G.R. No. L-68624, June 30, 1987
Bartolome Alonzo, petitioner, vs. Hon. Intermediate Appellate Court and People of the Philippines, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Bartolome Alonzo, a personnel officer of the Olongapo City Fire Department, was charged with estafa through falsification of a public document. The information alleged that on October 30, 1974, he prepared and forged the signature of firefighter Wilfredo Cadua on a salary voucher for P166.67, collected the amount, and misappropriated it. The prosecution’s case relied on Cadua’s claim that he did not authorize the signature or receive the full amount. The trial court convicted Alonzo, and the Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed the conviction but recommended executive clemency due to the small amount involved.
Alonzo presented a different version. He testified that after preparing the voucher, office messenger Rogelio Pangilinan collected the cash and handed it to him. He then gave the full P166.67 to Cadua but immediately borrowed P66.00 from him for medical expenses, with Cadua’s consent. A confrontation occurred the next day in front of their Fire Chief, who advised Alonzo to repay the loan. Alonzo repaid the P66.00 on November 10, 1974. Cadua filed the criminal complaint four months later.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the petitioner for the complex crime of estafa through falsification of a public document beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court acquitted petitioner Bartolome Alonzo on the ground of reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that in criminal cases, the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, a certainty that satisfies both reason and conscience. The evidence presented failed to meet this standard.
The Court found the complainant’s motive for filing the case highly suspect. Cadua admitted on cross-examination that he filed the complaint because he was dismissed and believed Alonzo was related to the Fire Chief who did not renew his appointment, stating, “I wanted to file a case against him.” This admission indicated the complaint was an afterthought born of resentment, not a pursuit of justice for an alleged forgery and misappropriation. Furthermore, Cadua executed an affidavit of desistance, which, while not conclusive, corroborated Alonzo’s claim that the charges were malicious.
The prosecution also failed to conclusively prove the element of falsification with intent to gain. Alonzo’s consistent testimony, supported by the prompt repayment of the loan in the presence of their superior, created a plausible alternative narrative that the transaction was a consensual loan between co-workers. Given the weak and motivated testimony of the complainant and the lack of corroborating evidence to refute the defense, the Court held that moral certainty of Alonzo’s guilt was absent. The presumption of innocence therefore prevailed.