JDT Notes Falsi
JDT Notes Falsi
JDT Notes Falsi
Commercial Documents
The elements of falsification of documents under paragraph 1, Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code (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; [46] and (3) that the
falsification was committed in a public, official or commercial document.[47]
All these elements were likewise established in this case beyond reasonable doubt.
Estafa is generally committed when (a) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence, or by means of
deceit, and (b) the offended party or a third party suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation."
"[D]eceit is the false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading
allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed which deceives or is intended to deceive
another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury." (Citations omitted)
As in this case, the crime of falsification was already consummated, and the falsified documents were, thereafter,
used to defraud the bank to release money purportedly to Malang.
Records show that the elements of estafa obtain in this case. Petitioner falsely represented that Malang pursued the
loan application and promissory note that were signed in blank through petitioner's prodding; and orchestrating the
whole process until he, with his now deceased co-accused Ilagan, succeeded in withdrawing the proceeds thereof
from RBSM, coursing them through MRBTI and Land Bank, and thereafter applying the same to his previous irregular
loans also with RBSM. Clearly, petitioner employed deceit to acquire money, on another person's account, and use
the same for his personal use and benefit, which resulted to the damage and prejudice of the RBSM in the amount of
P14,775,000.00.
Again, petitioner could not have acquired the said amount to pay off his previous loans without the act of falsification.
The falsification was, therefore, a necessary means to commit estafa, and falsification was already consummated
even before the falsified documents were used to defraud the bank.[50]
Thus, the complex crime of estafa through falsification of documents is committed when the offender commits on a
public, official or commercial document any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Article 171 as a necessary
means to commit estafa.[51]
The fact that the loan application was actually signed by Malang, not by petitioner, could not belie his direct hand in
perpetrating the crime. To reiterate, it was established that the loan application was signed by Malang in blank and
processed through petitioner's instructions, to make it appear that Malang purportedly participated in applying for the
subject loan, despite the fact that the purported loan application was withdrawn by Malang. It was likewise
established that it was petitioner's scheme that made the issuance of the check in the name of Malang, and
thereafter, the checks in the names of Rayo and Villacorta, possible. Hence, as correctly found by the RTC and the
CA, one of the acts of falsification under Article 171 of the RPC, particularly paragraph 2 thereof- causing it to appear
that a person has participated in any act when he did not in fact participate - is present in this case.
Also, while it may be true that petitioner, as RBSM president, was not engaged in frontline services for him to be able
to actually process loan applications, his direct participation in the "circuitous scheme" which perpetrated the
falsification and deception cannot be denied as borne by the records. Again, the prosecution's evidence established
beyond reasonable doubt that said nefarious scheme was devised by petitioner and was successfully executed
through his direct instructions to the working participants.
There is overwhelming evidence to establish the fact that upon the instructions of [petitioner] Soriano, a fictitious loan
in the amount of P15,000,000.00 was made to appear to have been granted by RBSM and released to Malang, and
later on, the money was misappropriated by [petitioner] Soriano. From the extant evidence, it is indubitable that this
intricate process was orchestrated by [petitioner] Soriano, with the help of accused Ilagan, to the detriment of Malang
and RBSM. Earlier on, [petitioner] Soriano was able to convince Malang to sign the loan application, promissory note,
and disclosure statement in blank and, together with accused Ilagan, processed and approved the loan, even though
the same was retracted and discontinued by Malang, not to mention that the documents were incomplete, and the
loan was not approved by the Board of Directors nor was it secured by any collateral. It was also established that it
was [petitioner] Soriano who instructed Santillana to accept the RBSM manager's check in the amount of
P14,775,000.00, and to issue in its stead thirty (30) manager's checks that were negotiated with Land Bank-Gapan
Branch to secure the two (2) checks under the names of Rayo and Villacorta, for whatever purpose [petitioner]
Soriano wanted to achieve.[52]
For petitioner to be convicted of the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document
committed in the manner described in the Information, all the elements of the two crimes of estafa
and falsification of public document must exist.9
To secure a conviction for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC), the following requisites must concur:
(1) The accused made false pretenses or fraudulent representations as to his power,
influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions;
(2) The false pretenses or fraudulent representations were made prior to or simultaneous
with the commission of the fraud;
(3) The false pretenses or fraudulent representations constitute the very cause which
induced the offended party to part with his money or property;
It is undisputed that petitioner committed estafa. He and his wife falsely represented to Ramirez that
they had the influence and capability to cause the subdivision of the lot. In view of said false
representation, Ramirez was induced to part with the owner’s copy of her TCT on the condition that
the same would be returned after a month as evidenced by the Acknowledgment Receipt.
However, petitioner and his wife never complied with their obligations. It is also on record that
Ramirez made a formal demand for the return of the TCT but petitioner and his wife failed to comply.
Their failure to return the said title despite demand is evidence of deceit that resulted in damages to
Ramirez. It was also established that the property covered by TCT No. 188686 was eventually
mortgaged for ₱300,000.00 to a third person without the knowledge and consent of Ramirez.
The following testimony of Ramirez clearly established that petitioner falsely represented that he has
the capacity to cause the subdivision of the property; that false pretenses induced her (Ramirez) to
entrust her TCT to petitioner; and that as a result thereof, Ramirez suffered damage to the extent of
₱300,000.00, thus:
Petitioner did not deny his signature on the Acknowledgement Receipt. 12 On the contrary he claimed
that he merely affixed his signature without reading the contents thereof 13 and that he did not bother
to inquire from his wife the contents of the Acknowledgement Receipt, 14 which we find not worthy of
credence. However, he admitted that his wife was engaged in facilitating the registration of
documents involving real property.15
On the other hand, we find that we cannot convict petitioner of the crime of falsification of a public
document penalized under Article 172 of the RPC. The following requisites must concur, to wit:
(1) That the offender is a private individual or a public officer or employee who took
advantage of his official position;
(2) That he committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated in article 171 of the Revised
Penal Code (which in this case involves forging a signature);
(3) That the falsification was committed in a public or official or commercial document. 16
There is no doubt that petitioner is a private individual, 17 being a businessman. It is likewise not
disputed that the Deed of Mortgage is a public document, having been notarized by a notary public
with the solemnities required by law. However, we find no evidence on record showing that the
petitioner and his wife falsified the subject Deed of Mortgage. There is simply no evidence showing
that petitioner had any participation in the execution of the mortgage document. There is no proof at
all that he was the one who signed the Deed of Mortgage. The testimony of Ramirez consisted only
of the following:
Based on the foregoing, we cannot conclude beyond reasonable doubt that it was petitioner and his
wife who committed the forgery. In the first place, Lina Santos (Santos) was not presented to
corroborate the testimony of Ramirez that she was the one who informed the latter regarding the
mortgage or she could shed light on the circumstances leading to her alleged discovery that the
subject property had been mortgaged. Moreover, as narrated by Ramirez, Santos did not
categorically point to herein petitioner as the author of the forgery. If at all, Santos only claimed that
the property of Ramirez had been mortgaged but did not mention the personalities involved therein.
Likewise, the failure to present the so-called mortgagee, Nora Herrera, casts doubt as to the
participation of the petitioner in the execution of the mortgage instrument. Undoubtedly, Nora
Herrera could have testified on the persons she dealt with relative to the mortgage.
The denial of Ramirez that she affixed her signature on the Deed of mortgage does not prove that it
was petitioner and his wife who signed in her behalf. Neither could it be considered as proof that
petitioner, together with his wife, falsely represented themselves as the spouses Ramirez.
1avvphi1