Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1938 > December 1938 Decisions > G.R. Nos. 46353-46355 December 5, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RESURRECCION B. PEÑAS

066 Phil 682:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. Nos . 46353-46355. December 5, 1938.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RESURRECCION B. PEÑAS, Defendant-Appellant.

Aniceto B. Fabia, for Appellant.

Assistant Solicitor-General Abad Santos and J. G. Bautista, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; DISTINCTION BETWEEN INFIDELITY IN CUSTODY OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AND THE COMPLEX OF "ESTAFA" WITH FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS. — The facts constituting the crime of infidelity in the custody of documents, like those alleged in the information in the case wherein the appellant was convicted of said crime of estafa with falsification of public documents with which he was charged in the present three cases. There is no point of similarity between the two offenses except that in both crimes the perpetrator is a public officer and that the document concealed, removed or destroyed in the case of infidelity in the custody of documents and that falsified in the case of falsification are public or official documents.

2. ID.; ID.; DOUBLE JEOPARDY. — The conviction or acquittal in a case of infidelity in the custody of documents is no bar to the prosecution for the crime of falsification of the same documents. One who conceals or destroys an official or public document in the order to be punishable under the provisions of article 226 of the Revised Penal Code, which prohibits of article 226 of the Revised Penal Code, which prohibits and penalizes infidelity in the custody of documents, need not falsify these documents in any of the ways provide in article 171 of the said Code. It is enough that he should remove, conceal or destroy said documents. In order that a public officer may be punished for the crime of falsification of a public document, it is not necessary that he should remove, conceal or destroy the falsified document.

3. ID.; ID.; ID. — The doctrines of double jeopardy and previous conviction do not apply to cases wherein the following requisites are not present: that the defendant or defendants in both the former and later cases are the same; that the acts complained of in the two cases are likewise the same, and that the offenses are also the same or identical. (Secs. 24 and 26 of the General Orders, No. 58; U. S. v. Claveria, 29 Phil., 527; U. S. v. Bayona Vitog, 37 Phil., 42; U. S. v. Ching Po, 23 Phil., 578; U. S. v. Lim Tigdien and Esteves, 30 Phil., 222.)

4. ID., EXECUTION OF VARIOUS ACTS, TO ATTAIN A SINGLE PURPOSE, WHICH CONSTITUTE A SINGLE OFFENSE. — When, for the attainment of a single purpose which constitutes an offense, various acts are executed, such acts must be considered only as one offense. Under this view, the appellant committed only the complex crime of estafa with falsification of three postal money orders which are, without doubt, official and public documents, the falsification being the means he employed to appropriate, as he did, for himself the sum of P600, to the prejudice of the Government.

5. ID.; IMPOSITION OF PENALTY CORRESPONDING TO THE GRAVER CRIME. — Considering that the law prescribes a more severe penalty for the crime of falsification (art. 171, Revised Penal Code) than for estafa (art. 315, case 3, Revised Penal Code), there should be imposed on the appellant, in conformity with the provisions of article 48 of the said Code, the maximum of prision mayor, this being the penalty prescribed for the crime of falsification of public documents when committed by public officers.


D E C I S I O N


DIAZ, J.:


The appellant was convicted on three separate charges for estafa with falsification of public documents by the Court of First Instance of Cebu and sentenced in each case to an indeterminate penalty of four years, two months and one day of prision correccional to ten years and one day of prision mayor, to pay a fine of P100, to indemnify the Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines in the sum of P200 and to pay the costs. He appealed from these decisions of conviction and attributes to the lower court the following errors:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. In not declaring that he was placed in double jeopardy.

2. In not declaring that the acts alleged in each of the three cases constitute only one offense.

3. In not acquitting him in each case.

The information in the three cases read as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(G. R. No. 46353)

"That on or about January 4, 1937, in the City of Cebu, Philippines, the accused Resurreccion B. Peñas, who was then assistant postmaster of Barotac Viejo, Iloilo, and as such had in his possession and custody a blank money order book, wilfully, criminally and illegally with abuse of his official position, falsified money order No. 419, series No. 6990, by making it appear that said money offer was issued in the municipality of Barotac Viejo, Iloilo, in favor of the accused Resurrection B. Peñas, in the amount of $100, payable at the post office of the City of Cebu; he also imitated and forged the signature of the postmaster of Barotac Viejo, Sulpicio Peñafiel thus causing false facts to appear on said money order No. 6990, such as the intervention of persons who in fact did not intervene nor had any knowledge of the issuance of said money order, for the herein accused Resurrection B. Peñas did not deposit in the post office of Barotac Viejo, Iloilo, the sum of $100 or its equivalent of P200, nor did the postmaster; Sulpicio Peñafiel, intervene or have any knowledge of the issuance of said money order; that after falsifying money order No. 6990, the accused went to the post office of Cebu and, with intent of gain, presented the money order and collected the amount of P200 appearing therein, to the damage and prejudice of the Insular Government.

"Contrary to article 315 in connection with article 171 of the Revised Penal Code."cralaw virtua1aw library

(G.R. No. 46354)

"That on or about January 4, 1937, in the City of Cebu, Philippines, the accused Resurreccion B. Peñas, who was then assistant postmaster of Barotac Viejo, Iloilo, and as such had in his possession and custody a blank money order book, wilfully, criminally and illegally, with abuse of his official position, falsified money order No. 419, series No. 6992, by making it appear that said money order was issued in the municipality of Barotac Viejo, Iloilo, in favor of the accused Resurreccion B. Peñas, in the amount of $100, payable at the post office of the City of Cebu; he also imitated and forged the signature of the postmaster of Barotac Viejo, Sulpicio Peñafiel, thus causing false facts to appear on said money order No. 6992, such as the intervention of persons who in fact did no intervene nor had any knowledge of the issuance of said money order, for the herein accused Resurreccion B. Peñas did not deposit in the post office of Barotac Viejo, Iloilo, the sum of $100 or its equivalent of P200, nor did the postmaster, Sulpicio Peñafiel, intervene or have any knowledge of the issuance of said money order; that after falsifying money order No. 6992, the accused went to the post office of Cebu, and with intent of gain, presented the money order and collected the amount of P200 appearing therein, to the damage and prejudice of the Insular Government.

"Contrary to article 315 in connection with article 171 of the Revised Penal Code."cralaw virtua1aw library

(G.R. No. 46355)

"That on or about January 4, 1937, in the City Cebu, Philippines, the accused Resurreccion B. Peñas, who was then assistant postmaster of Barotac Viejo, Iloilo, and as such book, wilfully, criminally and illegally, with abuse of his official position, falsified money order No. 419, series No. 6992, by making it appear that said money order was issued in the municipality of Barotac Viejo, Iloilo, in favor of the accused Resurreccion B. Peñas, in the amount of $100, payable at the post office of the City of Cebu; he also imitated and forged the signature of the postmaster of Barotac Viejo, Sulpicio Peñafiel, thus causing false facts to appear on said money order No. 6992, such as the intervention of persons who in fact did not intervene nor had any knowledge of the issuance of said money order, for the herein accused Resurreccion B. Peñas did not deposit in the post office of Barotac Viejo, Iloilo, the sum of $100 or its equivalent of P200, nor did the postmaster, Sulpicio Peñafiel, intervene or have any knowledge of the issuance of said money order; that after falsifying money order No. 6992, the accused went to the post office of Cebu, and, with intent of gain, presented the money order and collected the amount of P200 appearing therein, to the damage and prejudice of the Insular Government.

"Contrary to article 315 in connection with article 171 of the Revised Penal Code."cralaw virtua1aw library

(1) Previous to his prosecution in the herein three cases, the appellant was charged with and found guilty of infidelity in the custody of documents for which he was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six months and one day for four years and two months of prision correccional and to pay a fine of P500, plus costs. The facts constituting the crime of infidelity in the custody of documents, like those alleged in the information in the case wherein the appellant was convicted of said crime, are entirely distinct from those constituting the complex crime of estafa with falsification of public documents with which he was charged in the said three cases. There is no point of similarity between the two offenses except that in both crimes the perpetrator is a public officer and that the document concealed, removed or destroyed in the case of infidelity in the custody of documents is no bar to the prosecution for the crime of falsification of the same documents. This is so because, one who conceals or destroys an official or public document in order to be punishable under the provisions of article 226 of the Revised Penal Code, which prohibits and penalizes infidelity in the custody of documents, need not falsify these documents in any of the ways provided in article 171 of the said Code. It is enough that he should remove, conceal or destroy said documents. In order that a public officer may be punished for the crime of falsification of a public document, it is not necessary that he should remove, conceal or destroy the falsified documents. The doctrines of double jeopardy and previous conviction do not apply to cases wherein the following requisites are not present: that the defendant or defendants in both the former and later cases are the same; that the acts complained of in the two cases are likewise the same, and that the offenses are also the same or identical. (Secs. 24 and 26 of General Orders, No. 58; U. S. v. Claveria, 29 Phil., 527; U. S. v. Bayona Vitog, 37 Phil., 42; U. S. v. Ching Po. 23 Phil., 578; U. S. v. Lim Tigdien and Esteves, 30 Phil., 222.)

(2) On the dates alleged in the three informations, the appellant was assistant postmaster in the municipality of Barotac Viejo, for which reason he was aware that no money order could be bought or issued for a sum greater than $100, as expressly provided in section 1968 of the Administrative Code. In accordance, therefore, with said provision of the law, in order to issue a money order for P600, it was necessary to make three separate money orders.

As shown by Exhibits A, B and C, which are the falsified money orders subject of the three informations, the appellant falsified the same on a single date: November 24, 1936, and he collected them also on a single date, January 4, 1937 — from which it is inferred that the three acts of falsification and the said three acts of appropriation of the sum of P200 in each case proceed from a single purpose of the appellant, namely, to appropriate for himself the sum of P600. If he had to resort to this means falsifying three money orders, it was because he was aware that he could not do otherwise, in view of the legal provision, which he was supposed to know, limiting the issuance of money orders to sums not greater than $100 or P200. When, for the attainment of a single purpose which constitutes an offense, various acts are executed, such acts must be considered only as one offense. Under this view, the appellant committed only the complex crime of estafa with falsification of three postal money orders which are, without doubt, official and public documents, the falsification being the means he employed to appropriate, as he did, for himself the sum of P600, to the prejudice of the Government.

Considering that the law prescribes a more severe penalty for the crime of falsification (art. 171, Revised Penal Code) than for estafa (art. 315, case 3, Revised Penal Code), we should impose on the appellant, in conformity with the provisions of article 48 of the said Code, the maximum of prisión mayor, this being the penalty prescribed for the crime of falsification of public documents when committed by public officers.

Wherefore, under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty that should be imposed on the appellant in the said three cases is that of eight years and one day to ten years and one day of prision mayor (People v. Co. Pao, 58 Phil., 545; People v. Gayrama, 60 Phil., 796; People v. Haloot, 37 Off. Gaz., 2901), to indemnify the Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines in the sum of P600, and to pay a fine of P2,000 and the costs.

(3) Having arrived at this conclusion, we consider it unnecessary to discuss the third error assigned by the appellant to the lower court.

In view of the foregoing, the appealed judgments are modified as expressed in this decision. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Imperial, Laurel and Concepcion, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions


VILLA-REAL, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I dissent only from that part of the majority opinion declaring that the penalty next lower in degree, from which must be taken the minimum to be imposed on the appellant in accordance with the Indeterminate Sentence Law as amended by Act No. 4225, is prision mayor in its medium degree, because the complex crime committed by him is penalized by the Revised Penal Code with the maximum degree of prision mayor, plus a fine not to exceed P5,000. (Arts. 171 and 48 of the Revised Penal Code.) It is my opinion that the penalty should be taken from prision correccional in accordance with the procedure outline in my dissenting opinion in the case of People v. Haloot (37 Off. Gaz., 2901), for the reasons therein stated.




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






December-1938 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 45097 December 1, 1938 - JOSE EMPEMANO, ET AL. v. GREGORIO CABUNIAG, ET AL.

    066 Phil 665

  • G.R. No. 44826 December 2, 1938 - TOMASA OSORIO v. ANGELA MONTENEGRO VIUDA DE PAPA

    066 Phil 669

  • G.R. No. 44832 December 3, 1938 - PHILIPPINE CORK & INSULATION CO. v. ISIDORO DE SANTOS

    066 Phil 673

  • G.R. No. 46324 December 3, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLIAM MACGAVIN

    066 Phil 677

  • G.R. Nos. 46353-46355 December 5, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RESURRECCION B. PEÑAS

    066 Phil 682

  • G.R. No. 46020 December 8, 1938 - CONCEPCION MURILLO v. ALFREDO MENDOZA

    066 Phil 689

  • G.R. No. 46208 December 12, 1938 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. PARSONS HARDWARE COMPANY

    066 Phil 706

  • G.R. No. 43622 December 13, 1938 - LOPEZ SUGAR CENTRAL MILL CO., INC. v. MAGDALENA GONZAGA VIUDA DE CUAYCONG, ET AL.

    066 Phil 708

  • G.R. No. 46294 December 13, 1938 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. JOSE T. ESPINOSA

    066 Phil 716

  • G.R. No. 46385 December 14, 1938 - POTENCIANO CORREA, ET AL. v. MARCELO BUÑOL, ET AL.

    066 Phil 719

  • G.R. No. 44451 December 16, 1938 - VICENTE L. LEGARDA v. LA PREVISORA FILIPINA

    066 Phil 723

  • G.R. No. 46295 December 16, 1938 - BARDWILL BROS. v. JOSE G. GENEROSO, ET AL.

    066 Phil 736

  • G.R. No. 46345 December 16, 1938 - CASIMIRO TAMPARONG v. ROQUE V. NERY

    066 Phil 742

  • G.R. No. 46378 December 17, 1938 - MANILA GAS CORPORATION v. ALFREDO B. CALUPITAN

    066 Phil 747

  • G.R. No. 44142 December 24, 1938 - VICENTE NOBLE v. CITY OF MANILA

    067 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 44204 December 24, 1938 - ENRIQUE v. JOSE M. KERR, ET AL.

    067 Phil 7

  • G.R. No. 44510 December 24, 1938 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO. v. JOSE ESTEVA, ET AL.

    067 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. 44579 December 24, 1938 - JUAN E. TUASON v. LA PREVISORA FILIPINA

    067 Phil 36

  • G.R. Nos. 46064 & 46089 December 24, 1938 - RAFAEL REGIS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    067 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. 46323 December 24, 1938 - PEDRO R. ARTECHE v. ANGEL ROSALES, ET AL.

    067 Phil 48