G.R. No. 76649-51 - 20th Century Fox Film Corp. vs. Court of Appeals

The appellant, Rafael Balmores y Caya, pleaded guilty to the charge of attempted estafa through falsification of a security.
Specifically, on or about September 22, 1947, in Manila, the accused allegedly altered a genuine 1/8 unit Philippine Charity Sweepstakes ticket.

He tore off a portion at the bottom in a cross-wise direction, thereby removing the ticket’s true and real unidentified number.
He then substituted this number by writing in ink “074000” on the bottom left side of the ticket, which coincided with a winning number from the June 29, 1947, draw.

The altered ticket was presented at the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office with the intention of claiming prize money amounting to P359.55.
Bayani Miller, an employee of the Sweepstakes Office, noticed the irregularity on the ticket.

Acting promptly, Miller called for a policeman who apprehended and arrested the accused at the scene.

The accused, though illiterate, waived his right to be assisted by counsel and pleaded guilty to the information filed against him.

Judge Emilio Pena sentenced him to suffer a penalty of not less than 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor and not more than 12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal, along with a fine of P100 and cost payment.
On appeal, the accused contended:

That the facts charged did not constitute an offense, based on several arguments involving the nature and authenticity of the ticket, notably that genuine sweepstakes tickets issued for the June 29, 1947 draw were only 1/4 units, not 1/8 units.
That the trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict him on a plea of guilty because his illiteracy and the absence of counsel should have precluded such conviction.

The ticket presented in evidence appears to be a 1/8 unit, directly contradicting the appellant’s assertion regarding the issuance of only 1/4 units.
The prosecution maintained that if the Office did not issue 1/8 units, the very presentation of a spurious ticket heightened the fraudulent intent.
The record clearly showed that the genuine number was removed and substituted with “074000,” indicating that if the original number were already “074000,” no alteration would have been necessary.

One of the dissenting justices argued that the alleged falsification was inherently inadequate or ineffective.

The dissent emphasized that the ticket’s alteration was so obvious that it was bound to be detected and therefore constituted an “impossible crime.”

The dissent contended that, had competent counsel assisted the illiterate appellant, the inherent ineffectiveness of his fraudulent act might have led to his acquittal.
Based on these arguments, the dissenting judge urged the reversal of the sentence and the immediate release of the appellant.

Whether the facts charged in the information legally constitute an offense under the law.

Does the act of tearing a portion of the ticket and substituting the original number with “074000” satisfy the elements of falsification of a government security?
Can this act be properly classified as an attempt to commit estafa?

Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to convict the appellant on a plea of guilty given his illiteracy and the counsel waiver.

Was the waiver of counsel by an illiterate defendant valid and competent enough to uphold the proceedings?
Did the absence of legal assistance compromise the fairness or jurisdiction of the trial?

Is it accurate or relevant that tickets for the June 29, 1947 draw were only issued in 1/4 units, thus challenging the classification of the presented ticket as a 1/8 unit?
Does the authenticity and nature of the ticket affect the charge of falsification or the computation of the offense?

Should the charge be treated as a lesser offense of attempted estafa or as a serious offense of falsification, warranting the maximum penalty under the law?
How do mitigating circumstances such as lack of instruction and the appellant’s illiteracy factor into the sentencing?