September 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 197646 : September 21, 2011]
ROSA BANTOGON AND EUFROSINA ERLINDA C. CLAUS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 197646 (Rosa Bantogon and Eufrosina Erlinda C. Claus v. People of the Philippines). - We resolve the Petition for Review filed by accused Rosa Bantogon y Andal and Eufrosina Erlinda C. Claus, from the 31 March 2011 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. No. 31729.[1]
The RTC Ruling
In its Decision promulgated 21 April 2008,[2] the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of falsification of private document.[3] The court found that, in the Special Power of Attorney (SPA) submitted by the two accused to Kalinga Lending Investors, Inc., they made it appear that Vicente Asa and the notary public, Atty. Sofronio Hernandez, had participated in the execution of the document, when they in fact had not. The prosecution presented the Death Certificate of Asa, who owned the land mortgaged by the accused to Kalinga Lending Investors, Inc.; and presented, as well, the Certification executed by Hernandez stating that the signature on the SPA was not his own, and that his office had no record of its authenticity on the said date. The accused were sentenced to 2 years and 4 months of prision correccional, minimum; to 6 years, 1 month and 10 days of prision mayor as maximum.
The CA Ruling
Accused petitioners contended that the certification issued by Hernandez could not be given probative value, since Hernandez himself had not been presented in court. The CA ruled that the RTC erred in admitting the Certification, but affirmed the conviction based on the Death Certificate of Vicente Asa. The CA found that the fact of his death had never been questioned, and that the Rules of Court allows the admission of a public document as prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.[4] Assuming that the acknowledgment of the SPA had properly been executed, accused petitioners still made it appear that Asa, who was already dead, had issued the document.
We now rule on the final review of the case.
Our Ruling
We deny the petition, but modify the penalty imposed.
No error was committed by the RTC or the CA to warrant a reversal of the findings.
Accused petitioners would have us believe that the trial court based its judgment of conviction entirely on the testimony of Evangeline Balita. They argue further that the genuineness and due execution of the certification submitted by Atty. Hernandez has never been proven; and that, since the latter never personally testified, Balita's own testimony constituted hearsay.
We do not agree. The trial court found accused guilty based not only on Atty. Hernandez's certification, but also on the undisputed fact that the principal signatory, Vicente Asa, had died long before the date indicated in the SPA. He died on 31 May 1996.[5] The date indicated on the SPA is 26 November 2001.[6] Thus, the trial court concluded:
In the instant case, the SPA was falsified to make it appear that Vicente Asa, the registered owner of the real estate covered by TCT No. T-4737, authorized the accused to mortgage the property and receive the proceeds thereof.
The falsification is attributed, as it is attributable, to both the accused who presented the same to private complainant for the purpose of obtaining a loan. Accused were the ones in possession of the said falsified SPA, which they admittedly made use of.
A review of the records of the case reveals that the narration by Balita of the events, as she herself had personally experienced them, was clear and straightforward: 1.) She first noticed that the SPA lacked an acknowledgement; 2.) Both accused assured her that the document was valid, as it had been executed in the office of a certain Atty. Sofronio Hernandez of Alitagtag, Batangas, and in the presence of the principal, Vicente Asa; 3.) She then visited Atty. Hernandez at his office and inquired into the validity of the document, but was informed by the latter that no record of the authentication of such document existed; 4.) Atty. Hernandez then indicated on the duplicate of the SPA that he was disowning the signature above it, and he subsequently issued a separate Certification to that effect; 5.) She found out at the city hall that Asa had long been dead.
Balita certainly had personal knowledge of her meeting with Atty. Hernandez. Her narration regarding the said Certification was in the nature of an independently relevant statement which establishes the fact that Atty. Hernandez made the statement to her, and not necessarily the truth of that statement. The Court has held thus:
...[W]hile it is true that the testimony of a witness regarding a statement made by another person, if intended to establish the truth of the fact asserted in the statement, is clearly hearsay evidence, it is otherwise if the purpose of placing the statement in the record is merely to establish the fact that the statement was made or the tenor of such statement. Regardless of the truth or falsity of a statement, when the fact that it has been made is relevant, the hearsay rule does not apply and the statement may be shown. As a matter of fact, evidence as to the making of the statement is not secondary but primary, for the statement itself may constitute a fact in issue, or be circumstantially relevant as to the existence of such a fact.[7]
While we affirm the RTC's factual findings and the specific fine imposed, we find it necessary to modify the period of imprisonment. The RTC sentenced the accused to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 2 years and 4 months of prision correccional minimum; to 6 years, 1 month and 10 days of prision mayor as maximum. Accused petitioners correctly assert that this period is beyond the range prescribed by Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code and prevailing jurisprudence.
In Batulanon v. People,[8] the Court stated that when no aggravating or mitigating circumstances attended the commission of falsification, it should be the medium period of prision correccional which should be applied. In Garcia v. Court of Appeals,[9] the Supreme Court also ruled that absent any modifying circumstance, the court should impose the medium period in the range prescribed by the Revised Penal Code. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum period under Article 172 must be within the range of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period.[10]cralaw
WHEREFORE, in the present case, there being no aggravating circumstances, the maximum penalty should be prision correccional in its medium period, which is 3 years, six months and 21 days to 4 years, 9 months and 10 days. We thus deem it proper in this case to lower the maximum penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals from 6 years, 1 month and 10 days to 4 years, 9 months and 10 days of prision correccional.
The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 31729 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused petitioners Rosa Bantogon y Andal and Eufrosina Erlinda C. Claus are found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of falsification of private document and are sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 2 years, 4 months of prision correccional, as minimum; to 4 years, 9 months, and 10 days of prision correccional as maximum. Carpio, J., on leave; Brion, J., designated Acting Chairperson per S.O. No. 1083; Velasco, Jr., J., designated additional member per S.O. No. 1084
Very truly yours,
MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Division Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Florito S. Macalino.[2] Docketed as Criminal Case No. 118383, penned by Presiding Judge Cleto R. Villacorta III.
[3] REVISED PENAL CODE, Art. 172, par. 2.
[4] RULES OF COURT, Rule 130, Sec. 44.
[5] Rollo, p. 256.
[6] Id. at 255.
[7] Salvador Comilang v. Francisco Burcena. G.R. No. 146853, 13 February 2006, 482 SCRA 342.
[8] Batulanon v. People, G.R. No. 139857, 15 September 2006, 502 SCRA 35.
[9] Garcia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128213, 13 December 2005, 477 SCRA 427.
[10] Panuncio v. People, G.R. No. 165678, 17 July 2009, 593 SCRA 180.
