Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
— The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P5,000 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;
2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding
when they did not in fact so participate;
3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements
other than those in fact made by them;
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
5. Altering true dates;
6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its
meaning;
7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an
original document when no such original exists, or including in such a copy a
statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original; or
8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a
protocol, registry, or official book.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any ecclesiastical minister who shall commit
any of the offenses enumerated in the preceding paragraphs of this article, with
respect to any record or document of such character that its falsification may affect
the civil status of persons.
Art. 172. Falsification by private individual and use of falsified documents. — The
penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not
more than P5,000 pesos 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.
SECOND DIVISION
Present:
DECISION
For a complex crime of estafa through falsification of a public document to prosper, all the
elements of both the crimes of estafa and falsification of a public document must exist. In this
case, not all the elements of the crime of falsification of a public document are
present. Consequently, petitioner can only be found guilty of estafa.
This petition for review on certiorari assails the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA)
dated March 20, 2003 in CA-G.R. CR. No. 25122 which affirmed with modification the
Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 21 in Criminal Case No.
97-156477, finding petitioner Danilo D. Ansaldo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex
crime of estafa through falsification of public/official document. Likewise assailed is the
Resolution dated July 24, 2003 which denied the Motion for Reconsideration.
Factual Antecedents
The Information against the petitioner and his wife, Rosalinda Ansaldo, contained the following
accusatory allegations:
That [on] or about February 15, 1995 or sometime prior and subsequent thereto, in the City of
Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating together, and mutually
helping each other, being private individuals, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously commit estafa thru falsification of public/official document, in the following
manner, to wit: the said accused, with intent to defraud and cause damage, forged and falsified
a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage which was subsequently notarized by Notary Public Juan N.
Domingo and entered in his Notarial Register as Doc. No. 47; Page No. 59; Book No. VI; Series of
1995 and therefore a public and/or official document, by then and there misrepresenting that
they are the real spouses Nina Z. Ramirez and Mariano Ramirez, the registered and absolute
owners of a piece of land described as TCT No. 188686 situated in Barrio Bagbagan,
Municipality ofMuntinlupa, Province of Rizal valued at P500,000.00 by signing, feigning or
simulating or causing to be signed, feigned and simulated the signatures of spouses Nia Z.
Ramirez and Mariano Z. Ramirez, thereby making it appear as it did appear that spouses Nia Z.
Ramirez & Mariano Ramirez participated and intervened in the preparation and execution of
the aforesaid Deed of Real Estate Mortgage, said accused well knowing that such was not the
case, in that said spouses did not participate and execute the same, much less signed the said
document, nor did they authorized [sic] herein accused or anybody else for that matter to sign
and affix their signatures in said document, which is an outright forgery and falsification; that
after the said Deed of Real Estate Mortgage was forged and falsified in the manner above set-
forth, accused presented the same to one Nora L. Herrera, who, believing in the authenticity
and genuineness of the same as represented to her by the said accused, gave and delivered the
mortgage consideration in the amount of P300,000.00 to the said accused, who, once in their
possession thereof, with abuse of trust and confidence and with intent to defraud, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously misappropriated, misapplied and converted the same to their own
personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of Nia Z. Ramirez in the amount
of P500,000.00, the value of the property in question.[3]
On arraignment, petitioner entered a plea of not guilty. However, his wife and co-accused,
remains at large. Thereafter, trial ensued.
Nia Z. Ramirez (Ramirez) wanted to subdivide her lot in Muntinlupa City. In 1993, her niece,
Edna Tadeo introduced the petitioner and his wife while they were inside her store in 509 Plaza
Sta. Cruz, Manila, as the people who could help with her problem. Petitioner and his wife
represented themselves as having direct connections with the Land Registration Authority (LRA)
and assured Ramirez that they could have her property subdivided. Ramirez thus entrusted to
them her owners duplicate copy of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 188686, which covered
the said lot, on condition that it would be returned after a month.This prerequisite is evidenced
by an Acknowledgment Receipt dated January 5, 1995.[4]
The one-month period agreed upon elapsed with the petitioner and his wife failing to inform
Ramirez of the status of the anticipated subdivision. Ramirez repeatedly demanded them to
return her owners duplicate title of the land to no avail. Ramirez was later surprised to find out
that the land covered by her TCT was the subject of a document in which it appeared that she
mortgaged the same to a certain Nora Herrera. The deed was even annotated at the back of the
TCT. However, Ramirez claimed that her signature in the document was a forgery. At the time
of the mortgage, there were no other persons other than the petitioner and his wife to whom
she entrusted her TCT.
Petitioner denied that he was introduced to Ramirez in 1993. He claimed that in the early
morning of January 5, 1995, he was in his house when he saw Ramirez talking to his wife. He
had no knowledge of the topic of their conversation. He later signed a piece of paper without
reading the contents thereof since Ramirez assured him that it was merely for formality. The
paper turned out to be the Acknowledgment Receipt.
Petitioner denied participation in the preparation, execution and registration of the deed of
real estate mortgage. He also denied residing at the address where Ramirez sent a demand
letter for the return of her TCT. However, he admitted that his wife was engaged in the
registration and follow-up of documents covering real property.
According to the petitioner, he went to Japan with his wife on June 7, 1998. He came home but
his wife stayed behind. Upon his arrival, he was apprehended.
On December 6, 2000, the trial court rendered a Decision convicting the petitioner of
falsification. The dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the above observations and findings, accused Danilo Ansaldo is hereby
convicted of the crime charged in the information, defined and punished under Article 172
paragraph 1 without any mitigating nor aggravating circumstances attendant in its commission,
granting the accused the benefit of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he is hereby sentenced to
suffer an indeterminate prision term from six (6) months of arresto mayor maximum as
minimum to four (4) years, two (2) months of prision correccional medium as maximum and to
pay a fine of P5,000.00 and to indemnify the complainant the sum of P300,000.00 representing
the amount received by the Ansaldos in mortgaging the property.
Accused Danilo Ansaldo shall be credited with the full extent of his preventive imprisonment
under Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code. The bond posted for his provisional liberty is hereby
cancelled.
Danilo Ansaldos body is hereby committed to the custody of the Director of the Bureau of
Corrections, National Penitentiary, Muntinlupa City through the City Jail Warden of Manila.
The charge against Rosalinda Ansaldo is hereby archived to be brought back to the active
calendar of the court upon her apprehension. Let warrant of arrest be issued for that purpose.
The complainant is hereby ordered to pay the docket fee corresponding to the civil damages
awarded.
SO ORDERED.[5]
In finding petitioner guilty of falsification, the trial court noted that no other person was in
possession of the TCT prior to the falsification other than petitioner and his wife. Based
thereon, the court a quo concluded that petitioner and his wife were the ones who mortgaged
the property by pretending to be the spouses Ramirez.
Petitioner appealed his conviction to the CA which affirmed with modification the Decision of
the RTC. The appellate court found petitioner guilty of the complex crime of estafa thru
falsification of a public document. The dispositive portion reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the court a quo finding accused-appellant guilty of the crime
of Estafa through Falsification of a Public Document and ordering him to pay the fine in the
amount of P5,000.00 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as to the penalty imposed
upon him. Accordingly, there being no mitigating or aggravating circumstance to consider,
accused-appellant is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years, two
(2) months and one (1) day of Prision Correccional maximum as Minimum, to ten (10) years
of Prision Mayor medium as Maximum. He is further ordered to cause the release/discharge of
the mortgage constituted on the property in the amount of P300,000.00 and return to private
complainant Transfer Certificate of Title No. 188686 free from liens and encumbrances. No
costs.
SO ORDERED.[6]
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but it was denied by the CA in its
Resolution[7] dated July 24, 2003.
Issues
1.) Whether x x x the trial courts ruling, as affirmed by [the] court a quo erroneously applied the
legal presumption that the possessor or user of a forged document is the author of the
forgery in arriving at its findings that the petitioner (and his wife) committed the complex crime
of Estafa by the act of falsifying the subject Deed of Real Estate Mortgage.
2.) Whether x x x the court a quo, seriously erred in affirming [the] trial courts ruling which
accorded probative value to a mere certified true copy of a document entitled Deed of Real
Estate Mortgage in support of the latters factual conclusion that the signatures respectively
written above the printed names of Nia Z. Ramirez and that of her husband (which appear
therein as the parties-mortgagors) were forged.
3.) Whether x x x the court a quo committed serious error in its assailed Decision in affirming
the factual findings and rulings of the trial court, and in further modifying the latters decision
by increasing the original sentence from an imprisonment of six (6) months of arresto mayor
maximum as minimum to four (4) years two (2) months of prision correctional medium as
maximum to a longer prison term of [four] (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day
ofPrision Correctional maximum as Minimum, to ten (10) years of Prision Mayor medium as
Maximum (and also in further ordering the petitioner to cause the release/discharge of the
mortgage constituted on the property in the amount ofP300,000.00 and to return to private
complainant Transfer Certificate of Title No. 188686 free from liens and encumbrances)
declaring the conviction of the petitioner for complex crime of Estafa through Falsification of a
Public Document despite the fact that the appealed decision of the trial court clearly shows that
the petitioner was found guilty of committing only the simple crime of Falsification of a Public
Document penalized under paragraph 1 of Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code.
4.) Whether x x x the court a quo has departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial
proceedings, or so far sanctioned such departure by the trial court, as to call for an exercise of
the power of supervision, when it -- failed to carefully evaluate and weigh the evidence
presented by prosecution which clearly does not support the judgment of conviction against
the petitioner; -- overlooked certain facts of substance and value that, if properly considered,
would certainly affect the outcome of the case; -- based its findings on misapprehension of
facts, from erroneous inferences, and surmises or conjectures; and -- rendered its rulings
contrary to law, the rules on evidence, and existing jurisprudence in violation of the petitioners
constitutional rights to due process and to be presumed innocent.
5.) Whether x x x the court a quo has also departed from the accepted and usual course of
judicial proceedings when it failed to squarely resolve or pass upon each and every assignment
of error and properly consider supporting arguments set forth by the petitioner herein in
his Appellants Brief, as well as the specific grounds and corresponding arguments set forth in
his Motion for Reconsideration.[8]
Our Ruling
For petitioner to be convicted of the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public
document committed in the manner described in the Information, all the elements of the two
crimes of estafa and falsification of public document must exist.[9]
To secure a conviction for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC), the following requisites must concur:
(1) The accused made false pretenses or fraudulent representations as to his power,
influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions;
(2) The false pretenses or fraudulent representations were made prior to or simultaneous
with the commission of the fraud;
(3) The false pretenses or fraudulent representations constitute the very cause which
induced the offended party to part with his money or property;
It is undisputed that petitioner committed estafa. He and his wife falsely represented to
Ramirez that they had the influence and capability to cause the subdivision of the lot. In view of
said false representation, Ramirez was induced to part with the owners copy of her TCT on the
condition that the same would be returned after a month as evidenced by the Acknowledgment
Receipt.
However, petitioner and his wife never complied with their obligations. It is also on record that
Ramirez made a formal demand for the return of the TCT but petitioner and his wife failed to
comply. Their failure to return the said title despite demand is evidence of deceit that resulted
in damages to Ramirez. It was also established that the property covered by TCT No. 188686
was eventually mortgaged for P300,000.00 to a third person without the knowledge and
consent of Ramirez.
The following testimony of Ramirez clearly established that petitioner falsely represented that
he has the capacity to cause the subdivision of the property; that false pretenses induced her
(Ramirez) to entrust her TCT to petitioner; and that as a result thereof, Ramirez suffered
damage to the extent of P300,000.00, thus:
Q Tell us when did you come to meet both Rosalinda and Danilo Ansaldo?
A In 1993.
Q Did you not elaborate to them the kind of problem you [were] having with the lot?
A If they can help me subdivide my lot in Muntinlupa with title no. 188686.
PROS GLORIOSO:
Witness producing a certified Xerox copy of Transfer Certificate of Title 188686 in the name of
Nia Ramirez which we request that this be marked Exhibit B, the second page Exhibit B-1.
COURT:
Mark them.
PROS GLORIOSO:
Q Did you believe in their representations?
A Yes, sir, because of their good words.
Q In other words you are telling us there [were] so many things that transpired before you
finally surrendered to them the title?
A Yes, sir.
Q How long [after . . .] from that first meeting up to the time that you gave the title to them?
A About two years.
Q Why do you say that it was on January 5, 1995 that this original copy was given to them?
A They signed an acknowledgement receipt
(witness producing a document and handing the same to the prosecutor).
PROS GLORIOSO:
Witness producing a receipt which she handed to this representation.
Q There are signatures appearing at the bottom portion like received by a certain Ansaldo who
is this?
A Rosalinda Ansaldo.
Q And there is another signature contained on the left portion whose is this?
A Danilo Ansaldo.
Petitioner did not deny his signature on the Acknowledgement Receipt.[12] On the contrary he
claimed that he merely affixed his signature without reading the contents thereof[13] and that
he did not bother to inquire from his wife the contents of the Acknowledgement
Receipt,[14] which we find not worthy of credence. However, he admitted that his wife was
engaged in facilitating the registration of documents involving real property.[15]
On the other hand, we find that we cannot convict petitioner of the crime of falsification of a
public document penalized under Article 172 of the RPC. The following requisites must concur,
to wit:
(1) That the offender is a private individual or a public officer or employee who took
advantage of his official position;
(2) That he committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated in article 171 of the
Revised Penal Code (which in this case involves forging a signature);
(3) That the falsification was committed in a public or official or commercial document.[16]
Q How did you come to know that the property was mortgaged?
A A woman came to me named Lina Santos and showed me the document, a mortgage
document.
Q Before this Lina Santos came to you were you not bothered when they did not return to you
your title after one month?
A At first I was not bothered because we have an agreement but I [got] worried when
this Lina Santos came to me.
Q What proof can you show us that this lot was mortgaged instead of subdivided as promised
by the accused?
A There is an entry at the back an encumbrance.
PROS GLORIOSO:
We request that this be encircled and marked Exhibit B-2.
COURT:
Mark it.
PROS GLORIOSO:
Q What else aside from this encumbrance?
A Real estate mortgage document.
PROS GLORIOSO:
Witness producing a real estate mortgage consisting of four pages which we request to be
marked Exhibits D, D-1, D-2 and D-3, wherein the mortgagors are the spouses Nia Ramirez and
Mariano Ramirez and the mortgagee is one Nora Herrera.
COURT:
Mark them.
PROS GLORIOSO:
Q I noticed that this Exhibit D-2 signatures appearing atop the typewritten name Nia Ramirez
will you tell us whose signature is that?
A I do not know but this is not my signature.
Q What about the signature appearing atop the typewritten name Mariano Ramirez whose
signature is that?
A I do not know but definitely this is not the signature of my husband.
Q You deny these are your signatures, will you please show to us your actual signature?
A (Witness signing on a piece of paper handed to her by the prosecutor.)[18]
Q And due to the alleged failure of both accused to deliver to you the subdivision of the lot that
was the time that you made an inquiry and found out that your lot was already mortgaged, is it
not?
A A woman informed me about it.
Q After informing you what you did was to verify your title at the office of the Register of
Deeds, is it not?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you found out that your lot was actually mortgaged?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you secure a copy, - and [did] you know from that very moment the name in whose favor
your lot was mortgaged?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you noticed the residence of the person in whose favor your lot was mortgaged?
A Yes, sir.
Q The name of the mortgagee was a certain Nora Herrera?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did it not occur to your mind to do that in order to tell Nora Herrera that [you were] not the
person who mortgaged the land in her favor?
A Nora Herrera was already informed by somebody that I was not the same person who
mortgaged the lot to her.
Q From the date you discovered that the lot was already mortgaged to Nora Herrera did you
see personally Nora Herrera?
A No, sir, no more.[19]
Based on the foregoing, we cannot conclude beyond reasonable doubt that it was petitioner
and his wife who committed the forgery. In the first place, Lina Santos (Santos) was not
presented to corroborate the testimony of Ramirez that she was the one who informed the
latter regarding the mortgage or she could shed light on the circumstances leading to her
alleged discovery that the subject property had been mortgaged. Moreover, as narrated by
Ramirez, Santos did not categorically point to herein petitioner as the author of the forgery. If
at all, Santos only claimed that the property of Ramirez had been mortgaged but did not
mention the personalities involved therein. Likewise, the failure to present the so-called
mortgagee, Nora Herrera, casts doubt as to the participation of the petitioner in the execution
of the mortgage instrument. Undoubtedly, Nora Herrera could have testified on the persons
she dealt with relative to the mortgage.
The denial of Ramirez that she affixed her signature on the Deed of mortgage does not prove
that it was petitioner and his wife who signed in her behalf. Neither could it be considered as
proof that petitioner, together with his wife, falsely represented themselves as the spouses
Ramirez.
For committing the offense of estafa against Ramirez, the petitioner must be penalized in the
manner provided by law. In this regard, Article 315 of the RPC states that the penalty
of prisioncorreccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period shall be
imposed if the amount of the fraud is over P12,000.00 but does not exceed P22,000.00. Should
the amount exceed the latter sum, the penalty provided shall be imposed in its maximum
period, adding one year for each additional P10,000.00. However, the total penalty that may be
imposed should not exceed 20 years. In such cases, the penalty shall be referred to
as prision mayor or reclusion temporal.
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL), whenever an offense is punished by the RPC or its
amendments, the accused shall be sentenced by the court to an indeterminate penalty, the
maximum term of which, in view of the attending circumstances, can properly be imposed
under the RPC, while the minimum term of which shall be within the range of the penalty next
lower to that prescribed for the offense.
The amount defrauded in this case is P300,000.00 which is the mortgage amount. Thus, the
maximum imposable penalty shall be 20 years of reclusion temporal. Applying the ISL, the
minimum penalty is prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods with a range of six
(6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months.
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals
is MODIFIED. Petitioner Danilo D. Ansaldo is hereby found guilty of the crime of estafa and is
sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months
of prision correccional as minimum to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal as maximum.
SO ORDERED.
SECOND DIVISION
BIENVENIDO GONZALUDO, G.R. No. 150910
Petitioner,
Present:
PUNO, J., Chairperson,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CORONA,
- versus - AZCUNA, and
GARCIA, JJ.
Promulgated:
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
GARCIA, J.:
Under consideration is this petition for review on certiorari under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court to nullify and set aside the following issuances of
the Court of Appeals (CA) inCA-G.R. CR No. 22185, to wit:
1. Decision dated 19 July 2001,[1] dismissing the appeal thereto taken by the
herein petitioner from a judgment of conviction promulgated by the
Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City, Branch 50, in a criminal case for
estafa thru falsification of public document thereat commenced by the
People against four (4) accused, including the petitioner; and
Before his death in 1992, one Ulysses Villaflor was a member of the
Bacolod City Police Office. On January 11, 1978, Ulysses married Anita
Manlangit in Bacolod City.Thereafter, the couple stayed with Ulyssess
mother Anastacia Tobongbanua at the latters house at Purok 5,
Mansungay, Bacolod City.
After due proceedings, the trial court, in a decision dated February 17,
1998, acquitted the Canlas spouses but convicted petitioner of the complex
[5]
The case with respect to the accused-Spouses Gregg and Melba Canlas is
ordered dismissed as their guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
SO ORDERED.
I xxx sustained the decision of the trial court convicting the petitioner of the crime
of Estafa thru Falsification of Public Document as defined and punished under
Paragraph 2(a), Article 315, Revised Penal Code EVEN IF not any of the
statutory elements of the crime herein charged is present or has been proved
and/or not all of the statutory elements of the offense thus charged are present
or have been proved beyond reasonable doubt;
III xxx sustained the conviction of herein petitioner of a crime not properly charged
in the information;
IV xxx grossly misappreciated the facts and misapplied the law and jurisprudence
concerning the status of the house subject of this case as to whether the same
is totally a conjugal property of Ulysses and Anita or the house wholly or
substantially belongs to Rosemarie Gelogo a.k.a. Rosemarie G. Villaflor.
There is no question that the first, second and fourth elements are
present: there was false or fraudulent misrepresentation by Rosemarie
Gelogo when she used the fictitious surname Villaflor; the misrepresentation
or false pretense was made prior to or simultaneous with the commission of
the fraud; and private complainant Anita Manlangits right to the subject 2-
storey house was lost or at the very least prejudiced when Rosemarie sold it
to the Canlases.
Thirty (30) years thereafter, the rule remains the same. In the 1933
case of People vs. Lilius,[9] the Court, through then Chief Justice Ramon
Avancea, acquitted the accused of estafa because the deceit did not precede
the defraudation, which means that the deceit was not the cause which could
have induced the damage or prejudice to or loss of property suffered by the
injured party.
We find no cogent reason to depart from this settled principle that the
deceit, which must be prior to or simultaneously committed with the act of
defraudation, must be theefficient cause or primary consideration
which induced the offended party to part with his money or
property and rule differently in the present case.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
* FIRST DIVISION.
434
434
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Eugenio vs. People
case, the tainted confession obtained in violation of Section 12(1),
Article III of the Constitution is inadmissible in evidence against the accused.
Here, petitioner merely alleges that following her arrest, she gave a
“statement” to the NBI agents. The records do not contain a copy of this
“statement” thus we have no way of knowing whether such statement
amounts to a confession under Section 12(3) in relation to Section 12(1),
Article III of the Constitution. At any rate, no allegation has been made here
that the prosecution submitted such statement in evidence during the trial.
Criminal Law; Estafa thru Falsification of Public Document; Modes;
Estafa is generally committed when (a) the accused defrauded another by
abuse of confidence, or by means of deceit and (b) the offended party or a
third party suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation.—
To hold petitioner liable for the complex crime of Estafa thru Falsification of
a Public Document, the prosecution must show that she committed Estafa
thru any of the modes of committing Falsification. Under Article 171 of the
Revised Penal Code, Falsification is committed under any of the following
modes: (1) Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric;
(2) Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or
proceeding when they did not in fact so participate; (3) Attributing to persons
who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than those
in fact made by them; (4) Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
(5) Altering true dates; (6) Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine
document which changes its meaning; (7) Issuing in an authenticated form
a document purporting to be a copy of an original document when no such
original exists, or including in such copy a statement contrary to, or different
from, that of the genuine original; or (8) Intercalating any instrument or note
relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry or official book. On the
other hand, Estafa is generally committed when (a) the accused defrauded
another by abuse of confidence, or by means of deceit and (b) the offended
party or a third party suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary
estimation.
Same; Same; Conspiracy; Presumption of Innocence; The presence
of a reasonable doubt as to the existence of conspiracy suffices to negate
not only the participation of the accused in the commission of the offense as
principal but also, in the absence of proof implicating the accused as
accessory or accomplice, the criminal liability of the
435
436
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Eugenio vs. People
and the other her guilt, the inference for her innocence must prevail,
consistent with the Constitutional presumption of her innocence.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the
Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
U.P. Office of Legal Aid for petitioner.
The Solicitor General for respondent.
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
We set aside the Court of Appeals’ ruling and acquit petitioner of the
charges against her on the ground of reasonable doubt.
On the Alleged Irregularities Attending
Petitioner’s Arrest and Custodial Investigation
9 Id., at p. 26.
445
448
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Eugenio vs. People
as to the existence of conspiracy suffices to negate not only the
participation of the accused in the commission of the offense as principal but
also, in the absence of proof implicating the accused as accessory or
accomplice, the criminal liability of the accused.16
Here, petitioner’s acts which the lower courts considered as
constitutive of her complicity in the supposed plot to swindle Mangali
consisted of the following: (1) petitioner was the one who brought Saquitan,
Ty, and Ablaza to Mangali; (2) petitioner was present in all the occasions
Mangali met Saquitan, Ty, and Ablaza; (3) petitioner confirmed that TCT No.
171602 was registered with the Register of Deeds of Manila when in fact it
was already cancelled; and (4) the real “Epifania Saquitan” denied
mortgaging the Sta. Ana property to Mangali. By themselves, these
circumstances can plausibly pass muster to prove petitioner’s involvement
in a plan among the accused to swindle Mangali.
However, when petitioner’s side is considered, taking into account
admitted facts and unrebutted claims, her participation in the events leading
to her arrest is cast in an entirely new light raising reasonable doubt as to
her culpability. These facts and unrefuted claims are: (1) petitioner works for
Mangali, on commission basis, in the latter’s check re-discounting and
lending businesses17 and (2) the Civil Register of Manila certified as true
copy the photocopy of TCT No. 171602 that Saquitan gave petitioner.
As Mangali’s agent, petitioner is obliged to bring prospective borrowers
to Mangali; otherwise, she will not earn commissions. This also explains why
she was present in all the
_______________
16 See People v. Quinao, 336 Phil. 475; 269 SCRA 495 (1997).
17 Mangali initially denied that petitioner brokered check rediscounting
deals for him but he acknowledged such fact upon further questioning (Rollo,
pp. 33-34). Indeed, it appears that when petitioner drew up the “deeds of
sale” Saquitan and Mangali signed on Mangali’s instruction, petitioner merely
performed one of her duties incidental to being Mangali’s commissioned
agent.
449
DECISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
This petition assails the October 30, 1998 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No.
15221, affirming with modification the April 15, 1993 Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court of
General Santos City, Branch 22 in Criminal Case Nos. 3453, 3625, 3626 and 3627, convicting
Leonila Batulanon of estafa through falsification of commercial documents, and the July 29,
1999 Resolution[3] denying the motion for reconsideration.
During an audit conducted in December 1982, certain irregularities concerning the release of
loans were discovered.[4]
Thereafter, four informations for estafa thru falsification of commercial documents were filed
against Batulanon, to wit:
That on or about the 2nd day of June, 1982 at Poblacion Municipality of Polomolok, Province of
South Cotabato, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court said accused
being then the manager-cashier of Polomolok Credit Cooperative, Inc., (PCCI), entrusted with
the duty of managing the aff[a]irs of the cooperative, receiving payments to, and collections of,
the same, and paying out loans to members, taking advantage of her position and with intent to
prejudice and defraud the cooperative, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
falsify a commercial document, namely: Cash/Check Voucher No. 30-A of PCCI in the name of
Erlinda Omadlao by then and there making an entry therein that the said Erlinda Omadlao was
granted a loan of P4,160, Philippine Currency, and by signing on the appropriate line thereon
the signature of Erlinda Omadlao showing that she received the loan, thus making it appear
that the said Erlinda Omadlao was granted a loan and received the amount of P4,160 when in
truth and in fact the said person was never granted a loan, never received the same, and never
signed the cash/check voucher issued in her name, and in furtherance of her criminal intent and
fraudulent design to defraud PCCI said accused did then and there release to herself the same
and received the loan of P4,160 and thereafter misappropriate and convert to her own use and
benefit the said amount, and despite demands, refused and still refuses to restitute the same,
to the damage and prejudice of PCCI, in the aforementioned amount of P4,160, Philippine
Currency.[5]
That on or about the 24th day of September, 1982 at Poblacion, Municipality of Polomolok,
Province of South Cotabato, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, said
accused being then the manager-cashier of Polomolok Credit Cooperative, Inc. (PCCI),
entrusted with the duty of managing the affairs of the cooperative, receiving payments to, and
collections of, the same, and paying out loans to members taking advantage of her position and
with intent to prejudice and defraud the cooperative, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously falsify a commercial document, namely: Cash/Check Voucher No. 237 A of PCCI
in the name of Gonafreda Oracion by then and there making an entry therein that the said
Gonafreda Oracion was granted a loan of P4,000.00 and by signals on the appropriate line
thereon the signature of Gonafreda Oracion showing that she received the loan, thus making it
appear that the said Gonafreda Oracion was granted a loan, received the loan of P4,000.00
when in truth and in fact said person was never granted a loan, never received the same, and
never signed the Cash/Check voucher issued in her name, and in furtherance of her criminal
intent and fraudulent design to defraud PCCI said accused did then and there release to herself
the same and received the amount of P4,000.00 and thereafter misappropriate and convert to
her own use and benefit the said amount, and despite demands, refused and still refuses to
restitute the same, to the damage and prejudice of PCCI, in the aforementioned amount of
P4,000, Philippine Currency.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[6]
CONTRARY TO LAW.[7]
That on or about the 7th day of December, 1982 at Poblacion, Municipality of Polomolok,
Province of South Cotabato, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the
said accused being then the manager-cashier of Polomolok Credit Cooperative, Inc., (PCCI)
entrusted with the duty of managing the affairs of the cooperative, receiving payments to, and
collection of, the same and paying out loans to members, taking advantage of her position and
with intent to prejudice and defraud the cooperative, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously falsify a commercial document, namely: an Individual Deposits and Loan Ledger
of one Dennis Batulanon with the PCCI by then and there entering on the appropriate column
of the ledger the entry that the said Dennis Batulanon had a fixed deposit of P2,000.00 with the
PCCI and was granted a loan in the amount of P5,000.00 thus making it appear that the said
person made fixed deposit on the aforesaid date with, and was granted a loan by the PCCI
when in truth and in fact Dennis Batulanon never made such a deposit and was never granted
loan and offer the document was so falsified in the manner set forth, said accused did then and
there again falsify the Cash/Check Voucher No. 374 A of PCCI in the name of Dennis Batulanon
by signing therein the signature of Dennis Batulanon, thus making it appear that the said Dennis
Batulanon received the loan of P5,000.00 when in truth and in fact said Dennis Batulanon never
received the loan and in furtherance of her criminal intent and fraudulent design to defraud
PCCI said accused did then and there release to herself the same and receive the loan of
P5,000, and thereafter, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously misappropriate
and convert to her own personal use and benefit the said amount, and [despite] demands,
refused and still refuses to restitute the same to the damage and prejudice of the PCCI in the
aforementioned amount of P5,000, Philippine Currency.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[8]
The cases were raffled to Branch 22 of the Regional Trial Court of General Santos City and
docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 3453, 3625, 3626 and 3627.
Batulanon pleaded not guilty to the charges, afterwhich a joint trial on the merits ensued.
The prosecution presented Maria Theresa Medallo, Benedicto Gopio, Jr., and Bonifacio Jayoma
as witnesses.
Medallo, the posting clerk whose job was to assist Batulanon in the preparation of cash
vouchers[9] testified that on certain dates in 1982, Batulanon released four Cash Vouchers
representing varying amounts to four different individuals as follows: On June 2, 1982, Cash
Voucher No. 30A[10] for P4,160.00 was released to Erlinda Omadlao; on September 24, 1982,
Cash Voucher No. 237A[11] for P4,000.00 was released to Gonafreda[12] Oracion; P3, 500.00 thru
Cash Voucher No. 276A[13] was released to Ferlyn Arroyo on October 16, 1982 and on
December 7, 1982, P5,000.00 was released to Dennis Batulanon thru Cash Voucher No.
374A.[14]
Medallo testified that Omadlao, Oracion, and Dennis Batulanon were not eligible to apply for
loan because they were not bona fide members of the cooperative.[15] Ferlyn Arroyo on the
other hand, was a member of the cooperative but there was no proof that she applied for a
loan with PCCI in 1982. She subsequently withdrew her membership in 1983.[16] Medallo stated
that pursuant to the cooperatives by-laws, only bona fide members who must have a fixed
deposit are eligible for loans.[17]
Medallo categorically stated that she saw Batulanon sign the names of Oracion and Arroyo in
their respective cash vouchers and made it appear in the records that they were payees and
recipients of the amount stated therein.[18] As to the signature of Omadlao in Cash Voucher No.
30A, she declared that the same was actually the handwriting of appellant.[19]
Gopio, Jr. was a member of PCCI since 1975 and a member of its board of directors since
1979. He corroborated Medallos testimony that Omadlao, Arroyo, Oracion and Dennis
Batulanon are not members of PCCI. He stated that Oracion is Batulanons sister-in-law while
Dennis Batulanon is her son who was only 3 years old in 1982. He averred that membership in
the cooperative is not open to minors.[20]
Jayoma was the Vice-Chairman of the PCCI Board of Directors in 1980 before becoming its
Chairman in 1982 until 1983. He testified that the loans made to Oracion, Omadlao, Arroyo and
Dennis Batulanon did not pass through the cooperatives Credit Committee and PCCIs Board of
Directors for screening purposes. He claimed that Oracions signature on Cash Voucher No.
237A is Batulanons handwriting.[21] Jayoma also testified that among the four loans taken, only
that in Arroyos name was settled.[22]
The defense presented two witnesses, namely, Maria Theresa Medallo who was presented as a
hostile witness and Batulanon.
Medallo was subpoenaed by the trial court on behalf of the defense and was asked to bring
with her the PCCI General Journal for the year 1982. After certifying that the said document
reflected all the financial transactions of the cooperative for that year, she was asked to identify
the entries in the Journal with respect to the vouchers in question. Medallo was able to identify
only Cash Voucher No. 237A in the name of Gonafreda Oracion. She failed to identify the other
vouchers because the Journal had missing pages and she was not the one who prepared the
entries.[23]
Batulanon denied all the charges against her. She claimed that she did not sign the vouchers in
the names of Omadlao, Oracion and Arroyo; that the same were signed by the loan applicants
in her presence at the PCCI office after she personally released the money to them; [24] that the
three were members of the cooperative as shown by their individual deposits and the ledger;
that the board of directors passed a resolution in August 1982 authorizing her to certify to the
correctness of the entries in the vouchers; that it has become an accepted practice in the
cooperative for her to release loans and dispense with the approval of Gopio Jr., in case of his
absence;[25] that she signed the loan application and voucher of her son Dennis Batulanon
because he was a minor but she clarified that she asked Gopio, Jr., to add his signature on the
documents to avoid suspicion of irregularity;[26] that contrary to the testimony of Gopio, Jr.,
minors are eligible for membership in the cooperative provided they are children of regular
members.
Batulanon admitted that she took out a loan in her sons name because she is no longer
qualified for another loan as she still has to pay off an existing loan; that she had started paying
off her sons loan but the cooperative refused to accept her payments after the cases were filed
in court.[27] She also declared that one automatically becomes a member when he deposits
money with the cooperative.[28] When she was Cashier/Manager of PCCI from 1980 to 1982, the
cooperative did not have by-laws yet.[29]
On rebuttal, Jayoma belied that PCCI had no by-laws from 1980-1982, because the cooperative
had been registered since 1967.[30]
On April 15, 1993, the trial court rendered a Decision convicting Batulanon as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, finding the accused Leonila Batulanon guilty beyond
reasonable doubt in all the above-entitled case, she is sentenced in each of the four cases to 4
months of ARRESTO MAYOR to 1 year and 2 months of PRISION CORRECTIONAL, to indemnify
the PCCI in the total sum of P16,660.00 with legal interest from the institution of the complaints
until fully paid, plus costs.
SO ORDERED.[31]
The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the decision of the trial court, thus:
SO ORDERED.[32]
Batulanon argues that in any falsification case, the best witness is the person whose signature
was allegedly forged, thus the prosecution should have presented Erlinda Omadlao, Gonafreda
Oracion and Ferlyn Arroyo instead of relying on the testimony of an unreliable and biased
witness such as Medallo.[33] She avers that the crime of falsification of private document
requires as an element prejudice to a third person. She insists that PCCI has not been
prejudiced by these loan transactions because these loans are accounts receivable by the
cooperative.[34]
Although the offense charged in the information is estafa through falsification of commercial
document, appellant could be convicted of falsification of private document under the well-
settled rule that it is the allegations in the information that determines the nature of the
offense and not the technical name given in the preamble of the information. In Andaya v.
People,[35] we held:
From a legal point of view, and in a very real sense, it is of no concern to the accused what is
the technical name of the crime of which he stands charged. It in no way aids him in a defense
on the merits. x x x That to which his attention should be directed, and in which he, above all
things else, should be most interested, are the facts alleged. The real question is not did he
commit a crime given in the law some technical and specific name, but did he perform the acts
alleged in the body of the information in the manner therein set forth. x x x The real and
important question to him is, Did you perform the acts alleged in the manner alleged? not, Did
you commit a crime named murder? If he performed the acts alleged, in the manner stated, the
law determines what the name of the crime is and fixes the penalty therefor. x x x If the
accused performed the acts alleged in the manner alleged, then he ought to be punished and
punished adequately, whatever may be the name of the crime which those acts constitute.
The elements of falsification of private document under Article 172, paragraph 2 [36] of the
Revised Penal Code are: (1) that the offender committed any of the acts of falsification, except
those in paragraph 7, Article 171; (2) that the falsification was committed in any private
document; and (3) that the falsification caused damage to a third party or at least the
falsification was committed with intent to cause such damage.[37]
In Criminal Case Nos. 3625, 3626, and 3453, Batulanons act[38] of falsification 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. This is because by signing the name of
Omadlao, Oracion, and Arroyo in Cash Voucher Nos. 30A, 237A, and 267A, respectively, as
payee of the amounts appearing in the corresponding cash vouchers, Batulanon made it appear
that they obtained a loan and received its proceeds when they did not in fact secure said loan
nor receive the amounts reflected in the cash vouchers.
The prosecution established that Batulanon caused the preparation of the Cash Vouchers in the
name of Omadlao and Oracion knowing that they are not PCCI members and not qualified for a
loan from the cooperative. In the case of Arroyo, Batulanon was aware that while the former is
a member, she did not apply for a loan with the cooperative.
Medallo categorically declared that she saw Batulanon forge the signatures of Oracion and
Arroyo in the vouchers and made it appear that the amounts stated therein were actually
received by these persons. As to the signature of Arroyo, Medallos credible testimony and her
familiarity with the handwriting of Batulanon proved that it was indeed the latter who signed
the name of Arroyo.Contrary to Batulanons contention, the prosecution is not duty-bound to
present the persons whose signatures were forged as Medallos eyewitness account of the
incident was sufficient. Moreover, under Section 22, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, the
handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of
such person because he has seen the person write, or has seen writing purporting to be his
upon which the witness has acted or been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the
handwriting of such person.
Her insistence that Medallo is a biased witness is without basis. There is no evidence showing
that Medallo was prompted by any ill motive.
The claim that Batulanons letter to the cooperative asking for a compromise was not an
admission of guilt is untenable. Section 27, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that in
criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses or criminal negligence or those allowed by
law to be compromised, an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as
an implied admission of guilt.
There is no merit in Batulanons assertion that PCCI has not been prejudiced because the loan
transactions are reflected in its books as accounts receivable. It has been established that PCCI
only grants loans to its bona fide members with no subsisting loan. These alleged borrowers are
not members of PCCI and neither are they eligible for a loan. Of the four accounts, only that in
Ferlyn Arroyos name was settled because her mother, Erlinda, agreed to settle the loan to
avoid legal prosecution with the understanding however, that she will be reimbursed once the
money is collected from Batulanon.[39]
The Court of Appeals[40] correctly ruled that the subject vouchers are private documents and
not commercial documents because they are not documents used by merchants or
businessmen to promote or facilitate trade or credit transactions[41] nor are they defined and
regulated by the Code of Commerce or other commercial law.[42] Rather, they are private
documents, which have been defined as deeds or instruments executed by a private person
without the intervention of a public notary or of other person legally authorized, by which
some disposition or agreement is proved, evidenced or set forth. [43]
In all criminal prosecutions, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to establish the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It has the duty to prove each and every element of the
crime charged in the information to warrant a finding of guilt for the said crime or for any other
crime necessarily included therein.[44] The prosecution in this case was able to discharge its
burden completely.
In U.S. v. Infante,[47] the accused changed the description of the pawned article on the face of
the pawn ticket and made it appear that the article is of greatly superior value, and thereafter
pawned the falsified ticket in another pawnshop for an amount largely in excess of the true
value of the article pawned. He was found guilty of falsification of a private document. In U.S. v.
Chan Tiao,[48] the accused presented a document of guaranty purportedly signed by Ortigas
Hermanos for the payment of P2,055.00 as the value of 150 sacks of sugar, and by means of
said falsified documents, succeeded in obtaining the sacks of sugar, was held guilty of
falsification of a private document.
In view of the foregoing, we find that the Court of Appeals correctly held Batulanon guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of Falsification of Private Documents in Criminal Case Nos. 3625,
3626 and 3453.
Article 172 punishes the crime of Falsification of a Private Document with the penalty of prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods with a duration of two (2) years, four (4)
months and one (1) day to six (6) years. There being no aggravating or mitigating
circumstances, the penalty should be imposed in its medium period, which is three (3) years, six
(6) months and twenty-one (21) days to four (4) years, nine (9) months and ten (10)
days. Taking into consideration the Indeterminate Sentence Law, Batulanon is entitled to an
indeterminate penalty the minimum of which must be within the range of arresto mayor in its
maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period, or four (4) months and one (1)
day to two (2) years and four (4) months.[49] Thus, in Criminal Case Nos. 3625, 3626 and 3453,
the Court of Appeals correctly imposed the penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as
minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months ofprision correccional, as maximum, which is
within the range of the allowed imposable penalty.
Since Batulanons conviction was for 3 counts of falsification of private documents, she shall
suffer the aforementioned penalties for each count of the offense charged. She is also ordered
to indemnify PCCI the amount of P11,660.00 representing the aggregate amount of the 3 loans
without deducting the amount of P3,500.00 paid by Ferlyn Arroyos mother as the same was
settled with the understanding that PCCI will reimburse the former once the money is
recovered. The amount shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the filing of the
complaints on November 28, 1994 until the finality of this judgment. From the time the
decision becomes final and executory, the interest rate shall be 12% per annum until its
satisfaction.
However, in Criminal Case No. 3627, the crime committed by Batulanon is estafa and not
falsification. Under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, the acts that may constitute
falsification are the following:
2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did
not in fact so participate;
3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than
those in fact made by them;
6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning;
8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or
official book.
In Criminal Case No. 3627, the trial court convicted petitioner Batulanon for falsifying Dennis
Batulanons signature in the cash voucher based on the Information charging her of signing the
name of her 3 year old son, Dennis. The records, however, reveal that in Cash Voucher No.
374A, petitioner Batulanon did not falsify the signature of Dennis. What she did was to sign: by:
lbatulanon to indicate that she received the proceeds of the loan in behalf of Dennis. Said act
does not fall under any of the modes of falsification under Article 171 because there in nothing
untruthful about the fact that she used the name of Dennis and that as representative of the
latter, obtained the proceeds of the loan from PCCI. The essence of falsification is the act of
making untruthful or false statements, which is not attendant in this case. As to whether, such
representation involves fraud which caused damage to PCCI is a different matter which will
make her liable for estafa, but not for falsification. Hence, it was an error for the courts below
to hold that petitioner Batulanon is also guilty of falsification of private document with respect
to Criminal Case No. 3627 involving the cash voucher of Dennis.[50]
The elements of estafa through conversion or misappropriation under Art. 315 (1) (b) of the
Revised Penal Code are:
(1) that money, goods or other personal property is received by the offender in trust, or on
commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make
delivery of, or to return, the same;
(2) that there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender or
denial on his part of such receipt;
(4) that there is a demand made by the offended party on the offender. (Note: The 4th element
is not necessary when there is evidence of misappropriation of the goods by the defendant) [51]
Thus in the case of U.S. v. Sevilla,[52] the Court convicted the appellant of estafa by
misappropriation. The latter, a treasurer of the Manila Rail Road Company, took the sum of
P8,330.00 out of the funds of the company and used it for personal purposes. He replaced said
cash with his personal check of the same amount drawn on the Philippine National Bank (PNB),
with instruction to his cashier not to deposit the same in the current account of the Manila Rail
Road Company until the end of the month. When an audit was conducted, the check of
appellant was discovered to have been carried in the accounts as part of the cash on hand. An
inquiry with the PNB disclosed that he had only P125.66 in his account, although in the
afternoon of the same day, he deposited in his account with the PNB sufficient sum to cover
the check. In handing down a judgment of conviction, the Court explained that:
Fraudulent intent in committing the conversion or diversion is very evidently not a necessary
element of the form of estafa here discussed; the breach of confidence involved in the
conversion or diversion of trust funds takes the place of fraudulent intent and is in itself
sufficient. The reason for this is obvious: Grave as the offense is, comparatively few men
misappropriate trust funds with the intention of defrauding the owner; in most cases the
offender hopes to be able to restore the funds before the defalcation is discovered. x x x
Applying the legal principles here stated to the facts of the case, we find all of the necessary
elements of estafa x x x. That the money for which the appellant's checks were substituted was
received by him for safe-keeping or administration, or both, can hardly be disputed. He was the
responsible financial officer of the corporation and as such had immediate control of the
current funds for the purposes of safe-keeping and was charged with the custody of the same.
That he, in the exercise of such control and custody, was aided by subordinates cannot alter the
case nor can the fact that one of the subordinates, the cashier, was a bonded employee who, if
he had acted on his own responsibility, might also have misappropriated the same funds and
thus have become guilty of estafa.
Neither can there be any doubt that, in taking money for his personal use, from the funds
entrusted to him for safekeeping and substituting his personal checks therefor with instructions
that the checks were to be retained by the cashier for a certain period, the appellant
misappropriated and diverted the funds for that period. The checks did not constitute cash and
as long as they were retained by the appellant or remained under his personal control they
were of no value to the corporation; he might as well have kept them in his pocket as to deliver
them to his subordinate with instructions to retain them.
xxxx
But it is argued in the present case that it was not the intention of the accused to permanently
misappropriate the funds to himself. As we have already stated, such intention rarely exists in
cases of this nature and, as we have seen, it is not a necessary element of the crime. Though
authorities have been cited who, at first sight, appear to hold that misappropriation of trust
funds for short periods does not always amount to estafa, we are not disposed to extend this
interpretation of the law to cases where officers of corporations convert corporate funds to
their own use, especially where, as in this case, the corporation is of a quasi-public character.
The statute is clear and makes no distinction between permanent misappropriations and
temporary ones. We can see no reason in the present case why it should not be applied in its
literal sense.
The third element of the crime with which the appellant is charged is injury to another. The
appellant's counsel argues that the only injury in this case is the loss of interest suffered by the
Railroad Company during the period the funds were withheld by the appellant. It is, however,
well settled by former adjudications of this court that the disturbance in property rights caused
by the misappropriation, though only temporary, is in itself sufficient to constitute injury within
the meaning of paragraph 5, supra. (U.S. vs. Goyenechea, 8 Phil., 117 U.S. vs. Malong, 36 Phil.,
821.)[53]
In the instant case, there is no doubt that as Cashier/Manager, Batulanon holds the money for
administration and in trust for PCCI. Knowing that she is no longer qualified to obtain a loan,
she fraudulently used the name of her son who is likewise disqualified to secure a loan from
PCCI. Her misappropriation of the amount she obtained from the loan is also not disputed as
she even admitted receiving the same for personal use. Although the amount received by
Batulanon is reflected in the records as part of the receivables of PCCI, damage was still caused
to the latter because the sum misappropriated by her could have been loaned by PCCI to
qualified members, or used in other productive undertakings. At any rate, the disturbance in
property rights caused by Batulaonos misappropriation is in itself sufficient to constitute injury
within the meaning of Article 315.
Considering that the amount misappropriated by Batulanon was P5,000.00, the applicable
provision is paragraph (3) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, which imposes the penalty
of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period, where
the amount defrauded is over P200.00 but does not exceed P6,000.00. There being no
modifying circumstances, the penalty shall be imposed in its medium period. With the
application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, Batulaon is entitled to an indeterminate
penalty of three (3) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1) year and eight (8) months
of prision correccional, as maximum.
WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:
(1) In Criminal Case Nos. 3625, 3626 and 3453, Leonila Batulanon is found GUILTY of three
counts of falsification of private documents and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of six (6)
months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision
correccional, as maximum, for each count, and to indemnify complainant Polomolok Credit
Cooperative Incorporated the amount of P11,660.00 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from November 28, 1994 until finality of this judgment. The interest rate of 12% per annum
shall be imposed from finality of this judgment until its satisfaction; and
(2) In Criminal Case No. 3627, Leonila Batulanon is found GUILTY of estafa and is sentenced to
suffer the penalty of three (3) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1) year and eight
(8) months of prision correccional, as maximum. She is likewise ordered to indemnify Polomolok
Credit Cooperative Incorporated the sum of P5,000.00 with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from November 28, 1994 until finality of this judgment. The interest rate of 12% per
annum shall be imposed from finality of this judgment until its satisfaction.
SO ORDERED.