G.R. No. 1650 : April 28, 1905

FACTS:
The case originated from the forgery of a check bearing the signature of Jean M. Poizat. The forgery was of high quality, described by a bank official as a “good imitation” that might have passed in a business rush. The defendant, Lino Litonjua, an employee of Mr. Poizat, presented this forged check for payment at the Guaranty Trust Company of New York in Manila, accompanied by a note requesting bank notes of a non-existent denomination. Upon notification, Mr. Poizat disowned the signatures on both documents. When apprehended, Litonjua was found in possession of a paper with an inverted tracing of Poizat’s signature and a seemingly forged certificate of good conduct. A search of his desk at Poizat’s office yielded the check stub corresponding to the forged check and another similar note. Litonjua attempted to implicate his co-defendant, Cirilo Santiago, by claiming Santiago gave him the check. The prosecution also presented evidence noting a resemblance between the handwriting and figures on the forged check and Santiago’s authentic handwriting on previous check stubs.

ISSUE:
Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to convict both Lino Litonjua and Cirilo Santiago of the crime of forgery.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Lino Litonjua but reversed the conviction of Cirilo Santiago.
1. As to Lino Litonjua: The evidence against him was deemed fully proven. His possession of the forged check, the tracing of the signature, the related documents found in his desk, and his act of presenting the check constituted conclusive evidence of his guilt. His sentence of ten years of presidio and a fine of 2,000 pesetas was upheld.
2. As to Cirilo Santiago: The evidence was found insufficient for conviction. The Court ruled that the uncorroborated, self-serving extrajudicial statement of a co-defendant (Litonjua), which was both incriminating and exculpatory for the declarant, deserved no credit. Furthermore, the mere resemblance between Santiago’s authentic handwriting and that on the forged check was not sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Santiago was the forger. Therefore, Santiago was acquitted.

The costs were proportionally allocated.