PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.

RAFAEL BALMORES

GR NO L-1896, FB 16, 1950

FACTS:

Appellant tore off the bottom of a genuine 1/8 unit ticket of a Philippine Sweepstakes ticket removing the
number and substituting it by writing in ink 07400, a prize winning number for the June 29, 1947 draw.

Appellant presented ticket to claim the prize (P359.55). Employee receiving the ticket noticed that it was
falsified and called for a policeman who arrested the appellant right then and there

Appellant waived right to counsel and plead guilty to the information charged. Was convicted of the crime of
Estafa through falsification of a security. Sentenced to not less than 10 yrs and 1 day of prision mayor and not
more than 12 yrs and 1 day of reclusion temporal, a fine of P100 and the costs.

Appellant contends that there was no such 1/8 unit ticket for the June 29, 1947, draw as only 1/4 unit tickets
were issued.

Counsel contends that the information did not show that the original number of the ticket was not 07400; if
the original number 07400 then it could not have been falsification.

Counsel also contends that trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict him on a plea of guilty because, being
illiterate, he was not assisted by counsel.

ISSUES:

1. WON the facts charged in the information did not constitute an offense.

2. WON the trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict him on a plea of guilty because, being
illiterate, and not assisted by counsel.

3. WON the crime committed an impossible crime (with regards to Art 59 of the RPC).

HELD:

Yes. Court cannot take judicial notice of the fact that only 1/4 unit tickets were issued. Courts cannot
take judicial notice of what is not of common knowledge. If relevant, should have been proved. However,
even if this were true, it bolsters the theory that the ticket was indeed spurious.

With regards the number. If the original number was indeed 07400, there would have been no need for
appellant to alter the ticket in any way.

No. The appellant expressly waived the right to counsel and no law prohibits such waiver. Appellant’s illiteracy
does not matter.

No. While the appellant may have been reckless or foolish in believing such a blatant falsification could have
succeeded, that did not make the crime impossible under Art. 2 of the RPC with regards to Art 59.

Art. 4 Criminal Liability

Criminal Liability shall be incurred:

2. By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the
inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or an account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual
means.