Roberto Lastrilla (petitioner) vs Rafael Granda (respondent) GR 160257 January 31,

2006

FACTS:

Three (3) pieces of Information were filed for Falsification of Public Document under
Article 172 (1), in relation to Article 171 (1), (2) and (5) of the Revised Penal Code
against petitioner Roberto Lastrilla.

Respondent Rafael Granda is the grandson and one of the legal heir of the deceased
sps. Rafael and Aurora Granda. During her lifetime, Aurora Granda owned several
parcels of land in Tacloban. A month after Aurora’ s death, grandson Rafael Granda
learned that all of his grandmother’s properties in Tacloban were sold to different
persons sometime in 1999-2000. He was able to secure copies of the purported Deed
of Absolute Sale (DOAS) and he noticed that the signatures of his deceased
grandparents were falsified. The same was verified by the PNP Crime Lab, i.e the
signatures of that of his grandparents were not written by one hand and the same
person and that the deceased spouses’ youngest daughter Silvina show some
similarities in stroke structured, indicative one writer. Likewise the Deeds are antedated
to make it appear that the purported sale happened in 1985 while the spouses were still
alive. Granda alleged among other that, three deeds of absolute sale were not among
the available notarized documents submitted to the RTC for the year 1985, that the
subject deeds were registered with the Register of Deeds only on February 28, 2000 or
almost fifteen (15) years after the alleged sales and that petitioner conspired with Silvina
and Atty. Camenforte in falsifying the three deeds by signing as an instrumental witness
therein. The allegations were denied by the petitioner and his co-respondents in the
case and contended that it was Aurora who offered to them to buy the lots, that Aurora
was the one who processed for the titling and transfer of the lot in their names and that
respondent in this case Rafael Granda was among those who signed the Deed of
Assignment 1 under the name Rafaelito. Other respondents in the Falsification case
likewise submitted and joined the contention. Only Silvina failed to submit her defense.

The complaint was dismissed before the DOJ for the reasons among others that,
Granda confirmed the validity of sale of the property, that he was not joined by his co-
heir in this complaint and that he already knew about the sale but only instituted it after
death of Aurora. Hence, Granda filed a petition for review under Rule 43 of the ROC.

The Court of Appeals found probable cause, modified the Resolution of the DOJ and
directed the filing of the Information for the reason that there are allegations that
Lastrilla already knew that the DOAS were falsified, but he still signed them, caused the
registration of the DOAS and the cancelling and issuance of new titles.
1
a legal agreement to give an asset or to sell a debt to someone else: This deed of assignment enables
ownership of a life-insurance policy to be transferred from the current owner to another person or organization
A motion for reconsideration was filed, but to no success. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

WON there is probable cause to engender the belief that petitioner is one of the
authors of the falsification.

Ruling:

YES, there is.

It is well-settled that "a finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence
showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed and was committed by
the suspects. Probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of
guilt, neither on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and definitely not
on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt."

From the records, there is no question that petitioner signed as an instrumental witness
to the subject deeds of absolute sale and he attested that the Granda spouses, as
vendors, signed the said deeds in his presence on December 7, 1985. By his
(petitioner) own admission, however, the negotiations for the sales only started in 1998,
thus, the deeds were admittedly antedated. The CA also unanimously found probable
cause to believe that the signatures of the Granda spouses were falsified as evidenced
by the PNP Crime Laboratory report and that the vendor-husband died in 1989. There is
also sufficient evidence to prove that petitioner Lastrilla personally and directly
responsible for the registering of the Deeds, the cancellation of the old titles and
issuance of the new titles.  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.

Hence, the High Court ruled to AFFIRM the Court of Appeals Decision.

Notes:

CA’s decision:

WHEREFORE, the Resolution dated May 8, 2002 issued by the Department of Justice
is hereby MODIFIED. Finding probable cause against private respondent Robert
Lastrilla, we hereby direct the Office of the Prosecutor of Tacloban City to issue a
recommendation for the filing of three (3) informations charging Robert Lastrilla of the
crime of Falsification of Public Document under Article 172 (1), in relation to Article 171
(1), (2) and (5) of the Revised Penal Code.

Elements in this case:

Articles 172 (1) and 171 (1), (2) and (5) of the Revised Penal Code, state that:

Art. 172. Falsification by private individuals and use of falsified documents.-- The
penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not
more than P5,000 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; x x x

Article 171. x x x

1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric;

2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when
they did not in fact so participate; x x x

5. Altering true dates; x x x

In the case at bar, there is no question that all the elements of falsification are present