United States vs. Capule

The SC held that the act of preparing a notarial document (a deed of sale) that attributes false statements and a false transaction to persons who never consented to it constitutes falsification of a public document under Articles 300 and 301 of the Penal Code, even if the document's preparation involved deceit in obtaining the signatories' marks.

The case involves a dispute over ownership of a coconut land in San Pablo, Laguna. The defendant, Nicasio Capule, a clerk for a notary public, prepared a document purporting to be a deed of sale from the landowners to himself. The landowners were illiterate and claimed they only intended to execute a power of attorney for Capule to represent them in a lawsuit.

• Filed in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Laguna by the Provincial Fiscal.
• The CFI convicted Capule of falsification of a public document and estafa.
• Capule appealed to the Supreme Court.

• Nicasio Capule prepared a document (Exhibit A) on September 2, 1903, making it appear that Aniceto Maghirang and Isabel Pili sold him a coconut land for P550.
• The couple could not read or write. Capule had two other individuals, Eulogio Ortega and Doroteo Guia, sign as proxies for the vendors, leading them to believe they were signing a power of attorney for a lawsuit.
• The document was ratified before Notary Public Inocente Martinez (later deceased).
• The couple never intended to sell the land. They later sold portions of the same land to Esteban Reyes (1904) and Melecio Briñas (1908).
• Capule used Exhibit A in multiple criminal complaints before the justice of the peace to assert ownership, but the accused were acquitted and the document was deemed false.
• The couple testified they never sold the land or ratified any deed of sale before the notary.

• The document (Exhibit A) was a genuine contract, and any defect was merely vitiated consent (fraud), not falsification.
• Cited U.S. v. Milla (4 Phil. Rep. 391), arguing that a contract obtained by fraud is not a false contract, and thus not falsification.
• Invoked Weems v. U.S. (217 U.S. 349) regarding cruel and unusual punishment, arguing the penalty was excessive.

• The document was falsified because Capule attributed statements to the vendors that they never made, perverting the truth in a notarial document.
• The vendors consented only to a power of attorney, not a sale. Capule maliciously substituted a deed of sale.
• The use of deceit to get signatories to mark the document, believing it was a power of attorney, constituted falsification.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the act of preparing a notarial deed of sale that attributes a false transaction to persons who never consented to it constitutes falsification of a public document.
  • Whether the crime committed is falsification or merely estafa (fraud).

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive: The SC affirmed the conviction for falsification.
• The document was a notarial document of an official character. Capule counterfeited the intervention of the vendors by ascribing to them statements they never made (a sale) and perverted the truth in the narration of facts.
• The case is distinguishable from U.S. v. Milla. Here, there was no consent at all to the contract of sale; the consent was to a power of attorney. Therefore, the document was fabricated, not merely vitiated.
• The penalty was correctly imposed under Article 301 of the Penal Code. The Weems case was inapplicable as Capule was not a public officer.

• Falsification of a Public Document (Articles 300 & 301, Penal Code) — The crime is committed by counterfeiting or simulating a document, or by including in a document statements contrary to the truth. The SC applied this by finding Capule attributed a false act (a sale) to the vendors in an official document.
• Distinction between Vitiated Consent and Falsification — A contract obtained through fraud, violence, or intimidation is voidable but not necessarily false. However, if the consent given was for a fundamentally different contract (e.g., power of attorney vs. sale), and a document for the non-consented contract is fabricated, it constitutes falsification.

• "The defendant executed upon said notarial document of an official character acts constituting falsification, by counterfeiting therein the intervention of the married couple... to whom he ascribed statements different from what they had made to him and by perverting the truth in the narration of facts."
• "There was no contract in the present case, nor any consent to the contract pretended to have been stipulated in the instrument, Exhibit A."

• U.S. v. Milla (4 Phil. Rep. 391) — Distinguished. In Milla, the consent to the contract existed but was vitiated. In this case, there was no consent to the contract of sale at all.
• Weems v. U.S. (217 U.S. 349) — Held inapplicable. The case dealt with cruel and unusual punishment for a public officer, while Capule was a private individual charged under a different article.

• Articles 300 and 301 of the Penal Code — Penalize falsification of public, official, and notarial documents. Article 301 applies to private individuals who commit falsification in such documents.
• Article 535, paragraph 7 of the Penal Code — Cited for estafa through deceit in causing another to subscribe a document. The SC held that estafa was absorbed in the falsification charge.