Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

G.R. No. 187215 (Juliana B. Cruz v. People of the Philippines). - On October 10, 2001, petitioner Juliana B. Cruz, Barangay Captain of Barangay 148, Zone 13, District II, Manila, along with Barangay Kagawad Helena B. Cruz and Barangay Treasurer Sonia Ching, was charged with falsification of public document under paragraph 1, Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code.

On January 4, 1998, a regular monthly meeting was held among the barangay officials. In view of the absence of the barangay secretary, a resolution was passed appointing Helena Cruz as Acting Barangay Secretary. The said resolution also contained a provision authorizing the release of the budget for the payment of salaries of the kagawads by way of honoraria.

Private complainants Arnold Buot, Jim Dollesin, Vic Penaranda and Roldan Concepcion, barangay kagawads, were paid their honoraria for two quarters in the sum of P3,300.00 only, which was fifty percent less than the amount due them. Upon verification from Sheryl Gregorio, from the office of the City Accountant of Manila, they were furnished a copy of the resolution, which was duly filed with the Manila Barangay Bureau. Complainants claimed that their purported signatures in the resolution were forgeries considering that they did not participated in the council meeting nor said resolution ever passed their hands.

Upon a request for examination by the prosecution, NBI Document Examiner Rommel Magcuro, after a scientific comparison of the questioned signatures against the sample signatures of Dollesin, Concepcion, and Buot, concluded that the questioned signatures were indeed forgeries.

On February 28, 2006, the trial court rendered a decision finding petitioner Cruz guilty of falsification of public document. The trial court found that the council resolution, which was a public document, was irregularly passed. Therein, the council appointed Helena Cruz as barangay secretary, and made possible the diminution of the honoraria due the complainants.^[1] The trial court sentenced petitioner to an imprisonment of from 4 years, 2 months and 1 day prision correccional  as minimum to 10 years of prision mayor as maximum, and to a payment of fine of P2,000.00. The charges against Helena Cruz and Sonia Ching were dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.

In a decision dated October 13, 2008, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed in toto. The CA explained that petitioner's guilt was duly established by circumstantial evidence pointing to the conclusion that she was the material author of the falsification, or that it was made on her behalf: (a) the NBI's Document Examiner's Report that the signatures of the three complainants were forged, (b) the complainants' testimonies that they did not sign the questioned resolution and that they had no hand in its approval, and (c) the fact established by complainants' testimonies that petitioner received her full honoraria for the first and second quarters of 1998, along with her two co-accused. The CA added that it was incumbent upon the petitioner to shed light on the matter and adduce evidence to prove her innocence. However, petitioner waived her right to present evidence and did not bother to explain how the signatures of the complainants came to appear on the questioned resolution.

After a careful review of the records of the case, the Court finds no reversible error and adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the CA that petitioner is indeed guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Falsification of a Public Document. The question of whether petitioner's guilt was clearly established is a factual matter which is not within the province of the Court to re-examine.

We reiterate the doctrine stated in Sol F. Matugas v. Office of the Secretary, Department of Justice and Luz S. Almeda^[2] where the Court held that: 

The rule is that if a person had in his possession a falsified document and he made use of it (uttered it), taking advantage of it and profiting thereby, the presumption is that he is the material author of the falsification. This is especially true if the use or uttering of the forged documents was so closely connected in time with the forgery that the user or possessor may be proven to have the capacity of committing the forgery, or to have close connection with the forgers, and, therefore, had complicity in the forgery. (U.S. vs. Castillo, 6 Phil. 453; People vs. De Lara, 45 Phil. 754; People vs. Domingo, 49 Phil. 28; People vs. Astudillo, 60 Phil. 338; People vs. Manansala, 105 Phil. 1253). 

In the absence of a satisfactory explanation, one who is found in possession of a forged document and who used or uttered it is presumed to be the forger (Alarcon vs. Court of Appeals, L-21846, March 31, 1967, 19 SCRA 688; People vs. Caragao, L-28258, December 27, 1969, 30 SCRA 993).

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant petition is DENIED  for lack of merit. Perez, J., on official leave; Perlas-Bernabe, J., designated additional member per S.O. No. 1114.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours, 

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA 
  Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, p. 47.

^[2] G.R. No. 17 1473, Resolution dated February 24, 2010: see Pecho v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 111399, November 14, 1994, 238 SCRA 116, 138-139.