THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ISAIAS GEYROSAGA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

From the sentence of ten years and one day of prision mayor, a fine of 8,666 pesetas, and costs, which the Court of First Instance of Cebu imposed upon the defendant for the crime of estafa

committed through the falsification of a public document, this appeal
is taken, and the defendant’s counsel assigns as error to the trial
court the conviction, rather than the acquittal, of the accused.

Counsel contends that the appellant, in performing the duties of a
postmaster, made an involuntary mistake in considering a certain woman
to be the real Demetria Sualibio and the payee of money order Exhibit
C, delivering to said fictitious person the amount of said money order.
Such allegations made by the defendant, uncorroborated as they are,
cannot be deemed sufficiently established.

It is a proven fact that the amount of the money order referred to,
paid by the post-office of which defendant was in charge, did not reach
the hands of the real payee of that money. It is also a proven fact
admitted by the defendant himself, that he wrote the name “Demetria
Sualibyo” on the money order Exhibit C, in the space provided for the
signature acknowledging the payment of the money order. It is another
proven fact that neither the fictitious nor the real Demetria Sualibio
authorized with any mark the appearance of said name in acknowledgment
of the payment of the money order. The defendant tried to explain this
vital deficiency by stating:

“I wrote the name of Demetria Sualibio because when
that woman presented herself, Francisco K. Ruiz told me that she did
not know how to write, and whenever one who does not know how to write
calls for a registered letter or a money order, if that person does not
know how to write, I sign his name, and then require him to stamp his
fingerprint, but on that occasion I forgot to demand the
fingerprint, because I was called away to the telegraph apparatus, as
there was much business.” (Italics ours, pages 20, 21, t. s. n.)

This explanation of the incredible forgetfulness on the part of the
defendant to follow the good practice of requiring illiterates to stamp
their fingerprints instead of signing their names, is not acceptable to
us.

The same may be said of what appears in lieu of the payee’s
signature in the card Exhibit A, where the lack of the fingerprint of
the interested party was due to the alleged call to the telegraph
apparatus (page 21, t. s. n.).

There is force and weight in the observation made by the
Attorney-General in his brief, that in writing the name of Demetria
Sualibio in these Exhibits C and A, the defendant did not do so in his
ordinary writing, as may readily be seen by comparing it with his
handwriting in Exhibit D.

The facts proven in the case, and the indicia arising therefrom,
establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, through the
falsification of public documents Exhibits A and C, consisting in
making it appear that Demetria Sualibio had taken part in the signing
thereof, she having had no intervention whatever in said act,
abstracted and appropriated the sum of $62, equivalent to 620 pesetas,
Philippine currency, with fraud against and prejudice to the aforesaid
payee and owner of said sum of money.

We find the following recommendation of the Attorney-General made in his brief, to be correct:

“The facts proved constitute the complex crime of
estafa through falsification of public documents, defined in article
535, case 5, in connection with article 300, paragraph 2, of the Penal
Code, as said article was amended by Act No. 2712. Following the rule
set forth in article 89 of said Code, the penalty which must be imposed
upon the defendant is that corresponding to the more serious crime,
which, in this case, is falsification of public documents (prision mayor
and a fine of not less than 250 nor more than 12,500 pesetas, and
perpetual disqualification for holding public office), which must be
applied in its maximum degree. There being no circumstance modifying
the criminal liability said penalty must be imposed in its medium
degree, that is, ten years, eight months, and one day of prision mayor, and a fine within the limits fixed above.”

Wherefore, the judgment appealed from is hereby modified, and the
defendant is sentenced to ten years, eight months and one day of prision mayor,
and the accessory penalties prescribed in article 61 of the Penal Code,
said judgment being affirmed in all other respects, with costs of both
instances against the appellant. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Street, Villamor, Johns, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.