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

Case Summary (G.R. No. 172539)

Facts and Criminal Charge

On September 21, 1989, petitioner produced and delivered to Silverio Rosales and his companion Ricar Colocar a court order purportedly issued in a case captioned “Petition No. 12,701” for judicial reconstitution of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 40361. The document bore the signature of Judge Mario de la Cruz and was presented as an authentic court order. However, the docket number 12,701 actually referred to a different case involving Emerenciano Sarabia and a separate title (TCT No. T-3436). The petitioner was charged with falsification as defined in Article 172, in relation to Article 171, of the Revised Penal Code, accused of preparing and issuing a simulated court order in a nonexistent judicial proceeding.

Circumstances Leading to the Falsification

Silverio and Ricar approached the petitioner to assist with the judicial reconstitution of Silverio’s title. The petitioner demanded a processing fee, initially P5,000 later reduced to P4,000, for which he required certain documents. After receiving these, the petitioner delivered the falsified court order to enable Silverio to secure a duplicate title from the Register of Deeds. Upon inspection, officials at the Register of Deeds found inaccuracies in the order, leading Ricar to discover the docket number was incorrectly assigned to a case involving a different petitioner. Silverio and Ricar confronted the petitioner, who promised to resolve the matter but ultimately, a complaint was filed against him.

Petitioner’s Defense

The petitioner claimed he did not prepare or know the contents of the fabricated court order. He explained he only signed the document under pressure from Ricar to certify a “true copy” without verifying the authenticity, and denied receiving any processing fee. He asserted that someone else had placed the incorrect docket number on the document and that he merely endorsed Silverio and Ricar to the court stenographer for processing.

Trial Court’s Findings and Judgment

The Regional Trial Court found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of falsification by a private individual under Article 172, in relation to Article 171, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code. The court ruled that the petitioner authored and certified the falsified document, causing it to appear as a duly issued court order despite the nonexistence of the related judicial proceeding. The RTC considered the petitioner’s position as court interpreter an aggravating circumstance, concluding that it facilitated the offense. The petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment for two to six years, fined P5,000, ordered to reimburse P4,000 to Silverio Rosales, and to pay costs, with subsidiary imprisonment imposed in case of insolvency.

Court of Appeals’ Decision

On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty, ruling that the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public office did not apply. The CA reasoned that the petitioner’s role as court interpreter did not facilitate the crime because any person with knowledge or access to court forms could have committed the falsification. The CA explained that the petitioner did not have custody of documents nor the duty to prepare or certify court orders, essential criteria for falsification under Article 171 concerning public officers. The CA imposed an indeterminate prison term of two years and four months to four years and nine months of prision correccional, fined P5,000, and ordered payment of the P4,000 with legal interest to Silverio Rosales but omitted the subsidiary imprisonment.

Issue on Appeal to the Supreme Court

The petitioner questioned the sufficiency of evidence, particularly the failure to produce the original court order to prove the genuineness of the document he signed. He also challenged the appreciation of the aggravating circumstance and the characterization of the crime.

Legal Analysis and Supreme Court Ruling

Applying the 1987 Philippine Constitution and relevant provisions of the Revised Penal Code, the Supreme Court held:

Elements of Falsification by Public Officer (Art. 171 RPC): The offender is a public officer or employee who, taking advantage of official position, falsifies a document related to official duties.
Elements of Falsification by Private Individual (Art. 172 RPC): The offender can be a private individual or a public officer who did not take advantage of official position and commits falsification in public or official documents.

The petitioner admitted seeing the original order bearing Judge de la Cruz’s signature but failed to notice that Petition No. 12,701 actually involved another litigant, Emerenciano Sarabia. The petitioner authored and delivered the falsified court order (Exhibit B) which was a public document created for public service purposes. By certifying and presenting this document, the petitioner caused a false appearance of court proceedings that never in fact occurred.

The Court agreed with the RTC and CA findings on the authorial responsibility of the petitioner but differed on the legal characterization of the falsification. The case did not qualify as falsification by a public officer because the petitioner did not have the duty to prepare, nor custody of, the court order and did not take advantage of his official position. Rather, the simulation of a court order that did not exist constituted falsification by a private individual under paragraph 7, Article 171, in relation to Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code.

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 172539)

Background and Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Alberto Garong, a court interpreter in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Calapan, Oriental Mindoro, was charged with falsification under Articles 171 and 172 of the Revised Penal Code.
The charge stemmed from an incident where the petitioner simulated a court order dated August 11, 1989, related to a judicial reconstitution petition for Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 40361, supposedly filed by Silverio Rosales.
Unknown to Silverio and his companion Ricar Colocar, the docket number (Petition No. 12,701) referenced a different petition by Emerciano Sarabia for another title (TCT No. T-3436), and no such court order existed for Rosales’ petition.
On September 18, 1989, Silverio and Ricar requested the petitioner’s help for the judicial reconstitution process and agreed to pay a processing fee initially set at PHP 5,000 but later reduced to PHP 4,000.
The petitioner instructed them to prepare certain documents and then delivered to Ricar a court order (Exhibit B) purporting to be authentic.
Exhibit B bore markings such as "ORIGINAL SIGNED" with the printed name of Judge Mario de la Cruz and a "CERTIFIED TRUE COPY" stamp with a signature but no printed name beneath.
When Ricar submitted Exhibit B to the Register of Deeds, it was returned due to errors, leading to the discovery that the document referred to a non-existent petition as to Silverio’s case.
The petitioner initially promised to process the reconstitution legally but eventually was reported and charged with falsification.

Trial Court Findings and Decisions

The RTC found no dispute regarding the facts: the petitioner voluntarily assisted strangers Silverio and Ricar and prepared the court order he presented.
The petitioner admitted to signing the document bearing Petition No. 12,701, thereby certifying its supposed authenticity.
The court found the petitioner’s claim that he had seen a genuine original court order false since the docket number pertained to another litigant.
The RTC ruled that because no original court order existed, it was reasonable to find the document forged.
The court characterized the offense as falsification by a private individual with the aggravating circumstance of abuse of public office by virtue of the petitioner’s being a court interpreter.
The RTC sentenced the petitioner to an indeterminate penalty of 2 to 6 years imprisonment and a fine of PHP 5,000, required him to reimburse Silverio the PHP 4,000 processing fee, and imposed costs.

Court of Appeals Ruling and Modifications

The petitioner appealed, arguing failure of proof beyond reasonable doubt, particularly due to absence of the original document.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction, rejecting the petitioner’s arguments, ruling that no original of Exhibit B existed, and the alleged