Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-36345 1932
November 25,
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHLPPNE SL!N"S, plainti-appellee, vs. PE"RO MONT!NO #$% &ENCESL!O C!'!GS!NG, defendants-appellants. 'UTTE, J.:
Wenceslao Cabasan F!CTS( The defendant Wenceslao !as the chief of police and the defendant Ped"o Montano !as the #ustice of the peace of the $unicipalit% of Tan&a Tan&a in the P"ovince of Cavite, in the $onth of 'epte$be", ()*+, !hen the c"i$es fo" !hich the% !e"e convicted occu""ed. t appea"s f"o$ the evidence that on 'epte$be" , ()*+, a c"i$inal co$plaint aainst one A"tu"o A. 'o"iano fo" the c"i$e of uali/ed seduction !as /led !ith the said #ustice of the peace. The #ustice, #ustice, appa"entl% to favo" 'o"iano, dela%ed the p"eli$ina"% investiation until the oended !o$an on 'epte$be" (0, ()*+, /led !ith hi$ a $otion de$andin i$$ediate action and callin his attention to the fact that his dela% !as a violation of the ci"cula" of inst"uctions of the #ude of the Cou"t of 1i"st 1i"st nstance of said p"ovince. The case !as then set fo" hea"in on 'epte$be" 22, ()*+. The"eafte" ad$inist"ative cha"es aainst the #ustice of the peace !e"e /led !ith the Cou"t of 1i"st nstance of Cavite, allein that the dela% in the p"eli$ina"%
investiation !as a violation of the ci"cula" of the Cou"t of 1i"st nstance, dated Nove$be" (, ()20, "eui"in all #ustices of the peace to dispose of all p"eli$ina"% investiations !ithin ten da%s f"o$ the date on !hich the cou"t acui"ed #u"isdiction ove" the pe"son of the accused.lawphil.net The evidence sho!s be%ond "easonable "easonable doubt that p"io" to the hea"in of said ad$inist"ative case, the defendants, in o"de" to $a3e it appea" that the"e had been no violation of the said inst"uctions to the #ustices of the peace, falsi/ed o4cial "eco"ds in thei" custod% as follo!s5 The defendant chief of police f"audulentl% f"audulentl% alte"ed and falsi/ed the $unicipal police blotte" and the boo3 of "eco"ds of a""ests and the "etu"n of the !a""ant of a""est and 'o"iano6s bail bond so as to $a3e the$ sho! that the said A"tu"o A. 'o"iano !as a""ested and ave bond on the (*th da% of 'epte$be", ()*+, !he"eas, in t"uth and in fact, as said "eco"ds sho!ed befo"e said falsi/cation, the said A"tu"o A. 'o"iano !as a""ested and "eleased on bond on the 7th da% of 'epte$be", ()*+8 that the defendant Ped"o Montano conspi"ed and coope"ated !ith his codefendant in $a3in said falsi/cations in o"de" to $eet the ad$inist"ative cha"es then pendin aainst hi$. HEL"5 The cou"t belo! "e#ected the defense of the accused that said alte"ations !e"e $ade in ood faith and co""esponded to the t"ue facts of the case. The"e is no issue of la! "aised in the assin$ent of e""o"s. We have $ade a ca"eful "evie! of the evidence and have co$e to the conclusion that the #ud$ent of the cou"t belo! should be a4"$ed, !ith costs aainst the appellants. 'o o"de"ed.
Peo)*e v+ Fe* M#$#$+#*# F#/+( Manansala !as accused of alte"in the duplicate cop% of the T"a4c 9iolation Repo"t :T9R; p"eviousl% issued to hi$ as a te$po"a"% d"ive"? and the !o"d >th"ee? afte" the !o"ds >pendin cases,? and supe"i$posed the"eon nu$be" >? and the !o"d >one.? The alte"ations $ade chaned the $eanin of the docu$ent. t !as $ade to appea" that he has onl% one pendin case of t"a4c violation. The p"actice !as p"oved to be to a""est a d"ive" !ho co$$its a fou"th t"a4c violation instead of $e"el% issuin to hi$ a T9R, !hich is usuall% done fo" the /"st, second and thi"d violations. The accused had in his possession the falsi/ed T9R and had been usin it as a te$po"a"% d"ive"
1alsi/cation of cedula8 e""oneous F#/+( 1alsi/cation conviction8 defendant acuitted. Mateo bein "eui"ed in @ctobe", ()((, fo" the pu"poses of an a4davit, to p"esent his cedula fo" the %ea" ()(( to a #ustice of the peace,
p"oduced also his cedula fo" the %ea" ()(+8 on "eadin the cedula fo" the %ea" ()(+, so$ethin !hich he had not done befo"e, $ateo discove"ed that his ae !as stated inco""ectl% the"ein and he, fea"in the "esult of p"esentin to a public o4cial a cedula !hich contained an inco""ect state$ent "ea"din his o!n ae, chaned his ae, $a3in it 2 instead of 2*8 the chane havin been discove"ed b% the #ustice of the peace on the p"esentation of the cedula, $ateo, !ithout hesitation, detailed the pa"t he had ta3en in the chane and the "eason the"efo"8 it is ad$itted that the ae in the cedula !as inco""ect and that the chane $ade the cedula ive his t"ue ae8 $ateo !as t"ied fo" falsi/cation of a cedula and !as convicted. He*%( n the case in hand, the chane did not aect in the "e$otest de"ee the p"ivilees o" i$$unities !hich the accused could en#o% unde" the cedula. The #ud$ent is "eve"sed and the accused acuitted. Leo$*# '#/0*#$o$, )e//o$er, v+. PEOPLE OF THE PHLPPNES, re+)o$%e$/. G.R. No. 1395 Se)/ember 15, 26 Crm$#* #+e( F#*+7#/o$ o8 )rv#/e %o0me$/+ #$% E+/#8# F!CTS( Petitione" eonila Batulanon !as e$plo%ed as cashie"$anae" of Polo$o3 :Polo$o3; C"edit Coope"ative nc. f"o$ Ma% ()0+ up to ece$be" ()02 :so that
u"in an audit conducted in ece$be" ()02, ce"tain i""eula"ities !e"e found out. The"eafte", fou" info"$ations of estafa th"ouh
falsi/cation of co$$e"cial docu$ents !e"e /led aainst he"ein petitione". (. C"i$inal case *72 D petitione" Batulanon falsi/ed CA'=C=EC 9@FC=ER of PCC in the na$e of ERNA @MAA@, $a3in it appea" that latte" !as "anted loan !he"e in t"uth and in fact said pe"son neve" "eceived, neve" "anted a loan and neve" sined such docu$ent. 2. C"i$inal case *727 D sa$e situation as above stated but this ti$e in the na$e of G@NA1REA @RAC@N. *. C"i$inal case *H* D Batulanon falsi/ed co$$e"cial docu$ents na$el% ndividual deposits and lede" of 1ERIN ARR@I@ $a3in it appea" that the said pe"son $ade a /Jed deposit and !as "anted a loan !he"e in t"uth and in fact ARR@I@ neve" $ade such deposit and neve" "eceived such loan. H. C"i$inal case *72K D sa$e situation as the neJt p"ecedin case but this ti$e in the na$e of his son ennis Batulanon. n all cases, accused did then and the"e "elease to he"self the sa$e and "eceived the loans and the"eafte" $isapp"op"iated and conve"ted the$ into he" o!n use and bene/t. Also in all cases, she "efused to b"in bac3 the sa$e despite de$ands. These info"$ations !e"e /led in the Reional T"ial Cou"t of Gene"al 'antos Cit%. Petitione" pleaded Lnot uilt%. P"osecution p"esented its !itnesses5 Modallo D :postin cle"3; testi/ed that Batulanon "eleased H cash vouche"s. =e also said that @$adlao, @"acion and Batulanon !e"e not eliible and not $e$be"s of Polo$o3
Coope"ative. Mo"eove", acco"din to hi$, althouh A""o%o !as a $e$be" but the"e !as no p"oof that she applied fo" a loan. =e also said he !itnessed Petitione" Batulanon sined @"acion and A""o%o in cash vouche"s. a%o$a D :9ice chai"$an of the PCC Boa"d of di"ecto"s; testi/ed that laons to @$adlao and @"acion neve" passed th"ouh the PCC boa"d of di"ecto"s. Petitione" Batulanon denied cha"es aainst he". 'he contended that she did not sih vouche"s of @$adlao, @"acion, and A""o%o !ho acco"din to he" a"e nonetheless $e$be"s of the coope"ative. astl%, she said that it
'C5 Petition lac3s $e"it. Althouh the oense cha"ed is estafa th"ouh falsi/cation of co$$e"cial docu$ents, appellant could be convicted of falsi/cation of p"ivate docu$ents. Ele$ents of falsi/cation of p"ivate docu$ent a"e p"esent in this case5 (. 'he $ade it appea" that @$adlao, @"acion, and A""o%o !e"e "anted loans
'C "uled that (st, 2nd, and *"d c"i$inal cases he"ein fall !ithin the pu"vie! of falsi/cation of p"ivate docu$ents but the Hth c"i$inal case :!ith ennis Batulanon; falls !ithin the a$bit of the c"i$e of estafa. The latte" havin no unt"uthful state$ents but the"e !as conve"sion and $isapp"op"iation8 hence ele$ents of estafa a"e p"esent in the last c"i$inal case. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila
2. 'he $ade it in p"ivate docu$ent OOOO:cashchec3 vouche"s a"e not public docu$ents because the% a"e not nota"i&ed and not docu$ents used b% $e"chants to p"o$ote t"ade no" "eulated b% Code of co$$e"ce; *. t caused da$ae to the coope"ative. Rea"din best !itness D 'C cites sec. 22 of Rule (*2 acco"din to this "ule hand!"itin $a% be p"oved b% an% pe"son !ho believes it to be belonin to such pe"son8 o" !ho acui"ed 3no!lede of such hand!"itin Rea"din p"e#udice to Polo$o3 D such loans could have "anted to othe" $e$be"s but !e"en
EN BANC G.R. No. 623 Se)/ember 13, 199 METUROG!N L. S!REP, petitione", vs. HONOR!'LE S!N"G!N'!!N, "espondent. P!"LL!, J.: F!CTS( Petitione", Metu"oan . 'a"ep, appeals f"o$ the decision 1 of the 'andianba%an. That on o" about ece$be" *+, ()KK, o" so$eti$e p"io" the"eto, in the Cit% of Cotabato, Philippines, and !ithin the #u"isdiction of this =ono"able Cou"t, the said accused bein then e$plo%ed as 'oil Technoloist unde" the Bu"eau of 'oils, Reion , Cotabato Cit%, !ith a Te$po"a"% Appoint$ent,did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take without permission from the records of said Oce the appointment paper proposed in his name dated January 19, 1976, which appointment paper was replaced due to an incorrect entry, by another one bearing the same date8 and theaccused once in possession of said appoint$ent pape", did then and the"e wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously change, alter and falsify the date, gures and
words written thereon, thus changing its meaning and attributing to the person who caused the preparation of the same, statements other than those in fact made by him8 that the falsi/cation and alte"ation !e"e co$$itted fo" the pu"pose of conve"tin the Te$po"a"% 'tatus of his appoint$ent to a Pe"$anent 'tatus, and !hich accused succeeded b% havin said falsi/ed appoint$ent pape" attested b% the Civil 'e"vice Co$$ission in Manila !ithout the 3no!lede of the Civil 'e"vice Co$$ission, Reion , !ho has the #u"isdiction and autho"it% to attest appoint$ents unde" Reion . 2
petitione" appealed to this Cou"t, afte" his $otion fo" "econside"ation !as denied. @n () anua"% ()K7, i"ecto" undo Pah$ of the Bu"eau of 'oils, Reion , eJtended an appoint$ent in favo" of Metu"oen . 'a"ep :he"ein petitione"; to the position of 'oil Technoloist :EJh. QCQ;. Afte" sinin the appoint$ent pape", Pah$ noticed an e""o" in the ite$ on civil se"vice eliibilit%. The ent"% the"ein "ead Q1i"st G"ade Fnasse$bledQ instead of QFnasse$bled EJa$inationQ !hich !as the app"op"iate eliibilit% fo" the position of 'oil Technoloist8 !he"eupon, i"ecto" Pah$ called the attention of the actin pe"sonnel o4ce", Fs$an 'alic, to the e""o" and di"ected hi$ to p"epa"e anothe" appoint$ent pape" :EJh. QBQ; !hich Pah$ sined afte" notin the co""ection $ade b% the pe"sonnel o4ce". The appoint$ent !as app"oved b% the Assistant Reional i"ecto" of the Civil 'e"vice Co$$ission :C'C; as Qte$po"a"%.Q t !as "uled that the"e can be no conviction fo" falsi/cation of a public docu$ent in the absence of p"oof that the defendant
$aliciousl% pe"ve"ted the t"uth !ith !"onful intent of in#u"in thi"d pe"son. 6 1inall%, petitione" invo3es ood faith in his defense. =e clai$s that afte" the pe"sonnel o4ce" handed hi$ the uestioned docu$ent, !hich bo"e the e"asu"es and alte"ations as !ell as the i"ecto"6s sinatu"e, he b"ouht it to the Civil 'e"vice Co$$ission in Manila upon suestion and !ith the pe"$ission of the pe"sonnel o4ce". The Cou"t does not accept petitione"6s defense of ood faith. =e ad$itted that he 3ne! that i"ecto" Pah$ !as not onl% uninclined to eJtend hi$ a pe"$anent appoint$ent due to his lac3 of civil se"vice eliibilit% but he also did not autho"i&e hi$ :'a"ep; to follo! up his appoint$ent !ith the Civil 'e"vice Co$$ission in Manila. Mo"e i$po"tantl%, he 3ne! that if the falsi/ed docu$ent had been p"esented befo"e the C'C Reional @4ce, it !ould have su"el% been attested as te$po"a"% onl%. =ence, he pu"posel% avoided /lin the appoint$ent pape" !ith the C'C Reional @4ce, !hich is the p"actice and standa"d p"ocedu"e in the "eional o4ce of the Bu"eau of 'oils and, instead, pe"sonall% b"ouht it to Manila !he"e so$eho! he !as able to have it sta$ped app"oved as pe"$anent. The Cou"t also "e#ects 'a"ep6s a"u$ent that the"e is no falsi/cation, as the alleed falsi/ed docu$ent bea"s the co""ect ite$ nu$be" and
app"op"iate eliibilit%. We a"ee !ith the "espondent cou"t that Q:;t is falsi/cation, and not a co""ection, !hich the la! punishes :People vs. Mateo, 2 Phil. *2H8 A""iola vs. Republic, (+* Phil. K*+;.Q i3e!ise, Q:;n the falsi/cation of public o" o4cial docu$ents, !hethe" b% public o4cials o" b% p"ivate pe"sons, it is not necessa"% that the"e be p"esent the idea of ain o" the intent to in#u"e a thi"d pe"son, fo" the "eason that, in cont"adiction to p"ivate docu$ents, the p"incipal thin punished is the violation of the public faith and the dest"uction of the t"uth as the"ein sole$nl% p"oclai$ed :ecision of the 'up"e$e Cou"t of 'pain of ece$be" 2*, (00, cited in People vs. Pacana, HK Phil. 7;.Q 9 'ince petitione" is the onl% pe"son !ho stood to bene/t b% the falsi/cation of the docu$ent that !as found in his possession, it is p"esu$ed that he is the $ate"ial autho" of the falsi/cation. Petitione" has failed to convince the Cou"t that a pe"son othe" than hi$self $ade the e"asu"es, alte"ations and supe"i$positions on the uestioned appoint$ent pape" :EJh. QCQ;. The 'andianba%an in ualif%in the oense and a""ivin at the penalt% i$posed on the petitione" held5 We a"e inclined, ho!eve", to c"edit the accused he"ein !ith the bene/t of the ci"cu$stance that he did not $aliciousl% pe"ve"t the t"uth
!ith the !"onful intent of in#u"in so$e pe"son :People vs. Re%es, ( Phil. *H(;. 'ince he since"el% believed that his C'C eliibilit% based on his havin passed the Reional Cultu"al Co$$unit% @4ce" :Fnasse$bled; EJa$ination and educational attain$ent !e"e su4cient to ualif% hi$ fo" a pe"$anent position, then he should onl% be held liable fo" falsi/cation th"ouh "ec3less i$p"udence :People vs. eopando, *7 @.G. 2)*K, People vs. Male&a, (H Phil. H708 People vs. Pacheco, (0 Phil. *));. HEL"( The Cou"t /nds no "eve"sible e""o" in the 'andianba%an6s decision /ndin petitione", Metu"oan . 'a"ep, uilt% of the c"i$e of falsi/cation of public docu$ent th"ouh "ec3less i$p"udence. =o!eve", the penalt% i$posed should be i$p"ison$ent of T=REE M@NT=' AN @NE AI T@ @NE IEAR, 'E9EN M@NT=' AN TEN AI', instead of i$p"ison$ent of T=REE M@NT=' unde" the appealed decision, since the pe"iod of the penalt% i$posed, i.e., a""esto $a%o" in its $aJi$u$ pe"iod to p"ision co""eccional in its $ediu$ pe"iod is fou" $onths and one da% to fou" %ea"s and t!o $onths "educed b% app"eciatin the $itiatin ci"cu$stance of volunta"% su""ende" and appl%in the ndete"$inate 'entence a!.
