The Supreme Court ruled that probable cause exists that the petitioner conspired to falsify three deeds of absolute sale involving land that was owned by the respondent's deceased grandparents. While the petitioner claims he only witnessed the signatures and was unaware of any falsification, evidence shows the deeds were antedated as the sales actually occurred years after one grandfather had already passed away. Fingerprint analysis also found the signatures of the deceased grandparents on the deeds did not match their authentic signatures. The Court affirmed the finding of probable cause, as evidence more likely than not shows a crime was committed and the petitioner was involved.
The Supreme Court ruled that probable cause exists that the petitioner conspired to falsify three deeds of absolute sale involving land that was owned by the respondent's deceased grandparents. While the petitioner claims he only witnessed the signatures and was unaware of any falsification, evidence shows the deeds were antedated as the sales actually occurred years after one grandfather had already passed away. Fingerprint analysis also found the signatures of the deceased grandparents on the deeds did not match their authentic signatures. The Court affirmed the finding of probable cause, as evidence more likely than not shows a crime was committed and the petitioner was involved.
The Supreme Court ruled that probable cause exists that the petitioner conspired to falsify three deeds of absolute sale involving land that was owned by the respondent's deceased grandparents. While the petitioner claims he only witnessed the signatures and was unaware of any falsification, evidence shows the deeds were antedated as the sales actually occurred years after one grandfather had already passed away. Fingerprint analysis also found the signatures of the deceased grandparents on the deeds did not match their authentic signatures. The Court affirmed the finding of probable cause, as evidence more likely than not shows a crime was committed and the petitioner was involved.
The Supreme Court ruled that probable cause exists that the petitioner conspired to falsify three deeds of absolute sale involving land that was owned by the respondent's deceased grandparents. While the petitioner claims he only witnessed the signatures and was unaware of any falsification, evidence shows the deeds were antedated as the sales actually occurred years after one grandfather had already passed away. Fingerprint analysis also found the signatures of the deceased grandparents on the deeds did not match their authentic signatures. The Court affirmed the finding of probable cause, as evidence more likely than not shows a crime was committed and the petitioner was involved.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 4
SUBJECT: TOPIC: Date Made: Digest Maker:
CRIM 2 ART. 171 19 February 2016 Mike Natividad
CASE NAME: Lastrilla vs. Granda PONENTE: J. Puno Case Date: 31 Jan 2006 Case Summary: Respondent charged petitioner for conspiring in the falsification of three Deeds of Absolute Sale, where petitioner signed as wtiness, over parcels of land owned by respondents deceased grandparents. He found that the Deeds were antedated as the sales took place in 1999 or 2000 but the Deed was dated in 1985, and that the signatures of his grandparents, who were already deceased, were forged. Although the Office of the City Prosecutor and the DOJ Secretary dismissed the complaint against the petitioner, the Court of Appeals found probable cause against petitioner and ordered the Office of the Prosecutor to file informations against petitioner for violations under Art. 172 (1) in relation to Art. 171 (1), (2) and (5) of the RPC. Affirming the Court of Appeals decision, the Supreme Court ruled that in the falsification of public or official documents, it is not necessary that there be present the idea of gain or the intent to injure a third person for the reason that in the falsification of a public document, the principal thing punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed. Rules of Law: Articles 172 (1) and 171 (1), (2) and (5) of the Revised Penal Code.
A finding of probable cause need only to rest on evidence that more likely than not a crime has been committed and was committed by the suspectsprobable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt and definitely not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt.
The effect of a presumption upon the burden of proof is to create the need of presenting evidence to overcome the prima facie case created, thereby which, if no contrary proof is offered, will prevail.
The absence of damage does not necessarily imply that there can be no falsification as it is merely an element to be considered to determine whether or not there is criminal intent to commit falsification; It is a settled rule that in the falsification of public or official documents, it is not necessary that there be present the idea of gain or intent to injure a third person.
Detailed Facts: Respondent is a grandson and legal heir of the deceased Granda spouses, Rafael and Aurora, who died in June 1989 and September 16, 2000, respectively. The spouses had ten children.
During Auroras lifetime, she owned several parcels of land in Tacloban registered in her name.
Said parcels of land were allegedly sold by the Granda spouses as evidenced by the deeds of absolute sale, all dated December 7, 1985, witnessed by petitioner and the the deceased spouses youngest daughter Silvina and notarized by Atty. Camilo Camenforte. BLOCK D 2019 1 The three deeds involved: 1. Two parcels of land in favor of petitioners siblings for P3,800,000.00 2. Two parcels of land in favor of petitioners siblings for P5,000,000.00 3. Three parcels of land in favor of petitioner and his spouse for P200,000.00
On February 21, 2001 or more than five months after Auroras death, respondent filed the instant complaint for Violation of Articles 171 and 172 of the Revised Penal Code against petitioner, Silvina, Atty. Camenforte, and petitioners siblings, claiming that all the latters properties in Tacloban were sold to different persons sometime in 1999-2000.
Respondent was able to obtain copies of three deeds of absolute sale and noticed that the signatures of his deceased grandparent were falsified. This was confirmed by the PNP Crime Laboratory, which also found that the signatures of his deceased grandfather and the signatures of the deceased spouses youngest daughter Silvina reveal some similarities in stroke structure, indicative of one writer. The signatures of respondents grandmother Aurora in the questioned deeds and her specimen signatures were not written by one and the same person.
Respondent also claimed that the three deeds of absolute sale were antedated. While the sales took place in 1999 or 2000, it was made to appear that the transactions took place on December 7, 1985, at a time when both of the Granda spouses were still alive.
Respondent claimed that petitioner conspired with Silvina and Atty. Camenforte in falsifying the three deeds by signing as an instrumental witness therein, and that petitioner and the other vendees conspired by benefiting from the use of said public documents in transferring the titles of the properties from the name of Aurora to their names.
Petitioners sibling Elsa Uy averred that sometime in 1998, Aurora repeatedly offered the sale of the subject properties to her, and that she agreed to buy Auroras properties for a total consideration of P18,000,000 subject to conditions. Aurora allegedly agreed to the said terms and increase in the total consideration from P18,000,000 to P18,800,000.
Petitioner claims that it was only only Elsa and Aurora who negotiated for the sale of the properties in question. His other siblings participated only with respect to their respective contributions to the purchase price and he was the one tasked to ensure that the signatures on the subject deeds were all authentic and genuine as they were parting with millions of hard earned money. Upon Auroras request, he readily agreed to affix his signatures in the subject deeds as a witness, thinking that such act would seal the validity of the sale. He contended that the fact that the sale was only registered on February 28, 2000 is not evidence of falsification.
The Office of the City Prosecution of Tacloban dismissed the complaint against petitioner ruling that It is highly improbable for someone to part with such an amount as a consideration for the purchase of a property and at the same time conspire to forge the very same documents that is the basis of the sale. Why pay P18.8M and risk losing the said amount on a forged document?
The then DOJ Secretary Hernando B. Perez also dismissed the complaint upon review BLOCK D 2019 2 holding that no evidence has been presented to substantiate the charge [of falsification], that it is unclear how [petitioner] participated in the falsification of the subject documents, and that there is not criminal intent on the part of the petitioner in falsifying the subject documents.
The CA, upon review, modified the DOJ resolution finding probable cause against petitioner, directing the Office of the Prosecutor to file informations against him for violations under Art. 172 (1) in relation to Art. 171 (1), (2) and (5) of the Revised Penal Code because (1) he knew that the three deeds were falsified and despite such knowledge, still signed them as instrumental witness, (2) he was personally and directly responsible for registering the falsified deeds with the Register of Deeds, (3) he caused the cancellation of the Transfer Certificates of Title in the name of Aurora Granda and effected the issuance of the new Transfer Certificates of Title. Issue: Regarding falsification, the Court just summarily said all of the elements of falsification in Articles 172 (1) and 171 (1), (2) and (5) of the Revised Penal Code are present without explaining how.
The main issue is on the probable cause to engender the belief that petitioner is one of the authors of the falsification. - YES Holding: PROBABLE CAUSE IN PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIONS RULE/DOCTRINE In a preliminary investigation, probable cause for the filing of an information by the prosecutor has been defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief, in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted.
It is well-settled that a finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence
showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed and was committed by the suspects. Probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and definitely not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt.
APPLICATION TO THE CASE
From the records, there is no question that petitioner signed as an instrumental witness to the subject deeds of absolute sale. As such, he attested that the Granda spouses, as vendors, signed the said deeds in his presence on December 7, 1985. By petitioners own admission, however, the negotiations for the sales only started in 1998, thus, the deeds were admittedly antedated.
The investigating prosecutor, the DOJ and the CA also unanimously found probable cause to believe that the signatures of the Granda spouses were falsified as evidenced by: (a) the PNP Crime Laboratory report which concluded that the specimen signatures of the spouses did not match the signatures affixed in the subject deeds; and (b) the undisputed fact that vendor-spouse Rafael died in June 1989.
BLOCK D 2019 3 EVIDENCE; PRESUMPTIONS RULE/DOCTRINE The disputable presumption is that a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary act and takes ordinary care of his concerns.
The effect of a presumption upon the burden of proof is to create the need of presenting evidence to overcome the prima facie case created, thereby which, if no contrary proof is offered, will prevail.
APPLICATION TO THE CASE
This presumption assumes greater significance to the case of petitioner who, as the one tasked [by his siblings] to ensure that the signatures on the subject deeds were all authentic and genuine, is naturally expected to not have voluntarily affixed his signature in the subject deeds unless he understood the clear significance of his act.
FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS; CRIMINAL INTENT
RULE/DOCTRINE Criminal intent is a mental state, the existence of which is shown by the overt acts of a person.
The absence of damage does not necessarily imply that there can be no falsification as it is merely an element to be considered to determine whether or not there is criminal intent to commit falsification.
In the falsification of public or official documents, it is not necessary that there
be present the idea of gain or the intent to injure a third person for the reason that in the falsification of a public document, the principal thing punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed.
APPLICATION TO THE CASE
Petitioners voluntary acts of: (a) signing as witness to the three antedated notarized deeds of absolute sale, attesting that the Granda spouses, as vendors, signed the same in his presence, when there is probable cause to believe that such signatures were falsified; and (b) knowingly causing the registration of the three falsified deeds with the Register of Deeds to effect the cancellation of the old TCTs and the issuance of the new TCTs in his name and the names of his siblings, evidence malice and willful transgression of the law. Ruling: Petition denied. CA Decision affirmed.
