Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of the case cited. Xie xie!
US vs Solito
G.R. No. L-12546
August 17, 1925
Facts:
Mariano Solito was a correspondence clerk and acting chief clerk in the office of the division superintendent of schools in the municipality of Dumaguete. As clerk, he was entrusted with the care of the correspondence of said office, and was authorized to open letters of an official character addressed to the office. It was the custom to the Director of Education to forward to the division superintendents of schools checks for the reimbursement for travel expenses and for the payment of the salary of employees.
On April, 19, 1915, a warrant was issued to Alvah D. Riley for the sum of P657.53 by the Auditor of the Philippine which was directed to the Treasurer of the Philippines. That on the same day said warrant was also sent to the Director of Education. However, the defendant presented said warrant to the municipal treasurer for payment and a note purported to have been written and signed by Riley, in which the latter requested the said treasurer to cash the warrant. Riley denies absolutely that he gave to the defendant said note. The note was a forgery. Riley never signed it nor authorized it.
Issue:
Do these acts of the defendant fall under any of the provisions of Act No. 1754? Is the defendant punishable under any of said provisions?
Held:
The warrant was a check issued by the Government of the Philippines and, therefore, an obligation of the Government as defined by section 1 of Act No. 1754. It was originally made payable to Alvah D. Riley, or to his order. When it was indorsed as above indicated, it became a check or warrant payable to bearer. The indorsement made a material alteration in said warrant. The indorsement changed said check from one payable to Alvah D. Riley, or to one to whom he ordered it paid, to one payable to bearer. The indorsement by the defendant had the effect of erasing the phrase "or order" upon the face of the warrant.
Whenever the holder of a check, without the consent of the maker, changes its terms so as to make it payable to bearer by erasing or changing the words "or order" after the payee's name, he thereby makes a material change in said document. Changing the phrase "or order" to "bearer" is a material alteration. While the instrument was payable to Alvah D. Riley, or order, it was negotiable by the indorsement of Alvah D. Riley only. The change made it payable to "bearer" and it was thereafter negotiable and transferable by delivery simply. In construing the effect of the indorsement we must only look to said indorsement, but to the face of the document also, for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the indorsement operated to alter the terms or conditions of the original contract.
The defendant having passed and uttered an altered obligation of the Government of the Philippine Islands with intent to defraud, he is punishable under article 4 of Act No. 1754.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
People vs Balmeros
Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of the case cited. Xie xie!
People vs Balmeros
G.R. No. L-1896
February 16, 1950
Facts:
On 22 September, 1947, in Manila City, the Rafael C. Balmeros committed the crime of estafa through falsification of a security directly by overt acts, by tearing off at the bottom in a cross-wise direction a portion of a genuine 1/8 unit Philippine Charity Sweepstakes ticket and removing the true and real unidentified number of same and substituting and writing in ink at the bottom on the left side of said ticket the figure or number 074000 thus making the said ticket bear the said number 074000, which is a prize-winning number in the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes draw last June 29, 1947, and presenting the said ticket so falsified on said date, September 22, 1947, in the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office for the purpose of exchanging the same for the corresponding cash that said number has won, fraudulently pretending in said office that the said 1/8 unit of a Philippine Charity Sweepstakes ticket is genuine and that he is entitled to the corresponding amount of P359.55 so won by said ticket in the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes draw on said date, June 29, 1947. But he failed to perform all the acts of execution which would have produced the crime of estafa through falsification of a security. As a consequence, Bayani Miller, an employee to whom the said accused presented said ticket in the PCSO, discovered that the said ticket as presented by the said accused was falsified and immediately he called for a policeman who apprehended and arrested him.
From that sentence he appealed to this court, contending (1) that the facts and (2) that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict him on a plea of guilty because, being illiterate, he was not assisted by counsel.
Issue:
Whether the accused-appellant committed the crime estafa through falsification under Art. 166 of the RPC?
Held:
The penalty imposed by article 166 for the forging or falsification of "treasury or bank notes or certificates or other obligations and securities" is reclusion temporal in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed P10,000, if the document which has been falsified, counterfeited, or altered is an obligation or security of the United States or of the Philippine Islands. This being a complex crime of attempted estafa through falsification of an obligation or security of the Philippines, the penalty should be imposed in its maximum period in accordance with article 48. Taking into consideration the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction, and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum cannot be lower than prision mayor in its maximum period, which is 10 years and 1 day to 12 years. It results, therefore, that the penalty imposed by the trial court is correct.
The alteration, or even destruction, of a losing sweepstakes ticket could cause no harm to anyone and would not constitute a crime were it not for the attempt to cash the ticket so altered as a prize-winning number. So in the ultimate analysis appellant's real offense was the attempt to commit estafa (punishable with eleven days of arresto menor); but technically and legally he has to suffer for the serious crime of falsification of a government obligation. We realize that the penalty is too severe, considering all the circumstances of the case, but we have no discretion to impose a lower penalty than authorized by law. The exercise of clemency and not in this court.
The court is constrained to affirm the sentence appealed from, with costs against the appellant.
People vs Balmeros
G.R. No. L-1896
February 16, 1950
Facts:
On 22 September, 1947, in Manila City, the Rafael C. Balmeros committed the crime of estafa through falsification of a security directly by overt acts, by tearing off at the bottom in a cross-wise direction a portion of a genuine 1/8 unit Philippine Charity Sweepstakes ticket and removing the true and real unidentified number of same and substituting and writing in ink at the bottom on the left side of said ticket the figure or number 074000 thus making the said ticket bear the said number 074000, which is a prize-winning number in the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes draw last June 29, 1947, and presenting the said ticket so falsified on said date, September 22, 1947, in the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office for the purpose of exchanging the same for the corresponding cash that said number has won, fraudulently pretending in said office that the said 1/8 unit of a Philippine Charity Sweepstakes ticket is genuine and that he is entitled to the corresponding amount of P359.55 so won by said ticket in the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes draw on said date, June 29, 1947. But he failed to perform all the acts of execution which would have produced the crime of estafa through falsification of a security. As a consequence, Bayani Miller, an employee to whom the said accused presented said ticket in the PCSO, discovered that the said ticket as presented by the said accused was falsified and immediately he called for a policeman who apprehended and arrested him.
From that sentence he appealed to this court, contending (1) that the facts and (2) that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict him on a plea of guilty because, being illiterate, he was not assisted by counsel.
Issue:
Whether the accused-appellant committed the crime estafa through falsification under Art. 166 of the RPC?
Held:
The penalty imposed by article 166 for the forging or falsification of "treasury or bank notes or certificates or other obligations and securities" is reclusion temporal in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed P10,000, if the document which has been falsified, counterfeited, or altered is an obligation or security of the United States or of the Philippine Islands. This being a complex crime of attempted estafa through falsification of an obligation or security of the Philippines, the penalty should be imposed in its maximum period in accordance with article 48. Taking into consideration the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction, and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum cannot be lower than prision mayor in its maximum period, which is 10 years and 1 day to 12 years. It results, therefore, that the penalty imposed by the trial court is correct.
The alteration, or even destruction, of a losing sweepstakes ticket could cause no harm to anyone and would not constitute a crime were it not for the attempt to cash the ticket so altered as a prize-winning number. So in the ultimate analysis appellant's real offense was the attempt to commit estafa (punishable with eleven days of arresto menor); but technically and legally he has to suffer for the serious crime of falsification of a government obligation. We realize that the penalty is too severe, considering all the circumstances of the case, but we have no discretion to impose a lower penalty than authorized by law. The exercise of clemency and not in this court.
The court is constrained to affirm the sentence appealed from, with costs against the appellant.
People vs Geronimo
Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of the case cited. Xie xie!
People vs Geronimo
G.R. No. L-8936
October 23, 1956
Facts:
In an information filed on June 24, 1954 by the provincial Fiscal in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, Appellant Federico Geronimo, together with Mariano P. Balgos alias Bakal alias Tony, alias Tony Collante alias Taoic, alias Mang Pacio, alias Bonny Abundio Romagosa alias David, Jesus Polita alias Rex, Jesus Lava alias Jessie alias NMT, alias Balbas, alias Noli, alias Noli Metangere, alias NKVD, Juan Ocompo alias Cmdr. Bundalian, alias Tagle, Rosendo Manuel alias Cmdr. Sendong, alias Ruiz, Ernesto Herrero alias Cmdr. Ed, alias Rene, alias Eddy, Santiago Rotas alias Cmdr. Jessie, Fernando Principe alias Cmdr. Manding, Alfredo Saguni alias Godo, alias Terry, alias Terpy, Andres Diapera alias Maclang, alias Berto, alias Teny, Lorenzo Saniel alias Wenny, Silvestre Sisno alias Tomo, alias Albert, Teodoro Primavera alias Nestor, Lorenzo Roxas alias Argos, Vivencio Pineda alias Marquez, Pedro Anino alias Fernandez, Mauro Llorera alias Justo, Richard Doe alias Cmdr. Danny and John Doe alias Cmdr. Berion, alias Mayo, alias Cmdr. Paulito and many others, were charged with the complex crime of rebellion with murders, robberies, and kidnapping committed.
In Camarines Sur, the above-named accused being then ranking officers and/or members of, or otherwise affiliated with the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and the Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan (HMB) or otherwise known as the Hukbalahaps (HUKS) the latter being the armed force of said Communist Party of the Philippines (CCP) having come to an agreement and decide to commit the crime of Rebellion, and therefore, conspiring together and confederating among themselves with all of the thirty-one accused.
Issue:
Whether or not accused-appellants committed the crime of rebellion?
Held:
Accused Federico Geronimo first entered a plea of not guilty to the information. When the case was called for trial on October 12, 1954, however, he asked the permission of the court to substitute his original plea with one of guilty, and was allowed to change his plea. On the basis of the plea of guilty, the fiscal recommended that the penalty of life imprisonment be imposed upon the accused, his voluntary plea of guilty being considered as a mitigating circumstance. Geronimo’s counsel, on the other hand, argued that the penalty imposable upon the accused was only prision mayor, for the reason that in his opinion, there is no such complex crime as rebellion with murders, robberies, and kidnapping, because the crimes of murders robberies, and kidnapping being the natural consequences of the crime of rebellion, the crime charged against the accused should be considered only as simple rebellion. On October 18, 1954, the trial court rendered judgment finding the accused guilty of the complex crime of rebellion with murders, robberies, and kidnappings; and giving him the benefit of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary plea of guilty, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to pay a fine of P10,000, to indemnify the heirs of the various persons killed, as listed in the information, in the sum of P6,000 each, and to pay the proportionate costs of the proceedings. From this judgment, accused Federico Geronimo appealed, raising the sole question of whether the crime committed by him is the complex crime of rebellion with murders, robberies, and kidnappings, or simple rebellion.
However, the decision appealed from is modified and the accused convicted for the simple (non-complex) crime of rebellion under article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and also for the crime of murder; and considering the mitigating effect of his plea of guilty, the accused-Appellant Federico Geronimo is hereby sentenced to suffer 8 years of prision mayor and to pay a fine of P10,000, (without subsidiary imprisonment pursuant to article 38 of the Penal Code) for the rebellion; and, as above explained, for the murder, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, to not less than 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor and not more than 18 years of reclusion temporal; to indemnify the heirs of Policarpio Tibay in the sum of P6,000; and to pay the costs.
People vs Geronimo
G.R. No. L-8936
October 23, 1956
Facts:
In an information filed on June 24, 1954 by the provincial Fiscal in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, Appellant Federico Geronimo, together with Mariano P. Balgos alias Bakal alias Tony, alias Tony Collante alias Taoic, alias Mang Pacio, alias Bonny Abundio Romagosa alias David, Jesus Polita alias Rex, Jesus Lava alias Jessie alias NMT, alias Balbas, alias Noli, alias Noli Metangere, alias NKVD, Juan Ocompo alias Cmdr. Bundalian, alias Tagle, Rosendo Manuel alias Cmdr. Sendong, alias Ruiz, Ernesto Herrero alias Cmdr. Ed, alias Rene, alias Eddy, Santiago Rotas alias Cmdr. Jessie, Fernando Principe alias Cmdr. Manding, Alfredo Saguni alias Godo, alias Terry, alias Terpy, Andres Diapera alias Maclang, alias Berto, alias Teny, Lorenzo Saniel alias Wenny, Silvestre Sisno alias Tomo, alias Albert, Teodoro Primavera alias Nestor, Lorenzo Roxas alias Argos, Vivencio Pineda alias Marquez, Pedro Anino alias Fernandez, Mauro Llorera alias Justo, Richard Doe alias Cmdr. Danny and John Doe alias Cmdr. Berion, alias Mayo, alias Cmdr. Paulito and many others, were charged with the complex crime of rebellion with murders, robberies, and kidnapping committed.
In Camarines Sur, the above-named accused being then ranking officers and/or members of, or otherwise affiliated with the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and the Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan (HMB) or otherwise known as the Hukbalahaps (HUKS) the latter being the armed force of said Communist Party of the Philippines (CCP) having come to an agreement and decide to commit the crime of Rebellion, and therefore, conspiring together and confederating among themselves with all of the thirty-one accused.
Issue:
Whether or not accused-appellants committed the crime of rebellion?
Held:
Accused Federico Geronimo first entered a plea of not guilty to the information. When the case was called for trial on October 12, 1954, however, he asked the permission of the court to substitute his original plea with one of guilty, and was allowed to change his plea. On the basis of the plea of guilty, the fiscal recommended that the penalty of life imprisonment be imposed upon the accused, his voluntary plea of guilty being considered as a mitigating circumstance. Geronimo’s counsel, on the other hand, argued that the penalty imposable upon the accused was only prision mayor, for the reason that in his opinion, there is no such complex crime as rebellion with murders, robberies, and kidnapping, because the crimes of murders robberies, and kidnapping being the natural consequences of the crime of rebellion, the crime charged against the accused should be considered only as simple rebellion. On October 18, 1954, the trial court rendered judgment finding the accused guilty of the complex crime of rebellion with murders, robberies, and kidnappings; and giving him the benefit of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary plea of guilty, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to pay a fine of P10,000, to indemnify the heirs of the various persons killed, as listed in the information, in the sum of P6,000 each, and to pay the proportionate costs of the proceedings. From this judgment, accused Federico Geronimo appealed, raising the sole question of whether the crime committed by him is the complex crime of rebellion with murders, robberies, and kidnappings, or simple rebellion.
However, the decision appealed from is modified and the accused convicted for the simple (non-complex) crime of rebellion under article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and also for the crime of murder; and considering the mitigating effect of his plea of guilty, the accused-Appellant Federico Geronimo is hereby sentenced to suffer 8 years of prision mayor and to pay a fine of P10,000, (without subsidiary imprisonment pursuant to article 38 of the Penal Code) for the rebellion; and, as above explained, for the murder, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, to not less than 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor and not more than 18 years of reclusion temporal; to indemnify the heirs of Policarpio Tibay in the sum of P6,000; and to pay the costs.
League Jose vs People
League Jose vs People
Facts:
Accused Jose League was the treasurer general of the party called Sakdalista aimed at obtaining the absolute independence of the Philippines before the end of 1935, that the sakdalistas planned an armed uprising in several provinces, especially Laguna.
On May 2, 1935, the telegraph wires and telephone connecting the municipality of Santa Rosa, Laguna, with Manila and neighboring towns were cut off electric lighting and closed houses, that armed men stood at ways to stop the passage of vehicles, passengers requisitioned and took the weapons they carried, that several hundred of the sakdalistas, armed bands, flags and a variety of weapons, marched in groups to seize municipal building in Santa Rosa and subtract that municipality of obedience to constituted government, that there was a bloody encounter between those sakdalistas and Constabulary were sent to restore order; that this meeting has been killed and wounded, that among the vehicles sakdalistas that tried to stop a car at night the car was Feliciano Gomez attorney who was in the passenger with several members of his family by not stopping the car to the intimation of these sakdalistas was shot, that Jose League, the appellant here, was among those armed individuals attempted to stop the car of lawyer Gomez; that saw and met the appellant, it had been his childhood companion and the driver Damian Harris also saw him this occasion armed a shotgun at a distance of meters from the vehicle dies, that the defendant fired two shots with his gun against the car of Gomez and the missiles were in the body of the same, that among the detainees there was a jitney car ownership of Ricardo Mendoza who acknowledged among people who stopped him the defendant because it was well lit by the light projected from the headlights of the jitney."
Issue:
Whether or not the appellant committed the crime of rebellion or sedition?
Held:
Indeed declare the First Division of the Court of Appeals that the facts in the above cause, which were substantially equivalent to those that were tested in the present, only constitute sedition, by reason that - using their own terms - "Rebellion is a rising that affects a large portion of territory, it is national and not local in character, and has purely political purpose. The disturbance engineered by the appellants meant to spread out later into national proportions, was, as matter of fact, a local disturbance. But the change is justified in the Court's view, because its latest decision which the appellant asks to review, promulgated on 23 October 1939, is more in line with the law that dictated his decision in that case.
Given the proven facts stated by the Court of Appeals, and the reasons that the ruling of the Court, subject to revision, hereby confirm the same and condemn the appellant to pay the costs of prosecution.
Facts:
Accused Jose League was the treasurer general of the party called Sakdalista aimed at obtaining the absolute independence of the Philippines before the end of 1935, that the sakdalistas planned an armed uprising in several provinces, especially Laguna.
On May 2, 1935, the telegraph wires and telephone connecting the municipality of Santa Rosa, Laguna, with Manila and neighboring towns were cut off electric lighting and closed houses, that armed men stood at ways to stop the passage of vehicles, passengers requisitioned and took the weapons they carried, that several hundred of the sakdalistas, armed bands, flags and a variety of weapons, marched in groups to seize municipal building in Santa Rosa and subtract that municipality of obedience to constituted government, that there was a bloody encounter between those sakdalistas and Constabulary were sent to restore order; that this meeting has been killed and wounded, that among the vehicles sakdalistas that tried to stop a car at night the car was Feliciano Gomez attorney who was in the passenger with several members of his family by not stopping the car to the intimation of these sakdalistas was shot, that Jose League, the appellant here, was among those armed individuals attempted to stop the car of lawyer Gomez; that saw and met the appellant, it had been his childhood companion and the driver Damian Harris also saw him this occasion armed a shotgun at a distance of meters from the vehicle dies, that the defendant fired two shots with his gun against the car of Gomez and the missiles were in the body of the same, that among the detainees there was a jitney car ownership of Ricardo Mendoza who acknowledged among people who stopped him the defendant because it was well lit by the light projected from the headlights of the jitney."
Issue:
Whether or not the appellant committed the crime of rebellion or sedition?
Held:
Indeed declare the First Division of the Court of Appeals that the facts in the above cause, which were substantially equivalent to those that were tested in the present, only constitute sedition, by reason that - using their own terms - "Rebellion is a rising that affects a large portion of territory, it is national and not local in character, and has purely political purpose. The disturbance engineered by the appellants meant to spread out later into national proportions, was, as matter of fact, a local disturbance. But the change is justified in the Court's view, because its latest decision which the appellant asks to review, promulgated on 23 October 1939, is more in line with the law that dictated his decision in that case.
Given the proven facts stated by the Court of Appeals, and the reasons that the ruling of the Court, subject to revision, hereby confirm the same and condemn the appellant to pay the costs of prosecution.
Del Rosario vs People
Del Rosario vs People
G.R. No. L-16806
December 22, 1961
Facts:
Sergio del Rosario, Alfonso Araneta and Benedicto del Pilar were convicted by the Court of First Instance of Davao of illegal possession of said forged treasury notes and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from 8 years and 1 day to 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor, and pay a fine of P5,000, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, as well as a proportionate part of the costs. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, except insofar as the maximum of said indeterminate penalty which was increased to 10 years, 8 months and 1 day of prision mayor.
Issue:
Whether the accused-appellants are liable for the crime of illegal possession and use of false treasury or bank notes under Art. 168?
Held:
It is clear from the provisions Art 160 and 169 of the Revised Penal Code that the possession of genuine treasury notes of the Philippines any of "the figures, letters, words or signs contained" in which had been erased and or altered, with knowledge of such notes, as they were used by petitioner herein and his co-defendants in the manner adverted to above, is punishable under said Article 168, in relation to Article 166, subdivision (1), of the Revised Penal Code (U.S. vs. Gardner, 3 Phil., 398; U.S. vs. Solito, 36 Phil., 785). Being in accordance with the facts and the law, the decision appealed from is, accordingly, affirmed, with costs against petitioner Sergio del Rosario.
G.R. No. L-16806
December 22, 1961
Facts:
Sergio del Rosario, Alfonso Araneta and Benedicto del Pilar were convicted by the Court of First Instance of Davao of illegal possession of said forged treasury notes and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty ranging from 8 years and 1 day to 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor, and pay a fine of P5,000, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, as well as a proportionate part of the costs. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, except insofar as the maximum of said indeterminate penalty which was increased to 10 years, 8 months and 1 day of prision mayor.
Issue:
Whether the accused-appellants are liable for the crime of illegal possession and use of false treasury or bank notes under Art. 168?
Held:
It is clear from the provisions Art 160 and 169 of the Revised Penal Code that the possession of genuine treasury notes of the Philippines any of "the figures, letters, words or signs contained" in which had been erased and or altered, with knowledge of such notes, as they were used by petitioner herein and his co-defendants in the manner adverted to above, is punishable under said Article 168, in relation to Article 166, subdivision (1), of the Revised Penal Code (U.S. vs. Gardner, 3 Phil., 398; U.S. vs. Solito, 36 Phil., 785). Being in accordance with the facts and the law, the decision appealed from is, accordingly, affirmed, with costs against petitioner Sergio del Rosario.
People vs Villanueva
People vs Villanueva
G.R. No. L-39047-39052
October 31, 1933
Facts:
On December 7, 1931, there was sent from Honokaa, Hawaii, a postal money order for the sum of P200 in favor of Irene Sanchez, resident of Santa Lucia, Ilocos Sur. On January 14, 1932, there were likewise sent from Watsonville, California, five postal money orders, four of which were for the sum of P200 each and one for the sum of P100, in favor of Feliciano Isidro residence of the same municipality of Santa Lucia, Ilocos Sur. The postal money order in favor of Irene Sanchez was sent her by her son Conde E. Aceta and the ones sent to Feliciano Isidro, by his son Victor.
The defendant Virgilio Villanueva informed them that the money orders had not yet been received, Irene Sanchez and Feliciano Isidro returned to the same office twice to make the same inquiry but they were given the same information that the money orders had not been received. In April of the same year, when Feliciano Isidro went there again, the defendant informed him that he had already received the money orders and that he had appropriated the amount thereof. Consequently, through the intervention of Pedro Callejo, principal of the Santa Lucia Primary School, the defendant signed two documents wherein he admitted having received the money orders, forged the signatures of Irene Sanchez and Feliciano Isidro thereon, collected and appropriated the respective amounts thereof. Furthermore, we find that this admission by the defendant was made voluntarily.
Issue:
Whether the defendant committed the crime of falsification of documents?
Held:
The defendant is guilty of six crimes of malversation in the sum of P200 in each and every one of the cases and in the sum of P100 another case and of six crimes of falsification of public documents in each and every one of the aforesaid cases.
Hence, the accused is sentenced in each and every one of the six aforesaid cases fro the crime of falsification of public documents to eight years and one day of prision mayor and for malversation of public funds to one year, eight months and twenty-one days of prision correccional, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed in all other respects, with the costs.
G.R. No. L-39047-39052
October 31, 1933
Facts:
On December 7, 1931, there was sent from Honokaa, Hawaii, a postal money order for the sum of P200 in favor of Irene Sanchez, resident of Santa Lucia, Ilocos Sur. On January 14, 1932, there were likewise sent from Watsonville, California, five postal money orders, four of which were for the sum of P200 each and one for the sum of P100, in favor of Feliciano Isidro residence of the same municipality of Santa Lucia, Ilocos Sur. The postal money order in favor of Irene Sanchez was sent her by her son Conde E. Aceta and the ones sent to Feliciano Isidro, by his son Victor.
The defendant Virgilio Villanueva informed them that the money orders had not yet been received, Irene Sanchez and Feliciano Isidro returned to the same office twice to make the same inquiry but they were given the same information that the money orders had not been received. In April of the same year, when Feliciano Isidro went there again, the defendant informed him that he had already received the money orders and that he had appropriated the amount thereof. Consequently, through the intervention of Pedro Callejo, principal of the Santa Lucia Primary School, the defendant signed two documents wherein he admitted having received the money orders, forged the signatures of Irene Sanchez and Feliciano Isidro thereon, collected and appropriated the respective amounts thereof. Furthermore, we find that this admission by the defendant was made voluntarily.
Issue:
Whether the defendant committed the crime of falsification of documents?
Held:
The defendant is guilty of six crimes of malversation in the sum of P200 in each and every one of the cases and in the sum of P100 another case and of six crimes of falsification of public documents in each and every one of the aforesaid cases.
Hence, the accused is sentenced in each and every one of the six aforesaid cases fro the crime of falsification of public documents to eight years and one day of prision mayor and for malversation of public funds to one year, eight months and twenty-one days of prision correccional, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed in all other respects, with the costs.
People vs Barraquia
Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of the case cited. Xie xie!
People vs Barraquia
C.A. No. 50
April 13, 1946
Facts:
Appellant is accused of illegal possession and use of a false bank note of ten-peso denomination. The lower court found him guilty and, appreciating in his favor the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction, he being illiterate, sentenced him to suffer of one year of prision correccional, to pay a fine of P50, with the corresponding subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, to suffer the accessory penalties of the law, and to pay the costs.
On March 21, 1941, at about 3:30 p. m., appellant went to the post office of Calamba, Laguna, for the purpose of changing a ten-peso bank note, Exhibit A. The postmaster to the accused that the note was false and placed it near the window, and thereupon sent for a policeman to arrest the accused. The accused waited for the policeman to arrive at the post office. He admitted to the policeman that the note was his, and the policeman took him to the municipal building where he was investigated by the chief of police. At the investigation, accused explained that the bank note was passed to him in a game of cara y cruz in the barrio of Mamatid, Cabuyao, Laguna, the night previous.
Issue:
Whether the evidence presented is valid enough to prosecute the illiterate accused of the crime charged?
Held:
Upon his own testimony accused appears to be an illiterate laborer, who does not know how to read or write. He testified that he happened to know that the bill in question was a counterfeit only when the postmaster of Calamba informed him so, but for himself he cannot distinguish a counterfeit note from a genuine one; and that if he had known that Exhibit A was a counterfeit, he would not have gone to the post office of Calamba to have it changed.
Upon the evidence in this case, the court finds enough ground to declare appellant guilty of the crime charged in the information. The only evidence presented by the prosecution to the effect that the bank note in question was a counterfeit is the testimony of cashier Vicente C. Reventar of the provincial treasury of Laguna who stated that the printing of the bill is somewhat blurred and the paper is very oily. The court does not believe that these two circumstances may be considered as enough basis for declaring the bill in question as falsified. The fact that the printing is somewhat blurred may be attributed to the overuse of an old printed matter. That the bank bill is oily is not an evidence of a counterfeit bill, because any bank note may become oily by impregnation with an oily liquid. According to the decision of the lower court, the bill Exhibit A bears No. D462691D. No evidence has been presented that this number does not check with the genuine one issued with the same number. There is no evidence as to the kind of bank note Exhibit A was, and we are not in a position to determine what it was or to determine that the two circumstances mentioned by witness Reventar may really be considered evidence of falsification, because Exhibit A has disappeared and could not be submitted to us for our examination.
The facts brought out in this case do not prove conclusively either that the lost Exhibit A is a counterfeited bank note or that, if it really is, appellant had knowledge of the fact before the postmaster of Calamba called a policeman to put him under custody. For all the foregoing, the appellant is acquitted of the crime charged in the information, with costs de oficio.
People vs Barraquia
C.A. No. 50
April 13, 1946
Facts:
Appellant is accused of illegal possession and use of a false bank note of ten-peso denomination. The lower court found him guilty and, appreciating in his favor the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction, he being illiterate, sentenced him to suffer of one year of prision correccional, to pay a fine of P50, with the corresponding subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, to suffer the accessory penalties of the law, and to pay the costs.
On March 21, 1941, at about 3:30 p. m., appellant went to the post office of Calamba, Laguna, for the purpose of changing a ten-peso bank note, Exhibit A. The postmaster to the accused that the note was false and placed it near the window, and thereupon sent for a policeman to arrest the accused. The accused waited for the policeman to arrive at the post office. He admitted to the policeman that the note was his, and the policeman took him to the municipal building where he was investigated by the chief of police. At the investigation, accused explained that the bank note was passed to him in a game of cara y cruz in the barrio of Mamatid, Cabuyao, Laguna, the night previous.
Issue:
Whether the evidence presented is valid enough to prosecute the illiterate accused of the crime charged?
Held:
Upon his own testimony accused appears to be an illiterate laborer, who does not know how to read or write. He testified that he happened to know that the bill in question was a counterfeit only when the postmaster of Calamba informed him so, but for himself he cannot distinguish a counterfeit note from a genuine one; and that if he had known that Exhibit A was a counterfeit, he would not have gone to the post office of Calamba to have it changed.
Upon the evidence in this case, the court finds enough ground to declare appellant guilty of the crime charged in the information. The only evidence presented by the prosecution to the effect that the bank note in question was a counterfeit is the testimony of cashier Vicente C. Reventar of the provincial treasury of Laguna who stated that the printing of the bill is somewhat blurred and the paper is very oily. The court does not believe that these two circumstances may be considered as enough basis for declaring the bill in question as falsified. The fact that the printing is somewhat blurred may be attributed to the overuse of an old printed matter. That the bank bill is oily is not an evidence of a counterfeit bill, because any bank note may become oily by impregnation with an oily liquid. According to the decision of the lower court, the bill Exhibit A bears No. D462691D. No evidence has been presented that this number does not check with the genuine one issued with the same number. There is no evidence as to the kind of bank note Exhibit A was, and we are not in a position to determine what it was or to determine that the two circumstances mentioned by witness Reventar may really be considered evidence of falsification, because Exhibit A has disappeared and could not be submitted to us for our examination.
The facts brought out in this case do not prove conclusively either that the lost Exhibit A is a counterfeited bank note or that, if it really is, appellant had knowledge of the fact before the postmaster of Calamba called a policeman to put him under custody. For all the foregoing, the appellant is acquitted of the crime charged in the information, with costs de oficio.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)