G.R. No.

168486

June 27, 2006

NOE S. ANDAYA, Petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
FACTS:
This is a petition for review on certiorari from the Decision of the Court of Appeals, affirming the
Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 104 of Quezon City, convicting petitioner Noe S.
Andaya of falsification of private document.
In 1986, petitioner Noe S. Andaya was elected as president and general manager of Forces and
Police Savings and Loan Association, Inc. (AFPSLAI), a non-stock, non-profit association
authorized to engage in savings and loan transactions.
On June 1, 1988, the Board of Trustees of AFPSLAI passed and approved a Resolution setting
up a Finders Fee Program whereby any officer, member or employee, except investment
counselors, of AFPSLAI who could solicit an investment of not less than P100,000.00 would be
entitled to a finders fee equivalent to one percent of the amount solicited.
In a letter dated September 1991, the Central Bank wrote Gen. Lisandro C. Abadia, then
Chairman of the Board of Trustees, regarding the precarious financial position of AFPSLAI due
to its alleged flawed management. As a result, Gen. Abadia requested the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI) to conduct an investigation on alleged irregularities in the operations of
AFPSLAI which led to the filing of several criminal cases against petitioner, one of which is the
instant case based on the alleged fraudulent implementation of the Finders Fee Program.
The trial court ruled that all the elements of falsification of private document were present.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration but was denied by the trial court. On appeal, the Court of
Appeals affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court and denied petitioners motion for
reconsideration; hence, the instant petition challenging the validity of his conviction for the crime
of falsification of private document.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner is guilty of falsification of private document.
HELD:
No. The elements of falsification of private document under Article 172, paragraph 217 in
relation to Article 17118 of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) the offender committed any of the
acts of falsification under Article 171 which, in the case at bar, falls under paragraph 2 of Article
171, i.e., causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they
did not in fact so participate; (2) the falsification was committed on a private document; and (3)
the falsification caused damage or was committed with intent to cause damage to a third party.
While the first and second elements of the offense charged in the information were satisfactorily
established by the prosecution, it is the third element which is decisive in the instant case. In the
information, it was alleged that petitioner caused damage in the amount of P21,000.00 to
AFPSLAI because he caused it to appear in the disbursement voucher that Diosdado Guilas

was entitled to a P21,000.00 finders fee when in truth and in fact AFPSLAI owed no such sum
to him. However, contrary to these allegations in the information, petitioner was able to prove
that AFPSLAI owed a finders fee in the amount of P21,000.00 although not to Guilas but to
Ernesto Hernandez.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Appellee,

G.R. Nos. 148682-85

- versus ANGEL A. ENFERMO,

Appellant.
Promulgated:
November 30, 2005
AZCUNA, J.:
FACTS:
Angel A. Enfermo held the position of Disbursing Officer II, Accounting Section, Finance and
Administrative Division of the NRCP.
Sometime in 1993, it was discovered that the debit and credit records of the checks issued and
paid by its depositary bank, Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), did not balance
In Criminal Case No. 111086, the charge originated from the double issuance of checks
intended for researcher Aurora Dacanay. On February 26, 1993, the NRCP issued an Land
bank of the Philippines (LBP) check to Dacanay in the amount of P38,446.13.
In Criminal Case No. 111087, the charge stemmed from a double issuance of a check intended
for Jose M. Bernaldez, a Mathematics professor based in Mindanao State University (MSU),
Iligan City in the amount of P30,000 was issued by the NRCP to Bernaldez, on August 13, 1993.
The check was supported by a Disbursement Voucher.
In the two cases, the second checks were the same amounts as the originals and not supported
by a Disbursement Voucher. Appellant encashed the check at the Paraaque branch of the
Land Bank of the Philippines, by supposedly forging the signature of the intended recipients,
and signing his own name to acknowledge receipt of payment. Appellant received and
misappropriated the proceeds of these checks.
With regard to Criminal Cases Nos. 111089 and 111091, Mary Christine Avanzado, employee of
NCRP, testified that when she was claiming her salary as Clerk I for the period of January 115,
1994, she was informed by appellant that he had spent the money and would just pay her back.
Meanwhile, Lanie P. Manalo, did not receive her productivity incentive pay in the amount of
P2,000. She then confronted appellant regarding the amount, and the latter replied that he had
used it to pay a debt. Both Avanzado and Manalo signed the payroll upon the promise of
appellant that he would return the money.
ISSUE: Whether or not appellant is guilty of two counts of Malversation through Falsification of
Public Documents and two counts of Malversation.
HELD:
Yes. In Maliwat v. CA, cited by the Court of Appeals, this Court said: The settled rule is 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.
By mere comparison with the signatures of Dacanay and Bernaldez in the checks that they had
actually signed, it was proven that the signatures in the other two checks were falsified.
Furthermore, it is indisputable that said checks were in the possession of appellant, as proven
by the fact that he was the Disbursing Officer; and that possession of such checks was within
his functions. Also, the fact that his signatures appeared at the back of the checks further
proves that he was in possession of them, that he was the one who presented them for
payment, and that he received their proceeds and therefore used and profited by such checks.
Since he could not adequately explain the foregoing facts, the presumption defined in Maliwat v.
CA applies. He is therefore presumed to be the forger of the signatures of Dacanay and
Bernaldez.

G.R. No. 112170 April 10, 1996

CESARIO URSUA, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
BELLOSILLO, J.:p
FACTS:
Petitioner wrote the name Oscar Perez in the visitors logbook and used the same in receiving
the copy of a complaint against him at the Office of the Ombudsman. This was discovered and
reported to the Deputy Ombudsman who recommended that the petitioner be accordingly
charged. Trial Court found the petitioner guilty of violating Sec.1 of C.A. No. 142 as amended by
R.A. No. 6085 otherwise known as, An Act to Regulate the Use of Aliases. The Court of
Appeals affirmed the conviction with some modification of sentence.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the use of alias in isolatEd transaction falls within the prohibition of
Commonwealth Act No. 142.
HELD:
NO. The questioned decision of the Court of Appeals affirming that of the RTC was reversed
and set aside and petitioner was acquitted of the crime charged.
HELD:
No. Clearly therefore an alias is a name or names used by a person or intended to be used by
him publicly and habitually usually in business transactions in addition to his real name by which
he is registered at birth or baptized the first time or substitute name authorized by a competent
authority. Sometimes a man is known by several different names and these are known
as aliases. Hence, the use of a fictitious name or a different name belonging to another person
in a single instance without any sign or indication that the user intends to be known by this
name in addition to his real name from that day forth does not fall within the prohibition
contained in C.A. No. 142 as amended. The use of the name Oscar Perez was made by
petitioner in an isolated transaction where he was not even legally required to expose his real
identity. For, even if he had identified himself properly at the Office of the Ombudsman,
petitioner would still be able to get a copy of the complaint as a matter of right, and the Office of
the Ombudsman could not refuse him because the complaint was part of public records hence
open to inspection and examination by anyone under the proper circumstances. The confusion
and fraud in business transactions which the anti-alias law and its related statutes seek to
prevent are not present here as the circumstances are peculiar and distinct from those
contemplated by the legislature in enacting C.A. No. 142 as amended.)

**LONG FORM (FACTS): Petitioner Cesario Ursua was a Community Environment and Natural
Resources Officer assigned in Kidapawan, Cotabato. On 9 May 1989 the Provincial Governor of
Cotabato requested the Office of the Ombudsman in Manila to conduct an investigation on a
complaint for bribery, dishonesty, abuse of authority and giving of unwarranted benefits by
petitioner and other officials of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. The
complaint was initiated by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Cotabato through a resolution
advising the Governor to report the involvement of petitioner and others in the illegal cutting of
mahogany trees and hauling of illegally-cut logs in the area.
On 1 August 1989 Atty. Francis Palmones, counsel for petitioner, wrote the Office of the
Ombudsman in Davao City requesting that he be furnished copy of the complaint against
petitioner. Atty. Palmones then asked his client Ursua to take his letter-request to the Office of
the Ombudsman because his law firms messenger, Oscar Perez, had to attend to some
personal matters. Before proceeding to the Office of the Ombudsman petitioner talked to Oscar
Perez and told him that he was reluctant to personally ask for the document since he was one of
the respondents before the Ombudsman. However, Perez advised him not to worry as he could
just sign his (Perez) name if ever he would be required to acknowledge receipt of the complaint.
When petitioner arrived at the Office of the Ombudsman in Davao City he was instructed by the
security officer to register in the visitors logbook. Instead of writing down his name petitioner
wrote the name Oscar Perez after which he was told to proceed to the Administrative Division
for the copy of the complaint he needed. He handed the letter of Atty. Palmones to the Chief of
the Administrative Division, Ms. Loida Kahulugan, who then gave him a copy of the complaint,
receipt of which he acknowledged by writing the name Oscar Perez.
Before petitioner could leave the premises he was greeted by an acquaintance, Josefa Amparo,
who also worked in the same office. They conversed for a while then he left. When Loida
learned that the person who introduced himself as Oscar Perez was actually petitioner Cesario
Ursua, a customer of Josefa Amparo in her gasoline station, Loida reported the matter to the
Deputy Ombudsman who recommended that petitioner be accordingly charged.