FIRST DIVISION
|
LIBERATA AMBITO, BASILIO AMBITO,
and CRISANTO AMBITO, Petitioner, -
versus - PEOPLE OF
THE Respondents. |
G.R. No. 127327
Present: PUNO, C.J., Chairperson, CARPIO, CORONA, AZCUNA, and LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, JJ. Promulgated: February 13, 2009 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D
E C I S I O N
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure of the Decision[1] of
respondent Court of Appeals (CA), dated March 29, 1996, in CA-G.R. CR No. 12727, entitled
People of the
The
facts of this case, as summarized in the assailed CA decision, are as follows:
Basilio Ambito and Liberata
Ambito were the principal owners of two rural banks in the province of Iloilo
namely, the Community Rural Bank of Leon, Inc., in the municipality of Leon,
and the Rural Bank of Banate, Inc. in the municipality of Banate. In addition, the spouses Ambito were the
owners of Casette [Kajzette] Enterprises, a commercial establishment in Jaro,
On
several occasions in 1979, the spouses Basilio Ambito and Liberata Ambito
transacted business with Pacific Star, Inc. whereby they purchased Yanmar
machineries and spare parts from the said company allegedly for the use of the
loan borrowers of their banks. In these
transactions, the spouses Ambito made down payments in their purchases either
in case, in checks or in certificates of time deposit issued by the Rural Bank
of Banate, Inc. and the Community Rural Bank of Leon, Inc.
However,
when the Manila Banking Corporation (Manila Bank) checks issued by Basilio
Ambito as down payment of their purchases were presented for
payment by the drawee bank, the same were dishonored for insufficiency of
funds. These are Check No. 79173946
dated June 20, 1979 in the amount of P39,168.75 (Exh. A, CC No.
14556); Check No. 79173948 dated June 15, 1979 in the amount of P75,595.00
(Exh. A, CC 14557); Check No. 79173947 dated June 30, 1979 in the amount of P45,957.00
(Exh. A, CC No. 14558); Check No. 79182639 dated October 18, 1979 in the
amount of P4,501.36
(Exh. A, CC No. 14559); Check No. 79182638 dated September 27, 1979 in the
amount of P1,957.60
(Exh. A, CC No. 14560); Check No. 79182637 dated September 18, 1979 in the
amount of P 2,425.50 (Exh. A, CC No. 14561) and Check No. 79175930 dated
August 9, 1979 in the amount of P2,875.25 (Exh. A, CC No.
14562).
At
the time the spouses Basilio Ambito and Liberata Ambito made purchases of farm
implements from the Pacific Star, Inc. in 1979, the general manager of the
Rural Bank of Banate, Inc. was Liberata Ambito herself and the cashier, Marilyn
Traje, while the general manager of the Community Rural Bank of Leon, Inc. was
Crisanto Ambito, brother of Basilio Ambito, and the cashier, Reynaldo Baron.
On
three separate occasions, Liberata Ambito forced the cashier of the Rural Bank
of Banate, Marilyn Traje, to sign several blank certificates of time deposit
and to give the same to her alleging that she needed the said certificates in
connection with some transactions involving the bank. Marilyn Traje at first refused to give
Liberata Ambito the said certificates but the latter scolded her, at the same
time assuring her that she would be responsible to anybody for the issuance of
said certificates including personnel and investigators of the Central Bank
tasked with the examination of the accounts of the bank. Afraid that she would lose her job if she
would not follow Liberata Ambito.
Marilyn Traje signed and gave the blank certificates of time deposit to
her without receiving any consideration therefore.
The
same thing happened to Reynaldo Baron, the cashier of the Community Rural Bank
of Leon, Inc. who was asked by the spouses Ambito as well as the manager of the
bank, Crisanto Ambito, to sign and give blank certificates of time deposit to
them. Reynaldo Baron was at first hesitant to accommodate the request of the
Ambitos but due to their persistence and considering that they were his
superiors and owners of the bank, Baron signed the certificates of time deposit
in blank and gave the same to the Ambitos.
When Baron asked for the duplicate copies of the certificates, he was
told that they were still negotiating with Pacific Star, Inc. Later, the Ambitos told Baron that the
transaction was cancelled and that he should just cause the printing of similar
blank certificates by the Apostol Printing Press in
The
blank certificates of time deposit of the Rural Bank of Banate, Inc. obtained
by the spouses Basilio and Liberata Ambito from Marilyn Traje were filled up
with the amounts of deposit and the name of the Pacific Star, Inc. as depositor
and used by the spouses as down payments of the purchase price of the
machineries and spare parts purchased from the Pacific Star, Inc. These certificates of time deposit are as follows:
1.
Certificate of Time Deposit
No. 079, due date May 7, 1979, in the amount of P7,276.50
(Exh. A, Crim. Case No. 14563) as down payment of the articles covered by
Sales Invoice No. 3002 dated November 9, 1978 of Pacific Star, Inc. (Exh.
A-1, Crim. Case No. 14563);
2.
Certificate of Time Deposit
Nos. 083 and 085 both with due date May 14, 1979 in the amounts of P17,283.00
and P3,132.00,
respectively (Exhs. A and A-1, Crim. Case No. 14564) as down payment. Sales
Invoice Nos. 3003, 3004 and 3005 (Exhs. A-1, A-2 and A-3, Crim. Case No.
14564);
3.
Certificate of Time Deposit
No. 086, due date May 21, 1979, in the amount of P11,896.50
(Exh. A, Crim. Case No. 14565) as down payment, Sales Invoice No. 3006 (Exh.
A-1, Crim. Case No. 14565);
4.
Certificate of Time Deposit
No. 087, due date May 27, 1979 (Exh. A, Crim. Case No. 14566) in the amount
of P7,945.00
as down payment, Sales Invoice No. 3007 dated November 27, 1978 and Sales
Invoice No. 3008 dated November 28, 1978 in the total amount of P7,945.00
(Exhs. A-1 and A-2, Crim. Case No. 14566);
5.
Certificate of Time Deposit
No. 089, due date May 29, 1979, in the amount of P17,090.50
(Exh. A, Crim. Case No. 14567) as down payment, Sales Invoices Nos. 3009 and
3010 both date December 1, 1978 (Exhs. A-1 and A-2, Crim. Case No. 14567);
6.
Certificate of Time Deposit
No. 095, due date June 20, 1979 in the amount of P24,062.50
(Exh. A, Crim. Case No. 14568) as down payment in Sales Invoice Nos. 3031
dated December 11, 1978 (Exh. A-1, Crim. Case No. 14568);
7.
Certificate of Time Deposit
No. 089, due date May 29, 1979, in the amount of P17,090.50
(Exh. A, Crim. Case No. 14567) as down payment in Sales Invoice No. 3035
(Exh. A-1, Crim. Case No. 14567);
8.
Certificate of Time Deposit
No. 097, due date June 13, 1979, in the amount of P5,827.50
(Exh. A, Crim. Case No. 14570) as down payment in Sales Invoice Nos. 3066 and
3067 both dated January 3, 1979 (Exhs. A-1 and A-2, Crim. Case No. 14570);
9.
Certificate of Time Deposit
No. 098, due date June 16, 1979, in the amount of P8,365.00
(Exh. A, Crim. Case No. 14571) as down payment in Sales Invoice Nos. 3081
dated January 10, 1979 and Sales Invoice No. 3091 dated January 16, 1979 (Exhs.
A-1 and A-2, Crim. Case No. 14571);
10. Certificate of Time Deposit No. 099, due date July 22, 1979, in the
amount of P27,226.50
(Exh. A, Crim. Case No. 14572 as down payment in Sales Invoice No. 3097 dated
January 23, 1979 (Exh. A-1, Crim. Case No. 14572);
11. Certificate of Time Deposit No. 100, due date July 25, 1979, in the
amount of P9,380.00
(Exh. A, Crim. Case No. 14573) as down payment in Sales Invoice No. 3099
dated January 25, 1979 (Exh. A-1, Crim. Case No. 14573);
12. Certificate of Time Deposit No. 101, due date July 28, 1979 in the
amount of P3,132.50
(Exh. A; Crim. Case No. 14574) as down payment in Sales Invoice No. 3106
(Exh. A-1, Crim. Case No. 14574);
13. Certificate of Time Deposit No. 102, due date August 15, 1979 in the
amount of P21,420.00
(Exh. A, Crim. Case No. 14575) in payment of Sales Invoice No. 3120 dated
February 8, 1979, Sales Invoice No, 3121 dated February 8, 1979 and Sales
Invoice No. 3126 dated February 12, 1979, (Exhs. A-1, A-2 and A-3, Crim
Case No. 14575);
14. Certificate of Time Deposit No. 105, due date August 14, 1979, in the
amount of P25,375.00
(Exh. A, Crim. Case No. 14576) as down payment of Sales Invoice No. 3129
dated February 15, 1979 (Exh. A-1, Crim. Case No. 14576);
15. Certificate of Time Deposit No. 106, due date August 16, 1979, in the
amount of P58,712.50
(Exh. A, Crim. Case No. 14577) as down payment of Sales Invoice No. 3134
dated February 17, 1977 (Exh. A-1, Crim. Case No. 14577);
16. Certificate of Time Deposit No. 107, due date August 21, 1979, in the
amount of P16,205.00
(Exh. A, Crim. Case No. 14578) and Certificate of Time Deposit No. 104, due
date September 18, 1979, in the amount of P2,730.00 (Exh. A-1, Crim.
Case No. 14578) as down payment in Sales Invoice No. 3137 dated February 22,
1979 and Sales Invoice No. 3178 dated March 22, 1979;
17. Certificate of Time Deposit No. 108, due date October 15, 1979, in the
amount of P78,277.50
(Exh. A, Crim. Case No. 14579) as down payment in Sales Invoice Nos. 3215,
3216 and 3217 all dated April 18, 1979, (Exhs. A-1, A-2 and A-3, Crim.
Case No. 14579);
18. Certificate of Time Deposit No. 109, due date October 16, 1979, in the
amount of P8,557.50
(Exh. A, Crim. Case No. 14580) as down payment in Sales Invoice No. 3221
dated April 19, 1979 (Exh. A-1, Crim. Case No. 14580);
19. Certificate of Time Deposit No. 110, due date October 22, 1979, in the
amount of P38,529.75
(Exh. A, Crim. Case No. 14581) as down payment in Sales Invoice No. 3240 and
3241 both dated April 25, 1979 (Exhs. A-1 and A-2, Crim. Case No. 145810);
20. Certificate of Time Deposit No. 111, due date October 29, 1979, in the
amount of P7,218.75
(Exh. A, Crim. Case No. 14582) as down payment in Sales Invoice No. 3409
dated May 2, 1979 (Exh. A-1, Crim. Case No. 14582);
21. Certificates of Time Deposit Nos. 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117 and 118
all dated November 1, 1979 in the amounts of P57,750.00,
P93,933.00,
P21,393.75,
P12,285.00,
P13,860.00,
P20,002.50
and P156,555.00
respectively (Exhs. A, A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, Crim. Case
No. 14583) as down payment in Sales Invoice Nos. 3423 to 3429, inclusive (Exhs.
A-7 to A-13, inclusive, Crim. Case No. 14583);
22. Certificate of Time Deposit No. 119, due date December 18, 1979, in the
amount of P5,892.25
(Exh. A, Crim. Case No. 14584) as down payment in Sales Invoice No. 3505
dated June 21, 1979 (Exh. A-1, Crim. Case No. 14584);
23. Certificate of Time Deposit No. 134, due date January 23, 1980, in the
amount of P3,984.00
(Exh. A, Crim. Case No. 14585) as down payment in Sales Invoice No. 3272
dated July 27, 1979 (Exh. A-1, Crim. Case No. 14585);
The certificates
of time deposit of the Community Rural Bank of Leon found to have been
falsified are (1) Certificate of Time Deposit No. 039 , due date February 4,
1980 in the amount of P32,555.25
(Exh. A, Crim. Case No. 14586) and (2) Certificate of Time Deposit No. 040,
due date February 14, 1980 in the amount of P9,103.19 (Exh. A, Crim.
Case No. 14587).
The
said certificates of time deposit supposedly issued by the Rural Bank of the
Banate, Inc. and the Community Rural Bank of Leon, Inc. were unfunded and not
covered by any deposit so that when presented for redemption by the (sic)
Pacific Star, Inc., the same were not honored.
As a consequence, Pacific Star, Inc. suffered actual damages in the
amounts representing the total value of the machineries and spare parts sold
and delivered by the complainant to the Ambitos and the latter failed and
refused to pay the same despite demands on them.
In
view of the anomalous transactions entered into by the Ambitos, both the Rural
Bank of Banate, Inc. and the Community Rural Bank of Leon, Inc. became
insolvent and so sometime in May 7, 1980, the Central Bank of the P1,000.00
and P3,000.00,
respectively (Exh. B, Crim. Cases Nos. 14586 and 14587).
Subsequently,
on complaint of Pacific Star, Inc., the Ambitos were charged of violations of
B.P. Blg. 22, Falsification and Estafa through Falsification of Commercial
Document under the Informations filed in the aforecited cases.
After
due proceedings, the Court a quo, promulgated a Decision, dated November 29,
1990, the decretal portion of which reads as follows:
WHEREFORE,
in Criminal Cases Nos. 14556, 14557, 14558, 14559, 14560, 14561 and 14562, the
Court hereby finds the accused, Basilio Ambito, guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the offense of violation of the provisions of Section 1 of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 22 and hereby sentences the said accused to suffer in each of the seven
cases, the penalty of imprisonment of SIX (6) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY and to
indemnify the offended party, Pacific Star, Inc. the total sum of P173,480.55, with interest
thereon at the legal rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the
Informations on May 10, 1982, until paid, without subsidiary imprisonment in
case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.
In
Criminal Cases Nos. 14574 and 14585, the Court hereby finds the accused,
Basilio Ambito and Liberata Ambito, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
complex offense of Estafa thru Falsification of Commercial Document, defined
and penalized in Articles 48, 171, 172 and 315 of the Revised Penal Code and
hereby sentences the said accused to suffer in each case, an indeterminate
sentence ranging from TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision
correccional as minimum to FOUR (4) YEARS, NINE (9) MONTHS and ELEVEN (11) DAYS
of prision correccional as maximum, and pay a fine of P3,000.00
and to indemnify the offended party, Pacific Star, Inc. the total sum of P18,287.00
with interests thereon at the legal rate of 12% per annum from the date of the
filing of the Informations on May 10, 1982 until paid, without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, together with the accessory penalties
provided for by law, and to pay the costs.
In
Criminal Cases Nos. 14563, 14570, 14580, 14582 and 14584, the Court hereby
finds the accused, Basilio Ambito and Liberata Ambito, guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the complex crime of Estafa thru Falsification of Commercial Document,
defined and penalized in Articles 48, 171, 172 and 315 of the Revised Penal
Code and hereby sentences the said accused to suffer, in each of these cases,
an indeterminate prison sentence ranging from TWO (2) YEARS, ELEVEN (11) MONTHS
and ELEVEN (11) DAYS of prision correccional as minimum, to SIX (6) YEARS,
EIGHT (8) MONTHS and TWENTY ONE (21) DAYS of prision mayor as maximum, and to
indemnify the offended party, Pacific Star, Inc., the total sum of P83,095.00,
with interests thereon at the legal rate of 12% per annum from the date of the
filing of the Informations on May 10, 1982 until paid, without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, together with the accessory penalties
provided for by law, and to pay the costs.
In
Criminal Cases Nos. 14566, 14569, 14571 and 14573, the Court hereby finds the
accused, Basilio Ambito and Liberata Ambito, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the complex offense of Estafa thru Falsification of Commercial Document,
defined and penalized in Articles 48, 171, 172 and 315 of the Revised Penal
Code and hereby sentences the said accused to suffer, in each of these cases,
an indeterminate prison sentence ranging from FOUR (4) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS of
prision correccional as minimum, to EIGHT (8) YEARS of prision mayor as maximum,
and to indemnify the offended party, Pacific Star, Inc., the total sum of P103,900.00
with interests thereon at the legal rate of 12% per annum from the date of the
filing of the Informations on May 10, 1982 until paid, without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, together with the accessory penalties
provided for by law and to pay costs.
In
Criminal Cases Nos. 14564 and 14578, the Court hereby finds the accused,
Basilio Ambito and Liberata Ambito, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex
offense of Estafa thru Falsification of Commercial Document, defined and
penalized in Articles 48, 171, 172 and 315 of the Revised Penal Code and hereby
sentences the said accused to suffer, in each of these cases, an indeterminate
prison sentence ranging from FOUR (4) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of
prision correccional as minimum, to ELEVEN (11) YEARS of prision mayor as
maximum, and to indemnify the offended party, Pacific Star, Inc., the total sum
of P116,530.00
with interests thereon at the legal rate of 12% per annum from the date of the
filing of the Informations on May 10, 1982 until paid, without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, together with the accessory penalties
provided for by law and to pay costs.
In
Criminal Cases Nos. 14565, the Court hereby finds the accused, Basilio Ambito
and Liberata Ambito, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex offense of
Estafa thru Falsification of Commercial Document, defined and penalized in
Articles 48, 171, 172 and 315 of the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences
the said accused to suffer, in each of these cases, an indeterminate prison
sentence ranging from FOUR (4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS of prision correccional
as minimum, to NINE (9) YEARS of prision mayor as maximum, and to indemnify the
offended party, Pacific Star, Inc., the sum of P35,190.00
with interests thereon at the legal rate of 12% per annum from the date of the
filing of the Informations on May 10, 1982 until paid, without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, together with the accessory penalties
provided for by law and to pay costs.
In
Criminal Cases Nos. 14567, the Court hereby finds the accused, Basilio Ambito
and Liberata Ambito, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Estafa
thru Falsification of Commercial Document, defined and penalized in Articles
48, 171, 172 and 315 of the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences the said
accused each, to suffer an indeterminate prison sentence ranging from FOUR (4)
YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS of prision correccional as minimum, to TEN (10) YEARS
of prision mayor as maximum, and to indemnify the offended party, Pacific Star,
Inc., the sum of P50,555.00
with interests thereon at the legal rate of 12% per annum from the date of the
filing of the Informations on May 10, 1982 until paid, without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, together with the accessory penalties
provided for by law and to pay costs.
In
Criminal Cases Nos. 14568 and 14575, the Court hereby finds the accused,
Basilio Ambito and Liberata Ambito, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
offense of Estafa thru Falsification of Commercial Document, defined and
penalized in Articles 48, 171, 172 and 315 of the Revised Penal Code and hereby
sentences the said accused to suffer, in each of these cases, an indeterminate
prison sentence ranging from FOUR (4) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of
prision correccional as minimum, to TWELVE (12) YEARS of prision mayor as
maximum, and to indemnify the offended party, Pacific Star, Inc., the sum of P134,375.00
with interests thereon at the legal rate of 12% per annum from the date of the
filing of the Informations on May 10, 1982 until paid, without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, together with the accessory penalties
provided for by law and to pay costs.
In Criminal Cases Nos. 14572, 14576 and 14581, the Court
hereby finds the accused, Basilio Ambito and Liberata Ambito, guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the offense of Estafa thru Falsification of Commercial
Document, defined and penalized in Articles 48, 171, 172 and 315 of the Revised
Penal Code and hereby sentences the said accused to suffer, in each of these
cases, an indeterminate prison sentence ranging from SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1)
DAY of prision mayor as minimum, to THIRTEEN (13) YEARS of reclusion temporal
as maximum, and to indemnify the offended party, Pacific Star, Inc., the total
sum of P235,170.00
with interests thereon at the legal rate of 12% per annum from the date of the
filing of the Informations on May 10, 1982 until paid, without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, together with the accessory penalties
provided for by law and to pay costs.
In
Criminal Cases Nos. 14577, 14579 and 14583, the Court hereby finds the accused,
Basilio Ambito and Liberata Ambito, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
complex offense of Estafa thru Falsification of Commercial Document, defined
and penalized in Articles 48, 171, 172 and 315 of the Revised Penal Code and
hereby sentences the said accused to suffer, in each of these cases, an
indeterminate prison sentence ranging from TEN (10) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of
prision mayor as minimum, to TWENTY (20) YEARS of reclusion temporal as
maximum, and to indemnify the offended party, Pacific Star, Inc., the total sum
of P1,110,500.00
with interests thereon at the legal rate of 12% per annum from the date of the
filing of the Informations on May 10, 1982 until paid, without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, together with the accessory penalties
provided for by law and to pay costs.
The
foregoing penalties imposed upon the accused are, however, subject to the
threefold rule as provided for in Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code so that
the maximum duration of the accused imprisonment shall not be more than three
times the most severe of the penalties the total period of which not to exceed
Forty (40) years.
In
Criminal Cases Nos. 14586 and 14587, the Court hereby finds the accused,
Crisanto Ambito, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Falsification
of Commercial Document, defined and penalized under Articles 171 and 172 of the
Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences the said accused to suffer, in each of
these two cases, an indeterminate prison sentence ranging from ONE (1) YEAR and
ONE (1) DAY of prision correccional as minimum, to FOUR (4) YEARS, TWO (2)
MONTHS of prision correccional as maximum, and pay a fine of P2,000.00, together with the
accessory penalties provided for by law, and to pay the costs. For
insufficiency of evidence, Basilio Ambito and Liberata Ambito are hereby
ACQUITTED of the offenses charged in these Criminal Cases Nos. 14586 and 14587.
On
reasonable doubt, the accused Marilyn Traje and Reynaldo Baron, are hereby
ACQUITTED of the offense charged in all the criminal cases against them and the
bail bonds posted for their provisional liberty are hereby ordered cancelled.[3]
After
they were convicted by the RTC, petitioners appealed their case to respondent
CA which, in turn, denied their appeal via the assailed CA Decision, the dispositive
portion of which reads as follows:
IN
THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the assailed Decision is hereby AFFIRMED in
toto. With costs against the Appellants.
SO ORDERED.[4]
Petitioners promptly interposed a Motion for
Reconsideration of the adverse CA Decision but this was succinctly rejected by
the CA in its Resolution[5]
dated November 8, 1996, hence, petitioners recourse to this Court for review
on certiorari.
This
Court initially denied said Petition for Review on Certiorari[6]
through a Resolution[7]
dated January 29, 1997 on the ground that the said petition raised factual
issues. Undaunted, petitioners filed a
Motion for Reconsideration[8]
dated February 25, 1997 seeking to persuade this Court to give due course to
their petition which this Court granted in a Resolution[9]
dated April 28, 1997, thereby reinstating the petition. Respondents were required to file comment on
the petition as ordered in the same Resolution. Respondents filed their Comment[10]
on September 9, 1997, while petitioners filed a delayed Reply[11]
on September 4, 1998. In turn,
respondents filed a Rejoinder[12]
on January 18, 1999.
On
January 17, 2005, this Court issued a Resolution[13]
directing both parties to submit their respective memoranda within thirty (30)
days from notice. Respondents submitted
their Memorandum[14] on
March 18, 2005 but petitioners failed to submit theirs despite the fact that
this Court had already granted numerous extensions of time to file as requested
by petitioners counsel. This Court even
resorted to imposing a fine on petitioners counsel for his repeated
non-compliance as stated by our Resolution[15]
dated March 8, 2006 but to no avail.
Thus, in a Resolution[16]
dated June 20, 2007, this Court resolved to dispense with the filing of
petitioners memorandum.
In their Petition,[17]
petitioners raised the following grounds:
A.
THE RESONDENT COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED
A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN FINDING THE PETITIONERS GUILTY OF THE OFFENSES IMPUTED TO
THEM, THERE BEING UNCONTROVERTED EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT FROM THE NATURE OF THE
TRANSACTIONS AND DEALINGS BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS AND PSI FOR A LONG PERIOD OF
14 YEARS, THE LIABILITY OF THE PETITIONERS, IF ANY, IS ONLY CIVIL IN NATURE,
AND NO CRIMINAL LIABILITY ATTACHES TO THEM.
B.
THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED
A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN FINDING THE PETITIONERS GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF
ALL THE OFFENSES IMPUTED TO THEM, THE FACTS OF THE CASE SHOWING THAT THE VALUE
OF THE SUBJECT CHECKS AND CCTDS [CREDIT CERTIFICATES OF TIME DEPOSIT] HAVE
ALREADY BEEN FULLY PAID PRIOR TO THE INSTITUTION OF THE CRIMINAL CASES BELOW.
C.
ANENT CRIMINAL CASE NOS. 14556 TO 14562,
THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN FINDING THE
PETITIONER BASILIO AMBITO GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE OFFENSE OF
VIOLATION OF BP22 DESPITE THE LACK OF ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF PRIOR NOTICE OF
DISHONOR AND DEMAND FOR PAYMENT OF THE ALLEGED DISHONORED CHECKS GIVEN BY PSI
TO PETITIONERS.
D.
ANENT CRIMINAL CASE NOS. 14556, 14557 AND
14558, THE RESPONDENT COURT COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN FINDING PETITIONER
BASILIO AMBITO GUILTY OF VIOLATION OF BP22 DESPITE THAT THE SUBJECT CHECKS WERE
NOT PRESENTED FOR PAYMENT WITHIN 90 DAYS FROM DATE OF CHECK.
E.
ANENT CRIMINAL CASE NOS. 14556 AND 14557,
THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN FINDING
PETITIONER BASILIO AMBITO GUILTY OF THE OFFENSE OF VIOLATION OF BP22 DESPITE
THAT THERE WAS IN EACH CASE NO PROPER EVIDENCE OFFERED TO PROVE THE CRIME
CHARGED.
F.
ANENT CRIMINAL CASE NOS. 14563 TO 14585,
THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN FINDING THE
PETITIONERS GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE OFFENSE OF ESTAFA BY FALSE
PRETENSES COMPLEXED WITH FALSIFICATION OF A COMMERCIAL DOCUMENT, THERE BEING
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE TENDING TO SHOW THE LACK OF THE ELEMENT OF DECEIT.
G.
ANENT CRIMINAL CASE NOS. 14563 TO 14585,
THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN FINDING THE
PETITIONERS GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF ESTAFA BY FALSE PRETENSES
COMPLEXED WITH FALSIFICATION OF A COMMERCIAL DOCUMENT, IT BEING CLEAR FROM THE
FACE OF THE SUBJECT CCTDS THEMSELVES THAT THERE THEREIN EXISTS NO FALSE
NARRATION OF FACTS.
H.
THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED
A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN REFUSING TO RESOLVE THE ASSIGNED ERROR OF DOUBLE PAYMENT
OF IMDEMNITY OR CIVIL LIABILITY ON THE MERITS THEREOF, IT BEING IN A POSITION
TO DO SO, AND DESPITE TIMELY NOTICE OF THE PRIOR INSTITUTION OF THE CIVIL CASE
INVOLVING THE SAME TRANSACTIONS AS IN THE CASES AT BAR.[18]
In
essence, petitioners recourse to this Court is hinged on their belief that
their conviction in the lower court was not based on proof beyond reasonable
doubt and that the respondent CA failed to perform its duty to fully ascertain
whether the prosecutions evidence was sufficient enough to warrant a finding
that would support their conviction for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 and for
Estafa through Falsification of Commercial Documents.
We
hold the petition to be meritorious in part.
Anent
the issue of whether or not co-petitioner Basilio Ambitos conviction in
Criminal Case Nos. 14556 to 14562 for the seven (7) counts of violation of B.P.
Blg. 22 was in accordance with law, petitioners argue that he cannot be
convicted of the same since the prosecution allegedly failed to prove the
dispensable elements of prior notice of dishonor and demand for payment of the
checks at issue.[19] Furthermore, they insist that there is no
violation of B.P. Blg. 22, particularly in Criminal Case Nos. 14556, 14557 and
14558 as the subject checks therein were presented for payment more than ninety
(90) days from date.[20]
In
response, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) asserts that petitioners
claim of necessary and indispensable elements of notice of dishonor and demand
to pay cannot be found in the statute defining the essential elements of
violation of B.P. Blg. 22. The OSG
further insists that, from among the said essential elements, there is no
particular manner prescribed in which the person who made and issued the dishonored
checks should be notified of the fact of dishonor.
Be
that as it may, the OSG avers that as far as the checks subject of the charges
of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 in these criminal cases are concerned,
co-petitioner Basilio Ambito had been more than sufficiently notified of the
fact of dishonor because on December 28, 1979, Pacific Star, Inc. (PSI) filed
with Branch 2 of the RTC of Manila a civil complaint for collection against
petitioners, or more than three (3) years before the thirty-two (32)
Informations for violations of B.P. Blg. 22 and for Estafa through
Falsification of Commercial Documents were filed against petitioners on May 10,
1982. Within that three-year span of
time, the OSG points out, co-petitioner Basilio Ambito failed to pay the value
of the checks despite having been notified of their dishonor. [21]
As to
petitioners contention that the prosecution was not able to prove the
indispensable element that the drawer had knowledge that the checks were not
backed up by sufficient funds since the checks subject of Criminal Case Nos.
14556, 14557 and 14558 were presented for payment more than ninety (90) days
from date, the OSG claims that the said element had been clearly established by
the petitioners testimony in the lower court where petitioners contend that
the subject checks were issued only as mere guarantee and, as such, were not
supposed to be deposited as previously agreed by PSI and petitioners.[22] In any case, the OSG argues that under
Section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22, the makers knowledge of the insufficiency of funds
is legally presumed from the dishonor of the check for insufficiency of funds.[23]
After
carefully reviewing the records and the submissions of the parties, we find
that the prosecutions evidence was inadequate to prove co-petitioner Basilio
Ambitos guilt beyond reasonable doubt for seven (7) counts of violation of
B.P. Blg. 22.
The
elements of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 are: (1) making, drawing, and issuance of
any check to apply on account or for value; (2) knowledge of the maker, drawer,
or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or
credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its
presentment; and (3) subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for
insufficiency of funds or credit, or dishonor for the same reason had not the
drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.[24]
The
gravamen of the offense punished by B.P. Blg. 22 is the act of making or
issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for
payment. It is not the nonpayment of an
obligation which the law punishes. The
law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt. The thrust of the law is to prohibit, under
pain of penal sanctions, the making of worthless checks and putting them in
circulation. Because of its deleterious effects on the public interest, the
practice is proscribed by the law. The
law punishes the act not as an offense against property, but an offense against
public order.[25] Thus, the mere act of issuing a worthless
check whether as a deposit, as a guarantee or even as evidence of
pre-existing debt is malum prohibitum.[26]
In
light of the foregoing, petitioners contention in the lower court that the
subject checks were only issued as mere guarantee and were not intended for
deposit as per agreement with PSI is not tenable. Co-petitioner Basilio Ambito would be liable
under B.P. Blg. 22 by the mere fact that he issued the subject checks, provided
that the other elements of the crime are properly proved.
With
regard to the second element, we note that the law provides for a prima facie rule of evidence. A disputable presumption of knowledge of
insufficiency of funds in or credit with the bank is assumed from the act of
making, drawing, and issuing a check, payment of which is refused by the drawee
bank for insufficiency of funds when presented within 90 days from the date of
issue. However, such presumption does
not arise when the maker or drawer pays or makes arrangements for the payment
of the check within five banking days
after receiving notice that such check had been dishonored. In order for the maker or drawer to pay the
value thereof or make arrangements for its payment within the period prescribed
by law, it is therefore necessary and indispensable for the maker or drawer to
be notified of the dishonor of the check.
Under
B.P. Blg. 22, the prosecution must prove not only that the accused issued a
check that was subsequently dishonored. It must also establish that the accused
was actually notified that the check was dishonored, and that he or she failed,
within five (5) banking days from receipt of the notice, to pay the holder of
the check the amount due thereon or to make arrangement for its payment. Absent proof that the accused received such
notice, a prosecution for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law cannot prosper.[27]
The
absence of a notice of dishonor necessarily deprives an accused an opportunity
to preclude a criminal prosecution.
Accordingly, procedural due process clearly enjoins that a notice of
dishonor be actually sent to and received by the accused. The accused has a right to demand and the
basic postulates of fairness require that the notice of dishonor be actually
sent to and received by the same to afford him/her the opportunity to avert
prosecution under B.P. Blg. 22.[28]
In
the case at bar, there is nothing in the records that would indicate that
co-petitioner Basilio Ambito was given any notice of dishonor by PSI or by
Manila Bank, the drawee bank, when the subject checks were dishonored for
insufficiency of funds upon presentment for payment. In fact, all that the OSG can aver regarding
this matter is that co-petitioner Basilio Ambito had been notified of the fact
of dishonor since PSI filed a collection case against petitioners more than
three (3) years before the same filed the criminal cases before this Court.[29]
Likewise,
respondent CA merely cited, in its assailed Decision, co-petitioner Basilio
Ambitos July 17, 1989 trial court testimony as basis for concluding that he
was properly informed of the dishonor of the subject checks, viz:
Appellant Basilios claim that he
was never notified of the dishonor of the checks he issued in partial payments
of the purchases Kazette Enterprises made from PSI is belied by his own
admission made when he testified in the Court a quo thus:
x x x
Q Inspite of you agreement they deposited
and when presented they bounce?
A That was in the receipts.
Q So you admit you have presented these
checks already marked as Exhibit A for
the prosecution for criminal
cases Nos. 14556 to 14562, inclusive, were
all returned for insufficiency of funds by the depository
bank?
A Yes, sir. (t.s.n., Ambito, page 35, July
17, 1989)
Nothwithstanding
his notice of the dishonor of the checks, Appellant failed to replace the same
with cash or make arrangements with PSI, for the payments of the amounts of the
checks.[30]
Verily,
the aforementioned circumstances are not in accord with the manner or form by
which a notice of dishonor should be made under the law and existing
jurisprudence.
The
notice of dishonor of a check may be sent to the drawer or maker by the drawee
bank, the holder of the check, or the offended party either by personal
delivery or by registered mail. The
notice of dishonor to the maker of a check must be in writing.[31]
While,
indeed, Section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22 does not state that the notice of dishonor be
in writing, taken in conjunction, however with Section 3 of the law, i.e., that where there are no
sufficient funds in or credit with such drawee bank, such fact shall always be
explicitly stated in the notice of dishonor or refusal, a mere oral notice or
demand to pay would appear to be insufficient for conviction under the
law. The Court has previously held that
both the spirit and letter of the Bouncing Checks Law would require for the act
to be punished thereunder not only that the accused issued a check that is
dishonored, but that likewise the accused has actually been notified in writing
of the fact of dishonor. The consistent
rule is that penal statutes have to be construed strictly against the State and
liberally in favor of the accused.[32]
There
being no proof that co-petitioner Basilio Ambito was given any written notice
either by PSI or by Manila Bank informing him of the fact that his checks were
dishonored and giving him five (5) banking days within which to make
arrangements for payment of the said checks, the rebuttable presumption that he
had knowledge of the insufficiency of his funds has no application in the
present case.
Due to the failure of prosecution in this case to prove
that co-petitioner Basilio Ambito was given the requisite notice of dishonor
and the opportunity to make arrangements for payment as provided for under the
law, We cannot with moral certainty convict him of violation of B.P. Blg. 22.
However, Basilio
Ambitos acquittal for his violations of B.P. Blg. 22 for failure of the
prosecution to prove all elements of the offense beyond reasonable doubt did
not entail the extinguishment of his civil liability for the dishonored checks.
In a number of similar cases,[33]
we have held that an acquittal based on reasonable doubt does not preclude the award of
civil damages. The judgment of acquittal extinguishes the liability of the
accused for damages only when it includes a declaration that the facts from
which the civil liability might arise did not exist. Thus, in the case at bar, the trial courts directive for
Basilio Ambito to indemnify PSI the total sum of P173,480.55, with interest thereon at the legal rate of 12%
per annum from the date of filing of the Informations on May 10, 1982, until
paid, and to pay the costs is affirmed.
Anent
the question of whether or not petitioner spouses Liberata and Basilio Ambitos
conviction for the offense of Estafa through Falsification of Commercial
Document was proven beyond reasonable doubt, the petitioners interposed the
defense that they cannot be properly convicted of the same as there was no
finding of false narration of facts and of deceit.
Petitioners
assert that PSI was not deceived by the issuance of the subject credit
certificates of time deposit (CCTDs), which did not contain a false narration
of facts, for the reasons that: (i) said CCTDs, which were undated as to their
respective dates of issuance, did not state that funds had already been
deposited by PSI; (ii) during the course of their alleged fourteen-year long
business relationship, PSI, which had been accepting said CCTDs, knew that they
were unfunded as said certificates of time deposit were issued to serve as
promissory notes to guarantee payment for the balance of the invoice price of
the machineries;[34] (iii)
petitioners did not represent to PSI that the money was already deposited
because the subject CCTDs were even postdated;[35]
(iv) the amounts stated in the CCTDs were not downpayments but CREDIT
extended to petitioner Basilio Ambito payable six months after the
sales/purchases were made;[36]
(v) petitioners obligation is civil in nature because current and savings
deposits constitute loans to a bank and, thus, a CCTD is an evidence of a
simple loan;[37] (vi)
the essential element of fraud was absent because PSI knew that the CCTDs
issued to it by petitioners were not covered by funds because it knew that the
deposits were yet to be made when the farmers, to whom Basilio Ambito resold on
credit the machineries, shall have deposited in the rural banks their payments
for those machineries;[38]
(vii) the subject certificates of time deposit issued to PSI were not ordinary
certificates of time deposit but CREDIT certificates of Time Deposit because
the term credit indicates a deferred or delayed nature of the payment,
thus, signifying a promise to pay at a future date;[39]
(viii) PSI was not defrauded as it gave discounts in its sales invoices if
petitioners paid in full the value of the certificates on or before 180 days
from delivery. By giving discounts for
early payment, it was thus aware of the possibility that said certificates
might not be funded when they fell due;[40]
(ix) the sales invoices issued by PSI gave it the right to institute civil
actions only and not criminal actions;[41]
and (x) petitioners had already performed their obligations to PSI by way of
the payment of the amount of P300,000.00 and the return of one unit
Kubota machinery valued at P 28,000.00.[42]
We are not persuaded.
We find no reason to disturb the identical findings of the CA and the
RTC regarding the particular circumstances surrounding the petitioners
conviction of Estafa through Falsification of Commercial Documents because the
same are adequately supported by the evidence on record.
It is
not the function of this Court to analyze or weigh evidence all over again,
unless there is a showing that the findings of the lower court are totally
devoid of support or are glaringly erroneous as to constitute palpable error or
grave abuse of discretion.[43]
The
elements of Estafa by means of deceit, whether committed by false pretenses or
concealment, are the following (a) that there must be a false pretense,
fraudulent act or fraudulent means. (b) That such false pretense, fraudulent
act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneous with
the commission of the fraud. (c) That the offended party must have relied on
the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means, that is, he was induced
to part with his money or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent
act or fraudulent means. (d) That as a result thereof, the offended party
suffered damage.[44]
In
the prosecution for Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the RPC,[45]
it is indispensable that the element of deceit, consisting in the false
statement or fraudulent representation of the accused, be made prior to, or at
least simultaneously with, the delivery of the thing by the complainant.
The
false pretense or fraudulent act must be committed prior to or simultaneously
with the commission of the fraud, it being essential that such false statement
or representation constitutes the very cause or the only motive which induces
the offended party to part with his money.
In the absence of such requisite, any subsequent act of the accused,
however fraudulent and suspicious it might appear, cannot serve as basis for
prosecution for estafa under the said provision.[46]
In
the case at bar, the records would show that PSI was given assurance by
petitioners that they will pay the unpaid balance of their purchases from PSI
when the CCTDs with petitioners banks, the Rural Bank of Banate, Inc. (RBBI)
and/or the Rural Bank of Leon, Inc. (RBLI), and issued under the name of PSI,
would be presented for payment to RBBI and RBLI which, in turn, will pay the
amount of deposit stated thereon. The
amounts stated in the CCTDs correspond to the purchase cost of the machineries
and equipment that co-petitioner Basilio Ambito bought from PSI as evidenced by
the Sales Invoices presented during the trial. It is uncontroverted that PSI
did not apply for and secure loans from RBBI and RBLI. In fine, PSI and co-petitioner Basilio Ambito
were engaged in a vendor-purchaser business relationship while PSI and
RBBI/RBLI were connected as depositor-depository. It is likewise established that petitioners
employed deceit when they were able to persuade PSI to allow them to pay the
aforementioned machineries and equipment through down payments paid either in
cash or in the form of checks or through the CCTDs with RBBI and RBLI issued in
PSIs name with interest thereon. It was
later found out that petitioners never made any deposits in the said Banks
under the name of PSI. In fact, the
issuance of CCTDs to PSI was not recorded in the books of RBBI and RBLI and the
Deputy Liquidator appointed by the Central Bank of the
As
borne by the records and the pleadings, it is indubitable that petitioners
representations were outright distortions of the truth perpetrated by them for
the sole purpose of inducing PSI to sell and deliver to co-petitioner Basilio
Ambito machineries and equipments.
Petitioners knew that no deposits were ever made with RBBI and RBLI
under the name of PSI, as represented by the subject CCTDs, since they did not
intend to deposit any amount to pay for the machineries. PSI was an innocent victim of deceit,
machinations and chicanery committed by petitioners which resulted in its
pecuniary damage and, thus, confirming the lower courts finding that
petitioners are guilty of the complex crime of Estafa through Falsification of
Commercial Documents.
The
pronouncement by the appeals court that a complex crime had been committed by
petitioners is proper because, whenever a person carries out on a public,
official or commercial document any of the acts of falsification enumerated in
Article 171 of the RPC[48]
as a necessary means to perpetrate another crime, like Estafa, Theft, or
Malversation, a complex crime is formed by the two crimes.
Under
Article 48 of the RPC,[49] a
complex crime refers to (1) the commission of at least two grave or less grave
felonies that must both (or all) be the result of a single act, or (2) one
offense must be a necessary means for committing the other (or others). Negatively put, there is no complex crime
when (1) two or more crimes are committed, but not by a single act; or (2)
committing one crime is not a necessary means for committing the other (or
others).[50]
The
falsification of a public, official, or commercial document may be a means of
committing Estafa, because before the falsified document is actually utilized to
defraud another, the crime of Falsification has already been consummated,
damage or intent to cause damage not being an element of the crime of
falsification of public, official or commercial document. In other words, the crime of falsification
has already existed. Actually utilizing that falsified public, official or
commercial document to defraud another is estafa. But the damage is caused by the commission of
Estafa, not by the falsification of the document. Therefore, the falsification of the public,
official or commercial document is only a necessary means to commit the estafa.[51]
In the case before us, the issuance by petitioners of CCTDs
which reflected amounts that were never deposited as such in either RBBI or
RBLI is Falsification under Articles 171[52]
and 172[53]
of the RPC. The particular criminal
undertaking consisted of petitioners, taking advantage of their position as
owners of RBBI and RBLI, making untruthful statements/representations with
regard to the existence of time deposits in favor of PSI by issuing the subject
CCTDs without putting up the corresponding deposits in said banks.
Under
Article 171, paragraph 4 of the RPC,[54]
the elements of falsification of public documents through an untruthful
narration of facts are: (1) the offender makes in a document untruthful
statements in a narration of facts; (2) the offender has a legal obligation to
disclose the truth of the facts narrated; (3) the facts narrated by the
offender are absolutely false; and (4) the perversion of truth in the narration
of facts was made with the wrongful intent to injure a third person.[55]
As
earlier discussed, the issuance of the falsified CCTDs for the sole purpose of
obtaining or purchasing various machinery and equipment from PSI amounts to the
criminal offense of Estafa under Article 315 (2) (a) of the RPC.[56] The petitioners falsified the subject CCTDs,
which are commercial documents, to defraud PSI.
Since the falsification of the CCTDs was the necessary means for the
commission of Estafa, the assailed judgment of the appeals court convicting
petitioners of the complex crime of Estafa through Falsification of Commercial
Documents is correct.
Quite
apart from the prosecutions successful discharge of its burden of proof, we
find that the accused failed to discharge their burden to prove their
defense. To begin with, there appears to
be no proof on record of the alleged 14-year financial arrangement between
accused and PSI or the purported consignment only agreement between them
other than the uncorroborated and self-serving testimony of the accused. Moreover, we uphold the findings of the CA
and the court a quo as to the proper characterization of the CCTDs and the lack
of credible, independent evidence of the alleged payment of the accuseds
obligations to PSI.
Finally,
with respect to co-petitioner Crisanto Ambito, we find no reason to disturb the
trial courts ruling that he is liable for only the crime of Falsification of
Commercial Documents in connection with CCTD Nos. 039 and 040 of RBLI, there
being no showing that the said CCTDs were used to purchase farm implements from
PSI.[57]
WHEREFORE, the Petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated
March 29, 1996 of the Court of Appeals affirming that of the Regional Trial
Court is AFFIRMED with respect to petitioner spouses Basilio and Liberata
Ambitos conviction for Estafa through Falsification of Commercial Documents
(in Criminal Case Nos. 14563 to 14585) and with respect to co-petitioner
Crisanto Ambitos conviction for Falsification of Commercial Documents (in
Criminal Case Nos. 14586 and 14587). However, the aforesaid Decision is
REVERSED with respect to co-petitioner Basilio Ambitos conviction for
violation of B.P. Blg. 22 (in Criminal Case Nos. 14556 to 14562), who is hereby
ACQUITTED on the ground that his guilt has not been established beyond
reasonable doubt. However, the portion of the said Decision insofar as it
directs Basilio Ambito to indemnify Pacific Star, Inc. the total sum of P173,480.55, with interest thereon at
the legal rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the Informations on
May 10, 1982, until paid, and to pay the costs (also in Criminal Case Nos.
14556 to 14562) is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice Chairperson |
|
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate
Justice |
RENATO
C. CORONA Associate Justice |
|
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate
Justice |
|
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by then Court of Appeals (CA) and later Supreme Court (SC) Associate Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr. (ret.), with then CA and later SC Associate Justice Antonio M. Martinez (ret.) and CA Associate Justice Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis (ret.), concurring; rollo, pp. 162-188.
[2] Id., at pp. 145-161.
[3] Id., at pp. 162-176.
[4] Id., at pp. 187-188.
[5] Id., at p. 189.
[6] Id., at pp. 14-189.
[7] Id., at p. 190.
[8] Id., at pp. 191-250.
[9] Id., at p. 252.
[10] Id., at pp. 280-317.
[11] Id., at pp. 409-466.
[12] Id., at pp. 477-491.
[13] Id., at pp. 497-498.
[14] Id., at pp. 499-547.
[15] Id., at p. 601.
[16] Id., at p. 652.
[17] Supra note 6.
[18] Id., at pp. 37-38.
[19] Id., at pp. 56-61.
[20] Id., at pp. 61-63.
[21] Id., at p. 529.
[22] Id., at p. 528. (citing TSN, July 17, 1989, pp.35-36)
[23] Id., at pp. 530-531.
[24] Tan v. People, G.R. No. 145006, August 30, 2006, 500 SCRA 172, 182.
[25] Lozano v. Martinez, No. L-63419, December 18, 1986, 146 SCRA 323, 338.
[26] Ricaforte v. Jurado, G.R. No. 154438, September 5, 2007, 532 SCRA 317, 330.
[27] Bax v. People, G.R. No. 149858, September 5, 2007, 532 SCRA 284, 291, citing King v. People, G.R. 131540, December 2, 1999, 319 SCRA 654.
[28] Lao v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119178, June 20, 1997, 274 SCRA 572, 594.
[29] Rollo, p. 529.
[30] Id., at p. 179.
[31] Rigor v. People, G.R. No. 144887, November 17, 2004, 442 SCRA 450, 462.
[32] Domangsang v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139292, December 5, 2000, 347 SCRA 75, 83.
[33] Domangsang v.
Court of Appeals, Id. at 84-85, Rico
v. People, G. R. No. 137191, November
18, 2002, 392 SCRA 61, 74; Bax v. People,
G.R. No. 149858, September
5, 2007, 532 SCRA 284, 292-293.
[34] Rollo, pp. 64-72.
[35] Id., at pp. 434-435.
[36] Id., at pp. 435-436.
[37] Id., at p. 437.
[38] Id., at p. 438.
[39] Id., at p. 439.
[40] Id., at pp. 439-440.
[41] Id., at p. 441.
[42] Id., at pp. 441-442.
[43] De Jesus v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127857, June 20, 2006, 491 SCRA 325, 333.
[44] R.R. Paredes v. Calilung, G.R. No. 156055, March 5, 2007, 517 SCRA 369, 393.
[45] Art.
315. Swindling (estafa). Any person
who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned herein below . . .
x x x
2. By
means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior
to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:
(a)
By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence,
qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions,
or by means of other similar deceits.
[46] Aricheta v. People, G.R. No. 172500, September 21, 2007, 533 SCRA 695, 704.
[47] Rollo, pp. 184-187.
[48] Art. 171. Falsification by public officer; employee or notary or ecclesiastical minister. The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts:
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.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any ecclesiastical minister who shall commit any of the offenses enumerated in the preceding paragraphs of this article, with respect to any record or document of such character that its falsification may affect the civil status of persons.
[49] Art. 48. Penalty for complex crimes. When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.
[50] Monteverde v. People, G.R. No. 139610, August 12, 2002, 387 SCRA 196, 208.
[51] Cf. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Book II, 2001 ed., p. 226.
[52] Supra note 47.
[53] Art. 172. Falsification by private individuals and use of falsified documents. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon:
1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the falsifications enumerated in the next preceding article in any public or official document or letter of exchange or any other kind of commercial document; and
2. Any person who, to the damage of a third party, or with the intent to cause such damage, shall in any private document commit any of the acts of falsification enumerated in the next preceding article.
Any person who shall knowingly introduce in evidence in any judicial proceeding or to the damage of another or who, with the intent to cause such damage, shall use any of the false documents embraced in the next preceding article or in any of the foregoing subdivisions of this article, shall be punished by the penalty next lower in degree.
[54] Art. 171. Falsification by public officer; employee or notary or ecclesiastical minister. The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts:
x x x
(4) Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
[55] Enemecio v. Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas), G.R. No. 146731, January 13, 2004, 419 SCRA 82, 91.
[56] Supra note 44.
[57] Rollo at 156.