G.R. No. 111962-72 - Gamido y Buenaventura vs. Court of Appeals

Case Digest (G.R. No. 111962-72)
Standard Advanced

Facts:

Background of the Case

Petitioner Maximino B. Gamido was charged and subsequently convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) on eleven counts of forging the signature of the President of the Philippines.
The forgery involved a series of documents purportedly issued by the Office of the President, each allegedly bearing the signature of then-President Ferdinand E. Marcos.
The prosecution was based on Article 161 of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes the forgery of the Chief Executive’s signature or stamp.

The Documents and Alleged Acts

Eleven separate criminal cases were consolidated against petitioner, each corresponding to a different document:

Criminal Case No. 85-40361 – Special Appointment as Confidential Presidential Representative (dated November 30, 1984).
Criminal Case No. 85-40362 – Memorandum/Order informing heads of ministries and various agencies about PRAMS (dated July 29, 1985).
Criminal Case No. 85-40363 – Appointment as Presidential Regional Executive Assistant and Executive Director of PRAMS (dated November 7, 1983).
Criminal Case No. 85-40364 – Memorandum to Land, Air and Navigation Transportation Operators (dated July 11, 1985).
Criminal Case No. 85-40365 – Memorandum Order to various government heads and agencies (dated July 29, 1985).
Criminal Case No. 85-40366 – Memorandum Order No. 1480 directed to petitioner (dated November 23, 1984).
Criminal Case No. 85-40367 – Memorandum/Circular to operators in different transportation sectors (dated November 30, 1984).
Criminal Case No. 85-40368 – Letter addressed to President Marcos through the Minister of the Budget concerning Standard Operating Procedures for PRAMS (dated November 23, 1984).
Criminal Case No. 85-40369 – Executive Order No. 820 creating PRAMS in all regions (dated October 11, 1983).
Criminal Case No. 85-40370 – Special Presidential Certification (dated September 9, 1985).
Criminal Case No. 85-40371 – Document allegedly granting Presidential Permission for free public transportation (dated February 28, 1985).

The documents bore official insignia such as the Great Seal of the Republic, printed on official stationery, which lent them an appearance of authenticity.

Investigative and Administrative Developments

On March 25, 1985, Executive Assistant Juan C. Tuvera issued Memorandum Circular No. 1281, which:

Informed all government agencies of the non-existence of the Presidential Regional Assistant Monitoring Services (PRAMS), the alleged agency tied to the forged documents.
Clarified that petitioner, purportedly the Executive Director of PRAMS, had no connection with the Office of the President.

Subsequent investigations by the Presidential Security Command and the Malacanang Complaints and Investigation Office (CIO) revealed:

The disputed documents were not filed or recorded in the Malacanang Records Office.
Testimonies, notably from Melquiades T. de la Cruz, Director of the Malacanang Records Office, pointed out that the signatures on the documents did not match those of President Marcos.

Trial Court Proceedings and Findings

During a hearing on September 27, 1985, petitioner presented the 11 documents, claiming they were signed by President Marcos in his presence.
The lone prosecution witness, Melquiades T. de la Cruz, testified that:

There were no copies of the documents in the official record.
The signatures on the documents did not resemble the signature of the former President.

The RTC, after weighing all evidence and testimonies, found:

The defense’s claim of the documents’ authenticity was implausible given the absence of such documents in the official repository.
Petitioner’s stature and credibility were inconsistent with being granted the privilege of witnessing a Presidential signature.

As a result, petitioner was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt on all eleven counts of forgery, and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from prision mayor to reclusion temporal for each count.

Appellate Review and Arguments Raised

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, with modification, the RTC’s conviction and sentence.
In his petition for review, petitioner raised several arguments:

The non-existence of the documents in Malacanang did not conclusively prove forgery; it might indicate that they were lost or destroyed.
The competency of Melquiades T. de la Cruz as a witness was questioned, arguing that he had not witnessed President Marcos’ actual signature.
The absence of a handwriting expert’s testimony was contended.
The emphasis on “unusual format and atrocious grammar” of the documents was argued to be irrelevant to proving forgery.
The alleged lack of "apparent legal efficacy" of the documents, given that PRAMS was declared non-existent.
The notion that all acts of forgery were part of one single criminal intent.
A claim of exemption from criminal liability invoking the idea that no person of sound mind would create a fictitious office in such a manner.

The appellate court and the higher court ultimately denied the petition, maintaining that the evidence clearly established the forgeries and the criminal liability of the petitioner.

Issues:

Authenticity of the Documents

Whether the absence of the documents from the Malacanang Records Office automatically established these documents as forgeries.
The implications of the documents’ “unusual format, atrocious grammar, and misspellings” on their authenticity.

Competency of the Witness

Whether Melquiades T. de la Cruz was competent to testify on the authenticity of the signatures despite not having personally observed President Marcos signing the documents.
The sufficiency of a record custodian’s testimony in identifying forgery.

Necessity of Expert Testimony

Whether the failure to present a handwriting expert undermined the prosecution’s case regarding the authenticity of President Marcos’ signature.
The relevance of lay opinion versus expert testimony in handwriting identification.

Nature and Effect of the Forged Documents

Whether the forgery can be considered as one single crime due to a unified intent or as multiple distinct crimes based on separate acts.
Whether the alleged lack of “apparent legal efficacy” of the documents (given the non-existence of PRAMS) negated the crime of forgery.

Exemption from Criminal Liability

Whether petitioner’s argument that no person of sound mind would create a fictitious office is sufficient to exempt him from criminal responsibility.
The relevance of the presumption of sanity in light of the petitioner’s conduct and claims.

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

(Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

Case Digest (G.R. No. 111962-72) Concise

Facts:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 111962-72) Standard Advanced

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Ratio:

Doctrine:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 111962-72)
Concise

Case Digest (G.R. No. 111962-72)
Standard Advanced