REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ’, COURT OF APPEALS APR 15 2019 MANILA. ENCARNACION DAVID y SANVICTORES, Petitioner, ~ versus - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. CA-G.R. CR No. 40288 Greetings: OTICE OF DECISIO January 31, 2019 Please take notice that on January 31, 2019, a DECISION, copy hereto attached, was rendered n the above-entitled case by the SPECIAL FOURTH DIVISION, of the Court of Appeals, Manila, the original of which is now on file with this Court. You are hereby required to inform this Court within FIVE (5) days from notice hereof of the date when you received this notice and the attached copy of the decision. Copy furnished: Office of the Solicitor General - reg. Counsel for Appellee 134 Amorsolo St, Legaspi Village 1229 Makati City Llamas & Tugonon Attorneys-At-Law - reg. Counsel for Appellant 5" Floor, Star Cruises Center Newport City, RW Manila Complex 100 Andrews Avenue 1301 Pasay City Atty. Ma. Luisa R, Valenzuela - reg. 98 NS Amoranto St,, La Loma 1114 Quezon City Hon. Presiding Judge - reg. Regional Trial Court ~ Branch 87 1100 Quezon City irlb Respectfully yours, TERESITA R. MARIGOMEN Clerk of Court (SGp.) TERESITA C. CUSTODIO Division Clerk of Court RESENT: Dated March 12, 2019 Atty, Ronaldo G. Tugonon - reg. Tugonon & Salamo Law Offices Counsel for Petitioner Unit $2818 - 28" Flr., South Tower La Verti Condominium, 1991 Taft Ave., Donada Street cor. Sen. Gil Puyat Ave,, 1306 Pasay City pth Gey TERESITA C. CUSTODIO Division Clerk of CourtRepublic of the Philippines COURT OF APPEALS MANILA * SPECIAL FOURTH DIVISION ENCARNACION DAVID y CA-G.R. CR No. 40288 SANVICTORES, Petitioner, Members: DIMAAMPAO, Chairperson, BARRIOS, and - versus - *ATAL-PANO, JJ. Promulgated: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. JAN 3.1. 2019 Keo eee ee ee eee ee ee ee eee eee ---- ee x DECISION BARRIOS, M. M., J: This is a Petition for Review under Rule 42! of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision dated 06 April 2017 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 87, Quezon City (RTC) affirming petitioner's conviction for the crime of Falsification of Public Document. The decretal portion reads: “x XX. WHEREFORE, no reversible error having been found, the challenged Decision dated December 7, 2015 of MeTC, Branch 38 (sic), Quezon City, is * Vice J. Singh, on leave, per Office Order No. 30-19-RFB dated 28 January 2019. 1 Pursuant to Section 3(b), Rule 122 of the Rules of Court.CA-GR. CR No, 40288 2 DECISION hereby AFFIRMED in toto. The present appeal is hereby ordered DISMISSED. XXX, THE FACTS The deceased spouses Nicanor and Candelaria Sanvictores are the parents of nine (9) children, namely: herein petitioner Encarnacion S. David, Lydia Sanvictores, Rebecca Sanvictores, Virginia Sanvictores, Rene Sanvictores, Elvira S. Gonzales, Levy Sanvictores, Merle S. Rosete and Antonio Sanvictores. In 2009, Virginia and Rebecca filed a criminal complaint for Falsification of Public Document as defined and penalized under Article 172, in relation to Article 171, of Revised Penal Code against their siblings — petitioner and Rene Sanvictores as well as Rene's son Renato — before the Quezon City Prosecution Office. They alleged in their complaint that herein petitioner conspired with Rene and Renato to fraudulently convey in their favor the ownership of Two Hundred Forty (240) square meter parcel of land situated at No. 128, Kalandang Street, San Jose, Caloocan City and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 56090? issued in the names of their father Nicanor, private complainants Rebecca and Virginia, their siblings Lydia and one Remedios Sandoval. It is alleged that said respondents (petitioner, Rene and Renato) falsified the Deed of Absolute Sale® dated 06 May 2008 by forging the signatures of the supposed sellers Nicanor and Lydia, including that of their mother - Candelaria (giving her marital consent to Nicanor), despite the fact that Nicanor and Candelaria already died in 1984 and 1985, respectively, while Lydia passed away in 1994. Thus, on account of this impugned sale, TCT No. 2 Rollo, pp. 52 ~ 53. 3 Id., pp. 148 - 149.CA-G.R. CR No. 40288 DECISION 56090 was cancelled, and a new TCT No. C-394464* was issued in the names of petitioner, Rene and Renato. Ironically, it is worthwhile to mention that complainants Rebecca and Virginia do not dispute the fact that they freely signed the impugned Deed of Sale, but complain that the signatures therein of their deceased parents and sister Lydia were evidently forged. Incidentally, however, during the pendency of the preliminary investigation, both complainants (Virginia and Rebecca) died. Subsequently, an Information dated 20 March 2009° was filed against petitioner, Rene and Renato for Falsification of Public Document before the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 32, Quezon City (MeTC), committed as follows: Sx XX. That on or about the 6" day of May 2008, in Quezon City, the accused referred to who are private individuals, with intent to cause damage, conspiring and confederating with each other and mutually helping one another, did then and there willfully and unlawfully commit falsification or cause the falsification in a public document, a Deed of Absolute Sale, by counterfeiting or imitating the signatures of NICANOR SANVICTORES, CANDELARIA SANVICTORES, LYDIA V. SANVICTORES and REMEDIOS S. SANDOVAL, in the said document, causing it to appear that said persons had participated in the execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale and had signed the same, when in truth and in fact the said persons did not sign or participate in the execution thereof, since NICANOR SANVICTORES, CANDELARIA SANVICTORES and LYDIA _ V. SANVICTORES were already dead prior to May 6, 2008 and that REMEDIOS SANVICTORES (sic) did 4d.,p. 146. 5 Id., pp. 104 ~ 105.CA-G.R. CR No. 40288 4 DECISION not sign or cause to be signed the said document, to the damage and prejudice of complainants Virginia Sanvictores and Rebecca Sanvictores. The Deed of Absolute Sale is a public document notarized by Atty. Benjamin C. Tiongson, on May 6, 2008, as Doc. 97, Page 19, Book 20, Series of 2008. CONTRARY TO LAW. xxx.” During arraignment, the petitioner, Rene and Renato pleaded not guilty to the charge. Subsequently, pre-trial and trial proper ensued. Notably, on 16 July 2013 - while this case was pending - Rene died; hence, the charge against him was dismissed. On 26 November 2014, the MeTC rendered a decision, convicting petitioner and Renato Sanvictores of Falsification of Public Document. The dispositive portion reads: “XXX. WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused Renato Sanvictores, and Encamacion David are GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Falsification of Public Document in Criminal Case No. 147365, and are each sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of 4 months and 1 day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to 3 years, 6 months and 21 days of prision correccional, as maximum; and to each pay a fine of Two Thousand Pesos (Php2,000.00). The case is DISMISSED as to Rene Sanvictores. SO ORDERED. XXX, Petitioner and Renato filed their respective Motions for Reconsideration, but these were denied in the MeTC OrderCA-G.R. CR No, 40288 DECISION dated 01 April 2015. Only petitioner filed an appeal to the RTC strongly disputing that she falsified the subject deed of absolute sale as it was impossible for her to commit the wrongdoing because on 06 May 2008 - the alleged date of commission — she was in the United States of America (USA) from 04 May 2008 until she returned to the Philippines on 21 October 2008° as reflected in the entries of her passport. She also argued that the MeTC erroneously premised her conviction on the disputable presumption that the one who benefited from a falsified document is deemed the author of the falsification, as no evidence was presented to show that she actually participated in forging the signatures of their parents, or of her sibling, Lydia; that she conspired with her co-accused in perpetrating the crime; or that she took possession of subject lot nor benefited from it. On 06 April 2017, the RTC rendered the now assailed decision affirming petitioner's conviction for Falsification of Public Document, ruling that the prosecution had proven all the elements of said offense, especially in light of the fact that she was benefited by the fraudulent transfer to her as co-owner of subject lot, and, thus, is presumed to be a co- author of the falsification. Petitioner moved to reconsider, but the same was denied in the RTC Order dated 05 July 2017. In this petition, it is argued that: 1 THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE DECISION OF THE MTC BR. 32 OF QUEZON CITY, (AFTER BEING UNCERTAIN AS TO WHO SIGNED FOR THE DECEASED SIGNATORIES, SIMPLY APPLIED THE RULE ON THE DISPUTABLE 6 Passport Entries, Id., p. 179.CA-G.R. CR No. 40288 DECISION PRESUMPTION THAT “THE PERSON WHO BENEFITED IN THE CRIME IS THE AUTHOR OF FALSIFICATION”) WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES AND OTHER EXPLANATION AS HOW AND WHY THE NAME OF PETITIONER APPEARED IN THE DEED OF SALE; n. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION OF THE MTC BR. 32 OF QUEZON CITY APPLYING THE DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTION THAT THE PERSON (WHO) HAD IN HIS POSSESSION (ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE) A FALSIFIED DOCUMENT AND MADE USE OF IT, TAKING ADVANTAGE OF IT AND/OR PROFITING FROM SUCH USE, IS THE AUTHOR OF THE FALSIFICATION CITING THE RULING IN THE CASE OF ELMA VS. JACOB; Til. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE DECISION OF THE MTC BR. 32 OF QUEZON CITY CONVICTING PETITIONER OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED BASED ON PRESUMPTION, CONJECTURE AND SPECULATION WITH ITS PRONOUNCEMENT THAT THE DATE STATED IN THE DEED OF SALE - COULD BE EASILY FORGED AS WELL; IV. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE DECISION OF THE MTC BR. 32 OF QUEZON CITY CONVICTING PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENSE CHARGED IN HOLDING “THAT ACCUSED MISERABLY FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT VENDEES (REFERRING TO DECEASED NICANOR SANVICTORES, CANDELARIA SANVICTORES, LYDIA SANVICTORES, AND THE THEN STILL LIVING VICTORIA SANVICTORES, REBECCA SANVICTORES AND REMEDIOS SANDOVAL) FREELY AND INTELLIGENTLY CONSENTED TO THE TRANSFER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY INCA-G.R. CR No. 40288 DECISION THEIR FAVOR’; V. THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE DECISION OF THE MTC BR. 32 OF QUEZON CITY CONVICTING PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENSE CHARGED IN HOLDING THAT THE OFFENSE OF FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENT WAS COMMITTED ON A DATE OTHER THAN THE DATE OF COMMISSION INDICATED IN THE INFORMATION WHICH SPECIFICALLY ALLEGED THAT THE OFFENSE WAS COMMITTED ON 6 MAY 2008; VI. THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF THE PETITIONER (ACCUSED) TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE OF THE OFFENSE WITH WHICH SHE WAS CHARGED WAS VIOLATED WITH THE DECISION OF THE COURT A QUO SUSTAINING HOLDING OF THE MTC BR. 32 OF QUEZON CITY THAT THE DATE OF THE ALLEGED COMMISSION OF THE FALSIFICATION WAS ON A (DIFFERENT) DATE NOT ALLEGED IN THE INFORMATION; VII. THE ACTUAL DATE OF THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE IS PART OF THE DEFENSE OF PETITIONER; VIII. THE FACT THAT PETITIONER WAS OUT OF THE COUNTRY ON THE DATE OF THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE ON 06 MAY 2008 IS SUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME THE DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTION THAT SHE WAS THE AUTHOR OF THE FALSIFICATION; ANDCA-G.R. CR No. 40288 8 DECISION Ix. THE COURT A QUO DID NOT RESOLVE THE PROCEDURAL ISSUE RAISED BELOW ON THE LACK OF AUTHORITY OF PRIVATE COUNSEL TO ACT AS PRIVATE PROSECUTOR ON THE CASE CONSIDERING THAT PRIVATE COMPLAINANTS ARE ALL DECEASED AND THE PRIVATE PROSECUTOR LACKS AUTHORITY FROM THE SURVIVING HEIRS TO PROSECUTE THE CASE. OUR RULING The appeal has merit. Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code provides: “XXX, ART. 172. Falsification by private individuals and use of falsified documents. - The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon: 1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the falsifications enumerated in the next preceding article in any public or official document or letter of exchange or any other kind of commercial document; and 2. Any person who, to the damage of a third party, or with the intent to cause such damage, shall in any private document commit any of the acts of falsification enumerated in the next preceding article. 2620.26, In turn, Article 171 of Revised Penal Code enumerates the acts that constitute falsification, viz:CA-G.R. CR No. 40288 9 DECISION Xx XX. ART. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee; or notary or ecclesiastical minister. - x x x. 1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature, or rubric; 2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate; 3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them; 4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts; 5, Altering true dates; 6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning; 7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original document when no such original exists, or including in such copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original; or 8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official book. aes The elements of falsification by private individual under paragraph 1, Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code are as follows: a) the offender is a private individual, or a public officer or employee who did not take advantage of his official position; b) the offender committed any of the acts enlisted in Article 171 of Revised Penal Code; and c) the falsificationCA-G.R. CR No. 40288 10 DECISION was committed in a public, official or commercial document.” As stated above, among the means to commit falsification are: a) counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting or signature in a document; and b) causing it to appear that certain persons have participated in any act or proceeding when, in fact, they did not participate. With regard to imitating a handwriting or signature, We are guided by the jurisprudential doctrine that forgery, as a rule, cannot be presumed, and must be proven by clear, positive and convincing evidence, and that the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery.® In the case at hand, it cannot be denied that falsification was committed in respect of the participation of Nicanor, Candelaria and Lydia in the Deed of Sale dated 06 May 2008 because these persons were already dead as of that date. Now then, the primordial issue that presents before Us is whether or not the conviction of herein petitioner can be sustained for faking said deed by forging the signatures of her late father - Nicanor Sanvictores — and deceased sister - Lydia Sanvictores — who were two (2) of the previous registered owners of subject lot as well as that of her mother - Candelaria - who gave her marital consent to said sale. At the onset, having in mind the constitutional dictum that an accused is presumed innocent unless proven otherwise, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to establish, by positive evidence, petitioner's acts of falsification to justify her conviction of the offense charged. On this point, to the State belongs the burden of proof to show: 1) the correct identification of the author of a crime, and 2) the actuality of commission of the crime with the participation of the accused.’ Here, the prosecution did not adduce any positive evidence —- documentary or testimonial — to establish the identity of the forger of the subject deed of 7 Garong y Villanueva vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 172539, November 16, 2016. 8 Heirs of Donton vs. Stier, G.R. No. 216491, August 23, 2017. 9 Corpuz, Jr. vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 212656 — 57, November 23, 2016.CA-G.R. CR No. 40288 1 DECISION absolute sale, nor petitioner's actual participation or complicity in the purported falsification. As it appears, the prosecution - and the courts below - mainly relied on the disputable presumption that the person who has possession of a falsified document and made use of the same, taking advantage of it and/or profiting from said use, is the author of the falsification. However, to outrightly conclude that petitioner is the author of the falsification because she was - along with brother Rene and nephew Renato — benefited by said deed of sale (as she became a co-owner of subject lot), and there being no other incriminating proof to show her culpability, is certainly unfair and unjust to petitioner who has in her favor the constitutional presumption of innocence as well as documentary proof to rebut the presupposition of responsibility. For one, petitioner has established the fact that she was in the U.S.A. from 04 May to 21 October 2008,'° while, on the other hand, the Information alleged that the subject deed was executed and notarized on 06 May 2008, thereby making it improbable for her to have forged the signatures of Nicanor, Candelaria and Lydia, nor to participate in the falsification of the contents of said deed or in the processing of the transfer certificate of title that included her as co-owner. Neither is there concrete evidence showing that she orchestrated the falsification on 06 May 2008 or at any other time before she departed to the U.S.A. on 04 May 2008. Moreover, the prosecution utterly failed to show nor establish that petitioner acted in concert with co- accused - Rene and Renato - in perpetuating the falsification. The records has absolutely no evidence to show or even hint at a conspiracy. Be that as it may, putting all other things aside, it is worthwhile to note that herein petitioner is not at all without any dominical interest in the subject property considering that when his parents (Nicanor and Candelaria) died in 1984 and 1985, said petitioner ipso jure became a co-owner of the subject 10 Passport Entries, supra at Note 6.CA-G.R. CR No. 40288 DECISION property by way of inheritance. Preceeding from the foregoing, We hold that petitioner was able to rebut the disputable presumption of complicity in the falsification. In University of Mindanao vs. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas,'' the Supreme Court explained the import of a disputable presumption, viz: XXX On the other hand, disputable presumptions are presumptions that may be overcome by contrary evidence. They are disputable in recognition of the variability of human behavior. Presumptions are not always true. They may be wrong under certain circumstances, and courts are expected to apply them, keeping in mind the nuances of every experience that may render the expectations wrong. Thus, the application of disputable presumptions on a given circumstance must be based on the existence of certain facts on which they are meant to operate. "[Plresumptions are not allegations, nor do they supply their absence{.] Presumptions are conclusions. They do not apply when there are no facts or allegations to support them. If the facts exist to set in motion the operation of a disputable presumption, courts may accept the presumption. However, contrary evidence may be presented to rebut the presumption. Courts cannot disregard contrary evidence offered to rebut disputable presumptions. Disputable presumptions apply only in the absence of contrary evidence or explanations. x x x. XXX. In fine, since the aforesaid disputable presumption was successfully rebutted by petitioner, We find that the totality 11 G.R. Nos. 194964 — 65, January 11, 2016.CA-G.R. CR No. 40288 13 DECISION of the evidence adduced failed to meet the required quantum of proof, ie, proof beyond reasonable doubt, needed to convict in a criminal prosecution. WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, the Petition for Review is GRANTED. The Decision dated 06 April 2017 and Order dated 05 July 2017 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 87, Quezon City are REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and a new one is entered ACQUITTING petitioner Encarnacion S. David of the crime charged. SO ORDERED. ORIGINAT. SIGNED MANUEL M. BARRIOS Associate Justice WE CONCUR: ORIGINAL SICNFD ORIGINAL SIGNED JAPAR B. DIMAAMPAO PERPETUA T. ATAL-PANO Associate Justice Associate Justice CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court. ORIGINAL SIGNFD JAPAR B. DIMAAMPAO Associate Justice Chairperson, Special Fourth Division “SR FLEA TRLUINROE:, eee Lun 4 : one avalos Otsie a Gua?