Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4

SPOUSES REVELO VILLAMAR and CORAZON

VILLAMAR,
Petitioners,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

PENULIAR-

G.R. No. 178652, December 8, 2010


That petitioners were the authors and/or masterminds of the falsification is
presumed from the fact that they actually benefited from it. In Maliwat vs. Court of
Appeals, the Supreme Court held 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. "If a person had in his possession a falsified
document and he made use of it, taking advantage of it and profiting thereby, the
clear presumption is that he is the material author of the falsification."

NORMALLAH
A.
PACASUM,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Petitioner,

G.R. No. 180314, April 16, 2009


On the basis of the foregoing circumstances, no reasonable and fair-minded man
would say that the accused a Regional Secretary of DOT-ARMM had no
knowledge of the falsification. It is an established rule, well-buttressed upon
reason, that in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, when a person has in his
possession or control a falsified document and who makes use of the same, the
presumption or inference is justified that such person is the forger or the one who
caused the forgery and, therefore, guilty of falsification. Thus, in People v.
Sendaydiego, the Supreme Court held that
The rule is that if a person had in his possession a falsified document and he made
use of it (uttered it), taking advantage of it and profiting thereby, the presumption

is that he is the material author of the falsification. This is especially true if the use
or uttering of the forged documents was so closely connected in time with the
forgery that the user or possessor may be proven to have the capacity of
committing the forgery, or to have close connection with the forgers. (U.S. v.
Castillo, 6 Phil. 453; People v. De Lara, 45 Phil. 754; People v. Domingo, 49 Phil.
28; People v. Astudillo, 60 Phil. 338; People v. Manansala, 105 Phil. 1253)

METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST CO. (METROBANK), represented by


ROSELLA
A.
SANTIAGO,
Petitioner,
vs.
ANTONINO O. TOBIAS III, Respondent.
G.R. No. 177780, January 25, 2012.

Secondly, the presumption of authorship, being disputable, may be accepted and


acted upon where no evidence upholds the contention for which it stands. It is not
correct to say, consequently, that the investigating prosecutor will try to determine
the existence of the presumption during preliminary investigation, and then to
disregard the evidence offered by the respondent. The fact that the finding of
probable cause during a preliminary investigation is an executive function does not
excuse the investigating prosecutor or the Secretary of Justice from discharging the
duty to weigh the evidence submitted by the parties. Towards that end, the
investigating prosecutor, and, ultimately, the Secretary of Justice have ample
discretion to determine the existence of probable cause, a discretion that must be
used to file only a criminal charge that the evidence and inferences can properly
warrant.
The presumption that whoever possesses or uses a spurious document is its forger
applies only in the absence of a satisfactory explanation. Accordingly, we cannot
hold that the Secretary of Justice erred in dismissing the information in the face of

the controverting explanation by Tobias showing how he came to possess the


spurious document. Much less can we consider the dismissal as done with abuse of
discretion, least of all grave. We concur with the erudite exposition of the CA on
the matter, to wit:
It would seem that under the above proposition of the petitioner, the moment a
person has in his possession a falsified document and has made use of it, probable
cause or prima facie is already established and that no amount of satisfactory
explanation will prevent the filing of the case in court by the investigating officer,
for any such good explanation or defense can only be threshed out in the trial on
the merit. We are not to be persuaded. To give meaning to such argumentation will
surely defeat the very purpose for which preliminary investigation is required in
this jurisdiction.

PEOPLE
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES
Petitioner,
vs.
JOSE C. GO, AIDA C. DELA ROSA, and FELECITAS D. NECOMEDES,**
Respondents.
G.R. No. 191015, August 6, 2014
As to the respondents respective participation in the commission of the crime,
suffice it to state that as the beneficiary of the proceeds, Go is presumed to be the
author of the falsification. The fact that previously, his personal checks totaling
P145,488,274.48 were dishonored, and the day after, the amount of
P120,819,475.00 was immediately credited to his account, which included funds
from the encashment of Managers Check Nos. 0000003340 and 0000003347 or
the loan proceeds of the supposed Timmys, Inc. and Asia Textile Mills, Inc.
accounts, bolsters this view. "[W]henever someone has in his possession falsified
documents [which he used to] his advantage and benefit, the presumption that he
authored it arises."

x x x This is especially true if the use or uttering of the forged documents was so
closely connected in time with the forgery that the user or possessor may be proven
to have the capacity of committing the forgery, or to have close connection with
the forgers, and therefore, had complicity in the forgery.
In the absence of a satisfactory explanation, one who is found in possession of a
forged document and who used or uttered it is presumed to be the forger.