ANTONIO JUANIR ABAYON, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
HERNANDO, J:
The Antecedents
Petitioner Antonio Juanir Abayon was charged with the crime of Falsification by Private Individual and Use of Falsified Documents under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code in an Information[3] which reads:
“That on or about the month of February 2005, in the Municipality of Palompon, province of Leyte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused with deliberate intent to defraud, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously falsify a public or official document, specifically a notarized Extrajudicial Settlement with Absolute Sale, by counterfeiting and/or imitating the signature of JUANITA N. VIACRUSIS, causing it to appear that she participated in the execution of the said document on November 26, 1978, as a vendor, when in fact she could not have signed said document as she died eight months earlier or on March 3, 1978, and by reason of the purported existence of the said falsified document in his favor, accused used the same in order to transfer under his name the tax declarations of the parcels of land subject of the said Extrajudicial Settlement with Absolute Sale, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs of the late Miguel Nayra who are the true owners of the said parcels of land.”
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
Upon arraignment on November 22, 2006, petitioner, duly assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the offense charged against him. Trial thereafter ensued.
The prosecution’s version of the incident is succinctly summarized by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) in its Comment[4], to wit:
When Miguel Nayra died in December 1976, his children Juanita Nayra-Viacrusis, Rosario-Nayra Abayon, Demetrio Nayra, and Alfredo Banaban, adjudicated to and partitioned among themselves the properties left by their father through an Extrajudicial Settlement Among Heirs dated May 16, 1978. Among the properties involved in the said settlement were:
xxx xxx xxx(5) A parcel of residential land situated in Washington St., Palompon, Leyte, bearing Tax Declaration No. 5357 in the name of Miguel Nayra; bounded in the North by Washington St., East by Victoriano Arevalo; South by Gegorio Licardo; and West by Lopez St., with an area of 95.79 square meters, more or less, and assessed at Php430.00;
(6) A parcel of residential land situated in Mabini St., Palompon, Leyte, bearing Tax Declaration No. 5354 in the name of Miguel Nayra; bounded in the North by Sixto Arevalo; East by Fabian Caminaro; South by Mabini St.; and West by Rufino Reyes, with an area of 1,397 square meters and assessed at Php 250.00.
xxx xxx xxx
On March 3, 1978, Juanita Nayra-Viacrusis died in Manila. Rosario Nayra-Abayon, the wife of the petitioner and the younger sister of Juanita, was one of those who condoled with the bereaved family.
On November 26, 1978, an Extrajudicial Settlement with Absolute Sale was allegedly executed by Rose Nayra, Demetrio Nayra and Juanita N. Viacrusis, the heirs of Miguel Nayra, in favor of petitioner Antonio Abayon. The said instrument, which was notarized by Atty. Antonio F. Mendiola on November 1, 1978, conveyed to the petitioner the following parcels of land:
xxx xxx xxxIt is a parcel of land situated at Sitio Liloan, Palompon, Leyte covered by Tax Declaration No. 5354, bounded in the North by Sixto Arevalo; East by Fabian Caminero; South by Mabini St.; and West by Rufino Reyes,having an area of 1,367 square meters and assessed at Php 250.00.
Also a parcel of residential land situated in Washington St., Palompon Leyte, covered by Tax Declaration No. 4739, with an area of 95.79 square meters. Bounded on the North by Washington St. and on the East by Victoriano Arevalo and on the West by Lopez St., South by Gregorio Licardo having an assessed value of Php 100.00.
xxx xxx xxx
It was sometime in 2005 only when private complainants learned that the above-described properties were no longer in the name of Miguel Nayra as they were already transferred to the name of the petitioner.
For his part, petitioner argued that he was out of the country at the time that the above-mentioned deed was executed. The said deed is dated November 26, 1978 and based on the Certification issued by the Bureau of Immigration, petitioner left the Philippines on October 11, 1978 and arrived in the Philippines on November 30, 1978.
Furthermore, petitioner alleged that sometime in 1993, he found the deed denominated as Extrajudicial Settlement with Absolute Sale after he perused the personal files of his late wife Rosario. Surprised of what he discovered, he verified its authenticity with the Office of the Clerk, RTC, Tacloban City which then issued a certification that based on its records, the said instrument was notarized by Atty. Antonio P. Mendiola. The latter entered the same in his Notarial Register on June 1, 1978.
Thus, sometime in 2005, believing in the authenticity and due execution of the said instrument, petitioner went to the BIR of Ormoc City and paid all the taxes involving the said property. Thereafter, he caused its registration under his name with the Register of Deeds, Tacloban City. He likewise paid at the Municipal Treasurer’s Office, Palompon, Leyte all the real property taxes thereof.
After trial on the merits, the MTC rendered its Decision on April 25, 2011, ruling that petitioner was guilty of the crime of using a falsified document and not of the crime of falsification. The dispositive portion of the judgment reads:
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises considered, the Court finds accused ANTONIO ABAYON, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of USE OF FALSIFIED DOCUMENT as defined and penalized under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code and hereby sentences the accused to suffer the straight penalty of imprisonment of FOUR (4) MONTHS AND ONE (1) DAY OF arresto mayor maximum and to pay a FINE of ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000.00) and to undergo subsidiary imprisonment in case of non-payment of the fine. Accused is hereby further ordered to pay the sum of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00) as moral damages, TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00) as attorney’s fees and TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00) as nominal damages.
SO ORDERED.
Subsequently, petitioner moved for reconsideration but it was denied by the MTC in its Joint Order[5] dated July 19, 2011.
Thus, petitioner elevated the case on appeal to the RTC. On December 28, 2012, the RTC rendered the assailed Decision, affirming in toto the Decision of the MTC, thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, there being no cogent reason to reverse or modify the judgment of conviction rendered by the MTC of Palompon, Leyte dated April 25, 2011, the same is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
Petitioner then filed a Joint Motion for Reconsideration[6] relative to the foregoing Decision but it was denied by the RTC in a Joint Order[7] dated May 8, 2013.
Aggrieved, petitioner is now before Us via Rule 42 of the Rules of Court.
Assigned Errors
- The court a quo erred in declaring that petitioner knew that the Extrajudicial Settlement with Absolute Sale was a forgery;
- The court a quo did not take into account the fact that the questioned instruments are ancient documents. As such, they enjoy the presumption of genuineness and due execution;
- The court a quo erred in declaring that the use of the fake document caused damaged to another or at least it was used with intent to cause such damage; and
- The court a quo erred in affirming the Decision of the MTC, ordering petitioner to pay a fine of One Thousand Pesos, Moral, and Nominal Damages, including Attorneys Fees.
Subsequent to this Court’s December 3, 2013 Resolution which noted, among others, that no Reply has been filed, and which declared the case submitted for Decision, petitioner filed a Motion for Leave for File Reply (dated October 31, 2013) which was received by this Court on December 6, 2013.[8] Movant attached thereto his Reply.[9] In the interest of justice, said Motion is granted, and the Reply of petitioner is thus admitted and considered in the resolution of the instant petition.
The Court’s Ruling
The petition is bereft of merit.
The assigned errors in the instant appeal, being closely allied, will be discussed jointly.
Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
Art. 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 P5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon:
1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the falsifications enumerated in the next preceding article[10] 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.
Any person who shall knowingly introduce in evidence in any judicial proceeding or to the damage of another or who, with the intent to cause such damage, shall use any of the false documents embraced in the next preceding article, or in any of the foregoing subdivisions of this article, shall be punished by the penalty next lower in degree.
From the foregoing, there are three acts punished under Article 172, to wit:
- Falsification of public, official or commercial document by a private individual;
- Falsification of private document by any person; and
- Use of falsified document.
In this case, petitioner was charged with Falsification by Private Individual and Use of Falsified Documents. However, after trial on the merits, petitioner was not found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of falsification of public document. He was only convicted by the MTC for the crime of use of falsified document, thus:
The question that behooves this Court is whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime of falsification by forging the signature of Juanita Nayra-Viacrusis in the document denominated as Extra-Judicial Settlement with Sale executed on November 26, 1978.
The question must be answered in the negative. At the time the Extra-Judicial Settlement with Sale executed on November 26, 1978 was notarized, the accused was outside the country as could be gleaned from the Certification issued by the Bureau of Immigration. Accused left the Philippines on October 11, 1978 and arrived in the Philippines on November 30, 1978.
The presumption under the law that a person who is found in possession of a forged document and who used (uttered) the same is the forger thereof is clearly not applicable in this case. At the time the questioned document was notarized on November 26, 1978, the accused was out of the country.
The prosecution was not able to establish that the accused was in the Philippines on November 26, 1978. In fact, Dante testified that he did not see that the accused forged the signature of his mother.
xxx xxx xxxAfter an assiduous and judicious deliberation of all the evidence adduced, the Court finds that all the elements in the crime of use of falsified document are attendant in the instant case.
xxx xxx xxx
We fully agree with the findings of the MTC and the RTC. The presumption that a person who has in his possession a falsified document and makes use of the same is the forger does not apply in the instant case. The effect of said presumption is to create the need of presenting evidence to overcome the prima facie case created, thereby which, if no contrary proof is offered, will prevail.[11] Also, said presumption applies only in the absence of a satisfactory explanation. Here, We cannot hold petitioner to be the forger as there was controverting explanation on his part showing how he came to possess the spurious document. More importantly, petitioner had successfully proven that at the time the deed in question was executed on November 26, 1978, he was outside the country as evidenced by the Certification issued by the Bureau of Immigration stating that petitioner left the Philippines on October 11, 1978 and came back on November 30, 1978.
At this point, We will now determine whether or not petitioner is guilty of the crime of use of falsified document.
The elements of the crime of use of falsified document under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code are the following:
(a) That the offender knew that a document was falsified by another person;
(b) That the false document is embraced in Art. 171 or in any of subdivisions 1 or 2 of Art. 172;
(c) That he used such document (not in judicial proceedings); and
(d) That the use of the false document caused damage to another or at least it was used with intent to cause such damage.
We hold that all of the foregoing elements of Article 172 are present in the case at bar.
Firstly, it is evident that petitioner was well aware that the questioned deed entitled Extrajudicial Settlement with Absolute Sale dated November 26, 1978 was falsified because he knew for a fact that her sister-in-law Juanita Nayra-Viacrusis died on March 3, 1978, or eight months earlier from the date of execution. Thus, it was impossible for her to affix her signature on the said deed. Furthermore, there was another glaring disparity between the date of the execution of the document and the date it was entered into the notarial register, which could have put petitioner on guard about the authenticity of said document. It must be noted that when petitioner obtained a Certification from the Office of the Clerk of Court, it was shown therein that the document was entered into the notarial register on June 1, 1978 or five months earlier from the time of its execution. Put elsewise, the document was notarized long before it was executed. Worse, both dates of notarization and execution occurred after the death of Juanita Nayra-Viacrusis.
Secondly, it is undisputed that the false document involved in this case, which is a notarized Extrajudicial Settlement with Absolute Sale, is a public document embraced in Art. 172 of the RPC. It is settled that a public document is any instrument authorized by a notary public or a competent public official, wit the solemnities required by law.[12]
Thirdly, petitioner himself admitted that he presented to the BIR of Ormoc City the questioned document and paid in his name all the taxes and the fees of properties stated in the deed. After the BIR issued him a clearance, he submitted it to the Register of Deeds in Tacloban City for the registration of those properties in his name. Put elsewise, petitioner successfully registered the properties in his name using the disputed Extrajudicial Settlement With Absolute Sale.
Fourthly, it is likewise undeniable that petitioner’s use of the false document in support of the registration of the properties in his name prejudiced the lawful owners of the properties such as the heirs of Juanita Nayra-Viacrusis. Thus, petitioner caused damage to them or at least intended to cause damage when he registered the properties in his name.
As regards the award of attorney’s fees, moral, and nominal damages, We rule that the same is warranted.
Although attorney’s fees are not allowed in the absence of stipulation, the court can award the same when the defendant’s act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to incur expenses to protect his interest or where the defendant acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy the plaintiff’s plainly valid, just, and demandable claim.[13] In the case of Alcatel Philippines, Inc. v. I.M. Bongar & Co., Inc., et. al.[14], the High Court ruled that although the RTC did not specifically discuss in the body of its decision its basis for awarding attorney’s fees, its findings of fact clearly support such an award. Here, the MTC and the RTC found, based on the pieces of evidence presented, that petitioner clearly intended to cause damage when he registered the properties in his name. Consequently, such act forced private respondents to litigate in order to protect their interest.
With respect to the award of moral damages, We sustain the ruling of the RTC, which affirmed that of the MTC, that petitioner is liable to pay Php 10,000.00 in favor of the private respondents. It is a well-entrenched rule that moral damages are not intended to enrich the complainant at the expense of the defendant. Rather, these are awarded only to enable the injured party to obtain “means, diversions or amusements” that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering that resulted by reason of the defendant’s culpable action. The purpose of such damages is essentially indemnity or reparation, not punishment or correction. In other words, the award thereof is aimed at a restoration within the limits of the possible, of the spiritual status quo ante; therefore, it must always reasonably approximate the extent of injury and be proportional to the wrong committed.[15]
Although incapable of exactness and no proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that moral damages may be awarded, the amount of indemnity being left to the discretion of the court, it is imperative, nevertheless, that (1) injury must have been suffered by the claimant, and (2) such injury must have sprung from any of the cases expressed in Article 2219 and Article 2220 of the Civil Code.[16]
The pertinent provisions read:
Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:
x x x(10) Acts and actions referred to in articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35.
xxxArt. 2220. Wilfull injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral damages if the court should find that, under the circumstances, such damages are justly due. The same rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith. (Italics Ours)
xxxArt. 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.
Undoubtedly, in transferring the properties in his name to the prejudice of the lawful owners, petitioner has violated Article 21 of the Civil Code entitling private respondents to moral damages.
In the same vein, the award of nominal damages is warranted. Nominal damages are recoverable where a legal right is technically violated and must be vindicated against an invasion that has produced no actual present loss of any kind[17]. The High Court further explained the nature of nominal damages in Almeda v. Cariño[18]:
x x x Its award is thus not for the purpose of indemnification for a loss but for the recognition and vindication of a right. Indeed, nominal damages are damages in name only and not in fact. When granted by the courts, they are not treated as an equivalent of a wrong inflicted but simply a recognition of the existence of a technical injury. A violation of the plaintiff’s right, even if only technical, is sufficient to support an award of nominal damages. Conversely, so long as there is a showing of a violation of the right of the plaintiff, an award of nominal damages is proper.
In the present case, private respondents’ right as the legal heirs of Juanita Nayra-Viacrusis had been violated. Thus, the award of nominal damages is proper.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition for review is hereby DENIED. The assailed the December 28, 2012 Decision[19] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 17, Palompon, Leyte in Criminal Case No. AC-P-0006 is AFFIRMED in toto.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Salandanan-Manahan, and Quijano-Padilla, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 28-37; Petition, Annex “A”.
[2] Rollo, pp. 71-84; Petition, Annex “R”.
[3] Rollo, p. 51; Petition, Annex “D”.
[4] Rollo, pp. 130-142.
[5] Rollo, p. 951; Petition, Annex “T”.
[6] Rollo, pp. 38-45; Petition, Annex “B”.
[7] Rollo, pp. 48-50; Petition, Annex “C”.
[8] Rollo, p. 145.
[9] Rollo, pp. 147-150.
[10] ART. 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 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.
[11] Normallah A. Pacasum v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 180314, April 16, 2009.
[12] Cacnio, et. al. v. Baens, 5 Phil. 742. 13 Nicolas P. Diego V. Rodolfo P. Diego, et. al., G.R. No. 179965, February 20, 2013.
[14] G.R. No. 182946, October 05, 2011 15 Nancy T. Lorzano v. Juan Tabayag, Jr., G.R. No. 189647, February 06, 2012.
[16] People of the Philippines v. Jose Pepito D. Combate A.K.A. “Peping”, G.R. No. 189301, December 15, 2010 citing Del Mundo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104576, January 20, 1995. 17 Cathay Pacific Airways V. Juanita Reyes, et. al., G.R. No. 185891, June 26, 2013.
[18] G.R. No. 152143, January 13, 2003.
[19] Rollo, pp. 28-37; Petition, Annex “A”.