Case Summary (G.R. No. 230147)
Parties
Petitioner: Juanito Gallano y Obrar
Respondent: People of the Philippines
Key Dates
• Incident: August 11, 2011
• Information filed: August 12, 2011
• RTC decision: January 19, 2015
• CA decision: August 31, 2016
• CA resolution denying reconsideration: January 5, 2017
• Supreme Court decision: February 21, 2024
Applicable Law
1987 Philippine Constitution; Article 168 (illegal possession and use of false treasury or bank notes) in relation to Article 166 (forging or falsification of treasury or bank notes) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 10951.
Facts of the Case
On August 11, 2011, petitioner presented a PHP 1,000 bill at Arellano’s lotto outlet to pay for a ticket. Teller Janoras refused it for lack of change and, using a UV-light scanner, found it lacked the security thread of genuine Philippine currency. Petitioner left briefly, returned and again offered the same bill. Arellano confirmed the bill’s poor paper quality, reported the incident to police, and turned over the bill to authorities. The BSP later certified the bill as counterfeit. Petitioner maintained he borrowed the bill from his brother, Andres, and acted in good faith, unaware of its falsity.
RTC and CA Rulings
The Regional Trial Court convicted petitioner of violating Articles 168 and 166, finding all elements—existence of a forged bill, knowledge of its falsity (second tender despite warning), and attempted use—were established. He was sentenced to an indeterminate term of three years, six months to six years and one day, plus a PHP 5,000 fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to an indeterminate term of eight years and one day to ten years, eight months, and one day of prision mayor.
Issue
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction when the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner had knowledge of the bill’s counterfeit nature and intent to use it.
Legal Framework on Mala in Se Crimes
The crime under Article 168 is mala in se and requires both actus reus (use or possession with intent) and mens rea (knowledge of the instrument’s falsity). In contrast to mala prohibita offenses, proof of criminal intent is integral; lack of intent or good faith constitutes a valid defense.
Elements of the Offense
Jurisprudence dictates three essential elements:
- A forged or falsified treasury or bank note;
- Knowledge by the offender that the instrument is counterfeit;
- Use thereof or possession with intent to use.
Assessment of Mens Rea
While the counterfeit nature of the bill was firmly established by the BSP certification and related evidence, the Supreme Court found that petitioner’s guilty intent was not proven. The lower courts relied solely on Arellano’s trial testimony that petitioner insisted, “This is what I am going to pay,” despite his own sworn affidavit and Janoras’s affidavit indicating petitioner merely inquired, “Peke ba pera ko?” and returned for re-examination. Petitioner’s credible actions—seeking t
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 230147)
Procedural Background
- Petition for Review on Certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, docketed as G.R. No. 230147.
- Challenged Court of Appeals Decision dated August 31, 2016 and Resolution dated January 5, 2017 in CA-G.R.CR No. 37787, which affirmed with modification petitioner’s conviction.
- Underlying conviction for illegal possession and use of false treasury or bank notes and other instruments of credit (Art. 168 in relation to Art. 166, RPC).
- RTC Branch 53 of Sorsogon City rendered Decision on January 19, 2015; petitioner moved for CA reconsideration, denied January 5, 2017; elevates case to Supreme Court.
Facts of the Case
- On August 11, 2011 at about 8:05 p.m., petitioner went to a lotto outlet owned by George Arellano at Arellano Bldg., Rizal Street, Sorsogon City.
- Petitioner attempted to pay for his lotto bet with a ₱1,000 bill bearing serial number LB685736.
- Teller Janet Janoras first refused the bill for lack of change, then identified it as counterfeit using a UV scanner.
- Petitioner left briefly, returned and tendered the same bill again.
- Arellano examined the bill under UV light, confirmed absence of security thread, then called the police.
- Police Officers (PO1 Mariano Diaz Jr., PO2 Caesar Divina, PO2 Eleno Gaymo) confiscated the bill, brought it and petitioner to Cabid-an Police Station.
- Evidence custodian PO1 Ather Marz Jr. recorded details on a sheet, scanned the bill and endorsement letter; Arellano sent originals to BSP for certification.
- BSP Currency Analysis and Redemption Division certified the bill counterfeit on August 16, 2011; BSP retained and stamped it “COUNTERFEIT.”
Prosecution’s Version
- Petitioner knowingly used a counterfeit ₱1,000 bill to pay for his lotto ticket.
- After being told by the teller that the bill was fake, petitioner nevertheless returned and tried to use it again.
- Confiscation and chain of custody properly documented by police, investigator (SPO1 Rolando Valladolid) confirmed bill counterfeit.
- BSP Certification corroborates physical evidence.
Defense’s Version
- Petitioner acted in good faith and was unaware of the bill’s counterfeit nature.
- After teller refused the ₱1,000 bill for lack of change, petitioner fetched ₱30 from his motorcycle U-box and paid in smaller denomination.
- He voluntarily handed the ₱1,000 bill back for re-examination, having asked “Peke ba pera ko?” (“Is my money fake?”).
- Petitioner’s brother Andres Gallano gave him the bill on August 9, 2011; brother did not know it was counterfeit.