GR 225696; (April, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 225696 April 8, 2019
ATTY. BERNARDO T. CONSTANTINO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
An Information charged Atty. Bernardo T. Constantino, a notary public, and Teresita C. Saliganan with falsification of a public document under Article 171(2) of the Revised Penal Code. It was alleged that on September 9, 2001, they conspired to make it appear in a notarized Last Will and Testament that Severino C. Cabrales and the instrumental witnesses participated in its execution and acknowledged it before Atty. Constantino when, in truth, they did not. The will was probated after Severino’s death, prompting his son, Fernando, to investigate. One instrumental witness, Dr. Eliezer Asuncion, stated he signed the document at his clinic upon the request of Saliganan’s son-in-law and that Severino was not present.
Atty. Constantino pleaded not guilty and claimed Severino, though frail, was of sound mind and executed the will in his house with three witnesses present. He testified that Severino’s hand trembled, so Saliganan assisted by holding his wrist to sign. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court reviewed the case via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Atty. Constantino is guilty of falsification of a public document by making it appear that Severino and the witnesses participated in the execution of the notarial will when they did not.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the convictions and acquitted Atty. Constantino. For a notary public to be convicted under Article 171(2) for falsifying a notarial will, the prosecution must prove he simulated the signatures of the testator or witnesses to make it appear they participated in the execution when they did not. Here, the prosecution failed to prove this element beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution’s sole evidence on non-participation was the testimony of Dr. Asuncion, who stated he signed without Severino present. However, this pertained only to his own signing at his clinic, not to the alleged notarization before Atty. Constantino. It did not establish that Severino and the other witnesses did not appear before the notary. Furthermore, the prosecution did not present any of the other subscribing witnesses or evidence, like expert testimony, to prove the signatures on the will were forged. In contrast, Atty. Constantino’s detailed testimony on the execution at Severino’s house remained uncontroverted. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and its failure to overcome the presumption of regularity in the notarization and to prove the element of simulation of signatures warrants acquittal.