December 2008 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > December 2008 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 184728 : December 08, 2008] ZENAIDA REYES V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES :
[G.R. No. 184728 : December 08, 2008]
ZENAIDA REYES V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 08 December 2008:
G.R. No. 184728 (Zenaida Reyes v. People of the Philippines).- Petitioner was charged with the crime of Falsification of Public Documents for feigning and signing the name of Pablo Floro, who could no longer affix his signature due to age infirmity, as seller on a deed of absolute sale of four (4) parcels of land and causing it to appear that said Floro has participated in the execution of the said document when in truth and in fact, said deed was not executed and signed by Floro nor did he ever appear before any notary public for the purpose of acknowledging the deed aforementioned. Petitioner denied having forged Flora's signature, alleging that she was the owner of the subject lots and that when Floro's son handed the deed to her, it already contained the signature of Floro. She further averred that she obtained a favorable decision in a civil case upholding her ownership over the subject lot against Floro's daughter who claimed to have inherited the same. She likewise argued that the prosecution failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found to the contrary and sentenced her to suffer the penalty of four (4) months of arresto mayor as minimum to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as maximum and to pay a fine of five thousand pesos (P5,000.00). Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Both the RTC[1] and the CA[2] found the prosecution evidence sufficient to establish all the essential elements of the crime charged. While it is true that the prosecution did not present direct evidence that petitioner had effected the falsification, both courts held that she is disputably presumed to have done the act based on the proven facts of the case. Settled is the rule that in the absence of satisfactory explanation, one found in possession of and who used a forged document is the forger and therefore guilty of falsification.[3] This is especially true if the use or possession of the forged documents was so closely connected in time with the forgery that the user or possessor may be deemed to have had the capacity of committing the forgery, or to have had close connection with the forgers, and, therefore, had complicity in the forgery, as in the instant case. The CA further held that the RTC's Decision in the civil case has yet to attain finality and ownership over the subject lots is irrelevant to the crime of falsification of public documents. The CA ruled that petitioner's voluntary acts of: (a) signing as witness to the notarized deed of absolute sale, attesting that Floro, as vendor, signed the same in her presence, where there was probable cause to believe that such signature was falsified; (b) knowingly causing the registration of the falsified deed with the Register of Deeds to effect the cancellation of the old TCTs and the issuance of the new TCTs in her name evinced malice and willful transgression of the law. Furthermore, in the deed of reconveyance whereby petitioner was supposed to return the subject lots to Floro under peril of suability in a criminal action, petitioner admitted having forged Flora's signature in the deed of absolute sale in question. Such circumstances, the CA held, all point to the criminal culpability of petitioner. The CA affirmed with modification the RTC's decision by sentencing petitioner to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment for four (4) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor as minimum to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as maximum, in addition to the fine of P5,000.00.
Petitioner now comes to us for redress via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Considering however the allegations, issues and arguments adduced, this Court RESOLVES to DENY the instant petition for failure to sufficiently show reversible error in the assailed decision to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, the Court ADOPTS the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Decision dated 11 July 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 26058, finding petitioner Zenaida Reyes guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Falsification of Public Documents as defined and penalized under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code and AFFIRMS said Decision.
G.R. No. 184728 (Zenaida Reyes v. People of the Philippines).- Petitioner was charged with the crime of Falsification of Public Documents for feigning and signing the name of Pablo Floro, who could no longer affix his signature due to age infirmity, as seller on a deed of absolute sale of four (4) parcels of land and causing it to appear that said Floro has participated in the execution of the said document when in truth and in fact, said deed was not executed and signed by Floro nor did he ever appear before any notary public for the purpose of acknowledging the deed aforementioned. Petitioner denied having forged Flora's signature, alleging that she was the owner of the subject lots and that when Floro's son handed the deed to her, it already contained the signature of Floro. She further averred that she obtained a favorable decision in a civil case upholding her ownership over the subject lot against Floro's daughter who claimed to have inherited the same. She likewise argued that the prosecution failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found to the contrary and sentenced her to suffer the penalty of four (4) months of arresto mayor as minimum to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as maximum and to pay a fine of five thousand pesos (P5,000.00). Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Both the RTC[1] and the CA[2] found the prosecution evidence sufficient to establish all the essential elements of the crime charged. While it is true that the prosecution did not present direct evidence that petitioner had effected the falsification, both courts held that she is disputably presumed to have done the act based on the proven facts of the case. Settled is the rule that in the absence of satisfactory explanation, one found in possession of and who used a forged document is the forger and therefore guilty of falsification.[3] This is especially true if the use or possession of the forged documents was so closely connected in time with the forgery that the user or possessor may be deemed to have had the capacity of committing the forgery, or to have had close connection with the forgers, and, therefore, had complicity in the forgery, as in the instant case. The CA further held that the RTC's Decision in the civil case has yet to attain finality and ownership over the subject lots is irrelevant to the crime of falsification of public documents. The CA ruled that petitioner's voluntary acts of: (a) signing as witness to the notarized deed of absolute sale, attesting that Floro, as vendor, signed the same in her presence, where there was probable cause to believe that such signature was falsified; (b) knowingly causing the registration of the falsified deed with the Register of Deeds to effect the cancellation of the old TCTs and the issuance of the new TCTs in her name evinced malice and willful transgression of the law. Furthermore, in the deed of reconveyance whereby petitioner was supposed to return the subject lots to Floro under peril of suability in a criminal action, petitioner admitted having forged Flora's signature in the deed of absolute sale in question. Such circumstances, the CA held, all point to the criminal culpability of petitioner. The CA affirmed with modification the RTC's decision by sentencing petitioner to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment for four (4) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor as minimum to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as maximum, in addition to the fine of P5,000.00.
Petitioner now comes to us for redress via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Considering however the allegations, issues and arguments adduced, this Court RESOLVES to DENY the instant petition for failure to sufficiently show reversible error in the assailed decision to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, the Court ADOPTS the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Decision dated 11 July 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 26058, finding petitioner Zenaida Reyes guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Falsification of Public Documents as defined and penalized under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code and AFFIRMS said Decision.
Very truly yours.
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
�(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 80-90; In a Decision promulgated on 1 June 2001 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 22, Malolos, Bulacan in Criminal Case No. 9252-M.
[2] Id. at 63-75; In a Decision promulgated on II June 2008 and penned by Associate Justice G. Tijam and concurred in by Associate Justices Martin S. Villarama, Jr. and Arturo G. Tayag.
[3] People v. Enfermo, G.R. Nos. 148682-85, 30 November 2005, 476 SCRA 515, 532 .
