Case Summary (G.R. No. L-30511)
Facts of the Case
The spouses Gotgotao are the registered owners of Lot No. 1584-B in Barangay Cayambanan, Urdaneta, Pangasinan. They mortgaged the property for P2,000.00 to the Rural Bank of Mangaldan. Upon checking with the bank, they learned that Telesforo Opena had presented a Special Power of Attorney, purportedly executed by them, to withdraw their Certificate of Title. Further investigation revealed that Opena had presented a forged Deed of Absolute Sale to transfer the title to himself, leading to the complaint and subsequent conviction for falsification of public documents.
Procedural History
The Regional Trial Court of Pangasinan, Branch 48, found Opena guilty, and this conviction was upheld in full by the Court of Appeals on January 2, 1989. Opena's motion for reconsideration was denied on November 5, 1990, prompting his appeal to the Supreme Court.
Issues Raised by Petitioner
Opena presents several points of error in his appeal:
- The appellate and trial courts erred in not acquitting him despite no evidence of him forging Julian Gotgotao's thumbmark or Guillerma Opena's signature.
- Both courts mistakenly found that he suppressed evidence relevant to his defense.
- They wrongly ruled that the Gotgotao spouses validly conveyed the land to him.
- He seeks to annul the Deed of Sale executed by the Gotgotao spouses in his favor.
Examination of Evidence
Opena argued that no crime of falsification occurred since the thumbmark of Julian Gotgotao was declared genuine by a questioned document expert. However, Guillerma Opena's signature on the Deed of Sale was confirmed as forged by both Guillerma's testimony and the handwriting expert. The trial court noted that either Opena forged the signature or caused it to be forged since Guillerma did not execute the deed.
Legal Principles Applied
The findings referenced specific provisions of the Civil Code, particularly Articles 165 and 166, which govern the administration and alienation of conjugal property. These articles stipulate that a husband cannot sell or encumber property without the wife's consent, revealing that Guillerma's forged signature nullified any claim of validity for the Deed of Absolute Sale.
Defense's Suppression of Evidence Claim
The courts determined that Opena's counsel suppressed the testimony of Atty. Anastacio Caoayan, the notary public who notarized the contested deed. The unexplained absence of this key witness, despite multiple subpoenas, led to a presumption that his testimony would be adverse to Opena's case. The reluctance to present Atty. Caoayan was reiterated by evidence in court records indicating a lack of interest in verifying the authenticity of the contested deed.
Credibility of Testimonies
The Court of Appeals, upholding the trial court's findings, observed that even if Julian Gotgotao's thumbmark was genuine, h
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-30511)
Case Overview
- This case involves a Petition for Review by certiorari, filed by Telesforo Opena, challenging the decision rendered by the Court of Appeals on January 2, 1989, which upheld the conviction of Opena for falsification of public documents.
- The case number is CA-G.R. CR NO. 06576, stemming from Criminal Case No. U-3011 in the Regional Trial Court of Pangasinan.
Background Facts
- Spouses Julian Gotgotao and Guillerma Opena were the registered owners of Lot No. 1584-B in Barangay Cayambanan, Urdaneta, Pangasinan, evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 61957.
- They mortgaged this property to the Rural Bank of Mangaldan, Inc. for PHP 2,000.00, which was duly annotated on the title.
- Upon visiting the bank to check on their Certificate of Title, they discovered that Telesforo Opena, Guillerma's half-brother, had withdrawn the title by presenting a Special Power of Attorney purportedly executed by them.
- Telesforo Opena subsequently facilitated the transfer of the title into his name using a Deed of Absolute Sale, which the spouses Gotgotao contested as fraudulent.
Legal Proceedings
- Following the discovery of the fraudulent activity, a complaint for falsification was filed against Telesforo Opena, leading to his conviction.
- Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals affirm