Obando vs. People of the Philippines

A conviction for estafa through falsification of public document may be sustained despite the non-presentation of the original falsified will where the defense did not object to the machine copy and a duplicate original was admitted, and where the handwriting expert's complete and scientific findings, not the conflicting and indefinite expert opinion, established the forgery; the penalty, however, must be based on the amount of damage actually proved.

Alegria Strebel Vda. de Figueras was the widow of Jose Figueras and the administratrix of his estate. Eduardo and Francisco Figueras were Jose's sons by a previous marriage, while Fritz Strebel was Alegria's brother. Petitioners Felizardo S. Obando and Juan S. Obando were Alegria's nephews and the principal beneficiaries under the will she allegedly executed. The controversy unfolded within the settlement of the estates of Jose and Alegria and the administration of their conjugal properties, which were subject to competing claims among Alegria's stepsons, her brother, and her nephews.

Sometime in 1964, Alegria Strebel Vda. de Figueras, together with Eduardo and Francisco Figueras, the sons of her husband Jose Figueras by a previous marriage, filed a petition for the intestate proceedings of Jose's estate, docketed as Special Proceedings No. 61567. Alegria was named administratrix of Jose's estate without opposition from her stepsons. While the settlement of Jose's estate was still pending in the Regional Trial Court, Alegria died in May 1979. Eduardo was issued new Letters of Administration with the duty to administer both Jose's and Alegria's estates. Fritz Strebel, Alegria's brother, came forward claiming part of Alegria's estate because Alegria died without issue, and the Figueras brothers made no opposition.

Thereafter, the Figueras brothers and Fritz Strebel were served with copies of a Petition for Probate of the alleged last will and testament of Alegria filed by petitioner Felizardo Obando, docketed as Special Proceeding No. 123948. In that petition, Felizardo asked to be named executor of Alegria's will, which bequeathed Alegria's rights and interests in the real properties left by the Figueras couple, as well as personal properties, including all her pieces of jewelry, to petitioners Felizardo and Juan Obando and their families. The Figueras brothers opposed the probate of the alleged will and Felizardo's prayer for the issuance of letters of administration on the ground that the will was executed under duress or was a forgery. Both Special Proceeding Nos. 61567 and 123948 were consolidated under Branch 17 of the RTC of Manila, which, after hearing, denied Felizardo's prayer to be named executor. Felizardo appealed to the Court of Appeals, which partially reversed the RTC by appointing Eduardo and Felizardo as co-administrators of the joint estates of Jose and Alegria Figueras. Eduardo and Fritz still opposed the probate of Alegria's will, insisting that it was a forgery. The conflicting parties then agreed to submit the alleged will to the National Bureau of Investigation for examination and comparison with the common standard signatures of Alegria.

NBI Document Examiner Zenaida Torres submitted her report dated March 26, 1990, finding that the questioned and standard sample signatures of Alegria S. Vda. de Figueras were not written by one and the same person. By reason of the forged will, which was the basis of the Court of Appeals' appointment of Felizardo as co-administrator of the Figueras estates, petitioners had taken possession of the pieces of jewelry, furniture, and other personal properties enumerated in the alleged will, as well as the rentals of the Figueras residence in Gilmore Street, Quezon City, which was leased to the Community of Learners. Eduardo and Fritz questioned these acts, and because Felizardo could not account for these properties when the probate court required him to do so, they sued him for estafa through falsification of public document since the alleged will submitted for probate was found to be forged.

On July 26, 1990, an Information was filed with the RTC of Manila charging petitioners Felizardo S. Obando and Juan S. Obando, together with Cipriano C. Farrales, Mercedes B. Santos, Victorino Cruz, and Franklin A. Cordon, with estafa through falsification of public document. The Information alleged that on or about November 11, 1978, in Manila, the accused, conspiring and confederating, forged and falsified the Last Will and Testament of Alegria dated November 11, 1978, notarized by Farrales and therefore a public document, by stating that Alegria had bequeathed to her nephews Felizardo and Juan all her rights and interests over her jewelries, except those given to other relatives, with an aggregate total value of ₱2,000,000.00, and had appointed Felizardo as sole executor and exclusive administrator of her estate. It further alleged that they feigned, simulated, and counterfeited Alegria's signature on the left-hand margin of pages 1 and 2 and over the typewritten name on page 3, making it appear that she had bequeathed the jewelries and appointed Felizardo when in truth she did not participate in the signing and did not authorize anyone to sign for her. The Information alleged that once the document was forged, Felizardo and Juan presented it for probate, and Felizardo was appointed co-administrator, took possession of the jewelries, and later misappropriated, misapplied, and converted them to their own personal use and benefit to the damage and prejudice of Eduardo Figueras in the amount of ₱2,000,000.00. Notary Public Farrales asked for a reinvestigation claiming innocence and good faith and was subsequently deleted from the Information. When arraigned, all the accused, except Franklin Cordon who was at large, assisted by counsel de parte, pleaded not guilty and posted bail. Trial thereafter ensued. In its Order dated October 10, 1992, the RTC stated that the parties stipulated that whatever testimony of witnesses utilized in the intestate and probate proceedings, as well as the documentary evidence submitted therein, would be utilized in the criminal case in toto, subject to further cross of the defense lawyer only on matters not touched in the former proceedings.

The RTC found the fact of damage sufficiently established through the testimonies of Felizardo and Juan that Alegria's rights and interests in the real and personal properties of the Figueras couple were to go to them, and that they had already given pieces of jewelry to their sister, to Juan's wife and his two daughters, and to Felizardo's daughter, showing that they had profited from the estate even before it was brought to court for settlement. On forgery, the RTC gave more credence to the findings of NBI Document Examiner Torres than to those of PNP Document Section Chief Francisco Cruz because Torres was the common choice of all the parties, her conclusion was definite unlike Cruz's report stating that no definite conclusion could be made due to the limited amount of appropriate standard signatures, and Torres was not paid for her services and was therefore impartial while Cruz received an honorarium from Juan Obando. The RTC found petitioners to have conspired to commit forgery based on Felizardo's admission that the will was dictated by him to Atty. Alcantara, his retention of Atty. Alcantara and Atty. Farrales, Juan's enticement of Mercedes Santos Cruz and Victorino Cruz as attesting witnesses and his taking pictures of the signing ceremony, Felizardo's possession and control of the will from its alleged signing until Alegria's death, and the enormous gain petitioners and their families obtained by reason of the will. The RTC also stated that even if the will were authentic, its dispositions would still be contested because the portion bequeathing the whole residential property of the spouses Jose and Alegria Figueras, which was conjugal, to petitioners to the exclusion of Eduardo, Francisco, and Fritz Strebel, who were forced heirs, was contrary to law; the RTC was convinced that the alleged will was not Alegria's but petitioners'.

• Non-presentation of Original Will: Petitioners contended that the non-production and/or non-presentation of the original copy of the alleged falsified Last Will and Testament before the RTC was a fatal defect entitling them to acquittal.
• No Conspiracy: Petitioners maintained that there was absolutely no conspiracy to warrant their conviction.
• Scope of Will Disposition: Petitioners argued that the will of Alegria disposed only of her rights and interests over the properties bequeathed to Felizardo and Juan.
• Conflicting Expert Testimonies: Petitioners faulted the RTC and the Court of Appeals for giving more weight to NBI Document Examiner Torres's findings of forgery over PNP Document Examination Chief Cruz's findings of genuineness; they claimed that conflicting expert testimonies, coupled with positive evidence of due execution and authenticity, should favor them.
• Absence of NBI Findings on Other Signatures: Petitioners argued that the absence in the NBI findings as to the genuineness and/or falsity of the signatures of Mercedes Santos Cruz, Victorino Cruz, and Atty. Franklin Cordon on the will negated falsification and/or substitution of the first and second pages.
• No Estafa / Complex Crime: Petitioners contended that no estafa was committed and that the prosecution failed to prove the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document.
• Possession Under Power of Attorney: Petitioner Felizardo argued that he already had possession of Alegria's personal properties, including the pieces of jewelry, by virtue of an alleged general power of attorney executed by Alegria in his favor.
• Witness Testimonies Over Expert: Petitioners claimed that the testimonies of the notary public and the two attesting witnesses that they saw Alegria sign the will in their presence should have outweighed the testimony of Torres.
• Overlooked Facts: Petitioners asserted that the Court of Appeals overlooked and failed to consider significant facts and circumstances which, if properly considered, should have drawn a different conclusion.

• Termination of Agency: Respondent, through the Solicitor General, argued that the agency between Alegria and petitioner Felizardo was terminated upon Alegria's death, so he had no basis for taking possession and custody of Alegria's properties after her death.

• Non-presentation of Original Will: Whether the non-production and/or non-presentation of the original copy of the alleged falsified Last Will and Testament before the trial court was a fatal defect entitling petitioners to acquittal.
• Weight of Conflicting Expert Testimony: Whether the trial and appellate courts erred in giving more weight and credence to the NBI handwriting expert's finding that Alegria's questioned signatures were forged over the PNP expert's finding that they were genuine, and whether the conflicting expert testimonies plus evidence of due execution should have favored petitioners.
• Conspiracy: Whether conspiracy was established to warrant the conviction of Felizardo and Juan Obando.
• Falsification of Public Document: Whether the elements of falsification of public document under Article 172(1) of the Revised Penal Code were present, including whether the absence of NBI findings on the signatures of Mercedes Santos Cruz, Victorino Cruz, and Franklin Cordon negated falsification or substitution of the first and second pages of the will.
• Estafa and Complex Crime: Whether the prosecution proved estafa through falsification of public document, including whether Felizardo's alleged possession of Alegria's personal properties under a general power of attorney negated estafa.
• Penalty: Whether the penalty imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals was proper given the amount of damages proved.

• Non-presentation of Original Will: No. Petitioners did not object when the machine copy was presented and testified to; the prosecution's offer stated the documents were reproduced as agreed, and a duplicate original copy was formally offered and admitted in evidence.
• Weight of Conflicting Expert Testimony: No. The trial court's findings, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding absent clear error; Torres's examination was complete, thorough, and scientific, while Cruz's conclusion was indefinite and contradicted by evidence of Alegria's good muscular control.
• Conspiracy: Yes. Conspiracy was established by petitioners' acts of dictating the will, retaining the lawyer and notary, enticing witnesses, photographing the signing, keeping the will, and gaining from it.
• Falsification of Public Document: Yes. The elements under Article 172(1) were present: petitioners were private individuals, they caused it to appear Alegria participated in the will when she did not, and the falsification was in a notarized public document.
• Estafa and Complex Crime: Yes. The elements of estafa under Article 315(1)(b) were present; the agency terminated upon Alegria's death, and the falsified will was the means to commit estafa.
• Penalty: No. The amount proved was ₱2,150.00, not ₱2,000,000.00; the penalty was modified to one year and one day of prision correccional as minimum to four years, nine months and ten days of prision correccional as maximum, plus ₱5,000.00 fine.

• Non-presentation of Original Will: The Court noted that during trial, petitioners did not raise any objection when the alleged will was presented and testified to by NBI Document Examiner Torres. In the Offer of Prosecution Evidence, where the machine copy of the alleged will was marked as Exhibit "A," the prosecution stated that the documents formed the bulk of evidence in Special Proceeding Nos. 123948 and 61567 and were simply reproduced as agreed upon by the parties. Petitioners' Comment/Objection did not object to the machine copy; they even admitted the existence, validity, authenticity, and due execution of the Last Will and Testament if it was the original copy. They never sought reconsideration when the RTC admitted the machine copy. More importantly, a duplicate original copy of the alleged will was formally offered as petitioners' documentary evidence and admitted by the RTC, which the RTC used for comparison of the questioned signatures with the standard signatures of Alegria. Thus, the non-presentation of the original was not a fatal defect.

• Weight of Conflicting Expert Testimony: The Court applied the rule that findings of fact of the trial court, including its calibration of witness testimonies and assessment of probative weight, are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, unless clearly without evidentiary support, based on misapprehension of facts, or when relevant facts were overlooked. No such error was found. Torres used standard specimen signatures submitted by petitioners, Eduardo, and Fritz. She found that the questioned and standard signatures were not written by one and the same person. Cruz found that they were written by one person but stated that no definite conclusion could be reached due to the wide gap of execution and limited standard signatures. Torres explained fundamental differences in alignment, arrangement, slant of the letter "g," proportion, and manner of execution, including hesitations, tremors, slow drawing movement, and consciousness. Cruz's finding of loss of muscular control was contradicted by Torres's testimony that the December 1978 standard signature showed good physical condition, and by Dr. Elena Cariaso, who examined Alegria in December 1978 and found her physically and mentally fit with only weakness in her lower extremities. Expert opinions are advisory; courts may reject them if inconsistent with the facts. When conflicting, courts give more weight to the more complete, thorough, and scientific opinion. The value of a handwriting expert depends on the assistance in pointing out distinguishing marks, characteristics, and discrepancies. The Court also made its own comparison and found substantial differences. The testimonies of the notary public and attesting witnesses had material inconsistencies: Farrales said the copies came from his office and he gave them to Alegria, while Victorino said Felizardo got the will from a cabinet; Farrales said Felizardo was not inside the room during signing, while Mercedes and Victorino said he was inside and read the will aloud; Farrales said he alone turned the pages and pointed to the signature portions, while Felizardo testified he was present and assisted Alegria. These contradictions rendered the genuineness of the alleged will doubtful.

• Conspiracy: The Court found apropos the RTC findings: Felizardo admitted the will was dictated by him to Atty. Alcantara allegedly as voiced out by Alegria; he procured the services of Atty. Alcantara and Notary Public Farrales; Juan enticed Mercedes Santos and Victorino Cruz to act as witnesses, Mercedes being his sister-in-law, and took pictures of the entire signing ceremony, which was a sign of evil intention and expectancy of future rift; Felizardo held and kept the questioned document from its inception to its alleged signing and up to Alegria's death, lasting several months; and Felizardo, Juan, and their families gained enormously by reason of the will. These established conspiracy.

• Falsification of Public Document: The elements under Article 172(1) of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) the offender is a private individual; (2) the offender committed any of the acts of falsification under Article 171; and (3) the act of falsification is committed in a public document. Under Article 171(2), a person may commit falsification by causing it to appear that a person participated in an act or proceeding when they did not. Petitioners were private individuals who presented the alleged will to the probate court and made it appear that Alegria signed the will disposing of her rights and interests to them when they knew she never signed it and her signatures were forged. The will was notarized by Farrales and therefore a public document. The absence of NBI findings on the other signatures did not negate the falsification.

• Estafa and Complex Crime: The elements of estafa under Article 315(1)(b) are: (1) money, goods, or other personal property is received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery or return; (2) misappropriation or conversion or denial of receipt; and (3) prejudice to another. Felizardo argued that he had possession under a general power of attorney, but the Solicitor General correctly argued that the agency terminated upon Alegria's death, so he had no basis to take possession after her death. By virtue of the falsified will, Felizardo became co-administrator and gained possession of the jewelry; he could not account for it when ordered by the probate court. Juan admitted that the jewelry went to his daughters and nieces, and the real properties were sold while the proceedings were pending. The misappropriation prejudiced Eduardo, who had a right to Alegria's jewelry as part of the conjugal estate. Alegria's 1966 inventory listed jewelry worth ₱2,150.00. The crime committed was estafa through falsification of public document. Under Article 48, being a complex crime, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed in its maximum period.

• Penalty: The amount of damages is the basis of the penalty for estafa. The prosecution failed to show that the jewelry was worth ₱2,000,000.00; the only evidence was the 1966 inventory listing ₱2,150.00. Since the amount misappropriated was ₱2,150.00, the applicable estafa provision is Article 315(3), which imposes arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period where the amount is over ₱200.00 but does not exceed ₱6,000.00. The most serious crime for the complex crime is falsification under Article 172, penalized by prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than ₱5,000.00. The maximum penalty is the medium period of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, there being no mitigating or aggravating circumstances. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum is taken from the penalty next lower in degree, which is arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional minimum. Thus, the penalty is one year and one day of prision correccional as minimum to four years, nine months and ten days of prision correccional as maximum, and a fine of ₱5,000.00.

• Findings of fact of trial court affirmed by appellate court — Such findings, including the calibration of witness testimonies and the assessment of probative weight, are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect; they bind the Supreme Court unless clearly without evidentiary support, based on misapprehension of facts, or when relevant facts were overlooked. The Court applied this to uphold the RTC and Court of Appeals findings on forgery and conspiracy.
• Conflicting expert opinions — Expert opinions are not ordinarily conclusive and are advisory; courts may place whatever weight they choose and may reject them if inconsistent with the facts or unreasonable. When conflicting, courts give more weight to the opinion that is more complete, thorough, and scientific. The value of a handwriting expert depends on the assistance in pointing out distinguishing marks, characteristics, and discrepancies. The Court applied this to prefer Torres over Cruz.
• Elements of falsification of public document under Article 172(1), Revised Penal Code — The requisites are: (1) the offender is a private individual; (2) the offender committed any act of falsification under Article 171; and (3) the act is committed in a public document. Under Article 171(2), falsification may be committed by causing it to appear that a person participated in an act or proceeding when they did not. The Court found all elements present.
• Elements of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b), Revised Penal Code — The requisites are: (1) money, goods, or other personal property is received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery or return; (2) misappropriation or conversion or denial of receipt; and (3) prejudice to another. The Court found these elements present.
• Agency terminates upon death — The agency between Alegria and Felizardo was terminated upon Alegria's death, so Felizardo had no basis to take possession and custody of Alegria's properties after her death. This supported the estafa finding.
• Complex crime under Article 48, Revised Penal Code — When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed in its maximum period. The Court applied this to estafa through falsification of public document.
• Amount of damages as basis of penalty for estafa — The amount of damages determines the applicable penalty for estafa. Because only ₱2,150.00 was proved, the Court applied Article 315(3) rather than the penalty for a ₱2,000,000.00 defraudation.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Applied to fix the minimum penalty from the penalty next lower in degree after determining the maximum penalty. The Court used it to impose one year and one day of prision correccional as minimum to four years, nine months and ten days of prision correccional as maximum.
• Non-presentation of original document; waiver — The failure to object to a machine copy and the admission of a duplicate original copy may cure the non-presentation of the original. The Court applied this to reject petitioners' fatal defect argument.

• "The rule is that the findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings, are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect. This is more true if such findings were affirmed by the appellate court." — This states the standard of review that led the Court to defer to the RTC and Court of Appeals findings on forgery and conspiracy.
• "Expert opinions are not ordinarily conclusive. They are generally regarded as purely advisory in character. The courts may place whatever weight they choose upon and may reject them, if they find them inconsistent with the facts in the case or otherwise unreasonable. When faced with conflicting expert opinions, as in this case, courts give more weight and credence to that which is more complete, thorough, and scientific." — This defines the Court's approach to conflicting handwriting expert testimony and explains why Torres's findings prevailed over Cruz's.
• "The crime of falsification of public document was the means for petitioners to commit estafa." — This is the ratio for treating the offense as a complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code.
• "The amount of damages is the basis of the penalty for estafa." — This is the controlling principle that led the Court to reduce the penalty after finding that only ₱2,150.00, not ₱2,000,000.00, was proved.

• Article 315, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (b), Revised Penal Code — Defines estafa by misappropriating or converting money, goods, or other personal property received in trust, on commission, for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to deliver or return the same, to the prejudice of another. The Court applied this to Felizardo's possession and misappropriation of Alegria's jewelry after her death.
• Article 172, paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code — Punishes falsification of public documents by a private individual and imposes prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than ₱5,000.00. The Court used this as the most serious crime in the complex crime.
• Article 171, paragraph 2, Revised Penal Code — Defines falsification by causing it to appear that a person participated in an act or proceeding when they did not. The Court applied this to the forged signatures of Alegria on the will.
• Article 315, paragraph 3, Revised Penal Code — Imposes arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period where the amount defrauded is over ₱200.00 but does not exceed ₱6,000.00. The Court applied this because only ₱2,150.00 was proved.
• Article 48, Revised Penal Code — Provides that when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed in its maximum period. The Court applied this to estafa through falsification of public document.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Applied to fix the minimum penalty from the penalty next lower in degree. The Court used it to impose one year and one day of prision correccional as minimum to four years, nine months and ten days of prision correccional as maximum.

Antonio T. Carpio (Chairperson), Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Roberto A. Abad, and Jose Catral Mendoza.