FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS

PEDRO S. GIRON, ET AL. vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

G.R. Nos. 145357-59 August 23, 2006
Justice Carpio
FACTS:
The present petition involves alleged irregularities in the construction of a two-kilometer road
connecting Barangays Kinayan and Kauswagan in Tandag, Surigao del Sur ("Kinayan-Kauswagan Road
Project"). Contrary to what was stated in the Monthly Status Report dated 25 January 1989 and the
Physical Status Report dated 31 January 1989 (collectively, "Reports"), the Kinayan-Kauswagan Road
Project was not 100% complete as of 25 January 1989.
In a communication dated January 25, 1989, District Engr. Giron submitted to the Regional
Director of DPWH Regional Office No. XI (Davao City) the Monthly Status Report of CY 1988
Infrastructure Program where it appeared that Kauswagan-Kinayan Road was 100% complete as of
January 25, 1989.
Thereafter, in a letter dated January 31, 1989, Engr. Lala, for and in the absence of the District
Engineer, submitted the Physical Status Reports of Project Costing P2.0 M and below under C.Y. 1988
Infra Program to the same Regional Office of the DPWH wherein it appeared that the Kauswagan-
Kinayan Road, Barobo Surigao del Sur is 100% complete.
Contrary to the Reports, the road was not finished by 25 January 1989. On 30 June 1989, the
Barangay Council of Kinayan, Barobo, Surigao del Sur resolved to request the Ombudsman to make an
immediate investigation on the irregularities of the Kinayan-Kauswagan Road Project.
The Ombudsman, through the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao, ordered the Provincial Auditor
to conduct an investigation. On 19 June 1990, in a report addressed to the Deputy Ombudsman for
Mindanao, State Auditor III Eusebia Gamulo of the Office of the Provincial Auditor of Surigao del Sur
wrote that: Actual implementation of the project was very much delayed. In an interview made it was
disclosed that while the road opening started in November 1988, spreading of the delivered soil lime base
course was done in October 1989 only, which was contrary to the DPWH report that said project was
100% completed as of January 25, 1989.

ISSUE:
Whether Giron, Crizaldo and Arreza are indeed guilty of falsification of documents under Article
171(4) of the Revised Penal Code.

HELD:
No. There are three elements in the crime of falsification of documents under Article 171(4).
First, the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public. Second, the offender takes advantage
of his official position. Third, the offender falsifies a document by making untruthful statements in a
narration of facts. There is no doubt that all three are public officials, as they were employees of the
Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) at the time of the questioned act.
There is serious doubt, however, as to whether anyone among Giron, Crizaldo and Arreza actually took
advantage of his official position. The offender takes advantage of his official position when he has the
duty to make or to prepare or otherwise to intervene in the preparation of the document, or he has the
official custody of the document which he falsifies. According to the Sandiganbayan, Giron testified that:

42
In preparing these reports, the project engineer reports to the Construction Section the degree of work
they had accomplished with respect to the project assigned to them. The reports of the project engineers
were to be consolidated into one hence arriving at a Monthly Status Report. These reports were being
submitted every 25th of the month and it takes the Office of the District Engineer three (3) to five (5)
days to prepare the said report. The Monthly Status Report was typed by Crizaldo, checked by Cedro,
and submitted by Salang in lieu of Giron. Engr. Cedro, who supervised the preparation of the Monthly
Status Report and checked the same, was acquitted by the Sandiganbayan because "he never signed the
subject reports." Salang was also acquitted by the Sandiganbayan because "his participation was
seemingly limited to the acts before the actual construction of the project."
Crizaldo's item was that of a General Construction Foreman but she was not assigned to the
project site. Crizaldo was assigned in the office and was tasked to type the Monthly Status Report. The
prosecution never proved that Crizaldo had knowledge of the actual status of the Kinayan-Kauswagan
Road Project at the time she prepared the Monthly Status Report. Crizaldo could have merely relied on
field reports submitted to her, precluding her from making, on her own, untruthful statements at the time
she prepared the Monthly Status Report. Crizaldo could not have conspired with any other party because
the Sandiganbayan found that "there is reasonable doubt as to the existence of conspiracy on the part of
the accused herein to falsify the subject reports." The Sandiganbayan ruled that "any criminal liability
should be based on their individual participation in the questioned act."
Giron's testimony as to the usual procedure cannot be used against him because he did not sign
the Monthly Status Report. Giron's facsimile signature was merely stamped on the Monthly Status
Report. The stamped facsimile signatures of Giron do not establish his personal participation in the
preparation of the Monthly Status Report. To use this portion of Giron's testimony to establish his
personal participation is to extrapolate and speculate. This will not suffice in a criminal action, which
requires proof beyond reasonable doubt for conviction.
Arreza was the Project Engineer of the Kinayan-Kauswagan Road Project. However, like Giron
and Crizaldo, the prosecution was unable to prove his actual participation in the questioned reports. The
Sandiganbayan found that Arreza "had no participation in the preparation and execution of the said
document[s]." The Sandiganbayan also found that Arreza "did not take advantage of his public position,"
and thus Arreza is liable under Artcle 172 of the Revised Penal code for falsification of a private
document.
In sum, Giron, Crizaldo and Arreza are acquitted for failure of the prosecution to satisfy the
requisites for the conviction of the crime of falsification of public documents. All are public officers,
However, the prosecution has failed to prove their criminal culpability beyond reasonable doubt. There
is no moral certainty that Giron, Crizaldo, and Arreza took advantage of their positions to make a false
statement in a narration of facts in a public document.

43
 FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS UNDER ART. 171 OF THE RPC

ROSALIO S. GALEOS, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

G.R. NOS. 174730-37 FEBRUARY 9, 2011
Justice Villarama, JR.,
FACTS:
Ong was the Mayor of the Municipality of Naga, Cebu from 1986 to 1998. On June 1994, he
extended permanent appointments to Rosalio Galeos for the position of Construction and Maintenance
Man in the Office of the Municipal Engineer. In his 1993 SALN, Galeos answered “No”to the question:
“To the best of your knowledge, are you related within the fourth degree of consanguinity or of affinity
to anyone working in the government?”. In Galeos 1994 and 1995 SALNs, the boxes for “Yes” and “No”
to the same query were left in blank. In all these documents, Ongs signature appears as the person who
administered the oath of Galeos. It turned out however that Ong and Galeos are related since their mothers
are sisters. Because of this, Ong and Galeos were charged with falsification of public documents under
Article 171, par. 4. Petitioners argue that the statements "they are not related within the fourth civil degree
of consanguinity or affinity" and "that Section 79 of the Local Government Code has been complied with
in the issuance of the appointments" are not a narration of facts but a conclusion of law, as both require
the application of the rules on relationship under the law of succession. Galeos argues that he did not
make untruthful or false statements in his SALN since a "statement" requires a positive averment and
thus silence or non-disclosure cannot be considered one.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioners are guilty of falsification of public documents under Article 171,
par. 4 of the Revised Penal Code.

HELD:
Yes. The elements of falsification of public documents by making untruthful statements in a
narration of facts are the following:
(a) the offender makes in a public document untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
(b) he has legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him; and
(c) the facts narrated by him are absolutely false. In addition to the aforecited elements, it must also be
proven that the public officer or employee had taken advantage of his official position in making the
falsification.
In falsification of public document, the offender is considered to have taken advantage of his
official position when (1) he has the duty to make or prepare or otherwise to intervene in the preparation
of a document; or (2) he has the official custody of the document which he falsifies. A conclusion of law
is a determination by a judge or ruling authority regarding the law that applies in a particular case. It is
opposed to a finding of fact, which interprets the factual circumstances to which the law is to be applied.
A narration of facts is merely an account or description of the particulars of an event or occurrence. In
this case, the required disclosure or identification of relatives "within the fourth civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity" in the SALN involves merely a description of such relationship; it does not
call for an application of law in a particular set of facts. On the other hand, Articles 963 to 967 of the
Civil Code simply explain the concept of proximity of relationship and what constitute direct and

44
collateral lines in relation to the rules on succession. The question of whether or not persons are related
to each other by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth degree is one of fact. Contrary to petitioners’
assertion, statements concerning relationship may be proved as to its truth or falsity, and thus do not
amount to expression of opinion. As to the boxes left in blank, In Dela Cruz v. Mudlong, it was held that
one is guilty of falsification in the accomplishment of his information and personal data sheet if he
withholds material facts which would have affected the approval of his appointment and/or promotion to
a government position. By withholding information on his relative/s in the government service as
required in the SALN, Galeos was guilty of falsification considering that the disclosure of such
relationship with then Municipal Mayor Ong would have resulted in the disapproval of his permanent
appointment pursuant to Article 168 (j) (Appointments), Rule XXII of the Rules and Regulations
Implementing the Local Government Code of 1991.
Moreover, while it is true that as a general rule, it is not the duty of the administering officer to
ascertain the truth of the statements found in a document. The reason for this is that the administering
officer has no way of knowing if the facts stated therein are indeed truthful.
However, when the facts laid out in the document directly involves the administering officer, then he has
an opportunity to know of their truth or falsity. When an administering officer nevertheless administers
the oath despite the false contents of the document, which are known to him to be false, he is liable, not
because he violated his duty as an administering officer, but because he participated in the falsification
of a document.

45
 FORIETRANS MANUFACTURING CORP., et al vs DAVIDOFF ET. CIE SA et al
G.R. No. 197482, March 6, 2017
Justice Jardeleza

FACTS:

Davidoff Et. Cie SA (Davidoff) and Japan Tobacco, Inc. (JTI) [collectively, respondents] are
non-resident foreign corporations organized and existing under the laws of Switzerland and Japan,
respectively. They are represented in the Philippines by law firm SyCip Salazar Hernandez & Gatmaitan
(SyCip Law Firm). It is authorized under a special power of attorney to maintain and prosecute legal
actions against any manufacturers, local importers and/or distributors, dealers or retailers of counterfeit
products bearing Davidoff s and JTI's trademarks or any products infringing their
trademarks. Respondents also retained Business Profiles, Inc. (BPI) as their private investigator in the
Philippines.

Meanwhile, petitioner Forietrans Manufacturing Corporation (FMC) is a domestic corporation.

BPI reported to respondents that "there were counterfeit Davidoff and JTI products, or products bearing
colorable imitation of Davidoff and TTI products, or which are confusingly or deceivingly similar to
Davidoff and JTI registered trademarks, being manufactured and stored" in FMC’s warehouses. In the
applications, PSI De Mesa alleged that "he had been informed, concluded upon investigation, and
believed that [FMC] and/or its proprietors, directors, officers, employees, and/or occupants of its
premises stored counterfeit cigarettes" bearing: (a) the name “DAGETA. International" purported to be
made in Germany; and (b) the name "DAG ET A" which was confusingly similar to the Davidoff
trademark, a product of Imperial Tobacco, Inc. Thus, he asked the RTC to issue search warrants
authorizing any peace officer to take possession of the subject articles and bring them before the court.

The RTC granted the applications. In the same afternoon of August 4, 2004, PSI Nathaniel
Villegas (PSI Villegas) and PSI Eric Maniego (PSI Maniego) implemented SW Nos. 044 and 046, while
PSI De Mesa implemented SW Nos. 045 and 047. During their separate raids, the CIDG teams seized
several boxes containing raw tobacco, cigarettes, cigarette packs, and cigarette reams bearing the name
DAGETA and DAGETA International. They also secured machineries, receptacles, other paraphernalia,
sales invoices and official receipts. Petitioner Agerico Calaquian, president of FMC, was allegedly
apprehended at the premises along with four Chinese nationals

Upon investigation, the CIDG confirmed the report of BPI. On August 4, 2004, PSI Joel L. De
Mesa (PSI De Mesa) of the CIDG filed four separate applications for search warrant before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of San Fernando, Pampanga.

ISSUES:
Whether or not the petitioner is liable on trademark infringement
HELD:
The records show that a prima facie case for trademark infringement and false designation of
origin exists against petitioners.

46
The records show that a prima facie case for trademark infringement and false designation of origin exists
against petitioners. Section 155 of the IP Code enumerates the instances when infringement is
committed, viz.: Sec. 155. Remedies; Infringement. - Any person who shall, without the consent of the
owner of the registered mark: 15 5 .1. Use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable
imitation of a registered mark or the same container or a dominant feature thereof in connection with the
sale, offering for sale, distribution, advertising of any goods or services including other preparatory steps
necessary to carry out the sale of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely
to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive; or 155.2. Reproduce, counterfeit, copy or colorably
imitate a registered mark or a dominant feature thereof and apply such reproduction, counterfeit, copy or
colorable imitation to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to
be used in commerce upon or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising
of goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause
mistake, or to deceive, shall be liable in a civil action for infringement by the registrant for the remedies
hereinafter set forth: Provided, That the infringement takes place at the moment any of the acts stated in
Subsection 155.1 or this subsection are committed regardless of whether there is actual sale of goods or
services using the infringing material.
The essential element of infringement is that the infringing mark is likely to cause confusion.47 In this
case, the complaint-affidavit for the Davidoff infringement case alleged confusing similarity between the
cigarette packs of the authentic Davidoff cigarette and the sample Dageta cigarette pack seized during
the search of FMC's premises. Respondents submitted samples of the Davidoff and Dageta cigarette
packs during the preliminary investigation.

47
 GOMA V. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 168437; January 8, 2009
Justice Velasco, JR.
FACTS:

This Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 challenges the decision of the CA affirming
the decision of the RTC which convicted petitioners, Laurinio Goma and Natalio Umale, of the crime of
falsification of public document under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Three barangay
councilors filed a complaint alleging Goma and Umale, as barangay chairperson and secretary,
respectively, falsified a barangay resolution dated September 24, 1995, allocating amount of PhP18, 000
as disbursement for a seminar for the two officials when in truth and in fact no meeting was held as no
quorum was mustered on the said date. On the face of the resolution appears the signatures of the
petitioners in their respective official capacities and it also bore the official seal of the barangay. The
petitioners contend that said resolution was nothing more than a mere proposal or a draft. After being
convicted by the RTC, the petitioners appealed to the CA alleging that the questioned resolution is not a
public document, that they did not violate Art. 171(2) of the RPC and that the penalty imposed is not
proper. The same issues were raised in the Supreme Court. However, they urge their acquittal on the
theory that they did not benefit from, or that the public was not prejudiced by, the said resolution.

ISSUES:

Was the element of gain or benefit on the part of the offender or prejudice to a third party
necessary to commit the crime of falsification of a public document?

HELD:

No. The elements of the crime of falsification of public documents are that the offender is a public
officer, employee, or notary public; that he takes advantage of his official position; that he falsifies a
document by causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding; and that such
person or persons did not in fact so participate in the proceeding.
Thus, erring public officers’ failure to attain their objectives is not determinative of their guilt or
innocence. In this case, petitioners contend that they did not benefit from, or that the public was not
prejudiced by, the resolution in question, it not having been used to obtain the PhP18,000 seminar funds
which is bereft of merit because the simulation of a public document.

48
 ALEJANDRO TECSON, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondents.

G. R. No. 113218. November 22, 2001

FACTS:

That on or about April 28, 1990, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly have in his possession and under his custody and
control, with intent to use and pass, as in fact he did use and pass ten (10) pieces of 100-US dollar notes
of the Federal Reserve Note, or a sum of $1,000.00 (US Dollar) to Pedro C. Labita, a confidential
assistant of the Central Bank of the Philippines, which bills were in the resemblance and similitude of
the dollar bills issued by the United States Government, the said accused knowing, as he did, that the
said US dollar bills were forged and falsified. After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered a Decision
dated May 6, 1991. The Court finds and declares accused ALEJANDRO F. TECSON, GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the offense as defined in Art. 168 and penalized in Art. 166 paragraph 1 of the
Revised Penal Code.
Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court, the petitioner filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals
which affirmed the judgment of the trial court in toto on August 31, 1993. Petitioner sought a
reconsideration of the decision of the appellate court but it was denied on December 23, 1993.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the decision of the Regional Trial Court as affirmed by the Appellate Court against
petitioner is valid.

RULING:

We find no cogent reason to overturn the decision of respondent Court of Appeals which affirmed
the judgment of the trial court finding the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged
in the case at bar. The prosecution established, through the testimonies of Pedro Labita and Johnny
Marqueta, that a buy-bust operation was conducted by the combined agents of the Central Bank of the
Philippines and the US Secret Service, and that the petitioner was therein caught in flagrante delicto in
the possession of and in the act of offering to sell counterfeit US dollar notes. During the buy-bust
operation, prosecution witnesses Labita and Marqueta were introduced by the civilian informer to the
petitioner as interested buyers of fake US dollar notes. When the petitioner was in the act of drawing the
ten (10) pieces of fake US $100 dollar notes from his wallet, he was immediately placed under arrest by
Labita and his team. In sum, there is no reversible error in the subject Decision of the Court of Appeals
and of the Regional Trial Court.

49
 NORMALLAH A. PACASUM, Petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 180314, April 16, 2009

FACTS:

On 7 August 2007 which found petitioner Normallah A. Pacasum guilty of Falsification under
Article 171, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, and its Resolution dated 22 October 2007 denying
petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for New Trial/Reception of Newly Discovered
Evidence.On 2 May 2002, petitioner was charged before the Sandiganbayan with Falsification of Public
Documents, defined and punished under paragraph 1 of Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code. That on
or about August 22-23, 2000, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto in Cotabato City, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused NORMALLAH A. PACASUM, a high
ranking public official being the Regional Secretary of the Department of Tourism in the Autonomous
Region in Muslim Mindanao, Cotabato City, while in the performance of her official functions,
committing the offense in relation thereto, taking advantage of her official position, did then and there,
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously falsified her Employee Clearance3 submitted to the Office of the
Regional Governor of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, by imitating the signature of Laura
Y. Pangilan, the Supply officer I of the DOT-ARMM, for the purpose of claiming her salary for the
months of August and September 2000.
On 7 August 2007, the Sandiganbayan rendered the assailed decision convicting petitioner of the
crime charged in the information. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Normallah A. Pacasum GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the offense charged in the Information and, with the application of the Indeterminate
Sentence Law and without any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, hereby sentencing her to suffer
the indeterminate penalty of TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY OF prision
correccional as minimum to EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor as maximum with
the accessories thereof and to pay a fine of TWO THOUSAND PESOS (₱2,000.00) with costs against
the accused.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner Normallah A. Pacasum guilty of Falsification under Article 171,
paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING:
Yes. Petitioner was charged with falsifying her Employees Clearance under Article 171,
paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. For one to be convicted of falsification under said paragraph, the
followings elements must concur: (1) that the offender is a public officer, an employee, or a notary public;
(2) that he takes advantage of his official position; and (3) that he falsifies a document by counterfeiting
or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric.
All the foregoing elements have been sufficiently established. There is no dispute that petitioner was a
public officer, being then the Regional Secretary of the Department of Tourism of the ARMM, when she
caused the preparation of her Employees Clearance (a public document) for the release of her salary for
50
the months of August and September 2000. Such being a requirement, and she being a public officer, she
was duty-bound to prepare, accomplish and submit said document. Were it not for her position and
employment in the ARMM, she could not have accomplished said Employees Clearance. In a
falsification of public document, the offender is considered to have taken advantage of his official
position when (1) he had the duty to make or prepare or otherwise intervene in the preparation of the
document; or (2) he had official custody of the document which he falsified. It being her duty to prepare
and submit said document, she clearly took advantage of her position when she falsified or caused the
falsification of her Employees Clearance by imitating the signature of Laura Pangilan.lawphil.net
Going now to the penalties imposed on petitioner, we find the same proper. The penalty for falsification
under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code is prision mayor and a fine not exceeding ₱5,000.00. There
being no mitigating or aggravating circumstance in the commission of the felony, the imposable penalty
is prision mayor in its medium period, or within the range of eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10)
years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum penalty to be imposed shall be taken
from the medium period of prision mayor, while the minimum shall be taken from within the range of
the penalty next lower in degree, which is prision correccional or from six (6) months and one (1) day to
six (6) years.

51
 SPOUSES BERNALES VS. HEIRS OF JULIAN SAMBAN

G.R. No. 163271, January 15, 2010

Justice Del Castillo

FACTS:

Julian Sambaan, married to Guillerma Saarenas-Sambaan, was the registered owner of a

property located at Bulua, Cagayan de Oro City. The lot was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title
(TCT) No. T-14202. The respondents and the petitioner Myrna Bernales (Myrna) are the children of
Julian and Guillerma. Myrna, who is the eldest of the siblings, is the present owner and possessor of the
property in question.

Sometime in 1975, Julian was ambushed and was hospitalized due to a gunshot wound. On April
11, 1975, Julian allegedly requested his children to gather so that he could make his last two wishes.
Julians first wish was for the children to redeem the subject property which was mortgaged to Myrna and
her husband Patricio Bernales. Thus, in 1982, respondent Absalon Sambaan, one of Julians children,
offered to redeem the property but the petitioners refused because they were allegedly using the property
as tethering place for their cattle.

In January 1991, respondents received information that the property covered by TCT No. T-14202
was already transferred to petitioners name. Whereupon, they secured a copy of the Deed of Absolute
Sale dated December 7, 1970 which bore the signatures of their parents and had it examined by the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). The result of the examination revealed that the signatures of
their parents, Julian and Guillerma, were forged.

On April 1993, the respondents, together with their mother Guillerma, filed a complaint for
Annulment of Deed of Absolute Sale and cancellation of TCT No. T-14204 alleging that their parent’s
signatures were forged. The trial court rendered a decision on August 2, 2001 cancelling the TCT and
ordering another title to be issued in the name of the late Julian Sambaan.

Petitioners went to the CA and appealed the decision. The CA affirmed the decision of the lower
court. A motion for reconsideration of the decision was, likewise, denied in 2004. Hence, this petition
for certiorari.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the Deed of Absolute Sale is authentic as to prove the ownership of the petitioners
over the subject property.
2. Whether or not the forged Deed of Absolute Sale is null and conveys no title.
3. Whether or not prescription bars respondents’ action to recover ownership of the subject property.

52
RULING:

1. No. Well-settled is the rule that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Factual findings of
the lower courts are entitled to great weight and respect on appeal, and in fact accorded finality when
supported by substantial evidence on the record. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of
evidences. It is that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise. But
to erase any doubt on the correctness of the assailed ruling, the Court has carefully perused the records
and, nonetheless, arrived at the same conclusion. The Court finds that there is substantial evidence on
record to support the Court of Appeals and trial court’s conclusion that the signatures of Julian and
Guillerma in the Deed of Absolute Sale were forged.

The examination conducted by the NBI disclosed that Julian and Guillermas signatures were
forged. Moreover, petitioners failed to present any evidence to rebut the findings of the NBI handwriting
expert.

2. The forged Deed of Absolute Sale is null and conveys no title. In order that the holder of a
certificate for value issued by virtue of the registration of a voluntary instrument may be considered a
holder in good faith and for value, the instrument registered should not be forged. Indubitably, therefore,
the questioned Deed of Absolute Sale did not convey any title to herein petitioners. Consequently, they
cannot take refuge in the protection accorded by the Torrens system on titled lands.

Thus, the Supreme Court holds that with the presentation of the forged deed, even if accompanied
by the owners duplicate certificate of title, the registered owner did not thereby lose his title, and neither
does the assignee in the forged deed acquire any right or title to the said property.

3. Prescription did not bar respondents’ action to recover ownership of the subject property. The
supposed vendor's signature having been proved to be a forgery, the instrument is totally void or
inexistent as “absolutely simulated or fictitious” under Article 1409 of the Civil Code. According to
Article 1410, “the action or defense for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe.
The inexistence of a contract is permanent and incurable which cannot be cured either by ratification or
by prescription.”

Doctrines:
In order that the holder of a certificate for value issued by virtue of the registration of a voluntary
instrument may be considered a holder in good faith for value, the instrument registered should not be
forged. When the instrument presented is forged, even if accompanied by the owners duplicate certificate
of title, the registered owner does not thereby lose his title, and neither does the assignee in the forged
deed acquire any right or title to the property.

The supposed vendor's signature having been proved to be a forgery, the instrument is totally
void or inexistent as "absolutely simulated or fictitious" under Article 1409 of the Civil Code.

53
 DEL ROSARIO VS PEOPLE
G.R. No. L-16806, December 22, 1961

FACTS:

Sergio del Rosario, Alfonso Araneta and Benedicto del Pilar were convicted by the Court
of First Instance of Davao of illegal possession of said forged treasury notes and sentenced to an
indeterminate penalty ranging from 8 years and 1 day to 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor, and
pay a fine of P5,000, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, as well as a
proportionate part of the costs. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals,
except insofar as the maximum of said indeterminate penalty which was increased to 10 years, 8
months and 1 day of prision mayor.

ISSUE:

Whether the accused-appellants are liable for the crime of illegal possession and use of
false treasury or bank notes under Art. 168?

HELD:

It is clear from the provisions Art 160 and 169 of the Revised Penal Code that the
possession of genuine treasury notes of the Philippines any of "the figures, letters, words or signs
contained" in which had been erased and or altered, with knowledge of such notes, as they were
used by petitioner herein and his co-defendants in the manner adverted to above, is punishable
under said Article 168, in relation to Article 166, subdivision (1), of the Revised Penal Code (U.S.
vs. Gardner, 3 Phil., 398; U.S. vs. Solito, 36 Phil., 785). Being in accordance with the facts and
the law, the decision appealed from is, accordingly, affirmed, with costs against petitioner Sergio
del Rosario.

54
 ANECITO RECEBIDO V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE
Gr.141931, December 4, 2000
Justice Kapunan

FACTS:

This is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals finding
petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Falsification of Public Document.

Petitioner was charged and convicted by the trial court of falsifying the signature of Caridad Dorol,
causing it to appear that said Caridad Dorol has signed her name on a Deed of Absolute Sale of Real
Property in his favor, when in truth and in fact he well knew, that Caridad Dorol did not execute said
document, to the damage and prejudice of the latter.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court except for the award for damage.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed gave abuse of discretion in sustaining the
conviction of the petitioner?

DECISION:

We hold that the Court of Appeals did not commit any grave abuse of discretion when it affirmed
petitioner's conviction by the trial court.

The petitioner admits that the deed of sale that was in his possession is a forged document as
found by the trial and appellate court. Petitioner, nonetheless, argues that notwithstanding this admission,
the fact remains that there is no proof that the petitioner authored such falsification or that the forgery
was done under his direction.

This argument is without merit. Under the circumstance, there was no need of any direct proof
that the petitioner was the author of the forgery. As keenly observed by the Solicitor General, "the
questioned document was submitted by petitioner himself when the same was requested by the NBI for
examination. Clearly in possession of the falsified deed of sale was petitioner and not Caridad Dorol who
merely verified the questioned sale with the Provincial Assessor's Office of Sorsogon.” In other words,
the petitioner was in possession of the forged deed of sale which purports to sell the subject land from
the private complainant to him. Given this factual backdrop, the petitioner is presumed to be the author
of the forged deed of sale, despite the absence of any direct evidence of his authorship of the forgery.
Since the petitioner is the only person who stood to benefit by the falsification of the document found in
his possession, it is presumed that he is the material author of the falsification. As it stands, therefore, we
are unable to discern any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals.

55
 INOCENTES AMORA, JR. V. CA
Gr. L-58973-76, July 20, 1982
Justice Abad Santos

FACTS:

Petitioners Inocentes Amora, Jr. and Claudio Murillo were accused of four (4) counts of Estafa
thru Falsification of Public Documents. Petitioners allegedly falsify the Time Book and Payroll Voucher
of the municipality of Guindulman, Bohol, covering the period from September 1 to 30, 1972 by making
it appear that Vicente Begamano and Alfredo Bagtasos rendered 21 days services each in "gathering
boulders for shore protection" for the period from September 1 to 30, 1972 when they did not in fact
render said services. After trial, the Court of First Instance of Bohol finds the accused Guilty as charged.

The Court of Appeals held that the accused were not guilty of estafa because evidently the Municipality
of Guindulman did not suffer any loss or damage arising from the payrolls. On the contrary, the
government gained from the said project. However, the Court of Appeals found that Inocentes Amora,
Jr. was a municipal employee and convicted him of falsification by public officer. Although Claudio
Murillo was not in the government service he was also convicted of falsification by public officer on the
ground that there was a conspiracy between him and Amora. The Court of Appeals also held that the
appellants were motivated by a single intention and so found them guilty of only one (1) instead of four
(4) crimes.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in disregarding their defense of good faith.

DECISION:
The Supreme Court held that although the accused altered a public document or made a
misstatement or erroneous assertion therein, he would not be guilty of falsification as long as he acted
in good faith and no one was prejudiced by the alteration or error."
In the instant case, It is quite obvious that the proper method for claiming payment under the
pakyaw contract was for Murillo to simply bill the town for so many cubic meters of boulders which had
been delivered and piled at the municipal wharf. Instead he and Inocentes Amora, Jr. resorted to the
payroll system which is not only cumbersome but also involved falsification. The reason could only be
that they were ignorant and ill-advised as claimed.

From the foregoing coupled with the fact that the town of Guindulman suffered no damage and
even gained on the project (the cost of the boulders actually delivered was P18,285.00 but Murillo was
paid only P13,455.00) plus the additional fact that the alleged complaining witness mentioned in the
informations suffered no damage whatsoever and were in fact awarded no indemnity, it is obvious that
the falsifications made by the petitioners were done in good faith.

The petition is hereby granted. The decision of the Court of Appeals which adjudged the
petitioners guilty of falsification is hereby reversed and the petitioners are acquitted.

56