Figueroa v. People

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 229592. June 7, 2017.]

HERNEL G. FIGUEROA, complainant,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 7, 2017, which reads as follows: cSEDTC

"G.R. No. 229592 (Hernel G. Figueroa vs. People of the Philippines). — Considering the allegations, issues and arguments presented, the Court finds that the instant petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court fails to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its August 31, 2016 Decision 1 and January 25, 2017 Resolution in CA-G.R. CR No. 36650 as to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction.

The facts as established by the CA are as follows:

Figueroa was charged with estafa through falsification of public document under an Information which reads:

That in or about the month of May, 2005, in the Municipality of Meycauayan, Province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, thru false and fraudulent misrepresentations, with intent to gain and to cause damage to Corazon M. Macatulad, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud the said Corazon M. Macatulad in the amount of P240,000.00, collecting and receiving said sum from the said complainant by falsifying Transfer Certificate of Title No. 814636 with an area of 347 square meters located in Brgy. Tiaong, Guiguinto, Bulacan and using the aforesaid land title as collateral in a "Kasulatan ng sanglaan" duly subscribed and sworn to before Notary Public Antonio R. Roque and known as Doc. No. 216, Page 45, Book No. 5, Series of 2005, falsely claiming therein that he is the owner of said property, when in truth and in fact he cannot be the owner thereof as there is no existing property located in Brgy. Tiaong, Guiguinto, Bulacan under TCT No. 814636, to the damage and prejudice of the said Corazon M. Macatulad in the amount of P240,000.00.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

During arraignment, Figueroa pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.

In the ensuing trial, the prosecution presented the private complainants Corazon M. Macatulad (Macatulad) and Eduardo Sillano, Jr. (Sillano) as well as Ricardo Rivera (Rivera), administrative aide of the Register of Deeds (RD) of Bulacan. On the other hand, Figueroa testified in his defense.

The Version of the Prosecution

Sometime in May 2005, Figueroa went to Sillano's stall in Balagtas, Bulacan and inquired whether he knows someone who can lend him P40,000.00. Sillano replied that he would ask his mother-in-law, Macatulad, who happened to be in the lending business. Macatulad agreed to lend Figueroa P40,000.00 payable in one (1) week with P10,000.00 interest.

Five (5) days before the maturity of the loan, Figueroa approached Sillano to ask for an extension and an additional loan of P200,000.00. He offered as collateral a property located in Guiguinto, Bulacan and registered in his name under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-814636. Macatulad agreed to the additional loan provided that the title is "good." Figueroa and Macatulad's agreement was reduced in a notarized document denominated as Kasulatan ng Sanglaan (Kasulatan). After receiving the additional loan, Figueroa gave Macatulad the title to the property, a copy of the Kasulatan, and a check amounting to P240,000.00.

Later, Sillano noticed that the property indicated in the Kasulatan and the title is located in Tiaong, not in Tuktukan, Guiguinto, Bulacan as Figueroa originally proposed. He also had doubts on the genuineness of the title because Tiaong was mistakenly spelled in the title as "Tianong." When confronted, Figueroa assured Sillano that he will pay the loan on its due date. However, the same proved to be an empty promise. The check issued by Figueroa bounced when Macatulad tried to encash it. Thus, Macatulad sent a demand letter but accused-appellant remained obstinate.

Upon verification with the RD, private complainants learned that TCT No. T-814636 issued in Figueroa's name is spurious and the RD has not yet reached the number "814636" in its registry. SDAaTC

The Version of Accused-Appellant

Figueroa admitted contracting a loan with Macatulad and offering his property as collateral thereto. However, he denied any participation in the falsification of TCT No. T-814636 claiming that his grandfather gave the subject property to him when the latter was still alive. When he wanted to transfer the property in his name, a certain Rosalinda Roldan (Roldan) offered her services in exchange for P30,000.00. Roldan allegedly took care of all the processing of documents needed for the registration of the property. Figueroa did not bother to think of the irregularities done by Roldan.

The Ruling of the RTC

In its February 19, 2014 Judgment, the RTC found Figueroa guilty of estafa through falsification of a public document. Taking note of Rivera's testimony that TCT No. T-814636 is non-existent, the court a quo held that accused-appellant misrepresented to Macatulad that he owns the property offered as security for the additional loan. This induced Macatulad to extend additional loan and part with her money. Figueroa's intention to deceive Macatulad is evident from his act of delivering the fake title as security for the loan. The RTC further ruled that accused-appellant's failure to return the amount loaned through fraudulent representation is a clear evidence of deceit causing damage to Macatulad. It did not give credence to Figueroa's defense of denial ratiocinating that accused-appellant allowed himself to be used in the scheme to falsify the title of the subject property. It then disposed the case as follows:

WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered finding the accused Hernel G. Figueroa GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of Estafa through Falsification of Public Document penalized under the provisions of Article[s] 315 and 172 in relation to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code without any mitigating and aggravating circumstances attendant in its commission.

Applying the indeterminate sentence law and considering that the amount involved is Php240,000.00, accused Hernel Figueroa is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment from FOUR (4) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of Prision Correccional to TWENTY (20) YEARS of Reclusion Temporal. He is also directed to pay a FINE of Php5,000.00 and to indemnify Corazon M. Macatulad the sum of Php240,000.00 representing the amount received by him in mortgaging the property, covered by the spurious and falsified certificate of title, with legal rate of interest reckoned from the filing of the Information until the same is fully paid.

A lien on the monetary award is constituted in favor of the government, the private complainant not having paid the required docket fees for the civil aspect of the case.

SO ORDERED.

On appeal, the CA denied the petition in its Decision dated August 31, 2016, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The February 19, 2014 Judgment of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 79, Malolos, Bulacan in Crim. Case No. 830-M-2006 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the CA Decision but was denied in a Resolution dated January 25, 2017. 2

Hence, the instant petition where the accused raises this sole issue:

Whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely erred in finding the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa thru Falsification of Public Document notwithstanding the showing of good faith on the part of the petitioner. 3

In support of his petition, petitioner points out that:

31. While the prosecution presented a witness against the genuineness of the mortgaged title, no one and nothing was presented to disprove that Rosalinda Roldan was not the author of the falsification. Moreover, no evidence was presented to prove that petitioner was the author of the falsification. 4

32. In Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. v. Tobias, this Honorable Court held that "[t]he presumption that whoever possesses or uses a spurious document is its forger applies only in the absence of a satisfactory explanation."

33. In the instant case, the petitioner satisfactorily explained his good faith in mortgaging the land title which, he, himself believed to be genuine and authentic. There was no showing that he has the special skill to falsify nor was he engaged in the business of falsification. In fact, prosecution witness Sillano knew him for quite a long time and described him to be the owner of a stall with an eatery/carinderia in Malis, Guiguinto, Bulacan. acEHCD

34. A satisfactory explanation could render ineffective the presumption that the possessor is the forger, which after all, is merely a disputable one.

The instant petition must fail.

As correctly held by the lower courts, the guilt of petitioner was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

In order to be held guilty of the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public documents, the elements of each individual crime must be present.

Estafa by means of false pretenses is punished under paragraph 2, Section 315 of the Revised Penal Code as follows:

Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). — Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:

xxx xxx xxx

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.

In People v. Tibayan, 5 the Court enumerated the elements of the crime of Estafa by means of deceit as follows:

The elements of Estafa by means of deceit under this provision are the following: (a) that there must be a false pretense or fraudulent representation as to his power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; (b) that such false pretense or fraudulent representation was made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (c) that the offended party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means and was induced to part with his money or property; and (d) that, as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.

All these elements are present in this case.

The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the presence of the elements of the crime of Estafa.

First, the accused made it appear that he owns the property covered by TCT No. T-814636 which he offered as security of the additional loan that he wanted to obtain. Second, that such representation was made prior to obtaining the loan, in fact, precisely in order to obtain the loan. Third, that Macatulad extended to Figueroa the additional loan because the latter offered as collateral the property that he purportedly owned. Finally, that Macatulad suffered damage when Figueroa failed to pay the loan, which was not secured by any property the TCT presented by Figueroa being falsified. These elements were established through the testimony of Macatulad 6 which was corroborated by the testimony of Eduardo Sillano. 7

Thus, the trial court ruled:

In this transaction, accused Hernel Figueroa misrepresented to Corazon Macatulad that he owns a property which he could offer as security to the additional loan he was trying to obtain. He presented as proof thereof the alleged owner's duplicate copy of the title described as TCT No. T-814636 covering a piece of realty situated in Tianong instead of Tiaong, Guiguinto, Bulacan. This fraudulent representation that he possesses and owns a property which was done prior or simultaneous to the commission of the fraud is the efficient cause or primary consideration that induced private complainant Corazon Macatulad to extend an additional loan to the accused and eventually, part with her money.

On the other hand, Falsification of Public Documents by a Private Individual is punishable under paragraph 1, Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Article 171 thereof. These provisions state:

Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister. — The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P5,000 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:

xxx xxx xxx

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;

xxx xxx xxx

Art. 172. Falsification by private individual and use of falsified documents. — The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than P5,000 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

xxx xxx xxx

The Court identified the elements of the crime of Falsification of Public Documents by a Private Individual in Tanenggee v. People, 8 to wit:

Falsification of documents under paragraph 1, Article 172 in relation to Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) refers to falsification by a private individual or a public officer or employee, who did not take advantage of his official position, of public, private or commercial document. 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. SDHTEC

These elements were also present here.

The first element is clearly present, the accused being a private individual. The third element was also proven present with the testimony of Ricardo Rivera, an Administrative Aid at the Registry of Deeds of Bulacan, Guiguinto Branch, that the title presented by the accused was indeed spurious. His testimony was summarized by the trial court as follows:

x x x As instructed, he brought along with him TCT No. T-814636 and two (2) Certifications issued by the registry. One of the Certifications states that the owner's duplicate copy under the name of accused Hernel G. Figueroa of Tianong, Guiguinto, Bulacan, is spurious and questionable. It bears the signature of Marieta De Leon, Land Registry Examiner and Nenita Macapagal, Records Officer. The second Certification indicates that the subject TCT No. T-814636 has not yet been issued by their office as of August 25, 2010 because the series of the title numbers being assigned to certificates of title have not yet reached the number 814636. The latest title number assigned by the registry to a title is TCT No. T-300526. The Certification was signed by Atty. Ramon Sampana, Register of Deeds of Guiguinto, in his presence. The title which was presented by Eduardo Sillano was confiscated by their examiner upon instruction of their chief of office. 9

As to the second element, while there was no direct evidence showing that the accused actually falsified the title over the property, there is the presumption that the person who used such forged instrument is presumed to have forged the document or caused the forging thereof. 10

Petitioner claims to have overcome such presumption by presenting a satisfactory explanation: that a certain Rosalinda Roldan was solely responsible for the registration of the property into his name.

The Court affirms the finding of the court a quo that the defense of the accused of good faith has no merit. The appellate court properly explained this, as follows:

Figueroa's defense of good faith is belied by his own evidence. He testified that he entrusted the registration of the subject property to Roldan without any supporting documents in exchange for P30,000.00. If he indeed owns the land, he should have presented other proofs of such ownership like instruments of conveyance or tax declarations. The fact that Roldan assured him that she would be able to register the land even in the absence of supporting documents should have already raised a red flag. The questionable circumstance under which Figueroa entrusted the registration of the subject property clearly negates his claim of good faith. Thus, it follows that the absence of good faith also shows that there is no satisfactory explanation as to his possession of the falsified TCT No. T-814636. Well-settled is the rule that whenever someone has in his possession falsified documents which he used to his advantage and benefit, the presumption that he authored it arises. This is especially true if the use or uttering of the forged documents was so closely connected in time with the forgery that the user or possessor may be proven to have the capacity of committing the forgery, or to have close connection with the forgers, and therefore, had complicity in the forgery.

Moreover, in Elma v. Jacobi, 11 the Court already dismissed a similar defense as unmeritorious. The Court ruled therein:

In the more recent (1992) Caubang v. People, the accused — who claimed to have the authority to transact (in behalf of an entity) with a government agency in Manila — attempted to overthrow the presumption of authorship against him by alleging intervening circumstances from the time he arrived in Manila until the transaction with the government agency was made. The accused claimed the he did not carry the forged document when he arrived in Manila and that third persons (including a "fixer") actually transacted with the government. Allegedly, these claims disproved that he had any knowledge or inference in the making of the submitted forged document. Rejecting this claim, the Court ruled that:

[U]tilizing a fixer as part of the scenario becomes a convenient ploy to divert the mind of the court from the more plausible inference that the accused-petitioner engineered the spurious [document].

xxx xxx xxx

Even if the allegation that some other person [did the transaction] was true, the accused-petitioner would still be subjected to the same conclusion. (Emphasis supplied)

As such, all the elements for the crime of Falsification of Public Documents were also proven to be present in the instant case.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, finding no reversible error in the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 36650, the Court resolves to DENY the petition and, thus, AFFIRM said Decision and Resolution.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Penned by Associate Justice Pedro B. Corales, concurred in by Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon (Chairperson, 11th Division) and Rodil V. Zalameda; rollo, pp. 32-43.

2.Id. at 45-46.

3.Id. at 18.

4.Id. at 24.

5. G.R. Nos. 209655-60, January 14, 2015.

6.Rollo, p. 66.

7.Id. at 66-68.

8. G.R. No. 179448, June 26, 2013.

9.Rollo, p. 68.

10.Elma v. Jacobi, G.R. No. 155996, June 27, 2012, 675 SCRA 20, 59.

11.Id. at 61.