THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. CAMOLO DIGORO ALIAS PANONDIONGAN, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

An information charging Counterfeiting of Treasury and Bank Notes
under Article 166 of the Revised Penal Code was filed in the Court of
First Instance of Lanao on June 3, 1959 against Camolo Digoro alias
Panondiongan, Hadji Solaiman Digoro and Macasasab Dalomangcob. Amended
informations charging the same offense were filed on June 5, 1959 and
August 13, 1959. On August 14, 1959, upon arraignment, all the accused
pleaded not guilty.

Subsequently, on March 20, 1961, the case was provisionally
dismissed, upon the Provincial Fiscal’s motion, in regard to the
accused Hadji Solaiman Digoro and Macasasab Dalomangcob. On that date,
however, an amended information was filed against Camolo Digoro alias
Panondiongan. It was captioned “For: Illegal Possession of Counterfeit
Treasury and Bank Notes”.

As follows is the body of said amended information:

“The undersigned Provincial Fiscal accuses CAMOLO
DIGORO alias PANONDIONGAN of the crime of ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF
COUNTERFEIT TREASURY AND BANK NOTES, committed as follows:

“That
on or about the 2nd day of June,1959 and for sometime prior thereto, in
the Municipal District of Taraka, Province of Lanao del Sur,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
said accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously,
with intent to possess, have in his possession, custody and control,
100-peso bill, 20-peso bill, 10-peso bill, 5-peso bill, 2-peso bill and
1-peso bill denominations in resemblance or similitude to a genuine
treasury or bank notes issued by the Government of the Republic of the
Philippines, to wit:

1.	26	pieces	……………………………………..	“20-peso bill with serial No. AC 665154
2.	3	“	……………………………………..	1-peso bill half face
3.	5	“	……………………………………..	2-peso bill half face
4.	6	“	……………………………………..	5-peso bill one half face
5.	5	“	……………………………………..	10-peso bill one half face
6.	24	“	……………………………………..	20-peso bill one half face
7.	4	“	……………………………………..	20-peso bill one half face
8.	1	“	……………………………………..	1-peso bill with serial No. DU176494
9.	2	“	……………………………………..	100-peso bill with serial No. F00933623
10.	2	“	……………………………………..	100-peso bill reverse bill with VICTORY printed
11.	1	“	……………………………………..	20-peso bill with serial No. AD 838751
12.	1	“	……………………………………..	20-peso bill with serial No. 66 SN FO 2555823
13.	6	“	……………………………………..	20-peso bill with serial No. SN AC 665154
14.	5	pieces	……………………………………..	pieces 1-peso bill one half face
15.	1	“	……………………………………..	20-peso bill with serial No. FO 2555823
16.	1	“	……………………………………..	20-peso bill one half face
17.	8	“	……………………………………..	20-peso bill with serial No. SN BA 910645
18.	1	“	……………………………………..	10-peso bill
19.	68	“	……………………………………..	20-peso bill
20.	83	“	……………………………………..	20-peso bill with serial No. AC 665154
21.	1	“	……………………………………..	20-peso bill with serial No. V 177393

“Contrary to and in violation of Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code.”

A plea of guilty was entered thereto by the accused, with the
assistance of counsel, on the same day. A decision was thereupon
rendered sentencing the accused to suffer imprisonment of not more than
ten (10) years and one (1) day and not less than six (6) years and one
(1) day, and to pay the costs.

From said judgment the accused appealed to the Court of Appeals, on
the ground that the amended information, to which he pleaded guilty,
does not charge an offense. Said appeal was thereafter certified to
this Court, by resolution of the Court of Appeals dated September 11,
1963, as involving questions purely of law.

Possession of false treasury or bank notes alone, without anything
more, is not a criminal offense. For it to constitute an offense under
Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code the possession must be with
intent to use said false treasury or bank notes. From the provision of
the law the foregoing is clear:

“ART. 168. Illegal possession and use of false treasury or bank notes and other instruments of credit.—Unless the act be one of those coming under the provisions of any of
the preceding articles, any person who shall knowingly use or have in
his possession, with intent to use any of the false or falsified
instruments referred to in this section, shall suffer the penalty next
lower in degree than that prescribed in said articles.”

It follows that an information, as in this case, alleging possession
of false treasury and bank notes without alleging intent to use the
same but only “intent to possess” them, charges no offense. A plea of
guilty to such an information, therefore, does not warrant conviction
of the accused. It is well recognized that a plea of guilty is an
admission only of the material allegations of the information but not
that the facts thus alleged constitute an offense (People v. Fortuno,
73 Phil. 407).

From the allegations in the information to which the accused pleaded
guilty, intent to use cannot be clearly inferred. It is true it was
stated that the accused possessed the false treasury and bank notes
“unlawfully and feloniously * * *. Contrary to and in violation of
Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code”. Such statements, however, are
not allegations of facts but mere conclusions that the facts alleged
constitute the offense sought to be charged. Furthermore, the
information alleged “intent to possess” instead of intent to use. Such
allegation precludes clear inference of intent to use, in the absence
of express allegation of the latter, since intent to use entails intent
to part with the possession.

Wherefore, the judgment appealed is hereby set
aside and the case is remanded for new prosecution under an appropriate
and valid information. Costs de oficio.

So ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Zaldivar and Sanchez, JJ., concur.