REGIDOR v.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 166086

FACTS:
Petitioners herein, along with the former Vice-Mayor and the Acting Secretary of
the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Tangub City, respectively Aniceto T. Siete and
Marlene L. Mangao, were charged with the crime of falsification of public documents.
The facts of the case show that for several days in the months of June and July
1988, Rogidor and the other officials mentioned falsified various resolutions to make it
appear that said resolutions were valid and legitimately passed, when in reality, it was
never brought to the Sanggunian.
Allegedly, when Regidor assumed office for the position of mayor in 5 May 1988,
there originated assorted resolutions and proposals from his office. Aside from which, it
was also stated that whenever a resolution is sought, a ready-made one was always
available in his office, so as to make it easier for the Sanggunian to decide on the
resolution.
The heart of this case centers on the various resolutions and ordinanances being
questioned by the members of the Sanggunian as never having been taken up,
deliberated, and nor passed upon. Thereafter, the council members filed a suit against
the DILG and administrative case against the accused herein for misconduct in office
and neglect of duty. Regidor asserted his innocence by pleading not guilty during the
arraignment, thus, trial ensued where he was subsequently found guilty by the
Sandiganbayan.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused herein is guilty for the crime of falsification

HELD:
Yes. The court held that the petition is bereft of merit. Pursuant to the elements
of falsification of a public document, a person is guilty is guilty of such when he or she is
a public officer, employee, or notary; the same takes advantage of his official position;
they had the duty to make, prepare or intervene in the preparation of document, or have
the official custody, and; he or she falsifies a document by committing any of the acts in
Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code.
In falsification of a public document, the falsification need not be made on an
official form. It is sufficient that the document is given the appearance of, or made to
appear similar to the official form. It is not necessary that there be present idea of gain
or intent to injure a third person for what is punished is the violation of public faith and
destruction of truth. In the case at bar, petitioners made it appear that the complainants
participated in the session when they did not in fact.

BATULANON v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 139857
FACTS:
The herein petition assails the Court of Appeals in G.R. no. 1524, affirming the
decision of the Regional Trial Court of General Santos City, convicting Leonila
Batulanon of estafa through falsification of commercial documents. The facts of the
case show that the latter was employed by the Polomok Credit Cooperative
Incorporated (PCCI) as its cashier/manager from May 1980 until December 1982. The
latter’s job entails receiving deposits from and releasing loans to the member of the
cooperative.
The case originated from the discovery of certain irregularities concerning the
release of loans during an audit conducted sometime in December 1982. Allegedly,
Butalanon was found to having falsified four commercial documents of which nature is
checks/cash vouchers indicating granted loans addressed to private individuals in the
names of Omadlao, Oracion, Arroyo, and Dennis Butalanon. However, such transaction
and grant never took place as these checks were received by accused herein herself for
her own use and benefit.
Thereafter, four informations of estafa through falsification was filed. During trial,
prosecution presented witnesses whose statements included the information that
accused forged the signatures of the individuals aforementioned in execution of the
crime. The trial court convicted Butalanon for the crime of Estafa through Falsification of
Comercial Documents, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the the accused herein can be convicted for Falsification of
Private Documents even if the information charged indicates Estafa through
Falsification of Commercial Documents

HELD:
Yes. The court ruled in the affirmative and maintained that although the
information presents Estafa through Falsification of Commercial Documents as the
charge, Batulanon could still be convicted for the crime of Falsification of Private
Documents, pursuant to the well-settled rule that it is the allegation in the information
that determines the nature of the offense and the technical name given in the preamble
of information.
As there is no complex crime of Estafa through Falsification of Private Documents,
it is important to ascertain whether the offender is to be charged with Falsification of a
Private Document or with Estafa. If the falsification of a private document is committed as
a means to commit estafa, the proper crime to be charged is falsification. If the Estafa
can be committed without the necessity of falsifying a document, the proper crime is
Estafa.
Pursuant to the latter, the Court is of reason to adjuce that the Court of Appeals
correctly held Batulanon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Falsification of Private
Documents in the cases of Omadlao, Oracion and Arroyo.
BATULANON v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 139857
FACTS:
The herein petition assails the Court of Appeals in G.R. no. 1524, affirming the
decision of the Regional Trial Court of General Santos City, convicting Leonila
Batulanon of estafa through falsification of commercial documents. The facts of the
case show that the latter was employed by the Polomok Credit Cooperative
Incorporated (PCCI) as its cashier/manager from May 1980 until December 1982. The
latter’s job entails receiving deposits from and releasing loans to the member of the
cooperative.
The case originated from the discovery of certain irregularities concerning the
release of loans during an audit conducted sometime in December 1982. Allegedly,
Butalanon was found to having falsified four commercial documents of which nature is
checks/cash vouchers indicating granted loans addressed to private individuals in the
names of Omadlao, Oracion, Arroyo, and Dennis Butalanon. However, such transaction
and grant never took place as these checks were received by accused herein herself for
her own use and benefit.
Thereafter, four informations of estafa through falsification was filed. During trial,
prosecution presented witnesses whose statements included the information that
accused forged the signatures of the individuals aforementioned in execution of the
crime. The trial court convicted Butalanon for the crime of Estafa through Falsification of
Comercial Documents, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the the court correctly ruled in convicting Butalanon guilty for the
crime of Falsification of Private Documents

HELD:
Yes. The court ruled in the affirmative and maintained that although the
information presents Estafa through Falsification of Commercial Documents as the
charge, Batulanon could still be convicted for the crime of Falsification of Private
Documents and was correctly convicted of the same.
It is important to note that the elements of falsification of private document under
Article 172, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) that the offender committed
any of the acts of falsification, except those in paragraph 7, Article 171; (2) that the
falsification was committed in any private document; and (3) that the falsification caused
damage to a third party or at least the falsification was committed with intent to cause
such damage.
Pursuant to the latter, the Court is of reason to adjuce that the Court of Appeals
correctly held Batulanon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Falsification of Private
Documents in the cases of Omadlao, Oracion and Arroyo but not in the case of Dennis
Butalanon as what the accused did was merely to accept the same in behalf of Dennis
Butalanon by signing “by: Ibatulanon”.
Since the act of Batulanon in the case of Dennis does not fall under those
contemplated as Falsification by the aforementioned, there is nothing untruthful about the
fact that she used the name of Dennis as his representative to obtain the loan from PCCI.
Therefore, Butalanon cannot be made liable for Falsification of Private Documents in the
case involving the cash voucher of Dennis Butalanon, contrary to the ruling of the Court
of Appeals.

ANDAYA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 168486

FACTS:
The facts of the case show that on or about the 8 April 1991 in Quezon City,
Philippines, the accused herein Noe. S. Andaya, with intent to gain, by means of deceit,
false pretenses and falsification of commercial document, did then and there, defraud
the Armed Forces and Police Savings and Loan Association, Inc., represented by its
Chairman of the Board of Directors, Gen. Lisandro C. Abadia, AFP, in the following
manner, to wit: on the date and in the place aforementioned the said accused being
then the President and General Manager of the Armed Forces and Police Savings and
Loan Association, Inc., caused and approved the disbursement of the sum of Php
21,000.00, Philippine Currency, from the funds of the association, by then and there
making it appear in Disbursement Voucher No. 58380 that said amount represented the
1% finders fee of one Diosdado J. Guillas, when in truth and in fact accused knew fully
well that there was no such payment to be made by the association as finders fee; that
by virtue of said falsification, said accused was able to encash and receive MBTC
Check No. 583768 in the sum of Php 21,000.00, which he used for his own personal
use and benefit.
Thereafter, an information for estafa through Falsification of Commercial
Document was filed against petitioner.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the the accused herein is guilty of Falsification of Private
Documents as contemplated under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code

HELD:
No. The court ruled in the negative. It is important to note that the elements of
falsification of private document under Article 172, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal
Code are: (1) that the offender committed any of the acts of falsification under 171
which, in the case at bar, falls under paragraph 2 of Article 171, i.e. causing it to appear
that persons have participated in any act proceeding when they did no in fact so
participate; (2) that the falsification was committed in any private document; and (3) that
the falsification caused damage to a third party or at least the falsification was
committed with intent to cause such damage.
The first element of the offense charged in the information was proven by the
prosecution. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, namely, Diosdado Guilas
and Judy Balangue, as well as the presentation of Disbursement Voucher No.
58380 established that petitioner caused the preparation of the voucher in the name of
Guilas despite knowledge that Guilas was not entitled to the finder’s fee.
 The second element of the offense charged in the information, i.e., the
falsification was committed in Disbursement Voucher No. 58380, a private document, is
likewise present. It appears that the public prosecutor erroneously characterized the
disbursement voucher as a commercial document so that he designated the offense as
estafa through falsification of commercial document in the preamble of the
information. However, as correctly ruled by the trial court,[21] the subject voucher is a
private document only; thus meeting the second element.
Conversely, evidence adducing the presence of the third element was not
sufficiently met or presented. The prosecution failed to establish the allegation that
petitioner caused damage in the amount of Php 21,000.00 to AFPSLAI.
In view of the foregoing, the court ruled that it was erroroneous to convict
petitioner for acts which purportedly constituted the third essential element of the crime
but which were entirely different from the acts alleged in the information. Hence, the
petition is granted.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ENFERMO

G.R. No. 148682-85

FACTS:
On 25 October 1996, the Office of the Ombudsman filed with the Regional Trial
Court of Pasig City, Metro Manila twelve informations against appellant, Angel A.
Enfermo, and Ferdinand C. Entienza, both former employees of the National Research
Council of the Philippines (NRCP). The former, Angel E. Enfermo, held the position
which allowed him as the disbursing officer to assist the cashier in the preparation and
the release of the checks covering the financial transaction of the NRCP, and assisting
the cashier in encashing the checks for salaries of the employees of NRCP.
Several of the cases filed were dismissed for repeated failure of the prosecution
to present evidence. The motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal was
denied. The NRCP through the Government Corporate Counsel filed a petition
for certiorari with the Court of Appeals questioning the dismissal and the denial of the
motion for reconsideration, which petition was denied by the Court of Appeals in a
resolution dated 18 November 1998. As a result of the dismissal of those cases, the
only ones that survived and were tried in the Regional Trial Court were Criminal Cases
Nos. 111086 and 111087 for Malversation through Falsification of Public Documents
and Criminal Cases Nos. 111089 and 111091 for Estafa through Falsification of Public
Documents, in which only appellant, Angel A. Enfermo, was charged.
The prosecution showed that sometime in 1993, it was discovered that the debit
and credit records of the checks issued and paid by its depository bank, Land Bank of
the Philippines (LBP), did not balance. Thus, prompting to an investigation with
consequently led to a case against Angel E. Enfermo as the accused.

ISSUE:
 Whether or not it has been sufficiently proven that the accused herein committed
Malversation through Falsification of Public Documents

HELD:
Yes. The court held in the affirmative. The settled rule is 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 (uttered it), taking
advantage of it and profiting thereby, the clear presumption is that he is the
material author of the falsification.
By mere comparison with the signatures of Dacanay and Bernaldez in the checks
that they had actually signed, it was proven that the signatures in the other two checks
were falsified. Furthermore, it is indisputable that said checks were in the possession of
appellant, as proven by the fact that he was the Disbursing Officer; and that possession
of such checks was within his functions. Also, the fact that his signatures appeared at the
back of the checks further proves that he was in possession of them, that he was the one
who presented them for payment, and that he received their proceeds and therefore used
and profited by such checks. Since he could not adequately explain the foregoing facts,
the presumption aforementioned applies. He is therefore presumed to be the forger of the
signatures of Dacanay and Bernaldez.
Furthermore, the appellant’s contention that the NBI report on the signature of
appellant is not admissible since the officer who prepared the report was not presented to
testify on the reports authenticity or contents need not be resolved because the
authenticity of appellant’s signature on the two checks does not depend upon it since such
was proven by the testimony of Luz Aramil, who was familiar with the signature of
appellant.
Thus, the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed by the Supreme Court in toto.

URSUA v. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 112170

FACTS:
Petitioner Cesario Ursua was a Community Environment and Natural Resources
Officer assigned in Kidapawan, Cotabato. On 9 May 1989 the Provincial Governor of
Cotabato requested the Office of the Ombudsman in Manila to conduct an investigation
on a complaint against the petitioner and other officials of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources. The complaint was initiated by the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of Cotabato through a resolution advising the Governor to report the
involvement of petitioner and others in the illegal cutting of mahogany trees and hauling
of illegally-cut logs in the area.
On 1 August 1989 Atty. Francis Palmones, counsel for petitioner, wrote the Office of
the Ombudsman in Davao City requesting that he be furnished copy of the complaint
against petitioner. The former then asked his client Ursua to take his letter-request to
the Office of the Ombudsman because his law firms messenger, Oscar Perez, had to
attend to some personal matters. Before proceeding to the Office of the Ombudsman
petitioner talked to Oscar Perez and told him that he was reluctant to personally ask for
the document since he was one of the respondents before the Ombudsman. However,
Perez advised him not to worry as he could just sign his (Perez) name if ever he would
be required to acknowledge receipt of the complaint.
When petitioner arrived at the Office of the Ombudsman in Davao City he was
instructed by the security officer to register in the visitor’s logbook. Instead of writing
down his name, petitioner wrote the name Oscar Perez after which he was told to
proceed to the Administrative Division for the copy of the complaint he needed. He
handed the letter of Atty. Palmones to the Chief of the Administrative Division, Ms.
Loida Kahulugan, who then gave him a copy of the complaint, receipt of which he
acknowledged by writing the name Oscar Perez.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner violated the Act to Regulate the Use of Aliases

HELD:
No. The court ruled in the negative and maintained that the petitioner did not
violate the said act. The court ruled that there is no evidence showing that he had used
or was intending to used that name in addition to his real name. That name was used in
an isolated transaction where he was not even legally required to expose his real
identity. While the act may be covered by other provisions of law, it does not constitute
an offense within the concept of C.A. No.142
The said act contemplates that except as a pseudonym solely for literary,
cinema, television, radio or other entertainment purposes and in athletic
events where the use of a pseudonym is a normally accepted practice, no person shall
use any name different from the one which he was registered at birth in the office of the
civil registry or with which he was baptized for the first time, or in case of an alien, with
which he was registered in the Bureau of Immigration upon entry, or such substitute
name as may have been authorized by a competent court provided, that persons
whose births have not been registered in any local civil registry and who have not been
baptized, have one one year from the approval of this act within which to register their
names in the civil registry of their residence. The name shall comprise the patronymic
name and one or two surnames.
While the act of petitioner may be covered by other provisions of law, such does
not constitute an offense within the concept of C.A. No. 142 as amended, therefore, the
decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and set aside. Petitioner is thus acquitted of
the crime charged.