Facts:

The case involves Bartolome Alonzo as the petitioner and the Hon. Intermediate Appellate Court and the People of the Philippines as respondents. The events took place on October 30, 1974, in Olongapo City, Philippines. Bartolome Alonzo, who served as the personnel officer of the Olongapo City Fire Department, was charged with estafa through falsification of a public document. The information alleged that Alonzo prepared a salary voucher for Wilfredo Cadua, a firefighter, for the amount of P166.67. It was claimed that Alonzo forged Cadua's signature on the voucher without his knowledge and subsequently presented it for payment, receiving the amount himself. Although Alonzo later remitted P100.00 to Cadua, he failed to return the remaining P66.67, leading to the charge against him. The Court of First Instance of Zambales found Alonzo guilty and sentenced him to an indeterminate prison term ranging from four years and two months to ten years and one day, along with a fine of...

Facts:

Background and Appointment

• The accused, Bartolome G. Alonzo, was employed as a clerk-typist in the Olongapo City Fire Department and designated as the Personnel Officer in charge of Finance.
• His official duties included the preparation and processing of payrolls, vouchers, and other documents related to the salaries of the department personnel.

Preparation and Processing of the Voucher

• In October 1974, Alonzo prepared an official salary voucher purportedly for the salary of Wilfredo Cadua for the month covering October 1–31, 1974, amounting to P166.67.
• Following proper procedure, he placed the voucher in his office’s outgoing box for the requisite signatures by concerned personnel, including that of the fire chief and the complainant.
• The voucher was routed through the office messenger, Rogelio Pangilinan, whose responsibility was to secure the necessary signatures and follow-up on the voucher’s disbursement.

Disbursement of Funds and Alleged Discrepancy

• On the afternoon of October 30, 1974, Pangilinan collected the voucher and through the proper channels (including submission to the paymaster, Aida Clark-Pineda) the voucher was cashed resulting in the payment of P166.67.
• Contrary to what the amount on the voucher indicated, Alonzo handed Wilfredo Cadua only P100.00 initially in the presence of co-employees.
• During this transaction, Alonzo explained that he needed P66.67 for an immediate personal expense (an x-ray) and effectively treated this sum as a loan to Cadua.

Subsequent Events and Reconciliation

• The following morning, a confrontation arose in the presence of the Fire Chief when Cadua questioned the discrepancy between the voucher’s indicated salary and the amount received.
• Acting on advice from the Fire Chief, Alonzo later returned the P66.67 loan on November 10, 1974, though no formal receipt was executed due to the informal, trust-based relationship among the personnel.
• A matter of confusion emerged as two versions of events were presented:
• The defense maintained that Alonzo was merely performing his official duty, and any signature appearing to be forged on a voucher was part of routine processing rather than an act of fraud.
• The prosecution alleged that Alonzo, with fraudulent intent, had prepared or caused to be prepared a voucher with a forged signature of Cadua, misappropriated the full salary amount of P166.67, and deliberately withheld P66.67 even after demands were made by Cadua.

Filing of the Complaint and Contextual Motives

• Wilfredo Cadua eventually filed a criminal complaint against Alonzo for estafa through falsification of public document, despite having been reconciled by the return of the loan amount.
• Evidence later revealed that Cadua’s decision to press charges might have been influenced by personal grievances related to the non-renewal of his appointment, as indicated in his own testimony before the court.
• The ensuing investigation and trial presented conflicting versions: while the official records and procedural practices indicated that Alonzo was performing his regular duties, the allegations focused on a supposed unauthorized alteration or forgery of the voucher format and signature.

Issue:

Whether or not the petitioner, Bartolome G. Alonzo, is criminally liable for estafa through falsification of a public document.

• Is there sufficient evidence to prove that Alonzo wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously forged or falsified Wilfredo Cadua’s signature on the voucher?
• Did Alonzo misappropriate or improperly convert the amount of P166.67 intended as the salary of Cadua?
• Can the discrepancies in the amounts released (P100.00 received initially and P66.67 subsequently returned) be directly attributed to an act of fraud rather than to an ordinary accounting or procedural matter?
• Does the delay in Cadua’s filing of the complaint and his contradictory conduct (including an affidavit of desistance) affect the integrity of the charge against Alonzo?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)