G.R. No.

182926 June 22, 2015

ANA LOU B. NAVAJA, Petitioner, vs. HON. MANUEL A. DE CASTRO, et al., Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner was charge of falsification of private document in the MCTC Jagna, bohol by her employer
alleging that while she was still its Regional Sales Manager, she falsified a receipt by making it appear
that she incurred meal expenses in the amount of ₱1,810.00, instead of the actual amount of
₱810.00, and claimed reimbursement for it.

Navaja filed a Motion to Quash and Defer Arraignment on the ground that none of the essential
elements of the crime of falsification of private document occurred. However the MCTC dismissed
the motion.

Navaja filed a petition for certiorari8 before the RTC, assailing the Resolution of the MCTC
for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion. The RTC issued an Order denying the petition
for certiorari for lack of legal basis or merit. The CA affirmed the same.

ISSUE

Whether or not, petitioner’s assertion is correct that there is no crime of falsification of private
document because at the time of the issuance of receipt there was no element of damage.

RULING

The Supreme Court held that the petitioner is incorrect. Such damage need not be present during the
commission of the crime, the mere intent to cause such damage is sufficient.

The sworn statement prosecution’s witness who narrated that after she issued the receipt to
Ms. Navaja, the latter borrowed her pen and in her presence wrote something on the said receipt.

The borrowing of the cashier's pen and the use thereof must have been intended to create
an impression that the receipt was prepared by the cashier herself with intent to use for
reimbursement and a damage to her employer.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED.

G.R. No. 199113

RENATO M. DAVID, Petitioner, vs. EDITHA A. AGBAY and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner migrated to Canada where he became a Canadian citizen by naturalization. Upon

their retirement, petitioner and his wife returned to the Philippines and in 2000 bought a land along
the beach in Oriental Mindoro. Upon knowing that the portion where they built their house is public
land, petitioner filed a Miscellaneous Lease Application to CENRO. In the said application, petitioner
indicated that he is a Filipino citizen.

Private respondent Agbay opposed the application on the ground that petitioner is a
Canadian citizen and subsequently filed a complaint for falsification of public documents.
Meanwhile, petitioner re-acquired his Filipino citizenship in 2007 Provincial Prosecutor indict
petitioner for violation of Article 172 of the RPC. Petitioner filed an Urgent Motion for Re-
Determination of Probable Cause and arguing that he cannot be charge of falsification because
under RA 9225 he's citizenship was deemed no to have lost.

The MTC denied his motion and it was affirmed by the RTC.

ISSUE

Whether or not, petitioner can be charge of the crime of falsification of public document.

RULING

The Court held that petitioner can be charge of falsification of public document.

Petitioner made the untruthful statement in the MLA, a public document, that he is a
Filipino citizen at the time of the filing of said application, when in fact he was then still a Canadian
citizen. The falsification was already a consummated act long before he applied for re-acquisition of
citizenship, the said law having no retroactive effect insofar as his dual citizenship status is
concerned.
G.R. No. 179874 June 22, 2015

ADELFA DIO TOLENTINO, et. al., Petitioners, vs. SPOUSES MARIA JERERA AND EBON LATAGAN,
Respondents.

FACTS

On June 27, 1933, respondent's father, Servillano and his sibling sold their land to Amado
Dio. On December 8, 1967, Spouses Amado Dio and Modesta Domer allegedly executed a Deed of
Absolute Sale of the subject property in favor of Servillano for ₱585.00. On May 25, 1971,
Servillano executed a Deed of Absolute Sale of the subject property for ₱585.00 in favor of his
daughter, Maria Jerera, herein respondent. On May 21, 1998, petitioner Adelfa Dio Tolentino, and
her co-petitioners filed a Complaint for quieting of title, recovery of property and damages before
the Regional Trial Court, alleging that they are the successors-in-interest of Amado over the subject
property. Petitioners assert that the Deed of Sale executed by the Spouses Amado and Modesta,
conveying the property to Servillano, is simulated and/or fictitious for being a forgery. Petitioners
prayed before the trial court to declare the Deed of Absolute Sale dated

January 14, 1970 null and void as well as its subsequent sale.

The trial court rendered a Decision, Declaring the deed of sale dated January 14, 1970
allegedly executed by Amado Dio in favor of Servillano Jerera to be VOID for being forged and
fictitious. On July 6, 2007, the CA reversed and set aside the trial court Decision. Stating that forgery
cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence.

ISSUE

Whether or not, the CA erred in reversing the RTC's finding of forgery on the deed of absolute sale
between Dio and Servillano.

RULING

The Court held that the CA erred in reversing the RTC's finding of forgery on the deed of absolute
sale.
 The Court agrees with petitioners that the said witness testified in a clear and unequivocal
manner, consistent with the Questioned Documents. the Court finds that petitioners have
successfully proved that both signatures of Amado and Modesta in the Deed of Absolute Sale" were
indeed forged.

The testimony of the said witness—that the signature appearing on the questioned
document and the standard specimen signatures were not written by one and the same person—
was clear, direct and unambiguous.

Due to the forged Deed of Absolute Sale dated January 14, 1970, Servillano acquired no right
over the subject property which he could convey to his daughter, Maria. All the transactions
subsequent to the falsified sale between the Servillano and his daughter are likewise void.

However, the Court finds that respondents have successfully discharged such burden of proving the
status of a purchaser in good faith and for value. Despite the fact that the Deed of Absolute Sale
dated January 14, 1970 was forged, it became the root of a valid title when it was transferred from
the name of Servillano to Maria who was proven to bean innocent purchaser for value.
G.R. No. 215424, December 09, 2015

ADINA B. MANANSALA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

On May 31, 1999, private complainant Kathleen L. Siy (Siy), former Vice President for Finance of
Urban Finance and Leasing Corporation, now UMC Finance and Leasing Corporation (UMC),
instructed her secretary, Marissa Bautista (Bautista), to withdraw via Automated Teller Machine
(ATM) the amount of P38,000.00 from her Metrobank and Bank of the Philippine Islands bank
accounts. However, Bautista was not able to make such withdrawal as the ATM was offline so she
took it upon herself to get such amount from the petty cash custodian of UMC instead, but she
forgot to inform Siy where she got the money. On June 9, 1999, UMC Finance Manager Violeta Q.
DizonLacanilao (Lacanilao) informed Siy that as per the Petty Cash Replenishment Report (subject
report) of the same date prepared by UMC Petty Cash Custodian Manansala, she allegedly made a
cash advance in the amount of P38,000.00 which remained unliquidated. It was only then that Siy
found out what Bautista had done, and she immediately rectified the situation by issuing two (2)
checks to reimburse UMC's petty cash account. As the checks were eventually encashed resulting in
the replenishment of UMC's petty cash account, Lacanilao instructed Manansala to retrieve the
subject report, re-insert the entry relating to Siy's alleged cash advance reprint the same on a
scratch paper, and repeatedly fold the paper to make it look old. Siy was terminated from her job
and Lacanilao succeeded the former in the position.. On June 11, 1999, Lacanilao reported the
incident to UMC President Conrado G. Marty (Marty). In her defense, Manansala maintained that
she was just following Lacanilao's orders as the latter is her superior who approves her work. She
added that when Lacanilao instructed her to reprint the subject report, she was apprehensive to
follow because she suspected something, but nevertheless acquiesced to such instruction.

The MeTC both found Lacanilao and Manansala guilty beyond reasonable doubt of committing the
crime of Falsification of Private Documents. Nonetheless, the MeTC appreciated the mitigating
circumstance of acting under an impulse of uncontrollable fear in favor of Manansala, noting that
she merely acted upon Lacanilao's instructions and that she only performed such acts out of fear
that she would lose her job if she defied her superior's orders.

The RTC affirmed the MeTC ruling in toto.

In a Decision dated April 16, 2014, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling.

ISSUE

Whether or not, the CA is correct on finding petitioner guilty of falsification of private documents.

RULING

Yes, the CA is correct of finding the petitioner guilty of falsification of private document.

The elements of Falsification of Private Documents under Article 172 (2) of the RPC are:

(a) that the offender committed any of the acts of falsification, except those in Article 171 (7) of the
same Code;

(b) that the falsification was committed in any private document; and

(c) that the falsification caused damage to a third party or at least the falsification was committed
with intent to cause such damage.

On the other hand the elements of Falsification under Article 171 (4) of the RPC are as follows:

(a) the offender makes in a public document untruthful statements in a narration of facts;

(b) he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him; and

(c) the facts narrated by him are absolutely false.

In the instant case, the MeTC, RTC, and CA all correctly found Manansala guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the aforesaid crime, considering that:

(a) as UMC's Petty Cash Custodian, she is legally obligated to disclose only truthful statements in the
documents she prepares in connection with her work, such as the subject report;

(b) she knew all along that Siy never made any cash advance nor utilized the proceeds thereof for
her personal use;

(c) despite such knowledge, she still proceeded in revising the subject report by inserting therein a
statement that Siy made such a cash advance; and
(d) she caused great prejudice to Siy as the latter was terminated from her job on account of the
falsified report that she prepared.

Therefore, the petition is DENIED.

G.R. No. 197953, August 05, 2015

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN et. al., Respondents.

The prosecution alleged that municipal treasurer issued an Official receipt to De Luna
representing the latter's payment for his mayor's permit to operate as a pakyaw contractor. The
prosecution added that Mayor Saludaga antedated the mayor's permit to confer on De Luna the
status of a bona fide pakyaw contractor which they knew that De Luna was merely a laborer. The
prosecution submitted that the respondents connived, confederated with, and mutually helped one
another in falsifying the subject OR and the mayor's permit to make it appear that De Luna was a
bona fide pakyaw contractor. Subsequently, charging them for falsification of a public document to
the Sandiganbayan. After the prosecutions presented its witnesses and rested its case, the
respondents therein filed a motion for leave of court to file a demurrer to evidence. The
Sandiganbayan granted the motion and dismiss the case. The people filed a certiorari to the
Supreme Court arguing that the Sandiganbayan gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing the case.

ISSUE

Whether or not, the Sandiganbayan is correct in dismissing the case for failure of the prosecution to
prove the elements of falsification.

RULING

The Supreme Court held that the Sandiganbayan is correct in dismissing the case.

First, the Sandiganbayan was not convinced that Mayor Saludaga took advantage of his
official position to falsify the subject OR. It held that the prosecution's evidence failed to establish
that he was in any way involved in the execution and issuance of the subject OR.

As it was not shown that Mayor Saludaga had any involvement in its issuance, he could not have
taken advantage of his position as Mayor and knowingly made untruthful narration of facts in the
said document.

Second, the Sandiganbayan was not persuaded that the subject OR was in fact falsified.
While Adriatico admitted that he issued the subject OR antedated, the Sandiganbayan held that
such act does not constitute falsification. It held that if the statements are not altogether false,
there being some colorable truth in them, the crime of falsification is deemed not to have been
committed. Adriatico did not necessarily make an untruthful statement of fact as to the date, there
being truth that the payment received was for a past transaction.

Finally, the Sandiganbayan held that the prosecution failed to prove that De Luna was not a
bona fide pakyaw contractor.

G.R. No. 191015 August 6, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Petitioner, vs. JOSE C. GO, et. al., Respondents.

FACTS

OCBC, a commercial bank, was ordered closed by the BSP and designated to PDIC in a
receivership. During efforts to collect OCBC’s pastdue loan receivables, sent demand letters to the
bank’s debtor-borrowers on record, including Timmy’s, Inc. and Asia Textile Mills, Inc. which
appeared to have obtained unsecured loans of ₱10 million each, and which apparently remained
unpaid. In response to the demand letters, Timmy’s, Inc. and Asia Textile Mills, Inc. denied having
obtained loans from OCBC and that the documents purported therefrom is false. The PDIC
conducted an investigation, finding out that the loans purportedly in the names of the two
companies were bogus. The amount of the loan were released in the form of manager’schecks in
the name of another tow companies. These manager’s checks were then allegedly deposited to the
savings account of the private respondent Jose C. Go. PDIC filed a complaint for two (2) counts of
Estafa thru Falsification of Commercial Documents.

After the presentation of all of the prosecution’s evidence, the private respondents filed a
Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence. The respondent RTC judge granted the private
respondents’ Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence and consequently ruled in favor of the
private respondents. The CA affirmed the decision of the trial court. Hence, this petition of certiorari
by the prosecutor.

ISSUE

Whether or not, the CA abuse its disccretion in dismissing the case by demurrer to evidence.

RULING

The Court held that the CA abuse its discretion in in dismissing the case by demurrer to evidence
because the crime of Falsification has already been consummated, damage or intent to cause
damage not being an element of the crime of falsification of public, official or commercial
document.
 In other words, the crime of falsification has already existed. Actually utilizing that falsified
public, official or commercial document to defraud another is estafa. But the damage is caused by
the commission of Estafa, not by the falsification of the document. Therefore, the falsification of the
public, official or commercial document is only a necessary means to commit the estafa.

Therefore, the Petition is granted.

G.R. No. 206379 November 19, 2014

CECILIA PAGADUAN, Petitioner, vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and REMA MARTIN SALVADOR,
Respondents.

FACTS

Pagaduan filed a criminal charge against Salvador for falsification of public documents
under Article 172 in relation to Article 171(4) in the MTCC. Alleging therein that Salvador falsified
her qualification when she applied for the job as the Municipal Budget officer. The MTCC rendered
a decision finding Salvador guilty of falsification of public documents. Salvador did not appeal and
then applied for probation. Her application was granted and she was placed under probation for a
period of one (1) year. Thereafter, Pagaduan filed a second administrative complaint in the CSC
regional office against Salvador this time for the offense of conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude. The CSC-RO rendered decision finding Salvador guilty of the administrative offense
ofconviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Salvador appeal to the CSC which reveresed the
CSC-RO decision. Petitioner appeal to CA but the appellate courts affirmef the CSC decision.

ISSUE

Whether or not, the CA erred in finding that private respondent's conviction does not amount to
disqualification of public office.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in affirmative.

The Court held that "the accomplishment of the Personal Data Sheet being a requirement
under the Civil Service Rules and Regulations in connection with employment in the government,
the making of an untruthful statement therein was, therefore, intimately connected with such
employment. The filing of a PDS is required in connection with the promotion to a higher position
and contenders for promotion have the legal obligation to disclose the truth. Otherwise,
enhancing their qualifications by means of false statements will prejudice other qualified aspirants
to the same position.
 Granting arguendo that Salvador had no criminal intent to injure a third person, the same is
immaterial as such intent is not an essential element of the crime of falsification of public
document. It is jurisprudentially settled that in the falsification of public or official documents,
whether by public officers or private persons, it is not necessary that there be present the idea of
gain or the intent to injure a third person for the reason that, in contradistinction to private
documents, the principal thing punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of
truth as therein solemnly proclaimed. In falsification of public documents, therefore, the controlling
consideration is the public character of a document; and the existence of any prejudice caused to
third persons or, at least, the intent to cause such damage becomes immaterial. Thus, private
respondent conviction involves moral torpitude which disqualifies her from holding a public office.

Therefore, the Petition is GRANTED.

G.R. No. 172539, November 16, 2016

ALBERTO GARONG Y VILLANUEVA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Silverio Rosales and Ricar Colocar went to the house of the petitioner to seek his help in the
judicial reconstitution of Silverio's Transfer Certificate of Title. The petitioner, as a court interpreter,
agreed to help, and instructed Silverio to prepare the necessary documents and collected the
amount of P4,000.00 as processing fee. The petitioner delivered to Ricar a copy of a court order as
indicated in the information. The stamp mark "ORIGINAL SIGNED" above the printed name of Judge
Mario de la Cruz, Presiding Judge of the RTC, and the words "CERTIFIED TRUE COPY" with a
signature but no printed name appeared beneath the signature. Silverio and Ricar brought the
document order to the Register of Deeds for the issuance of the owner's duplicate of Transfer
Certificate of Title. The Office of the Register of Deeds, returned the court order because he had
found some sentences thereof erroneous. Later on Ricar was informed that the court order
appeared to be falsified because it was not in the docket of the court. Ricar filed a complaint to
charge the petitioner with falsification of a public document.

The RTC concluded that the petitioner committed falsification committed by a private
individual as defined and punished under Article 172. The CA, affirmed the conviction of the
petitioner.

ISSUE

Whether or not, the CA erred in affirming the conviction despite the failure to establish petitioner’s
guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in negative.a

All the elements of falsification by private person under Arti. 172 par. (1) are present.
Petitioner is a private individual or a public officer or employee who did not take advantage of his
position because he is on a court interpreter; hence, he cannot issue such court order. Petitioner
committed a falsification in the simulation of a public or official document like a court order, done in
such a manner as to easily lead to error as to its authenticity and it was not essential that the
falsification should have been made in a real public or official document.

Therefore, the petition is DENIED.

G.R. No. 242900, June 08, 2020 ]

EDWIN L. SAULO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES et. al., RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Saulo is the employer of private respondent Alberto. Because of financial

problems, petitioner asks Alberto to help him find someone who can lend him some money. Private
respondent Alberto introduce the petitioner to Eladio Naval and the latter lent the petitioner an
amount of 1.5 million pesos. The petitioner in turn issued three checks. Sometime in 1996
petitioner borrowed an amount to private respondent and as a payment thereof issued a check.
Petitioner then sought Alberto's assistance to find someone who could lend him money for the
construction of his studio. Since Masinag Lumber was reluctant to accept the check from Saulo,
Alberto's husband issued his personal check to Masinag Lumber and Saulo in turn issued a Check in
favor of Alberto's husband. Alberto sent Saulo a Notice of Dishonor since the checks that the latter
issued by him were dishonored by the bank for insufficiency of funds. To Alberto's surprise, Saulo
filed an Estafa case against her claiming that she stole from him five checks and falsified the same.
The prosecutor dismissed the complaint. For the second time Saulo filed another case for Qualified
Theft" and "Falsification of Commercial Documents against Alberto. The same was dismissed for
lack of evidence. The dismissal were the basis for Alberto to file a case of perjury against petitioner.

The MeTC rendered a Decision convicting petitioner Saulo of the crimes charged. The decision was
affirmed both by the RTC and the CA.

ISSUE

Whether or not, the CA is correct in finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of perjury.

RULING

The Supre Court ruled in affirmative.

The elements of perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) are present in this case.
First, Saulo executed a Complaint-Affidavit charging Alberto with Qualified Theft. The allegations in
the subject Complaint-Affidavit have the material effect or tendency to influence the Prosecutor in
the determination of the existence of to indict Alberto. Second, the subject Complaint-Affidavit was
subscribed and sworn to by Saulo himself before Assistant City Prosecutor. Third, the Complaint-
Affidavit is required by law. Lastly, the petitioner's was wilfully and deliberately made false
assertions in his complaint-affidavit.

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

FACTS

Petitioner Borje was the chief motorpool of the DPWH; he was the one in charge of
determining the needed repairs and spare part for the subject vehicles and recommendation the
approval to the department. Petitioner Dela Cruz on her part was the name supplier for the spare
parts and maintenance of the subject vehicles of the DPWH. In an investigation made by the
Internal Audit Team of the department, it was found out that petitioners were in conspiracy of
defrauding the government. Thate there the said repairs and spare parts acquisitions are non
existent. Borje is also identified as payee along with other officials for several disbursement
vouchers although he was not an end user of the vehicle. Consequently, Petitioners were charge of
Estafe through falsification of public document and violation of RA 3019.

The Sandiganbayan promulgated its Decision finding petitioners Borje and Dela Cruz among those
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Estafa through Falsification of Documents and violation of
Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari in the Supreme
Court.

ISSUE

Whether or not, Petitioners are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Estafa through falsification of
public document.
RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in affirmative. The Court finds that the alleged emergency repairs
on the 39 DPWH vehicles that were the subject of the reimbursements were fictitious and non-
existent.

The documents were prepared, accomplished and/or executed and signed by public
officers/employees taking advantage of their official positions in making untruthful statements in
the narration of facts.

Through the Disbursement Vouchers and Cash Invoices issued by the suppliers, it was made
to appear, that the 39 vehicles subject of reimbursements claimed and paid to accused Martinez
and Borje in the total sum of P5,166,539.00 underwent emergency repairs that required purchases
of spare parts.

Accused Borje, as Chief of the Motorpool Section, affixed his signature recommending
approval of the falsified Equipment Pre-Inspection and Job Orders and participating in the approval
of the falsified Reports of Waste Material and Abstracts of Open Canvass.

Accused dela Cruz was the owner of the DEB Repair Shop and Parts Supply that issued the
falsified Sales Invoices for the fictitious supplies of spare parts for the non-existent emergency
repairs.

Clearly, with the repeated participation of the aforementioned accused in falsifying the
documents relating to 274 separate transactions, the conclusion is inevitable that they conspired
with one another in deceiving the DPWH into paying the claims for the fictitious emergency
repairs/purchases of spare parts in the name of accused Martinez, thereby causing damage to the
government.