GUILTY FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENT

G.R. No. 138696               July 7, 2010

FELIZARDO S. OBANDO and JUAN S. OBANDO, Petitioners,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

ESTAFA THRU FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENT- will with forged signatures

In this case, petitioners are private individuals who presented the alleged will to the probate court
and made it appear that Alegria signed the alleged will disposing of her rights and interest in the real
properties, as well as all of her personal properties to petitioners when in fact petitioners knew that
Alegria never signed such alleged will as her signatures therein were forged.

Petitioner Felizardo argued that he already had in his possession the personal properties of Alegria
which included the pieces of jewelry by virtue of an alleged general power of attorney executed by
Alegria in his favor. However, as correctly argued by the Solicitor General, such agency between
Alegria and petitioner Felizardo, was terminated upon Alegria’s death; thus, he had no basis for
taking possession and custody of Alegria’s properties after her death. However, by virtue of the
falsified will which petitioners presented for probate, and by which petitioner Felizardo became a co-
administrator of the estate of the Figueras couple, and had gained possession of the jewelry, he was
not able to account for the same when ordered to do so by the probate court.

On the other hand, co-petitioner Juan admitted that the pieces of jewelry went to his daughters and
nieces, while the real properties were already sold even while the intestate and probate proceedings
were still pending in court.

Petitioners' misappropriation of the jewelry was to the prejudice of Eduardo Figueras who also has
the right to Alegria's jewelry in general which were part of the declared conjugal estate of his father
Jose and Alegria Figueras. Notably, Alegria, as administratrix of the estate of Jose, submitted in
1966 an inventory of the conjugal real and personal properties of the Figueras couple and one of
those listed under conjugal personal properties was jewelry in the amount of ₱2,150.00. Such
inventory was contained in the Order dated September 10, 1980 of the probate court and which was
submitted in evidence by petitioners.

The crime committed was estafa through falsification of public document.

July 29, 2019

G.R. No. 205260

C/INSP. RUBEN LIWANAG, SR. y SALVADOR, Petitioner

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent

FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENT ART. 171 PAR. 4 untruthful narration of facts

Here, petitioner was indicted for and convicted of falsification of public document under Article 171
(par. 4) of the Revised Penal Code because when he issued TOP No. 02774452-A he made
untruthful statements in a narration of facts, i.e. a) he entered his son's name "Ruben Rubio
Liwanag, Jr." on the TOP; b) he made a false entry pertaining to his son's birthdate i.e. June 27,
1974 instead of June 27, 1977 (his son's true birthdate); and c) he altered his badge number from
"04580" to "50480," thus, making it appear that he had authority to issue the subject TOP. 22

To be convicted under Article 171(par. 4) of the Revised Penal Code, the following elements must
concur: 1) the offender makes in a public document untruthful statements in a narration of facts; 2)
he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him; and 3) the facts narrated
by him are absolutely false.  23
[ G.R. No. 248827, August 27, 2020 ]

CHONA JAYME, VS. PETITIONER, NOEL JAYME AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENTS.

FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENT- FORGED SIGNATURE OF DECEASED PERSON

USE OF FALSIFIED DOCUMENT (SPA)

1. Recipient of proceeds of loan

2. Presumed knowledge of fact of death despite lack of direct evidence

The Facts

Spouses Vicente G. Capero4 (Vicente) and Elisa G. Capero4 (Elisa) (spouses Capero) were the
registered owners of Lot No. 3457-E-4-C-2, Psd 06-04930 (subject property) in Iloilo City covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-134480.5 Vicente died on October 4, 2004.

Chona Jayme (petitioner) alleged that her father Xaudaro Jayme (Xaudaro) purchased the subject
property from the spouses Capero. with payments coursed through her uncle Noel Jayme
(respondent). Petitioner stated that Xaudaro instructed her to obtain a loan from the Rural Bank of
Marayo (Negros Occidental), Inc., of which she was an employee. Since the title of the subject
property was still in the name of the spouses Capero, petitioner asked Elisa to execute a Special
Power of Attorney (SPA) authorizing her to mortgage the subject property as security for the loan.
On March 30, 2009, Elisa delivered to petitioner a notarized SPA signed by the spouses Capero.
The SPA was notarized by Atty. Wenslow Teodosio and was entered in his niotarial register as Doc.
No. 345, Page No. 18, Book No. XVIII, Series of 2009.6 Thus, petitioner was able to obtain a loan
with the Rural Bank of Marayo in the amount of P100,000.00 using the subject property as
collateral.7

Respondent, on the other hand, averred that the spouses Capero sold the subject property to him in
a Deed of Absolute Sale dated August 17, 2006. The deed was not registered with the Registry of
Deeds of Iloilo City. Respondent later discovered that the subject property was mortgaged to the
Rural Bank of Marayo in 2009 by petitioner by virtue of an SPA executed in her favor by the spouses
Capero. He also learned that Vicente died on October 4, 2004, or more than four years prior to the
execution of the SPA. For fear of losing the property, respondent paid the loan on March 13, 2010.8

In 2011, respondent filed criminal cases against Elisa and petitioner.

On February 4, 2011, Elisa was charged in an Information9 for Falsification of Public Document

under Article 172, paragraph 1, in relation to Article 171, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Revised Penal
Code (RPC) for causing it to appear that her deceased husband Vicente signed the Deed of
Absolute Sale dated August 17, 2006 by counterfeiting or imitating his signature in said document.

Elisa and petitioner were also charged of Falsification of Public Document under Article 172,
paragraph 1, in relation to Article 171 paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 of the RPC for making it appear in a
notarized SPA dated March 30, 2009 that deceased Vicente signed the document by counterfeiting
his signature.10

Petitioner was charged of Use of Falsified Public Document under Article 172, last paragraph of the
RPC for using the falsified SPA for the purpose of securing a real estate mortgage over the subject
property to the damage and prejudice of respondent.11

Elisa was found not guilty of falsification of the Deed of Absolute Sale.12 As regards the charge for
falsification of the SPA, Elisa and petitioner were acquitted for failure of the prosecution to prove
their guilt.13

The MTCC Ruling

In its Decision14 dated January 27, 2015, the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) Branch 5, Iloilo
City, found petitioner guilty of the crime of Use of Falsified Document under Article 172, last
paragraph, RPC, and sentenced her to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of four (4) months and
one (1) day, to two (2) years and four (4) months, and to pay a fine of P5,000.00. It held that
petitioner had the capacity to forge and falsify the SPA and made it appear as true considering the
fact that she was the recipient of the proceeds of the loan and also an employee of the
mortgagee-bank who compiled the necessary documents to secure the bank's approval. It further
stated that petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence to overthrow the presumption that the
possessor and user of a falsified document is the author of the falsification. The MTCC noted in its
Decision:

Ellen Faith A. Tan, Manager of Rural Bank of Marayo (Negros Occidental), Inc., had testified that
she was aware that Elisa Capero signed her signature in the Special Power of Attorney, but could
not attest to the signature of Vicente Capero since the document was sent to him, allegedly in
Mindanao, for him to affix his signature thereon. She affixed her signature as witness in the said
Special Power of Attorney because she was authorized to sign documents of the bank, x x x Mrs.
Tan was the one who facilitated the notarization of the Special Power of Attorney before Atty.
Wenslow Teodosio together with the deed of Real Estate Mortgage. This statement is supported by
the fact that the Special Power of Attorney and the Real Estate Mortgage were both notarized on
March 30, 2009. It further appears that both documents were preprinted forms of the bank where the
parties had only to fill-in the required information. It stands to reason that it was accused Chona
Jayme who had a hand in the preparation of the Special Power of Attorney and had in fact used the
same to facilitate the mortgage.15

The RTC Ruling

On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 38, Iloilo City affirmed petitioner's conviction in its
Decision16 dated December 1, 2015. It enunciated that all the essential elements of the crime of use
of falsified documents were extant in the case. It declared that petitioner used, took advantage of,
arid benefitted from the falsified SPA despite knowledge of Vicente's demise long before the
execution of the document. The RTC was not convinced that petitioner was not aware of the fact of
death for the following reasons: (1) when petitioner went to Elisa and requested for an SPA, she did
not meet Vicente who was allegedly in Mindanao; and (2) petitioner did not even verify if Vicente's
signature is genuine. The RTC declared that as! a bank employee, petitioner should have been
prudent in using the SPA. Ꮮαwρhi ৷

Petitioner moved for reconsideration but the same was denied in a Resolution17 dated November 2,
2016.

The CA Ruling

In a Resolution18 dated March 29, 2017, the CA dismissed petitioner's appeal for: (1) being filed out
of time; (2) failure to comply with the requirements as to the contents of the petition; and (3) failure to
pay the docket and other lawful fees.

Petitioner moved for reconsideration but the same was denied in a Resolution19 dated July 17,
2019.

Hence, this petition with the following assignment of errors:

1 THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR

TECHNICALITIES;

2 [THE] LOWER COURT ERRED IN ITS DECISION [IN NOT] FINDING [THE] SIGNATURE
APPEARING ON THE DOCUMENT DENOMINATED AS SPECIAL POWER OF
ATTORNEY IS (sic) GENUINE AS ADMITTED BY THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT[;]

3 THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE PROSECUTION WAS ABLE TO
ESTABLISH THAT ACCUSED BENEFITTED FROM THE PROCEEDS OF THE LOAN[;
and]

4 THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING AND AFFIRMING [THE] MUNICIPAL TRIAL
COURT'S (sic) DECISION WHEN IN FACT WITNESS ELISA CAPERO ADMITTED THAT
THE SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS (sic) GIVEN TO THE ACCUSED CHONA
JAYME [WAS] ALREADY COMPLETE[.]20
The Court's Ruling

The petition is without merit.

The elements of the crime of use of falsified document in any transaction (other than as evidence in
a judicial proceeding) are: (1) the offender knew that a document was falsified by another person; (2)
the false document is embraced in Article 171 or in any of subdivision Nos. 1 and 2 of Article 172; (3)
he used such document (not in judicial proceedings); and (4) the use of the false document caused
damage to another or at least it was used with intent to cause such damage.28 The prosecution
must establish with moral certainty the falsity of the document and the defendant's knowledge of its
falsity.29

It is undisputed that Vicente died on October 4, 2004. Araceli Villavicencio, Registration Officer II of
the Local Civil Registrar of Iloilo City, presented before the MTCC the original copy of the Certificate
of Death of Vicerite Capero on file with the Office of the Local Civil Registrar.30 However, Vicente
appeared to have signed the SPA dated March 30, 2009, granting petitioner the authority to
mortgage the subject property. There is thus no-doubt that the SPA was spurious.

There is lack of direct evidence in this case that petitioner knew that Vicente was already dead when
the SPA was executed and notarized. But the factual backdrop of the case renders it difficult for the
Court to see how petitioner could not have learned of Vicente's death. As employee of the
mortgagee-bank, petitioner is naturally expected to know the requirements, procedure and
processes in obtaining loans, including the consequences of non-compliance. The SPA which
petitioner requested from the spouses Capero is an official bank form. Petitioner knew that the SPA
must bear his signature as attorney-in-fact including the signatures of Vicente and Elisa as
principals. She was aware that she and the spouses Capero should sign the document in the
presence of two witnesses. She also understood that as part of the loan approval process, the SPA
should be notarized.

Settled is the rule that a notary public must not notarize a document unless the persons who signed
it are the very same persons who executed the same, and personally appeared before him to attest
to the truth of the contents thereof. This is to enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of
the signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party's free and
voluntary act and deed.31 The manager of the Rural Bank of Marayo admitted that she could not
attest as to the authenticity of Vicente's signature because the SPA was only "sent" to Vicente in
Mindanao. This notwithstanding, the bank manager still affixed her signature in the SPA as witness
and even facilitated the notarization of the document arid the mortgage contract. It appears likely,
that the presence of the required persons during the notarization were not secured for had the
regular procedure been observed, petitioner would readily discover that Vicente could not have
signed the SPA because he was already dead. These irregularities should have put petitioner, as
employee of the mortgagee-bank and as borrower/beneficiary, on guard and caused her to inquire
about Vicente whom she has never met since she requested for the SPA. To the mind of the Court,
petitioner knew that Vicente's signature in the SPA was not genuine yet she went on to use it
enabling her to mortgage the subject property and receive the proceeds of the loan.

All the elements of the crime of use of falsified document being present in this case, petitioner's
conviction is in order.

A note. The Court observes that when the MTCC convicted petitioner for Use of Falsified Document,
it stated in the Decision that it was petitioner "who had a hand in the preparation of the Special
Power of Attorney and had in fact used the same to facilitate the mortgage."32 It further held that as
employee of the mortgagee-bank, petitioner had the capacity to falsify documents and make them
appear as true.33 In so ruling, the trial court lost sight of the fact that the case before it was only for
petitioner's use of falsified SPA which requires that the document was falsified by another person.
The charge of falsification of public document was pending in another court at that time. We deem it
necessary to clarify that in the crime of use of falsified document, the person who used the forged
document is different from the one who falsified it such that "[i]f the one who used the falsified
document is the same person who falsified it, the crime is only falsification and the use of the same
is not a separate crime." Falsification of a public document and use of false document by the same
person who falsified it constitute but a single crime of falsification.34

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Resolutions dated March 29, 2017 and July 17, 2019 of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 02896 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 179448               June 26, 2013

CARLOS L. TANENGGEE, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

estafa through falsification of commercial documents

Forgery duly established.

"Forgery is present when any writing is counterfeited by the signing of another’s name with intent to
defraud."27 It can be established by comparing the alleged false signature with the authentic or
genuine one. A finding of forgery does not depend entirely on the testimonies of government
handwriting experts whose opinions do not mandatorily bind the courts. A trial judge is not precluded
but is even authorized by law28 to conduct an independent examination of the questioned signature
in order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to its authenticity.

In this case, the finding of forgery on the signature of Romeo Tan (Tan) appearing in the promissory
notes and cashier’s checks was not anchored solely on the result of the examination conducted by
the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Document Examiner. The trial court also made an
independent examination of the questioned signatures and after analyzing the same, reached the
conclusion that the signatures of Tan appearing in the promissory notes are different from his
genuine signatures appearing in his Deposit Account Information and Specimen Signature Cards on
file with the bank. Thus, we find no reason to disturb the above findings of the RTC which was
affirmed by the CA. A rule of long standing in this jurisdiction is that findings of a trial court, when
affirmed by the CA, are accorded great weight and respect. Absent any reason to deviate from the
said findings, as in this case, the same should be deemed conclusive and binding to this Court.

The Court is also not persuaded by the bare and uncorroborated allegation of petitioner that the
loans covered by the promissory notes and the cashier’s checks were personally transacted by Tan
against his approved letter of credit, although he admittedly never saw Tan affix his signature
thereto. Again, this allegation, as the RTC aptly observed, is not supported by established evidence.
"It is settled that denials which are unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence are negative
and self-serving evidence. They merit no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value
over the testimony of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters." 32 The chain of events
in this case, from the preparation of the promissory notes to the encashment of the cashier’s checks,
as narrated by the prosecution witnesses and based on petitioner’s own admission, established
beyond reasonable doubt that he committed the unlawful acts alleged in the Informations.

Elements of falsification of commercial documents established.

All the above-mentioned elements were established in this case. First, petitioner is a private
individual. Second, the acts of falsification consisted in petitioner’s (1) counterfeiting or imitating the
handwriting or signature of Tan and causing it to appear that the same is true and genuine in all
respects; and (2) causing it to appear that Tan has participated in an act or proceeding when he did
not in fact so participate. Third, the falsification was committed in promissory notes and checks
which are commercial documents. Commercial documents are, in general, documents or
instruments which are "used by merchants or businessmen to promote or facilitate trade or credit
transactions."34 Promissory notes facilitate credit transactions while a check is a means of payment
used in business in lieu of money for convenience in business transactions. A cashier’s check
necessarily facilitates bank transactions for it allows the person whose name and signature appear
thereon to encash the check and withdraw the amount indicated therein.35

Falsification as a necessary means to commit estafa.

The elements of estafa obtain in this case. By falsely representing that Tan requested him to
process purported loans on the latter’s behalf, petitioner counterfeited or imitated the signature of
Tan in the cashier’s checks.  Through these, petitioner succeeded in withdrawing money from the
1âwphi1

bank. Once in possession of the amount, petitioner thereafter invested the same in Eurocan Future
Commodities. Clearly, petitioner employed deceit in order to take hold of the money,
misappropriated and converted it to his own personal use and benefit, and these resulted to the
damage and prejudice of the bank in the amount of about ₱43 million.

Taken in its entirety, the proven facts show that petitioner could not have withdrawn the money
without falsifying the questioned documents. The falsification was, therefore, a necessary means to
commit estafa, and falsification was already consummated even before the falsified documents were
used to defraud the bank. The conviction of petitioner for the complex crime of Estafa through
Falsification of Commercial Document by the lower courts was thus proper.

August 14, 2019

G.R. No. 241164

CRIZALINA B. TORRES, Petitioner
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.,
Respondents

FALSIFICATION OF DTR

As to the first element, it is undisputed that at the time of the commission of the crime, the petitioner
was a public officer serving as Intelligence Agent I at the NBI-WEMRO.

As to the second element, an offender is considered to have taken advantage of his official position
when (1) he has the duty to make or prepare or otherwise to intervene in the preparation of a
document; or (2) he has the official custody of the document which he falsifies.  Here, the testimony
27

of NBI-WEMRO Acting Administrative Officer George S. Perez established that petitioner, as an

employee of the NBI-WEMRO, has the duty to make or prepare the subject DTRs. ℒαwρhi ৷

As to the third element, as correctly found by the CA, evidence presented by the prosecution
established that petitioner's continuous absence since September 21, 2010 prompted an
investigation against her which led to the discovery of the subject DTRs and Applications for Leave.
The subject DTRs included the purported signatures of Embido and Minguez. However, both officers
certified that the signatures appearing on the subject DTRs are not theirs.  Furthermore, the
28

Questioned Document Report No. 69-211,  or the results of the handwriting examination conducted
29

by the NBI Questioned Documents Division, shows that the signatures on the subject DTRs and the
sample signatures of Embido and Minguez were not written by the same person. Additionally, the
testimony of Minguez established that he had not seen petitioner report for work for six (6) months.

[ G.R. No. 236807, January 12, 2021 ]

CONCHITA M. DELA CRUZ, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

[G.R. No. 236810]

MAXIMO A. BORJE, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 178652               December 8, 2010

SPOUSES REVELO VILLAMAR and CORAZON PENULIAR- VILLAMAR, Petitioners,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FORGED SIGNATURE IN DEED OF SALE!!

It is not disputed that Modesta’s signature in the questioned Deed of Sale was forged. Indeed,
petitioner-spouses admitted that Modesta and Felipe never participated in the sale of the property
subject of the Deed of Sale in their favor. They argue, however, that they were not the authors of the
falsification, claiming that the employees of the Assessor’s Office of Lingayen, Pangasinan were the
ones who falsified the document. They maintain that the deed of sale they submitted to the
Assessor’s Office did not include Modesta as one of the vendors but when they returned to said
Office after one month, the employees therein gave them the questioned document which included
Modesta as one of the vendors. We are not convinced.

That petitioners were the authors and/or masterminds of the falsification is presumed from the fact
that they actually benefited from it. In Maliwat vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court held that in
the absence of satisfactory explanation, one found in possession of and who used a forged
document is the forger and therefore guilty of falsification. "If a person had in his possession a
falsified document and he made use of it, taking advantage of it and profiting thereby, the clear
presumption is that he is the material author of the falsification."

In the instant case, petitioners failed miserably to rebut the above presumption. Clearly, they were
the ones who benefited from the falsified document, the same having been executed in their favor.
To emphasize, they were the ones who caused the registration of the deed of sale and were the
ones who received the falsified document from the Assessor’s Office. Their bare-faced assertion that
the employees of the Assessor’s Office committed the falsification is flimsy and unsupported by
evidence.

July 27, 2016

G.R. No. 204873

ESTHER PASCUAL, Petitioner
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent

FORGED BIR RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF CGT

The State was able to satisfactorily establish the elements of estafa, to wit: "(1) that the accused
defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit, and (2) that damage or prejudice
capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third person."  Here, Pascual
8

defrauded Tiongco by pretending that she had "connections" or "contacts" within the BIR to whom
she could allegedly directly pay the capital gains tax at a reduced amount and also with whose help
and assistance the transfer certificate of title to the property purchased could be expedited. In fact, in
their first meeting, Pascual impressed upon Tiongco that she is a person of some power and
influence because she was an employee of the Las Piñas City Assessor’s Office and thus had
"connections" or "contacts" within the BIR and the City Registry of Deeds.

Indeed, there was no one from the prosecution that witnessed the accused in the act of falsifying or
forging the BIR receipt. However, while direct evidence is scarce, the circumstances surrounding the
events that led to her indictment speak of no one but the accused as the perpetrator of the offense.
For instance, she did not contradict Tiongco’s testimony that after she received the money intended
for the payment of the capital gains tax, she and her lady companion went inside the BIR office
supposedly to pay the capital gains tax. Neither did she deny Tiongco’s testimony that she later
came out of the BIR office with the forged BIR receipt which she furnished to Tiognco. Quite
revealingly, the accused also remained mum about the testimony of the assistant revenue district
officer, Ma. Nimfa Peñalosa De Villa, who disclosed that the document under discussion was
unauthentic because it did not come from the BIR.

Clear as they are, the circumstances mentioned earlier are indubitable manifestations that the
person responsible for the falsity is the accused herself given that she was the one who supposedly
made the transaction inside the BIR, and that she had it in her possession before she passed it off
as an official transaction receipt from the BIR. Conviction is not always arrived at by relying on direct
evidence alone. Sometimes, the testimonies of witnesses, when credible and trustworthy, are
sufficient to bring out a conviction and must be given full faith and credence when no reason to
falsely testify is shown.

In the case at bench, Tiongco’s testimony is neither erratic nor marred by inconsistency, glaring or
otherwise. She was straightforward and narrated the events without missing the focal points. Her
testimony, along with that of the assistant revenue district officer, is more than sufficient to espouse
the conclusion that the accused personally forged the receipt and deceived Tiongco therewith. 10