THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. JUSTO A. PONFERRADA ET AL., DEFENDANTS. VIRGILIO NAVAL, APPELLANT.

This case has been brought upon appeal to the Supreme Court for the
purpose of reversing a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
City of Manila, finding the appellant, Virgilio Naval, guilty of the
offense of falsification of a public and official document and
sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for five years, four months and
twenty-one days, prision correccional, with the accessory penalties prescribed by law, and requiring him to pay a fine of 1,500 pesetas,
with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay
one-third the costs of prosecution. In the information which is the
basis of this prosecution Justo A. Ponferrada and Albino Candelaria
were joined as co-defendants, but the case against the appellant was
separately tried.

It appears that Justo A. Ponferrada, originally one of the co-accused in this case, graduated from the Escuela de Derecho
in 1923, after which he successively took the bar examinations for four
times without success. As the rules of the court permit a candidate to
take the examinations four times only the last examinations taken by
Ponferrada in the year 1927 marked the end of his legitimate efforts to
be admitted to the practice of law. In this last examination his
general average was 61 per cent, which is 14 points below the 75 per
cent required for a candidate to pass the examinations. After the
results of this examination had become known near the middle of
December, 1927, Ponferrada came into contact with the appellant,
Virgilio Naval, then the private secretary of one of the Justices of
this court; and in an interview that took place at No. 153 Legarda
Street, in the City of Manila, where Ponferrada lodged, the matter of
securing a revision of Ponferrada’s grades, with the assistance of
Naval, was discussed. The next day Ponferrada was informed by Naval
that the latter could fix the matter up provided he should be paid the
sum of one thousand pesos as his fees. This demand Naval subsequently
reduced to nine hundred pesos; and on three different occasions
subsequent to this Ponferrada paid to Naval three different sums of
money amounting to nine hundred pesos.

In the course of the next two or three months Naval had frequent
interviews with Ponferrada, and one Segovia, who lived in the house
with Ponferrada and needed the same sort of assistance, regarding the
expected revision of their examination papers. Upon one of these days,
Naval called Ponferrada up by telephone and informed him that favorable
action had been taken by the Supreme Court on Ponferrada’s motion for
revision; and on or about February 16 or 17, 192B, the appellant,
accompanied by Albino Candelaria, delivered to Ponferrada a copy of a
purported resolution of the Supreme Court, admitting Ponferrada and
Segovia, as well as one Enage, who was also a failed candidate and
likewise an applicant for the revision of his papers, to the practice
of law in the Philippine Islands. It may be stated here that Albino
Candelaria, as employee in the office of the clerk, was charged with
the duty of making out notices of the resolutions “of the court. About
the middle of March the appellant, accompanied by the same Candelaria,
again called upon Ponferrada and delivered him a formal diploma, or
certificate, which purported to have been issued by the court to
authenticate Ponferrada’s admission to the bar.

The two steps above-mentioned having been accomplished there further
remained one thing to be done, to give to the three candidates
mentioned the appearance of legal and complete admission to the bar.
This remaining requisite was to get their names on the Roll of
Attorneys, which is a register kept by the Supreme Court as the final
record of admission of candidates for the practice of law. This Roll,
or Register, is a large book kept by legal authority in the clerk’s
office containing separate entries signed by the candidates whose names
are inscribed and authenticated by the signature of a deputy clerk. The
entries in this book (Exhibit D) are made in Spanish in the following
form:

“Queda inscrito como abogado el
Sr……………………………….,
de…………………………………., habiendo prestado el
juramento prevenido y firmado este asiento con ei Escribano Delegado
que certifica.

“Manila, I. F., hoy dia……..del mes de ,.„………………………. de 19………

                                                                                                                              ……………………………………… 
                                                                                                                             
      ^{“(Firroa del Abogado)}

…………………………………………….
^{“(Firma del Escribano Delegado)”}

At the time with which we, are here concerned the aforesaid Register
was kept in the clerk’s office a few feet from the desk of Albino
Candelaria, in charge of one Bienvenido Mapa, also an employee in the
clerk’s office. In order to accomplish the enrollment of the three
failed aspirants to whom reference has been made, Naval induced one of
the janitors of the court, Getulio Bola by name, to remove the Register
from its place of repose in the clerk’s office and to deliver it
without to Candelaria and the appellant. With this book in their
possession Naval and Candelaria embarked in an automobile one evening
in March and proceeded to No. 153 Legarda Street, where they found
Ponferrada, Segovia, and Enage, awaiting them. Upon arriving they
invited these tjiree to embark in the automobile, and the party
proceeded to drive to the bridge over the San Juan River, which
constitutes, for some distance, the eastern or the northeastern
boundary of the City of Manila. Crossing this bridge, they drove
through the populous part of San Juan until they came to a vacant area
in the place known as San Juan Heights. Here Candelaria and the three
aspirants for the degree of lawyer disembarked from the automobile; and
Candelaria drew from under the seat the big book, constituting the
Register of Attorneys. As it was then dark, Candelaria took the book to
the rear of the car, and supported it upon the tire-carrier in such
position that the tail-light of the car made the pages of the open book
visible. Thereupon each of the candidates in turn approached and signed
his name in the two places indicated in the form for the name of the
attorney.

The entry where the name of Ponferrada was thus inscribed bears the
number 3061 in the, Register, and this entry had been previously filled
out with the name of one Rafael Jose. This candidate had already been
regularly admitted to the bar as a result of his success in the same
examinations of 1927, and in order to prepare the entry for the
reception of Ponferrada’s name,” the name of Rafael Jose had been
effectively, but rather crudely, erased in the two places where it had
been written. Segovia and Enage likewise signed over erasures made in
entries bearing the numbers 3126 and 3077 respectively. This work
having been accomplished, the party returned to the City of Manila.

The appellant, Virgilio Naval, denies participation in the acts
above narrated; and the principal contention raised by this appeal is
based upon the supposed insufficiency of the evidence to justify
conviction. In this connection it is insisted that Ponferrada was a
principal in the crime and that a conviction cannot be lawfully based
upon his uncorroborated testimony. It is undeniably true that the
testimony of an accomplice, using the word in the sense of coauthor, is
not entitled to the weight to which the testimony of a truthful and
disinterested witness is entitled. But this rule of law has relation to
the weight rather than to the legal admissibility of this sort of
proof; and, in the case before us, the testimony of Ponferrada is not
only credible in itself but it is supported, in its implications
against the appellant, by circumstances which in our opinion
demonstrate the truth of the witness’s statements beyond a reasonable
doubt. The appellant admits having received nine-hundred pesos from
Ponferrada, and although he pretends that he received this money for
his coaccused Candelaria, in ignorance of the criminal purpose for
which this money was paid, this pretense seems to us to be manifestly
false. There is another incident which also points to the conclusion
that the appellant participated in the offense which is the subject of
this prosecution with guilty knowledge and in the manner narrated in
the testimony of Ponferrada. Thus, it appears that, after the
investigation of these offenses was begun and the janitor, Getulio
Bola, had been examined, with a view to the discovery of what he might
know, the accused appeared on the morning of September 26, 1928, in the
apartment of the Supreme Court Building where Bola was found and
requested Bola to retract what he had declared, promising to furnish
him with a lawyer in case he should be prosecuted for perjury and
agreeing to provide Sola’s family with all their needs if Bola should
be sent to jaiL This conversation was overheard by a detective who was
so placed that he could hear what passed between Bola and the appellant
in this conversation. The statements then made by the appellant
indicate his guilty connection with the offense which was being
investigated; for if he had been innocent he would not have been driven
to the resort of tampering with one of the witnesses for the
prosecution. The circumstances above alluded to supply in our opinion
all the corroboration that is necessary to justify the court in
accepting the narrative of the witness Ponferrada as supplying in the
main a true account of the act of falsification which was undeniably
committed.

In addition to the contention made over the sufficiency of the
proof, the appeal presents two questions of law which should be
mentioned. The first question is whether the Roll, or Register of
Attorneys is a public or official document and whether the appellant
can be convicted of participation in the falsification thereof, under
article 301 of the Penal Code. Upon this point we are of the opinion
that the official character of the document falsified in this case is
not open to doubt. In the case of People vs. Bella Bautista
(53 Phil., 158), a conviction was sustained by this court based upon a
charge of the falsification of the same document; and although the
point now mentioned was passed sub silentio in the decision
of that case, no doubt was entertained by any member of this court that
the document referred to was of an official character. The Register of
Attorneys is a final repository of the resolutions of this court, and
like any other written act or record of the court, is an official
document under section 299 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Also, under
section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the clerk of the Supreme
Court is required to keep such a roll as that now under consideration,
to be signed by each person receiving license to practice the
profession of law. Inscriptions like No. 3061 are not mere certificates
of merit as contended for the appellant. They show that the lawyers
whose names are signed thereto have taken the required oath to practice
law and that the entry is signed by the person whose name appears
therein.

The second question of law discussed in the appellant’s brief has
relation to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance
of Manila over the offense. In this connection we note that the Court
of First Instance of Manila is by law given jurisdiction, concurrent
with the courts of the contiguous provinces, over crimes committed
within a zone having a width of two and one-half miles from the limits
of the city. In the case before us it appears that the offense of
falsification of entry No. 3061 in the Register of Attorneys was
committed in San Juan Heights; and we are of the opinion that the trial
judge could take judicial notice of the fact that the suburb of Manila
known as San Juan Heights is located within the aforesaid zone. (U. S.
w. Chua Mo, 23 Phil., 233.)

The offense committed in this case falls under article 301 of the
Penal Code, and in view of the aggravating circumstance that the
appellant availed himself in the commission of this offense of his
official position as employee of the Supreme Court, no error was
committed in placing the penalty of imprisonment in the maximum degree
of the penalty specified in said article.

The judgment appealed from will therefore be affirmed, and it is so ordered, with costs against the appellant.

Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Malcolm, Ostrand, Johns, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.