Constantino vs. People of the Philippines

For a notary public to be found guilty of falsifying a notarial will under Article 171(2) of the Revised Penal Code, the prosecution must prove that he or she has falsified or simulated the signatures of the testator or the instrumental witnesses to make it appear that they participated in the execution of the document when they did not; mere negligence in failing to remove the name of a witness who subsequently signed the document does not constitute falsification where the signature is genuine and the notary did not cause the appearance of participation.

Severino Cabrales executed a Last Will and Testament on September 9, 2001, bequeathing his properties to his daughter Teresita C. Saliganan. The will was notarized by Atty. Bernardo T. Constantino at Severino’s residence in Laoag City. The document’s Joint Acknowledgment listed Dr. Eliezer Asuncion as an instrumental witness who allegedly appeared before the notary. However, Dr. Asuncion admitted that he signed the document later at his clinic, after the notarization, at the request of Saliganan’s son-in-law, Rene Ferrer, Jr., without the notary’s presence. In 2005, upon learning of probate proceedings for the will, Severino’s son Fernando Cabrales contested the document’s authenticity, secured a copy, and discovered the discrepancy regarding Dr. Asuncion’s signature. This led to the filing of criminal charges against Atty. Constantino for falsification of a public document.

• The Notarization of the Will: On the morning of September 9, 2001, Atty. Constantino brought three typed copies of Severino Cabrales’s Last Will and Testament to Severino’s house for signing. Present were Severino, Atty. Constantino, his wife Editha and son Bernard Christian, the Balintona spouses (Dr. Justino and Mary), Rosalinda Cu, Saliganan, and one other person. Severino’s hands were trembling, so Saliganan held his wrist to sign the three copies. The three instrumental witnesses present—the Balintona spouses and Cu—then signed. Atty. Constantino notarized the document. Upon seeing a stamp pad, Atty. Constantino asked Severino if he wanted to affix his thumbmark; Severino agreed and again asked Saliganan to assist him. Atty. Constantino took one copy and gave the other two to Severino.

• Post-Notarization Signature of Dr. Asuncion: On his way out, Saliganan took Atty. Constantino’s copy of the document, telling him that Dr. Asuncion had arrived to sign. Sometime later, Saliganan returned the copy. Atty. Constantino did not check if Dr. Asuncion had signed. In reality, Dr. Asuncion had not appeared at Severino’s house. Instead, Ferrer, Saliganan’s son-in-law, went to Dr. Asuncion’s clinic and asked him to sign the document. Dr. Asuncion signed it there, in the presence of Ferrer and some patients, without reading it and without appearing before Atty. Constantino.

• Probate Proceedings and Discovery: On February 8, 2005, a Petition for Probate of the will was filed before the RTC of Laoag City. Fernando Cabrales, a son of Severino, secured a copy of the purported will and claimed the signature was not Severino’s. He spoke to Dr. Asuncion, who confirmed that he signed the document at his clinic at Ferrer’s request and that he, Ferrer, and some patients were present at the time.

• Defense Evidence: Atty. Constantino testified that Severino was of sound mind and could walk with a cane when he visited the lawyer’s office to prepare the will. He alleged that Severino wanted to disinherit Fernando and leave everything to Saliganan. He claimed he advised Severino not to make erasures or crossing-outs on the document to avoid making it dirty. He explained his failure to remove Dr. Asuncion’s name by citing his muscular dystrophy, which made climbing to the second floor difficult; the absence of a typewriter or clerk at Severino’s house to make corrections; and his desire to honor the testator’s wish to notarize at his residence to avoid climbing the steep stairway again. He also asserted that he relied on his secretary to file office documents and was unable to check the document when Saliganan returned it.

• Lower Courts’ Factual Findings: The trial court found that while only a photocopy of the will was presented, the parties did not dispute its execution. It found that the prosecution failed to establish that Severino was not of sound mind. However, it held Atty. Constantino liable for making it appear that Dr. Asuncion appeared before him as a witness when he did not. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that Atty. Constantino could have easily removed Dr. Asuncion’s name if he believed in good faith that only three witnesses were needed, and that his failure to immediately surrender indicated guilt.

• Exceptions to Rule 45: Petitioner contended that recognized exceptions to the rule that only questions of law may be raised in a Rule 45 petition apply, considering that his conviction was overtly based on conjectures, presumptions, and speculations, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

• Physical Impossibility of Correction: Petitioner argued that it would have been difficult to remove Dr. Asuncion’s name at the time of signing. Due to his muscular dystrophy, he required accompaniment by his wife and two sons to climb to the second floor of the house. Additionally, no typewriter, clerk, or typist was present at Severino’s house to effect corrections.

• Reliance on Secretary: Petitioner maintained that due to his physical condition, he relied on his secretary to file office documents and was therefore unable to check the Last Will and Testament when Saliganan returned it to his secretary.

• Absence of Criminal Intent: Petitioner conceded negligence in failing to cross out Dr. Asuncion’s name but argued that this should not be visited with criminal liability; instead, the fault lay with Dr. Asuncion, who admitted signing without reading the document.

• Explanation for Delayed Surrender: Petitioner explained that his failure to immediately surrender was due to failing health and his wife being abroad to care for their daughters. He alleged that Saliganan assured him she was attempting to settle the case as a family misunderstanding, which caused him not to pay attention to the case.

• Improper Questions of Fact: Respondent countered that petitioner raises questions of fact regarding the assessment of evidence and witness credibility, which are improper in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Respondent argued that all elements of the crime of falsification of a public document under Article 171(2) of the Revised Penal Code were duly proven by the evidence on record.

• Request for Leniency: Respondent requested that the Court impose any penalty with leniency due to petitioner’s advanced age and physical condition.

• Scope of Review: Whether the Petition presents questions of fact not cognizable in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, or whether the recognized exception for criminal appeals applies.

• Elements of Falsification under Article 171(2): Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner falsified a public document by causing it to appear that Dr. Asuncion participated in the execution and attestation of the will when he did not.

• Nature of Notarial Wills and Public Documents: Whether a notarial will is a public document for purposes of falsification, and what formalities are required to prove its due execution.

• Scope of Review: The appeal was treated as raising questions of law because it challenged whether the factual findings of the lower courts conformed to the evidence and whether the elements of the crime were proven. In criminal cases, the Supreme Court retains full jurisdiction to review factual findings when not convinced they conform to the evidence or when significant facts and circumstances were overlooked that could affect the result.

• Elements of Falsification under Article 171(2): The conviction was reversed on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of falsification. Article 171(2) penalizes a notary who falsifies a document by causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate. The prosecution must prove that the notary falsified or simulated the signatures of the testator or instrumental witnesses to make it appear they participated in the execution when they did not. Here, Dr. Asuncion’s signature was genuine; he admitted signing the document, albeit after notarization and not in the notary’s presence. The notary did not simulate Dr. Asuncion’s signature or cause it to appear that he participated in the due execution (attestation and subscription) before the notary; rather, Dr. Asuncion and Ferrer caused that appearance by having Dr. Asuncion sign post-notarization. Petitioner’s failure to delete Dr. Asuncion’s name constituted negligence, not falsification under the penal code.

• Nature of Notarial Wills: A notarial will is specifically excluded from the definition of public documents under Rule 132, Section 19 of the Rules of Court. The due execution of a notarial will is proven through the validity of the attestation clause—the signature of the instrumental witnesses before the notary public attesting to the manner of execution—not merely the notarization. Since Dr. Asuncion did not sign the Joint Acknowledgment before notarization, he could not be considered to have attested and subscribed to the due execution at the time of notarization. Thus, when petitioner certified that the persons who attested and subscribed were present, there was no falsity within the meaning of Article 171(2).

• Administrative Liability: While acquitted of criminal liability, petitioner’s failure to cross out Dr. Asuncion’s name when he notarized the Joint Acknowledgment allowed Dr. Asuncion to sign despite not having participated in the due execution. This constitutes ground for administrative sanctions under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (Rule XI, Section 1(b)(9) in relation to Rule IV, Section 5) for executing an incomplete certificate, or under prior jurisprudential standards cautioning notaries against notarizing incomplete documents.

• Falsification by Notary under Article 171(2) RPC — The offense requires proof that the notary falsified or simulated the signatures of the testator or instrumental witnesses to make it appear that they participated in the execution of the document when they did not. Mere failure to delete the name of a person who actually signed the document (even if post-notarization) does not constitute falsification where the notary did not fabricate the signature or the fact of participation.

• Notarial Wills as Public Documents — For purposes of evidence under Rule 132, Section 19 of the Rules of Court, last wills and testaments are excluded from the definition of public documents notwithstanding notarization. The formalities required to prove a notarial will’s authenticity pertain to the attestation and subscription of the testator and witnesses, not the notarization itself. The attestation clause provides the legal guaranty for due execution and must be signed by the witnesses before the notary.

• Presumption of Innocence and Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt — Conviction requires moral certainty that produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. The prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt based on the strength of its own evidence, not on the weakness of the defense. Reasonable doubt on the evidence presented results in acquittal.

• "For a notary public to be found guilty of falsifying a notarial will, the prosecution must prove that he or she has falsified or simulated the signatures of the testator or the instrumental witnesses to make it appear that they participated in the execution of the document when they did not."

• "Proof beyond reasonable doubt is needed to overcome the presumption of innocence. Accused-appellant's guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt[;] otherwise, the Court would be left without any other recourse but to rule for acquittal. Courts should be guided by the principle that it would be better to set free ten men who might be probably guilty of the crime charged than to convict one innocent man for a crime he did not commit."

• "Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with such substantial public interest that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity."

• "A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, and for this reason notaries public must observe the utmost care to comply with the elementary formalities in the performance of their duties."

• People v. Capili, 388 Phil. 1026 (2000) — Controlling precedent on the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence in criminal cases.

• Ferrer v. People, 518 Phil. 196 (2006) — Followed for the principle that appeals in criminal cases throw the whole case open for review, conferring full jurisdiction upon the reviewing court.

• Caneda v. Court of Appeals, 294 Phil. 801 (1993) — Controlling precedent defining the function of an attestation clause and the formalities required for due execution of notarial wills.

• Goma v. Court of Appeals, 596 Phil. 1 (2009) — Cited for the enumeration of elements of falsification under Article 171(2) of the Revised Penal Code.

• Bote v. Eduardo, 491 Phil. 198 (2005) — Followed for the doctrine that notaries public must not notarize incomplete documents to preserve public confidence in notarial acts.

• Ramirez v. Ner, 128 Phil. 221 (1967) — Cited for the principle that notarial documents are entitled to full faith and credit, requiring notaries to observe utmost care in performing duties.

• Article 171(2), Revised Penal Code — Defines falsification by a notary public as causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate.

• Rule 132, Section 19, Rules of Court — Defines public documents for evidentiary purposes and specifically excludes last wills and testaments from such definition, even if acknowledged before a notary.

• Article 806, Civil Code — Mandates that every will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the testator and the instrumental witnesses.

• Rule IV, Section 5 and Rule XI, Section 1(b)(9), 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Prohibit notaries public from executing false or incomplete certificates and provide for administrative sanctions including revocation of commission.

Peralta (Chairperson), A. Reyes, Jr., Hernando, and Carandang, JJ., concurred.