US vs Cinco

Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of the case cited. Xie xie!

US vs Cinco
G.R. No. I-12127
October 13, 1917

Facts:

This is an appeal case brought by the defendants Eladio Cinco and Eusebio Redoña to reverse a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Samar, finding them guilty of the falsification of a private document.

Eusebio Redoña had been deputized to conduct a bidding on October 10, 1914. On that day the property was properly put up at auction, according to some testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution, no bid or offer for the same, or any part thereof, was made by any person during the lawful hours of sale, and as a result the property remained unsold. On the other hand the witnesses for the defense testify that the defendant Eladio Cinco made a bid and became the purchaser of the property as sole bidder.

Issue:

Whether or not accused-appellants are criminally liable for falsification of a private document or a crime under Art. 304 of the RPC in relation with subsection 2 of Art. 300?

Held:

The offense in this case is punishable under article 304 of the Penal Code, in relation with subsection 2 of article 300, notwithstanding statements to be found in some of the cases tending to a different conclusion. (U. S. vs. Buenaventura, 1 Phil., 428.) In United States vs. Braga (12 Phil., 202, the accused had used a rubber stamp bearing the name of the company by which he was employed, signing his own name in connection therewith. He had authority so to use the stamp for the purpose of buying goods for the company, but not for the purpose of obtaining money. It was held that in so signing an order by which he obtained money he was guilty of falsification under article 304 of the Penal Code, in connection with subsection 2 of article 300, for the reason that in effecting the transaction in question he made it appear that the company was a party thereto when, as a matter of fact, it did not participate therein.

Defendant Cinco was sentenced to two years, eleven months and ten days, presidio correccional in its minimum and medium degree, while the defendant Redoña was sentenced to one year, eight months and twenty-one days, presidio correccional in its minimum and medium degree. We believe that the discretion of the judge in imposing a more severe penalty upon Eladio Cinco was properly used. Each defendant was also sentenced to pay a fine of P125 and to undergo the accessory penalties and subsidiary personal liability in case of insolvency a provided by law, and to pay one-half of the costs.