Professional Documents
Culture Documents
People V Balmores PDF
People V Balmores PDF
On our about September 22, 1947, in the Manila City, Philippines, The accused-
appellant, RAFAEL BALMORES, with intent to deceitfully cash-in with the Philippine
Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) for the amount of P359.55, tore off a part of a
genuine 1/8 ticket, located at the bottom of said ticket, in order to remove the
real
unidentified number and therein wrote with ink the prize-winning number of 074000
for the June 29, 1947 draw.
His plan was foiled however, when Bayani Miller, an employee of the PCSO, to whom
the
accused presented the ticket, discovered that the same was falsified. Miller
immediately
called for a policeman and the accused-appellant was arrested right then and there.
He was SENTENCED by Judge Emilio Pena to no less than 10 YEARS and 1 DAY of
PRISION MAYOR and not more than 12 YEARS and 1 DAY of RECLUSION TEMPORAL
and to pay a FINE of P100 and the COSTS.
ISSUE(S):
1. w/n the facts charged in the Information constituted an offense by the accused-
appellant
2. w/n the CFI lacked jurisdiction to convict the accused-appellant for the reason
of
his being an ILLITERATE and not being assisted by counsel
HELD:
1. The Court addressed the arguments of the accused-appellant as discussed below:
a. There could be no genuine 1/8 unit PCSO ticket for the June 29, 1947 draw
This contention is based assumptions by the accused-appellant and
not borne out by the Court’s records. The ticket alleged to
have
been falsified as presented to the Court appears to be a 1/8
ticket,
however, the same held that it cannot take judicial notice of
what is
not common knowledge and if this argument was indeed
relevant, it
should have been sufficiently proven by the accused-appellant
b. The SC has taken judicial notice that the PSCO only issued four ¼ units
for
each ticket for the June 29, 1947 draw
If it is true that the PCSO only issued ¼ tickets for the June
28,
1947 draw, it would only strengthen the theory of the
prosecution
that the 1/8 unit presented by the accused-appellant was
invalid
c. The Information does not show that the ticket torn by the accused-
appellant
did not and could not have had the real prize-winning unidentified number
of 074000
This assumption by the accused-appellant is not likewise be
supported in the Court’s records
d. The substitution and writing in ink of the number 074000 was not a
falsification where the true and real number of the ticket torn was 074000
It is obvious that there would have been no need to tear the
ticket
and substitute with ink the winning number if the original
number
on had already been 074000
2. The fact that the appellant was illiterate did not deprive the court of
jurisdiction to
convict him on a PLEA of GUILTY despite not being assisted by counsel. It should
be
noted that appellant EXPRESSLY WAIVED his right to be assisted by counsel and
there are not laws against such a waiver.
1 RPC 4(2). Criminal liability shall be incurred: By any person performing an act
which would be an offense
against person or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment or on account of
the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means
2 RPC 59. Penalty to be impose in case of failure to commit the crime because the
means employed or the aims
sought are impossible – When the person intending to commit an offense has already
performed the act for the
execution of the same but nevertheless the crime was not produced by reason of the
fact that the act intended
was by its nature one of impossible accomplishment or because the means employed by
such person are
essentially inadequate to produce the result desired by him, the court, having in
mind the social danger and
the degree of criminality shown by the offender, shall impose upon him the penalty
of arresto mayor or a fine
ranging from 200 to 500 pesos.
The Court held that it would not have been impossible for the appellant to
consummate his crime of ESTAFA thru FALSIFICATION of the said ticket if Bayani
Miller, the PCSO clerk whom the ticket was presented to, had not exercised due
care.
4. RPC 166 imposes a penalty reclusion temporal and a fine not exceeding P10,000
for
the felony of falsification of “treasury or bank notes or certificates or other
obligations and securities” of the United States or the Philippine Islands.
RULING (OZAETA, J.): the Court noted that the alteration or destruction of a losing
sweepstakes ticket could cause no harm to anyone and would not constitute a crime
were it not for the attempt to cash in the same.
The appellant’s real offense was the attempt to commit estafa, with a punishment of
arresto menor. But technically and legally, he has to suffer for the crime of
falsification
of a government object.
The Court was of the opinion that indeed, the penalty imposed upon the appellant
was
too severe, but that they have no discretion to impose a lower penalty than that
prescribed by the law.
3 RPC 48. Penalty for complex crimes – When a single act constitutes two or more
grave or less grave felonies,
or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for
the most serious crime
shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.