Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > February 1982 Decisions > G.R. Nos. L-55683 & 55903-04 February 22, 1982 - PILAR S. LUAGUE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. L-55683 & 55903-04. February 22, 1982.]

PILAR S. LUAGUE, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

Emerito M. Salva and Associate for the petitioner.

Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, Assistant Solicitor General Roberto E. Soberano and Trial Attorney for Respondents.

SYNOPSIS


Three treasury warrants in the name of Iluminado Luague, a teacher clerk who died on January 24, 1972, were delivered by his District Supervisor to his wife, the petitioner, after his death. Petitioner endorsed the treasury warrants by signing the name of her husband on them and used the proceeds to pay for the expenses of her husband’s last illness and his burial. Charged with estafa through falsification of commercial documents, petitioner claimed that when she encashed the paychecks, she believed that she was entitled to them as advance payment of her husband’s vacation and sick leave credits the money value of which exceeded the value of the checks. After trial, petitioner was found guilty of falsification only due to the absence of the element of damage. The Court of Appeals affirmed her conviction.

On petition for review, the Supreme Court, adopting a compassionate attitude, held that petitioner acted in good faith when she signed her husband’s name to the checks and encashed them to pay for the expenses of her husband’s last illness and burial upon the belief that she was entitled to them; and that considering that the government sustained no damage due to such encashment, criminal intent may not be ascribed to the petitioner.

Petitioner acquitted.


SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; FALSIFICATION OF COMMERCIAL DOCUMENTS; LACK OF CRIMINAL INTENT WHEN PETITIONER SIGNED HUSBAND’S NAME IN INDORSING CHECKS SHOWN BY CIRCUMSTANCES IN CASE AT BAR. — Criminal intent may not be ascribed to the petitioner when she signed her husband’s name to his checks because they were delivered to her by no less than her husband’s district supervisor long after the husband’s death which was known to the supervisor, she used the proceeds of the checks to pay for the expenses of her husband’s last illness and his burial. and she believed that she was entitled to the money as an advance payment for her husband’s vacation and sick leave credits the money value of which exceeded the value of the checks.

2. ID.; ID.; ABSENCE OF DAMAGE CONSIDERED TO DETERMINE CRIMINAL INTENT; CASE AT BAR. — Criminal intent may not be ascribed to the petitioner because, during the hearing, it was brought out that the government did not sustain any financial loss due to her encashment of her deceased husband’s pay checks. petitioner’s husband having accumulated vacation and sick leaves the money value of which exceeded the value of the three paychecks and the value of the checks was simply deducted from the money value of the leaves. This explains why the petitioner was not convicted by the trial court of estafa but of falsification only. While the Court does not mean to imply that if there is no damage there can be no falsification, we do say that the absence of damage is an element to be considered to determine whether or not there is criminal intent.

3. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CIRCUMSTANCES IN CASE AT BAR CALL FOR COMPASSIONATE ATTITUDE. — Where the accused is a poor widow who was obviously in a state of bewilderment due to the recent death of her husband when she cashed the paychecks and she was also in dire need of money to settle the expenses for her husband’s last illness and his burial, a compassionate attitude repeatedly urged by the First Lady, Mrs. Imelda R. Marcos, would have been highly in order under the circumstances.


D E C I S I O N


ABAD SANTOS, J.:


Certiorari to review a decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. Nos. 22414-16 CR, which affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Samar, Branch X, convicting the petitioner of three counts of falsification of commercial documents in Criminal Cases Nos. 599, 600 and 601.

The facts are stated in the poorly written decision of the Court of Appeals thus:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

"Iluminado Luague, a teacher clerk in the district office of Laoang II, Northern Samar, died at the G.B. Tan Memorial Hospital at around 7:00 o’clock in the evening of January 24, 1972 after he was confined in said hospital since January 3, 1972.

"Thereafter, the then Bureau of Public Schools sent to the deceased’s salary warrants [Exhibits A (599), A (600) and A (601) to the Superintendent of schools at Catarman, Northern Samar who in turn forwarded them to the District Supervisor, Florencio Guillermo. A payroll-warrant register accompanied the checks.

"The paychecks delivered, Florencio Guillermo signed the payroll-warrant registers certifying that on his official oath, each employee whose name appeared on the rolls had received the salary warrant indicated opposite his name on February 7, 1972, February 17, 1972 and February 25, 1972, respectively, and returned the same to Jose Figueroa, the District Administrative Officer of Northern Samar.

"Exhibit A (599) was personally received by Pilar S. Luague, while Exhibit A (600) was received by Glen S. Luague. Exhibit A (601) was received by Edmundo Echano, a relative of Iluminado Luague and who claimed to be employed in the Office of the District Supervisor.

"Florencio Guillermo claimed that upon discovering his mistake, he asked appellant to return the treasury warrants issued in the name of her husband Iluminado Luague, further claiming that appellant promised to do so, but actually did not. Upon the receipt of the xerox copies from the IBM Section of the Bureau of Public Schools, Guillermo discovered that the treasury warrants in question had been encashed by appellant and Glen Luague with different local stores at Laoang. Exhibit A (599) was cleared on February 22, 1972, while Exhibit A (600) was deposited to the account of a certain Lee and/or Nicolas Chu, Jr. at Philippine Bank of Communications; and Exhibit A (601) was deposited to the account of Colgate-Palmolive Philippines, Inc. Appellant admitted having endorsed the treasury warrants by means of which she was able to encash the same.

"For signing the name of her husband Iluminado Luague as payee on three treasury warrants for purposes of endorsement, appellant stands charged with the crime of Estafa thru Falsification of Commercial Document." [Note: The appellant was charged with three counts of estafa thru falsification of commercial document but was convicted of falsification only.].

It is the petitioner’s contention before Us as well as in the Court of Appeals that she acted in good faith or had no criminal intent when she cashed her deceased husband’s paychecks. As stated in the decision of the Court of Appeals:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Appellant puts up the defense of good faith in signing the name of her deceased husband in the treasury warrants in question.

"Her version: The late Iluminado Luague was on leave from January 3 to February 9, 1972, as evidenced by his approved application for sick leave. On January 23, 1972, the Principal, Jose Infante, while visiting Iluminado Luague in the hospital, handed to Luague a check representing his differentials. Luague in turn handed over the check to his wife, the herein appellant, who was then present. Before Infante left, he informed the Luague spouses that Luague’s pay check for the second half of January 1972 had arrived and advised Mrs. Luague to get the same from Florencio Guillermo so that she could use it to pay for medicine and hospital expenses of her husband.

"Iluminado Luague instructed her [his (sic)] wife to get the check from Florencio Guillermo. Appellant went to the house of Guillermo in the afternoon of January 23, 1972. Guillermo asked her to sign the name of her husband on the payroll-warrant register and counter-sign with her initials. Guillermo then handed her the treasury warrant [Exhibit A (599)].

"Iluminado Luague died on January 24, 1972. From the proceeds of the warrants they received were paid the amount the Luague family owed the drugstores owned by Amor Carandang, Purisima Saba and Luz Tan. A treasury warrant was also paid to Edward Kam from whom they bought construction materials for the tomb of the deceased and to Ong Kiat store for the payment of materials used for the coffin of the late Iluminado Luague which were purchased on credit.

"Upon the instruction of Amor Carandang and on her belief and upon suggestion of Florencio Guillermo himself that the warrants could be used to settle their financial obligations incurred by the hospitalization and death of her late husband, appellant indorsed the said treasury warrants by signing the name of Iluminado Luague.

"Heirs of deceased government employees are entitled to whatever unpaid salaries the deceased employee failed to receive. Appellant claims that it was upon this honest belief that she endorsed the treasury warrants of her late husband to defray for the necessary expenses incurred due to the latter’s hospitalization, funeral and burial."cralaw virtua1aw library

The Court of Appeals did not reject the petitioner’s version, except in respect of the date when the first paycheck was delivered. In affirming the decision of the trial court, the Court of Appeals followed the simplistic procedure of applying literally the letter of the law, namely: there was falsification because the petitioner "signed her husband’s name in indorsing the treasury warrants in question." The Court of Appeals failed to take into account the following facts: That the petitioner signed her husband’s name to the checks because they were delivered to her by no less than her husband’s district supervisor long after the husband’s death which was known to the supervisor; that she used the proceeds of the checks to pay for the expenses of her husband’s last illness and his burial; and that she believed that she was entitled to the money as an advance payment of her husband’s vacation and sick leave credits the money value of which exceeded the value of the checks. In the light of these circumstances, We cannot ascribe criminal intent to the petitioner. We sustain her claim that she acted in good faith.

During the hearing, it was brought out that the government did not sustain any financial loss due to the encashment of the checks because the petitioner’s husband had accumulated vacation and sick leaves the money value of which exceeded the value of the three paychecks and the value of the checks was simply deducted from the money value of the leaves. This explains why the petitioner was not convicted of estafa but of falsification only. While we do not mean to imply that if there is no damage there can be no falsification, We do say that the absence of damage is an element to be considered to determine whether or not there is criminal intent.

We notice here the lack of compassion on the part of the prosecuting fiscal, the trial judge, and the Court of Appeals. Even the Solicitor General who is alert in seeking to correct improper convictions by trial courts has somehow misappreciated the evidence in this case.chanrobles law library

The accused is a poor widow who was obviously in a state of bewilderment due to the recent death of her husband when she cashed the paychecks. She was also in dire need of money to settle the expenses for her husband’s last illness and his burial. A compassionate attitude repeatedly urged by the First Lady, Mrs. Imelda R. Marcos, would have been highly in order under the circumstances.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby granted; the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed; the petitioner is acquitted of the charges against her. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., De Castro and Ericta, JJ., concur.

Escolin, J., took no part.




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






February-1982 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-45528 February 10, 1982 - EASTLAND MANUFACTURING, CO. INC. v. CARMELO C. NORIEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-35584-85 February 13, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO D. ARROYO

  • G.R. No. L-27766 February 15, 1982 - PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANK v. JUAN SOBREDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27952 February 15, 1982 - TESTATE ESTATE OF JOSE EUGENIO RAMIREZ, ET AL. v. MARCELLE D. VDA. DE RAMIREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30435 February 15, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PIO TINTERO

  • G.R. No. L-47418 February 15, 1982 - G.L. ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL. v. ALBERTO V. SEÑERIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-58080 February 15, 1982 - EFREN S. ZOLETA v. MANUEL ROMILLO, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. L-27070-71 February 16, 1982 - JOSEPH COCHINGYAN, JR. v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30169 February 16, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISPIN D. FLORES

  • G.R. No. L-34997 February 16, 1982 - IN RE: HILARIO TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-45551 February 16, 1982 - JOSE S. ANGELES, ET AL. v. RAFAEL S. SISON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-54106 February 16, 1982 - LUCRECIO PATRICIO, ET AL. v. ISABELO BAYOG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55764 February 16, 1982 - SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-2432 February 20, 1982 - REMEDIOS HERMOSO v. AMPARO MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. L-37867 February 22, 1982 - BOARD OF ADMINISTRATORS, ET AL. v. JOSE G. BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51215 February 22, 1982 - LU CHUN GAN v. JOSE H. TECSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55309 February 22, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO A. ABREA

  • G.R. Nos. L-55683 & 55903-04 February 22, 1982 - PILAR S. LUAGUE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57321 February 24, 1982 - REMEDIOS CABURNAY, ET AL. v. CARMEN VDA. DE ONGSIAKO, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 528-SBC February 25, 1982 - AQUILINA BITANGCOR v. RODOLFO M. TAN

  • G.R. No. L-27978 February 25, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCIAL CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29790 February 25, 1982 - AGUINALDO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30592 February 25, 1982 - PHIL. FISHING BOAT OFFICERS AND ENG’R. UNION, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32219 February 25, 1982 - CONSUELO MADRIGAL-VASQUEZ v. CORAZON J. AGRAVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32900 February 25, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DARWIN M. VELOSO

  • G.R. No. L-36509 February 25, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO JAVIER

  • G.R. No. L-38600 February 25, 1982 - IN RE: DANTE YAP GO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-38613 February 25, 1982 - PACIFIC TIMBER EXPORT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-4116 February 25, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EPIFANIO O. VALERIO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44426 February 25, 1982 - SULPICIO CARVAJAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48928 February 25, 1982 - MITA PARDO DE TAVERA v. PHILIPPINE TUBERCULOSIS SOCIETY, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51805 February 25, 1982 - GERTRUDES CARREON, ET AL. v. MANUEL CARREON

  • G.R. No. L-52058 February 25, 1982 - PERFECTO JARILLO v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-58309-10 February 25, 1982 - MANGACOP MANGCA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-58692 February 25, 1982 - MARINDUQUE MINING & INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION v. MINISTER OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.