G.R. No. L-28258 December 27, 1969
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Pedro Caragao, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Pedro Caragao was one of the pro-indiviso owners of a parcel of land in Dasmariñas, Cavite, with co-owners Gregorio Bataclan, David Fajardo, and Tomas Rosete. On May 5, 1958, Caragao, purporting to act under a Special Power of Attorney (Exhibit B) executed in his favor by his co-owners, obtained a loan of P3,200.00 from Vicente Salandanan in Manila. To secure the loan, Caragao executed a deed of mortgage (Exhibit C) on the said property. The Register of Deeds of Cavite refused to register the mortgage upon finding that the power of attorney (Exhibit B) was falsified. During a preliminary investigation, co-owners Bataclan and Rosete executed affidavits stating they never authorized Caragao to mortgage the property, their signatures on Exhibit B were forged, and they never appeared before a notary public for such a document. Consequently, Caragao was charged with estafa through falsification of a public document. After trial, the Court of First Instance of Manila found him guilty, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Caragao appealed to the Supreme Court via certiorari, arguing his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Caragao’s conviction for estafa through falsification of a public document, specifically in finding that the prosecution proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding Caragao’s conviction. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved Caragao’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of co-owner Tomas Rosete, corroborated by samples of his genuine signature, established that his signature on the power of attorney (Exhibit B) was forged. The Register of Deeds’ refusal to register the mortgage due to the falsified document further supported this finding. The Court found Caragao’s defense—that he received the already-signed document from Pio Bataclan—uncredible, noting inconsistencies in his statements and the absence of Pio Bataclan during the key transactions as testified by prosecution witnesses. The Court also applied the presumption that the user of a forged document is its forger. Furthermore, the Supreme Court emphasized that, in a petition for review on certiorari of a Court of Appeals decision, findings of fact and credibility of witnesses are generally final and not reviewable, as they are not questions of law. The penalty imposed by the lower courts was sustained.