GR 1276; (July, 1905) (Digest)
G.R. No. 1276 : July 26, 1905
PARTIES:
Plaintiff-Appellee: The United States
Defendants-Appellants: Candelaria de los Angeles, Norberto Cajucom, and Cecilio Marquez
Other Convicted Defendants (who did not appeal): Mariano Castro, Isaac Cunanan, Esteban Hilario, and Pablo Mauricio
FACTS:
On July 27, 1900, Petra Mariano validly executed a will in Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija. She died the following day, July 28, 1900, and was buried on July 29, 1900. Subsequently, a second document purporting to be Petra Mariano’s will was created, bearing the date March 4, 1901. This second will was presented for probate by Cecilio Marquez on behalf of his wife, Candelaria de los Angeles (the sole heir in both wills), with a petition falsely stating that the testatrix died three days after its execution. The will was admitted to probate by the Court of First Instance based on the sworn statements of the attesting witnesses, including Norberto Cajucom. A criminal case for falsification of a will was filed against the participants. The trial court convicted all defendants. Only Candelaria de los Angeles, Norberto Cajucom, and Cecilio Marquez appealed.
ISSUE:
1. Whether the appellants, Candelaria de los Angeles, Norberto Cajucom, and Cecilio Marquez, are guilty of the crime of falsification of a will.
RULING:
The Supreme Court modified the trial court’s decision, ruling as follows:
1. As to Candelaria de los Angeles: She is ACQUITTED. The Court found no satisfactory evidence that she participated in the execution of the false will or induced others to commit the crime. Her status as the sole heir in both the authentic and the falsified will, without more, was insufficient to establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court noted that the falsification was, paradoxically, prejudicial to her own interests.
2. As to Norberto Cajucom: He is GUILTY as a principal under Article 301 of the Penal Code for the crime of falsification of a public document (the will having been converted into a public document through judicial probate). By signing the false will as if at the request of the testatrixwho had been dead for over seven monthshe actively participated in giving the document a false appearance of authenticity. Considering two extenuating circumstances (lack of education/ignorance of the law and his mistaken belief that he was merely copying the original will), his penalty was reduced to six months and one day of presidio correccional* and a fine of 500 pesetas.
3. As to Cecilio Marquez: He is GUILTY as an accessory under Article 302 of the Penal Code. He did not participate in creating the false will but knowingly presented it to the court for probate with the intention of gain, despite knowing the true date of the testatrix’s death. With the same two extenuating circumstances applied, his penalty was reduced to a fine of 1,000 pesetas.
The judgment of the lower court was affirmed with these modifications.