]=]DECISION

On the basis of the affidavit-complaint of Ulysses Alcala

Barriga, the Office of the City Prosecutor, Davao City, an information
for the crime of Falsification of Public Document under Article 171
(1) in relation to article 172 of the Revised Penal Code was filed
against Rodel Cavite Birador and Edgardo Platino Cubar. Specifically,
the complaint alleged that they conspired with each other. Birador
allegedly made a fake Postal ID through his computer and Cubar
was the fixer. The indicting information alleged as follows:

That..

CONTRARY TO LAW.

When arraigned, both Birador and Cubar, assisted by their

respective counsels, pleaded not guilty to the above charge. Pre-
trial and trial then ensued.

Version of the Prosecution

The prosecution presented three (3) witnesses.

The first witness who took the witness stand was SP01
Ronilo Tirasol on November 7, 2007. He testified that he knew
the two accused because he apprehended them on the basis
of a complaint from the Postal Office.
He further declared that on February 12, 2007 at about 2
oclock in the afternoon, Ulysses Barriga, desk manager of the
Philippine Postal Corp., together with Consolacion Uy, went to
the police station and reported the existence of a person
making fake postal ID at Diaz Mall. After receiving the report,
together with Richard Jacolina Piedad, they formed a team and
prepared marked money amounting to Two Hundred Fifty
(P250.00) Pesos with the following denominations: two (2)
pcs. one hundred peso bill and one (1) pc. fifty peso bill.
Along with the other police officers, they all proceeded
to Diaz Mall. They followed Mrs. Consolacion Uy to where she
was going because she was about to start her transaction with
Cubar. He testified:
PROS. MASTURA:
 xxx xxx xxx
Q: While you were there at Diaz Mall, what did you do?
A: I was beside Consolacion Uy.
Q: What was Consolacion Uy doing?
A: He approached Cubar.
Q: What did she do to Cubar if any?
A: They were transacting to make a Postal ID for her.
PROS. MASTURA:
Q: Want did Cubar do?
A: After they were talking about it, Cubar who was just
on the seat walked and he went inside the Diaz Mall and he
was followed by PO2 Piedad.
COURT:
And you remained outside?
A: Beside Consolacion Uy, yes.
Q: In other words you did not know what transpired
inside the mall because you were just outside; you did not
know anything wha was going on inside the Diaz Mall, all these
things referred to you by Piedad?
A: Yes sir;
Q: And what did you do?
A: After a few minutes when Cubar returned, he was
bringing the ID, he gave it to Consolacion Uy.
Q: What did you do next?
A: When Mr. Cubar gave the ID to Mrs. Consolacion Uy,
after Mr. Cubar received the marked money I went near to
them I introduced myself and announced arrest and I
confiscated the marked money including the ID.
Q: You confiscated the ID from the possession of Mr.
Cubar, in other words, when you confiscated the ID it was not
yet given to Mrs. Uy?
 A; When Cubar gave the ID, I got the money from Mr.
Cubar and the ID from Consolacion Uy. (TSN, Nov. 7, 2007,
pp. 9-10)
xxx xxx xxx
After the arrest of Cubar, SPO1 Tirasol brought him to
the stall of Birador and confiscated a computer thereat. Tirasol
testified further that 10 minutes had passed from the time the
entrapment occured outside the Diaz Mall up to the time the
computer was confiscated. After the said confiscation, they
went to San Pedro Police Station to blotter the incident. After
which, Tirasol turned over the marked money as well as the
computer to the duty desk officer Junio who in turn lent the
same to the property custodian, PO2 Gerardo Mendoza.
The second witness who took the witness stand was
Ulysses Barriga. On December 2, 2008, he identified the
pictures of Cubar and Birador. He testified that he
accompanied Mrs. Uy to San Pedro Police Station, leading to
the arrest of the two accused. He also testified that he knew
the fake Postal ID because of its security features. He
identified the certification issued by the Regional Director of
the Philippine Postal Corporation, stating that the Postal ID
issued to Consolacion Uy was fake. He declared that he used
his own money as marked money for the entrapment
operation. Likewise, he contended that the police officers
arrested the accused because they illegally reproduced a fake
postal ID. When asked if there were other operators who
made fake IDs whom they had arrested before, he answered
in the affirmative. He explained that these operators were
arrested in 2006 and that they also filed a case against the
said operators.
During cross-examination conducted on July 29, 2009, he
testified that he was outside Diaz Mall when the fake postal ID
was made. It was Cubar who went inside Diaz Mall and it was
also the latter who lent the fake ID to Mrs. Uy, which led to his
arrest. He also maintained that he did not personally see
Birador make the fake ID. When asked if he saw any entries on
the fake ID, he stated that there is none because when Cubar
gave the finished card to Mrs. Uy, the police authorities
immediately apprehended him. He also stated that there was
no signature found in the postal ID which was allegedly forged.
 The third prosecutions witness who took the witness
stand was Ms. Concepcion Lara on February 11, 2011. She
testified that one of her duties and responsibilities is to sign
and approved Postal IDs, including the monitoring and
processing the same to the Central Office. She also testified
that the Postal IDs could be used in any transaction, not only
in the Philippines but also in other countries. She testified that
the signature found at the back portion of the fake ID is not
her signature and according to her it was forged. She also
presented in court the genuine Postal ID and showed the
difference between the fake ones using the Ultra Violet Lamp.
She showed in Court the genuine postal ID using the ultra
violet lamp in which the logo with the security features and
series of numbers at the upper portion light ups. When the
fake Postal ID was put in the Ultra Violet Lamp all its features
did not light up. She also explained the importance of a Postal
ID and stated that there are no other offices who issue a
postal ID except the Philippine Postal Corporation. As such, she
wanted to protect the integrity of the said office.

During cross-examination, the witness testified that there

is a substantial difference between the two allegedly fake
postal ID and the genuine ones. However, she further stated
that she never saw the accused Birador in the computer
preparing the fake ID.

The fourth prosecutions witness who took the witness

stand was Consolacion Uy on March 29, 2012. She identified
Cubar through his picture attached to the record, to which she
gave the marked money amounting to two hundred fifty
(P250.00) pesos. She also identified the fake postal ID, which
she applied for, leading to the apprehension of Cubar. She also
stated that she does not know Birador who is the co-accused
of Cubar in this case.

During cross examination, defense counsel Atty. Celestial

asked Mrs. Uy if she had any proof of authority that Mr. Cubar
worked with Philippine Postal Corporation and she said no. She
added that she never went inside Diaz Mall because the
transaction was between her and Cubar only.
 Version of the Defense

In his defense, Birador denied having anything to do with the

alleged falsification.

Defense witness Rodel C. Birador testified in court on

August 22, 2013 and he identified his Judicial Affidavit
executed on February 28, 2013.

During cross-examination conducted on March 12, 2015,

the witness explained that he was a computer technician since
2005. He declared that as computer technician, he only
troubleshoots the hardware and installs software to his clients
computer. He disclosed that he does not know how to make
an Identification Card (ID). He further stated that he was
familiar with Cubar because he saw the latter every time he
goes to Diaz Mall to fix the computers of his client. He
acknowledged that he noticed a commotion outside the FBS
shop. Later on, he was also arrested and brought to the police
station.

During re-direct examination, the witness testified that in

2007 he was a free lancer or on call basis when he was
arrested together with Cubar on February 12, 2007. During
the time that he was arrested, he was troubleshooting the
hardware of the computer at FBS print shop.

He further testified that nobody outside the shop could

see what he was doing in front of the computer because the
door was half closed. Aside from that, the monitor of the
computer was in front of him. He revealed that even if
somebody entered the shop, then the latter could not see the
front portion of the computer. After a while, he came to know
that Cubar was arrested and the marked monies consisting of
(2) two, one hundred-peso bill and (1) one, fifty-peso bill were
found in the latters possession.
 The Ruling of the Court

At the outset, the instant case was dismissed as to accused

Cubar only in view of his demise. (Order dated September 5, 2013)
Considering that criminal and civil liability is extinguished when the
offender dies before final judgment pursuant to Article 89 of the
Revised Penal Code, then there is no more need to discuss any
accountability of accused Cubar.

Art. 171 (1) of the RPC provides as follows:

ART. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee: or

notary or ecclesiastical minister. - The penalty of prision mayor and
a fine not to exceed 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public
officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official
position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the following
acts:

1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature, or

rubric;

xxx xxx xxx

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 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;

xxx xxx xxx

 The elements of the crime of falsification of public documents,
as above defined and penalized, are:

1. That the offender is a private individual or a public officer

or employee who did not take advantage of his official
position.
2. That he committed any of the acts of falsification
enumerated in Art. 171.
3. That the falsification was committed in public or official or
commercial document.

On February 12, 2007, at about 2:30 P.M., an entrapment

operation was conducted by the San Pedro Police Station involving
the preparation of a falsified Postal ID as reported by the witness
Consolacion Uy. According to the prosecution, both accused were
caught in conspiracy with each other, falsifying a Postal ID.

Contrary to the conclusions of the prosecution, the court finds

no evidence to link accused Birador to the alleged commission of
the said crime. To begin with, not one of the witnesses pointed to
Birador as the maker of the falsified document. Likewise, the
records are bereft of any showing as how the particular acts of
Birador figured into the common design of falsifying the public
document. Hence, even the prosecutions theory of conspiracy does
not deserve any merit.

It therefore appears that there is no direct evidence showing

his participation in the falsification of a Philippine Postal Corporation
Identification Card. That is why the prosecution depended on
circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of accused Birador.

Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral facts

and circumstances from which the main fact in issue may be
inferred based on reason and common experience (People vs.
Ibanez, G.R. No. 191752, June 10, 2013, 698 SCRA 161, 176) it is
sufficient for conviction if: (a) there is more than one circumstance;
(b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
(c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt. To uphold a conviction based
on circumstantial evidence, it is essential that the circumstantial
evidence presented must constitute an unbroken chain which leads
one to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to
the exclusion of the others, as the guilty person. Stated differently,
the test to determine whether or not the circumstantial evidence on
record is sufficient to convict the accused is that series of
circumstances duly proven must be consistent with each other and
that each and every circumstance must be consistent with each
other and that each and every circumstance must be consistent with
the accuseds guilt and inconsistent with his innocence. (People vs.
Lamsen, G.R. No. 198338, February 20, 2013, 691 SCRA 498, 507)

Applying these principles to the facts that appear on record,

the Court finds that no sufficient circumstantial evidence was
presented in this case to establish the elements of Falsification of
Public Document under Article 172 (1) of the RPC in relation to
Article 171 (1) of the same code, or of accuseds supposed
conspiracy therefor.

All told, the prosecution has failed to show that the

circumstances invoked constitute an unbroken chain of events which
lead to a fair and reasonable conclusion that petitioners are, to the
exclusion of the others, indeed the culprits. As such, their
conviction, tested under the threshold of proof beyond reasonable
doubt, was not warranted. To be sure, proof beyond reasonable
doubt , after investigation of the whole record, produces moral
certainty in an unprejudiced mind of the accuseds culpability.
(People vs. Bacus, G.R. No. 60388, November 21, 1991, 204 SCRA
367) Such moral certainty is, however, lacking in this case due to
the insufficiency of the circumstantial evidence presented.

The Constitution mandates that an accused shall be presumed

innocent until the contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The
burden lies on the prosecution to overcome such presumption of
innocence, failing which, the presumption of innocence prevails and
the accused should be acquitted. (People vs. Alejandro, G.R. No.
176350, August 10, 2011, 655 SCRA 279, 287) This, despite the fact
that his innocence may be doubted, for a criminal conviction rests
on the strength of the evidence of the prosecution and not on the
weakness or even absence of defense. If the inculpatory facts and
circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of
which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other
consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does no fulfill the test of
moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction, as in
this case. Courts should be guided by the principle that it would be
better to set free ten men who might be probably guilty of the crime
charged than to convict one innocent man for a crime de did not
commit (People vs. Angus, Jr., G.R. No. 178778, August 3, 2010, 626
SCRA 503, 517-518)

There being no circumstantial evidence to support a

conviction, then accused Birador should not be held liable of the
offense charged against him.

WHEREFORE, accused Rodel Birador is hereby ACQUITTED of

the crime of Falsification of Public Document on the ground of
reasonable doubt.

Further, in view of the death of accused Cubar during the

pendency of this case, he is therefore relieved of any liability
attendant to the crime charged in the information, his death
occurring before rendition of final judgment.

The bailbonds posted for their provisional liberty are

consequently cancelled and released.