G.R. No. 165678 - Panuncio vs. People

On August 3, 1992, at about 4:00 p.m., operatives from the Land Transportation Office (LTO) and the Special Mission Group Task Force Lawin of the Presidential Anti-Crime Commission (PACC) executed a raid at the residence of Rosario S. Panuncio, a jeepney operator, located at 204 E. Rodriguez Sr. Avenue, Quezon City.
The operation was led by then Philippine National Police Superintendent Panfilo Lacson and Police Senior Inspector Cesar Ouano, Jr., and it was conducted pursuant to Search Warrant No. 581-92 issued by Regional Trial Court Judge Bernardo P. Pardo.

During the raid, police and LTO operatives confiscated several items including LTO documents, 17 pieces of private vehicle plates, a copying machine, typewriters, and other tools and equipment.
One of the key documents seized was MVRR No. 63231478 (LTO Form No. 2), issued to Manlite Transport Corporation, which was photographed while mounted on a typewriter.
Petitioner Rosario S. Panuncio, along with Barangay Chairman Antonio Manalo, her employee Myrna Velasco, and one Cesar Nidua, signed a certification of orderly search, and an inventory receipt was issued by PO3 Manuel Nicolas Abuda.

Petitioner Panuncio and Jaime L. Lopez were arrested, although Lopez was not charged since evidence showed he was merely a visitor during the raid.
Juan V. Borra, Jr., Assistant Secretary for the LTO, representing his office, filed a complaint against petitioner for alleged violations of Articles 171, 172, and 176 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) among other laws.
An Information was subsequently filed against petitioner for violation of Article 172(1) in relation to Article 171 of the RPC, charging her with willfully falsifying vital information on an official LTO receipt.

Petitioner filed a motion for reinvestigation, which was granted by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 107, in its March 1, 1993 order.
On June 1, 1994, the Department of Justice, via State Prosecutor Mario A.M. Caraos, recommended prosecution for falsification.
Petitioner entered a plea of not guilty on June 28, 1994, and subsequent pre-trial and trial proceedings ensued.

During trial, a photocopy of the duplicate original of MVRR No. 63231478 (a faithful reproduction of the official document in the LTO file) was compared with the document confiscated from petitioner’s residence.
Discrepancies noted included differences in file numbers, plate numbers (DFK 587 in the LTO file versus DEU 127 in the seized copy), routes of operation, motor and serial numbers, as well as slight variations in gross weight, net capacity, and payment details.

Petitioner denied being the source of the falsification, alleging that the document was associated with a business (Manlite) she co-owned with her late husband, which had ceased operations as of April 1992.
She contended that she was not present during the raid and that once she returned, the authorities had already removed the items, forcing her to sign the search and seizure documents.
Petitioner also argued that her charges arose from her refusal to provide money to the police during the operation.

On September 2, 1997, the trial court found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of falsification of a public document under Articles 171 and 172 of the RPC.
The court sentenced her to imprisonment (imposing a penalty of arresto mayor to prision correccional) along with a fine, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL).

Petitioner appealed from the trial court’s conviction.
In its June 15, 2004 Decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with a modification of the penalty, sentencing petitioner to an indeterminate penalty of two years and four months (minimum) to six years (maximum) of prision correccional.
A subsequent motion for reconsideration was filed but denied on October 15, 2004 by the Court of Appeals, which led to the petition for review before the Supreme Court.

Whether the elements of falsification under Article 172(1) in relation to Article 171 of the RPC were sufficiently established based on the discrepancies between the official LTO document and the copy seized from petitioner’s residence.

Whether the search of petitioner’s premises was duly conducted in accordance with Section 8, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, specifically regarding the presence of lawful occupants or two witnesses.

Whether the evidence (confiscated documents and items) collected during the search could be admitted in court, given allegations that the search was defective or conducted improperly.

Whether the Court of Appeals properly applied the ISL in determining the minimum and maximum periods of prision correccional and in imposing an appropriate fine in line with the provisions for falsification of a public document.