People v Balmores

85 Phil. 493 (1950)

On our about September 22, 1947, in the Manila City, Philippines, The accused-
appellant, RAFAEL BALMORES, with intent to deceitfully cash-in with the Philippine
Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) for the amount of P359.55, tore off a part of a
genuine 1/8 ticket, located at the bottom of said ticket, in order to remove the real
unidentified number and therein wrote with ink the prize-winning number of 074000
for the June 29, 1947 draw.

His plan was foiled however, when Bayani Miller, an employee of the PCSO, to whom the
accused presented the ticket, discovered that the same was falsified. Miller immediately
called for a policeman and the accused-appellant was arrested right then and there.

Upon the filing of an Information in the CFI of Manila, the accused-appellant, RAFAEL
BALMORES, waived his right to be assisted by counsel and PLEADED GUILTY to the
charge of ATTEMPTED ESTAFA through FALISFICATION OF SECURITY.

He was SENTENCED by Judge Emilio Pena to no less than 10 YEARS and 1 DAY of
PRISION MAYOR and not more than 12 YEARS and 1 DAY of RECLUSION TEMPORAL
and to pay a FINE of P100 and the COSTS.

The accused-appellant appealed to the SC contending:

1. The facts charged in the Information did not constitute an offense supported by
the following arguments:
a. There could be no genuine 1/8 unit PCSO ticket for the June 29, 1947
draw
b. The SC has taken judicial notice that the PSCO only issued four units
for each ticket for the June 29, 1947 draw
c. The Information does not show that the ticket torn by the accused-
appellant did not and could not have had the real prize-winning
unidentified number of 074000
d. The substitution and writing in ink of the number 074000 was not a
falsification where the true and real number of the ticket torn was
074000
2. The trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict him on a plea of guilty because, he
was ILLITERATE and he was not assisted by counsel

ISSUE(S):
1. w/n the facts charged in the Information constituted an offense by the accused-
appellant

2. w/n the CFI lacked jurisdiction to convict the accused-appellant for the reason of
his being an ILLITERATE and not being assisted by counsel

3. w/n the accused-appellant is actually guilty of an IMPOSSIBLE CRIME

4. w/n the penalty imposed by the CFI was correct

HELD:
1. The Court addressed the arguments of the accused-appellant as discussed below:
a. There could be no genuine 1/8 unit PCSO ticket for the June 29, 1947 draw
This contention is based assumptions by the accused-appellant and
not borne out by the Courts records. The ticket alleged to have
been falsified as presented to the Court appears to be a 1/8 ticket,
however, the same held that it cannot take judicial notice of what is
not common knowledge and if this argument was indeed relevant, it
should have been sufficiently proven by the accused-appellant
b. The SC has taken judicial notice that the PSCO only issued four units for
each ticket for the June 29, 1947 draw
If it is true that the PCSO only issued tickets for the June 28,
1947 draw, it would only strengthen the theory of the prosecution
that the 1/8 unit presented by the accused-appellant was invalid
c. The Information does not show that the ticket torn by the accused-appellant
did not and could not have had the real prize-winning unidentified number
of 074000
This assumption by the accused-appellant is not likewise be
supported in the Courts records
d. The substitution and writing in ink of the number 074000 was not a
falsification where the true and real number of the ticket torn was 074000
It is obvious that there would have been no need to tear the ticket
and substitute with ink the winning number if the original number
on had already been 074000

2. The fact that the appellant was illiterate did not deprive the court of jurisdiction to
convict him on a PLEA of GUILTY despite not being assisted by counsel. It should be
noted that appellant EXPRESSLY WAIVED his right to be assisted by counsel and
there are not laws against such a waiver.

3. The appellant may have either reckless or foolish to believe that a falsification as
patent as what he had perpetrated would succeed but the recklessness and
clumsiness of the falsification did not make the crime impossible as contemplated
by RPC 4(2)1 in relation to RPC 592.

1 RPC 4(2). Criminal liability shall be incurred: By any person performing an act which would be an offense
against person or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of
the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means

2 RPC 59. Penalty to be impose in case of failure to commit the crime because the means employed or the aims
sought are impossible When the person intending to commit an offense has already performed the act for the
execution of the same but nevertheless the crime was not produced by reason of the fact that the act intended
was by its nature one of impossible accomplishment or because the means employed by such person are
essentially inadequate to produce the result desired by him, the court, having in mind the social danger and
the degree of criminality shown by the offender, shall impose upon him the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine
ranging from 200 to 500 pesos.
 The Court held that it would not have been impossible for the appellant to
consummate his crime of ESTAFA thru FALSIFICATION of the said ticket if Bayani
Miller, the PCSO clerk whom the ticket was presented to, had not exercised due
care.

4. RPC 166 imposes a penalty reclusion temporal and a fine not exceeding P10,000 for
the felony of falsification of treasury or bank notes or certificates or other
obligations and securities of the United States or the Philippine Islands.

This being a COMPLEX CRIME of ATTEMPTED ESTAFA through FALSIFICAITON of

an OBLIGATION of the Philippine Islands, the penalty should be imposed in its
MAXIMUM PERIOD in accordance with RPC 483.

There is however, a MITIGATING circumstance of LACK OF INSTRUCTION (appellant

is illiterate) and applying the IDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW, the minimum
cannot be lower than prision mayor in its maximum period, which is 10 years and 1
day to 12 years.

Therefore, the lower court imposed the correct penalty.

RULING (OZAETA, J.): the Court noted that the alteration or destruction of a losing
sweepstakes ticket could cause no harm to anyone and would not constitute a crime
were it not for the attempt to cash in the same.

The appellants real offense was the attempt to commit estafa, with a punishment of
arresto menor. But technically and legally, he has to suffer for the crime of falsification
of a government object.

The Court was of the opinion that indeed, the penalty imposed upon the appellant was
too severe, but that they have no discretion to impose a lower penalty than that
prescribed by the law.

The sentenced appealed from is AFFIRMED.

3 RPC 48. Penalty for complex crimes When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies,
or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime
shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.