A.C. No. 10150 - Endaya vs. Palay

Case Summary (A.C. No. 10150)

Procedural History

An Information for falsification of public documents under Article 172(1) of the Revised Penal Code was filed in the MeTC, which convicted petitioner and sentenced him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment and a fine. The MeTC denied reconsideration; the RTC affirmed the conviction in toto. The CA likewise affirmed the RTC decision. Petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, which reviewed the entire record.

Charge and Allegations

The Information alleged that petitioner prepared, forged, or caused to be prepared a Deed of Absolute Sale dated April 21, 1993, notarized before Notary Public Santiago R. Reyes, falsely stating that spouses Aniceta and Nestor sold the subject property to petitioner for P150,000. The prosecution alleged that the spouses did not sell the property, did not participate in the signing, and did not authorize the affixation of their signatures, rendering the deed a falsified public document.

Material Facts and Evidentiary Record

After Aniceta’s death, her heirs sought the owner’s duplicate title but found it missing and filed an affidavit of loss; they initiated proceedings to obtain a second duplicate but opposed by petitioner who claimed to possess the original. The Registry of Deeds informed the heirs that a request to register a deed involving the property had been made; the requesting party later withdrew papers. The heirs obtained a photocopy of the subject deed from the Notarial Section and submitted that photocopy to the PNP Crime Laboratory. Document Examiner Batiles testified that the questioned signatures displayed dissimilarities from known signatures of the spouses and opined the deed was falsified, though his written Questioned Document Report stated no definite conclusion could be rendered because the submitted materials were photocopies. Petitioner maintained denial, asserting a valid purchase, possession of the original deed, and execution in the presence of identified witnesses.

Trial Court Findings and Bases for Conviction

The MeTC convicted petitioner primarily on the expert testimony of Batiles that the signatures were forged. The RTC affirmed, relying on the expert findings and additional circumstantial factors: (a) the deed’s notarization in Manila despite parties residing in Valenzuela; (b) petitioner’s failure to show when witnesses signed; (c) registration with the RD occurred only after Aniceta’s death; (d) capital gains and documentary stamp taxes were paid belatedly (April 11, 2002); and (e) the original deed allegedly retained by petitioner was not produced at trial. The CA likewise affirmed these conclusions.

Legal Standard for Falsification and Evidentiary Requirements

The court applied Article 172(1) RPC, which penalizes falsification by a private individual of a public document; the elements are: (a) the offender is a private individual, (b) the offender committed an act of falsification enumerated in Article 171, and (c) the falsification was in a public document. The prosecution must establish falsification by clear, positive, and convincing evidence; forgery is not presumed. Under Rule 132, Section 22 of the Rules of Court, genuineness of handwriting is proved by witnesses who saw the person write or by comparison with writings admitted or proved genuine. Photocopies are secondary evidence and, under Rule 130, Section 3, cannot competently establish genuineness absent proof that the original is lost, destroyed, or in the custody or control of the adversary. Circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain consistently pointing to guilt to the exclusion of innocence.

Supreme Court’s Evaluation of the Expert Evidence

The Court found Batiles’ oral testimony inconsistent with his own written Questioned Document Report. Although Batiles testified that the questioned signatures were not by the same person and that the deed was falsified, his Report explicitly stated that no definite conclusion could be rendered because the materials examined were photocopies and minute handwriting details were not clearly manifested. The Court held that this inconsistency rendered the expert’s declaration unreliable and inconclusive for proving forgery beyond reasonable doubt.

Supreme Court’s Ruling on Photocopy Evidence and Requirement of Originals

The Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to present the original deed or to prove that the original was lost, destroyed, or in petitioner’s custody or control. Because the expert comparison and analysis were performed on photocopies only, such comparison was legally infirm. The Court reiterated that photocopies are secondary evidence and insufficient to establish forgery in the absence of proof satisfying the requirements of Rule 130, Section 3.

Supreme Court’s Assessment of Circumstantial Evidence

Applying the tests for circumstantial evidence, the Court found that the circumstantial

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 10150)

Procedural Posture

Petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioner Hilario Lamsen (Lamsen) assailing the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated January 30, 2015 in CA-G.R. CR No. 35283, which affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Decision dated March 28, 2012 in Crim. Case No. 11-288590 sustaining the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) Judgment dated July 5, 2011 in Crim. Case No. 400192-CB.
The MeTC had found Lamsen guilty beyond reasonable doubt of falsification of public documents under Article 172(1) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
Lamsen appealed to the RTC, which affirmed the MeTC in toto; he appealed to the CA, which likewise affirmed; Lamsen then filed motions for reconsideration, a motion for new trial, and other supplemental pleadings before filing the instant petition to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court granted review and resolved the case by a decision dated November 22, 2017, penned by Justice Perlas-Bernabe, with Carpio (Chairperson), Peralta, and Caguioa, JJ., concurring; Reyes, Jr., J., on official leave.

Facts

An Information dated September 30, 2003 charged Lamsen with falsification of public documents.
The prosecution alleged that a Deed of Absolute Sale dated April 21, 1993 (the subject deed), notarized before Santiago R. Reyes and docketed in his notarial registry, had been prepared, forged and falsified by Lamsen by simulating and counterfeiting the signatures of spouses Aniceta dela Cruz and Nestor Tandas.
The subject property was a parcel of land of about 43 square meters located in Barrio Malabo, Municipality of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. V-16641, and registered under the name “Aniceta dela Cruz, married to Nestor Tandas.”
Aniceta died on September 7, 2001 (erroneously dated as “September 7, 2011” in the RTC Decision), leaving heirs/nieces Teresita dela Cruz Lao (Teresita) and Carmelita Lao Lee (Carmelita).
After Aniceta’s death, Teresita searched for the owner’s duplicate title but could not find it; she executed an affidavit of loss, which was annotated on the title at the Registry of Deeds (RD) of Valenzuela City on October 19, 2001 (erroneously dated as “October 19, 2011” in the RTC Decision).
Teresita and Carmelita executed an extrajudicial settlement of Aniceta’s estate; Teresita filed a petition for issuance of a second owner’s duplicate title before the RTC of Valenzuela City, Branch 75, which was dismissed due to opposition by Lamsen asserting possession of the original owner’s duplicate title.
The RD informed Teresita by letter dated May 9, 2002 that somebody requested registration of a deed of sale involving the subject property; the requesting party withdrew papers but Teresita obtained a photocopy of the withdrawal and later obtained only a photocopy (not an original) of the subject deed from the Notarial Section of Manila because the original was no longer on file.
Teresita submitted the photocopy of the deed to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory for examination because the signatures of Aniceta and Nestor appeared forged; Document Examiner II Alex Batiles (Batiles) confirmed that the subject deed was falsified and found dissimilarities between questioned and standard signatures of Aniceta and Nestor.
Lamsen denied the charges, claiming he validly bought the subject property from spouses Tandas for P150,000 while renting from Nestor in 1993; he asserted the deed was executed, signed and notarized in the GSIS Office, Manila, that he left a xerox copy at the Notary and retained the original, and that he did not inform Aniceta’s relatives of the sale.

Charge and Information (Accusatory Allegations)

The Information alleged that on or about April 21, 1993, Lamsen, as a private individual, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously prepared, forged, and falsified a Deed of Absolute Sale dated April 21, 1993, notarized and docketed as Doc. No. 88, Book No. 133, Page No. 19, Series of 1993, by simulating and counterfeiting the signatures of spouses Aniceta dela Cruz and Nestor Tandas and thereby making it falsely appear that said spouses had transferred the subject parcel to Lamsen for P150,000.00.
The Information alleged that the spouses did not sell the property, did not participate in the signing, and did not authorize anyone to sign their names on the deed, to the damage and prejudice of public interest, contrary to law.

MeTC (Trial Court) Ruling and Sentence

Decision dated July 5, 2011: MeTC found Lamsen guilty beyond reasonable doubt of falsification of public document.
Sentence imposed: indeterminate penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period as minimum (2 years and 4 months), to prision correccional in its medium and maximum period as maximum (4 years, 9 months, and 10 days), and a fine of P5,000.00.
Rationale: prosecution proved that the signatures of spouses Tandas were forged based on the expert testimony of Batiles; Lamsen failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence the genuineness and authenticity of Aniceta’s signature on the subject deed.
Motion for reconsideration was denied on July 16, 2011.

RTC Ruling on Appeal

Decision dated March 28, 2012: RTC affirmed the MeTC decision in toto.
RTC rejected Lamsen’s prescription defense, holding the ten-year prescriptive period began when the alleged forgery was discovered on May 9, 2002 (date of RD letter), not from the notarial report submitted to the Office of the Clerk of Court in April 1993; the Clerk’s Office is not a public registry and its notarial report is not an act of registration giving constructive notice.
RTC relied on Batiles’s findings and additional circumstantial evidence: (a) notarization in Manila though parties resided in Valenzuela; (b) failure to show when alleged witnesses signed; (c) deed executed/notarized in April 1993 but registered only after Aniceta’s death in May 2002; (d) capital gains and documentary stamp taxes paid only on April 11, 2002; (e) original copy purportedly retained by Lamsen was not p