ARTURO REYES, PETITIONER, VS. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS & PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

On appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court is the joint decision dated January 24, 1973 of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. Nos. 07689-90-CR which affirmed with modification the conviction of the
petitioner Arturo Reyes for
illegal possession and use of
six (6) falsified American Express Company (AMEXCO) checks in violation of
Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code. 
Two informations were filed against Arturo
Reyes and Ceferino Melendez which were docketed as
Criminal Cases Nos. T-903 and T-904 in the Court of First
Instance of Pangasinan, Tayug,
Branch VI.

On September 3, 1961, Melendez offered to sell to the complainant
Rufo Saruca two AMEXCO
checks which he allegedly acquired from Reyes. 
As Saruca
was planning to travel abroad with his
wife, he agreed to encash them provided two
persons would guarantee their genuinenees and refund his money if they were
spurious.  The next day, Melendez executed an affidavit before Justice of the
Peace Rufino V. Buyao of
San Quintin, Pangasinan,
acknowledging that he received P589
from Saruca in exchange for two American Express checks (for $100 and $90 each) and
promising to refund that amount to Saruca if the checks were not good.

On September 6, 1961,
Reyes himself, accompanied by Melendez, encashed with Saruca four (4) more AMEXCO checks
worth $390.  Reyes executed an affidavit before the Justice of the
Peace in which he acknowledged the receipt of P600 from Saruca
and promised to refund that amount if the checks were fake.

Later, Saruca learned that Melendez was mauled in Binalonan for
selling a forged check (p. 73, Rollo).  Suspicious, he brought
Reyes to the Chief of Police Salvador Ringor and in their presence,
he examined the six (6) checks he acquired from Reyes and Melendez with a magnifying glass.  He found that the original figures contained
blot marks, erasures, and superimpositions, confirming his fear that they were falsified or tampered with.  The Chief of Police forthwith notified the PC
headquarters in Tayug and requested assistance in conducting an investigation.  The PC found that the figures and
words below the printed word “AMOUNT” on all the checks bore erasures and superimpositions.

Saruca demanded from Reyes the return of his money
but Reyes required him to return
the checks.  Since the checks were in the custody of the PC investigator,
Reyes refused to refund Saruca’s money.  Reyes and Melendez were accordingly charged,
arrested and tried for violation of Article 168 of the Penal Code.  They pleaded not guilty.

After a joint trial, the Court
of First Instance rendered judgment on March 8, 1967 acquitting
Melendez, but convicting Reyes in both cases and sentenced him in each
case:

“x x x
to suffer the penalty from TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY, TO
FOUR (4) YEARS, NINE (9) MONTHS and ELEVEN (11) DAYS of prison correccional in its medium and maximum period, and to pay the fine of Two
Hundred Pesos (P200.00), x x x.”
(p. 21, Rollo)

It also ordered him to indemnify Saruca
in the sum of P585 in the first case and P600 in the second case.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals increased his penalty as follows:

“Considering that
the altered checks in question were issued by the American Express
Company, a foreign bank duly authorized to issue the same, the penalty to be
imposed upon the accused-appellant
in both cases should be adjusted within the range provided in Paragraph
4, Article 166 of the Revised Penal Code. 
Accordingly, the accused-appellant should be sentenced both cases to suffer the penalty of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision
correctional, as minimum to six (6) years, eight (8)
months and one (1) day of prision
mayor, as maximum.  The fine of
two hundred (P200.00) pesos and the indemnity in both cases are retained.  However, subsidiary imprisonment except as to
the fine should not be made to apply in both cases conformably with Article 39
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 5465.” (CA-G.R. Nos. 07689-CR and 07690-CR dated January 24, 1973, p. 31, Rollo.)

The main issue raised in
this petition for review is
whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding
the petitioner guilty as
charged.

Article 168, in relation to Article 166, of the Revised Penal
Code, for the violation of which the petitioner was convicted, provides: 

“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.

“Art. 166.  Forging
treasury or bank notes
or other documents payable
to bearer; importing, and uttering such false or forged notes and
documents.  – The forging or
falsification of treasury or bank notes or certificates or other obligations
and securities payable to bearer and the importation and uttering in connivance
with forgers or importers
of such false or forged obligations or notes, shall be punished as follows:

“xxx              xxx                  xxx.

“4. By prison mayor in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed 2,000 pesos, when the
forged or altered
document is a circulating note or bill issued by a foreign bank duly authorized thereof.”

The elements of the crime in Article 168 are:  (1) possession with guilty knowledge that the
checks were falsified (animus possidendi), and (2) fraudulent intent to use or
utter the same.

The petitioner alleges that the Court of Appeals erred in finding
that the element of animus possidendi was established by
the prosecution.  That being a factual
finding of the appellate court, We may not disturb it
(Sec. 2, Rule 45, Rules of Court).

In any event, the record shows that that finding is supported by
substantial evidence, namely, the testimonies of Saruca
and of Maj. Jose Fernandez of the PC Central Laboratory.  Saruca proved that
it was Reyes who uttered or passed the falsified checks to him.  Maj. Fernandez testified that:  (1) the amounts in the checks had been
changed to reflect bigger sums; (2) the changes were not properly authenticated
by the drawers; (3) the petitioner benefitted from
the encashment of the falsified checks by Saruca; (4)
the American Express Company dishonored the checks when presented to it for
encashment; (5) all the six (6) falsified checks came from the petitioner,
indicating that he was aware of their forged character and that he intended to
profit from uttering them; and (6) since petitioner could not identify the
persons from whom he allegedly received the tampered checks, he may be regarded
as the source of the same (Alarcon vs. CA, 19 SCRA
688).

WHEREFORE, finding that the Court of Appeals did not commit
a reversible error in affirming the petitioner’s conviction, the petition for
review is denied with costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Gancayco, J., no part.