G.R. No.

107041 May 15, 1996

FELICIANO MALIWAT, petitioner,
vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Former Special First Division, and the REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondents.

The settled rule is that in the absence of satisfactory explanation, one found in possession of and who
used a forged document is the forger and therefore guilty of falsification. 29

If a person had in his possession a falsified document and he made use of it (uttered it), taking
advantage of it and profiting thereby, the clear presumption is that he is the material author of the
falsification.

the above-named accused, a private person, having somehow obtained possession of a blank form of a
transfer certificate of title with Serial No. 1403456, which is a public and official document, did, then and
there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit acts of falsification, by then and there, filling, typing
and inserting on the blank spaces therein or causing to be filled, typed and inserted on said public and
official document, the technical descriptions of a parcel of land, Lot No. 5825 of the Imus Estate
Subdivision, Province of Cavite, with an area of 553,853 sq. meters including the corresponding title
number, and making it appear that the same is the owner's reconstituted copy of Transfer Certificate of
Title No. RT-11850 of the Register of Deeds of the Province of Cavite, with the herein accused as the
registered owner and that the said public and official document was reconstituted

G.R. No. 159381               March 26, 2010

DANILO D. ANSALDO, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

To secure a conviction for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), the
following requisites must concur:

(1) The accused made false pretenses or fraudulent representations as to his power, influence,
qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions;

(2) The false pretenses or fraudulent representations were made prior to or simultaneous with the
commission of the fraud;

(3) The false pretenses or fraudulent representations constitute the very cause which induced the
offended party to part with his money or property;

(4) That as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.

On the other hand, we find that we cannot convict petitioner of the crime of falsification of a public
document penalized under Article 172 of the RPC. The following requisites must concur, to wit:

(1) That the offender is a private individual or a public officer or employee who took advantage of his
official position;
(2) That he committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated in article 171 of the Revised Penal
Code (which in this case involves forging a signature);

(3) That the falsification was committed in a public or official or commercial document

However, we find no evidence on record showing that the petitioner and his wife falsified the subject
Deed of Mortgage. There is simply no evidence showing that petitioner had any participation in the
execution of the mortgage document. There is no proof at all that he was the one who signed the Deed
of Mortgage. The testimony of Ramirez consisted only of the following:

BUT IN PEOPLE VS. CO, HENRY CO PARTICIPATED IN THE EXECUTION OF THE DEED OF DONATION

CRESENCIO C. MILLA VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. AND MARKEY PURSUITS, INC. G.R. NO. 188726

It is axiomatic that the gravamen of the offense is the appropriation or conversion of money or property
received to the prejudice of the owner. The terms "convert" and "misappropriate" have been held to
connote "an act of using or disposing of another’s property as if it were one’s own or devoting it to a
purpose or use different from that agreed upon." The phrase, "to misappropriate to one’s own use" has
been said to include "not only conversion to one’s personal advantage, but also every attempt to
dispose of the property of another without right. 

LOLITA Y. EUGENIO VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. G.R. NO. 168163

To hold petitioner liable for the complex crime of Estafa thru Falsification of a Public Document, the
prosecution must show that she committed Estafa thru any of the modes of committing Falsification.
Under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, Falsification is committed under any of the following
modes:

(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
so 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.
On the other hand, Estafa is generally committed when (a) the accused defrauded another by abuse of
confidence, or by means of deceit and (b) the offended party or a third party suffered damage or
prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation. 13

G.R. No. 181409               February 11, 2010

INTESTATE ESTATE OF MANOLITA GONZALES VDA. DE CARUNGCONG, represented by MEDIATRIX

CARUNGCONG, as Administratrix, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and WILLIAM SATO, 

True, the concurrence of all the elements of the two crimes of estafa and falsification of public
document is required for a proper conviction for the complex crime of estafa through falsification of
public document. That is the ruling in Gonzaludo v. People. 46 It means that the prosecution must
establish that the accused resorted to the falsification of a public document as a necessary means to
commit the crime of estafa.

In considering whether the accused is liable for the complex crime of estafa through falsification of
public documents, it would be wrong to consider the component crimes separately from each other.
While there may be two component crimes (estafa and falsification of documents), both felonies are
animated by and result from one and the same criminal intent for which there is only one criminal
liability.48 That is the concept of a complex crime. In other words, while there are two crimes, they are
treated only as one, subject to a single criminal liability.

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 a public, official or commercial document. 59 In other words, the crime of falsification
was committed prior to the consummation of the crime of estafa. 60 Actually utilizing the falsified public,
official or commercial document to defraud another is estafa.

G.R. No. 205576

MIGUEL D. ESCOBAR, EUGENE L. ALZATE, PERLA C. MAGLINTE, CESAR M. CAGANG, and VIVENCIA S.
TELESFORO, Petitioners
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent

Thus, the elements of estafa by means of deceit are:

a. That there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means.

b. That such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud.

c. That the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means,
that is, he was induced to part with his money or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act,
or fraudulent means.

d. That as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage. 122 (Emphasis in the original)

The elements of the crime were proved. That the documents were falsified was amply established by
the evidence. The documents were falsified before the disbursement, which was allowed based on the
falsified documents.

The conspiracy among petitioners Alzate, Maglinte, and co-accused Zoleta to commit the crime was also
sufficiently established. Under the Revised Penal Code, there is a conspiracy "when two or more persons
come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it." 123

It is well established that conspiracy may be inferred. In Alvizo v. Sandiganbayan,124

Direct proof is not essential to show conspiracy. It need not be shown that the parties actually came
together and agreed in express terms to enter into and pursue a common design. The existence of the
assent of minds which is involved in a conspiracy may be, and from the secrecy of the crime, usually
must be, inferred by the court from proof of facts and circumstances which, taken together, apparently
indicate that they are merely parts of some complete whole. If it is proved that two or more persons
aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that
their acts, though apparently independent, were in fact connected and cooperative, indicating a
closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiments, then a conspiracy may be inferred
though no actual meeting among them to concert means is proved. Thus, the proof of conspiracy, which
is essentially hatched under cover and out of view of others than those directly concerned, is perhaps
most frequently made by evidence of a chain of circumstances only. 125 (Citations omitted)

In People v. Romualdez,126 this Court explained:

It is alleged in the information that the accused conspired together and acted in common accord in the
commission of the crime. As the Attorney-General says, a conspiracy can seldom be proved except by
circumstantial evidence, but once it is proved, the acts of one of the conspirators are the acts of all.
(U.S. vs. Phil, 27 Phil., 530.)

"The existence of the assent of minds which is involved in a conspiracy may be, from the secrecy of the
crime, usually must be, inferred by the jury from proof of facts and circumstances which, taken together,
apparently indicate that they are merely parts of some complete whole. If it is proved that two or more
persons aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part
so that their acts, though apparently independent, were in fact connected and cooperative, indicating a
closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment, a conspiracy may be inferred though
no actual meeting among them to concert means is proved. Evidence of actual participation, rather than
of passive acquiescence, is desirable. But proof of acquiescence in, or consent to, the actions of others is
relevant to show the criminal intention of the passive party, and generally the smallest degree of
consent or collusion among parties lets in the act or words of one against the others." (Underhill on
Criminal Evidence, pp. 795, 796.)

to bolster the belief that the subject Deed of Donation was

falsified, the prosecution presented an expert witness in SPO1
Fernando Amaro who not only examined the first Deed of
Donation executed on 24 August 20071 but also conducted a
comparison in the Deed of Donation that is subject of the case:
PROS. BENTHOM PAUL AZARES:
Q: And, in particular, whose thumb mark or finger print was
the subject of your examination…
WITNESS: Thumb prints.
xxx
Q: Thumb prints was the subject of your examination?
A: Kaw King Tuy.
INTERPRETER: Witness, when confronted with a Deed of
Donation, pointed to a thumb mark above the name Kaw
King Tuy, Donor.
PROS. AZARES: to the witness…
Q: What was the result of your examination?
A: Not identical.
Q: Meaning?
A: Different thumb prints.
Q: When you made this comparison, what was your
standard in making the comparison of the thumb print of Kaw
King Tuy appearing on this document?
1
Records, p. 1065
 xxx
Q: Voter’s ID of Kaw King Tuy?
A: Yes Sir.
Q: What else, if any?
A: Voter’s ID and Voter’s Affidavit.
Q: Again, what was the result of your…
A: Not identical.
Q: Meaning the… can you explain that?
A: Meaning the prints from the Deed of Donation and the
prints from the Voter’s Affidavit are different persons.
Q: Thumb prints of different persons?
A: Yes Sir.
KIM HON CO AND FELISA CO

In their Joint Complaint-Affidavit2 dated 08 December 2010, the complainants testified that Kaw
King Tuy is their brother and that the latter initially lived with Kim Hon Co and family in their Las Piñas
residence. They testified that during this time Kaw King Tuy was close to his nephew, Heliton Co, and
that he trusted his nephew to assist him in matters connected to his leased properties, particularly the
property leased to Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC).

They testified that Kaw King Tuy was satisfied with the rental income he would receive from KFC until
sometime in 2004 when Kaw King Tuy accused Heliton Co of stealing Nine Thousand Pesos (PHP
9,000.00) from him. The complainants stated that such accusation was baseless and brought about by
Henry Co’s accountant. After this incident, Henry Co became in charge of Kaw King Tuy’s properties,
ousting Heliton Co from such duty.

By April 2006, despite the protests of the complainants, Henry Co along with his wife Angeline Co,
transferred Kaw King Tuy to a condominium purchased by Henry Co. Such purchase baffled the
complainants since they knew that Henry Co did not possess the amount required to purchase a
condominium unit. The complainants no longer heard from Kaw King Tuy since his transfer until
sometime in 2007 when the complainants confronted the spouses Co about their apparent
maltreatment of their brother Kaw King Tuy. Despite being barred from seeing her brother, complainant
Felisa Co forced her way up to the condominium unit where Kaw King Tuy resided with the spouses Co.
Upon seeing his sister, Kaw King Tuy cried and begged complainant to get him out of the condominium
2
Records, p. 785
unit since according to him, the spouses Co were maltreating him. Complainant Felisa Co begged for
accused Angeline Co to release Kaw King Tuy but she rejected the request.

Complainant Felisa Co then informed her nephew Heliton Co of what transpired and further stated that
if Kaw King Tuy is not removed from his current residence, he would soon die. Kaw King Tuy died on 28
November 2008.

The complainants thereafter investigated with the Register of Deeds of Las Piñas City and discovered
that Kaw King Tuy’s properties covered by two (2) transfer certificates of title which were registered
under his name were evidently cancelled, and that the same properties were already registered under
the name of Henry Co, married to Angeline Co. The complainants also discovered that the spouses Co
succeeded in transferring Kaw King Tuy’s Las Piñas properties to their name by executing two separate
Deeds of Donation, one executed on 24 August 2007 in Makati which was notarized using a bogus
community tax certificate, and another Deed of Donation executed on 20 November 2008 notarized by
co-accused Atty. Ricardo T. Sibug It is the second Deed of Donation that is made subject of the present
case.

The complainants also testified that they were further prejudiced by the execution of the false Deeds of
Donation since accused spouses Co mortgaged the property subject of the falsified Deed of Donation to
Banco de Oro Universal Bank (BDO) without any consent from Kaw King Tuy or the rightful heirs of Kaw
King Tuy.

Lastly, the complainants stated that when they confronted their sister, co-accused Rosita Co, regarding
her participation as witness to the falsified deeds of donation, the latter showed them a Memorandum
of Agreement stipulating that complainant Kim Hon Co will waive his hereditary rights over the property
of their deceased brother Kaw King Tuy. They testified that Rosita Co was forcing complainant Kim Hon
Co to sign the said memorandum.

KOW KING GUIN A.K.A. FRANCISCO CO

Through his Judicia Affidavit3 dated 21 January 2021, Francisco Co
testified that he is the brother of Kaw King Tuy and that Heliton Co and
accused Henry Co are his nephews. Francisco Co added that Kaw King
Tuy never injured his head on the pavement causing him to be simple-
minded but rather he attested that sometime in 1948, he was riding a jeep
with his brother and that while disembarking Kaw King Tuy fell but never hit
his head on the pavement.
Francisco Co then testified that Kaw King Tuy stayed in Las Piñas
with their sibling Kim Hon Co but would always visit him in their Quezon
City residence. It was during one of these visits that Francisco Co spoke
with Kaw King Tuy about the latter’s properties. He also testified that Kaw
3
Records, p. 1480
King Tuy always mentioned that he will be giving his properties in Las
Piñas to Henry Co, such properties include the property subject of the
present case. Lastly, Francisco Co testified that he inquired as to whether
Kaw King Tuy would also give any properties to their sibling Kim Hon Co to
which Kaw King Tuy replied that he would not do so since Kim Hon Co
deceives people and never keeps his promises.