Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1932 > November 1932 Decisions > G.R. No. 36345 November 25, 1932 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. PEDRO MONTANO, ET AL.

057 Phil 598:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 36345. November 25, 1932.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PEDRO MONTANO and WENCESLAO CABAGSANG, Defendants-Appellants.

M.H. de Joya for Appellants.

Attorney-General Jaranilla for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS; OFFICIAL RECORDS. — The defendants made some alterations or falsifications in certain official records in their custody so that one of them might meet the administrative charges the pending against him as a justice of the peace. The rejection of the defense of the accused that said alterations were made in good faith and corresponded to the true facts of the case, as well as their conviction for the crime of falsification of public documents sustained and affirmed.


D E C I S I O N


BUTTE, J.:


This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Cavite, convicting the defendants-appellants of the crime of falsification of public documents. The defendant Wenceslao Cabagsang was the chief of police and the defendant Pedro Montano was the justice of the peace of the municipality of Tanza in the Province of Cavite, in the month of September, 1930, when the crimes for which they were convicted occurred. It appears from the evidence that on September 5, 1930, a criminal complaint against one Arturo A. Soriano for the crime of qualified seduction was filed with the said justice of the peace. The justice, apparently to favor Soriano, delayed the preliminary investigation until the offended woman on September 18, 1930, filed with him a motion demanding immediate action and calling his attention to the fact that his delay was a violation of the circular of instructions of the judge of the Court of First Instance of said province. The case was then set for hearing on September 22, 1930. Thereafter administrative charges against the justice of the peace were filed with the Court of First Instance of Cavite, alleging that the delay in the preliminary investigation was a violation of the circular of the Court of First Instance, dated November 15, 1928, requiring all justices of the peace to dispose of all preliminary investigations within ten days from the date on which the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused.

The evidence shows beyond reasonable doubt that prior to the hearing of said administrative case, the defendants, in order to make it appear that there had been no violation of the said instructions to the justices of the peace, falsified official records in their custody as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The defendant chief of police fraudulently altered and falsified the municipal police blotter and the book of records of arrests and the return of the warrant of arrest and Soriano’s bail bond so as to make them show that the said Arturo A. Soriano was arrested and gave bond on the 13th day of September, 1930, whereas, in truth and in fact, as said records showed before said falsification, the said Arturo A. Soriano was arrested and released on bond on the 6th day of September, 1930; that the defendant Pedro Montano conspired and cooperated with his codefendant in marking said falsifications in order to meet the administrative charges then pending against him. The court below rejected the defense of the accused that said alterations were made in good faith and corresponded to the true facts of the case. There is no issue of law raised in the assignment of errors. We have made a careful review of the evidence and have come to the conclusion that the judgment of the court below should be affirmed, with costs against the appellants. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Hull and Vickers, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions


STREET, J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I am unable to resist the conclusion that the two accused in this case are guilty of having violated the law, but in view of the apparent lack of malice and total absence of injury resulting from the offense, I am of the opinion that the case is one that calls for a recommendation of clemency to the Chief Executive in conformity with the provisions of the second paragraph of article 5 of the Revised Penal Code. It seems to me that imprisonment for six months would be an adequate penalty for the offense here committed.

MALCOLM, OSTRAND, and IMPERIAL, JJ., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

We dissent and are of the opinion that the proof does not justify the conviction of either defendant.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






November-1932 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 35414 November 1, 1932 - CARMEN GUERRERO, ET AL. v. ANDREA GUERRERO, ET AL.

    057 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. 35584 November 3, 1932 - GLORIA ENCISO v. MARIANO DY-LIACCO

    057 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. 36429 November 3, 1932 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL, ISLANDS v. JUAN FELEO

    057 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 36426 November 3, 1932 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. IGNACIO NABONG

    057 Phil 455

  • G.R. No. 36756 November 4, 1932 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. GERARDO S. RAMOS

    057 Phil 462

  • G.R. No. 36770 November 4, 1932 - LUIS W. DISON v. JUAN POSADAS

    057 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. 35280 November 5, 1932 - CACHO & HIDALGO v. MANILA ELECTRIC CO.

    057 Phil 470

  • G.R. No. 35283 November 5, 1932 - JULIAN DEL ROSARIO v. MANILA ELECTRIC CO.

    057 Phil 478

  • G.R. No. 35474 November 5, 1932 - TIRTH DHARMDAS, ET AL. v. MARCELO BUENAFLOR, ET AL.

    057 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 35925 November 10, 1932 - RICARDO SIKAT v. QUITERIA VIUDA DE VILLANUEVA

    057 Phil 486

  • G.R. No. 36321 November 10, 1932 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JOSE FERNANDEZ ESPEJO

    057 Phil 496

  • G.R. No. 37852 November 10, 1932 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JUDGE OF THE CFI OF OCC. NEGROS, ET AL.

    057 Phil 500

  • G.R. No. 35398 November 16, 1932 - RAFAEL FERNANDEZ v. PAZ V. DEL ROSARIO

    057 Phil 501

  • G.R. No. 35859 November 16, 1932 - CORNELIO CRUZ v. PABLO REYES

    057 Phil 509

  • G.R. No. 36026 November 16, 1932 - ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL v. PURE CANE MOLASSES CO.

    057 Phil 517

  • G.R. No. 36026A November 16, 1932 - ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL v. PURE CANE MOLASSES CO.

    057 Phil 519

  • G.R. No. 37661 November 16, 1932 - LUZON BROKERAGE CO. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COM., ET AL.

    057 Phil 536

  • G.R. No. 38291 November 16, 1932 - FLAVIA LAZARO v. PASTOR M. ENDENCIA, ET AL.

    057 Phil 552

  • G.R. No. 35926 November 17, 1932 - JESUS DE LA RAMA v. ANTONIO RIVERO, ET AL.

    057 Phil 554

  • G.R. No. 36006 November 19, 1932 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ANG HOK HIN

    057 Phil 567

  • G.R. No. 36627 November 19, 1932 - EL HOGAR FILIPINO v. A.P. SEVA

    057 Phil 573

  • G.R. No. 35848 November 22, 1932 - EAST FURNITURE INC. v. GLOBE & RUTGERS FIRE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK

    057 Phil 576

  • G.R. No. 36979 November 23, 1932 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. MIGUEL BENITO

    057 Phil 587

  • G.R. No. 38553 November 23, 1932 - TOLEDO TRANS. CO., INC. v. EULALIO POSAS

    057 Phil 592

  • G.R. No. 36173 November 25, 1932 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. MARIA ORIFON

    057 Phil 594

  • G.R. No. 36345 November 25, 1932 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. PEDRO MONTANO, ET AL.

    057 Phil 598

  • G.R. No. 37878 November 25, 1932 - MLA. ELECTRIC CO. v. PASAY TRANS. CO.

    057 Phil 600

  • G.R. No. 37682 November 26, 1932 - CLAUDE NEON LIGHTS v. PHIL. ADVERTISING CORP., ET AL.

    057 Phil 607

  • G.R. No. 36595 November 28, 1932 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. LEON ACIERTO

    057 Phil 614