ARGUMENTS and DISCUSSIONS

In the instant case, Respondent allegedly committed acts punishable by

Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code. However, upon perusal on the allegations
set forth in the complaint affidavit, nothing in her testimony begs affirmation of
any infarction of the law.

ELEMENTS OF FALSIFICATION OF
PUBLIC DOCUMENTS UNDER ART 172, RPC

ART. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic

minister.- xxx

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 a 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.

xxxx

ART. 172. Falsification by private individual and use of falsified document. –

xxx
1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the falsifications
enumerated in the next preceding article (emphasis ours) in any
public or official document or letter of exchange or any other kind of
commercial document;
Xxxx

I. PARAGRAPH 1 of Article 171 in relation to Article 172 of the Revised

Penal Code: Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or
rubric;

1
 The law is clear that for a person to be punishable, the person
complained of was caught counterfeiting, imitating any handwriting,
signature or rubic.

In the instant case, what the complainant alleges is that in the Deed
of Sale which was shown to her or made available to her, the
signature appearing to be hers in the said document does not belong
to her. Accordingly, she never signed the said document. However,
nothing in her statement reveals that she had witnessed that the
respondents or one of them have imitated or counterfeited her
signature.

Thus, Respondent cannot be held liable under paragraph 1 of Article

171 of the Revised Penal Code.

II. PARAGRAPH 2 and 3 of Article 171: Causing it to appear that persons

have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so
participate (Par 2) and Attributing to persons who have participated in
an act or proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them
(par 3):

It must be emphasized that none of the respondents insisted that

they saw or knew about the instrument nor the execution thereof
not until the same was found sometime May 28, 2020, after the
death of Maria Elena Marilyn Infantado. Although Respondent
Sherylin Infantado caused the annotation of adverse claim, it was
solely relied on the fact of the existence of the Deed of Absolute Sale
being duly notarized and an ONETT Certificate stating that the Capital
Gains Tax and Documentary Stamp Tax were already paid.

In the case of ROGELIA GATAN, et. al., vs. JESUSA VINARAO1 citing
Ocampo vs. Land Bank of the Philippines, 591 SCRA 562, 571 [2009]
the court emphasized-
It is well-settled that a document acknowledged before a Notary Public is
a public document that enjoys the presumption of regularity. It is a prima
facie evidence of the truth of the facts stated therein and a conclusive
presumption of its existence and due execution.

Thus, it can be gainsaid that the respondent made it appear that

complainant participated in the execution of the Deed of Sale
because nothing in their statements said that they saw complainant
executing, singing or even possessing or touching the said deed. Lest
to say that one of the respondent have heard about a Deed of Sale,

1
GR No. 205912, October 18, 2017;

2
 but none of them can ascertain as to the circumstances surrounding
the information that they heard.

Therefore, respondent cannot be held criminally liable for relying on

the notarized document, referring to the Deed of Absolute Sale, and
the existence of the ONETT certificate.

III. PARAGRAPH 4: Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts

To reiterate, what was testified by the respondents were merely

based on their personal knowledge. They did not even assert on the
truthfulness but only of the existence as they themselves were
caught off guard by the discovery of the Deed of Absolute Sale.
Again, invoking the time-honored principle of regularity of notarized
or public documents, the basis of the respondents to knowledge the
document as it is, especially when the taxes have already been paid,
were merely an exercise of their late mother’s or wife’s (applied
appropriately) right.

As the High Court aptly described in the case of NUNGA vs. ATTY.
VIRAY2:

Xxx It must be underscored that the notarization by a

notary public converts a private document into a public
document making that document admissible in evidence
without further proof of authenticity thereof. A notarial
document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its
face.xxx

Thus, having this said, respondents cannot be held liable for relying
on a legally binding presumption or document, for this matter, and
consequently make them liable for the said reliance or disposition.

IV. PARAGRAPH 5: Altering true dates

Respondents assertion was only to the extent of the existence of the

Deed of Sale and the existence of the ONETT Certificate. None of
their testimonies or even in the allegation of the complainant reflects
that the respondents altered dates. All allegations were mere
speculations.

Thus, respondents cannot be held criminally liable based on

speculations when the respondents themselves have lawfully relied
on a valid document.

2
366 Phil. 155 (1999) [J. Davide, jr., En Banc];

3
 V. PARAGRAPH 6: Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine
document which changes its meaning:

In the case of NORTON RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION vs. ALL ASIA BANK CORPORATION3 citing Benguet
Corporation, et., al. vs. Cesar Cabildo4, the court ruled-

“The cardinal rule in the interpretation of contracts is embodied in the

first paragraph of Article 1370 of the Civil Code: "[i]f the terms of a
contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the
contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations shall control."
This provision is akin to the "plain meaning rule" applied by
Pennsylvania courts, which assumes that the intent of the parties to an
instrument is "embodied in the writing itself, and when the words are
clear and unambiguous the intent is to be discovered only from the
express language of the agreement." 

To reiterate, Respondents only relied on the document as it is. From

the title down its very last period. The document bears no inkling of
alteration from the naked eye, or should the very least be found that
the said circumstances exists, the Respondents were not aware of it.
Time and again, Respondents only found the document from their
late mother’s/wife’s belongings. After inspecting the document to be
original and duly notarized, they only relied to the same. Moreover,
the document clearly appears to be a Deed of Absolute Sale. Thus,
Respondents cannot be faulted on merely relying on a legal
document.

VI. PARAGRAPH 7 and 8: 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 a copy a statement contrary to, or different
from, that of the genuine original (par 7) and Intercalating any
instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol,
registry, or official book (par 8)

Respondents only discovered the document on May 28, 2020 and

weeks after, found the ONETT Certificate. Considering that the
document has long been executed, year 2006, they could no longer
locate the notary public. Thus, with the standing presumption of
public documents, particularly notarized document, the Respondents
cannot be held liable for their reliance on the said document.
Moreover, when Respondent Sherylin Infantado caused the Affidavit
of Adverse Claim be annotated in the original title in the Registry of

3
GR No. 162523 November 25, 2009;
4
GR No. 151402 August 22, 2008;

4
 Deeds, the original Deed of Absolute Sale was presented and was
duly examined by the officers of the said government institution.
Considering that the affidavit of adverse claim was successfully
annotated, it bears the presumption of regularity including the
documents which were successfully submitted.

RESPONDENTS ARE NOT CRIMINALLY LIABLE

FOR THE OFFENSE CHARGED AGAINST THEM

ART. 2. Definition. — Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies

(delitos).
Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by
means of fault (culpa).

There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent; and
there is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence,
negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.

According to the well-entrenched principle of law, NULLUM CRIMEN,

NULLA POENA SINE LEGE which means “there is no crime if there is no penal law
punishing it”, for a person to be criminally liable there must be a clear and
unambiguous law that punishes a person for an act that he had done.

Moreover, in the case of UNILEVER PHILIPPINES, INC., vs. MICHAEL TAN aka
PAUL D. TAN5 citing the case of METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY vs.
GONZALES6, the Supreme Court defined probable cause by stating-

xxxProbable cause has been defined as the existence of such facts and
circumstances as would excite the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the
facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was
guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted. xxx 

From the foregoing extensive discussion above, clearly the Respondents did
not commit any infarction of the law. The Respondent solely relied on the
existence and the representation of the existence of the Deed of Absolute Sale.
Their discovery of the Deed of Absolute Sale did not comply with any of the
elements presented in Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Article
172 of the same law. Moreover, careful perusal of the complaint would suggest
that the allegations were based on speculations and could have been brought
about by the indifference which the complainant has with the respondents.
Nothing from the allegation states that she personally saw respondents
committed ay act of falsification.

5
GR No. 179367, January 29, 2014;
6
GR No. 180165, April 7, 2009;

5
 To reiterate, Respondents only discovered the Deed of Absolute Sale on
May 28, 2020. In fact, based on their testimony, it was Parisa Tarang who
accidentally discovered the document and subsequently gave the same to the
Respondent Sherylin Infantado while they were looking for documents necessary
for burial claims. Clearly, respondents cannot be faulted on such especially when
the discovery of the same was by accident. Further, they cannot also be faulted of
their reliance on the duly-notarized document as the said document is presumed
legally binding by law.

Thus, for the failure of the complainant to establish the elements of Article
172 of the Revised Penal Code and failure to establish malicious intent, the
instant complaint against the Respondents warrants the dismissal thereof.