GR 138696; (July, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 138696; July 7, 2010
FELIZARDO S. OBANDO and JUAN S. OBANDO, Petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
Alegria Strebel Vda. de Figueras died in 1979. During the settlement of her estate and that of her predeceased husband, petitioner Felizardo Obando filed a petition for the probate of Alegria’s alleged last will and testament, which bequeathed substantial properties, including jewelry, to petitioners Felizardo and Juan Obando. The Figueras heirs opposed, alleging the will was forged. The parties agreed to submit the will for examination by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). The NBI report concluded the signatures on the will were not authored by Alegria, declaring the document a forgery.
Based on this forged will, petitioners had taken possession of the properties enumerated therein. An Information was filed charging petitioners, along with others, with the complex crime of Estafa thru Falsification of a Public Document. They were accused of conspiring to forge the will to defraud the rightful heirs, enabling them to misappropriate the estate properties. The trial court convicted petitioners, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioners are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of Estafa thru Falsification of a Public Document.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The legal logic rests on the established elements of the complex crime and the sufficiency of evidence proving conspiracy. For the complex crime of Estafa thru Falsification of a Public Document, the falsification must be a necessary means to commit the estafa. The evidence, particularly the conclusive NBI report, proved the will was forged. This falsified document was the indispensable instrument used by petitioners to gain court appointment as co-administrator, secure possession of the properties, and thereby misappropriate them to the prejudice of the lawful heirs. The act of falsification was directly employed to accomplish the fraud.
Furthermore, conspiracy was adequately proven through the petitioners’ collective actions. Felizardo actively procured the probate of the forged will, while Juan, as a named beneficiary, accepted and asserted rights under it. Their coordinated acts, aimed at a common criminal objective to defraud the estate, demonstrated a community of criminal design. The Court found the prosecution evidence, including the NBI findings and the chain of possession of the properties, to be credible and consistent, establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The penalty was modified in accordance with the Indeterminate Sentence Law.