Title
Gimenez vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 214231
Decision Date
Sep 16, 2020
A 25-year employee, accused of falsifying a corporate resolution, was acquitted by the Supreme Court due to lack of criminal intent and reliance on superior’s instructions.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-31979)

Facts of the Case

Petitioner served Loran Industries for 25 years, reaching the head of accounting and finance and acting as corporate secretary. Following a two-signatory policy adopted by the board on June 19, 2003, she executed a Secretary's Certificate on August 25, 2003, stating that one board member could sign checks. This Certificate was later disputed by the board, leading to allegations of falsification against her.

Legal Proceedings

On March 31, 2005, an Information was filed against petitioner for falsifying the Secretary’s Certificate, claiming it misrepresented the board's actions. The prosecution presented Lorna and Antonio Quisumbing as witnesses, both testifying to the absence of a board meeting or resolution on the Certificate's date. The defense, led by petitioner, relied on testimonies from co-employees who described challenges caused by the two-signatory policy.

Ruling of the MTCC

The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) found petitioner guilty of falsification and imposed an indeterminate penalty. The MTCC ruled that the intent to commit the offense was presumed unless proven otherwise and concluded that petitioner’s actions indicated knowledge of her lack of authority to issue the Certificate.

Ruling of the RTC

Petitioner appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which upheld the MTCC decision in its entirety. It cited that the action undertaken by the petitioner lacked authority, reinforcing that falsification of public documents is based on the preservation of public faith, irrespective of intent to harm a third party.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Dissatisfied, petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the lower court's rulings but increased the fine to P5,000. The appellate court agreed that the presumption of criminal intent was not overcome by the petitioner and emphasized that intent to benefit or prejudice a third party is not required for falsification.

Petition for Review on Certiorari

Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari, insisting she acted under Paolo’s instructions and not with criminal intent. She argued that the boards were aware of the checks signed with one signature and often benefi

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.