Case Summary (G.R. No. 227069)
Relevant Dates and Applicable Law
- Date of alleged falsification: April 21, 1993
- Filing of information: September 30, 2003
- Use of 1987 Philippine Constitution as legal basis, since the case was decided on November 22, 2017.
- Relevant law: Article 172 (1) of the Revised Penal Code regarding falsification by a private individual of public documents.
Charges and Facts Leading to Prosecution
Lamsen was accused of forging the signatures of spouses Aniceta dela Cruz and Nestor Tandas on the deed of sale that purportedly transferred ownership of the property to him for P150,000.00, without their consent or participation. The prosecution argued that the signatures were simulated and counterfeit to misrepresent the transaction, causing damage to public interest.
Background and Events After Aniceta’s Death
After Aniceta's death on September 7, 2001, her heirs Teresita dela Cruz Lao and Carmelita Lao Lee undertook estate settlement proceedings and attempted to secure a duplicate title for the property. A petition for a second owner’s duplicate title was dismissed due to Lamsen’s opposition, who claimed to possess the original title. Subsequently, the Registry of Deeds indicated a deed of sale related to the property had been submitted but later withdrawn. The heirs obtained a photocopy of the deed, which was subjected to examination by the PNP Crime Laboratory, resulting in a finding that the signatures appeared forged.
Defense and Claims of Petitioner
Lamsen admitted purchasing the property from spouses Tandas and claimed the deed was duly executed and notarized. He maintained he had possession of the original deed but chose not to inform the heirs due to strained relations. He also denied the prosecution’s claims of forgery.
Trial Court Rulings and Basis of Conviction
The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) found Lamsen guilty beyond reasonable doubt based primarily on the expert testimony of a document examiner who testified that the signatures were not genuine. The court rejected Lamsen’s attempts to prove authentic signatures on the subject deed.
Upon appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) upheld the conviction, discrediting Lamsen’s prescription claim and relying on circumstantial evidence such as:
- The notarization location differing from the parties’ residence;
- Lack of proof as to witnesses’ signatures;
- Delay in registration and tax payment connected to the deed;
- Failure to produce the original deed at trial.
The Court of Appeals (CA) likewise affirmed the conviction, finding all elements of falsification under Article 172 (1) of the RPC established.
Evidentiary Issues and Forensic Examination
The core evidence was the expert’s examination of photocopies since the original deed was never produced. The expert’s own report stated that no definite conclusion could be drawn due to limitations inherent in examining photocopies rather than originals, where critical handwriting elements could not be discerned. This inconsistency undermined the reliability of the forgery claim and expert testimony.
Assessment of Circumstantial Evidence
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete and consistent chain leading to guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the appellate courts considered facts such as the location of notarization and registration delays; however, these were found by the Supreme Court to be insufficient or immaterial to conclusively prove falsification. For instance, notarization is not required to be in the residence locality, and delayed registration or tax payment does not necessarily indicate forgery.
Legal Principles on Falsification and Evidence
To sustain a conviction for falsification of public documents by a private individual, the prosecution must prove:
- The accused is a private individual;
- The accused committed an act of falsification as enumerated in Article 171; and
- The falsification involved a public document.
Proof of forgery must be clear, positive, and convincing, and not presumed. The genuineness of handwriting is properly proven by direct comparison between the questioned and genuine signatures, not through photocopies or inconclusive reports. Courts give greater weight to direct evidence such as testimony of persons physically present at the signing than to expert testimony which is indirect.
Supreme Court's Findings and Final Ruling
The Supreme Court found the
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 227069)
Background and Procedural History
- The petitioner, Hilario Lamsen, filed a petition for review on certiorari challenging the January 30, 2015 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 35283.
- The CA affirmed the decision dated March 28, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, which in turn upheld the July 5, 2011 judgment of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) finding Lamsen guilty beyond reasonable doubt of falsification of public documents under Article 172 (1) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
- The Information was filed on September 30, 2003, charging Lamsen with falsification of a Deed of Absolute Sale dated April 21, 1993. The deed was allegedly forged with the counterfeit signatures of spouses Aniceta Dela Cruz and Nestor Tandas.
- The lineage of decisions moved from the MeTC to RTC, then to the CA, with all courts ruling against Lamsen before he filed the present petition with the Supreme Court.
Facts of the Case
- The subject property was a parcel of land measuring approximately 43 square meters in Barrio Malabo, Valenzuela City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. V-16641 registered under Aniceta Dela Cruz, married to Nestor Tandas.
- Aniceta died on September 7, 2001, leaving her nieces and surviving heirs Teresita dela Cruz Lao and Carmelita Lao Lee.
- After Aniceta's death, the owner’s duplicate title became untraceable, prompting Teresita to execute an affidavit of loss and initiate extrajudicial settlement and other petitions relating to the property.
- Lamsen opposed a petition for issuance of a second owner’s duplicate title, asserting that he possessed the original title.
- It was revealed that a deed of sale involving the subject property was requested for registration with the Registry of Deeds (RD) of Valenzuela City but was withdrawn.
- The notarized deed was no longer on file, and a photocopy was sent to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory for signature verification.
- Document Examiner Alex Batiles concluded that there were dissimilarities between signatures on the questioned deed and known signatures of spouses Tandas, though his conclusions were qualified.
Petitioner’s Defense
- Lamsen denied the charges, maintaining he legitimately acquired the subject property from spouses Tandas for P150,000 in 1993.
- He claimed the deed was duly executed, signed, and notarized in the presence of witnesses Nicasio Cruz and Francisco Capinpin.
- Lamsen stated he retained the original deed and only left a photocopy with the notary.
- He admitted he did not inform Aniceta’s relatives about the sale due to their estranged relations.
Metropolitan Trial Court’s Decision
- The MeTC found Lamsen guilty beyond reasonable doubt, sentencing him to the indeterminate penalty ranging from arresto mayor (maximum period) to prision correccional (medium and maximum period).
- The conviction largely relied on the expert testimony of Batiles attesting to forgery in the signatures of spouses Tandas.
- The court found Lamsen failed to convincingly prove the authenticity of Aniceta’s signature.
- The motion for reconsideration filed by Lamsen was denied.
Regional Trial Court’s Decision
- The RTC affirmed the MeTC decision in toto.
- The RTC rejected Lamsen’s claim of prescription, ruling the ten-year prescriptive period started on May 9, 2002—the time forgery was discovered—not during initial notarial report submission.
- The