Garcia vs. Court of Appeals

The factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally conclusive and binding upon the Supreme Court in a petition for review under Rule 45, save in exceptional instances where a possible miscarriage of justice would otherwise result. Conviction for falsification of a private document under Article 172(2) in relation to Article 171(6) of the Revised Penal Code requires proof of four elements: (1) an alteration or intercalation on a document; (2) that the document was genuine; (3) that the alteration changed the meaning of the document; and (4) that the changes made the document speak something false, plus independent evidence of damage or intent to cause damage to a third person. All elements having been established, and the defense of consensual alteration being unsupported by credible evidence, the conviction was proper.

In early October 1990, a verbal agreement was entered into between Alberto Quijada, Jr. and Avella Garcia for the sale of Quijada's house and lot in Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, for ₱1.2 million. Avella made payments on October 23, 1990 (₱10,000 earnest money), October 31, 1990 (₱155,000 downpayment), and January 21, 1991 (₱5,000 additional downpayment). For the January 21 payment, Avella handwrote two identical receipts, both signed by Alberto Quijada, Jr. and his sister Alicia Q. Gonzales as witness. Avella retained one copy; Alberto kept the other. The relationship between the parties later deteriorated, and Avella filed a complaint for estafa against Alberto. In support of that complaint, Avella submitted her copy of the receipt — which had been altered to show a payment of ₱55,000 instead of ₱5,000, along with additional insertions regarding a new title number and an agreement to execute a deed of conveyance.

• The Transaction: Sometime in early October 1990, Alberto Quijada, Jr. and Avella Garcia entered into a verbal agreement for the sale of Alberto's house and lot at 46 P. Gomez St., Mandaluyong, Metro Manila — a 308-square-meter property covered by T.C.T. No. 397670 — for a purchase price of ₱1.2 million.

• Payments Made: On October 23, 1990, Avella gave Alberto ₱10,000 as earnest money. On October 31, 1990, she delivered ₱155,000 as downpayment. On January 21, 1991, she made an additional payment of ₱5,000. For this last payment, Avella handwrote two identical receipts in her own handwriting, both signed by Alberto and his sister Alicia Q. Gonzales as witness. One receipt was given to Alberto; the other retained by Avella.

• Contents of the Original Receipt: The original receipt stated the date as "January 21/91," acknowledged receipt of "five thousand pesos cash (₱5,000.00) as additional downpayment," identified the property and its T.C.T. number, and stated the total purchase price of ₱1.2 million.

• The Altered Receipt: When Avella later filed an estafa complaint against Alberto, she submitted her copy of the receipt, which now contained several alterations: (1) the word "fifty" was inserted before "five" on the second line to read "fifty five thousand"; (2) the figure "5" was inserted before "5,000.00" to read "55,000.00"; (3) additional words were inserted at the end: "Now covered by T.C.T. # 3998 R.D. Mandaluyong MM. the parties agree to execute of valid deed of conveyance covering the same sale"; (4) the number "4" was superimposed on the date to read "January 24" instead of "January 21"; and (5) the amount "55,000.00" and the word "value" appeared on the upper left-hand corner. The effect of these alterations was to make it appear that Alberto had received ₱55,000 on January 24, 1991, and that the parties had agreed to execute a deed of conveyance.

• Criminal Charge: Noticing the alterations, Alberto instituted a criminal action before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasay City. The City Prosecutor found a prima facie case and filed an Information charging Avella with Falsification of a Private Document under Article 172(2) in relation to Article 171(6) of the Revised Penal Code. The Information alleged that Avella made alterations to the original receipt which completely changed its meaning by making it appear that the receipt was issued on January 24, 1991 in the amount of ₱55,000, when she fully well knew it was only for ₱5,000.

• Petitioner's Defense: Avella admitted making the alterations but claimed they were done in the presence and at the request of Alberto. Her account: Three days after the January 21 receipt was issued, on January 24, 1991, she called architect Celso Cunanan to borrow ₱50,000, an amount Cunanan had earlier committed to lend her. Cunanan arrived at her house that evening and delivered ₱50,000 to her, which she then handed to Alberto in Cunanan's presence. Because Alberto did not have his copy of the original receipt with him, he asked Avella to "add" the ₱50,000 to her copy to reflect the total of ₱55,000. Avella made the alterations in front of Alberto while he counted the money. She showed the altered receipt to Alberto, but he did not sign it because he was in a hurry to leave. Cunanan corroborated this account in his testimony.

• Additional Defense Allegations: Avella claimed the falsification charge was retaliatory, filed because she had initiated an estafa case against Alberto. She alleged that the deed of sale purportedly transferring the property to Alberto was fake. The N.B.I. Questioned Documents Division found that the signatures of the Spouses Caceres (the previous owners) on the deed of sale did not match their sample signatures. She also presented an affidavit from Richard Hui Quijada, Alberto's nephew, who stated he had forged the signatures at his uncle's behest. Additionally, a certification from the Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC Manila, stated that the notarizing lawyer, Atty. Mallari, did not notarize any document in April 1977, the month the deed of sale was supposedly notarized.

• Trial Court Findings: The RTC found Avella's account unworthy of belief. The court reasoned that if the alterations had been made while Alberto was counting the money, it would not have taken more than five seconds for him to affix his signature on the receipt, even if he was in a hurry. All elements of the crime were proven beyond reasonable doubt.

• Court of Appeals Findings: The CA affirmed the trial court's factual findings in their entirety, declaring that nothing in the record remotely indicated the conclusions were reached arbitrarily.

• Credibility of Defense Evidence: Petitioner argued that her explanation for the alterations — that they were made at Alberto's request and in his presence — should be accepted as true, supported as it was by the corroborating testimony of architect Celso Cunanan.

• Retaliatory Prosecution: Petitioner maintained that the criminal charge was filed in retaliation for her estafa complaint against Alberto, and that the deed of sale underlying Alberto's claim of ownership was itself fraudulent, as shown by the N.B.I. findings and the certification regarding the fake notarization.

• Reevaluation of Evidence: Petitioner asked the Supreme Court to reevaluate the evidence, contending that the trial court and the CA had erred in rejecting her defense and that a different interpretation of the evidence was warranted.

• Proof of Elements Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The People maintained that all elements of falsification of a private document had been established: petitioner admitted making the alterations on a genuine document; the alterations changed the meaning of the document; and the altered receipt spoke something false — that Alberto had received ₱55,000 when he had received only ₱5,000.

• Incredibility of Consent Defense: The People argued that petitioner's claim of consensual alteration was unworthy of belief. Alberto would not have instructed petitioner to alter her own copy of the receipt without simultaneously altering his copy or signing the altered version; his alleged failure to sign despite being present was implausible.

• Review of Factual Findings: Whether the Supreme Court may reevaluate the factual findings of the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals in a petition for review under Rule 45.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Conviction: Whether the elements of falsification of a private document under Article 172(2) in relation to Article 171(6) of the Revised Penal Code were proven beyond reasonable doubt.

• Correctness of Penalty: Whether the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals was in accordance with law.

• Review of Factual Findings: The factual findings of the trial court, having been affirmed by the Court of Appeals, were conclusive and binding upon the Supreme Court. It is not the function of the Court in a petition for review under Rule 45 to analyze and weigh the evidence all over again, except where there is serious ground to believe a possible miscarriage of justice would otherwise result. Petitioner offered no cogent reason to disturb the concurrent findings; her plea amounted only to a request for the Court to interpret the evidence differently.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Conviction: All four elements of falsification under Article 171(6) were proven beyond reasonable doubt. Petitioner admitted: (1) she made alterations on the receipt; (2) the receipt was a genuine document at the time of alteration; (3) the alterations changed the meaning of the document; and (4) the changes made the document speak something false — that Alberto had received ₱55,000 instead of ₱5,000. The additional requirement for conviction under Article 172(2) — independent evidence of damage or intent to cause damage — was satisfied, as the alteration made it appear that Alberto had received ₱50,000 more than he actually did. Petitioner's claim of consensual alteration was not supported by convincing evidence.

• Correctness of Penalty: The penalty under Article 172 for falsification of a private document by a private individual is prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods (a range of two years, four months, and one day to six years). With no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the medium period of this range applies: three years, six months, and twenty-one days to four years, nine months, and ten days. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum penalty is the penalty next lower in degree — arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period. The CA's sentence of four months and one day of arresto mayor as minimum to three years, six months, and twenty-one days of prision correccional as maximum fell within these ranges and was correct.

• Conclusiveness of Factual Findings on Appeal — The factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally conclusive and binding upon the Supreme Court. In a petition for review under Rule 45, the Court's task is limited to reviewing errors of law, except where there is serious ground to believe a possible miscarriage of justice would otherwise result, or where the findings were reached arbitrarily.

• Elements of Falsification of a Private Document — The crime of falsification of a private document under Article 172(2) in relation to Article 171(6) of the Revised Penal Code requires proof of the following: (1) that there was an alteration (change) or intercalation (insertion) on a document; (2) that the alteration was made on a genuine document; (3) that the alteration or intercalation changed the meaning of the document; (4) that the changes made the document speak something false; and (5) independent evidence of damage or intention to cause damage to a third person. The fifth element distinguishes falsification of a private document from falsification of a public or official document, where damage is presumed.

• "When the trial court's factual findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon the Court, for it is not this Court's function to analyze and weigh the parties' evidence all over again, except when there is serious ground to believe a possible miscarriage of justice would otherwise result. Save in exceptional instances, the Court's task in an appeal via certiorari is limited to reviewing errors of law that might have been committed by the CA."

• "The elements of the crime of falsification under Article 171 (6) of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) that there be an alteration (change) or intercalation (insertion) on a document; (2) that it was made on a genuine document; (3) that the alteration or intercalation has changed the meaning of the document; and (4) that the changes made the document speak something false."

• "When these are committed by a private individual on a private document the violation would fall under paragraph 2, Article 172 of the same code, but there must be, in addition to the aforesaid elements, independent evidence of damage or intention to cause the same to a third person."

• Danofrata v. People, G.R. No. 143010, September 30, 2003, 412 SCRA 357 — Cited for the established rule that the Supreme Court's task in a petition for review under Rule 45 is limited to reviewing errors of law, and that factual findings affirmed by the CA are generally conclusive.

• Republic v. Court of Appeals, L-41115, September 11, 1982, 116 SCRA 505 — Cited as the source of the enumeration of the four elements of falsification under Article 171(6) of the Revised Penal Code.

• Mercury Drug Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No. 96525, June 26, 1992, 210 SCRA 504 — Cited for the requirement of independent evidence of damage or intent to cause damage in prosecutions for falsification of a private document under Article 172(2).

• Article 171(6), Revised Penal Code — Defines falsification by making alterations or intercalations on a genuine document which change its meaning. Applied: Petitioner's act of inserting words and figures into the original receipt to make it appear that ₱55,000 was received instead of ₱5,000 constituted the prohibited act.

• Article 172(2), Revised Penal Code — Punishes any private individual who commits any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Article 171 on a private document, with the penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine. Applied: All elements of Article 171(6) being present, and independent damage having been shown, petitioner was properly convicted under this provision.

• Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103) — Applied in determining the minimum and maximum terms of the indeterminate sentence. The minimum term was set within the range of the penalty next lower in degree (arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional minimum), and the maximum term within the medium period of the penalty prescribed by Article 172.

Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. (Chairman), Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, and Justice Antonio T. Carpio.

N/A — The decision was unanimous; no dissenting opinions were recorded.