THIRD DIVISION
|
MARK CLEMENTE y Petitioner, - versus - |
G.R. No. 194367 Present: BRION, J., Acting Chairperson, BERSAMIN, VILLARAMA, JR., SERENO, JJ. |
|
PEOPLE OF THE Respondent. |
Promulgated: June 15, 2011 |
x- - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -x
DECISION
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule
45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, seeking to reverse
the March 29, 2010 Decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals (CA) which denied petitioner's appeal and affirmed the
November 3, 2008 Judgment[2]
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 7, convicting petitioner of
illegal possession and use of false bank notes under Article 168[3]
of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended. Also assailed is the CA Resolution
dated
Petitioner was charged before the RTC with violation of Article
168 of the RPC under an Information[5] which reads:
That
on or about August 5,
SERIAL
NO. PCS. AMOUNT SERIAL NO. PCS. AMOUNT
PX626388 1 P500.00 CC077337 1
P500.00
CC077337 1 500.00 CC077337 1
500.00
CC077337 1 500.00 CC077337 1
500.00
BR666774 1 500.00 CC077337 1 500.00
CC077337 1 500.00 BR666774 1 500.00
BB020523 1 500.00 BR666774 1 500.00
PX626388 1 500.00 CC077337 1 500.00
BR666774 1 500.00 WW164152 1 500.00
PX626388 1 500.00 WW164152 1 500.00
BR666774 1 500.00 BR666774 1 500.00
UU710062 1 500.00 PX626388 1 500.00
CC077337 1 500.00 PX626388 1 500.00
Which are false and falsified.
Contrary to law.
Upon arraignment, petitioner entered a plea of not guilty.
Trial thereafter ensued.
The version of the prosecution and the defense, as summarized
by the CA, are as follows:[6]
The prosecution presented three (3) witnesses, namely: Jail
Officer 1 (JO1) Michael Michelle Passilan, the Investigator of the Manila City
Jail; JO1 Domingo David, Jr.; and Loida Marcega Cruz, the Assistant Manager of
the Cash Department of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.
[Their testimonies established the following:]
Appellant is a detainee at the Manila City Jail. On
Meanwhile, the twenty-four (24) P500.00 bills confiscated
from appellant were turned over to the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas for
analysis. Pursuant to a Certification dated August 7, 2007, Acting Assistant Manager
Loida Marcega Cruz of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas examined and found
the following bills as counterfeit, viz: one (1) P500.00 bill with Serial
Number BB020523; six (6) P500.00 bills with Serial Number BR666774; nine (9)
P500.00 bills with Serial Number CC077337; five (5) P500.00 bills with Serial
Number PX626388; one (1) P500.00 bill with Serial Number UU710062; and two (2)
P500.00 bills with Serial Number WW164152.
For the defense, appellant was the lone witness presented on
the stand.
Appellant simply raised the defense of frame-up. He testified
that in the afternoon of
After trial, the RTC found petitioner guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime charged. The RTC gave credence to the
prosecution's witnesses in finding that the counterfeit money were discovered
in petitioner's possession during a surprise inspection, and that the
possibility that the counterfeit money were planted to incriminate petitioner
was almost nil considering the number of pieces involved.[7]
The RTC also did not find that the jail officers were motivated by improper
motive in arresting petitioner,[8]
and applied in their favor the presumption of regularity in the performance of
official duties considering the absence of contrary evidence. As to petitioners defense of frame-up, the
RTC held that the purported frame-up allegedly staged by JO1 Passilan would not
affect the prosecution's evidence since the testimony of JO1 David could stand
by itself. The RTC likewise found that
it was strange that petitioner did not remonstrate despite the fact that he was
allegedly being framed.[9]
As to the elements of the crime, the RTC held that the fact
that the P500.00 bills found in petitioners possession were forgeries was
confirmed by the certification issued by the Cash Department of the Bangko
Sentral ng Pilipinas, which was testified into by Acting Assistant Manager
Loida A. Cruz.[10]
The RTC also ruled that petitioner knew the bills were counterfeit as shown by
his conduct during the surprise search and his possession of the bills. As to
the element of intention to use the false bank notes, the RTC ruled that the
fact that petitioner intended to use the bills was confirmed by the information
received by the jail officers from another inmate.[11]
Aggrieved, petitioner
sought reconsideration of the judgment.
Petitioner argued that the evidence used against him was obtained in
violation of his constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Petitioner also argued that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt because of the non-presentation of the informant-inmate,
Francis dela Cruz, who could have corroborated the testimonies of the jail
officers.
Unconvinced, the RTC denied petitioners motion for reconsideration. The RTC, however, only ruled that there was
no violation of petitioners constitutional right against unreasonable searches
and seizures because the seizure was done pursuant to a valid arrest for
violation of Article 168 of the RPC. The
trial court pointed out that prior to the search, a crime was committed and the
criminal responsibility pointed to petitioner.[12]
On appeal before the CA, petitioner argued that the RTC erred
in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating Article 168 of the
RPC. Petitioner contended that one of the elements of the crime which is intent
to use the counterfeit bills was not established because the informant Francis
dela Cruz did not take the witness stand.[13]
The CA, however, found
the appeal unmeritorious and denied petitioners appeal.[14]
The appellate court found that the fact the petitioner was caught in possession
of twenty-four (24) pieces of fake P500.00 bills already casts doubt on
his allegation that he was merely framed by the jail guards. The CA agreed with
the RTC that even without the testimony of JO1 Passilan, the testimony of JO1
David was already sufficient to establish petitioners guilt since petitioner
did not impute any ill motive on the latter except to point out that JO1 David
was JO1 Passilans friend.[15]
Regarding the element of intent to use, the CA found that
there are several circumstances which, if taken together, lead to the logical
conclusion that petitioner intended to use the counterfeit bills in his
possession. The CA pointed out that jail officers were informed by inmate
Francis dela Cruz that he received a fake P500.00 bill from petitioner
who told him to buy soft drinks from the P500.00
bills inside petitioner's black wallet, which was taken from his back pocket.
The CA further held that the non-presentation of Francis dela Cruz would not
affect the prosecution's case because even without his testimony, petitioners
intent to use the counterfeit bills was established. The CA added that the
matter of which witnesses to present is a matter best left to the discretion of
the prosecution.[16]
Petitioner sought reconsideration of the above ruling, but
the CA denied petitioners motion for reconsideration in the assailed
Resolution dated
Petitioner raises the following assignment of errors, to
wit:
I.
THE COURT OF
APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, CONVICTING
PETITIONER OF THE CRIME CHARGED, DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO
PROVE AN ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE.
II.
THE COURT OF
APPEALS ERRED IN NOT EXCLUDING THE COUNTERFEIT BILLS SINCE THEY WERE DERIVED
FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE.[18]
The petition is meritorious.
Generally, the trial
courts findings are accorded finality, unless there appears in the record some
fact or circumstance of weight which the lower court has overlooked,
misunderstood or misappreciated, and which, if properly considered, would alter
the result of the case. The
exception applies when it is established that the trial court has ignored, overlooked,
misconstrued or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances which, if
considered, will change the outcome of the case.[19]
Here, the Court finds that the RTC and the CA had overlooked
certain substantial facts of value to warrant a reversal of its factual
assessments. While petitioner's denial is an intrinsically weak defense which
must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credence,
said defense must be given credence in this case as the prosecution failed to
meet its burden of proof.
Article 168 of the RPC, under which petitioner was charged,
provides:
ART. 168. Illegal possession and use of false treasury or bank notes and other instruments of credit. Unless the act be one of those coming under the provisions of any of the preceding articles, any person who shall knowingly use or have in his possession, with intent to use any of the false or falsified instruments referred to in this section, shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed in said articles. [Emphasis supplied.]
The elements of the crime charged for violation of said law are:
(1) that any treasury or bank note or certificate or other obligation and
security payable to bearer, or any instrument payable to order or other
document of credit not payable to bearer is forged or falsified by another
person; (2) that the offender knows that any of the said instruments is forged
or falsified; and (3) that he either used or possessed with intent to use any of such forged or falsified
instruments.[20]
As held in People v. Digoro, [21] possession of false treasury or bank
notes alone, without anything more, is not a criminal offense. For it to
constitute an offense under Article 168 of the RPC, the possession must be with intent to use said false
treasury or bank notes.[22]
In this case, the prosecution failed to show that petitioner
used the counterfeit money or that he intended to use the counterfeit bills. Francis
dela Cruz, to whom petitioner supposedly gave the fake P500.00 bill to
buy soft drinks, was not presented in court.
According to the jail officers, they were only informed by Francis dela
Cruz that petitioner asked the latter to buy soft drinks at the P500.00 bill. In short, the jail officers did
not have personal knowledge that petitioner asked Francis dela Cruz use the P500.00
bill.[23]
Their account, however, is hearsay and not based on the personal knowledge.[24]
This Court, of course, is not unaware of its rulings that the
matter of presentation of prosecution witnesses is not for the accused or,
except in a limited sense, for the trial court to dictate. Discretion belongs
to the city or provincial prosecutor as to how the prosecution should present
its case.[25] However, in this case, the
non-presentation of the informant as witness weakens the prosecution's evidence
since he was the only one who had knowledge of the act which manifested
petitioner's intent to use a counterfeit bill. The prosecution had every
opportunity to present Francis dela Cruz as its witness, if in fact such person
existed, but it did not present him.
Hence, the trial court did not have before it evidence of an essential element
of the crime. The twenty-three (23)
pieces of counterfeit bills allegedly seized on petitioner is not sufficient to
show intent, which is a state of mind, for there must be an overt act to
manifest such intent.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED. The Decision dated March 29,
2010 and Resolution dated October 14, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CR No. 32365 are REVERSED and SET-ASIDE.
Petitioner Mark Clemente y Martinez alias Emmanuel Dino is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime of Illegal possession and use of false bank
notes defined and penalized under Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code,
as amended.
With costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate
Justice |
||
|
WE
CONCUR: ARTURO D. BRION Associate
Justice Acting
Chairperson |
|||
|
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate
Justice |
JOSE CATRAL Associate
Justice |
||
|
MARIA Associate
Justice |
|||
|
|||
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
|
|
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice Acting Chairperson, Third Division |
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the 1987 Constitution and the Division Chairpersons Attestation, I
certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Courts Division.
|
|
RENATO C. CORONA Chief
Justice |
* Designated additional member per Raffle
dated
[1] Rollo, pp. 27-43. Penned by Justice Ramon R. Garcia with Justices
Rosalinda
[2]
WHEREFORE,
this Court finds accused Mark Clemente y Martinez a.k.a. Emmanuel Dino GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of a violation of Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code
for Illegal Possession and Use of False Bank Notes which is penalized under
Article 168 of the same Code.
There
being neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstance alleged nor proven,
pursuant to the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, this Court
imposes upon said Mark Clemente y Martinez a.k.a. Emmanuel Dino an
indeterminate penalty of EIGHT (8) YEARS
and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor in its medium period as minimum to TEN
(10) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor in its
medium period as maximum and to pay a
FINE OF FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00).
The
preventive imprisonment accused has undertaken shall be CREDITED to the service of his sentence.
In
contemplation of Circular No. 61, Series of 1995, issued by the Bangko Sentral
ng Pilipinas, the Branch Sheriff of this Court is directed to TRANSMIT the twenty[-four] (24) pieces
of P500.00 bills found to be counterfeit to the Cash Department of the Bangko
Sentral ng Pilipinas for proper disposition.
With
costs de oficio against the accused.
SO
ORDERED.
[3] Article 168. Illegal possession and use of false treasury or bank notes and other instruments of credit.Unless the act be one of those coming under the provisions of any of the preceding articles, any person who shall knowingly use or have in his possession, with intent to use any of the false or falsified instruments referred to in this section, shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed in said articles.
[4] Rollo, pp. 45-46.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14] The
dispositive portion reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
appeal is hereby DENIED. The
Judgment dated
SO ORDERED.
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19] Ortega v. People,
G.R. No. 177944,
[20] Tecson v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 113218,
[21] G.R.
No. L-22032,
[22] People v. Digoro, G.R. No. L-22032,
[23] Rule 130, Section 36. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge; hearsay excluded. A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own perception, except as otherwise provided in these Rules. (30a)
[24] PNOC
Shipping & Transport Corp. v. CA, 358 Phil. 38, 56 (1998); Phil.
Home Assurance Corp. v. CA, 327 Phil. 255, 267-268 (1996); Valencia
v. Atty. Cabanting, Adm. Cases Nos. 1302, 1391 and 1543, April 26, 1991, 196
SCRA 302, 310.
[25] People v.
Sariol, G.R. No. 83809,