Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-31255 August 7, 1929
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ISAIAS GEYROSAGA, defendant-appellant.
Hipolito de Jesus for appellant.
Attorney-General Jaranilla for appellee.
ROMUALDEZ, J.:
From the sentence of ten years and one day of prision mayor, a fine of 8,666 pesetas, and costs, which the Court of First Instance of Cebu imposed upon the defendant for the crime of estafa committed through the falsification of a false document, this appeal is taken and the defendant's counsel assigns as error to the trial court the conviction, rather than the acquittal of the accussed.
Counsel contends that the appellant, in performing the duties of the postmaster, made an involuntary mistake in considering a certain woman to be the real Demetria Sualibio and the payee of the money order Exhibit C, delivering to said fictitious person amount of the said money order. Such allegations made by the defendant, uncorroborated as they are, cannot be deemed sufficiently established.
It is a proven fact that the amount of money ordered referred to, paid by the post office by which the defendant was in charge, did not reach the hands of the real payee of the money. It is also a proven fact admitted by the defendant himself, that he wrote the name "Demeteria Sualibyo" on the money order Exhibit C, in the space provided for the signature acknowledging the payment of the money order. It is another proven fact that the fictitious nor the real Demeteria Sualibio authorized with any mark the appearance of said name in acknowledgment of the payment of the money order. The defendant tried to explain this vital efficiency by saying:
I wrote the name of Demeteria Sualibio because when that woman presented herself, Francisco K. Ruiz told me that she did not know how to write, and whenever one who does not know how to write calls for a registered letter or a money order, if that person does not know how to write, I sign his name and then require him to stamp his fingerprint, but on that occasion I forgot to demand the fingerprint, because I was called away to the telegraph apparatus, as there was much business.
This explanation of the incredible forgetfulness on the part of the defendant to follow the good practice of requiring the illiterates to stamp their fingerprints instead of signing their names, is not acceptable to us.
The same may be said in what appears to be the lieu of the payee's signature in the card Exhibit A, where the lack of the fingerprint in the interested party was due to the alleged call to the telegraph apparatus.
There is a force and weight in the observation of the Attorney-General in his brief, and in his writing the name of Demetria Sulibio in these Exhibits C and A, the defendant did not do so in his ordinary writing, as may readily be seen by comparing it with his handwriting in Exhibit D.
The fact proven in the case, and the indicia arising therefrom, establish beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant, through the falsification of the public documents Exhibit A and C, consisting in making it appear that Demetria Sualibio had taken part in the signing thereof, she having had no intervention whatever in said act, abstracted and appropriated the sum of $62, equivalent to 620 pesetas, Philippine currency, with fraud against and prejudice to the aforesaid payee and owner of the said sum of money.
We find the following recommendation of the Attorney-General made in his brief, to be correct:
The fact proved constitute the complex crime of estafa through the falsification of public documents, defined in the article 535, case 5, in connection with article 300, paragraph 2, of the Penal Code, as said article was amended by Act no. 2712. Following the rule set forth in article 39 of the said code, the penalty which must be imposed upon the defendant is that corresponding to the more serious crime, which, in this case, is falsification of public documents, (prision mayor, and a fine of not less that 250 nor more than 12,500 pesetas, and perpetual disqualification for holding pubic office), which must be applied in its maximum degree. There being no circumstance in modifying the criminal liability said penalty must be imposed in its minimum degree, that is ten years, eight months, and one day of prision mayor, and a fine within the limits fixed above.
Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is hereby specified, and the defendant is sentenced to ten years, eight months and one day of prision mayor, and the accessory penalties prescribed in Article 61 of the Penal Code, said judgement being affirmed in all other respects, with costs of both instances against the appellant. So ordered.
Avanceņa, C.J., Johnson, Street, Villamor, Johns and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
