SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-16806            December 22, 1961

SERGIO DEL ROSARIO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

P. N. Stuart del Rosario for petitioner.
Office of the Solicitor General for respondent.

CONCEPCION, J.:

Accused of counterfeiting Philippine treasury notes, Sergio del Rosario, Alfonso Araneta and Benedicto del Pilar were convicted by the Court of First Instance of Davao of illegal possession of said forged treasury notes and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from 8 years and 1 day to 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor, and pay a fine of P5,000, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, as well as a proportionate part of the costs. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, except insofar as the maximum of said indeterminate penalty which was increased to 10 years, 8 months and 1 day of prision mayor. The case is before us on appeal by certiorari taken by Sergio del Rosario.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

It appears that, after showing to complainant Apolinario del Rosario the Philippine one-peso bills Exhibits C, E and G and the Philippine two-peso bill Exhibit H, and inducing him to believe that the same were counterfeit paper money manufactured by them, although in fact they were genuine treasury notes of the Philippine Government one of the digits of each of which had been altered and changed, the aforementioned defendants had succeeded in obtaining P1,700.00 from said complainant, in the City of Davao, on June 23, 1955, for the avowed purpose of financing the manufacture of more counterfeit treasury notes of the Philippines. The only question raised in this appeal is whether the possession of said Exhibits C, E, G and H constitutes a violation of Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code. Appellant maintains that, being genuine treasury notes of our government, the possession thereof cannot be illegal. We find no merit in this pretense.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

It is not disputed that a portion of the last digit 9 of Serial No. F-79692619 of Exhibit C, had been erased and changed so as to read 0 and that similar erasures and changes had been made in the penultimate digit 9 in Serial No. F-79692691 of Exhibit E, in the last digit in Serial No. D-716326 of Exhibit G, and in the last digit 9 of Serial No.
D-716329 of Exhibit H.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Articles 160 and 169 of the Revised Penal Code read:

ART. 168. Illegal possession and use of false treasury or bank notes and other instruments of credit. - Unless the act be one of those coming under the provisions of any of the preceding articles, any person who shall knowingly use or have in his possession, with intent to use any of the false or falsified instruments referred to in this section, shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed in said articles.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

ART. 169. How forgery is committed. - The forgery referred to in this section may be committed by any of the following means;chanrobles virtual law library

1. By giving to a treasury or bank note or any instrument payable to bearer or to order mentioned therein, the appearance of a true and genuine document.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

2. By erasing, substituting, counterfeiting or altering by any means the figures, letters, words or signs contained therein.

It is clear from these provisions that the possession of genuine treasury notes of the Philippines any of "the figures, letters, words or signs contained" in which had been erased and or altered, with knowledge of such notes, as they were used by petitioner herein and his co-defendants in the manner adverted to above, is punishable under said Article 168, in relation to Article 166, subdivision (1), of the Revised Penal Code (U.S. vs. Gardner, 3 Phil., 398; U.S. vs. Solito, 36 Phil., 785).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Being in accordance with the facts and the law, the decision appealed from is, accordingly, affirmed, with costs against petitioner Sergio del Rosario. It is so ordered.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon and De Leon, JJ., concur.
Paredes, J., took no part.