FELIZARDO S. OBANDO AND JUAN S. OBANDO, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Obando versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is the story of two brothers, Felizardo Obando and Juan Obando, who presented for probate what they claimed was the last will and testament of Alegria Strebel Vda. de Figueras, a document that bequeathed to them her jewelry and her rights and interests in the Figueras properties. When the National Bureau of Investigation examined the signatures, it reported that the questioned and the standard signatures of Alegria were not written by one and the same person. The brothers were then charged with estafa through falsification of a public document, convicted by the trial court, and affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The case matters to a reviewee because the Supreme Court here teaches how a court weighs conflicting handwriting experts, what happens when a party fails to object to a machine copy of a document, and how the elements of estafa through falsification are established.

Procedural History

The case began in the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 17, which rendered judgment on October 7, 1996, finding Felizardo and Juan Obando guilty of violating Article 315, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (b) of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Article 172, paragraph 1, and sentencing each to reclusion temporal in its maximum period, from seventeen years, four months and one day to twenty years. Their co-accused Mercedes Santos and Victorino Cruz were acquitted for lack of evidence, and the case against Franklin Cordon, who remained at large, was archived. The brothers appealed to the Court of Appeals, which on August 13, 1998 affirmed the trial court in toto. Their motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated May 17, 1999. They then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

Sometime in 1964, Alegria Strebel Vda. de Figueras, together with Eduardo and Francisco Figueras, the sons of her husband Jose Figueras by a previous marriage, filed a petition for the intestate settlement of Jose's estate, and Alegria was named administratrix without opposition from her stepsons. While the settlement was pending, Alegria died in May 1979. Eduardo was issued new letters of administration over both estates, and Fritz Strebel, Alegria's brother, came forward claiming part of her estate since she died without issue.

Felizardo Obando then filed a petition for the probate of Alegria's alleged last will and testament, asking to be named executor. The will bequeathed Alegria's rights and interests in the Figueras properties, as well as her personal properties including all her jewelry, to Felizardo and Juan and their families. The Figueras brothers opposed probate on the ground that the will was done under duress or was a forgery. The probate court denied Felizardo's prayer to be executor, but the Court of Appeals partially reversed and appointed Eduardo and Felizardo as co-administrators of the joint estates. The opposing parties then agreed to submit the will to the National Bureau of Investigation for examination and comparison with Alegria's standard signatures.

NBI Document Examiner Zenaida Torres reported on March 26, 1990 that the questioned and standard signatures of Alegria were not written by one and the same person. Because of the forged will that had been the basis for appointing Felizardo as co-administrator, the brothers had taken possession of the jewelry, furniture and other personal properties enumerated in the will, as well as the rentals of the Figueras residence in Gilmore Street, Quezon City, which was leased to the Community of Learners. When Felizardo could not account for these properties, Eduardo and Fritz sued him. On July 26, 1990, an Information for estafa through falsification of a public document was filed against Felizardo and Juan Obando, together with the persons who signed the alleged will. The notary public, Cipriano Farrales, asked for reinvestigation claiming innocence and good faith, and was deleted from the Information. At arraignment, all the accused except Franklin Cordon, who was at large, pleaded not guilty.

Issues

• Whether or not the non-production and non-presentation of the original copy of the alleged falsified last will and testament before the trial court is a fatal defect entitling the petitioners to acquittal.
• Whether or not the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in giving more weight to the findings of the National Bureau of Investigation examiner that the signature in the alleged will was forged, as against the findings of the Philippine National Police examiner that it was genuine.
• Whether or not the testimonies of the notary public and the two attesting witnesses, that they saw Alegria sign the will in their presence, should have outweighed the testimony of the handwriting expert.
• Whether or not there was conspiracy to warrant the conviction of Felizardo and Juan Obando.
• Whether or not the crime of estafa through falsification of a public document was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Applicable Provisions

Article 315, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (b) of the Revised Penal Code, as applied by the trial court, provides:

Swindling is committed by any person who, defrauding another by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud, shall defraud another by using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits.

This is the estafa provision under which the brothers were charged and convicted, the deceit being the forged will they presented for probate.

Article 172, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to which the charge was brought, provides:

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 shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods.

This supplies the falsification component of the complex crime, since the alleged will was a notarized public document.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the non-presentation of the original will was not a fatal defect. The petitioners never objected when the will was presented and testified to by the NBI examiner, and they never sought reconsideration when the trial court admitted the machine copy. More importantly, a duplicate original copy of the alleged will was formally offered in evidence as part of the petitioners' own documentary evidence and was admitted by the trial court, which used it for comparison of the questioned signatures with the standard signatures of Alegria.

On the second issue, the Court ruled that the trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly gave more weight to the findings of the NBI examiner. The Court laid down the rule that findings of fact of the trial court, its calibration of testimonies and its assessment of probative weight, are accorded high respect if not conclusive effect, more so when affirmed by the appellate court. The Court held that expert opinions are not ordinarily conclusive and are purely advisory, and that when faced with conflicting expert opinions, courts give more weight and credence to that which is more complete, thorough and scientific. The NBI examiner explained the differences in alignment, arrangement, slant, proportion and manner of execution, while the police examiner himself admitted that no definite conclusion could be reached because of the wide gap in execution. The Court also noted that the doctor who examined Alegria in December 1978 testified that she was physically and mentally fit, corroborating the finding that her hand had good muscular control.

On the third issue, the Court was not persuaded that the testimonies of the notary public and the attesting witnesses should outweigh the expert testimony. The Court examined their accounts and found them insufficient against the scientific findings.

On the fourth and fifth issues, the Court upheld the finding of conspiracy and the conviction for estafa through falsification of a public document, the elements of the complex crime having been established beyond reasonable doubt.

Doctrine

First, findings of fact of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding on the Supreme Court unless clearly without evidentiary support, based on a misapprehension of facts, or rendered with relevant facts overlooked. Second, expert opinions are not conclusive but purely advisory, and when expert opinions conflict, the court gives more weight to the one that is more complete, thorough and scientific. Third, the value of a handwriting expert's opinion lies not in the bare conclusion but in the distinguishing marks, characteristics and discrepancies pointed out between genuine and false specimens. Fourth, a party who fails to object to the presentation of a machine copy, and who himself offers a duplicate original in evidence, cannot later claim that the non-production of the original is a fatal defect. These rules govern the appreciation of evidence in estafa through falsification under Article 315 and Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, sustaining the conviction of Felizardo and Juan Obando.

Remember This

The line worth memorizing is that when expert opinions conflict, the court gives more weight and credence to that which is more complete, thorough and scientific. Examiners like to use this case on the appreciation of conflicting handwriting experts and on the effect of failing to object to a machine copy of a document.