Caubang vs. People

The possessor and user of a falsified public document is presumed to be the forger thereof, and this presumption applies when the possession and use are unexplained, as the crime of falsification of a public document punishes the violation of public faith and the destruction of truth solemnly proclaimed, irrespective of intent to gain or actual damage.

Petitioner Adolfo Caubang was the incumbent mayor of Baganga, Davao Oriental, and a part-owner of the Banganga Mutual Association (BMA), an unlicensed stevedoring service. In 1974, following a suggestion from the Collector of Customs, BMA merged with the East Coast Arrastre Stevedoring Services, Inc. (ECASSI) to form the Baganga Consolidated Arrastre Stevedoring Services, Inc. (BCASSI). The incorporators executed Articles of Incorporation and elected Baltazar Pagaduan as treasurer, who signed a Treasurer's Affidavit. Petitioner was entrusted with bringing the incorporation documents and P2,500 in paid-up capital to Manila for SEC registration. The SEC subsequently approved the registration, issuing a Certificate of Incorporation. However, the Statement of Assets and Liabilities submitted as a registration requirement contained a forged signature of Pagaduan.

• Nature of the Action: Petitioner was charged with falsification of a public document for allegedly forging the signature of Baltazar Pagaduan on the Statement of Assets and Liabilities of BCASSI, which was submitted to the SEC for corporate registration.
• The Merger and Incorporation: In 1974, BMA (partly owned by petitioner) and ECASSI merged to form BCASSI. The incorporators executed Articles of Incorporation on December 18, 1974, and elected Baltazar Pagaduan as treasurer. Pagaduan signed a Treasurer's Affidavit but later claimed he announced the merger would not push through due to non-payment of subscriptions by some incorporators.
• The SEC Registration: Petitioner brought the Articles of Incorporation, Treasurer's Affidavit, and P2,500 to Manila on January 14, 1975, for SEC registration. The SEC approved the registration on January 15, 1975, and issued a Certificate of Incorporation.
• The Disputed Document: Among the documents filed with the SEC was a Statement of Assets and Liabilities (Exhibit B-2) purportedly signed by Pagaduan as treasurer and notarized in Manila on January 15, 1975. Pagaduan denied signing or authorizing the document, and his signature was found to be forged.
• Prosecution's Evidence: SEC Examiner Juana Jularbal reported that petitioner presented the P2,500 paid-up capital. Petitioner admitted signing a General Information Sheet (Exhibit C) and an undertaking to change the corporate name (Exhibit D). The prosecution argued petitioner had possession of all documents and was the only person who could have submitted the forged statement.
• Defense's Version: Petitioner claimed he entrusted the registration to a fixer named "Pete" through an associate, Luis Granados, and was not personally involved in the filing. He denied knowledge of the forged statement.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Petitioner argued that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, as the prosecution's evidence was circumstantial and failed to exclude the possibility that another person (the fixer "Pete") committed the forgery.
• Factual Findings: Petitioner contended that the Court of Appeals overlooked material facts, such as the testimony of SEC witness Juana Jularbal allegedly not identifying him as the person who presented the cash, and that the appellate court's findings were contrary to established facts.
• Elements of the Crime: Petitioner maintained that the Statement of Assets and Liabilities contained no false entries, caused no damage to the government or third parties, and was executed without criminal intent, relying on Beradio v. Court of Appeals to argue that falsification requires proof of damage.

• Circumstantial Evidence and Presumption: The People countered that the totality of circumstantial evidence—including petitioner's possession of the documents, his role as authorized representative, and the physical impossibility of Pagaduan signing in Manila—established guilt. The presumption that the possessor and user of a forged document is the forger applied.
• Nature of the Crime: Respondent argued that in falsification of a public document, the material element is the counterfeiting of a signature, which violates public faith; neither falsity of contents nor damage is required. Beradio was distinguished as involving a different type of document with no continuing public interest.

• Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence: Whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for falsification.
• Presumption of Forgery: Whether the presumption that the possessor and user of a falsified document is the forger was correctly applied.
• Elements of Falsification: Whether the crime of falsification of a public document requires proof of false entries or damage to the government or third parties.

• Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence: The circumstantial evidence was sufficient. Petitioner was the authorized representative who brought the documents to Manila, possessed the forged statement, and used it to secure SEC registration. His defense involving a fixer was uncorroborated and implausible, failing to rebut the logical inference of his responsibility.
• Presumption of Forgery: The presumption was correctly applied. Petitioner's possession and use of the forged Statement of Assets and Liabilities were unexplained. As the person in custody of the registration papers, he was presumed to be the forger, consistent with precedents like People v. Sendaydiego.
• Elements of Falsification: The crime does not require proof of false entries or damage. The act of forging a signature on a public document, making it appear that another participated in its execution, constitutes falsification. The principal thing punished is the violation of public faith and destruction of truth solemnly proclaimed, as held in People v. Pacana.

• Presumption of Forgery from Possession and Use — The possessor and user of a falsified document who fails to satisfactorily explain such possession is presumed to be the forger. This presumption arises because forgery is typically done in secret, and direct evidence is rarely available.
• Falsification of Public Document as Mala Prohibita — The crime of falsification of a public document is malum prohibitum; it is the act itself that is punished, not the intent or the result. Intent to gain or to cause damage is immaterial, and the falsity of the document's contents need not be proven.

• "In the falsification of a public document such as Exhibit 'B-2', it is immaterial whether or not the contents set forth therein were false. What is important is the fact that the signature of another was counterfeited." — This clarifies that the essence of the crime is the breach of public faith, not the substantive falsity.
• "The filing of the previously inexistent document subjects the accused-petitioner to the inference that he used it as part of the registration papers. In the absence of a credible and satisfactory explanation of how the document came into being and then filed with the SEC, accused is presumed to be the forger of the signature of Pagaduan..." — This articulates the application of the presumption of forgery.

• People v. Sendaydiego, 81 SCRA 120 (1978) — Cited for the rule that the possessor and user of a falsified document is presumed to be the forger.
• Beradio v. Court of Appeals, 103 SCRA 567 (1981) — Distinguished; the Court held that Beradio involved a time record of an election registrar, which served its purpose and lacked continuing public interest, unlike the corporate document in this case.
• People v. Pacana, 47 Phil. 48 (1924) — Cited for the principle that falsification of a public document punishes the violation of public faith and the destruction of truth solemnly proclaimed.

• Article 172, paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code — Punishes any private individual who shall commit any of the falsifications enumerated in Article 171 in any public or official document.
• Article 171, paragraph 2, Revised Penal Code — Defines falsification by counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature, or rubric.

• Justice Feliciano
• Justice Bidin
• Justice Davide, Jr.
• Justice Romero