PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. JOSE C. CASTRO AND JOHN DOE, DEFENDANTS. JOSE C. CASTRO, APPELLANT.

In the Bar Examinations of August and September, 1926, an
examination committee, as usual, was appointed by this court. Due to
the unusually large number of applicants, and with a view of expediting
the work, 14 correctors, 2 for each subject, were selected. The
articles and decisions from which the questions were taken by the
examiners were given to the correctors, to serve as a guide for them in
grading the compositions. Pursuant to the instructions of the
committee, the papers were separately graded by the correctors, each
noting the partial ratings given to each answer. The correctors
designated for the subject then met to compare the individual ratings
which each had awarded to each distinct composition, to ascertain the
final grade. Under the practice adopted, if the difference between the
grades given by the two correctors in a given subject was less than 10
points, the difference was divided by 2 and the quotient became the
final grade of the composition. After the final grade was ascertained,
one of the correctors wrote the grade in words and figures, usually on
the front cover of the composition, and the two correctors placed their
initials just after or under the grade.

Five employees of this court prepared the tabulated list, known in
the record as Exhibit X, wMch contained the names and official numbers,
the ratings received in each subject, and the general average of each
candidate. Juan Villaflor picked up the compositions from the floor in
their numerical order. Mrs. Stevens, Miss Romualdez, and Miss Catalina
Pons in turn read aloud the partial ratings that appeared on the front
cover of the compositions as made by the correctors, while one of them
inserted the respective grades in the tabulated list Exhibit X, under
the proper column opposite the corresponding official numbers. Samson
with an adding machine, took the partial grades which were thus read
and computed the general averages, which were also inserted in the last
column of Exhibit X. After this work was completed, the sealed
envelopes, identifying the candidates by their respective names, Were
opened and inserted in Exhibit X opposite the corresponding official
numbers. The defendant Castro took the Bar Examinations in that year,
and his official number wljs 142 in the tabulated list Exhibit X thus
prepared, and he obtained 50 per cent in Mercantile Law, 65 per cent in
Remedial Law and 65 per cent in Legal Ethics. After the preparation of
this list, known as Exhibit X, a typewritten list, containing the names
of the candidates whose admission to the Bar was recommended by the
committee, was submitted to this court, and this recommendation of the
committee was not approved. As a result, the committee prepared another
list, known in the record as Exhibit C-5, which contained the names
only of such candidates as had obtained a general average of 75 per
cent or more and without a grade of less then 60 per cent in any one
subject, which list was ordered published by this court as the official
list of those who passed the examination. In this list, which was made
from the list Exhibit X, the name of the defendant did not appear, for
the simple reason that he obtained a general average of less than 75
per cent, and because he received less than 60 per cent in Mercantile
Law. About a week later, a second tabulated list, Exhibit Z, was
prepared, and in this tabulated list, Exhibit Z, the defendant appeared
to have obtained the same grades as shown in Exhibit X, to wit: 50 per
cent in Mercantile Law, 65 per cent in Remedial Law and 65 per cent in
Legal Ethics. The following March, the defendant personally went over
his papers and claimed that an error had been made in the addition of
his grades, to which he called the attention of Samson, and on May 9,
1927, two months after the final results of the examination had been
announced, the defendant filed a motion for reconsideration, which this
court denied on July 21, 1927, and ordered an investigation of the
matter by the clerk of this court, in which it was disclosed that
according to the compositions exhibited during the trial, the defendant
obtained the following ratings:

	Per cent
Exhibit A-1 (Legal Ethics)	78
Exhibit A-2 (Mercantile Law)	89
Exhibit A-3 (Remedial Law)	82

instead of the Tatings of 50 per cent in Mercantile Law, 65 per cent
in Remedial Law and 65 per cent in Legal Ethics, as shown in Exhibits X
and Z.

The prosecution contends that Exhibits A-1, A-2 and; A-3 were not
the true and genuine compositions submitted by the defendant in Legal
Ethics, Mercantile Law and Procedural Law.

Several weeks before the trial of this case, Samson and Manalac, the
original correctors in Legal Ethics, and who made the corrections shown
in Exhibit X, graded Exhibit A-1 by the same tests as were used in
Exhibit X, and each gave the defendant the grade of 93 per cent. It
also contends that Exhibit A-2 is forged.

Vega and Amparo, who were the original correctors in Mercantile Law,
each denied having written the word “Eighty-nine” and the figures “89,”
and the initials “F. Vega” as they now appear on the first page of
Exhibit A-2, and it was shown that these words and figures had been
traced from the genuine grades of candidate Joaquin Ramirez de
Arellano, as they appeared on Exhibit B-1, and this contention was
verified by the handwriting expert Anton Simkus. The same thing is true
as to Exhibit A-3, which shows that the composition of the defendant in
Remedial Law, of which Felix was the corrector, showed an average of 82
per cent, from all of which it is very apparent that there was a
substitution and falsification of the original compositions of the
defendant, and that what is known in the record as Exhibits A-1, A-2
and A-3 are not true and genuine. That fact must be conceded.

The question as to who committed the falsification, when it was done
and why it was done is thus squarely presented. There is no claim or
pretense that any one saw the defendant commit the crime alleged, yet
it was committed in his original compositions and for his sole use and
benefit.

It is the theory of the prosecution that there were at least two
parties to the crime, and that one of them was a trusted employee of
this court, who had access to its records and files, and is named John
Doe in the information. It is and to conceive how the falsification and
substitution could have been made without the actual aid and assistance
of an employee of this court as during all of this time, both before,
during and after the corrections, all examination papers were kept in
the room of Justice Romualdez, to which nobody had access, except some
trusted employee of the court. An examination of Exhibits A-4, A-5, A-6
and A-7, which are admittedly the original compositions of the
defendant in Political Law, Penal Law, International Law and Civil Law,
and of Exhibits A-1, A-2 and A-3, which the defendant claimed to be
his, are conclusive evidence that all of them are in his own
handwriting.

In his motion of May 9, 1927, the defendant stated that:

“He went to review his examination papers and found
certain mistakes in the grades,” in which motion he referred to, and
claimed, Exhibits A-1, A-2 and A-3 as his own, and the records show
that he was the one who personally prepared those exhibits, and that
they are false, from which the conclusion is irresistible that he made
the falsification and substitution.

The appellant had the use and benefit of able counsel and a well
written brief, but the actual facts are conclusive of his guilt beyond
a reasonable doubt.

The Attorney-General points out that the crime committed is punished
by article 301 of the Penal Code, as amended by Act No. 2712, as it
relates to article 300 of the Code, the penalty for which is prision correccional in its maximum degree and a fine ranging from 250 to 12,500 pesetas,
and that in the absence of a mitigating or aggravating circumstance,
the medium degree of the penalty of imprisonment should be imposed, or
from four years, nine months, and eleven days to five years, four
months, and twenty days.

For such reasons, the judgment of the lower court is modified and
the penalty is increased, and the defendant is sentenced to five years
of prision correccional, and in all other respects, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

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