The fact that Sendaydiego signed the vouchers ahead of his assistant, when procedure dictates the reverse, points to conspiracy, because the assistant was made to believe that his signature would merely be ministerial if it was already signed by his superior. Also, the fact that Sendaydiego made the payment to Samson in cash also points to conspiracy, because had the company received the checks, it would have returned them as there was no reason why the provincial government should be issuing them. Lastly, the assistant treasurer testified that the payments were made in the treasurer’s inner office. Therefore, there was collusion between Sendaydiego and Samson to execute the criminal design.
Further, conspiracy to defraud the government was determined to be present given that Samson and Sendaydiego had conflicting stances: the former claims that he did not sign the vouchers, while the latter says he himself signed them in good faith. The fact that Samson hand-carried the vouchers contradicts his claim that he did not sign them (otherwise, if he really didn’t sign them, and was not aiming to commit malversation, he should have seen if the signatures on the vouchers were really his).
Although the handwriting expert testified that the signature on the six vouchers was found not to be Samson’s, the rule remains that if a person had in his possession a falsified document and made use of it, taking advantage of it and profiting thereby, the presumption is that he is the material author of the falsification. This is especially true if the forgery and its use are closely committed in terms of time. As Samson was the one who hand-delivered the fake vouchers to the different offices of the provincial government, it was logically concluded that he merely used uniformly a fake signature, so as supposedly not to implicate himself.
In terms of penalties, if falsification was resorted to hide malversation, falsification and malversation are separate offenses, not a complex crime. Each
falsification of a voucher and each act of malversation constitutes one crime each. This is because falsification is not a necessary means to commit malversation, nor are the two the result of just one act, as the meaning of complex crime contemplates. Moreover, a private person conspiring with an accountable public officer in committing malversation is also guilty of malversation.
JUDGMENT: Sendaydiego is civilly liable with his estate, which is ordered to indemnify the province of Pangasinan with Php 57,048.23, whereas Samson is convicted of six crimes of falsification of a public document and six crimes of malversation. In the service of the 12 penalties, the threefold limit is applied, meaning that the maximum penalty he should serve is three times the indeterminate sentence of 12-17 years, or 36- 51 years. Samson is also ordered to indemnify Pangasinan the same amount as Sendaydiego’s indemnity.
– Jahzeel Cruz
SIQUIAN V. PEOPLE
FACTS:
Jesusa Carreon, a 20 year-old resident of Isabela approached then incumbent Mayor Manuel Siquian to ask for a job. The Mayor informed her that she can work as a clerk in the Office of the Municipal Secretary
She was appointed clerk on July 1975; accompanying her appointment is the certification of the availability of funds addressed to the Commissioner of Civil Service, which was issued by the accused mayor
Previously, the Municipal Council failed to enact a new fiscal budget; thus by law the previous budget is deemed re-enacted. In this budget there was no opening for clerkship in the said office, nor was there funds appropriated therefor
After working for 4 months without getting paid, she approached the Municipal Treasurer who told her that there were no funds available; thereafter she went to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan where she was interviewed the Provincial Administrator who asked for her complete appointment papers
Hereafter, she filed her verified complaint against the accused, addressed to Governor Faustino N. Dy
Accused former mayor contends that there was no criminal intent on his part when he executed said documents; moreover he adds that he did not take advantage of his position in executing said document. Lastly, he contends that the document which states “Funds for the position are available” is not a narration of facts but a conclusion of law
ISSUE: WON accused mayor’s act constitutes the crime of falsification by public officer (Art. 171)
HELD: Yes, all the requisites of the felony are present. These are: 1. the offender is a public officer
2. offender falsified a public document by:
making untruthful statements in a narration of facts
officer had a legal obligation to disclose the truth of said facts said facts narrated by offender are absolutely false
In this felony criminal intent to gain or injure a third person need not be proven because the offense being punished is the betrayal of public faith and the destruction of truth accomplished by falsifying a public document
Good faith may be considered as a valid defense; in the instant case however, the Mayor cannot be considered in good faith. He presides over meetings and deliberations concerning such things as appropriations and the fiscal budget. Therefore he is aware that there is no opening for the clerkship nor funds appropriated for said position
The declaration that “Funds for the position are available” cannot be considered as a conclusion of law because it is not an application of artificial rules of law to a case in order to arrive at a conclusion (e.g. There is P1000 deposited in the bank. Therefore funds are available). To certify the availability of funds, the accused should have referred to the Fiscal Budget and ascertained if such item exists and funds allocated therefor.
Accused is also legally obligated under the civil service rules to declare the truth with regard to the availability of funds in Civil Service Form No. 203 which should be signed by the competent authority, i.e. the mayor
Lastly, it is clear that the mayor abused his official position by using the influence and ascendancy imbued by his office to create a false position and appropriation of funds which he executed in a document
“Abuse of public office is considered present when the offender falsifies a document in connection with the duties of his office which consist of either making or preparing or otherwise intervening in the preparation of a document [U.S. v. Inosanto 20 Phil. 376 (1911); People v. Santiago Uy, 101 Phil. 159 (1957)], as in the case of petitioner who was charged with the duty of issuing the certification necessary for the appointment of Jesusa Carreon.”
ISSUE: WON there was a violation of due process against the accused
HELD: No. The accused was afforded the chance to present evidence but due to his repeated, unjustifiable failure to appear at the hearings, the trial court ordered the case to be deemed submitted
Thus he was deemed to have waived his right to be present during the trial and his right to adduce evidence on his behalf
In his petition for change of venue with the SC he also failed to appear; thereafter his counsel told the court that he was withdrawing representation for his client because said client already went abroad and has made no contact with him
– Mico Cruz
PEOPLE V. VILLALON
REGALADO, J. / 21 DEC 1990 FACTS:
Mariano Carrera (complainant) and Severo Carrera are co-owners of a parcel of land.
Severo asked Mariano to sign a special power of attorney authorizing Federico de Guzman to mortgage half of the land which pertains to Severo
February 13, 1964. The special power of attorney was registered in the Registry of Deeds of Dagupan.
However, de Guzman mortgaged the whole land including that of Mariano’s
After the expiration of the mortgage without having been paid, the mortgagee bank foreclosed and sold the land.
January 1972. The new owner filed for an ejectment of Mariano from the premises
March 29, 1974. Mariano filed a case vs De Guzman for complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document.
CFI dismissed due to prescription. Mxn for recon denied. ISSUE:
WON appeal is allowed from the dismissal order
WON estafa thru falsification has sufficient ground to exist in law and in fact WON offense has prescribed
HELD: Allowed.
Dismissal is not an acquittal or based on the merits of the case. Guilt or innocence, not yet determined.
Estafa thru falsification exists in law and in fact.
In law. Falsification of public document may be a menas of committing estafa; damage not being an element of the crime. The damage to another is caused by the commission of estafa, not by the falsification. Falsification is only a necessary means to commit the estafa. In fact. Based on testimony of Mariano, de Guzman was supposed to mortgage only the half portion belonging to Severo excluding Mariano’s.
Offense charged has prescribed.
Art.48. Complex crimes: the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed in its max. Falsification is the more serious, punishable by prision correccional.
Crimes punishable by correctional prescribe in 10 yrs from discovery of the crime.
More than 10 yrs between registration of the special power of atty and the filing of the case. Period commences from registration, not from the time Mariano was being ejected. Registration in a public registry is a constructive notice to the whole world.
PEOPLE V. DAVA
PARTIES: MICHAEL T. DAVA, petitioner, v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. & THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, respondents
Art. 172 RPC: Falsification of 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 5,000 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; and
2.Any person who, to the damage of a third party, or with the intent to cause such damage, shall in any private document commit any of the acts of falsification enumerated in the next preceding article.
Any person who shall knowingly introduce in evidence in any judicial proceeding or to the damage of another or who, with the intent to cause such damage, shall use any of the false documents embraced in the next preceding article or in any of the foregoing subdivisions of this article, shall be punished by the penalty next lower in degree.
FACTS:
Michael Dava, a holder of a non-professional driver’s license, bumped two pedestrians causing to the death of one and physical injuries to the other. Due to this, his driver’s license was confiscated, given to the fiscal of Pasig City and used as evidence in the criminal case against him for homicide and serious physical injuries arising from reckless imprudence.
About 3 years after the incident, the brother of the deceased (and at the same time the father of the one injured) saw Daza driving, knowing fully well that Daza did not have his driver’s license. Roxas sought the help of the Minister of Defense Enrile who indorsed the request for assistance to the Constabulary Highway Patrol Group (CHPG).
Two officers of the CHPG saw the car of Dava parked and when he arrived, the officers confronted him and asked for his license. They were shown a driver’s license with official receipt issued by the Agency in Pampanga in the name of Michael T. Dava. When asked about the source of his license, Dava said that his officemate had secured it for him. It was discovered after subsequent investigation that the Driver’s License is a fake and a falsity because when compared with the Xerox copy of Dava’s license (the one confiscated), the signatures and the dates of birth did not tally.
Dava was charged with falsification of a public document. The prosecution witness, Vinluan of the Angeles branch of the Bureau of Land Transportation, stated that although the
form used of the license was genuine (since the branch had some missing forms that they could not account for), the signature of the issuing official was fake. Also, he said that while the form was issued by the Angeles City agency, the license appeared on its face to have been issued by the San Fernando, Pampanga Agency.
RTC: convicted. CA: affirmed RTC’s decision. However, it was found out that said court did not have jurisdiction, thus the proceedings were annulled and a new trial was begun with the Pampanga RTC. The Pampanga RTC also found Daza guilty, which was affirmed by the Intermediate Appellate Court.
Side issue: Daza alleges that the Pampanga RTC relied too much on the testimony of Vinluan which should not be given credence since the proceedings in the case were annulled. This court held that yes, Vinluan’s testimony is inadmissible as evidence, and may as well be considered as non-existent.
ISSUE: Is there sufficient evidence to warrant the conviction of Daza? DECISION: Yes. Affirmed.
REASONING: The elements of the crime of using a falsified document in any transaction are the following:
1. The offender knew that a document was falsified by another person
It was Daza himself who requested his friend, Manalili, to get him a license. He misrepresented to Manalili that he has not at any time been issued a driver’s license. His misrepresentation and the awareness of Manalili that Daza needed a license in his job as a detailman, induced Manalili to deal with “fixers” in securing the driver’s license. The fact that it was Manalili and not Daza who dealt directly with the fixers cannot exculpate Daza since he is, beyond reasonable doubt, a principal by inducement in the commission of the crime.
Having already obtained a driver’s license, Daza knew that it was not legally possible for him to secure another one. Also, Daza cannot say that that he honestly believed that Manalili would be able to secure a driver’s license through legal means in only an hour. The patent irregularity in securing the license was more than sufficient to arouse the suspicion of an ordinary cautious and prudent man as to its genuineness and authenticity. Even Manalili testified that he was surprised when the fixer handed him the plastic jacket of the license a few hours after he had sought the fixer’s help.
2. The false document embraced in Art. 171 or in (1) or (2) of Art. 172
A driver’s license is a public document within the purview of Arts. 171 and 172. The blank form of the license becomes a public document the moment it is accomplished.
Thus when the document was filled with Daza’s personal data and the signature of the registrar, although the same was simulated, it became a public document.
3. The person used such document
This is proven by the fact that when Daza was apprehended, the fake license was in his possession and it was presented to the officer to show that he had a license. Also, since he is a detailman which entailed the use of a car, it is possible that he used such license. 4. The use of the false document caused damage to another or at least it was used with intent to cause such damage
The driver’s license being a public document, the proof of this element has become immaterial. In the falsification of public or official documents, the principal thing being punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth proclaimed therein. – Tim Guanzon
PEOPLE V. CORTEZ
ERICTA, J. FACTS:
On August 10, 1971, accused introduced himself to Elizabeth Reyes as a BIR agent while she was in her store in Malate, Manila called the “Mindoro House of Beef”. The accused presented an ID in the name of S. Begunia together with some BIR papers.
Cortez told Reyes that he was authorized to examine the books and receipts of the store. Thereafter, Reyes referred Cortez to her accountant Ms. Milagros Lontok.
However, Cortez was asking for a fee of P400 so that he would not inspect the books and receipts. He claims he was sent out to raise funds for the Director of BIR.
On August 12, Reyes went to the BIR where she saw a picture of the real S. Begunia. She was promised that the real S. Begunia will be presented a day after.
On August 13 the real Soferacio Begunia with Jose Enriquez went to the store of Reyes where they planned to catch Cortez.
In the morning of August 16 Cortez passed by the store in haste. The next day Cortez entered the store and inquired about the money. Reyes handed an envelope containing P30 in marked bills, P20 in unmarked bills and a check for P150.
After handling the envelope, Reyes asked clearance but Cortez replied that he do not have the form. So Reyes got a coupon bond with the letter head of her store and asked appellant to write the clearance on it. It was at this juncture that Enriquez grabbed the hand of Cortez and arrested him.
Cortez refused to give any statement. His hands when examined showed that it contained fluorescent powder.
Cortez defense was that he was framed up.
The lower court convicted him of the complex crime of robbery thru use and falsification of public and/or official document and with usurpation of authority.
ISSUE: WON accused can be convicted of complex crime of robbery thru use and falsification of public and/or official document and with usurpation of authority.
HELD: No. The accused is guilty only of the complex crime of usurpation of authority thru falsification of a public document by a private individual. Judgement modified.
RATIO DECIDENDI: The Court held that it is hardly disputable that accused committed a crime of falsification of public document by a private individual as well as a crime of usurpation of authority. However, no robbery was committed.
In order that there is robbery, there should be either violence against or intimidation. In this case there was no violence and no intimidation. There was no outside force or act capable of producing fear in the mind of Reyes. When Reyes gave the money to Cortez she was already aware that the latter was a fraud and that he was about to be arrested.