GR 111962 72; (December, 1995) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 111962-72. December 8, 1995. MAXIMINO GAMIDO y BUENAVENTURA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Maximino Gamido was convicted by the Regional Trial Court on eleven counts of violating Article 161 of the Revised Penal Code for forging the signature of then President Ferdinand E. Marcos. The forged documents pertained to the creation of a non-existent agency, the Presidential Regional Assistant Monitoring Services (PRAMS), and included his appointment as its Executive Director, various memorandum orders, and a presidential permission for free transportation fare. The Malacañang Records Office confirmed these documents were not on file and the signatures were not genuine. A Presidential Memorandum Circular was issued explicitly stating that PRAMS was non-existent and that Gamido had no authority. Gamido’s defense was that President Marcos personally signed all documents in his presence.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction for eleven counts of forging the signature of the Chief Executive.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that all elements of the crime under Article 161 were present: the documents bore the forged signature of the President, they were falsified, and petitioner participated in the forgery. The claim of personal signing by the President was rejected as inherently unbelievable and contradicted by official records. The Court also ruled that each forged document constituted a separate crime of forgery since they were executed on different dates with distinct criminal intents; they were not part of a single continuous act. Furthermore, the documents possessed apparent legal efficacy as they bore the Great Seal and used official-looking stationery, capable of deceiving the public, which necessitated the Presidential Memorandum to warn against them. Finally, the defense of insanity was dismissed for lack of evidence and for not being raised at the trial court, with the presumption of sanity prevailing.