Case Summary (G.R. No. 11045)
Procedural Posture
An Information charged Romeo and Edwina with violating Article 168, R.P.C., for possessing and intending to use 100 counterfeit US$100 notes. The Regional Trial Court (Branch 137, Makati) convicted both defendants and sentenced each to an indeterminate term of prison mayor and fined P5,000. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Romeo initially intended to appeal but later withdrew his appeal. Edwina filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court challenging her conviction.
Facts — Prosecution’s Case
BSP investigators received intelligence regarding a counterfeit-note operation, conducted surveillance, and performed a test-buy (3 counterfeit US$100 notes purchased on September 5, 2012). On September 14, 2012, an agent arranged to buy 100 counterfeit US$100 notes from Romeo. At the Savory Restaurant meeting, Romeo allegedly handed counterfeit notes to the agent in exchange for marked money; after receiving the marked money, Romeo purportedly placed it into Edwina’s bag. Agents then signaled and arrested Romeo and Edwina, inventoried 100 counterfeit notes and the marked money, and referred the notes for BSP certification and U.S. Secret Service analysis. BSP certificated the 100 notes as counterfeit and the U.S. Secret Service reported they were printed by inkjet rather than proper intaglio/typographic methods.
Facts — Defense Testimony
Edwina and Romeo both testified that they were invited by intermediaries (“Pong” and “Emily”) to meet regarding an old-coin transaction, that they were taken by surprise and forcibly apprehended by a group of agents, and that agents planted or placed the bundles of dollar bills and marked money into Edwina’s bag (Agent Armida Superales specifically implicated). They alleged coercion, threats during interrogation, confiscation of their cellphones and belongings, and that they were not participants in the earlier test-buy or surveillance. They denied knowledge that the notes were counterfeit and denied an agreement to sell counterfeit notes.
Trial Court and Court of Appeals Findings
The trial court credited the prosecution testimony and exhibits, found all elements of Article 168 proven beyond reasonable doubt, sentenced both, and ordered destruction of the counterfeit notes. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in all respects, including crediting the BSP agents’ testimony and the validity of the entrapment/test-buy operation.
Issues Raised on Appeal to the Supreme Court
Edwina’s principal claims were that: (1) the elements of the offense were not proven against her beyond reasonable doubt; (2) admissibility and chain of custody of the counterfeit notes were doubtful; (3) the entrapment operation’s validity was questionable; and (4) the trial court improperly credited the agents’ testimonies despite contradictions.
Standard of Review Articulated by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court reiterated its general rule that it is not a trier of facts and will not reassess factual determinations of appellate courts supported by substantial evidence. However, it recognized exceptions: where the trial court overlooked or misapplied facts of consequence affecting liberty, or where palpable errors demand correction. Additionally, an appeal in a criminal case opens the whole case for review, and the appellate court must correct errors in the judgment.
Court’s Assessment of Entrapment and Evidentiary Sufficiency as to Romeo
The Supreme Court sustained the CA’s findings regarding the validity of the BSP entrapment operation and the sufficiency of evidence against Romeo. The Court found that the prosecution established the counterfeit nature of the notes (BSP and U.S. Secret Service certifications), the test-buy and entrapment procedures, the transfer of counterfeit notes in exchange for marked money, and the agents’ conduct leading to arrest. The CA’s credibility determinations in favor of prosecution witnesses were not interfered with as to Romeo.
Legal Standard for Conspiracy and Its Evidentiary Requirements
The Court reiterated established law: conspiracy exists when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to execute it. Conspiracy is not presumed and must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. While direct evidence is not required, inferences of conspiracy must demonstrate a “community of criminal design” and intentionality; an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy is required (active participation or moral assistance amounting to more than mere presence). Mere presence, knowledge, or acquiescence without cooperation does not establish conspiracy.
Application of Conspiracy Principles to Edwina’s Case
The Supreme Court examined the facts used by the trial court and CA to infer a common design: (1) Romeo offered to sell counterfeit notes; (2) Edwina accompanied Romeo from Quezon City to Makati; (3) Edwina allegedly distanced herself but remained nearby; (4) Romeo a
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 11045)
Procedural History
- Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 filed in the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 229701), decision rendered November 29, 2017 by Justice Velasco Jr.; copy received December 14, 2017.
- Case below: Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated September 6, 2016 and CA Resolution dated January 31, 2017 in CA-G.R. CR No. 36422 affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 137, Makati City Decision dated February 6, 2014 in Criminal Case No. 12-1761.
- Information originally filed against Romeo Rimando y Cachero and Edwina Rimando y Fernando for violation of Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code (illegal possession and use of false treasury or bank notes).
- After CA affirmation, Romeo initially signified intent to appeal but withdrew his appeal by letter dated March 16, 2017.
- Petitioner Edwina filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 on October 7, 2016, seeking reversal of the CA Decision as it pertains to her conviction.
Charged Offense (Information)
- Date and place alleged: 14 September 2012, Makati City, Philippines.
- Substance of the Information: Accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping and aiding one another, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to use, had in their possession, custody and control one hundred (100) pieces of U.S. $100 bank notes, knowing said notes were falsified and counterfeit.
- Legal citation: Violation of Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code; charge concluded with the phrase "CONTRARY TO LAW."
Facts as Found and Narrated by the Court of Appeals (Prosecution Version)
- BSP Investigation Division received information in July 2012 from a confidential informant implicating "Pastor Danny," "Datu Romy" (Romeo Rimando) and cohorts in distribution/manufacture/printing of counterfeit U.S. dollar notes; surveillance validated the information.
- Test-buy operation on September 5, 2012 at Farmer's Market, Araneta Center: BSP poseur buyer Alex MuAez purchased three (3) pieces of USD100 counterfeit notes at P500 each; initial verification made and temporary certification issued that said notes were fake.
- On September 14, 2012, Romeo Rimando allegedly contacted BSP agent and offered to sell 100 pieces of USD100 counterfeit notes at P500 per piece; an entrapment operation was organized to meet at Savory Restaurant along Makati Avenue.
- At approximately 2:00 PM at the restaurant, Romeo arrived accompanied by Edwina; Romeo handed counterfeit notes to the poseur buyer and received marked money; Romeo then placed the marked money inside Edwina's bag and they began to walk away when the prearranged signal (poseur placing eyeglasses on head) was given; agents closed in and arrested both.
- Inventory and examination at the scene and at BSP storeroom revealed the notes; BSP specialists concluded the 100 pieces of US$100 notes were counterfeit.
- Certification dated September 17, 2012 by Currency Analysis and Redemption Division enumerated serial numbers and denominations for the 100 counterfeit notes and stated they were retained by the BSP and stamped "COUNTERFEIT" (subject: Romeo Rimando a.k.a. "Datu Romie" and Edwina Rimando y Fernando).
- Glenn Peterson, US Secret Service Special Agent in Guam, examined the referred 100 notes and concluded they were printed by an inkjet printer as opposed to genuine printing methods (Intaglio and Typographic).
Prosecution Witnesses and Material Evidence
- Alex MuAez (Bank Officer I, BSP Investigation Division):
- Tasked with investigations, arrests, searches/seizures related to currency integrity pursuant to BSP Circular 599, Series of 2008.
- Recognized appellants as arrested parties.
- Participated in surveillance and the September 5 test-buy (three counterfeit USD100 bought at P500 each).
- Received offer from Romeo on September 14 for 100 counterfeit USD100 notes; conducted entrapment operation; personally received counterfeit notes and handed marked money; signaled arrest by placing eyeglasses on head.
- Observed Romeo placing marked money inside Edwina's bag prior to their attempted departure.
- Reynaldo Paday (Senior Currency Specialist, BSP Cash Department):
- Assisted poseur buyer during the September 5 test-buy; made initial verification and temporary certification of the three suspected counterfeit notes.
- Participated in the September 14 entrapment; secured perimeter; observed the prearranged signal; physically arrested Romeo and observed Edwina's arrest by another agent.
- Conducted inventory and verification of the 100 pieces and concluded they were counterfeit.
- Sylvia Tamayo (Assistant Manager, Currency Analysis and Redemption Division, BSP):
- Issued Certification dated September 17, 2012 listing serial numbers and concluding the 100 pieces of US$100 notes were counterfeit and stamped "COUNTERFEIT"; noted retention pursuant to BSP Circular No. 61, Series of 1995.
- Glenn Peterson (US Secret Service, Guam):
- Examined the 100 notes with magnifying glass; reported they were printed with an inkjet printer, unlike genuine notes printed with Intaglio and Typographic methods.
Defense Evidence (Testimonies of Appellants)
- Edwina Rimando (freelance real estate agent):
- Narrative: On September 14, 2012 at 2:00 PM she was at Makati Tower Hotel in Kalayaan St., Makati, invited by a certain Pong to meet Emily regarding old coins; Romeo accompanied her.
- They were invited to eat; were sitting on a sofa; Emily left them, told her to find another restaurant; walking toward Kalayaan and Burgos, while waiting at a stoplight they were allegedly suddenly apprehended by Alex MuAez's group; Pong