LEONILA BATULANON v.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

502 SCRA 35| September 15, 2006
Ynares-Santiago, J

Doctrine: It is a well-settled rule that it is the allegations in the information that determines
the nature of the offense and not the technical name given in the preamble of the
information. Since there is no crime of Estafa through falsification of private document, it is
important to ascertain whether the offender is guilty of Estafa or with falsification as the
case may be.

FACTS
Petitioner in this case assails the decision of the CA which affirmed with modification
the decision of the RTC which convicted her of Estafa through falsification of commercial
documents. It is said that petitioner was employed by Polomok Credit Cooperative Incorporated
(PCCI) and was in charge of receiving deposits from and releasing loans to members of the
cooperative. However, during an audit, certain irregularities concerning the release of loans were
discovered. As a result, 4 information for Estafa through falsification of commercial documents
were filed against petitioner, alleging that petitioner falsify commercial documents and caused
her signature to appear that certain customers of the bank participated in the preparation thereof
to the prejudice of the bank and with intent to gain. After trial, the RTC rendered its decision
which convicted her of the crime charge and this was affirmed with modifications by the CA,
modifying the charge to only Falsification of Private Documents.
On appeal, petitioner claims that in falsification of private document, it is necessary that
the there be a prejudice to a third person and that the best witnesses should be the persons whose
signatures were forged.

ISSUES AND HOLDING

1. W/N petitioner can be convicted of falsification of private document which is different
from the charge filed against her?
While the crime charge in the information filed against the petitioner is
falsification of a commercial document, the petitioner could still be convicted of
falsification of private document under the well-settled-rule that it is the allegations in the
information that determines the nature of the offense and not the technical name given in
the preamble of the information. What is immaterial is that whether or not a person
performed the acts alleged in the body of the information in the manner therein set forth.
As there is no complex crime of estafa through falsification of private
document, 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 to be charged is estafa. 
Pursuant to Art. 172 of the Revised Penal Code, the elements of the crime of
falsification of private document are (1) offender commits any act of falsification, except
those is paragraph 7 of Art. 171; (2) said falsification was committed in any private
document, (3) the same caused damage or was committed with intent to damage. In the
present case, the prosecution was able to prove that the petitioner committed the act of

SERAPIO C2021 | 1
 falsification by making it look like a person participated in any act of proceeding when in
fact they did not participate. Moreover, while the loan transactions are reflected in the
books as accounts receivable, the same cannot negate the existence of prejudice because
it is undisputed that PCCI only grants loans to its bona fide members. In this case, the
alleged borrowers are not members of PCCI and neither are they eligible for a loan.
Petitioner is indeed guilty of threecounts of the crime of falsification of private
documents.
Moreover, it is alleged in the last information that petitioner falsified the signature
of her own son. However, it can be established from the facts that what she merely did
was to indicate that she received the proceeds of the loan in behalf of Dennis. Said act
does not fall under any of the modes of falsification under Article 171 because there in
nothing untruthful about the fact that she used the name of Dennis and that as
representative of the latter, obtained the proceeds of the loan from PCCI. Given this,
petitioner is guilty for one counr of Estafa through conversion of misappropriation.

WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from is AFFIRMED with the following

MODIFICATIONS:

(1) In Criminal Case Nos. 3625, 3626 and 3453, Leonila Batulanon is found GUILTY of three
counts of falsification of private documents and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of six (6)
months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision
correccional, as maximum, for each count, and to indemnify complainant Polomolok Credit
Cooperative Incorporated the amount of P11,660.00 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from November 28, 1994 until finality of this judgment. The interest rate of 12% per annum shall
be imposed from finality of this judgment until its satisfaction; and

(2) In Criminal Case No. 3627, Leonila Batulanon is found GUILTY of estafa and is sentenced
to suffer the penalty of three (3) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1) year and eight
(8) months of prision correccional, as maximum. She is likewise ordered to indemnify
Polomolok Credit Cooperative Incorporated the sum of P5,000.00 with interest at the rate of 6%
per annum from November 28, 1994 until finality of this judgment. The interest rate of 12% per
annum shall be imposed from finality of this judgment until its satisfaction.

SERAPIO C2021 | 2