HILARIO LAMSEN, PETITIONER, VS. THE PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

Lamsen versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is the case of Lamsen versus People of the Philippines, decided by the Supreme Court in November 2017. Hilario Lamsen, a private individual, was charged with and convicted of falsification of a public document under Article 172, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code, for allegedly forging the signatures of the spouses Aniceta Dela Cruz and Nestor Tandas on a deed of absolute sale over a parcel of land in Valenzuela. The case matters because it is a compact lesson on two things every examiner loves: the quantum of proof in criminal cases, and the strict rules on documentary evidence. The Court acquits, and it tells us why an expert's testimony built on photocopies cannot sustain a conviction.

Procedural History

An Information was filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 21, which, in a judgment dated July 5, 2011, found Lamsen guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty and a fine. Lamsen moved for reconsideration; it was denied. He appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 34, which, in a decision dated March 28, 2012, affirmed the Metropolitan Trial Court in toto. He moved for reconsideration; it was denied by order dated May 31, 2012. He then appealed to the Court of Appeals, which, in a decision dated January 30, 2015, affirmed the Regional Trial Court, holding that all the elements of the crime were present. Lamsen moved for reconsideration. While that was pending, the private complainants filed a manifestation with a joint affidavit of desistance and retraction, and Lamsen filed a supplement asking that the case be dismissed in light of it. The Court of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration and merely noted the manifestation and supplement without action. Lamsen then filed a motion for new trial, which was denied on the ground that the original copy of the deed was not newly discovered evidence, since he had every opportunity to produce it at trial. After his motion for reconsideration of that denial was itself denied, he filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Facts

Aniceta Dela Cruz owned a parcel of land of about forty-three square meters in Barrio Malabo, Valenzuela, covered by a transfer certificate of title registered in her name, married to Nestor Tandas. On September 7, 2001, Aniceta passed away, leaving her nieces Teresita dela Cruz Lao and Carmelita Lao Lee as surviving heirs. After the death, Teresita looked for the owner's duplicate title but could not find it, so she executed an affidavit of loss, which was annotated on the title in October 2001. She and Carmelita executed an extrajudicial settlement of the estate, and Teresita filed a petition for the issuance of a second owner's duplicate copy before the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela City. That petition was dismissed because Lamsen opposed it, claiming that the owner's duplicate was not lost at all, because it was with him.

Meanwhile, the Registry of Deeds of Valenzuela City informed Teresita by letter dated May 9, 2002 that someone had requested registration of a deed of sale over the property. She went to the registry, but the requesting party had withdrawn all the papers. She then went to the Notarial Section of Manila to get a certified true copy of the deed, but was given only a photocopy, because the original was no longer on file. Because the signatures of the spouses Tandas on that deed appeared forged, she submitted the photocopy to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory. Document Examiner Alex Batiles examined it and reported dissimilarities between the questioned and the standard signatures, but also stated that no definite conclusion could be rendered because the questioned signatures were photocopies in which minute details are not clearly manifested.

For his part, Lamsen denied the charge. He claimed that while renting the place of his uncle Nestor in 1993, he validly bought the property from the spouses for 150,000 pesos; that the deed was executed, signed, and notarized in the presence of two named witnesses at the Government Service Insurance System office in Manila; that he left a photocopy with the notary public and kept the original; and that he did not inform Aniceta's relatives of the sale because they already had a gap. The original deed was never produced at trial.

Issues

• Whether or not the conviction of Lamsen for falsification of a public document under Article 172, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code should be upheld.
• Whether or not the testimony of the handwriting expert, based on photocopies of the deed, can establish the fact of forgery beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the lower courts is sufficient to produce moral certainty of guilt.

Applicable Provisions

Article 172, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code, the crime charged, provides:

Article 172. Falsification by private individual and use of falsified documents. – 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.

This is the offense itself, and its elements fix what the prosecution had to prove: that the offender is a private individual, that he committed an act of falsification enumerated in Article 171, and that the falsification was committed in a public document.

Section 30, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, which the Court cites in rejecting one of the circumstantial points, provides:

Section 30. Proof of notarial documents. – Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved and certified as provided by law, may be presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate of acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or document involved.

This bears on the case because the Court holds that the date on which the supposed witnesses signed the deed is immaterial, the notarial acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of execution.

Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, on secondary evidence, is invoked when the Court treats the photocopies as inadmissible absent proof of loss of the original:

Section 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. – When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself.

This is the evidentiary hinge of the acquittal: without the original, and without proof that it was lost, destroyed, or in the custody of the adverse party, the photocopy cannot competently establish the deed's genuineness and due execution.

Ruling

The Court grants the petition. It begins by stressing that an appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review, and that the accused is entitled to acquittal unless guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt, which requires only moral certainty, that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.

On the first issue, the Court recites the elements of the crime and the rule that the fact of forgery is never presumed; it must be established by clear, positive, and convincing evidence, and can only be shown by a comparison between the alleged forged signature and the authentic signature of the person whose signature is said to have been forged. The presumption of validity and regularity prevails over allegations of forgery, and the testimony of an expert is, at best, indirect or circumstantial evidence compared with a witness who was physically present at the signing.

On the second issue, the Court finds the expert's testimony unreliable and inconclusive because it is inconsistent with his own Questioned Document Report, which states that no definite conclusion can be rendered since the questioned signatures are photocopies in which minute details are not clearly manifested. The Court quotes the report:

Scientific comparative examination and analysis of the questioned and the standard signatures of ANICETA TANDAS reveal dissimilarities in stroke structures, slant, lateral spacing, a strong indication that they were not by one and the same person. However, no definite conclusion can be rendered due to the fact the questioned signatures are photocopies (Xerox) wherein minute details are not clearly manifested.

The Court then applies the rule on secondary evidence: photocopies cannot competently establish genuineness and due execution without the original, absent proof that the original was lost, destroyed, or in the custody or control of the party against whom the evidence is offered. Here the prosecution neither presented the original deed nor proved its loss, so no valid comparison was possible.

On the third issue, the Court holds that the circumstantial evidence relied upon does not create moral certainty. The notarial law does not require notarization at the place of residence; the date the witnesses signed is immaterial under Section 30, Rule 132; delayed registration does not imply forgery; and belated payment of capital gains and documentary stamp taxes has no relevance to falsification. The chain of circumstances is not unbroken, and the prosecution presented no adequate circumstantial evidence to warrant conviction.

Doctrine

First, in a prosecution for falsification of a public document under Article 172, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code, the elements are that the offender is a private individual, that he committed an act of falsification enumerated in Article 171, and that the falsification was committed in a public document. Second, forgery is never presumed; it must be proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence, and can only be established by comparing the questioned signature with the genuine one. Third, the testimony of a handwriting expert is merely indirect or circumstantial evidence, and it cannot sustain a conviction where the examination was made on photocopies and the expert himself could render no definite conclusion. Fourth, photocopies are secondary evidence and are inadmissible to prove the genuineness and due execution of a document absent proof that the original was lost, destroyed, or in the custody or control of the adverse party. Fifth, circumstantial evidence convicts only if it forms an unbroken chain consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence; circumstances that are insignificant and unconvincing cannot produce moral certainty.

Disposition

The petition is granted; the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and set aside; Hilario Lamsen is acquitted of falsification of a public document on the ground of reasonable doubt, and the bail bonds posted for his provisional liberty are cancelled and released.

Remember This

Memorize this line: forgery is never presumed and must be proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence, and an expert's opinion built on photocopies proves nothing. Examiners use this case to test the elements of Article 172, the best evidence and secondary evidence rules, and the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence in criminal cases.