G.R. No. 96227 - Opena vs. Court of Appeals

Spouses Julian Gotgotao and Guillerma Opena were the registered owners of Lot No. 1584-B, Barangay Cayambanan, Urdaneta, Pangasinan.
The property was evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 61957, which bore an annotation showing that it had been mortgaged to the Rural Bank of Mangaldan, Inc. for the sum of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00).

When the Gotgotao spouses inquired at the bank about their Certificate of Title, bank employees informed them that Telesforo Opena (half-brother of Guillerma Opena) had withdrawn the title using a Special Power of Attorney allegedly executed by the spouses.
Subsequent verification with the Register of Deeds in Lingayen revealed that Telesforo Opena had effected the transfer of the title into his own name by submitting a Deed of Absolute Sale purportedly executed by the spouses.

The original title, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 61957, was cancelled.
A new title, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 131474, was issued in the name of Telesforo Opena, who was married to Carolina Sanidad.

A complaint for falsification of public documents was filed against Telesforo Opena based on the alleged forgery in the Deed of Absolute Sale.
Both the trial court (Branch 48 of the Regional Trial Court of Pangasinan) and the Court of Appeals (in CA-G.R. CR No. 06576) affirmed the conviction of Telesforo Opena in toto.

There was no forgery committed since the thumbmark of Julian Gotgotao was genuine and there was no solid evidence that Guillerma Opena’s signature was forged.
The trial and appellate courts erred by finding that the defense had suppressed evidence.
The spouses had validly conveyed the land in favor of the petitioner.
The order annulling the Deed of Sale executed on April 10, 1978 in favor of the petitioner should be reversed.

The petitioner based some of his argument on the report of a questioned document expert who verified the genuineness of Julian’s thumbmark.

Despite the possible genuineness of Julian Gotgotao’s thumbmark, evidence showed that Guillerma Opena’s signature on the deed was counterfeit.
Testimony from Guillerma herself, corroborated by the handwriting expert Jovito R. Gutierrez of the P.C. Crime Laboratory, confirmed that her signature on the Deed of Absolute Sale was forged.
The trial court noted that neither Telesforo Opena nor ex-B Barangay Captain Esteban Valdez witnessed Guillerma signing the document, reinforcing the conclusion of forgery.
The Court of Appeals also emphasized that the documentary standards (such as voter’s ID, promissory notes, residence certificate, and other signed documents) confirmed that the signature on the deed did not match Guillerma’s genuine signatures.

The defense acknowledged that testimony from Atty. Anastacio Caoayan—the notary public responsible for notarizing the deed—had been dispensed with despite multiple subpoenas.
Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals inferred that the failure to present Atty. Caoayan’s testimony suggested suppression of evidence materially adverse to the petitioner’s claim.
Inconsistencies in the amounts claimed as consideration for the land sale further undermined the credibility of the petitioner’s version of events.

Whether Telesforo Opena committed the crime of falsification by using a fraudulent Deed of Absolute Sale.
Whether the evidence established that Guillerma Opena’s signature on the document was a forgery, despite the genuineness of Julian Gotgotao’s thumbmark.

Whether the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the petitioner’s defense counsel suppressed material evidence by failing to present Atty. Anastacio Caoayan’s testimony.
Whether such suppression affected the integrity of the defense and the overall proceedings.

Whether the alleged deed of sale, executed on April 10, 1978, was valid given that a forged signature by an essential party (Guillerma Opena) was involved.
Whether the spouses’ purported conveyance of the land in favor of the petitioner, allegedly in satisfaction of previous loans, was legally and factually substantiated.

Whether there existed reversible error in the factual findings and legal conclusions of the lower courts to justify annulling the conviction.
Whether the petition for review by certiorari should have been granted based on any merit in the raised errors.