People of the Philippine Islands vs. Melecio A. Reyes

Falsification of a private document with intent to cause damage or with animus lucrandi is a single crime under article 304 of the Penal Code; the falsity and the fraud or intent to prejudice another are so indispensably conjoined that they cannot be segregated, and article 89 of the Penal Code does not apply.

Melecio A. Reyes was employed as timekeeper of the Calamba Sugar Estate, which maintained a time book for recording the workdays of its day laborers. The prosecution arose from his handling of that record, and the appeal required construction of article 304 of the Penal Code, which penalizes falsification of a private document to the damage of another or with intent to cause such damage. Prior jurisprudence had interpreted article 304 and its relation to estafa and article 89 in apparently different ways, creating the need for the Supreme Court to settle the proper classification and penalty.

Melecio A. Reyes was employed as timekeeper of the Calamba Sugar Estate. In that capacity, he was in charge of entering the laborers’ workdays in the estate’s time book. Ciriaco Sario was a day-laborer whose workdays were recorded in that book.

During the period from July 1, 1929, to July 31, 1929, in the municipality of Calamba, Province of Laguna, Reyes prepared the time book for that period. According to the information, he made it appear that Ciriaco Sario had worked twenty-one days during July 1929, although Sario had worked only eleven days. The information alleged that Reyes acted with animus lucrandi and the deliberate intent of defrauding and injuring the Calamba Sugar Estate, and that by means of the falsification he appropriated P10 to his own use and personal benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the estate in that amount, equivalent to fifty pesetas.

The evidence showed that Reyes knew Sario had worked only eleven days but altered and falsified the time book by putting down twenty-one workdays for Sario. The wages for twenty-one days, at the rate of P1 a day, prejudiced the Calamba Sugar Estate in the amount of P10. Reyes defended himself by alleging that it was Erquiza who collected the wages appertaining to Sario, but Erquiza was not produced to testify in the case.

The trial court found that Reyes, knowing Sario worked only eleven days, altered and falsified the time book by recording twenty-one workdays. The evidence established his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense that Erquiza collected Sario’s wages was not supported because Erquiza was not produced to testify.

• Weight of Evidence: Accused-appellant’s assignments of error challenged the weight of the evidence, except the fifth assignment.
• Penalty: The fifth assignment of error related to the penalty of four years, two months, and one day of presidio correccional and the fine of 250 pesetas.
• Collection by Erquiza: Accused-appellant defended himself by alleging that Erquiza collected the wages appertaining to Sario; Erquiza was not produced to testify in the case.

• Affirmance with Modification: Attorney-General recommended affirmance of the judgment appealed from with the modification that the fine be imposed in the maximum degree, i.e., 6,250 pesetas, and that the indemnity be P10.
• Article 89 and Classification: Attorney-General took into account article 89 of the Penal Code, in view of the offense being estafa as defined and penalized in article 304 in connection with article 300, paragraphs 2 and 4, as amended, and article 535 of the Penal Code.

• Weight of Evidence: Whether the evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that Melecio A. Reyes falsified the time book by recording twenty-one workdays for Ciriaco Sario when Sario had worked only eleven.
• Classification of the Offense: Whether falsification of a private document with intent of gain or prejudice to a third person constitutes the complex crime of estafa through falsification, or only the single crime of falsification of a private document under article 304 of the Penal Code.
• Applicability of Article 89: Whether article 89 of the Penal Code applies to impose the penalty of the more serious crime in its maximum degree where the accused is charged with estafa through falsification of a private document.
• Penalty: Whether the penalty imposed by the trial court should be modified, including the fine and indemnity, under article 304 and related provisions.

• Weight of Evidence: No. The evidence showed guilt beyond reasonable doubt; the accused, knowing Sario worked only eleven days, altered and falsified the time book to show twenty-one workdays.
• Classification of the Offense: Falsification of a private document with prejudice to a third person under article 304, not two distinct crimes of estafa and falsification. The weight of authority holds that article 89 is not applicable.
• Applicability of Article 89: No. Article 89 does not apply because the falsity and the fraud or intent to prejudice are indispensably conjoined in article 304 and cannot be segregated.
• Penalty: Modified. The accused is sentenced to one year, eight months, and twenty-one days of presidio correccional, with accessories, a fine of 2,501 pesetas, indemnity of P10 to the Calamba Sugar Estate, subsidiary imprisonment not exceeding one-third of the principal penalty, and costs.

• Weight of Evidence: The decision stated that there was no question as to the facts and that the evidence showed the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Reyes, knowing that Ciriaco Sario had worked only eleven days, altered and falsified the time book by putting down twenty-one workdays for Sario. The defense that Erquiza collected Sario’s wages was not supported because Erquiza was not produced to testify. Thus, the factual finding of guilt stood.
• Classification of the Offense: Article 304 of the Penal Code penalizes any person who, to the damage of another, or with intent to cause such damage, commits in any private document any of the acts of falsification enumerated in article 300. The Court reviewed conflicting jurisprudence. In United States vs. De Castro and Aragon, the accused was charged with estafa through falsification of a private document; he was convicted of estafa, and article 89 was applied, treating estafa and falsification as two distinct crimes and imposing the maximum degree of the more serious crime. In United States vs. Victoria, article 304 was applied without considering the complex nature of the crime or article 89. In United States vs. Chan Tiao, the crime was classified only as falsification of a private document because the fraudulent gain obtained by the falsifier is involved in the harm caused, an essential and indispensable ingredient of falsification of a private document; it could not be classified as estafa with falsification, nor could article 89 apply. In People vs. Rosales, the accused was convicted of estafa but without applying article 89. The Court concluded that the weight of authority favors the doctrine that where the defendant is accused of estafa with falsification of a private document, or falsification of a private document with prejudice to a third person, there are not two distinct crimes committed, estafa and falsification, and article 89 is not applicable. This doctrine was also followed by the Supreme Court of Spain in construing article 318 of the old Spanish Penal Code, the counterpart of article 304, and by Viada in his commentaries: the falsity and the fraud or intent to prejudice another are elements so indispensably and precisely conjoined that they cannot be segregated. Accordingly, Reyes’s falsification of the time book, with intent of gain at the expense of the Calamba Sugar Estate, constituted the crime of falsification of a private document with prejudice to a third person under article 304.
• Applicability of Article 89: Because the offense was a single crime under article 304, not the complex crime of estafa through falsification, article 89 of the Penal Code did not apply to impose the maximum penalty of the more serious crime. The Court observed that although articles 304 and 534, paragraph 3, provide the same personal penalty of presidio correccional in its minimum and medium degrees, article 304 also provides a fine ranging from 625 to 6,250 pesetas. Article 534 was amended on November 28, 1925, by section 2 of Act No. 3244, which added paragraph 4 providing the penalty of presidio correccional in the maximum degree to presidio mayor in the minimum if the fraud exceeds 50,000 pesetas. In view of this amendment, if an information charges estafa through falsification of a private document and the value of the fraud exceeds 50,000 pesetas, all proved at trial, the proper penalty would be that fixed in paragraph 4, article 534. Here, the fraud was only P10, so that provision did not apply.
• Penalty: The trial court had imposed four years, two months, and one day of prision correccional, a fine of 250 pesetas, and indemnity of P11. The Supreme Court modified the judgment and sentenced the accused to one year, eight months, and twenty-one days of presidio correccional, with the accessories of the law, a fine of 2,501 pesetas, and indemnity of P10 to the Calamba Sugar Estate, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency with reference to the fine and the indemnity, not to exceed one-third of the principal penalty, and to pay the costs. The fine was within the range fixed by article 304, and the indemnity corresponded to the prejudice caused.

• Falsification of a Private Document with Prejudice to a Third Person as a Single Crime — Under article 304 of the Penal Code, the falsity and the fraud or intent to prejudice another are elements so indispensably and precisely conjoined that they cannot be segregated. The offense is not to be treated as two distinct crimes of estafa and falsification, nor as the complex crime of estafa through falsification. In this case, the accused’s falsification of the time book with intent of gain at the expense of the Calamba Sugar Estate constituted only falsification of a private document with prejudice to a third person under article 304.
• Inapplicability of Article 89 to Estafa with Falsification of a Private Document — Where the defendant is accused of estafa with falsification of a private document, or falsification of a private document with prejudice to a third person, the weight of authority holds that there are not two distinct crimes committed, estafa and falsification, and that article 89 of the Penal Code is not applicable. The Court applied this doctrine to reject the complex-crime treatment and the maximum penalty of the more serious offense.
• Penalty for Falsification of a Private Document — Article 304 imposes presidio correccional in its minimum and medium degrees and a fine of not less than 625 and not more than 6,250 pesetas. The accused was sentenced to one year, eight months, and twenty-one days of presidio correccional and a fine of 2,501 pesetas.
• Fraud Exceeding 50,000 Pesetas in Estafa Through Falsification — If an information charges estafa through falsification of a private document and the value of the fraud exceeds 50,000 pesetas, all proved at trial, the proper penalty is that fixed in paragraph 4, article 534, of the Penal Code, as amended by Act No. 3244. The doctrine was stated but not applied because the fraud in this case was only P10.
• Animus Lucrandi or Prejudice as an Essential Element of Falsification — In falsification of a private document under article 304, animus lucrandi or prejudice to a third person is an essential element; the fraudulent gain obtained by the falsifier is involved in the harm caused. The accused’s intent of gain at the expense of the Calamba Sugar Estate satisfied this element.

• "Any person who, to the damage of another, or with the intent to cause such damage, shall in any private document commit any of the acts of falsification enumerated in article three hundred shall suffer the penalty of presidio correccional in its minimum and medium degrees and be fined in a sum not less than six hundred and twenty- five and not more than six thousand two hundred and fifty pesetas." — The Court quotes article 304 of the Penal Code, the provision whose interpretation was the only difficulty on appeal.
• "Therefore, where the defendant is accused of estafa with falsification of a private document, or falsification of a private document with prejudice to a third person, the weight of authority favors the doctrine that there are not two distinct crimes committed, estafa and falsification, and that article 89 of the Penal Code is not applicable." — This passage states the ratio decidendi on the classification of the offense and the inapplicability of article 89.
• "By virtue of the foregoing considerations, we are of opinion and so hold that the defendant's falsification of the time book, with the intent of gain at the expense of the Calamba Sugar Estate constitutes the crime of falsification of a private document with prejudice to a third person, defined and penalized in article 304 of the Penal Code." — This is the Court’s specific holding applying article 304 to the accused’s conduct.

• United States vs. De Castro and Aragon, 18 Phil. 417 — Earlier case where the accused was charged with estafa through falsification of a private document; he was convicted of estafa, and article 89 was applied, treating estafa and falsification as two distinct crimes and imposing the maximum degree of the more serious crime. The Court examined this interpretation but the weight of authority favored the contrary doctrine.
• United States vs. Victoria, 9 Phil. 81 — Accused was charged with falsification of a private document with prejudice to a third person under article 304; the penalty under article 304 was imposed without considering the complex nature of the crime or article 89. Cited as supporting the non-application of article 89.
• United States vs. Chan Tiao, 37 Phil. 78 — Held that the crime should be classified only as falsification of a private document because the fraudulent gain obtained by the falsifier is involved in the harm caused, an essential and indispensable ingredient of falsification; it could not be classified as estafa with falsification, nor could article 89 apply. This case supports the ruling.
• People vs. Rosales, G.R. No. 19723 (unreported, promulgated September 20, 1923) — Accused was prosecuted for estafa through falsification of a private document and convicted of estafa, but without applying article 89. Cited in the survey of conflicting interpretations.
• Decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain (February 18, 1891; November 22, 1893; April 19, 1905) — Construing article 318 of the old Spanish Penal Code, the counterpart of article 304, these decisions held that the falsity and the fraud or intent to prejudice another are so conjoined that they cannot be segregated, so the complex-crime rule was not applicable. The Court followed this doctrine.

• Article 304, Penal Code — Defines and penalizes falsification of a private document committed to the damage of another or with intent to cause such damage; the penalty is presidio correccional in its minimum and medium degrees and a fine of not less than 625 and not more than 6,250 pesetas. The accused was convicted under this provision.
• Article 300, Penal Code — Enumerates the acts of falsification referred to by article 304. The information and the Attorney-General’s recommendation referenced it in connection with article 304.
• Article 89, Penal Code — Provides that when one crime is a necessary means of committing another, the accused cannot be punished for both offenses and must be punished in the maximum degree of the more serious crime. The Court held it inapplicable because the offense was a single crime under article 304.
• Article 535, Penal Code — Defines and penalizes estafa. The information charged estafa through falsification, but the Court held the offense was falsification of a private document under article 304, not estafa.
• Article 534, paragraphs 3 and 4, Penal Code, as amended by Act No. 3244 (November 28, 1925) — Paragraph 3 provides the same personal penalty as article 304; paragraph 4 provides presidio correccional in the maximum degree to presidio mayor in the minimum if the fraud exceeds 50,000 pesetas. The Court noted paragraph 4 would apply if estafa through falsification involved fraud exceeding 50,000 pesetas; here the fraud was P10.
• Act No. 3244, section 2 — Amended article 534 by adding paragraph 4. The Court relied on this amendment to state the penalty for estafa through falsification where the fraud exceeds 50,000 pesetas.

Avanceña, C.J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Ostrand, Romualdez, Villa-Real, and Imperial, JJ., concur.