoni was no longer a CIS agent since June 30, 1980. He was dismissed from the
service for gross misconduct. The following day, when Gigantoni returned to Makati PAL office, he was
apprehended by NBI agent and was confronted as to his real identity. He admitted that he was no longer
with CIS, that he was privately employed at Black Mountain Mining Corporation and he was just checking
on a claim of per diem of one of their employees who had travelled. On the same day after the investigation,
Gigantoni was charged with the crime of Usurpation of Authority under Art. 177 of the Revised Penal
Code. The appellate court affirmed the conviction.

Petitioner’s contention that he could not be guilty of the crime charged because at the time of the
alleged commission of the offense, he was still a CIS agent who was merely suspended and was not yet
informed of his termination from service.

Issue:
Whether the petitioner knowingly and falsely misrepresented himself as a PC-CIS agent?

Held:
No. The prosecution failed to prove that petitioner was duly notified of his dismissal from service.
The constitutional presumption of innocence can only be overturned by competent and credible court proof
and never by mere disputable presumptions, as what the lower and appellate courts did when they presumed
that petitioner was duly notified of his dismissal by applying disputable presumption “that official duty has
been regularly performed.” The burden of proof lies on the prosecution.

Hence, the decision of the Appellate Court is reversed and set aside. The petitioner is hereby
acquitted of the crime charged.