LEONILA BATULANON, G.R. No. 139857
Petitioner,
Present:
Panganiban, C.J.
(Chairperson),
- versus - Ynares-Santiago,
Austria-Martinez,
Callejo, Sr., and
Chico-Nazario, JJ.
PEOPLE OF THE
Respondent. Promulgated:
September
15, 2006
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
This petition assails the October 30, 1998 Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 15221, affirming with modification the
April 15, 1993 Decision[2] of
the Regional Trial Court of General Santos City, Branch 22 in Criminal Case
Nos. 3453, 3625, 3626 and 3627, convicting Leonila Batulanon of estafa through
falsification of commercial documents, and the July 29, 1999 Resolution[3]
denying the motion for reconsideration.
Complainant Polomolok Credit Cooperative Incorporated (PCCI) employed Batulanon
as its Cashier/Manager from May 1980 up to
During an audit conducted in December 1982, certain irregularities
concerning the release of loans were discovered.[4]
Thereafter, four informations for estafa thru falsification of commercial
documents were filed against Batulanon, to wit:
Criminal
Case No. 3625
That on or about the 2nd day of June, 1982 at
Poblacion Municipality of Polomolok, Province of South Cotabato, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court said accused being then the
manager-cashier of Polomolok Credit Cooperative, Inc., (PCCI), entrusted with
the duty of managing the aff[a]irs of the cooperative, receiving payments to,
and collections of, the same, and paying out loans to members, taking advantage
of her position and with intent to prejudice and defraud the cooperative, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously falsify a commercial
document, namely: Cash/Check Voucher No. 30-A of PCCI in the name of Erlinda
Omadlao by then and there making an entry therein that the said Erlinda Omadlao
was granted a loan of P4,160, Philippine Currency, and by signing on the
appropriate line thereon the signature of Erlinda Omadlao showing that she
received the loan, thus making it appear that the said Erlinda Omadlao was
granted a loan and received the amount of P4,160 when in truth and in fact the
said person was never granted a loan, never received the same, and never signed
the cash/check voucher issued in her name, and in furtherance of her criminal
intent and fraudulent design to defraud PCCI said accused did then and there
release to herself the same and received the loan of P4,160 and thereafter
misappropriate and convert to her own use and benefit the said amount, and
despite demands, refused and still refuses to restitute the same, to the damage
and prejudice of PCCI, in the aforementioned amount of P4,160, Philippine
Currency.[5]
Criminal
Case No. 3626
That on or about the 24th day of September, 1982
at Poblacion, Municipality of Polomolok, Province of South Cotabato,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, said accused
being then the manager-cashier of Polomolok Credit Cooperative, Inc. (PCCI),
entrusted with the duty of managing the affairs of the cooperative, receiving
payments to, and collections of, the same, and paying out loans to members
taking advantage of her position and with intent to prejudice and defraud the
cooperative, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously falsify a
commercial document, namely: Cash/Check Voucher No. 237 A of PCCI in the name
of Gonafreda Oracion by then and there making an entry therein that the said
Gonafreda Oracion was granted a loan of P4,000.00 and by signals on the
appropriate line thereon the signature of Gonafreda Oracion showing that she
received the loan, thus making it appear that the said Gonafreda Oracion was
granted a loan, received the loan of P4,000.00 when in truth and in fact said
person was never granted a loan, never received the same, and never signed the Cash/Check
voucher issued in her name, and in furtherance of her criminal intent and
fraudulent design to defraud PCCI said accused did then and there release to
herself the same and received the amount of P4,000.00 and thereafter
misappropriate and convert to her own use and benefit the said amount, and
despite demands, refused and still refuses to restitute the same, to the damage
and prejudice of PCCI, in the aforementioned amount of P4,000, Philippine
Currency.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[6]
Criminal Case No. 3453
That on or about the 10th day of October 1982 at
Poblacion, Municipality of Polomolok, Province of South Cotabato, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the said accused being then
the manager-cashier of Polomolok Credit Cooperative, Inc., (PCCI), entrusted
with the duty of managing the affairs of the cooperative, receiving payments to,
and collection of the same and paying out loans to members, taking advantage of
her position and with intent to prejudice and defraud the cooperative, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously falsify a commercial document,
namely: an Individual Deposits and Loan Ledger of one Ferlyn Arroyo with the
PCCI by then and there entering on the appropriate column of the ledger the
entry that the said Ferlyn Arroyo had a fixed deposit of P1,000.00 with the
PCCI and was granted a loan in the amount of P3,500.00, thus making it appear
that the said person made a fixed deposit on the aforesaid date with, and was
granted a loan by the PCCI when in truth and in fact Ferlyn Arroyo never made
such a deposit and was never granted loan and after the document was so
falsified in the manner set forth, said accused did then and there again falsify
the Cash/Check Voucher of the PCCI in the name of Ferlyn Arroyo by signing
therein the signature of Ferlyn Arroyo, thus making it appear that the said
Ferlyn Arroyo received the loan of P3,500, Philippine Currency, when in truth
and in fact said Ferlyn Arroyo never received the loan, and in furtherance of
her criminal intent and fraudulent design to defraud PCCI said accused did then
and there release to herself the same, and received the amount of P3,500, and
thereafter, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
misappropriate and convert to her own personal use and benefit the said amount,
and despite demands, refused and still refuses to restitute the same, to the
damage and prejudice of the PCCI in the aforementioned amount of P3,500,
Philippine Currency.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[7]
Criminal
Case No. 3627
That on or about the 7th day of December, 1982 at
Poblacion, Municipality of Polomolok, Province of South Cotabato, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the said accused being then
the manager-cashier of Polomolok Credit Cooperative, Inc., (PCCI) entrusted
with the duty of managing the affairs of the cooperative, receiving payments to,
and collection of, the same and paying out loans to members, taking advantage
of her position and with intent to prejudice and defraud the cooperative, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously falsify a commercial
document, namely: an Individual Deposits and Loan Ledger of one Dennis
Batulanon with the PCCI by then and there entering on the appropriate column of
the ledger the entry that the said Dennis Batulanon had a fixed deposit of
P2,000.00 with the PCCI and was granted a loan in the amount of P5,000.00 thus
making it appear that the said person made fixed deposit on the aforesaid date
with, and was granted a loan by the PCCI when in truth and in fact Dennis
Batulanon never made such a deposit and was never granted loan and offer the
document was so falsified in the manner set forth, said accused did then and there
again falsify the Cash/Check Voucher No. 374 A of PCCI in the name of Dennis
Batulanon by signing therein the signature of Dennis Batulanon, thus making it
appear that the said Dennis Batulanon received the loan of P5,000.00 when in
truth and in fact said Dennis Batulanon never received the loan and in
furtherance of her criminal intent and fraudulent design to defraud PCCI said
accused did then and there release to herself the same and receive the loan of
P5,000, and thereafter, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously misappropriate and convert to her own personal use and benefit the
said amount, and [despite] demands, refused and still refuses to restitute the
same to the damage and prejudice of the PCCI in the aforementioned amount of
P5,000, Philippine Currency.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[8]
The cases were raffled to Branch 22 of the
Batulanon pleaded not guilty to the charges, afterwhich a joint trial on
the merits ensued.
The prosecution presented Maria Theresa Medallo, Benedicto Gopio, Jr.,
and Bonifacio Jayoma as witnesses.
Medallo, the posting clerk whose job was to assist Batulanon in the
preparation of cash vouchers[9] testified
that on certain dates in 1982, Batulanon released four Cash Vouchers representing
varying amounts to four different individuals as follows: On June 2, 1982, Cash
Voucher No. 30A[10] for P4,160.00 was
released to Erlinda Omadlao; on September 24, 1982, Cash Voucher No. 237A[11]
for P4,000.00 was released to Gonafreda[12]
Oracion; P3, 500.00 thru Cash Voucher No. 276A[13]
was released to Ferlyn Arroyo on October 16, 1982 and on December 7, 1982,
P5,000.00 was released to Dennis Batulanon thru Cash Voucher No. 374A.[14]
Medallo testified that Omadlao, Oracion, and Dennis Batulanon were not
eligible to apply for loan because they were not bona fide members of the
cooperative.[15] Ferlyn Arroyo on the other hand, was a member
of the cooperative but there was no proof that she applied for a loan with PCCI
in 1982. She subsequently withdrew her
membership in 1983.[16] Medallo stated that pursuant to the
cooperative’s by-laws, only bona fide members who must have a fixed deposit are
eligible for loans.[17]
Medallo categorically stated that she saw Batulanon sign the names of
Oracion and Arroyo in their respective cash vouchers and made it appear in the
records that they were payees and recipients of the amount stated therein.[18] As to the signature of Omadlao in Cash Voucher
No. 30A, she declared that the same was actually the handwriting of appellant.[19]
Gopio, Jr. was a member of PCCI since 1975 and a member of its board of
directors since 1979. He corroborated
Medallo’s testimony that Omadlao, Arroyo, Oracion and Dennis Batulanon are not members
of PCCI. He stated that Oracion is Batulanon’s sister-in-law while Dennis
Batulanon is her son who was only 3 years old in 1982. He averred that membership in the cooperative
is not open to minors.[20]
Jayoma was the Vice-Chairman of the PCCI Board of Directors in 1980
before becoming its Chairman in 1982 until 1983. He testified that the loans made to Oracion,
Omadlao, Arroyo and Dennis Batulanon did not pass through the cooperative’s
Credit Committee and PCCI’s Board of Directors for screening purposes. He claimed that Oracion’s signature on Cash
Voucher No. 237A is Batulanon’s handwriting.[21] Jayoma also testified that among the four
loans taken, only that in Arroyo’s name was settled.[22]
The defense presented two witnesses, namely, Maria Theresa Medallo who
was presented as a hostile witness and Batulanon.
Medallo was subpoenaed by the trial court on behalf of the defense and
was asked to bring with her the PCCI General Journal for the year 1982. After
certifying that the said document reflected all the financial transactions of
the cooperative for that year, she was asked to identify the entries in the
Journal with respect to the vouchers in question. Medallo was able to identify only Cash Voucher
No. 237A in the name of Gonafreda Oracion. She failed to identify the other vouchers
because the Journal had missing pages and she was not the one who prepared the
entries.[23]
Batulanon denied all the charges against her. She claimed that she did not sign the vouchers
in the names of Omadlao, Oracion and Arroyo; that the same were signed by the loan
applicants in her presence at the PCCI office after she personally released the
money to them;[24] that the three were
members of the cooperative as shown by their individual deposits and the ledger;
that the board of directors passed a resolution in August 1982 authorizing her
to certify to the correctness of the entries in the vouchers; that it has
become an accepted practice in the cooperative for her to release loans and
dispense with the approval of Gopio Jr., in case of his absence;[25] that
she signed the loan application and voucher of her son Dennis Batulanon because
he was a minor but she clarified that she asked Gopio, Jr., to add his
signature on the documents to avoid suspicion of irregularity;[26] that contrary to the testimony of Gopio, Jr.,
minors are eligible for membership in the cooperative provided they are
children of regular members.
Batulanon admitted that she took out a loan in her son’s name because she
is no longer qualified for another loan as she still has to pay off an existing
loan; that she had started paying off her son’s loan but the cooperative
refused to accept her payments after the cases were filed in court.[27] She also declared that one automatically
becomes a member when he deposits money with the cooperative.[28] When she was Cashier/Manager of PCCI from 1980
to 1982, the cooperative did not have by-laws yet.[29]
On rebuttal, Jayoma belied that PCCI had no by-laws from 1980-1982,
because the cooperative had been registered since 1967.[30]
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered, finding the accused Leonila
Batulanon guilty beyond reasonable doubt in all the above-entitled case, she is
sentenced in each of the four cases to 4 months of ARRESTO MAYOR to 1 year and
2 months of PRISION CORRECTIONAL, to indemnify the PCCI in the total sum of
P16,660.00 with legal interest from the institution of the complaints until
fully paid, plus costs.
SO ORDERED.[31]
The Court of Appeals affirmed with
modification the decision of the trial court, thus:
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is MODIFIED. Appellant LEONILA
BATULANON is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Falsification of Private
Documents under Par. 2, Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code; and is hereby
sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor maximum, AS MINIMUM, to
four (4) years and two (2) months of prision
correccional medium, AS MAXIMUM; to pay a fine of five thousand (P5,000.00)
pesos; and to indemnify the Polomolok Cooperative Credit , Inc. the sum of
thirteen thousand one hundred sixty (P13,160.00), plus legal interests from the
filing of the complaints until fully paid, plus costs.
SO ORDERED.[32]
The motion for reconsideration was
denied, hence this petition.
Batulanon argues that in any
falsification case, the best witness is the person whose signature was
allegedly forged, thus the prosecution should have presented Erlinda Omadlao,
Gonafreda Oracion and Ferlyn Arroyo instead of relying on the testimony of an
unreliable and biased witness such as Medallo.[33] She avers that the crime of falsification of
private document requires as an element prejudice to a third person. She insists that PCCI has not been prejudiced
by these loan transactions because these loans are accounts receivable by the
cooperative.[34]
The petition lacks merit.
Although the offense charged in the information is estafa
through falsification of commercial document, appellant could be convicted of
falsification of private document under the well-settled rule that it is the
allegations in the information that determines the nature of the offense and
not the technical name given in the preamble of the information. In Andaya
v. People,[35] we
held:
From a legal point of view, and in a very real
sense, it is of no concern to the accused what is the technical name of the
crime of which he stands charged. It in no way aids him in a defense on the
merits. x x x That to which his attention should be directed, and in which he,
above all things else, should be most interested, are the facts alleged. The
real question is not did he commit a crime given in the law some technical and
specific name, but did he perform the acts alleged in the body of the
information in the manner therein set forth. x x x The real and important
question to him is, “Did you perform the acts alleged in the manner alleged?”
not, “Did you commit a crime named murder?” If he performed the acts alleged,
in the manner stated, the law determines what the name of the crime is and
fixes the penalty therefor. x x x If the
accused performed the acts alleged in the manner alleged, then he ought to be
punished and punished adequately, whatever may be the name of the crime which
those acts constitute.
The elements of falsification of private document under Article 172,
paragraph 2[36] of the Revised Penal Code
are: (1) that the offender committed any of the acts of falsification, except
those in paragraph 7, Article 171; (2) that the falsification was committed in
any private document; and (3) that the falsification caused damage
to a third party or at least the falsification was committed with intent to
cause such damage.[37]
In Criminal Case Nos. 3625, 3626, and
3453, Batulanon’s act[38]
of falsification falls under paragraph 2 of Article 171, i.e., causing it to appear that persons have participated in any
act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate. This is because by signing the name of
Omadlao, Oracion, and Arroyo in Cash Voucher Nos. 30A, 237A, and 267A,
respectively, as payee of the amounts appearing in the corresponding cash
vouchers, Batulanon made it appear that they obtained a loan and received its
proceeds when they did not in fact secure said loan nor receive the amounts
reflected in the cash vouchers.
The prosecution established that Batulanon caused the preparation of the Cash
Vouchers in the name of Omadlao and Oracion knowing that they are not PCCI
members and not qualified for a loan from the cooperative. In the case of Arroyo, Batulanon was aware
that while the former is a member, she did not apply for a loan with the
cooperative.
Medallo categorically declared that she saw Batulanon forge the
signatures of Oracion and Arroyo in the vouchers and made it appear that the
amounts stated therein were actually received by these persons. As to the signature of Arroyo, Medallo’s
credible testimony and her familiarity with the handwriting of Batulanon proved
that it was indeed the latter who signed the name of Arroyo. Contrary to Batulanon’s contention, the
prosecution is not duty-bound to present the persons whose signatures were
forged as Medallo’s eyewitness account of the incident was sufficient. Moreover, under Section 22, Rule 132 of the Rules
of Court, the handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who believes
it to be the handwriting of such person because he has seen the person write,
or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or
been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such
person.
Her insistence that Medallo is a biased witness is without basis. There is no evidence showing that Medallo was
prompted by any ill motive.
The claim that Batulanon’s letter to the cooperative asking for a
compromise was not an admission of guilt is untenable. Section 27, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court
provides that in criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses or
criminal negligence or those allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of
compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission
of guilt.
There is no merit in Batulanon’s assertion that PCCI has not been
prejudiced because the loan transactions are reflected in its books as accounts
receivable. It has been established that
PCCI only grants loans to its bona fide members with no subsisting loan. These alleged borrowers are not members of
PCCI and neither are they eligible for a loan. Of the four accounts, only that in Ferlyn
Arroyo’s name was settled because her mother, Erlinda, agreed to settle the
loan to avoid legal prosecution with the understanding however, that she will
be reimbursed once the money is collected from Batulanon.[39]
The Court of Appeals[40]
correctly ruled that the subject vouchers are private documents and not
commercial documents because they are not documents used by merchants or businessmen to
promote or facilitate trade or credit transactions[41]
nor are they defined and regulated by the Code of
Commerce or other commercial law.[42]
Rather, they are private documents,
which have been defined as deeds or instruments executed by a private person
without the intervention of a public notary or of other person legally
authorized, by which some disposition or agreement is proved, evidenced or set
forth. [43]
In all criminal prosecutions, the burden of proof is on the
prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It has the duty to prove each and every element of the crime charged
in the information to warrant a finding of guilt for the said crime or
for any other crime necessarily included therein.[44] The prosecution in this case was able to
discharge its burden completely.
As there is no complex crime of estafa through falsification
of private document,[45]
it is important to ascertain whether the offender is to be charged with
falsification of a private document or with estafa. If the falsification of a private document is
committed as a means to commit estafa, the proper crime to be charged is
falsification. If the estafa can be
committed without the necessity of falsifying a document, the proper crime to
be charged is estafa. Thus, in People
v. Reyes,[46]
the accused made it appear in the time book of the Calamba Sugar
Estate that a laborer, Ciriaco Sario, worked 21 days during the month of July,
1929, when in reality he had worked only 11 days, and then charged the offended
party, the Calamba Sugar Estate, the wages of the laborer for 21 days. The accused misappropriated the wages during
which the laborer did not work for which he was convicted of falsification of
private document.
In U.S. v. Infante,[47]
the accused changed the description of the pawned article on the
face of the pawn ticket and made it appear that the article is of greatly
superior value, and thereafter pawned the falsified ticket in another pawnshop
for an amount largely in excess of the true value of the article pawned. He was found guilty of falsification of a
private document. In U.S. v. Chan
Tiao,[48]
the accused presented a document of guaranty purportedly signed by
Ortigas Hermanos for the payment of P2,055.00 as the value of 150 sacks of
sugar, and by means of said falsified documents, succeeded in obtaining the
sacks of sugar, was held guilty of falsification of a private document.
In view of the foregoing, we find that the Court of Appeals
correctly held Batulanon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Falsification of
Private Documents in Criminal Case Nos. 3625, 3626 and 3453.
Article 172 punishes the crime of Falsification of a Private Document with the penalty of prision correccional
in its medium and maximum periods with a duration of two (2) years, four (4)
months and one (1) day to six (6) years. There being no aggravating or mitigating
circumstances, the penalty should be imposed in its medium period, which is
three (3) years, six (6) months and twenty-one (21) days to four (4) years,
nine (9) months and ten (10) days. Taking
into consideration the Indeterminate Sentence Law, Batulanon is entitled to an
indeterminate penalty the minimum of which must be within the range of arresto
mayor in its maximum period to prision
correccional in its minimum period, or four (4) months and one (1) day to
two (2) years and four (4) months.[49] Thus, in Criminal Case Nos. 3625, 3626 and
3453, the Court of Appeals correctly imposed the penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4)
years and two (2) months of prision
correccional, as maximum, which is within the range of the allowed
imposable penalty.
Since Batulanon’s conviction was for 3 counts of falsification
of private documents, she shall suffer the aforementioned penalties for each
count of the offense charged. She is
also ordered to indemnify PCCI the amount of P11,660.00 representing the aggregate
amount of the 3 loans without deducting the amount of P3,500.00 paid by Ferlyn
Arroyo’s mother as the same was settled with the understanding that PCCI will
reimburse the former once the money is recovered. The amount shall earn interest at the rate of
6% per annum from the filing of the complaints on
However, in Criminal Case No. 3627,
the crime committed by Batulanon is estafa
and not falsification. Under Article 171
of the Revised Penal Code, the acts that may constitute falsification are the
following:
1. Counterfeiting
or imitating any handwriting, signature, or rubric;
2. Causing
it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they
did not in fact so participate;
3. Attributing
to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than
those in fact made by them;
4. Making
untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
5. Altering
true dates;
6. Making
any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning;
7. Issuing
in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original
document when no such original exists, or including in such copy a statement
contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original; or;
8. Intercalating
any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol,
registry, or official book.
In Criminal Case No. 3627, the trial
court convicted petitioner Batulanon for falsifying Dennis Batulanon’s
signature in the cash voucher based on the Information charging her of signing
the name of her 3 year old son, Dennis.
The records, however, reveal that in Cash Voucher No. 374A, petitioner
Batulanon did not falsify the signature of Dennis. What she did was to sign: “by: lbatulanon” to
indicate that she received the proceeds of the loan in behalf of Dennis. Said act does not fall under any of the modes
of falsification under Article 171 because there in nothing untruthful about
the fact that she used the name of Dennis and that as representative of the
latter, obtained the proceeds of the loan from PCCI. The essence of falsification is the act of
making untruthful or false statements, which is not attendant in this
case. As to whether, such representation
involves fraud which caused damage to PCCI is a different matter which will
make her liable for estafa, but not for falsification. Hence, it was an error for the courts below
to hold that petitioner Batulanon is also guilty of falsification of private
document with respect to Criminal Case No. 3627 involving the cash voucher of
Dennis.[50]
The elements of estafa through conversion or misappropriation
under Art. 315 (1) (b) of the Revised Penal Code are:
(1) that
money, goods or other personal property is received by the offender in trust,
or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation
involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return, the same;
(2) that
there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or
property by the offender or denial on his part of such receipt;
(3) that
such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the
prejudice of another;
(4) that
there is a demand made by the offended party on the offender. (Note: The 4th
element is not necessary when there is evidence of misappropriation of the
goods by the defendant)[51]
Thus in the case of U.S. v. Sevilla,[52]
the Court convicted the appellant of estafa by misappropriation. The latter, a treasurer of the Manila Rail
Road Company, took the sum of P8,330.00 out of the funds of the company and
used it for personal purposes. He
replaced said cash with his personal check of the same amount drawn on the
Philippine National Bank (PNB), with instruction to his cashier not to deposit
the same in the current account of the Manila Rail Road Company until the end
of the month. When an audit was
conducted, the check of appellant was discovered to have been carried in the
accounts as part of the cash on hand. An
inquiry with the PNB disclosed that he had only P125.66 in his account,
although in the afternoon of the same day, he deposited in his account with the
PNB sufficient sum to cover the check.
In handing down a judgment of conviction, the Court explained that:
Fraudulent intent in committing the conversion or diversion is very evidently not a necessary element of the form of estafa here discussed; the breach of confidence involved in the conversion or diversion of trust funds takes the place of fraudulent intent and is in itself sufficient. The reason for this is obvious: Grave as the offense is, comparatively few men misappropriate trust funds with the intention of defrauding the owner; in most cases the offender hopes to be able to restore the funds before the defalcation is discovered. x x x
Applying the legal principles here stated to the facts of the case, we find all of the necessary elements of estafa x x x. That the money for which the appellant's checks were substituted was received by him for safe-keeping or administration, or both, can hardly be disputed. He was the responsible financial officer of the corporation and as such had immediate control of the current funds for the purposes of safe-keeping and was charged with the custody of the same. That he, in the exercise of such control and custody, was aided by subordinates cannot alter the case nor can the fact that one of the subordinates, the cashier, was a bonded employee who, if he had acted on his own responsibility, might also have misappropriated the same funds and thus have become guilty of estafa.
Neither can there be any doubt that, in taking money for his personal use, from the funds entrusted to him for safekeeping and substituting his personal checks therefor with instructions that the checks were to be retained by the cashier for a certain period, the appellant misappropriated and diverted the funds for that period. The checks did not constitute cash and as long as they were retained by the appellant or remained under his personal control they were of no value to the corporation; he might as well have kept them in his pocket as to deliver them to his subordinate with instructions to retain them.
x x x x
But it is argued in the present case that it was not the intention of the accused to permanently misappropriate the funds to himself. As we have already stated, such intention rarely exists in cases of this nature and, as we have seen, it is not a necessary element of the crime. Though authorities have been cited who, at first sight, appear to hold that misappropriation of trust funds for short periods does not always amount to estafa, we are not disposed to extend this interpretation of the law to cases where officers of corporations convert corporate funds to their own use, especially where, as in this case, the corporation is of a quasi-public character. The statute is clear and makes no distinction between permanent misappropriations and temporary ones. We can see no reason in the present case why it should not be applied in its literal sense.
The third element of the crime with which the appellant is
charged is injury to another. The appellant's counsel argues that the only
injury in this case is the loss of interest suffered by the Railroad Company
during the period the funds were withheld by the appellant. It is, however,
well settled by former adjudications of this court that the disturbance in
property rights caused by the misappropriation, though only temporary, is in
itself sufficient to constitute injury within the meaning of paragraph 5,
supra. (
In the instant case, there is no doubt
that as Cashier/Manager, Batulanon holds the money for administration and in
trust for PCCI. Knowing that she is no
longer qualified to obtain a loan, she fraudulently used the name of her son
who is likewise disqualified to secure a loan from PCCI. Her misappropriation of the amount she
obtained from the loan is also not disputed as she even admitted receiving the
same for personal use. Although the
amount received by Batulanon is reflected in the records as part of the
receivables of PCCI, damage was still caused to the latter because the sum
misappropriated by her could have been loaned by PCCI to qualified members, or used
in other productive undertakings. At any
rate, the disturbance in property rights caused by Batulaono’s misappropriation
is in itself sufficient to constitute injury within the meaning of Article 315.
Considering that the amount
misappropriated by Batulanon was P5,000.00, the applicable provision is
paragraph (3) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, which imposes the
penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional
in its minimum period, where the amount defrauded is over P200.00 but does not
exceed P6,000.00. There being no
modifying circumstances, the penalty shall be imposed in its medium
period. With the application of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, Batulaon is entitled to an indeterminate penalty of
three (3) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1) year and eight
(8) months of prision correccional, as maximum.
WHEREFORE, the
Decision appealed from is AFFIRMED with
the following MODIFICATIONS:
(1) In Criminal Case Nos. 3625,
3626 and 3453, Leonila Batulanon is found GUILTY of three counts of
falsification of private documents and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of six
(6) months of arresto mayor, as
minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as maximum, for each count, and to indemnify
complainant Polomolok Credit Cooperative Incorporated the amount of P11,660.00
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from November 28, 1994 until finality
of this judgment. The interest rate of 12% per annum shall be imposed from
finality of this judgment until its satisfaction; and
(2) In Criminal Case No. 3627, Leonila
Batulanon is found GUILTY of estafa and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of
three (3) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1) year and eight
(8) months of prision correccional, as maximum. She is likewise ordered to indemnify
Polomolok Credit Cooperative Incorporated the sum of P5,000.00 with interest at
the rate of 6% per annum from
SO ORDERED.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
Chairperson
MA. ALICIA
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that
the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
ARTEMIO
V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo,
pp. 25-40. Penned by Associate Justice Arturo B. Buena and concurred in by
Associate Justices Ramon A. Barcelona and Demetrio G. Demetria.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 34-41. Penned by
Judge Abednego O. Adre.
[3] Rollo, p. 41.
[4]
TSN,
[5] CA rollo, pp. 16-17.
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] TSN,
[10]
Records, p. 230.
[11]
[12]
Also referred to as Godofreda in the Records.
[13]
Records, p. 239.
[14]
[15]
[16]
TSN,
[17]
[18] TSN,
[19]
[20]
TSN,
[21]
TSN,
[22]
[23]
TSN,
[24]
TSN,
[25]
[26]
[27]
TSN,
[28]
[29]
[30]
TSN,
[31] CA
rollo, pp. 40-41.
[32] Rollo, p. 39.
[33]
[34]
[35]
G.R. No. 168486,
[36]
Art. 172. Falsification by private
individual and use of falsified documents. – The penalty of prisión correccional in its medium and
maximum periods and a fine of not more than 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon:
x x x
2. Any person who, to the damage of a third party, or with
intent to cause such damage, shall in any private document commit any of the
acts of falsification enumerated in the next preceding article.
[37] Dizon v. People, G.R. No. 144026,
[38]
Although Batulanon signed the names of Omadlao, Oracion, and Arroyo, her act of
falsification will not fall under Paragraph 1 of Article 171, which requires
that there must be an attempt or intent on the part of the accused to imitate
the signature of other persons. Such was
not shown in this case because the genuine signature of Omadlao, Oracion, and
Arroyo were never offered in evidence.
See Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Vol. II (15th ed., 2001),
pp. 205-206.
[39]
TSN,
[40] Citing People v.
Francisco, C.A., No. 05130-41-CR, August 23, 1966, 64 O.G. 537, 541,
cited in Luis B. Reyes, The Revised
Penal Code, Book II (14th ed., 1998), p. 234. In People
v. Francisco, the Court of Appeals ruled that “the cash disbursement
vouchers here in question are not negotiable instruments nor are they defined
and regulated by the Code of Commerce. They are nothing more than receipts
evidencing payment to borrowers of the loans extended to them and as such are
private documents only.”
[41] Monteverde
v. People, 435 Phil. 906, 921 (2002),
citing Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Book II (14th ed.,
1998), p. 236, citing People v.
[42]
Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Book II (14th ed., 1998), p.
235, citing People v. Co Beng,
[43]
[44] People v. Caingat, 426 Phil. 782, 792
(2002).
[45]
A. Gregorio, Fundamentals of Criminal Law Review (9th ed., 1997), p.
464, citing Cuello Calon, II,
p. 261.
[46]
56 Phil. 286 (1931).
[47]
36 Phil. 146 (1917).
[48]
37 Phil. 78 (1917).
[49] Garcia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
128213, December 13, 2005, 477 SCRA 427, 435.
[50]
While the Information alleged that petitioner Batulanon also falsified the
“Individual Deposits and Loan Ledger” of Dennis Batulanon, she cannot likewise
be convicted of falsifying said document as it was not formally offered in
evidence.
[51]
Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Vol. II (15th ed., 2001), p. 736.
[52]
43 Phil. 186 (1922), cited in Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Vol. II (15th
ed., 2001), p. 750.
[53]