People v. Balmores G.R. No.

o. L-1896 WON the impossible crime, which formerly was not punishable but is now so under article 59 of the
February 16, 1950 Accused Rafael Balmores y Caya recklessness and Revised Penal Code, are the following: (1) When one tries to kill another by putting in his soup a
Justice Ozaeta Case Attempted estafa through falsication of a security clumsiness of the substance which he believes to be arsenic when in fact it is common salt; and (2) when one tries
Date of case falsification did to murder a corpse.
Court not make the
Date of crime September 22, 1947 crime impossible Judging from the appearance of the falsified ticket in question, we are not prepared to say that it
would have been impossible for the appellant to consummate the crime of estafa thru falsification
What happened? of said ticket if the clerk to whom it was presented for payment had not exercised due care
Rafael tear off the bottom portion of his genuine 1/8 unit Philippine Charity Sweepstakes ticket and changed the numbers to the winning number 07400.
He then presented the falsified winning ticket to the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office and claims for the Php 1,359.55 prize. Rafael was then The penalty imposed by article 166 for the forging or falsification of "treasury or bank notes or
arrested. He contented that there was no falsification and that the ticket torn was the real winning ticket. certificates or other obligations and securities" is reclusion temporal in its minimum period and a
fine not to exceed P10,000, if the document which has been falsified, counterfeited, or altered is
an obligation or security of the United States or of the Philippine Islands. This being a complex
Penalty: not less than 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor and not more than 12 years and 1 day of
crime of attempted estafa through falsification of an obligation or security of the Philippines, the
reclusion temporal
penalty should be imposed in its maximum period in accordance with article 48. Taking into
consideration the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction, and applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, the minimum cannot be lower than prision mayor in its maximum period, which is
10 years and 1 day to 12 years. It results, therefore, that the penalty imposed by the trial court is
correct.

The alteration, or even 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 the ticket so altered
as a prizewinning number. So in the ultimate analysis appellant’s real offense was the attempt
commit estafa (punishable with eleven days of arresto menor); but technically and legally he has
to suffer for the
serious crime of falsification of a government obligation.