Isidra Ting Dumali vs. Atty.

Rolando Torres
A.C 5161, April 14, 2014
Article 184 Offering False Testimonies

FACT:
This is a disbarment case by petitioner Isidra Ting against respondent Atty. Rolando
Torres.
The parents of Isidra Ting-Dumali died intestate and they left several properties
including two parcels of land Lot 1586 and Lot 1603 both in Malabon. Isidra has 5
other siblings.

In 1986 however, two of her siblings, Felicisima Ting-Torres and Miriam Ting-Saria,
executed two Deeds of Extrajudicial Settlement. They were assisted by Felicisimas
husband, Atty. Rolando Torres who was also the administrator of the Ting Estate. In
the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement covering Lot 1586, they made it appear that
Felicisima and Miriam were the only heirs of the Tings. Atty. In the Deed of
Extrajudicial Settlement covering Lot 1603, the signature of Isidra was forged to
make it appear that she was a party to the Deed. Torres then presented the Deeds
to the Registry of Deeds of Cavite for the purpose of transferring the titles into the
name of Miriam and Felicisima.

Thereafter, Felicisima and Miriam sold the lands to a corporation.

During the hearing, herein respondent asked Marcellina, one of the six siblings
whether she has brothers and sisters other than Felicisima, the latter said none. The
transcript of that hearing reads:

ATTY. TORRES: Q Madame Witness, are you the only child or

daughter of the deceased Sps. Vicente Ting, Jr. and Julita Reynante?

WITNESS: A No, sir. We are two, Felicisima Torres and I.

Q: Do you have other brothers and sisters?

A: None, sir

ISSUE:
Whether or not herein respondent violated Article 184 of the Revised Penal Code
(Offering false testimonies).

HELD.
Yes. Under Article 184 of the RPC, the elements are as follow:
1. That the offender offered in evidence a false witness or testimony;
2. That he knew the witness or testimony was false;
3. That the offer was made in a judicial proceeding
In the present case, the respondent allowed Marcelina to commit a crime by giving
false testimony in court, and he never corrected the same despite full knowledge of
the true facts and circumstances of the case. Moreover, in knowingly offering in
evidence such false testimony, he himself may be punished as guilty of false
testimony.