G.R. No. 194367; June 15, 2011
MARK CLEMENTE y MARTINEZ @ EMMANUEL DINO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Mark Clemente, a detainee at the Manila City Jail, was charged with illegal possession and use of false bank notes under Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code. The Information alleged that on or about August 5, 2007, in Manila, he willfully and unlawfully possessed twenty-four (24) pieces of counterfeit P500.00 bills with intent to use them. Upon arraignment, he pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution’s version, based on the testimonies of Jail Officers (JO1) Michael Michelle Passilan and Domingo David, Jr., and Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) Assistant Manager Loida Marcega Cruz, is as follows: On August 7, 2007, an inmate informant, Francis dela Cruz, approached the jail officers and reported that he received a counterfeit P500.00 bill from petitioner with orders to buy a soft drink from the jail bakery. The bakery employee recognized the bill as fake and refused it. The jail officers, along with the informant, conducted a surprise inspection of petitioner’s cell. The informant first entered and returned the bill to petitioner, who was lying in bed. The officers then entered, announced the inspection, frisked petitioner, and recovered a black wallet from his back pocket containing twenty-three (23) pieces of suspected counterfeit P500.00 bills. They confiscated these bills and the one returned by the informant, marking them sequentially. Petitioner was arrested. The BSP, through a Certification by Cruz, later examined and confirmed all twenty-four bills as counterfeit.
The defense presented petitioner as its lone witness. He claimed a frame-up, testifying that on August 5, 2007, JO1 Passilan entered his room, frisked him without warning, and confiscated his wallet containing a genuine P1,000.00 bill. He followed the officers to their office, where he saw JO1 Passilan place the P500.00 bills inside his wallet. He alleged JO1 Passilan bore a grudge because petitioner had refused to give him a loan.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted petitioner, giving credence to the prosecution witnesses, applying the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties, and finding the defense of frame-up unconvincing. The RTC held all elements of the crime were proven: the bills were counterfeit (per BSP certification), petitioner knew they were counterfeit, and he intended to use them (as shown by the informant’s report). Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, arguing a violation of his right against unreasonable search and seizure and the prosecution’s failure to present the informant, was denied. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s judgment, finding the possession of numerous fake bills negated the frame-up claim and that intent to use could be inferred from the circumstances, including the informant’s report and the discovery of the bills in petitioner’s wallet.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction for violation of Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code (Illegal possession and use of false bank notes).

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the assailed CA Decision and Resolution. Petitioner’s conviction was upheld.
The Court held that all elements of the crime under Article 168 were proven beyond reasonable doubt: (1) the accused possessed or used false treasury or bank notes or other instruments of credit; (2) the falsity of the notes or instruments was known to the accused; and (3) the accused intended to use the same.
First, the fact of possession was established by the consistent testimonies of JO1 Passilan and JO1 David, who recovered the wallet containing the bills from petitioner’s person during a valid search incident to a lawful arrest based on the informant’s tip. The BSP certification confirmed the bills were counterfeit.
Second, petitioner’s knowledge of the falsity was inferred from his possession of the counterfeit bills and the circumstances of the case.
Third, the intent to use was sufficiently established. The Court ruled that intent is a state of mind, often proved by circumstantial evidence. The testimony of the jail officers regarding the report from inmate Francis dela Cruz—that petitioner gave him a fake bill to buy an item—was admissible not for the truth of the informant’s statements (which would be hearsay), but to explain the officers’ subsequent actions (i.e., the reason for conducting the search). The discovery of twenty-three additional counterfeit bills in petitioner’s wallet, immediately following the report about the one bill being used, constituted circumstantial evidence from which intent to use the remaining bills could logically be inferred. The defense of frame-up was rejected for lack of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of the jail officers’ duties. The non-presentation of the informant did not create a reasonable doubt, as his testimony would have been merely corroborative.