Title
Gamido y Buenaventura vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 111962-72
Decision Date
Dec 8, 1995
Maximino Gamido convicted for forging 11 documents with President Marcos' signature; affirmed by courts, citing absence in records, witness testimony, and multiple separate crimes.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 111962-72)

Background of the Accusation

The prosecution charged Gamido with forging the President's signature on various documents, including appointments and memoranda purportedly related to a non-existent agency known as the Presidential Regional Assistant Monitoring Services (PRAMS). Gamido claimed he had been appointed by President Marcos and presented the disputed documents as legitimate. However, a memorandum issued by Executive Assistant Juan C. Tuvera declared PRAMS non-existent, which formed the basis of the prosecution's case.

Prosecution's Evidence

During the trial, the prosecution relied on the testimony of Melquiades T. de la Cruz, the Director of the Malacanang Records Office, who asserted that the documents in question had no records in their office, suggesting they could be forgeries. The prosecution aimed to demonstrate that the documents did not originate from genuine sources and were thus fraudulent.

Defense Arguments

Gamido's defense centered on the argument that the absence of the documents in the Malacanang Records Office did not necessarily indicate forgery. He contended that the witness failed to establish that the signatures were indeed forged and that no handwriting expert was presented to substantiate the claims of forgery. Additionally, Gamido argued that the unusual formatting and language of the documents did not constitute forgery because they purportedly could not deceive a reasonable person.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

The Regional Trial Court found Gamido guilty of forgery on all eleven counts, affirming that the documents were indeed non-existent and the signatures forged. The court emphasized that the testimony of the prosecution witness was credible, drawing on the presumption that the possessor of a forged document is typically deemed its forger. The court’s decision highlighted the implausibility of Gamido's assertions and underscored the fraudulent nature of the submitted documents.

Appeal and Court of Appeals' Decision

On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the sentence but affirmed the trial court’s ruling, rejecting Gamido's arguments about the credibility of the evidence and the competence of the witness. The appellate

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.