Serrano vs.

CA

FACTS

On September 21, 1984, businessman Ramon C. Mojica met with Serrano and two other accused for the
purpose of buying US dollars for the importation of machinery spare parts for his blanket factory in Cainta,
Rizal. They agreed that Mojica would pay petitioner funded Philippine Peso checks in exchange for US
Dollar funded checks. The peso checks were encashed on September 24, 1984 by Serrano, and Mojica
deposited the dollar checks to his Foreign Currency Deposit Unit Savings Account only to find out several
weeks after that all the dollar checks were fraudulent. Mojica demanded the return of his money from
Serrano, however, failed to comply, hence, the filing of the three criminal cases against Serrano and two
other accused. By Decision of May 29, 1990, the trial court found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of three counts of estafa through falsification of commercial documents. Thereafter, Edna Sibal
signed a promissory note in favor of Mojica which superseded the promissory note of Edna Sibal signed
in favor of Serrano. To petitioner, the acceptance by Mojica of Ednas promise to pay effectively converted
or novated the transactions of the parties into ordinary creditor-debtor relationship, hence, Mojica is in
estoppel to insist on their original relationship and that she is exculpated from criminal liability.

ISSUE
Whether petitioner’s criminal liability is extinguished by novation.

RULING
No. Novation is not one of the grounds prescribed by the Revised Penal Code for the extinction of criminal
liability. It is well-settled that criminal liability for estafa is not affected by compromise or novation of
contract, for it is a public offense which must be prosecuted and punished by the Government on its own
motion though complete reparation should have been made of the damage suffered by the offended
party. A criminal offense is committed against the People and the offended party may not waive or
extinguish the criminal liability that the law imposes for the commission of the offense. The handwritten
memorandum, even assuming that the alleged promissory note of Edna mentioned therein actually exists,
cannot exculpate petitioner from criminal liability, especially in the absence of a showing that there was
an unmistakable intent to extinguish the original relationship between Mojica on the one hand, and
petitioner, Nelia and Edna on the other.

Adaza vs. Sandiganbayan

FACTS
Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) of 1st District of Zamboanga del Norte awarded to
Parents and Teachers Association (PTA) of Manawan National High School (MNHS) a contract for the
construction of a school building at an agreed consideration of P111,319.50. Upon the completion of the
project, PTA failed to receive the last installment payment amounting to P20,847.17.

PTA president Felix Mejorda (Mejorda) was informed by Hazel Peñaranda, DPWH Cashier, that the check
for P20,847.17 had been released to Ludwig H. Adaza (Adaza). Subsequently, Mejorda found out that
acknowledging receipt of the check bears his name and signature which was not his. He likewise noticed
that Adaza’s signature was affixed on the voucher. During that time, Adaza was municipal mayor of Jose
Dalman. Upon examination of DBP Check issued to payee, Mejorada noticed that there were two
signatures at the dorsal portion of it, his forged signature and another which he found to be that of Aristela
Adaza (Aristela), wife of Adaza.
The Office of the Ombudsman filed two Informations against Adaza. The Sadiganbayan found Adaza guilty
of the offense charged. It thereafter issued a Bench Warrant of Arrest. Hence, the filing of this petition.

ISSUE
Whether Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the falsification case against Adaza which was not in relation
to his position as municipal mayor.

RULING
In the instant case, there is no showing that the alleged falsification was committed by the accused, if at
all, as a consequence of, and while they were discharging, official functions. The information does not
allege that there was an intimate connection between the discharge of official duties and the commission
of the offense.

Clearly therefore, as the alleged falsification was not an offense committed in relation to the office of the
accused, it did not come under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. It follows that all its acts in the
instant case are null and void ab initio.

Gonzaludo vs. People

FACTS
Before his death in 1992, one Ulysses Villaflor married Anita Manlangit. Eventually, the two had to live
separately due to the nature of their jobs. Ulysses was re-assigned to Bacolod City. And in December 1978,
he was able to buy a small house located in Bacolod City.

Then, in 1985, Ulysses took one Rosemarie Gelogo as his mistress and brought her into the house. In time,
improvements were made on the house. What used to be a small house, which Ulysses bought for only
P1,500.00, was thus transformed into a 2-storey structure partially made of concrete hollow blocks and
with galvanized iron roofing which thereby enhanced its value to P200,000.00.
After Ulysses’s demise, his mistress Rosemarie Gelogo offered to sell the 2-storey house forP80,000.00 to
herein petitioner Bienvenido Gonzaludo. He did not buy the house, but he convinced the spouses Gregg
Canlas and Melba Canlas, to whom he is related by affinity, to buy the same.
Rosemarie Gelogo and Gregg Canlas executed a Deed of Sale, witnessed by petitioner. In that deed,
Rosemarie Gelogo signed as Rosemarie G. Villaflor and represented herself to be the lawful owner of the
2-storey house.

Later, Ulysses’s widow Anita Manlangit filed an information charging Rosemarie Gelogo, alias Rosemarie
Villaflor, the spouses Gregg Canlas and Melba Canlas and petitioner with the crime of Estafa thru
Falsification of Public Document. While Gelogo remained at large and spouses Canlas were acquitted,
petitioner Gonzaludo was convicted of such crime. Petitioner alleged that he should not be convicted of
the crime of Estafa thru Falsification of Public Document because not all elements of the crime are
present.

ISSUE
Whether petitioner Gonzaludo committed the crime of Estafa thru Falsification of Public Document.

RULING
Gonzaldo did not commit the crime of estafa, but he did commit the crime of falsification of public
document.
To secure conviction for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code, the following
requisites must concur: (1) that the accused made false pretenses or fraudulent representations as to his
power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; (2) that such
false pretenses or fraudulent representations were made prior to or simultaneous with the commission
of the fraud; (3) that such false pretenses or fraudulent representations constitute the very cause which
induced the offended party to part with his money or property; and (4) that as a result thereof, the
offended party suffered damage.

There is no question that the first, second and fourth elements are present. It is petitioner’s thesis,
however, that there is here an absence of the third element, i.e., “that such false pretenses or fraudulent
representations constitute the very cause which induced the offended party to part with his money or
property,” contending that private complainant Anita Manlangit, who was the offended party in this case,
was never induced to part with any money or property by means of fraud, committed simultaneously with
the false pretense or fraudulent representation by Rosemarie.
While it may be said that there was fraud or deceit committed by Rosemarie in this case, when she used
the surname “Villaflor” to give her semblance of authority to sell the subject 2-storey house, such fraud
or deceit was employed upon the Canlas spouses who were the ones who parted with their money when
they bought the house. However, the Information charging Rosemarie of estafa in the present case,
alleged damage or injury not upon the Canlas spouses, but upon private complainant, Anita Manlangit.
Since the deceit or fraud was not the efficient cause and did not induce Anita Manlangit to part with her
property in this case, Rosemarie cannot be held liable for estafa. With all the more reason must this be
for herein petitioner Gonzaludo.

The lack of criminal liability for estafa, however, will not necessarily absolve petitioner from criminal
liability arising from the charge of falsification of public document.

As correctly found by the trial court, petitioner conspired with Rosemarie to falsify, by declaring
Rosemarie to be the owner of the house subject of such sale and signing as “Rosemarie Villaflor” instead
of her real name, Rosemarie Gelogo, in order to sell the same to the Canlas spouses. It is established by
evidence beyond reasonable doubt that Rosemarie committed the crime of falsification of public
document. Likewise, proof beyond reasonable doubt has been duly adduced to establish conspiracy
between Rosemarie and petitioner Gonzalugo.

Batulanon vs. People

FACTS
Polomok Credit Cooperative Incorporated (PCCI) employed Leonila Batulanon as its Cashier/Manager
from May 1980 up to December 22, 1982. She was in charge of receiving deposits from and releasing loans
to the member of the cooperative.

During an audit conducted in December 1982, certain irregularities concerning the release of loans were
discovered. It was found that Batulanon falsified four commercial documents, all checks/cash vouchers
representing granted loans to different persons namely: Omadlao, Oracion, Arroyo and Dennis Batulanon,
making it appear that said names were granted a loan and received the amount of the checks/cash
vouchers when in truth and in fact the said persons never received a grant, never received the checks,
and never signed the check vouchers issued in their names. In furtherance, Batulanon released to herself
the checks and received the loans and thereafter misappropriated and converted it to her own use and
benefit.
Thereafter, four Informations for Estafa through Falsification of Commercial Documents were filed against
Batulanon. The prosecution presented Medallo, Gopio, Jr. and Jayoma as witnesses. Medallo, the posting
clerk whose job was to assist Batulanon in the preparation of cash vouchers testified that Batulanon
forged the signatures of Omadlao, Oracion and Arroyo. Gopio, Jr. stated that Oracion is Batulanon’ sister-
in-law and 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.

On April 15, 1993, the trial court rendered a Decision convicting Batulanon of Estafa through Falsification
of Commercial Documents. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court, hence this
petition.

ISSUE
Whether the crime committed by Batulanon was Falsification of Private Documents.

RULING
Yes. Although the offense charged in the Information is Estafa through Falsification of Commercial
Documents, Batulanon could be convicted of Falsification of Private Documents under the well-settled
rule that it is the allegation in the information that determines the nature of the offense and not the
technical name given in the preamble of the information.

As there is no complex crime of Estafa through Falsification of Private Documents, 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 is Estafa. We find that the Court of Appeals correctly held Batulanon guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of Falsification of Private Documents in the cases of Omadlao, Oracion and Arroyo.

In the case of Dennis Batulanon, records show that Batulanon did not falsify the signature of Dennis. What
she did was to sign: “by: Ibatulanon” 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 is
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 Batulanon is also guilty of
Falsification of Private Document with respect to the case involving the cash voucher of Dennis Batulanon.

Borlongan vs. People

FACTS
Respondent Magdaleno Peña instituted a civil case for recovery of agent’s compensation and
expenses, damages, and attorney’s fees, against Urban Bank and the petitioners, before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Negros Occidental, Bago City.

Respondent anchored his claim for compensation on the contract of agency, allegedly entered
into with the petitioners wherein the former undertook to perform such acts necessary to prevent
any intruder and squatter from unlawfully occupying Urban Bank’s property located along Roxas
Boulevard, Pasay City.
Petitioners filed a MD arguing that they never appointed the respondent as agent or counsel.
-Attached to the MD were the following documents:
 A letter dated December 19, 1994 signed by Herman Ponce and Julie Abad on behalf of
Isabela Sugar Company, Inc. (ISCI), the original owner of the subject property;
An unsigned letter dated December 7, 1994 addressed to Corazon Bejasa from Marilyn G. Ong;
 A letter dated December 9, 1994 addressed to Teodoro Borlongan and signed by
Marilyn G. Ong; and
 A Memorandum dated November 20, 1994 from Enrique Montilla III.

The above stated documents were presented in an attempt to show that the respondent was
appointed as agent by ISCI and not by Urban Bank or by the petitioners.

Respondent Peña filed his Complaint-Affidavit with the Office of the City Prosecutor, Bago City. He claimed
that said documents were falsified because the alleged signatories did not actually affix their signatures,
and the signatories were neither stockholders nor officers and employees of ISCI. Worse, petitioners
introduced said documents as evidence before the RTC knowing that they were falsified.

The Prosecutor concluded that the petitioners were probably guilty of four (4) counts of the crime of
Introducing Falsified Documents penalized by the second paragraph of Article 172 of the Revised Penal
Code (RPC). The City Prosecutor concluded that the documents were falsified because the alleged
signatories untruthfully stated that ISCI was the principal of the respondent; that petitioners knew that
the documents were falsified considering that the signatories were mere dummies; and that the
documents formed part of the record of Civil Case No. 754 where they were used by petitioners as
evidence in support of their motion to dismiss, adopted in their answer and later, in their Pre- Trial Brief.
Subsequently, the corresponding Informations were filed with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC),
Bago City.

ISSUE
Whether such acts constitute Falsification of Documents

RULING
No. We find the complaint-affidavit and attachments insufficient to support the existence of probable
cause. Specifically, the respondent failed to sufficiently establish prima facie that the alleged documents
were falsified. In support of his claim of falsity of the documents, the private respondent stated in his
complaint-affidavit that the alleged signatories of the questioned letters, did not actually affix their
signatures; and that they were not actually officers or stockholders of ISCI.4He further claimed that
Enrique Montilla's signature appearing in another memorandum addressed to respondent was forged.
These are mere assertions, insufficient to warrant the filing of the complaint or the issuance of the warrant
of arrest.

It must be emphasized that the affidavit of the complainant, or any of his witnesses, shall allege facts
within their (affiants) personal knowledge. The allegation of the respondent that the signatures of Ponce,
Abad, Ong and Montilla were falsified does not qualify as personal knowledge. Nowhere in said affidavit
did respondent state that he was present at the time of the execution of the documents. Neither did he
claim that he was familiar with the signatures of the signatories.

At the very least, the affidavit was based on respondent's "personal belief" and not "personal
knowledge."50 Considering the lack of personal knowledge on the part of the respondent, he could have
submitted the affidavit of other persons who are qualified to attest to the falsity of the signatures
appearing in the questioned documents. One cannot just claim that a certain document is falsified without
further stating the basis for such claim, i.e., that he was present at the time of the execution of the
document or he is familiar with the signatures in question. Otherwise, this could lead to abuse and
malicious prosecution. This is actually the reason for the requirement that affidavits must be based on the
personal knowledge of the affiant. The requirement assumes added importance in the instant case where
the accused were not made to rebut the complainant's allegation through counter-affidavits.

The elements of the offense are as follows:

1. That the offender knew that a document was falsified by another person.

2. That the false document is embraced in Article 171 or in any subdivisions No. 1 or 2 of Article 172.

3. That he introduced said document in evidence in any judicial proceeding.

Eugenio vs. People

FACTS
Petitioner Lolita Eugenio is a commissioned agent of respondent Alfredo Mangali in his check re-
discounting and lending business. Eugenio persuaded Mangali to extend loans to various individuals. Two
parcels of land, covered by TCT No. 171602 and TCT No. 92585, were offered as securities for the loans.
Mangali thereafter extended loans with a condition that the borrowers shall execute Deed of Sale.
The loans lapsed and remained unpaid. Mangali inquired from the Register of Deeds the status of TCT
Nos. 171602 and 92585. He found out that TCT No. 171602 had been cancelled in 1995 while TCT No.
92585 is not registered with the Register of Deeds. Mangali sought the help of the NBI and an entrapment
operation was conducted. A Complaint for Estafa thru Falsification of Public Documents was filed against
Eugenio. The RTC convicted Eugenio of one count of Estafa thru Falsification of Public Documents. The
Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. Hence, the filing of this petition. Eugenio avers
that the prosecution failed to prove that their was conspiracy between her and the borrowers to defraud
Mangali. She further avers that the entrapment operation was illegal due to some irregularities which
attended her arrest.

ISSUE
Whether petitioner is guilty of Estafa thru Falsification of Public Documents.

RULING
No. Here, petitioner's acts which the lower courts considered as constitutive of her complicity in the
supposed plot to swindle Mangali consisted of the following: (1) petitioner was the one who brought
Saquitan, Ty, and Ablaza to Mangali; (2) petitioner was present in all the occasions Mangali met Saquitan,
Ty, and Ablaza; (3) petitioner confirmed that TCT No. 171602 was registered with the Register of Deeds of
Manila when in fact it was already cancelled; and (4) the real "Epifania Saquitan" denied mortgaging the
Sta. Ana property to Mangali. By themselves, these circumstances can plausibly pass muster to prove
petitioner's involvement in a plan among the accused to swindle Mangali.

As Mangali's agent, petitioner is obliged to bring prospective borrowers to Mangali; otherwise, she will
not earn commissions. This also explains why she was present in all the ocassions Mangali met Saquitan
and Ty - she was pecuniarily interested in seeing to it that the deals she brokered were consummated to
enable her to receive commission from Mangali.
At any rate, for the presumption of authorship of falsification to apply, the possessor must stand to profit
or had profited from the use of the falsified document.Here, the extent of petitioner's participation on
Ty's loan was to bring Ty (and Ablaza) to Mangali. The prosecution failed to show any proof that petitioner
received a portion of the loan Mangali extended to Ty, just as there is no proof on record that she received
any share from the loan Mangali extended to Saquitan. Petitioner is not a party to any of the documents
Mangali, Ty, and Saquitan signed.

Panuncio vs. People

FACTS
On August 3, 1992 around 4pm, the LTO and a special task force led by PNP Superintendent Panfilo Lacson
and Police Senior Inspector Cesar Ouano Jr., with search warrant issued by RTC judge Pardo raided the
residence of Panuncio a jeepney operator in Quezon City. They confiscated LTO documents and 17 pieces
of private vehicle plates, copying machine, typewriters and other tools.
Panuncio signed a certification of orderly search with Brgy. Chairman Manalo, Panuncio's employee
Velasco and Nidua. They all signed the receipt of property seized issued by PO3 Abuda. Panuncio and one
Jaime Lopez were arrested.

LTO filed a complaint against Panuncio for violation of Articles 171, 172, 176 and 315 of RPC (on falsified
documents). Lopez was not charge because Lopez was just a visitor when the raid took place.
Panuncio filed a motion for reinvestigation which RTC QC granted which gave prosecutor 20 days to
submit his report on the reinvestigation. DOJ thenn recommended for Panuncio be prosecuted for
falsification. RTC set the arraingment and June 28, 1994 Panuncio entered a plea of not guilty.
During the trial, the falsified documents was presented (showing Manlite as the owner) but which the
petitioner denied that she was the source of falsified documents. She alleged that Manlite which she co-
own with her husband before has stopped operating and her business now is under the name of Rosario
Panuncio. She alleged that she was not at home when the raid took place, that she was just forced to sign
the search warrant, inventory receipt and certificate of orderly search.
RTC decision: Panuncio is guilty of falsification. CA affirmed RTC’s decision.

ISSUE
Whether the elements of falsification of a public document under Article 172(1) in relation to Article 171
of the RPC have been established.

RULING
Yes. Petitioner failed to raise the issue of the defective information before the trial court through a motion
for bill of particulars or a motion to quash the information. Petitioner’s failure to object to the allegation
in the information before she entered her plea of not guilty amounted to a waiver of the defect in the
information.The elements of falsification of documents under paragraph 1, Article 172 of the RPC are:
(1) that the offender is a private individual or a public officer or employee who did not take advantage of
his official position;
(2) that he committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Article 171 of the RPC; and
(3) that the falsification was committed in a public, official or commercial document.
The falsified copy of MVRR No. 63231478 was found during a valid search conducted in petitioner’s
residence. It was issued in the name of Manlite which petitioner admitted as co-owned by her together
with her late husband. Thus, there is a presumption that she falsified it and she was using it for her benefit.