JOSE DE LA CONCEPCION Y PULONG, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND SANDIGANBAYAN, RESPONDENTS.

The antecedent facts, undisputed by both parties, are as
follows:  On March 8, 1983, Teresita Genese, a revenue
collection clerk of the cash division and real estate division of the Quezon City Treasurer’s Office approached Angeles Factora, a senior revenue collection officer of the same
office, requesting a loan of P26,250.00 from Factora’s
tax collection.  Because of Genese’s persistent pleas and assurances that the amount
would be returned on the same day, Factora
acquiesced.  In the afternoon of the same
day, Genese did return the amount but in the form of
a check.  The check,
together with all the other tax collections of the city government were
deposited with the Philippine National Bank (PNB).  However, when the PNB presented the check for
payment, the drawee bank, Manila Banking Corporation
(Manilabank), dishonored it.

A few months earlier, on December 17, 1982, petitioner Jose dela Concepcion, Jr., employed as a
registration clerk at the main office of the Manilabank
received from the bank’s legal department a deed of sale of a real estate
property in favor of Carled Development Corporation
(CARLED) and a deed of real estate mortgage over the same property executed by
CARLED in favor of Manilabank, which were to be
registered with the Register of Deeds of Makati.  Petitioner was also given three checks, one
of which was
Check No. 998922 (Exh. “C”) drawn
against Manilabank with the Municipal Treasurer of Makati as payee, in payment for
the transfer tax due from CARLED.  On January 4, 1983, petitioner returned
the documents to the bank on the pretext that the tasks assigned him have been
accomplished.

However, on July 6, 1983,
CARLED complained to Manilabank that it was informed
by the municipal government of Makati
that the transfer tax had not yet been paid.

Upon investigation by Manilabank, it
was discovered that the duplicate copies of the check kept by its loans and
discount department had been altered, the payee having been changed from
“Municipal Treasurer of Makati”
to “Municipal Treasurer of Quezon
City.”

The check surfaced when it was presented for payment by the
PNB.  Like its duplicate copies, the
check was altered
as to the payee.  Manilabank
dishonored the check and returned it unpaid to PNB which in turn notified the depositor of the
check, the Quezon City Treasurer’s Office, of the
dishonor and the corresponding debit of its account in PNB in the amount of
P26,250.00 (Exh. “Q”).  Separate investigations were conducted by Manilabank, the Quezon City
Treasurer’s Office, the Quezon City Police and later
by the Tanodbayan resulting in the filing with the Sandiganbayan of a criminal information for ESTAFA THROUGH FALSIFICATION OF COMMERCIAL
DOCUMENT against (1) Teresita Genese,
revenue collection clerk of the cash division and real estate division of the Quezon City Treasurer’s Office; (2) Isagani
Alinea, revenue assessment clerk of the real estate
division of the same office; and (3) petitioner Jose dela
Concepcion, Jr. 
The information reads as follows:

That on or about the 8th day of March, 1983 and for sometime prior
and subsequent thereto, in Quezon City, Philippines,
the above-named accused, Teresita Amemita
Genese and Isagani Alinea, being then a revenue collection clerk, cash division, and revenue assessment clerk, real
estate division, respectively, Quezon City
Treasurer’s Office, and accused Jose dela Concepcion, at the time an employee of the legal department of the Manila Bank, charged with
the duty of registering documents with the Registers of Deeds, with intent of
gain, by means of deceit
and falsification of commercial document, conspiring together, confederating
with and mutually helping one another, did then and there, wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously defraud the Office of the City Treasurer, Quezon City, in the manner as follows:  on the date and in the place aforementioned,
said accused, being then in possession of a cashier’s check with Serial
Number CC-998922 dated December 17, 1982 in the amount of P26,250.00 payable to
the Municipal Treasurer, Makati and drawn against the
Manila Bank for the transfer tax for the account of Carled
Development Corporation vis-a-vis the piece of land
bought by it from Insular Life Assurance Company, Ltd. that was later mortgaged
to the Manila Bank which took charge of the payment for Carled
Development Corporation of the transfer tax and the registration of pertinent
documents, falsified the same, by then and there making an alteration or
intercalation of said instrument which changed its meaning, that is, the payee which is the Municipal Treasurer, Makati
was altered to the Municipal Treasurer, Quezon City;
that by virtue of said falsification, accused were able to exchange said check with cash money from the Office of the City
Treasurer, Quezon City, but when the check was
deposited with the Cubao Branch, Quezon
City, Philippine National Bank, for encashment, it was dishonored for
the reason “Payment Stopped And Payee’s Name Altered”; and that the
accused once in possession of
said amount of P26,250.00, Philippine Currency, misapplied,
misappropriated and converted the same to their own personal use and benefit,
to the damage and prejudice of the City Treasurer’s Office, Quezon
City, in such amount as may be awarded under the provisions of the New Civil
Code.

Contrary to law.  [Rollo, pp. 20-21.]

During their separate arraignments, both Teresita
Genese and petitioner pleaded not guilty.  However, Genese,
pending trial, jumped bail and succeeded in eluding the authorities even after
the promulgation of the decision of the court a quo.  The third accused, Isagani
Alinea was never arraigned and remained at large.

After trial, the Sandiganbayan rendered
a judgment of conviction, the dispositive portion of
which reads:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Jose De La Concepcion y Pulong and Teresita Genese y Amemita GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as co-principals of
the complex crime of Estafa Thru Falsification of
Commercial Document, as defined and penalized under Articles 315, Paragraph
1(B) and 171, Paragraph 6, of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Article 48
thereof, and favorably appreciating the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in favor of accused Genese, with no aggravating circumstance in offset, and
after applying the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, hereby sentences
them as follows:  Accused De La Concepcion to suffer the indeterminate penalty ranging from
SEVEN (7) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor,
as the minimum, to TEN (10) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY, likewise of prision mayor, as the maximum, and accused Genese to suffer an indeterminate penalty ranging from FOUR
(4) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision
correccional, as minimum, to SEVEN (7) YEARS
and ONE (1) DAY, of prision mayor, as
the maximum, to indemnify, jointly and severally, both the Manila Banking
Corporation, Ayala, Makati and Quezon
City Treasurer’s Office in the amounts of P26,250.00 each; to pay a fine of
P3,500.00 each, and to pay their proportionate share of the costs of this
action.

Accused Genese is likewise sentenced to
suffer temporary special disqualification from SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY to
TEN (10) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY.

*        *           *

[Sandiganbayan
Decision, pp. 39-40; Rollo, pp. 58-59.]

The motion for reconsideration of the decision having been
denied, the accused Jose dela Concepcion,
Jr. filed this petition for review on certiorari seeking the annulment
of his conviction on the ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond
reasonable doubt.

During the trial, the prosecution presented as witness Angeles Factora, a senior revenue collection officer of the Quezon City Treasurer’s
Office, who testified that at around 11:30 a.m.
on March 8, 1983, the
accused Teresita Genese
borrowed from her P26,250.00.  Because of Genese’s
promise to return it on the same day, Factora lent
her the amount from the day’s collection for real estate taxes.* In the afternoon of the same day, Genese
did return the amount but in the form of check instead of cash [TSN, July 11, 1985, pp. 7-14.]

Prosecution witness Purita Garcia, a revenue
assessment clerk of the same office, corroborated Factora’s
testimony since she was present when Genese turned
over the check.  Having had the
opportunity to examine the check given by the accused Genese
to Factora, witness Garcia was able to identify it as
the same check presented in evidence by the prosecutor as Exhibit
“C”, the Manilabank Check No. 998922 [TSN, July 11, 1985, pp. 30-33.]

The prosecution next presented as witness Manuel Dominguez, a
senior legal officer of the Quezon City Treasurer’s
Office whose duty included conducting investigations on anomalies involving
employees of the City Treasurer’s Office. 
He testified that he was assigned to investigate the accused Isagani Alinea for his possible
involvement in the irregular exchange of the altered Manilabank
check (Exh. “C”) for cash
from the Quezon City Treasury.  Alinea allegedly
confessed to having induced Genese into exchanging
the altered check for cash from
tax collection of the city.  Moreover,
Dominguez testified that according to Alinea, the
entire scheme was “the work of a syndicate” [TSN, July 1985, p. 44.]
Prosecution witness Gaudencio Maliwat,
another employee of the Quezon City Treasurer’s
Office also confirmed the rumor about the existence of a syndicate [TSN, August 22, 1985, p. 22.]

Lastly, the prosecution summoned to the witness stand Bienvenido Angeles, the manager of Manilabank
who was involved in the investigation made by the bank on petitioner.  The relevant facts of his testimony are the
following:  petitioner was terminated by
the bank because of certain irregularities he committed including his possible
involvement in the alteration of the check in question; the duplicate copies of the check, like the original, were
discovered by the bank to have been altered as to the payee; although the
duplicate copies of the check were kept by a custodian, access to them by
unauthorized persons was not ruled out; petitioner was often assigned errands
in the Quezon City Treasurer’s Office and the Quezon City Register of Deeds [TSN, June 4, 1985, pp.
5-22.]

For his part, petitioner who did not present a single witness
besides himself, denied the charge against him and gave the following
uncorroborated version of the events:

1.  Petitioner de la Concepcion, Jr. was an employee of the Manila Banking
Corporation, Makati Main Office.  He was a registration clerk assigned at the
Legal Department.  Sometime in December,
1982 petitioner performed his customary duties to register documents with the register
of deeds.  Specifically, he received from the bank’s
legal department the following:  the deed
of sale of a real estate property in favor of Carled
Development Corporation; a deed of real estate mortgage over the same property executed by Carled
Development Corporation in favor of the Manila Banking Corporation; and three
(3) cashier’s checks to pay the registration fees, other expenses and the
transfer tax corresponding to the said deed of sale.  Among the three (3) cashier’s checks he
received was Check No. CC-998922 in the sum of P26,250.00
(Exh. “C”) payable to the
Municipal Treasurer of Makati for the transfer tax.  All
the aforesaid documents and the three (3) cashier’s checks were prepared by the
bank’s Loan and Discount Department and transmitted to the Legal Department for
registration by petitioner de la Concepcion, Jr.  Obviously, the bank took charge of the
payment for Carled Development Corporation of the
transfer tax, registration expenses and other fees of the deeds of sale and
mortgage.

2.  After receipt of the
documents of sale and mortgage as well as the three (3) cashier’s checks,
petitioner went to the register of deeds of Makati to register said documents
and to pay the corresponding tax, expenses and other fees using the three (3)
cashier’s checks prepared separately. 
However, petitioner was not able to transact business immediately
because of the heavy volume of transactions in the register of deeds of Makati and the long line of people
awaiting their turn.  Petitioner left the
place and went to other offices to follow up some pending works.  When he went back to the register of deeds of
Makati he
met his casual acquaintance by the name of “Peter” who in two previous occasions helped him with his
registration work in Manila.  Peter inquired from him if he
has some problems in the registration and he told Peter that he finds it
difficult to register because of too many people.  Peter offered his assistance and petitioner
in his honest desire to facilitate the registration agreed considering that Peter
already helped him in previous registration assignments.

Petitioner turned over to Peter the deed of sale, the deed of real
estate mortgage, and the three (3) separate cashier’s checks corresponding to
the registration fees, other expenses and for the transfer tax.  One of the checks was for the transfer tax originally payable to the
Municipal Treasurer of Makati. 
Peter issued to petitioner a receipt therefor
dated December 28, 1982 (Exh. 2) and assured him that he would take
care of the work.  Petitioner gave Peter
some amount for his assistance.

3.  Petitioner went back to
the Office of the Register of Deeds of Makati to
follow up the registration work being done by Peter.  At this point, Peter told him that he is not
yet through with the work because according to him the cashier’s check for the
transfer tax (now Exh.
“C”) originally payable to the Municipal Treasurer of Makati should be changed to Quezon City to facilitate registration.  Petitioner asked Peter for the said cashier’s
check but the latter told him that it was left at his house.  At any rate Peter told him not to worry.

4.  Petitioner went back
again to the Makati Register of Deeds to follow up
with Peter what happened to the registration work.  Peter was not there.  It was only in the early days of January,
1983 when he saw Peter at the register of deeds of Makati
and the latter handed to him the documents already stamped registered.  Petitioner turned over the documents to the
bank on January 4, 1983.  (Exh.
G, p. 1 par. 4 last sentence) Petitioner never saw Peter again since then.

5.  Sometime in July, 1983,
petitioner was informed by his employer-bank that the transfer tax for the sale
of the real estate property to Carled Development
Corporation was not paid.  This
information was relayed by Carled when it received a letter from the Municipal
Treasurer of Makati.  In the investigation conducted it turned out
that the said cashier’s check intended to pay the transfer tax and payable to
the Municipal Treasurer of Makati was deposited by the Quezon
City Treasurer’s Office with its
account at PNB Cubao. 
Further investigation showed that the check which was originally worded
payable to the Municipal Treasurer of Makati was
changed to “Municipal Treasurer Quezon
City”; that Quezon City Treasurer’s Office took
possession of the check on March 8, 1983 because one of its employees, accused Teresita Genese, gave the same to
her co-employee Angela Factora, teller, in payment of
the P26,250.00 cash Genese
earlier in the day borrowed from Factora (TSN p. 9-14 July 11, 1985).

6.  Petitioner de la Concepcion, Jr. was investigated by his employer-bank and
he gave his side telling how he met “Peter” a casual acquaintance on
December 28, 1982 at the register of deeds of Makati;
the offer to him by Peter for
assistance in the registration of the documents in question; why he
consented to let Peter do the registration work and giving to him the documents
and the three (3) cashier’s checks; that he is innocent on how the cashier’s check originally payable to the
Municipal Treasurer of Makati surfaced in Quezon City Treasurer’s Office with the payee already
altered to read “Municipal Treasurer Quezon
City” (Exh. “C”); that he is innocent
about the alteration; that he only dealt with Peter who previously helped him in similar registration assignments in
good faith and in his desire to facilitate the registration work; that he does
not know accused Teresita Genese,
the person who encashed the check with teller Factora, muchless accused Isagani Alinea.  After giving his side, the bank management prodded
petitioner de la Concepcion, Jr. that if he had nothing to do with what happened and he is
innocent, he should show his sincerity and good faith by depositing with the bank the sum of P26,250.00 to answer for any contingent damage the bank may
sustain should something happen to the check, and reassuring him that said
deposit would be returned to him in the event
that the bank is not prejudiced. 
Convinced by the prodding of the bank and the conditions for the release
of his deposit, and considering that his conscience is clear and he had nothing
to do with the falsification and encashment of the check, petitioner had to
borrow money from his relative and deposited the required amount with
the Manila Banking Corporation.  The bank
issued a receipt (Exh. “E”.)

7.  In the meantime, the
renegade accused Isagani Alinea,
an employee of the Quezon City Treasurer’s Office,
was also investigated by Atty. Manuel Dominguez, Senior Legal Officer of said
office, and it was disclosed that the check in question came from Alinea and he gave it to accused Teresita Genese for her to encash
it and the proceeds were given to him. 
(Testimony of Atty. Dominguez, TSN July 11, 1985) Alinea
in that investigation did not disclose how the check came into his possession
and who in particular gave it to him.

8.  In a separate
investigation conducted by the Fiscal where all the three accused were present,
Alinea in his written statement said that he does not
know Jose de la Concepcion, Jr. or a person called “Peter”.  In the same investigation accused Teresita Genese likewise stated
that she does not know Jose de la Concepcion, Jr. or
“Peter”.  (Exh.
3, 3-A, 4 and 4-A)

9.  In the meantime, the
cashier’s check (Exh. “C”) was dishonored
by the PNB Cubao Branch, depository bank of the Treasurer’s
Office of Quezon City because of the “stop
payment order” previously made by the Manila Banking Corporation, and
therefore said bank was not financially damaged nor incurred any loss. . . . (Testimony
of Mr. Angeles, Bank Officer, TSN pp.
16-17 June 4, 1985)

*        *           *

[Petition, pp. 2-6; Rollo, pp. 7-11.]

Petitioner’s conviction being anchored on his alleged
participation in a conspiracy to
obtain cash from the collections of the Quezon City
Treasury through the use of altered
checks, the main issue boils down to whether his participation therein has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The rule in this jurisdiction is that conspiracy must be
established by positive and conclusive evidence.  It cannot be based on mere conjectures but
must be established as a fact.  The same
degree of proof required to establish the crime is necessary to support a
finding of the presence of conspiracy. 
It must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the commission
of the offense itself [Macadangdang v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 75440-43, February 14, 1989 citing
Gomez v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 63202, April 9, 1985, 135 SCRA
620.] However, direct proof is not always essential [People v. Cruz, G.R. No. L-15369, April 26, 1962, 4 SCRA 1114; People v. Belen, G.R. No. L-13895,
September 30,
1963, 9 SCRA 39; People v. Capito, G.R. No. L-24466, March 19, 1968, 22 SCRA 1130] because conspiracy can seldom be proved except by
circumstantial evidence [People v. Cadag, G.R. No.
L-13830, May 31, 1961, 2 SCRA 388
citing People v. Romualdez, 57 Phil. 148 (1932).]

In this particular case, no direct evidence was presented by the
prosecution to prove the culpability of petitioner.  However, the Court finds highly significant
certain circumstances which, taken together, inevitably point to petitioner’s
guilt.

Petitioner has been a registration clerk of Manilabank
for twelve years.  According to him he
was not authorized nor was he in the habit of delegating his functions to
others [TSN, November 28, 1985,
p. 31.] Yet in seeking to exculpate himself he testified that he entrusted the
check in question together with some other documents to a certain Peter.  The check involved was in the amount of P26,250.00.  Besides the
said check, the following documents given by Manilabank
to petitioner were allegedly entrusted by the latter to Peter:  (a) a deed of sale of a real estate in favor
of CARLED the consideration of which was P10,500,000.00 (Exh.
“J”); (b) a real estate mortgage of the same property executed by CARLED in favor of Manilabank;
(c) two Manilabank checks one for P95,000.00 and the
other P44,141.50.  Considering the
importance of these documents and the amount of money involved as well as petitioner’s own statement that he does
not delegate his duties to others, the Court rejects petitioner’s story that he
entrusted them to Peter, an acquaintance whose surname and residence petitioner
does not even know.

According to the petitioner, the long lines at the Makati Register of Deeds and at the Makati
Treasurer’s Office forced him to give the documents and checks to Peter to
facilitate the registration of the deed of sale and mortgage as well as the payment of the transfer
tax [TSN, November 28, 1985,
p. 6.] Yet while the documents
were given to petitioner on December 17, 1983, it wasn’t until 18 days later,
on January 4, 1984, that petitioner returned the said documents to the bank
thus negating his alleged intention of rushing the tasks assigned him.

Petitioner reported to the legal department on January 4, 1984 to having registered
the sale and mortgage and paid the transfer tax by returning certain documents,
which on close examination belie his claim of having accomplished his errands
and indicate further his culpability in the crime charged.  First of all, petitioner did not submit an
official receipt of the payment of the transfer tax or any evidence that it has
been paid.  Second, the real estate
mortgage (Exh. “K”) which petitioner
claimed to have registered with the Makati Register
of Deeds bore a printed certification of registration by the register of deeds
not of Makati
but of Quezon City.  In the printed certification of registration,
the phrase “Quezon City”
appears twice.  One of them was crossed
out by a pen
and below it was
handwritten the word “Makati“.
 The registration is therefore patently
spurious not only because of the said alteration but also because the property
subject matter of the mortgage is located in Makati.  Considering the long experience of petitioner
as a registration clerk and considering further that when petitioner returned
the documents to the bank on January 4,
1983, he reported having accomplished his tasks, the Court will not
now allow him to feign ignorance of the patently irregular registration of the
mortgage.  The non-registration of the
mortgage confirms the non-payment of the transfer tax, for which the check in question
[Exh. “C”] was meant, since as admitted
by petitioner himself based on his experience as a registration clerk, the mortgage will not be registered by the
Register of Deeds unless there is proof that the transfer tax has been paid
[TSN, November 28, 1985, p. 33.] Therefore, the effort to make the mortgage appear as having been registered
as described above reveals petitioner’s attempt to cover up the non-payment of
the transfer tax and his ties with some employees of the Quezon City government.

The Court next finds significant the fact that the duplicate
copies of the check which were kept by the loans and discount department of Manilabank were similarly altered as to the original, the
payee having been changed from “Municipal Treasurer of Makati” to “Municipal Treasurer of Quezon City.” While it is true, as contended by
petitioner that the duplicate copies were never handed to him but were kept by
a custodian, a Mr. Bunoan of the loans and discount
department, petitioner nevertheless admitted to having called up said
department to have the payee changed from “Municipal Treasurer of Makati” to “Municipal Treasurer of Quezon City” “allegedly upon the information by Peter that to do so would facilitate
the payment of the transfer tax and the registration of the different documents
[TSN, November 28, 1985, p. 9, p. 41.] This admission is inconsistent
with petitioner’s claim of innocence
regarding the alteration of the check and consequently, fatal to his cause.

The Court also finds relevant the fact that petitioner made a
deposit of P26,250.00 to Manilabank
during the investigation.  The deposit
was made upon instruction by Manilabank to answer for
the damage caused by the altered check to the Quezon
City Treasury should the latter, through PNB, seek recovery from Manilabank. 
Petitioner contends that his making of the deposit notwithstanding his
lack of the necessary funds [TSN, November
28, 1985, p. 19] shows his innocence, sincerity and good faith
[Petition, p. 5; Rollo, p. 10.] But his eagerness to
show his innocence to the bank investigators and willingness to shoulder the
damage caused by the alteration of the check, rather than support his claim of
innocence, further strengthen the other circumstantial evidence pointing to
petitioner’s guilt.

It must be remembered that petitioner was given exclusive
possession of the check by Manilabank.  That it should turn up in the Quezon City Treasurer’s Office, where petitioner has
admitted to having made several acquaintances [TSN, November 28, 1985, p. 22]
because of the transactions he has made therein in the many years that he has
been a registration clerk of Manilabank, has not been
credibly explained by petitioner.  Petitioner’s
story about Peter, the “fixer” is unsupported by any evidence.

As was stated earlier, the prosecution failed to present any direct
evidence to prove petitioner’s guilt. 
Reliance was made solely on circumstantial evidence.  Nevertheless, the Court has consistently
ruled that:

Where the events constitute a
compact mass of circumstantial evidence, the existence of every bit of
which was satisfactorily proved, and the proof of each is confirmed by the
proof of the other, and all without
exception leading by mutual support to but one conclusion, the circumstantial evidence are
sufficient to establish the culpability of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
. . .

x x x In determining the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence
to support a conviction, each case is to be determined on its own peculiar
circumstances and all the facts and circumstances are to be considered together
as a whole, and, when so considered, may be sufficient to support a conviction,
although one or more of the facts taken separately would not be sufficient for
this purpose. . . .  No general rule has been formulated as
to the quantity of circumstantial evidence which will suffice for any case but
that matters not.  For all that is required is that the
circumstances proved must be consistent with each other, and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is
innocent and with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt. . . .
[People v. Madriaga IV, G.R. No. 73057, March 8, 1989; Citations omitted.]

In the case at bar, the Court, after a careful examination of the
record, has found the following circumstances highly significant:  the check subject matter of the offense was
entrusted to petitioner; the check turned up already altered in the Quezon City Treasurer’s Office where petitioner admitted
having made acquaintances; the real estate mortgage which was entrusted to him
together with the check was fictitiously registered with the Quezon City Register of Deeds; petitioner reported having
paid the transfer tax with the check (Exh.
“C”) thru Peter, a “fixer” but failed to present an
official receipt therefore; the duplicate copies of the check kept by Manilabank were similarly altered as the original;
petitioner admitted having called the bank to have the payee on the check
changed from “Municipal Treasurer of Makati” to “Municipal Treasurer of Quezon
City”, petitioner deposited P26,250.00 with Manilabank
to answer for the damage caused by the alteration of the check;
petitioner alleged that the purpose in giving the check and other documents to
Peter was to rush the payment of the transfer tax and the registration of the
sale and mortgage but this was negated by the fact that the petitioner reported
having accomplished his tasks eighteen days after they were assigned by the
bank.  These circumstances, having been
proved with certainty by clear and convincing evidence, are, together with the
inherent weakness of the defense of such nature that an analysis and combination
of all of them would lead to no other conclusion than that petitioner is guilty of the crime charged.  The evidence presented by the prosecution,
albeit circumstantial, is of a sufficient quantum to establish the guilt of petitioner to a moral certainty.

However, contrary to the finding by the Sandiganbayan
that both the Manilabank and the Quezon
City Treasurer’s Office were prejudiced and suffered loss by the alteration and
encashment of the check, the Court, after a careful consideration of the record
and considering that Manilabank was able to dishonor
the check, holds that only the Quezon City
Treasurer’s Office incurred damage in the amount of P26,250.00.

Since the petitioner is charged with estafa
through falsification of a commercial document, a complex crime, the penalty
for the more serious offense, in this case estafa, shall be applied in
its maximum period.  The amount of damage
being P26,250.00, the appropriate penalty under Art. 315 in relation to Art. 48 of the Revised Penal Code is prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, the same to be applied in its maximum period or
from SIX (6) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS AND TWENTY ONE (21) DAYS TO EIGHT (8)
YEARS.  Applying the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, the minimum term of the penalty to be imposed shall be within the
range of the penalty next lower in degree, which is prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, or from SIX (6) MONTHS and ONE (1)
DAY to FOUR (4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the
judgment of the Sandiganbayan is AFFIRMED with
modifications as to the penalty. 
Petitioner Jose de la Concepcion y Pulong is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of estafa through falsification of commercial
document, without any aggravating or mitigating circumstance, and is sentenced
to suffer the indeterminate penalty ranging from FOUR (4) YEARS and TWO (2) MONTHS of prision correccional,
as minimum, to SIX (6) YEARS, EIGHT (8)
MONTHS and TWENTY (20) DAYS of prision mayor, as maximum.  Petitioner is also ordered to reimburse,
jointly and severally with the accused Teresita Genese, the amount of P26,250.00
to the Quezon City Treasurer’s Office and to pay the
proportionate costs.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa,
Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco,
Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Grino-Aquino, Medialdea, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

*
While witness Angeles Factora was not included in the
information, the Sandiganbayan, in its decision,
directed the Tanodbayan to conduct an investigation
to determine any liability which may have been incurred by her in lending her
cash collections to the accused Teresita Genese [See Sandiganbayan
Decision, p. 40; Rollo, p. 59.]