Title
People vs. Rampas
Case
G.R. No. 9146
Decision Date
Nov 26, 1913
Pedro Rampas convicted for falsifying a private document by presenting a fabricated receipt in a civil case; intent to deceive proven despite imperfect signature imitation. Penalty reduced.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 9146)

Relevant Facts and Charges

The incident occurred on May 16, 1911, during a civil hearing before a justice of the peace in Talisay, Ambos Camarines, concerning a money dispute between Rampas and Carranceja. The prosecution alleged that Rampas submitted a fraudulent receipt as proof of a debt allegedly owed to him by Carranceja, claiming the amount was 500 pesos. The charge was based on Rampas’s intention to defraud Carranceja by using a receipt bearing a signature and seal that were neither authentic nor his.

Trial Court Findings

The evidence presented during the trial supported the conclusion that Rampas had manufactured the document in question, attempting to create a legitimate-looking receipt through imitation of Carranceja’s signature. The trial court found that the signatures on the fraudulent receipt were not those of Carranceja and noted Rampas's position as the creator of the document.

Legal Arguments

Rampas contended that he could not be convicted of falsification under the provisions of Articles 304 and 300 of the Penal Code because he did not directly imitate Carranceja’s signature. Legal authorities cited emphasized the requirement of direct imitation for the crime of falsification to be established. Rampas argued that since the characters on the receipt did not exactly replicate Carranceja’s signature, it negated the element of forgery.

Court’s Reasoning and Decision

The appellate court, however, interpreted the facts differently. While acknowledging the nature of the imitation, the court concluded that the intent to imitate was evident, even if the imitation was not flawless. The court argued that perfection in imitation was not essential for the crime of falsification; rather, evidence of intent and a reasonable attempt at imitation sufficed to meet the legal standards. Specifically, the court noted tha

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.