FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 220825. June 30, 2021.]
REGALADO P. SAMARTINO, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 30, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 220825 — (REGALADO P. SAMARTINO,petitioner, v.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,respondent). — Before Us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 dated October 23, 2015 filed by petitioner Regalado P. Samartino (Samartino), which seeks a review of the Decision 2 dated June 3, 2015 and the Resolution 3 dated September 23, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 36972. Both the Decision and the Resolution affirmed the conviction of Samartino for the crime of falsification of public document as defined and penalized in Article 172 (1) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). HTcADC
Facts
As stated by the CA, the divergent narration of facts by Samartino and the respondent People of the Philippines, which we quote hereunder with approval, are as follows:
The instant case arose from an Information filed with the M[e]TC of Manila, accusing petitioner Regalado P. Samartino of the crime of Falsification of Public Document under Article 172 (1) of the RPC, as follows:
That on or about December 13, 1988, but which was only discovered sometime in the year 1996, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, a private individual with intent to cause damage to LEONOR B. RAON and ANGEL CRISOSTOMO, did and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit acts of falsification of public document, to wit: the said accused prepared, forged and falsified and/or caused to be prepared, forged, falsified a DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE of a parcel of land together with all the improvements existing thereon described as Lot 125-A-2 of the subd. Plan LRC Psd 37282, [e]specially a portion thereof with an area of Thirteen Thousand Seven Hundred Eleven (13,711 square meters) situated in the Mun. of Noveleta, Prov. of Cavite, in favor of said REGALADO P. SAMARTINO for and in consideration of the sum of P500,000.00 which was duly notarized and acknowledged before Atty. Baltazar J. Llamas, a Notary Public, for and in the City of Manila and entered in his Notarial Register as Doc. No. 461; Page No. 106; Book No. 13; Series of 1988 and therefore, a public document, by then and there stating therein, among others, that the Vendor FILOMENA BERNARDO CRISOSTOMO, had sold the portion of the above described property to REGALADO P. SAMARTINO including the rights over the said parcel of land and then forging and falsifying the signature of FILOMENA BERNARDO CRISOSTOMO, thereby making it appear, as it did appear, that said FILOMENA BERNARDO CRISOSTOMO had intervened in the preparation and execution of the said document, when in truth and in fact, as the said accused fully well knew that the signature of said FILOMENA BERNARDO CRISOSTOMO appearing at the 2nd page of the said document is not her genuine signature as she did not participate in the signing and execution of the same neither did she authorize[d] accused nor anybody else to sign the said document on her behalf, to the damage and prejudice of the said FILOMENA BERNARDO CRISOSTOMO, her heirs and/or public interest.
xxx xxx xxx
Trial commenced, during which private complainant Leonor Raon and National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)-Questioned Document Division (QDD) Document Examiner Jennifer Dominguez testified in behalf of the prosecution, while petitioner testified for the defense.
Private complainant Leonor Raon testified that she was the only sister of Filomena Bernardo Crisostomo, who was the registered owner of an undivided 13,711-square meter, or 50%, portion of a fishpond covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-131898. Filomena died on May 17, 1994, leaving behind said 50% share in the subject property and two surviving heirs, namely, Raon and Filomena's husband, Agustin Crisostomo, Jr. By way of an Extrajudicial Settlement of Real Estate of Deceased Filomena Bernardo-Crisostomo dated November 6, 1995, Raon and Crisostomo partitioned between themselves Filomena's interest in the property, equally.
Meanwhile, Raon and Crisostomo learned that, sometime in 1986, during the lifetime of Filomena, the latter leased her interest in the fishpond to petitioner for a period of five years, beginning 1986. Petitioner took possession and enjoyed the use of said property even beyond the expiration of the lease. Thus, there being no showing that the lease had been renewed or extended, Raon and Crisostomo, through counsel, served upon petitioner a letter-demand dated December 4, 1995, to vacate the property or present proof that such lease had been renewed or extended, and that it had not yet expired. Due to petitioner's refusal to vacate, Raon and Crisostomo initiated ejectment proceedings before the MTC, Noveleta, Cavite, docketed as Civil Case No. 7445, against petitioner on January 26, 1996. In the meantime, unable to find the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. T-131898, Raon petitioned for the reconstitution of the title, which the RTC, Branch 88, Cavite City, granted on May 5, 1997, as evidenced by Entry No. 7944 on the Memorandum of Encumbrances of the title.
In the course of the trial proceedings for the ejectment suit, petitioner produced a Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 13, 1988, claiming that he had purchased the subject property from Filomena during her lifetime. Upon discovery of the deed of sale, Raon confirmed with the Register of Deeds of Trese Martires, Cavite, that TCT No. T-131898 was still intact and that no sale had been annotated thereon. Thereafter, she went to the Manila City Hall, where the deed of sale was purportedly notarized by a certain Atty. Baltazar Llamas, and was able to secure a Certification from the Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff of the RTC, Manila, Atty. Jennifer H. Dela Cruz-Buendia, that no Atty. Baltazar Llamas had been appointed or commissioned as notary for the year 1988. Upon checking the Deed of Absolute Sale, Raon determined that the signature appearing thereon was not, in fact the signature of her sister, thus, she brought the document to the NBI for verification and authentication of Filomena's purported signature. For purposes of comparison, Raon brought with her the original copies of several marriage contracts, various receipts and an identification card, all reflecting the signature of Filomena. In total, Raon submitted to the NBI-QDD 17 speciment signatures for comparison with the signature on the Deed of Absolute Sale. Subsequently, the NBI, through Document Examiner Jennifer B. Dominguez, issued Questioned Document Report No. 321605, finding that the purported signature of Filomena on the Deed of Absolute Sale was not the same as the specimen signatures submitted for comparison, to wit: aScITE
FINDINGS:
Scientific comparative Examination and analysis made on the specimens submitted under magnification using stereoscopic microscope with the aid of photographic enlargements (Comparison Chart) and transparent prints, reveal the following:
That there exist significant differences in handwriting characteristics/habits between the questioned and the standard/sample signatures "FILOMENA B. CRISOSTOMO," such as:
- manner of execution of strokes/line quality;
- structural formation of letters/elements, and
- minute identifying details.
That there are evidence/indications of tracing process on the questioned signatures "FILOMENA B. CRISOSTOMO" marked as "Q-1" and "Q-2" as shown by suspicious congruency in form/design, size/height, proportion of letters/elements, arrangement of writing and lateral expansion of letters when one signature is placed on top of the other.
CONCLUSION:
Based on the foregoing FINDINGS No. (1), the questioned and the standard/sample signatures "FILOMENA B. CRISOSTOMO" were NOT written by one and the same person.
Based on the foregoing FINDINGS No. (2), the questioned signatures "FILOMENA B. CRISOSTOMO" marked as "Q-1" and "Q-2" are traced forgeries by projection process.
On the other hand, petitioner maintained that he did not know who executed the allegedly falsified Deed of Absolute Sale. He contended that the Deed of Absolute Sale was already signed when his godmother, Filomena herself, handed the document to him in 1988. Likewise, the blank space provided for the witness to the contract had already been signed, purportedly by the daughter-in-law of Filomena. Along with the Deed of Absolute Sale, Filomena gave him the owner's duplicate original copy of the title. Petitioner alleged that Filomena wanted to sell to him the property so that he could be the one to maintain it. However, petitioner admitted that he had only paid P600,000.00 out of the P1,200,000.00 purchase price agreed upon, thus, he never tried to have the title transferred to his name since 1988. He also averred that he never asked for a receipt for the P600,000.00 already paid since Filomena was his godmother. Nor did he bother to ask why Filomena's husband did not sign the document and whether the latter had agreed to the sale.
On March 12, 2010, the MeTC rendered its Decision, finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Falsification of Public Document, viz.:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused Regalado P. Samartino guilty of Falsification of Public Document defined and penalized under Article 172, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment of one (1) year and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to three (3) years, six (6) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision correccional as maximum; to pay a fine of P2,000.00; and to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.
Upon receipt of the Order dated May 31, 2010, which denied his motion for reconsideration, petitioner raised the case on appeal before the RTC. On February 20, 2014, the RTC rendered the assailed Decision, to wit:
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, the DECISION of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 25, Manila is hereby affirmed in toto.
SO ORDERED. 4 (Citations omitted)
Samartino, due to adverse decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 25 of Manila and the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 47 of Manila, sought reprieve from the CA via a Rule 42 Petition for Review. The CA, however, found no merit in the appeal of Samartino and held:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated February 20, 2014, and Order dated September 23, 2014 of the RTC, Branch 47, City of Manila, in Criminal Case No. 10-277426 is AFFIRMED in toto. HEITAD
SO ORDERED. 5
Aggrieved by the Decision, Samartino filed a Motion for Reconsideration 6 dated July 10, 2015, which was, however, denied by the CA in its Resolution 7 dated September 23, 2015.
Insisting on his innocence, Samartino filed the instant Petition which challenges the Decision and the Resolution of the CA. As stated earlier, both the Decision and the Resolution affirm in toto the ruling of the MeTC and the RTC finding Samartino guilty beyond every and all reasonable doubt of the crime of falsification of public document as defined and penalized in Article 172 (1) of the RPC.
In his Petition, Samartino offers two arguments to convince Us to reverse the CA: first, that the finding of guilt by the MeTC, and echoed by the RTC and the CA, was erroneous insofar as it was based solely on the testimony of Document Examiner Jennifer B. Dominguez (Examiner Dominguez) of the National Bureau of Investigation Questioned Documents Division, 8 and second, that assuming without conceding that there is forgery, Samartino cannot be presumed to be the author thereof since he had good reason to be in possession of the purportedly falsified Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 13, 1988 (Subject Document).
Ruling
We find the Petition unmeritorious.
At the outset, it bears to emphasize that the question of the existence of forgery is one of fact, 9 and, therefore, not reviewable through the facility of Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Indeed, as a general proposition, questions of fact are outside this Court's scope of review in Rule 45 petitions. 10
We note that concededly, questions of fact have been entertained by the Court in limited justifiable circumstances, viz.:
(1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures;
(2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;
(3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion;
(4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;
(5) When the findings of fact are conflicting;
(6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee;
(7) The findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court;
(8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;
(9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and
(10) The finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on record. 11
The above exceptions apply to all Rule 45 petitions before this Court regardless of nature, i.e., whether it involves civil, labor, tax, or criminal cases. 12
Here, Samartino failed to establish that the case falls within any of the allowable exceptions. Glaring is the fact, however, that the MeTC, the RTC, and the CA consistently arrived at the same factual finding that the Subject Document was forged. This is not insignificant. Basic is the rule that the factual findings of the CA are "'final, binding[,] or conclusive on the parties and upon this [c]ourt' when supported by substantial evidence," 13 and more so if it sustains the factual findings of the trial court. 14
We take the time, however, to correct Samartino's assertion that the MeTC, the RTC, and the CA failed to conduct an independent evaluation of the evidence presented and relied only on the findings of Examiner Dominguez. On the contrary, the records would show that the CA for instance, took the time to study and evaluate the report of Examiner Dominguez. The CA observed that the specimen signatures studied by Examiner Dominguez "were made close enough to 1988, the time when the [Subject Document] was signed" and that such examination used specimen signatures made by Crisostomo before and after 1988. 15 This allowed it to arrive at the conclusion that the signature which appears on the Subject Document was forged. Relevantly, the examination undertaken meets the jurisprudential rule that reference specimen signatures "must be as close as possible in point of time to the suspected signature." 16
Additionally, and to further convince itself beyond reasonable doubt of the forgery, the CA looked into other pieces of evidence available, i.e., the Certification of the RTC Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff that the name of the notary which appears on the document was not commissioned or appointed as such in 1988 — the date of execution of the Subject Document. 17 ETHIDa
Anent Samartino's contention that the presumption that he is the forger for having been found in possession of and has used the Subject Document is inapplicable, 18 suffice it to state that he has not offered any "satisfactory explanation" to prevent the application of the presumption.
On this point, the "satisfactory explanation" offered by Samartino is that the Subject Document was already given to him signed by Crisostomo and one witness — who is supposedly Crisostomo's daughter-in-law. 19 He had accepted this pre-signed Subject Document as "proper" supposedly because of the trust he had with Crisostomo, who is his godmother. 20 This testimony does not inspire belief.
For one, and from the testimony of Samartino, he implies a high-level familiarity with Crisostomo. It thus strains credulity why he would sign the Subject Document and receive the same as "proper" where the signature of a supposed daughter-in-law of Crisostomo can be seen. As found by the MeTC, Crisostomo died without children, albeit married. 21 If Samartino and Crisostomo were indeed as close as he claims, then he would have immediately noticed the suspicious signature which appears in the witness portion of the Subject Document.
For another, such testimony does not explain why Samartino failed to assert the existence of the Subject Document at the earliest possible time, i.e., when a demand was made by the private complainants for him to vacate the property. 22 Worse, he did not even attempt to protect his rights over the property either by transferring the same or interposing a claim thereto on the title. 23
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the presumption that the "one who is found in possession of a forged document and who used or uttered it is presumed to be the forger" stands applicable. 24 Samartino plainly offers no justifiable reason that would convince this Court to overturn the presumption. Indeed, Samartino has been shown to have been the possessor and utterer of the Subject Document when he made use of the same in an attempt to prevent his ejectment. The circumstance, therefore, that Samartino made use of and benefited from the falsified Subject Document is strong evidence that he either himself falsified it or caused the same to be falsified, he being criminally responsible in either case. Since Samartino is the only person who stood to be benefited by the falsification of the Subject Document that was found in his possession, it is presumed that he is the material author of such falsification.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated June 3, 2015 and the Resolution dated September 23, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 36972 are AFFIRMEDin toto.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-18.
2.Id. at 51-58; penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid and concurred in by Associate Justices Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla (retired Member of this Court) and Socorro B. Inting.
3.Id. at 75-76; penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla (retired Member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Florito S. Macalito and Socorro B. Inting.
4.Id. at 51-55. The Decision dated March 12, 2010 of the Metropolitan Trial Court was made by Judge Romeo A. Racaba. On the other hand, the Decision dated February 20, 2014 by the Regional Trial Court was issued by Presiding Judge Paulino Q. Gallegos.
5.Id. at 57.
6.Id. at 59-73.
7.Id. at 75-76.
8.Id. at 7-12.
9.Cogtong v. Kyoritsu International, Inc., 555 Phil. 302, 306 (2007).
10.Philippine National Police-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group v. Villafuerte, G.R. Nos. 219771 & 219773, September 18, 2018.
11.Remoticado v. Typical Construction Trading Corp., 830 Phil. 508 (2018).
12.Pascual v. Burgos, 776 Phil. 167, 183 (2016).
13.Cu v. Ventura, G.R. No. 224567, September 26, 2018.
14.Viray v. People, 720 Phil. 841, 849 (2013).
15.Rollo, p. 56.
16.Domingo v. Domingo, 495 Phil. 213, 221 (2005).
17.Rollo, p. 56.
18.Id. at 12-17.
19.Id. at 15.
20.Id. at 15-16.
21.Id. at 24.
22.Id. at 57.
23.Id.
24.Desmoparan v. People, G.R. No. 233598, March 27, 2019.