G.R. No. 227069 November 22, 2017
HILARIO LAMSEN, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Hilario Lamsen was charged with Falsification of Public Documents under Article 172(1) of the Revised Penal Code. The Information alleged that on or about April 21, 1993, Lamsen prepared and falsified a Deed of Absolute Sale, making it appear that spouses Aniceta Dela Cruz and Nestor Tandas sold a parcel of land to him for P150,000.00 by forging their signatures. The prosecution, through the heirs of the deceased Aniceta, discovered the deed when Lamsen opposed their petition for a second owner’s duplicate copy of the title. A document examiner from the PNP Crime Laboratory compared the signatures on the deed with standard specimens and concluded they were forged, finding dissimilarities and confirming they were not written by the same person.
Lamsen denied the accusation, claiming he validly purchased the property from the spouses in 1993. He asserted the deed was signed and notarized in the presence of witnesses at a GSIS office. He argued he possessed the original title and had no obligation to inform the heirs of the sale due to an existing familial conflict. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) found him guilty, a ruling affirmed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA upheld the credibility of the expert testimony on the forgery and found Lamsen’s denial unsubstantiated.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Lamsen’s conviction for the crime of Falsification of Public Documents.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that all elements of falsification of a public document under Article 172(1) were proven beyond reasonable doubt. The deed is a public document, having been notarized. Lamsen, as a private individual, caused its falsification by forging the signatures of the spouses. The falsification was done with intent to prejudice, as it aimed to transfer ownership of the property fraudulently.
The Court emphasized that the prosecution successfully discharged its burden of proof through the clear, positive, and convincing testimony of the document examiner, whose findings on the forged signatures were accorded weight and credence. Expert opinion on handwriting, when supported by factual bases and consistent with the evidence on record, is persuasive. Conversely, Lamsen’s defense of denial, unsupported by clear and convincing evidence, cannot prevail over the positive identification of the forgery. His failure to present the alleged witnesses to the signing or to provide a credible explanation for the forged signatures bolstered the conclusion of his guilt. The findings of fact by the trial courts, affirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive absent any showing of arbitrariness.