CARLOS L. TANENGGEE v.

People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 179448. June 26, 2013
DEL CASTILLO, J.:

FACTS:
Carlos L. Tanengge, petitioner, being then the Manager of the COMMERCIO
BRANCH OF METROBANK, took advantage of his position as such prepared and filled up
or caused to be prepared and filled up METROBANK promissory note forms with the
amount of P16M under the name one Romeo Tan, feigning and forging or causing to be
feigned and forged on top of said name the signature of Romeo Tan. He had also affixed his
own signature as witness of the alleged signing of the said Romeo Tan. Thereafter, Tanengge,
prepared and filled up a check with the name of Romeo Tan as payee with the sum of
P15,362,666.67 which purported to be the proceeds of the loan being obtained. He again
affixed his signature and directed the unsuspecting bank cashier to also affix his signature on
the said check as authorized signatories, and finally affixing and forging four times the
signature of said Romeo Tan making it appear that Romeo Tan had participated in the
execution, preparation and signing of the said promissory note, the endorsement of the check
and that he obtained a loan of P16M from Metrobank, when in truth and in fact, as the said
accused well knew, none of those actions Romeo Tan did not participate or authorize
Tanengge of doing the same. After the said documents were forged and falsified in the
manner abovementioned, Tanengge, released, obtained and received from the Metrobank the
sum of P15,363,666.67 purportedly representing the proceeds of the said loan, which amount,
once in his possession, with intent to defraud, he misappropriated, misapplied and converted
to his own personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the said METROBANK
in the same sum of P15,363,666.67.

The RTC found the Tanenggee guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of
estafa thru falsification of commercial document/s. Tanenggee then appealed the judgment of
conviction to the CA where the appeal was denied for lack of merit and affirmed the decision
of the RTC. Hence, in this case, petitioner assailed for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the essential elements of estafa through falsification of commercial
documents were established by the prosecution.

RULING:
Yes. The Court held that falsification of documents under paragraph 1, Article 172 in
relation to Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) refers to falsification by a private
individual or a public officer or employee, who did not take advantage of his official position,
of public, private or commercial document. The elements of falsification of documents under
paragraph 1, Article 172 of the RPC are: (1) that the offender is a private individual or a
public officer or employee who did not take advantage of his o8cial position; (2) that he
committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Article 171 of the RPC; and, (3) that
the falsification was committed in a public, official or commercial document.
All the above-mentioned elements were established in this case. First, petitioner is a
private individual. Second, the acts of falsification consisted in petitioner's (1) counterfeiting
or imitating the handwriting or signature of Tan and causing it to appear that the same is true
and genuine in all respects; and (2) causing it to appear that Tan has participated in an act or
proceeding when he did not in fact so participate. Third, the falsification was committed in
promissory notes and checks which are commercial documents. Commercial documents are,
in general, documents or instruments which are "used by merchants or businessmen to
promote or facilitate trade or credit transactions." Promissory notes facilitate credit
transactions while a check is a means of payment used in business in lieu of money for
convenience in business transactions. A cashier's check necessarily facilitates bank
transactions for it allows the person whose name and signature appear thereon to encash the
check and withdraw the amount indicated therein.
The petition is denied.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ABELARDO SALONGA

G.R. No. 131131. June 21, 2001
GONZAGA-REYES, J.:

FACTS:
Abelardo Salonga, Flaviano Pangilinan, Amiel Garcia and Ricardo Licup were
charged with the crime of Qualified Theft through Falsification of Commercial Document.
On January 7, 1991, Salonga was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the crime charged while
his co-accused are still at large. On July 19, 1993, the RTC rendered its decision finding
Salonga guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Qualified Theft through Falsification of
Commercial Document.
In the outcome of the spot audit conducted by the lead examiner of Metrobank’s
Loans and Placement Department, test-verification of the daily issuance of cashier's checks
by the Loans and Placement Department disclosed that there was a check payable to a certain
Firebreak Sales and Services for P36,480.30. The signatures of the authorized signatories
appearing on the subject cashier’s check have an apparent dissimilarity with their genuine
signature particularly that of Mrs. Antonia L. Manuel, Manager of Loans and Placement
Department. On the day of issuance of the cashier's check, it was found out that the
corresponding debit and credit balances appearing in the proof sheet of Loans and Placement
Department are balanced. However, the supporting accounting ticket debiting Accounts
payable was short by P36,480.30, the amount of the cashier's check while the credit
accounting ticket for the "Cashier's and Gift Checks" account reflects the correct total of
issuances for the day but the signature of the Authorized Signature" space is forged. The
Cashier's check in question was properly recorded in the register maintained at the FX/Loans
Accounting Section. It passed to the usual clearing procedure except for the signature
verification of the authorized signatories. Thus, the unauthorized issuance/dissimilarity of the
signatures could not be readily detected. The matter was brought to the attention of the
Division Heads concerned who immediately confronted the responsible officers, Mr.
Abelardo A. Salonga, Acting Asst. Cashier and Custodian of the unissued cashier's check at
the Loans & Placement Department and Mr. Flaviano M. Pangilinan, Asst. Manager of
FX/Loans Accounting Section. Both admitted their participation on the
irregularity/unauthorized issuance of said cashier's check.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Abelardo Salonga guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
qualified theft through falsification of commercial document with the penalty of reclusion
perpetua.

RULING:
We come to the correctness of the penalty imposed. The crime charged is Qualified
Theft through Falsification of Commercial Document. The information alleged that the
accused took P36,480.30 with grave abuse of confidence by forging the signature of officers
authorized to sign the subject check and had the check deposited in the account of Firebrake
Sales and Services, a fictitious payee without any legitimate transaction with Metrobank.
Theft is qualified if it is committed with grave abuse of confidence. The fact that accused-
appellant as assistant cashier of Metrobank had custody of the aforesaid checks and had
access not only in the preparation but also in the release of Metrobank cashier's checks
suffices to designate the crime as qualified theft as he gravely abused the confidence reposed
in him by the bank as assistant cashier. Since the value of the check is P38,480.30, the
imposable penalty for the felony of theft is prision mayor in its minimum and medium
periods and one year of each additional ten thousand pesos in accordance with Article 309,
paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. However, under Article 310 of the Revised Penal
Code, the crime of qualified theft is punished by the penalties next higher by two (2) degrees
than that specified in Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code. Two (2) degrees higher than
prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods is reclusion temporal in its medium and
maximum periods. In addition, forging the signatures of the bank officers authorized to sign
the subject cashier's check was resorted to in order to obtain the sum of P36,480.30 for the
benefit of the accused. As correctly held by the courts a quo, falsification of the subject
cashier's check was a necessary means to commit the crime of qualified theft resulting in a
complex crime. Hence, we apply Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides that,
". . . where an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the more
serious crime in its maximum period shall be imposed." Considering that qualified Theft is
more serious than falsification of bank notes or certificates which is punished under Article
166(2) of the Revised Penal Code with prision mayor in its minimum period, the correct
penalty is fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal as minimum to
twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal as maximum.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed with modification.

AMELIA CARMELA CONSTANTINO ZOLETA v. THE HONORABLE

SANDIGANBAYAN [FOURTH DIVISION]
G.R. No. 185224. July 29, 2015.
BRION, J.:
FACTS:
An anonymous complaint filed against the petitioner, Mary Ann Gadian, and Sheryll
Desiree Tangan before the Office of the Ombudsman Mindanao (Ombudsman) for
participating in the scheme of questionable grants and donations to fictitious entities using
provincial funds. As a result of this complaint, the Commission on Audit (COA) conducted a
special audit in Sarangani Province. Among the irregularities discovered by the Special Audit
Team was a P20,000.00 financial assistance given to Women in Progress (WIP), a
cooperative whose members were mostly government personnel or relatives of the officials of
Sarangani Province.

The COA Special Audit Team submitted its report to the Ombudsman which, in turn,
conducted a preliminary investigation. Thereafter, the Ombudsman, through the Office of the
Special Prosecutor, charged the petitioner, Vice-Governor Felipe Constantino, Violeta
Bahilidad, Maria Camanay, and Teodorico Diaz with malversation of public funds by
falsification of public documents defined and penalized under Article 217 in relation to
Article 171 (2) and Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code before the Sandiganbayan.
In its decision dated November 5, 2008, the Sandiganbayan found the petitioner and
Bahilidad guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.
The Sandiganbayan held that Vice-Governor Constantino had control and custody of
the funds by reason of his office, and that his signature was needed before a grant, donation,
or assistance could be released to a requesting party. According to the Sandiganbayan, Vice-
Governor Constantino approved the P20,000.00 disbursement despite the lack of the required
documentation.
The Sandiganbayan likewise ruled that falsification was a necessary means to commit
the crime of malversation.
Hence, in this case, a petition for review on certiorari filed by the petitioner.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the totality of evidence presented by the prosecution of
Sandiganbayan was insufficient to overcome the petitioner's presumption of innocence.
RULINGS:
Yes. The Court held that Sandiganbayan correctly convicted the petitioner of the
complex crime of malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents.
Malversation may be committed by appropriating public funds or property; by taking or
misappropriating the same; by consenting, or through abandonment or negligence, by
permitting any other person to take such public funds or property; or by being otherwise
guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property.
The elements common to all acts of malversation under Article 217 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, are the following: (a) that the offender be a public officer; (b) that
he had custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office; (c) that
those funds or property were public funds or property for which he was accountable; and (d)
that he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented, or through abandonment or
negligence, permitted another person to take them. All these elements have been established
by the prosecution.
We also agree with the Sandiganbayan's ruling that falsification was a necessary
means to commit the crime of malversation.
The petition is denied. The Court affirmed the decision of the Sandiganbayan.

THE UNITED STATES v. PEDRO RAMPAS

G.R. No. 9146. November 26, 1913
MORELAND, J.:
FACTS:
Pedro Rampas, herein petitioner, with intention of gain and to the prejudice of one
Chinaman Agapito Carranceja, and knowingly, maliciously, criminally and illegally
presented as evidence in said cause the falsified receipt, in which it is made to appear that the
aforementioned Chinaman Agapito Carranceja is indebted to the accused Pedro Rampas for
the sum of P500.
The Court of First Instance of the Province of Ambos Camarines convicting Rampas
of the crime of presenting as evidence in the trial of a case a falsified private document.
Hence, the petitioner filed for an appeal from the said judgment.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Pedro Rampas committed the crime of falsification of a private
document.

RULING:
 Yes. The Court held that in order to constitute an imitation of another's signature on a
private document so as to bring the document within the definition of a falsified document
under articles 300 and 304 of the Penal Code, it is not necessary that the imitation be perfect
or that it be sufficient even to deceive a person well acquainted with the signature sought to
be imitated. It is sufficient if there is an intent to imitate, an attempt to imitate, and that the
two signatures, the genuine and the false, bear sufficient resemblance to each other as to be
likely to deceive an ordinary person receiving or dealing with the instrument.
The judgment of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Ambos Camarines was
affirmed with modifications.

UNITED STATES v. ELADIO CINCO and EUSEBIO REDOÑA

G.R. No. 12127. October 13, 1917
STREET, J.:
FACTS:
Eusebio Redoña had been deputized to conduct a sale under an execution to take place
on 10 October 1914. On that day the property was properly put up at auction, but according
to the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution, no bid or offer for the same, or any part
thereof, was made by any person during the lawful hours of sale, and as a result the property
remained unsold. On the other hand, the witnesses for the defense testify that the defendant
Eladio Cinco made a bid and became the purchaser of the property as sole bidder.

The theory of the prosecution is that no such sale took place and that by collusion
between the defendants a false return was made showing that Eladio Cinco had become the
purchaser of the property.

Prior to the day of sale the execution creditors had prepaid the estimated costs
incident to the sale, and as a consequence they were entitled to be reimbursed for such costs
from the proceeds of the sale, as well as to receive the principal amount to be made by
execution, any surplus being payable of course to the debtors in the execution. In order to
avoid the necessity of paying cash for the entire property, Eladio Cinco approached the
judgment creditors, and made an arrangement whereby they delivered to him their joint
receipt, acknowledging the payment of P160, the proceeds of the sale. This receipt was
obtained by Cinco for the purpose of showing that the purchase price had been satisfied, but
as a matter of fact he paid them only P50, it being agreed between him and them that he could
pay the balance at his convenience.
When the deputy sheriff Redoña came to make up his return it seemed to him that
what was needed was not a receipt from the judgment creditors to Eladio Cinco but a receipt
from them to himself, showing that the money had been paid by him as deputy sheriff to the
proper parties. Accordingly, another and different receipt was prepared by Eladio Cinco
under the direction of Redoña. If these proceedings had been regular the - proper course
would have been to surrender the Erst receipt and procure the judgment creditors to sign the
new one in its place. In- stead of this, the defendant Eladio Cinco wrote the names of said
creditors, without their knowledge or consent, at the foot of the receipt and placed cross
marks between the Christian name and surname in each instance, the fact being that these
people were illiterate and, in any event, would necessarily have signed by making their
marks. As a result, debtors were dispossessed of their land.
The Court of First Instance of the Province of Samar, found Eladio Cinco and Redoña
guilty of falsification of a private document. Hence, this appeal brought by the defendants to
reverse the said judgment.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioners are guilty of the crime falsification of a private document.

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court held that in order to sustain a conviction for the falsification
of a private document it is necessary to prove that the falsification was committed to the
damage of another, or with the intent to cause such damage. This condition is fulfilled in the
present case.
Furthermore, the falsification of a receipt may clearly sustain a conviction
notwithstanding the fact that the principal debt may be voidable; for the receipt shows the
absolute extinguishment of the liability to the extent of the amount stated therein.
Redoña says that the marks of the three subscribers (who were illiterate) were really
and truly made by themselves respectively at the same time, they being then and there
present. This testimony if true would show that no falsification was committed and that the
marks accompanying the signatures were genuine. The Court held that, with reference to the
legal aspects of the offense, it is clear that there can be no conviction under article 304 of the
Penal Code in relation with subsection 1 of article 300, since it is not shown that the marks
which were intended to impart the appearance of authenticity to the false signatures were
made in imitation of the genuine marks of the parties whose names were signed. It has been
the uniform ruling of this court that where a person signs the name of another to a document
without attempting to imitate his signature, he cannot be convicted under paragraph 1 of
article 300.
As we find no error prejudicial to the defendants in the action of the court below the
judgment of said court should be affirmed with costs. So ordered.