G.R. No. L-17652 - Grande vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-17652)

Charge and Mode of Commission

Five separate informations were filed alleging that, between July and December 1997, petitioner falsified promissory notes and cashier’s checks in the name of Romeo Tan, a valued Metrobank client, thereby inducing the bank to release approximately ₱43 million. He is accused of forging Tan’s signature, preparing fabricated loan documents, obtaining the proceeds, and misappropriating the funds.

Trial Court Proceedings and Findings

After consolidated trial, the Regional Trial Court of Manila found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of estafa through falsification of commercial documents. The RTC:

Admitted petitioner’s extrajudicial written statement obtained during an internal bank inquiry.
Relied on testimony from bank officers, an NBI handwriting expert, and documentary exhibits to establish forgery.
Determined that petitioner used the falsified documents as a necessary means to commit estafa.
Imposed indeterminate penalties of 8 years prision mayor minimum to 20 years reclusion temporal maximum on each count, ordered full indemnification with 18% interest, and mandated consecutive service limited to a 40-year aggregate.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with one modification: it fixed interest on indemnity for one count to run from July 24, 1997. Petitioner’s motions for reconsideration were denied.

Issues on Supreme Court Review

Whether petitioner’s uncounseled written statement should have been excluded under Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution.
Whether all essential elements of estafa through falsification of commercial documents were established.

Admissibility of the Written Statement

Under the Constitution, exclusion of admissions obtained in violation of the right to counsel and to remain silent applies only to custodial interrogation by law enforcement. Here:

The written statement was taken during an administrative inquiry by Metrobank’s internal affairs unit, not by police or prosecutors.
Petitioner was not under arrest nor deprived of liberty in a significant manner.
Jurisprudence confirms the right to counsel attaches only in criminal (custodial) investigations, not in private employment inquiries.

Voluntariness of the Extrajudicial Confession

An admission is presumed voluntary; the burden is on the confessant to prove coercion.
Petitioner presented no credible evidence of duress, threats, or physical violence.
The statement contained detailed and coherent facts only a perpetrator could know, and petitioner initialed corrections, demonstrating awareness and free will.

Handwriting Examination and Falsification

The NBI expert testified that the signatures on the documents did not match Romeo Tan’s genuine signature.
The trial court conducted its own comparison of specimens, confirming the mismatches.
Falsification under Article 172, paragraph 1, in relation to Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code was duly established: petitioner counterfeited Tan’s handwriting and caused documents to appear as legitimately executed.

Suppression of Evidence Claim

Petitioner argued the prosecution should have presented Romeo Tan to disprove forgery.
The prosecution has discretion in witness selection; absence of Tan does not invoke a presumption of adverse testimony when the witness was equally available to both sides.
Petitioner failed to subpoena Tan as a defense witness under the constitutional right to compulsory process.

Establishment of Estafa Elements

Estafa by falsification arises when a falsified commercial document is used as a necessary means to defraud and causes pecuniary prejudice.
Petitioner’s deceit: representing that Tan authorized loans, obtaining proceeds via forged documents, and converting the bank’s money for personal investment.
Damage to Metrobank exceede