PEOPLE v.

RAFAEL BALMORES Y CAYA

February 16, 1950 | Ozaeta, J.

FACTS:
 On September 22, 1947 Balmores tore off at the bottom in a cross-wise direction a portion of a
genuine 1/8 unit sweepstakes ticket to remove the true number, and wrote in ink on the bottom
left side the winning number 074000 for the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes draw last June 29, 1947.
 On the same day he presented the ticket to the PCSO and claimed the prize of P359.55, but PCSO
employee Bayani Miller, saw the ticket was falsified and called a policeman who arrested Balmores.
 Balmores was charged with attempted estafa through falsification of a security in the CFI Manila
and after waiving the right to counsel, pled guilty and was sentenced to not less than 10 years 1
day of prision mayor and not more than 12 years 1 day reclusion temporal, and to pay a P100 fine
and costs.
 Balmores appeals, saying that (1) the facts do not support his conviction; and (2) the trial court
lacked jurisdiction to convict him on a guilty plea because he was illiterate and unassisted by
counsel.

ISSUES:
(1) Whether the facts clearly prove the crime—YES. The Court in this case could not take judicial
notice of the allegation that the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office did not issue 1/8 but only
1/4 units of tickets for the June 29, 1947 draw. Regardless, the appellant pleaded guilty to the
information which claimed he substituted and wrote in ink at the bottom on the left side of said
ticket the figure or number 074000. There would have been no need of removal and substitution if
the original number on the ticket was the same as that which appellant wrote in ink in lieu thereof.
(2) Whether the trial court had jurisdiction—YES. The fact that appellant was illiterate did not
deprive the trial court of jurisdiction assisted by counsel. The decision states that appellant waived
the right to be assisted by counsel, and there is no law against such waiver.
(3) Whether there was an impossible crime committed—NO. The recklessness and clumsiness of
the falsification did not make the crime impossible within article 4, para. 2, in relation to article 59,
of the Revised Penal Code. Examples of an impossible crime, which formerly was not punishable
but is now under article 59 of the RPC, are the following: (1) When one tries to kill another by
putting in his soup a substance which he believes to be arsenic when in fact it is common salt; and
(2) when one tries to murder a corpse. (Guevara, Commentaries on the RPC). Judging from the
appearance of the falsified ticket in question, we are not prepared to say that it would have been
impossible to consummate the crime of estafa if the clerk to whom the ticket was presented had
not exercised due care.
(4) Whether the penalty imposed was correct—YES. The penalty imposed by article 166 for the
forging or falsification of "treasury or bank notes or certificates or other obligations and securities"
is reclusion temporal in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed P10,000, if the document which
has been falsified, counterfeited, or altered is an obligation or security of the United States or of
the Philippine Islands. This being a complex crime of attempted estafa through falsification of an
obligation or security of the Philippines, the penalty should be imposed in its maximum period in
accordance with article 48. Taking into consideration the mitigating circumstance of lack of
instruction, and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum cannot be lower than
prision mayor in its maximum period, which is 10 years and 1 day to 12 years.
NOTE: Appellant's real offense was the attempt to commit estafa (punishable with eleven days of
arresto menor); but technically has to suffer for the serious crime of falsification of a government
obligation. The penalty is too severe, but we have no discretion to impose a lower penalty.
DISSENT (Paras, J.): The appellant is admittedly an illiterate and committed only an impossible crime now
punishable under paragraph 2, article 4, in relation to article 59, of the Revised Penal Code. In the way the
alleged falsification was done, it was inherently inadequate or ineffective and certain to be detected since
it has a missing portion and contains a number written in ink. The crime is just as impossible as passing a
counterfeit paper bill concocted in regular newsprint and in ordinary handwriting. Moreover, the attorney
of the appellant claims the tickets for the June, 1947, Sweepstakes draw consisted of only four units, which
might have been duly proven if Balmores was assisted by counsel.