G.R. No. 172539 . November 16, 2016.
ALBERTO GARONG Y VILLANUEVA, PETITIONER, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Alberto Garong, a court interpreter, was charged with falsification under Article 172 in relation to Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code. The information alleged that on or about September 21, 1989, he willfully prepared and issued a court order dated August 11, 1989, in a non-existent proceeding entitled “IN RE: PETITION FOR JUDICIAL RECONSTITUTION OF TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. T-40361, PETITION NO. 12,701, SILVERIO ROSALES, Petitioner.” He made it appear the order was issued by the Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 40, when in truth, Petition No. 12,701 referred to a different petition filed by Emerenciano Sarabia. Silverio Rosales and Ricar Colocar sought Garong’s help to reconstitute Silverio’s title. Garong agreed, fixed a processing fee of ₱4,000.00, and instructed them to prepare certain documents. On September 21, 1989, Garong delivered the falsified court order (Exhibit B) to Ricar. When Ricar presented it to the Register of Deeds, it was found to be defective and referred to as a “ghost petition.” An investigation by the NBI led to the filing of the criminal case. In his defense, Garong claimed he merely endorsed Silverio and Ricar to a court stenographer, and that he only signed Exhibit B because Ricar was insistent, denying he received money or took advantage of his position.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Alberto Garong is guilty of the crime of falsification.

RULING

Yes, the petitioner is guilty of falsification committed by a private individual under Article 172, in relation to paragraph 7 of Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the lower courts that Garong simulated a court order for a non-existent judicial proceeding. His act of certifying the document and making it appear it was issued by a judge constituted falsification. The Court held that the crime was committed by a private individual, not by a public officer under Article 171, because preparing court orders was not part of his official duties as a court interpreter. The generic aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public position was not appreciated because his office did not facilitate the commission of the crime; he committed the act in a private capacity. The penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals was affirmed with the modification that subsidiary imprisonment shall be suffered in case of insolvency to pay the fine.