G.R. No. 172539 - Garong y Villanueva vs. People

Alberto Garong y Villanueva (petitioner) was charged with falsification under Articles 171 and 172 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
The charge stemmed from his alleged preparation and issuance of a simulated court order purportedly from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 40, Calapan, Oriental Mindoro, dated August 11, 1989.
The document falsely involved "Petition No. 12,701" in the name of Silverio Rosales, when in truth that docket number pertained to a petition by Emerenciano Sarabia.

Silverio Rosales and Ricar Colocar sought petitioner’s help for judicial reconstitution of Rosales’ Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 40361.
Petitioner, a court interpreter, agreed to assist and instructed the submission of various documents and fixed a processing fee of P4,000.
On September 21, 1989, petitioner delivered a document (Exhibit B) representing a court order in the name of Silverio.
Exhibit B bore seals and the signature purportedly from Judge Mario de la Cruz but referenced a non-existent judicial proceeding for Rosales’ petition, instead matching the docket of Sarabia’s different petition.
When Exhibit B was submitted to the Register of Deeds for issuance of a duplicate title, errors were discovered leading to suspicion of falsification.
Subsequent investigations by the NBI led to filing of the criminal case against petitioner.

He acknowledged initial assistance but claimed he had no knowledge of the reconstitution process and that he merely endorsed the parties to the court stenographer.
Petitioner denied receiving the processing fee and denied knowingly falsifying the document.
He admitted signing Exhibit B, but asserted it was simply certifying it as a “true copy,” claimed the docket number was placed by the stenographer, and denied using his official position to facilitate any crime.

RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of falsification as a private individual but with the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of his public position as court interpreter.
The Court rejected petitioner’s claim of existence of an original order and held no original existed with the proper docket number for Rosales.
Petitioner was sentenced to 2 to 6 years of prision correccional, fined P5,000.00, and ordered reimbursement of P4,000.00.

CA affirmed conviction but rejected the aggravating circumstance because petitioner’s office did not facilitate the commission of the crime; any person with knowledge could have forgone the falsification.
Modified penalty to indeterminate 2 years 4 months up to 4 years 9 months 10 days prision correccional, fine of P5,000, and ordered payment of P4,000 plus interest to Rosales.
The CA found no original document existed for comparison; upheld trial courts’ factual findings.

Petitioner contended conviction was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, citing the absence of the original document.
Alleged improper appreciation of evidence and error in characterization of crime.

Whether or not the petitioner was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of falsification under Articles 171 and 172, Revised Penal Code.
Whether the crime committed was falsification by public officer or falsification by a private individual.
Whether the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public office applied to the petitioner.
Proper penalty and imposition of subsidiary imprisonment for failure to pay the fine.