PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. SPS. HILDELBERTO T. ESPEJO & OBDULIA H. ESPEJO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

People versus Espejo

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against the spouses Hildelberto Espejo and Obdulia Espejo, a criminal appeal from a conviction for the complex crime of estafa through falsification of a public document. Hildelberto, a lawyer, served as counsel and administrator of the estate of his mother-in-law, Teodora Gana, widow of Hemedes. He and his wife Obdulia were accused of causing the execution of a notarized Deed of Donation of Real Property Inter Vivos, dated July 21, 1981, making it appear that Teodora donated two parcels of land in Makati to Obdulia, when Teodora never took part in its signing. Using that deed, the spouses transferred the titles to their own names. The case matters because it fixes the elements of this complex crime, explains when a private individual may be convicted of falsification of a public document, and reminds us that notarization is not a guarantee of the truth of a document's contents.

Procedural History

An Information for estafa through falsification of a public document was filed in March 2005 before the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 66. Both accused pleaded not guilty. After trial, the court convicted them as principals of the complex crime, sentencing each to an indeterminate penalty ranging from two years, four months and one day of prision correccional as minimum, to ten years of prision mayor as maximum. The spouses appealed, assigning seventeen errors. The appeal reached the Supreme Court, which reviewed the conviction and the assignment of errors.

Facts

Teodora and her husband Eduardo had six children, among them Obdulia, who married Hildelberto. Hildelberto was the administrator of Teodora's estate and legal counsel to both Teodora and Eduardo. Teodora owned two lots with seven apartment units on Catmon Street, San Antonio Village, Makati, the Catmon properties. In 1990, before her death, Teodora executed a General Revocation, Cancellation and Declaration of Nullity covering any power of attorney, agreement, will, partition, sale, transfer or donation made in favor of the spouses involving her properties. In December 1990, she executed her Huling Tagubilin, willing that her properties be divided equally among her children. She also sued the spouses to recover the Catmon properties, but the case was dismissed after her death in February 1991, without prejudice to the matter being settled in the probate proceedings, which remained pending and which the spouses opposed.

In 2003, the other heirs learned that titles to the Catmon properties had been issued in the names of the spouses, on the strength of a notarized Deed of Donation dated July 21, 1981, purportedly executed by Teodora in favor of Obdulia. The heirs testified that Teodora had told them Hildelberto made her sign blank documents, and that she wanted her property divided equally among her children. The heirs filed an action for quieting of title, a notice of lis pendens, and a criminal complaint.

For the defense, Hildelberto alone testified. He claimed Teodora executed the donation in 1981, that by virtue of it the spouses became owners of the Catmon properties, and that the titles were transferred to their names in July 2003. The trial court convicted them, and they appealed.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution proved all the elements of the complex crime of estafa through falsification of a public document.
• Whether or not a private individual may be convicted of falsification of a public document under Article 172, in relation to Article 171, of the Revised Penal Code.
• Whether or not the trial court's alleged errors, bias and misappreciation of evidence rendered its decision null and void.
• Whether or not the notarized Deed of Donation carried a presumption of regularity that the trial court wrongly disregarded.

Applicable Provisions

Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, on falsification by public officers, employees or notaries, is the act falsified under the complex crime:

Article 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 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 a 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.

This is the falsification the accused are said to have committed by making it appear Teodora participated in an act she did not.

Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code governs falsification by private individuals:

Article 172. Falsification by private individual and use of falsified documents. — The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon: 1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the falsifications enumerated in the next preceding article in any public or official document or letter of exchange or any other kind of commercial document; and 2. Any person who, to the damage of a third party, or with the intent to cause such damage, shall in any private document commit any of the acts of falsification enumerated in the next preceding article.

This is the provision under which a private person like the spouses may be held liable.

Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code defines the estafa charged:

Article 318. Other deceits. — The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine of not less than the amount of the damage caused and not more than twice such amount shall be imposed upon any person who shall defraud or damage another by any other deceit not mentioned in the preceding articles of this chapter.

This supplies the fraud component of the complex crime.

Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code governs the complex crime:

Article 48. Penalty for complex crimes. — When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.

This is the basis for treating the two offenses as one complex crime.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that all the elements of both crimes must exist. For falsification of a public document by a private individual, the elements are that the offender is a private individual or a public officer who did not take advantage of his position, that he committed any act of falsification under Article 171, and that the falsification was in a public, official or commercial document. For estafa under Article 318, the elements are a false pretense or fraudulent act other than those in the preceding articles, made prior to or simultaneously with the fraud, resulting in damage to the offended party. The Court found these present: the witnesses positively identified the spouses as the persons who presented the notarized Deed of Donation and made it appear Teodora executed it when she did not, and by that deed the spouses caused the titles to be transferred to their names, to the damage of the other heirs.

On the second issue, the Court held that a private individual may be convicted, since the falsification was committed in a public document and the spouses did not act as public officers taking advantage of office.

On the third issue, the Court held that the assigned errors did not affect guilt. The allegations of bias, bad faith and palpable error were unsupported by substantial evidence and did not render the decision void. The trial court's appreciation of facts and evaluation of the credibility of witnesses deserves weight and respect, because it had the distinct opportunity to hear the witnesses and observe their conduct on the stand. The positive identification by the witnesses prevailed over the spouses' negative and self-serving defense of denial.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that notarization did not guarantee the validity of the contents. The irregularity in the execution of the notarized deed could be questioned directly by the surviving heirs. The Court quoted its ruling that the presumption of regularity is not absolute and may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence, and that notarization per se is not a guarantee of the validity of the contents of a document. The deed was repudiated by Teodora's own General Revocation, Cancellation and Declaration of Nullity.

Doctrine

In a complex crime of estafa through falsification of a public document, all the elements of both estafa and falsification must exist. A private individual may be convicted of falsification of a public document under Article 172, in relation to Article 171, of the Revised Penal Code, provided the falsification was committed in a public, official or commercial document and the offender did not take advantage of any official position. The positive identification of the accused by prosecution witnesses prevails over a negative and self-serving defense of denial. A notarized document carries the presumption of regularity, but that presumption is not absolute and may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence, and notarization per se is not a guarantee of the validity of the contents of a document.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the spouses Hildelberto and Obdulia Espejo for the complex crime of estafa through falsification of a public document, sustaining the penalty imposed by the trial court.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: notarization per se is not a guarantee of the validity of the contents of a document, and a private individual may be convicted of falsification of a public document under Article 172 in relation to Article 171. Examiners use this case to test the elements of the complex crime of estafa through falsification and the rebuttability of the presumption of regularity of notarized documents.