Lanzanida Vs People

3.
Lonzanida vs. People 593 SCRA 273 , July 20, 2009

Case Title : ROMEO D. LONZANIDA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
Case Nature : PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Sandiganbayan.
Syllabi Class : Evidence|Circumstantial Evidence
Division: FIRST DIVISION
Docket Number: G.R. Nos. 160243-52
Counsel: Defensor, Lantion, Villamor & Tolentino Law Offices and Sarmiento Law Office
Ponente: LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Dispositive Portion:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated July 25, 2003 and Resolution dated
September 24, 2003 of the Sandiganbayan are hereby AFFIRMED.
Citation Ref:
25 SCRA 36 | 347 SCRA 22 | 279 SCRA 279 | 474 SCRA 222 | 450 SCRA 350 | 423 SCRA 329 |
Appeals; Factual findings of the Sandiganbayan are conclusive upon the Supreme Court; Exceptions.—The general rule is that
the factual findings of the Sandiganbayan are conclusive upon this Court except where: (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded
entirely on speculation, surmise and conjectures; (2) the inference made is manifestly an error or founded on a mistake; (3)
there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; and (5) the findings of fact are
premised on a want of evidence and are contradicted by evidence on record.
Criminal Law; Falsification of Public Documents; Elements.—Under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, for falsification of a
public document to be established, the following elements must concur: 1. That the offender is a public officer, employee, or
notary public; 2. That he takes advantage of his official position; 3. That he falsifies a document by committing any of the
following acts: a) Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric; b) Causing it to appear that persons have
participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate; c) Attributing to persons who have participated in
an act or proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them; d) Making untruthful statements in a narration of
facts; e) Altering true dates; f) Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning; g)
Issuing in 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; h) Intercalating any instrument or
note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry or official book x x x
Same; Same; In falsification of public or official documents, whether by public officials or by private persons, it is unnecessary
that there be present the idea of gain or the intent to injure a third person, for the reason that, in contradistinction to private
documents, the principal thing punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly
proclaimed.—In Lumancas v. Intas, 347 SCRA 22 [2000], this Court held that in the falsification of public or official documents,
whether by public officials or by private persons, it is unnecessary that there be present the idea of gain or the intent to injure a
third person, for the reason that, in contradistinction to private documents, the principal thing punished is the violation of the
public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed.
Same; Same; As attesting officer, the accused was required to verify and ascertain from the affiants whether they voluntarily
executed their affidavits; whether they understood the contents of their affidavits; and, whether the allegations contained
therein are true.—Petitioner repeatedly decries that there was no proof that he authored such falsification or that the forgery
was done under his direction. This argument is without merit. Under the circumstances, there was no need of any direct proof
that the petitioner was the author of the forgery. As keenly observed by the Sandiganbayan, petitioner notarized the Joint
Affidavits allegedly executed by Querubin and Aniceto whom petitioner admittedly never met and who were later proven to
have been incapable of signing the said affidavits. Petitioner’s signature also appeared as the attesting officer in the Affidavits
of Ownership, nine of which were undoubtedly without the participation of the indicated affiants. As attesting officer,
petitioner was required to verify and ascertain from the affiants whether they voluntarily executed their affidavits; whether
they understood the contents of their affidavits; and, whether the allegations contained therein are true. In addition to these,
and as evidenced by the questioned affidavits, petitioner attested that the affiants swore and signed their affidavits in his
presence when in fact they never did. Petitioner likewise issued a Mayor’s Certification falsely attesting that the alleged
applicants for tax declaration (three of whom are his children while the other four are the minor children of his municipal
officials) had been occupying the said lot for thirty years.
Same; Same; In falsification of public or official documents, whether by public officials or by private persons, it is not necessary
that there be present the idea of gain or intent to injure a third person.—Petitioner contends that the subject lot remains public
and that no damage resulted from the issuance of the tax declaration. Jurisprudence has already settled that in the falsification
of public or official documents, whether by public officials or by private persons, it is not necessary that there be present the
idea of gain or intent to injure a third person. This notwithstanding, it cannot be denied that petitioner consummated his act in
falsifying the documents, and which documents petitioner used in successfully obtaining the tax declaration in the names of the
alleged applicants causing prejudice to the real occupant, Efren Tayag.
Evidence; Circumstantial Evidence; Circumstantial evidence may be resorted to when to insist on direct testimony would
ultimately lead to setting felons free.—Circumstantial evidence may be resorted to when to insist on direct testimony would
ultimately lead to setting felons free. The standard that should be observed by the courts in appreciating circumstantial
evidence was extensively discussed in the case of People of the Philippines v. Modesto, et al. (25 SCRA 36 [1968]) thus: . . . No
general rule can be laid down as to the quantity of circumstantial evidence which in any case will suffice. All the circumstances
proved must be consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the same time
inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent, and with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt. It has been
said, and we believe correctly, that the circumstances proved should constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and
reasonable conclusion which points to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person. From all the
circumstances, there should be a combination of evidence which in the ordinary and natural course of things, leaves no room
for reasonable doubt as to his guilt. Stated in another way, where the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or
more explanations, one of which is consistent with innocence and the other with guilt, the evidence does not fulfill the test of
moral certainty and is not sufficient to convict the accused.
Same; Same; Requisites.—The evidence presented by the prosecution, albeit mostly circumstantial, is sufficient to warrant
petitioner’s conviction. The following requisites for circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction were met, to wit: (a) There is
more than one circumstance; (b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) The combination of all the
circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Sandiganbayan

Lanzanida Vs People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lanzanida Vs People

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Lanzanida Vs People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3.

Lonzanida vs. People 593 SCRA 273 , July 20, 2009

Docket Number: G.R. Nos. 160243-52

Ponente: LEONARDO-DE CASTRO

You might also like