Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1917 > January 1917 Decisions > G.R. No. 11448 January 25, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. ROMAN INFANTE, ET AL.

036 Phil 146:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 11448. January 25, 1917. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROMAN INFANTE and TOMAS BARRETO, Defendants-Appellants.

Gibbs, McDonough & Blanco for Infante.

Antonio V. Herrero for Barreto.

Acting Attorney-General Zaragoza for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. FALSIFICATION OF PRIVATE DOCUMENT; PAWN TICKETS. — The crime of falsification of a private document, defined and penalized in article 304 of the Penal Code, is consummated when such a document is actually falsified to the prejudice of or with the intent to prejudice a third person, whether such falsified document is or is not thereafter put to the illegal use for which it was intended.

2. ID.; ID.; EACH FALSIFICATION SEPARATE OFFENSE. — Two pawn tickets were falsified at or about the same time by the same persons in a substantially similar manner, that is to say, by the substitution in each of an article of much higher value than the article for which it was originally issued. These pawn tickets were thereafter presented and made use of together as a pledge to procure a loan far in excess of the true value of the articles originally pawned. Held: That the falsification of each of these documents constituted a single consummated offense wholly separate and distinct from the other and wholly separate and distinct from the crime of embezzlement which was committed when illegal and improper use was made of these falsified pawn tickets as pledges; and that a plea of a former conviction of the falsification of one of these pawn tickets is not a bar to the prosecution and maintenance of a criminal action wherein the accused are charged with the falsification of the other.


D E C I S I O N


CARSON, J. :


This case intimately connected with No. 11449 1 just decided. What was said in our opinion in that case, in disposing of the various assignments of error, is in large part applicable to the assignments of error relied upon in this case, and disposes adversely of all the substantial contentions of counsel on this appeal, except their claim that the information in this case should have been dismissed on the plea of double jeopardy interposed in the court below.

Appellants in this case were convicted in the former case of the crime of falsification of a private document, in that they falsified a pawn ticket issued by the Monte de Piedad, to the prejudice of and with intent to prejudice the complaining witness. The evidence disclosed that these accused changed the description of the pawned article as it appeared on the face of the pawn ticket and substituted therefor another article of greatly superior value, and that thereafter the falsified ticket was itself pawned in the pawnshop of the complaining witness for an amount largely in excess of the true value of the article pawned in the Monte de Piedad, for which the original pawn ticket was issued.

In the present case these appellants were convicted in the court below of the falsification of another pawn ticket issued by the Monte de Piedad, and the evidence discloses that this pawn ticket was falsified by these accused at or about the same time when they falsified the pawn ticket for the falsification of which they were convicted at the former trial; that the falsification was made in substantially similar manner to that in which the other ticket was falsified; and that both the falsified tickets were pawned in the pawnshop of the complaining witness at the same time and for the same purpose, that is to say, to procure a loan far in excess of the true value of the articles originally pawned in the Monte de Piedad.

The contention of counsel would seem to be that, since both these tickets were falsified at or about the same time and for the same purpose, and since both were used at the same time to procure unlawfully a certain sum of money from the pawn-broking establishment of the complaining witness, there was but one crime committed.

But whatever force there might be in this contention were the accused charged in these separate informations with the embezzlement of the money advanced by the pawnshop upon presentation of the separate falsified pawn tickets, such a contention cannot be successfully maintained with relation to the two separate charges of falsification of a private document upon which the accused were tried and convicted in the court below, each of which constituted a single, consummated offense wholly separate and distinct from the other and wholly separate and distinct from the crime of embezzlement which was committed when illegal and improper use was made of these falsified pawn tickets to procure money from the pawnshop of the complaining witness.

The two pawn tickets were wholly separate and distinct documents. They had no relation to each other as members of a series of instruments, so intimately related, that the falsification of one individual of the series would be, in effect, a falsification of the entire series. The crime of falsification of a private document was complete and consummated when, with intent to prejudice a third person, the first pawn ticket was actually falsified; and a wholly separate and distinct crime was initiated and consummated when the second ticket was falsified. That both documents may have been falsified to be used together in the perpetration of an embezzlement in no wise affects the case, as under the definition of the crime of falsification of private documents set out in article 304 of the Penal Code, the crime is consummated and complete at the moment when such a document is actually falsified, to the prejudice of, or with intent to prejudice a third person, it matters not to what use the document may be put thereafter, as will readily be seen from the express terms of that article, which are as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Any person who, to the damage of another, or with the intent to cause such damage, shall in any private document commit any of the acts of falsification enumerated in article three hundred shall suffer the penalty of presidio correccional in its minimum and medium degrees and be fined in a sum not less than six hundred and twenty-five and not more than six thousand two hundred and fifty pesetas."cralaw virtua1aw library

We find no error in the proceedings had in the court below prejudicial to the rights of the accused, and the judgment convicting and sentencing him should, therefore, be affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

Torres, Moreland, Trent and Araullo, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. See page 149.




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






January-1917 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 11526 January 2, 1917 - B. A. GREEN, ET AL. v. M. LOPEZ, ET AL.

    036 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 10270 January 3, 1917 - EMILIO CUSTODIO v. ANDRES CALINAWAN

    041 Phil 785

  • G.R. No. 11555 January 6, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. GABINO SOLIMAN

    036 Phil 5

  • G.R. No. 11079 January 12, 1917 - MITSUI BUSSAN KAISHA (LTD.) v. HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION

    036 Phil 27

  • G.R. No. 11373 January 13, 1917 - ANACLETO MENDOZA v. MANUEL ARELLANO, ET AL.

    036 Phil 59

  • G.R. No. 11807 January 13, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. PIO ESTABAYA

    036 Phil 64

  • G.R. No. 11437 January 16, 1917 - BENITO T. LEGARDA v. MARIANO B. ZARATE

    036 Phil 68

  • G.R. No. 12300 January 16, 1917 - AGATON SIBAL v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF TARLAC, ET AL.

    036 Phil 81

  • G.R. No. 12301 January 16, 1917 - MARIANO BELLO v. HERMOGENES REYES, ET AL.

    036 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. 11607 January 17, 1917 - PHILIPPINE SUGAR ESTATES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (LTD.) v. ARMANDO C. CAMPS

    036 Phil 85

  • G.R. No. 11639 January 18, 1917 - CITY OF MANILA v. MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGHT COMPANY, ET AL.

    036 Phil 89

  • G.R. No. 10487 January 23, 1917 - M. A. CLARKE v. MANILA CANDY CO. (LTD.)

    036 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. 11203 January 23, 1917 - T. R. YANGCO v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS

    036 Phil 116

  • G.R. No. 11570 January 23, 1917 - MANUEL LOCSIN RAMA v. ALEJANDRO MONTELIBANO RAMOS

    036 Phil 136

  • G.R. No. 11448 January 25, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. ROMAN INFANTE, ET AL.

    036 Phil 146

  • G.R. No. 11449 January 25, 1917 - THE UNITED STATES v. ROMAN INFANTE, ET AL.

    036 Phil 149

  • G.R. No. 11979 January 25, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. MAXIMO MARALIT

    036 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. 12179 January 25, 1917 - DOMINGO FAJARDO, ET AL. v. MANUEL V. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

    036 Phil 159

  • G.R. No. 12293 January 25, 1917 - GREGORIO BASA v. HILARION SENATIN, ET AL.

    036 Phil 165

  • G.R. No. 12330 January 25, 1917 - YNCHAUSTI & CO. v. JOHN S. STANLEY

    036 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 11106 January 27, 1917 - ENRIQUE LEGARDA KOH v. LUCIO ONGSIACO

    036 Phil 185

  • G.R. No. 11419 January 30, 1917 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. FABIAN ARIAS

    036 Phil 194

  • G.R. No. 12144 January 31, 1917 - ENRIQUE ALTAVAS v. P. M. MOIR

    036 Phil 198