People v Balmores

85 Phil. 493 (1950)

Facts:

 On our about September 22, 1947, in the Manila City, Philippines, The accused appellant, RAFAEL BALMORES,
with intent to deceitfully cash-in with the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) for the amount of
P359.55, tore off a part of a genuine 1/8 ticket, located at the bottom of said ticket, in order to remove the real
unidentified number and therein wrote with ink the prize-winning number of 074000 for the June 29, 1947
draw.
 His plan was foiled however, when Bayani Miller, an employee of the PCSO, to whom the accused presented the
ticket, discovered that the same was falsified.
 Miller immediately called for a policeman and the accused-appellant was arrested right then and there.
 Upon the filing of an Information in the CFI of Manila, the accused-appellant, RAFAEL BALMORES, waived his
right to be assisted by counsel and PLEADED GUILTY to the charge of ATTEMPTED ESTAFA through
FALISFICATION OF SECURITY.
 He was SENTENCED by Judge Emilio Pena to no less than 10 YEARS and 1 DAY of PRISION MAYOR and not more
than 12 YEARS and 1 DAY of RECLUSION TEMPORAL and to pay a FINE of P100 and the COSTS.
 The accused-appellant appealed to the SC contending:
o The facts charged in the Information did not constitute an offense supported by

the following arguments:

a. There could be no genuine 1/8 unit PCSO ticket for the June 29, 1947 draw

b. The SC has taken judicial notice that the PSCO only issued four ¼ units for each ticket for the June 29,
1947 draw

c. The Information does not show that the ticket torn by the accused appellant did not and could not
have had the real prize-winning unidentified number of 074000

d. The substitution and writing in ink of the number 074000 was not a falsification where the true and
real number of the ticket torn was 074000

o The trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict him on a plea of guilty because, he was ILLITERATE and he
was not assisted by counsel

ISSUE(S):

1. WON the facts charged in the Information constituted an offense by the accusedappellant

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

3. WON the accused-appellant is actually guilty of an IMPOSSIBLE CRIME

4. WON the penalty imposed by the CFI was correct

HELD:

1. The Court addressed the arguments of the accused-appellant as discussed below:

a. There could be no genuine 1/8 unit PCSO ticket for the June 29, 1947 draw
• This contention is based assumptions by the accused-appellant and not borne out by the Court’s records. The ticket
alleged to have been falsified as presented to the Court appears to be a 1/8 ticket, however, the same held that it
cannot take judicial notice of what is not common knowledge and if this argument was indeed relevant, it should have
been sufficiently proven by the accused-appellant

b. The SC has taken judicial notice that the PSCO only issued four ¼ units for each ticket for the June 29, 1947 draw

• If it is true that the PCSO only issued ¼ tickets for the June 28, 1947 draw, it would only strengthen the theory of the
prosecution that the 1/8 unit presented by the accused-appellant was invalid

c. The Information does not show that the ticket torn by the accused-appellant did not and could not have had the real
prize-winning unidentified number of 074000

• This assumption by the accused-appellant is not likewise be supported in the Court’s records

d. The substitution and writing in ink of the number 074000 was not a falsification where the true and real number of
the ticket torn was 074000

• It is obvious that there would have been no need to tear the ticket and substitute with ink the winning number if the
original number on had already been 074000

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

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

The Court held that it would not have been impossible for the appellant to consummate his crime of ESTAFA thru
FALSIFICATION of the said ticket if Bayani Miller, the PCSO clerk whom the ticket was presented to, had not exercised
due care.

4. RPC 166 imposes a penaltyreclusion temporal and a fine not exceeding P10,000 for the felony of falsification of
“treasury or bank notes or certificates or other obligations and securities” of the United States or the Philippine Islands.
This being a COMPLEX CRIME of ATTEMPTED ESTAFA through FALSIFICAITON of an OBLIGATION of the Philippine Islands,
the penalty should be imposed in its MAXIMUM PERIOD in accordance with RPC 483.

There is however, a MITIGATING circumstance of LACK OF INSTRUCTION (appellant is illiterate) and applying the
IDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW, the minimum cannot be lower than prision mayorin its maximum period, which is 10
years and 1 day to 12 years.

Therefore, the lower court imposed the correct penalty.

RULING (OZAETA, J.): the Court noted that the alteration or destruction of a losing sweepstakes ticket could cause no
harm to anyone and would not constitute a crime were it not for the attempt to cash in the same. The appellant’s real
offense was the attempt to commitestafa, with a punishment of arresto menor. But technically and legally, he has to
suffer for the crime of falsification of a government object.

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

The sentenced appealed from is AFFIRMED.