THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. CELESTINO TOLENTINO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

On the 13th of June, 1906, Abdon Rufin instituted a civil action in the court of the justice of the  peace of Calivo, Province of Capiz, against Victor Rivicencio, for  unlawful detention of a certain parcel of land, and during the trial, the appellant, Celestino Tolentino, who was employed  by the plaintiff to represent him as his counsel, submitted to the court an informacion posesoria (possessory  title)  in which the  names of  various  persons are interlined  so as to make it appear that they took part in the proceedings looking to  the issuance of the said possessory title.  The guilt of the accused of the crime of falsifying the document in question  by interpolating the  names of  these persons, notwithstanding  the  fact that they took no  part in  the proceedings had pending  the issuance of  the same, is conclusively established by the evidence of record.

A mere inspection of the document itself clearly discloses that the names interlined therein are not written  with the same  ink as that with which the  rest  of the document was written, and the fresher appearance  of  these inter-lineations tends strongly to disclose that they were inserted recently and long after the original document was executed.

Catalino  Macahilig, justice  of  the peace, who in  the year 1895 executed the possessory title,  swore that  when executed it did-not contain the names which appear interlined  upon  its face,  and that the names thus interlined are in the handwriting of the appellant Tolentino, with which  the  witness was thoroughly  familiar, because  the appellant had been employed by him for several years  as escribiente (clerk).

Venancia  Teodosio  and Fermin Teodosio whose names appear interlined in the possessory title as present during the proceedings had prior to its  issuance and as owners of property adjoining that described  therein, testified that they took no part in the proceedings,  and were not and are not as a matter of fact owners of any land adjoining that of Abdon Rufin.

And finally Rufin, who was a co-defendant of the appellant, positively  denied  that he himself  had made the interlineations and  swore that the document was in the possession and under  the  control  of the  appellant for several days before its  submission as proof at the trial in the court of the justice of the peace of Calivo.

The defendant  did not offer any testimony in his  own behalf,  and his counsel  on  appeal relies solely upon  his contention that the evidence for the prosecution  fails  to establish  beyond  a reasonable  doubt that  the appellant actually inserted the interlineations in question.

We think the testimony above set out leaves no room for reasonable doubt upon this point, and that the finding by the trial court  of  the guilt  of  the accused of  the crime  of falsification of a public document, defined and penalized in section 6 of article 300, taken together with article 301,  of the Penal Code, must be sustained.

The judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial court  should be  affirmed, with the costs  of  this instance against the appellant.  So ordered.

Arellano, C.  J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson, Moreland, and  Elliott, JJ,,  concur.