Domingo v. People G.R. No. 186101

G.R. No.
186101 October 12, 2009
GINA A. DOMINGO, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
DECISION
VELASCO, JR., J.:
The Case
This is an appeal from the Decision1 dated November 24, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-
G.R. CR No. 31158 entitled People of the Philippines v. Gina A. Domingo, which affirmed the
Decision2 dated May 21, 2007 in Criminal Case Nos. Q-98-75971-87 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch 80 in Quezon City. The RTC convicted petitioner Gina Domingo (petitioner) of 17
counts of Estafa through Falsification of Commercial Document.
The Facts
Private complainant, Remedios D. Perez (Remedios), is a businesswoman and a valued depositor of

the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), Aurora Boulevard branch. Petitioner, on the other hand, is a
dentist who had a clinic in Remedios’ compound.
Being the wife of the best friend of Remedios’ son, petitioner had a close relationship with Remedios
and her family.
On June 15, 1995, Remedios accompanied petitioner to BPI because the latter wanted to open an
account therein. Remedios then introduced petitioner to the bank’s staff and officers. Soon
thereafter, petitioner frequented Remedios’ office and volunteered to deposit her checks in her bank
account at BPI.
Sometime in October 1996, Remedios wanted to buy a car thinking that she already had a
substantial amount in her account. Thus, she went to BPI to withdraw two hundred thousand pesos
(PhP 200,000). To her surprise, however, she found out that her money had already been
withdrawn. The withdrawals were effected through 18 encashment slips bearing her forged
signatures reaching the amount of eight hundred thirty-eight thousand pesos (PhP 838,000). She
denied having affixed her signatures on the encashment slips used.
Testimonies showed that on several occasions beginning September 18, 1995 until October 18,
1996, petitioner presented a number of encashment slips of various amounts to BPI, and by virtue of
which she was able to withdraw huge amounts of money from the checking account of the
complainant. She deposited the bigger portion of these amounts to her own account and pocketed
some of them, while also paying the rest to Skycable. The transactions were processed by four
tellers of BPI, namely: Regina Ramos, Mary Antonette Pozon, Sheila Ferranco, and Kim Rillo who
verified the signatures of the complainant on the questioned encashment slips.
As synthesized by the trial court, the transactions are as follows:
Date of encashment Amount Amount Amount paid to Name of Teller

withdrawn via deposited to Skycable (PS) or
who processed
slip encashment accused’s Pocketed (Po) by
the transaction
slip account the accused
1. Sept. 8, 1995 P10,000.00 P8,000.00 P2,000.00 (Po) Regina Ramos
2. Sept. 18, 1995 30,000.00 20,000.00 10,000.00 (Po)
3. Feb. 12, 1996 30,000.00 28,550.00 1,450.00 (PS) Shiela Ferranco
4. Feb. 15, 1996 Mary Antonette
20,000.00 20,000.00 none
Pozon
5. March 21, 1996 40,000.00 30,000.00 10,000.00 (Po) Shiela Ferranco
6. April 8, 1996 40,000.00 35,000.00 5,000.00 (Po) Regina Ramos
7. April 10, 1996 30,000.00 30,000.00 none Shiela Ferranco
8. April 29, 1996 40,000.00 34,500.00 5,500.00 (Po) Regina Ramos
9. May 13, 1996 40,000.00 38,550.00 1,450.00 (PS) Shiela Ferranco
10. May 24, 1996 Mary Antonette
50,000.00 50,000.00 none
Pozon
11. June 7, 1996 40,000.00 40,000.00 none Shiela Ferranco
12. June 26, 1996 45,000.00 45,000.00 none Shiela Ferranco
13. July 5, 1996 Mary Antonette
25,000.00 25,000.00 none
Pozon
14. July 17, 1996 Mary Antonette
40,000.00 40,000.00 none
Pozon
15. Aug. 5, 1996 50,000.00 48,550.00 1,450.00 (PS) Shiela Ferranco
16. Sept. 17, 1996 35,000.00 35,000.00 none Shiela Ferranco
17. Oct. 4, 1996 40,000.00 40,000.00 none Kim P. Rillo
18. Oct. 18, 1996 40,000.00 40,000.00 none Kim P. Rillo
After having been apprised of the illegal transactions of petitioner on complainant’s account, the
latter complained to the bank for allowing the withdrawal of the money with the use of falsified
encashment slips and demanded that the amount illegally withdrawn be returned. She was required
by BPI to submit checks bearing her genuine signature for examination by the Philippine National
Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory. After examination, Josefina dela Cruz of the PNP Crime Laboratory
came up with a finding that complainant’s signatures on the questioned encashment slips had been
forged. Only then did the bank agree to pay her the amount of PhP 645,000 representing a portion of
the amount illegally withdrawn with the use of the forged encashment slips.
In her defense, petitioner testified that she is a dentist, practicing her profession in her house at No.
21, Alvarez Street, Cubao, Quezon City. She further stated that she knew Remedios as the owner of
the house that she and her husband were renting at No. 3 New Jersey Street, New Manila, Quezon
City. She declared that she never used "Perez" as an alias or nickname and that the signatures
appearing on the questioned encashment slips were not hers.
Petitioner, however, admitted that she was once a depositor of BPI Aurora Boulevard branch, having
opened an account in said bank sometime in June 1995. She had been maintaining said account
until she was arrested in 1998. She used to frequent the bank three times a week or as the need
arose for her bank transactions, for which reason, she and the bank tellers had become familiar with
each other. She knows that, like her, Remedios was also a depositor of BPI Aurora Boulevard
branch, but there was no occasion that they met each other in the bank.
Remedios and BPI filed a complaint before the prosecutor’s office.
The Information in Criminal Case No. Q-98-75971 reads as follows:
That on or about the 18th day of October 1996, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named
accused, a private individual, by means of false pretenses and/or fraudulent acts executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud and by means of falsification of commercial
document did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud Remedios D. Perez and/or
the Bank of the Philippine Islands represented in the following manner, to wit: said accused falsified
or caused to be falsified an encashment slip of Bank of the Philippine Islands dated October 18,
1996 for P40,000.00, Philippine Currency, by then and there filling up said encashment slip and
signing the name of one Remedios D. Perez, a depositor of said bank under Account No. 3155-
0572-61, thereby making it appear, as it did appear that said encashment slip is genuine in all
respect, when in truth and in fact said accused well knew that Remedios D. Perez never signed the
said encashment slip; that once said encashment slip was forged and falsified in the manner set
forth, accused pretending to be the said Remedios D. Perez used it to withdraw the aforesaid sum of
P40,000.00 from the latter’s account, and once, in possession of the said amount of money
misappropriated, misapplied and converted the same to her own personal use and benefit, to the
damage and prejudice of the offended party.
CONTRARY TO LAW.3
The allegations in the Information in Criminal Case Nos. Q-98-75972-87 are all substantially the
same as those in Criminal Case No. Q-98-75971, except for the dates of the commission of the
crime or dates of the BPI encashment slips and the amounts involved, to wit:
Criminal Case No. Date of the commission of Amount Involved

the crime/encashment slip
1. Q-98-75972 October 4, 1996 P40,000.00
2. Q-98-75973 September 4, 1996 35,000.00
3. Q-98-75974 August 5, 1996 50,000.00
4. Q-98-75975 July 17, 1996 40,000.00
5. Q-98-75976 July 5, 1996 25,000.00
6. Q-98-75977 June 26, 1996 45,000.00
7. Q-98-75978 June 7, 1996 40,000.00

8. Q-98-75979 May 24, 1996 50,000.00
9. Q-98-75980 May 13, 1996 40,000.00
10. Q-98-75981 April 29, 1996 40,000.00
11. Q-98-75982 April 10, 1996 30,000.00
12. Q-98-75983 April 8, 1996 40,000.00
13. Q-98-75984 March 21, 1996 40,000.00
14. Q-98-75985 February 15, 1996 20,000.00
15. Q-98-75986 February 12, 1996 30,000.00
16. Q-98-75987 September 18, 1995 30,000.004
Upon motion by the prosecution, the 17 cases were consolidated and tried jointly by the trial court.
When arraigned, petitioner pleaded not guilty to each of the crimes charged in the 17 Informations.
Trial on the merits ensued with the prosecution presenting seven witnesses, namely: Remedios;
Arturo Amores, General Manager of BPI, Aurora Blvd. Branch; Regina Ramos, Mary Antonette
Pozon, Sheila Ferranco, and Kim P. Rillo, all bank tellers of BPI, Aurora Blvd. Branch; and Josefina
Dela Cruz, a Document Examiner III of the PNP Crime Laboratory. On the part of the defense, it
presented petitioner herself and Carmelita Tanajora, petitioner’s house helper.
Ruling of the Trial Court
On May 21, 2007, the RTC rendered its Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, joint judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged in Criminal [Case] Nos. Q-98-75971; Q-98-75972;
Q-98-75973; Q-98-75974; Q-98-75975; Q-98-75976; Q-98-75977; Q-98-75978; Q-98-75979; Q-98-
75980; Q-98-75981; Q-98-75982; Q-98-75983; Q-98-75984; Q-98-75985; Q-98-75986 and Q-98-
75987. Accordingly, and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, she is hereby sentenced to
suffer the penalty of imprisonment, as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. Q-98-75971 – Two (2) Years, Eleven (11) Months and Eleven (11)
Days of [prision] correccional to Seven (7) Years and Twenty One (21) Days of prision
mayor;
mayor;
mayor;
Days of [prision] correccional to Eight (8) Years and Twenty One (21) Days of prision mayor;
mayor;
Days of [prision] correccional to Six (6) Years and Twenty One (21) Days of prision mayor;
mayor;
mayor;
mayor;
mayor;
mayor;
17. In Criminal Case No. Q-98-7598[7] – Two (2) Years, Eleven (11) Months and Eleven (11)
Further, the accused is hereby ordered to pay BPI and/or Remedios Perez the total sum of Six
Hundred Thirty Five Thousand Pesos (P635,000.00), as civil indemnity, plus six percent (6%)
interest per annum from the time of the filing of these cases, until fully paid.
The bond posted by the accused for her provisional liberty is hereby canceled.
SO ORDERED.5
Ruling of the Appellate Court
On appeal, the CA, in its Decision dated November 24, 2008, disposed of the case as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Appeal is hereby DISMISSED and the challenged Joint
Decision of the Court a quo is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.6
The CA held that petitioner was the one who authored the crimes of which she was convicted
reasoning that she was the only person who stood to be benefited by the falsification of the
document in question; thus, the presumption that she is the material author of the falsification is
present.
Moreover, petitioner’s theory that the crimes committed were perpetrated by the bank tellers or is an
inside job cannot be sustained because of the lack of any evidence showing that the tellers harbored
any ill motive against her. The CA emphasized that the defense of denial, unsubstantiated by clear
and convincing evidence, is negative and self-serving and merits no weight in law; it cannot be given
greater evidentiary value than the testimony of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matter.
On March 4, 2009, petitioner filed a timely appeal before this Court.
The Issues
Petitioner interposes in the present appeal the following assignment of errors:
ERROR IN THE APPRECIATION OF THE EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTARY AND

TESTIMONIAL, WERE COMMITTED BY THE LOWER COURT IN THE PROMULGATION
AND ISSUANCE OF THE SUBJECT DECISION;
II
ERROR IN THE APPLICATION OF THE LAW, SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL, WERE

COMMITTED IN THE PROMULGATION OF THE SUBJECT DECISION.
Our Ruling
The appeal has no merit.
Substantially, the issues raised boil down to the question of whether or not the evidence adduced by
the prosecution is sufficient to establish the guilt of petitioner beyond reasonable doubt.
Elements of Falsification of Commercial Documents are Present

Petitioner contends that the decision of the lower court is not supported by the evidence on record
and that this evidence cannot sustain in law the requirements of proof beyond reasonable doubt for
the crime for which she was charged.
Specifically, petitioner claims that, as a matter of policy, the bank personnel verified the signature
cards of private complainant Remedios before any encashment can be drawn against the account of
Remedios. Thus, petitioner contends that the signatures in the encashment slips are genuine as
found by the staff and manager of BPI and that the cases filed against her are the products of inside
jobs. Further, she argues that the results of the examinations conducted by Josefina dela Cruz of the
PNP Crime Laboratory lack evidentiary value, since the report only stated that the signatures on the
Encashment/Withdrawal Slips were different from the genuine signatures of Remedios based on the
checks, which contained the genuine signatures of Remedios, but did not state that the signatures
belong to petitioner.
1avvphi1
The contentions are flawed.
Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) punishes any private individual who commits any of
the acts of falsification enumerated in Art. 171 of the Code in any public or official document or letter
of exchange or any other kind of commercial document. The acts of falsification enumerated in Art.
171 are:
Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister. – The penalty of
prision mayor and a fine not to exceed 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer,
employee or notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by
committing any of the following acts:
1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature, or rubric;
2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they
did not in fact participate;
3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than
those in fact made by them;
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
5. Altering true dates;
6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning;
7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original

document when no such original exists, or including in such copy a statement contrary to, or
different from, that of the genuine original; or
8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry
or official book. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
Essentially, the elements of the crime of Falsification of Commercial Document under Art. 172 are:
(1) that the offender is a private individual; (2) that the offender committed any of the acts of
falsification; and (3) that the act of falsification is committed in a commercial document.
As borne by the records, all the elements of the crime are present in the instant case. Petitioner is a
private individual who presented to the tellers of BPI 17 forged encashment slips on different dates
and of various amounts. The questioned encashment slips were falsified by petitioner by filling out
the same and signing the name of the private complainant, thereby making it appear that Remedios
signed the encashment slips and that they are genuine in all respects, when in fact petitioner knew
very well that Remedios never signed the subject encashment slips.
In her testimony, Remedios categorically denied having filled out and signed any of the subject
encashment slips on the dates indicated on them. Her testimony is further strengthened by the
testimonies of the bank manager and the bank tellers, who facilitated the banking transactions
carried out by petitioner with their branch. Their testimonies were coherent and consistent in
narrating that it was indeed petitioner who presented the encashment slips, received the proceeds of
the transactions, and/or caused the transfer of the money to her own bank account.
Moreover, the testimony of Josefina dela Cruz (dela Cruz) bolsters the findings of the trial court that
the alleged signatures of Remedios in the encashment slips are forged, to wit:
Q: Using the method you employed in the examination of questioned and standard signatures of
Remedios Perez, will you please elaborate the study you made?
A: After conducting the examination, I reduced my examination to writing and my findings are as
follows:
‘Scientific comparative examination and analysis of the questioned documents and the submitted
standard signature reveals significant divergences in handwriting movement, stroke structure and
other individual handwriting characteristics.’
Q: You mentioned divergences in handwriting movement, will you please point to this Honorable
Court this significant divergences of differences in the strokes of handwriting?
A: First of all the manner of execution. The manner of execution is slow while in the execution of the
standard, it is moderate. The line quality in the questioned signature, there is presence of tremors in
the strokes while in the standard signatures, all the strokes are smooth. In the capital ‘R’ in the
questioned signature, there is presence of re-trace strokes while in the standard signature, there is
no re-trace strokes. In the downward portion of the letter ‘R’ in the questioned signature, the
direction is downward while in the standard it is horizontal. Now the angular strokes following the
capital ‘R’ is traced in the middle part of the letter ‘R’, the downward portion while in the standard, it
is found in the last stroke of capital ‘R’. In the middle name letter ‘D’, the shape is more rounded on
the questioned signature but in the standard it is more elongated. In the loop of the family name, it is
more rounded in questioned signature[;] while in the standard, it is more elongated. With that, I was
able to conclude that the questioned signatures Remedios D. Perez marked ‘Q-1’ to ‘Q-36’ standard
signatures of Remedios Perez marked ‘S-1’ to ‘S-27’ inclusive were not written by one and the same
person.7
Typically, such inconspicuous divergences noted by dela Cruz on the questioned signatures could
not be easily detected by untrained eyes or by one who had no formal training in handwriting
examination; thus, resort to the opinion of an expert is imperative. This explains why the bank tellers
who processed the illegal transactions entered into by the petitioner on the account of Remedios
failed to notice the forgery or falsification. As a result, they allowed the encashment by petitioner.
The training or skill, if any, of the tellers in detecting forgeries is usually minimal or inadequate and
their opinion is generally unreliable. It was, therefore, prudent on the part of the bank to seek the
opinion of an expert to determine the genuineness of the signatures in the encashment slips.
As found by the trial court, the totality of the testimonies of Remedios, dela Cruz, the handwriting
expert, and the bank tellers bears the earmarks of truth that the questioned encashment slips had
been falsified by petitioner and that they were presented to the bank in order to defraud the bank or
holder of the account.
Additionally, the Court has held that in gauging the relative weight to be given to the opinion of
handwriting experts, the following standards are adhered to:
We have held that the value of the opinion of a handwriting expert depends not upon his mere
statements of whether a writing is genuine or false, but upon the assistance he may afford in
pointing out distinguishing marks, characteristics and discrepancies in and between genuine and
false specimens of writing which would ordinarily escape notice or detection from an unpracticed
observer. The test of genuineness ought to be the resemblance, not the formation of letters in some
other specimens but to the general character of writing, which is impressed on it as the involuntary
and unconscious result of constitution, habit or other permanent course, and is, therefore itself
permanent.8
Moreover, it cannot be said that since none of the prosecution witnesses saw the falsification
actually done by petitioner, she cannot be held liable. The bank tellers who processed the illegal
transactions of petitioner involving the account of Remedios were consistent in their testimonies that
it was petitioner herself who presented the encashment slips and received the proceeds of the slips.
In such a situation, the applicable rule is that if a person has in his possession a falsified document
and he made use of it, taking advantage of it and profiting from it, the presumption is that he is the
material author of the falsification.9 In the instant case, petitioner has failed to overthrow the
presumption.
Furthermore, contrary to petitioner’s assertions, the questioned encashment slips are commercial
documents. Commercial documents are, in general, documents or instruments which are used by
merchants or businessmen to promote or facilitate trade.10 An encashment slip necessarily facilitates
bank transactions for it allows the person whose name and signature appears thereon to encash a
check and withdraw the amount indicated therein.
Even more, petitioner would have this Court believe that the crime of falsification of a commercial
document did not exist because Remedios and BPI did not suffer any damage. Such argument is
specious. It has been ruled that damage or intent to cause damage is not an element in falsification
of a commercial document, because what the law seeks to repress is the prejudice to the public
confidence in such documents.11
Therefore, the acts of petitioner clearly satisfy all the essential elements of the crime of Falsification
of Commercial Document.
Crime of Falsification was a Necessary Means to Commit Estafa
It has been held that whenever a person carries out on a public, official, or commercial document
any of the acts enumerated in Art. 171 of the RPC as a necessary means to perpetrate another
crime, such as estafa or malversation, a complex crime is formed by the two crimes.12
Under Art. 48 of the RPC, a complex crime refers to: (1) the commission of at least two grave or less
grave felonies that must both (or all) be the result of a single act; or (2) one offense must be a
necessary means for committing the other (or others).
The falsification of a public, official, or commercial document may be a means of committing estafa,
because before the falsified document is actually utilized to defraud another, the crime of falsification
has already been consummated, damage or intent to cause damage not being an element of the
crime of falsification of public, official, or commercial document. In other words, the crime of
falsification has already existed. Actually utilizing that falsified public, official, or commercial
document to defraud another is estafa. But the damage is caused by the commission of estafa, not
by the falsification of the document. Therefore, the falsification of the public, official, or commercial
document is only a necessary means to commit estafa.13
In general, the elements of estafa are: (1) that the accused defrauded another (a) by abuse of
confidence or (b) by means of deceit; and (2) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary
estimation is caused to the offended party or third person. Deceit is the false representation of a
matter of fact, whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of
that which should have been disclosed; and which deceives or is intended to deceive another so that
he shall act upon it, to his legal injury.
In the case before us, all the elements of estafa are present. Once petitioner acquired the
possession of the amounts she encashed by means of deceit, she misappropriated, misapplied, and
converted the same to her own personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the private
complainant and BPI.
Without a doubt, the falsification of the encashment slips was a necessary means to commit estafa.
At that time, the offense of falsification is already considered consummated even before the falsified
document is used to defraud another.
Therefore, the trial court aptly convicted petitioner for the complex crime of Estafa through
Falsification of Commercial Document.
Defense of Denial Is Untenable
It is a hornbook doctrine that the defense of denial, unsubstantiated by clear and convincing
evidence, is negative and self-serving, and merits no weight in law and cannot be given greater
evidentiary value than the testimony of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters.14
In the instant case, petitioner’s defense of denial crumbles in the face of the positive identification
made by the prosecution witnesses during trial. As enunciated by this Court, "[p]ositive identification
where categorical and consistent and not attended by any showing of ill motive on the part of the
eyewitnesses on the matter prevails over alibi and denial."15 The defense has miserably failed to
show any evidence of ill motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses as to falsely testify against
her.
Thus, between the categorical statements of the prosecution witnesses, on the one hand, and bare
denials of the accused, on the other hand, the former must, perforce, prevail.16
We accord the trial court’s findings the probative weight it deserves in the absence of any compelling
reason to discredit its findings. It is a fundamental judicial dictum that the findings of fact of the trial
court are not disturbed on appeal, except when it overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some
facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would have materially affected the outcome of
the case. We find that the trial court did not err in convicting petitioner of the crime of Estafa through
Falsification of Commercial Document.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED for failure to sufficiently show reversible error in the assailed
decision. The Decision dated November 24, 2008 of the CA in CA-G.R. CR No. 31158 is
AFFIRMED.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.

Domingo v. People G.R. No. 186101

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Domingo v. People G.R. No. 186101

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Domingo v. People G.R. No. 186101

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

186101 October 12, 2009

Private complainant, Remedios D. Perez (Remedios), is a businesswoman and a valued depositor of

As synthesized by the trial court, the transactions are as follows:

Date of encashment Amount Amount Amount paid to Name of Teller

Remedios and BPI filed a complaint before the prosecutor’s office.

The Information in Criminal Case No. Q-98-75971 reads as follows:

Criminal Case No. Date of the commission of Amount Involved

1. Q-98-75972 October 4, 1996 P40,000.00

2. Q-98-75973 September 4, 1996 35,000.00

3. Q-98-75974 August 5, 1996 50,000.00

4. Q-98-75975 July 17, 1996 40,000.00

5. Q-98-75976 July 5, 1996 25,000.00

6. Q-98-75977 June 26, 1996 45,000.00

7. Q-98-75978 June 7, 1996 40,000.00

9. Q-98-75980 May 13, 1996 40,000.00

10. Q-98-75981 April 29, 1996 40,000.00

11. Q-98-75982 April 10, 1996 30,000.00

12. Q-98-75983 April 8, 1996 40,000.00

13. Q-98-75984 March 21, 1996 40,000.00

14. Q-98-75985 February 15, 1996 20,000.00

15. Q-98-75986 February 12, 1996 30,000.00

16. Q-98-75987 September 18, 1995 30,000.004

Ruling of the Trial Court

Ruling of the Appellate Court

On March 4, 2009, petitioner filed a timely appeal before this Court.

Petitioner interposes in the present appeal the following assignment of errors:

ERROR IN THE APPRECIATION OF THE EVIDENCE, DOCUMENTARY AND

ERROR IN THE APPLICATION OF THE LAW, SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL, WERE

The appeal has no merit.

Elements of Falsification of Commercial Documents are Present

The contentions are flawed.

1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature, or rubric;

4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;

5. Altering true dates;

7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original

Crime of Falsification was a Necessary Means to Commit Estafa

Defense of Denial Is Untenable

You might also like