Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
G.R. No. 139857 September 15, 2006 In all cases, accused did then and there release Petitioner moved for reconsideration but CA
to herself the same and received the loans and denied it.
Criminal case: Falsification of private thereafter misappropriated and converted
documents and Estafa them into her own use and benefit. Also in all Petitioner brought it up to the Supreme Court
cases, she refused to bring back the same (SC) and contended that:
FACTS: Petitioner Leonila Batulanon was despite demands.
employed as cashier/manager of Polomok 1. Best witness is person whose signature is
(Polomok) Credit Cooperative Inc. from May These informations were filed in the Regional forged
1980 up to December 1982 (so thats two Trial Court of General Santos City. Petitioner
years). She was in charge with the receiving of pleaded not guilty. 2. Requires prejudice to 3rd person
deposits and releasing loans to members of the
said cooperative (Polomok). Prosecution presented its witnesses: 3. PCCI not prejudiced by loan transactions
because loans are accounts receivable by
During an audit conducted in December 1982, Modallo (posting clerk) testified that cooperative
certain irregularities were found out. Batulanon released 4 cash vouchers. He also
Thereafter, four informations of estafa through said that Omadlao, Oracion and Batulanon HELD:
were not eligible and not members of Polomok
SC: Petition lacks merit. SC ruled that 1st, 2nd, and 3rd criminal cases words written thereon, thus changing its
herein fall within the purview of falsification of meaning and attributing to the person who
Although the offense charged is estafa through private documents but the 4th criminal case caused the preparation of the same,
falsification of commercial documents, (with Dennis Batulanon) falls within the ambit statements other than those in fact made by
appellant could be convicted of falsification of of the crime of estafa. The latter having no him; that the falsification and alteration were
private documents. untruthful statements but there was conversion committed for the purpose of converting the
and misappropriation; hence elements of Temporary Status of his appointment to a
Elements of falsification of private document estafa are present in the last criminal case. Permanent Status, and which accused
are present in this case: succeeded by having said falsified appointment
Republic of the Philippines paper attested by the Civil Service Commission
1. She made it appear that Omadlao, Oracion, SUPREME COURT in Manila without the knowledge of the Civil
and Arroyo were granted loans Manila Service Commission, Region XII, who has the
jurisdiction and authority to attest
2. She made it in private document appointments under Region XII. 2
EN BANC
****(cash/check vouchers are not public
documents because they are not notarized and G.R. No. 68203 September 13, 1989 petitioner appealed to this Court, after his
not documents used by merchants to promote motion for reconsideration was denied.
trade nor regulated by Code of commerce) METUROGAN L. SAREP, petitioner,
vs. On 19 January 1976, Director Kundo Pahm of
3. It caused damage to the cooperative. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, respondent. the Bureau of Soils, Region XII, extended an
appointment in favor of Meturogen L. Sarep
Regarding best witness SC cites sec. 22 of (herein petitioner) to the position of Soil
PADILLA, J.:
Rule 132 according to this rule handwriting Technologist II (Exh. "C"). After signing the
may be proved by any person who believes it appointment paper, Pahm noticed an error in
to be belonging to such person; or who FACTS: Petitioner, Meturogan L. Sarep, appeals the item on civil service eligibility. The entry
acquired knowledge of such handwriting from the decision 1 of the Sandiganbayan. That therein read "First Grade Unassembled" instead
on or about December 30, 1977, or sometime of "Unassembled Examination" which was the
Regarding prejudice to Polomok such loans prior thereto, in the City of Cotabato, appropriate eligibility for the position of Soil
could have granted to other members but Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Technologist; whereupon, Director Pahm called
werent because of illegal acts done by Honorable Court, the said accused being then the attention of the acting personnel officer,
Batulanon such constituted damage or employed as Soil Technologist II under the Usman Salic, to the error and directed him to
prejudice to Polomok Bureau of Soils, Region XII, Cotabato City, with prepare another appointment paper (Exh. "B")
a Temporary Appointment,did then and there which Pahm signed after noting the correction
On complex crime of estafa through wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously take without made by the personnel officer. The
falsification: permission from the records of said Office the appointment was approved by the Assistant
appointment paper proposed in his name Regional Director of the Civil Service
Falsification committed as means to commit dated January 19, 1976, which appointment Commission (CSC) as "temporary."
estafa paper was replaced due to an incorrect entry,
by another one bearing the same date; and
Estafa may be carried out even without It was ruled that there can be no conviction for
theaccused once in possession of
falsification falsification of a public document in the
said appointment paper, did then and
absence of proof that the defendant
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
change, alter and falsify the date, figures and
maliciously perverted the truth with wrongful appropriate eligibility. We agree with the with the wrongful intent of injuring some
intent of injuring third person. 6 respondent court that "(I)t is falsification, and person (People vs. Reyes, 1 Phil. 341). Since he
not a correction, which the law punishes sincerely believed that his CSC eligibility based
Finally, petitioner invokes good faith in his (People vs. Mateo, 25 Phil. 324; Arriola vs. on his having passed the Regional Cultural
defense. He claims that after the personnel Republic, 103 Phil. 730)." Likewise, "(I)n the Community Officer (Unassembled) Examination
officer handed him the questioned document, falsification of public or official documents, and educational attainment were sufficient to
which bore the erasures and alterations as well whether by public officials or by private qualify him for a permanent position, then he
as the Director's signature, he brought it to the persons, it is not necessary that there be should only be held liable for falsification
Civil Service Commission in Manila upon present the idea of gain or the intent to injure a through reckless imprudence (People vs.
suggestion and with the permission of the third person, for the reason that, in Leopando, 36 O.G. 2937, People vs. Maleza, 14
personnel officer. contradiction to private documents, the Phil. 468; People vs. Pacheco, 18 Phil. 399).
principal thing punished is the violation of the
public faith and the destruction of the truth as HELD: The Court finds no reversible error in
The Court does not accept petitioner's defense
therein solemnly proclaimed (Decision of the the Sandiganbayan's decision finding
of good faith. He admitted that he knew that
Supreme Court of Spain of December 23, 1885, petitioner, Meturogan L. Sarep, guilty of the
Director Pahm was not only uninclined to
cited in People vs. Pacana, 47 Phil. 56)." 9 crime of falsification of public document
extend him a permanent appointment due to
his lack of civil service eligibility but he also did through reckless imprudence. However, the
not authorize him (Sarep) to follow up his Since petitioner is the only person who stood to penalty imposed should be imprisonment of
appointment with the Civil Service Commission benefit by the falsification of the document THREE MONTHS AND ONE DAY TO ONE YEAR,
in Manila. More importantly, he knew that if the that was found in his possession, it is SEVEN MONTHS AND TEN DAYS, instead of
falsified document had been presented before presumed that he is the material author of the imprisonment of THREE MONTHS under the
the CSC Regional Office, it would have surely falsification. Petitioner has failed to convince appealed decision, since the period of the
been attested as temporary only. Hence, he the Court that a person other than himself penalty imposed, i.e., arresto mayor in its
purposely avoided filing the appointment paper made the erasures, alterations and maximum period to prision correccional in its
with the CSC Regional Office, which is the superimpositions on the questioned medium period is four months and one day to
practice and standard procedure in the regional appointment paper (Exh. "C"). four years and two months reduced by
office of the Bureau of Soils and, instead, appreciating the mitigating circumstance of
personally brought it to Manila where somehow The Sandiganbayan in qualifying the offense voluntary surrender and applying the
he was able to have it stamped approved as and arriving at the penalty imposed on the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
permanent. petitioner held:
The Court also rejects Sarep's argument that We are inclined, however, to credit the accused
there is no falsification, as the alleged falsified herein with the benefit of the circumstance
document bears the correct item number and that he did not maliciously pervert the truth