G.R. No. C.A. No. 50; April 13, 1946
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NICASIO BARRAQUIA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The appellant, Nicasio Barraquia, was accused of illegal possession and use of a false ten-peso bank note. On March 21, 1941, he went to the Calamba, Laguna post office to change the note. The postmaster, Maximo Pascasio, identified it as counterfeit, called a policeman, and the appellant admitted ownership. The appellant was taken to the municipal building, where he told the chief of police he received the note the previous night in a game of “cara y cruz” in Mamatid, Cabuyao, but could not identify the other players. At trial, the prosecution presented three witnesses: (1) Vicente C. Reventar, a provincial treasury cashier, who testified the note (Exhibit A) was counterfeit because its printing was blurred and the paper was very oily; (2) Postmaster Pascasio, who recounted the events; and (3) Chief of Police Jose M. Elefaño, who detailed the appellant’s statement. The appellant, an illiterate laborer, testified he only learned the note was counterfeit from the postmaster and could not distinguish a genuine from a false note himself. The lower court convicted him, applying the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction, and sentenced him to one year of prision correccional, a fine, and costs. The prosecution’s evidence did not include verification of the note’s serial number (D462691D) against genuine issues, and the physical Exhibit A was lost and unavailable for the court’s examination.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that (1) the bank note in question was counterfeit, and (2) the appellant had knowledge of its falsity before his arrest.

RULING

The Court acquitted the appellant. It found the evidence insufficient to prove either element of the crime. The sole testimony that the note was counterfeit—based on blurred printing and oily paper—was deemed inadequate. Blurring could result from overuse, and oiliness could come from impregnation, not necessarily falsification. There was no evidence comparing the note’s serial number with genuine issues or identifying the type of bank note. The lost exhibit could not be examined. Furthermore, the facts did not conclusively prove the appellant knew the note was counterfeit before the postmaster informed him. As an illiterate laborer who presented the note openly for exchange, his claim of lack of knowledge was credible. Therefore, the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof. The decision of the lower court was reversed, and the appellant was acquitted, with costs de oficio. Justices Ozaeta, De Joya, Hilado, and Bengzon concurred.