GR 228739; (July, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 228739 July 17, 2019
ROSEMARIE ERIBAL BOWDEN, represented by FLORENCIO C. ERIBAL, SR., Petitioner vs. DONALD WILLIAM ALFRED BOWDEN, Respondent
FACTS
Petitioner Rosemarie Eribal Bowden was the registered owner of a vehicle. Her then-husband, respondent Donald William Alfred Bowden, allegedly executed an affidavit of loss for the vehicle’s certificate of registration and official receipt, and later a deed of sale transferring the vehicle to himself, both documents bearing petitioner’s forged signature. Using these documents, respondent secured a new certificate of registration in his name from the Land Transportation Office and subsequently sold the vehicle to a third party. Petitioner filed criminal complaints, resulting in two Informations before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) charging respondent with falsification of public document and use of falsified documents.
The MTCC granted respondent’s demurrer to evidence for the falsification charge but denied it for the charge of use of falsified documents. Respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the denial of his demurrer for the use of falsified documents charge was a grave abuse of discretion. The CA granted the petition and ordered the dismissal of the remaining charge. Petitioner then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the charge for Use of Falsified Documents after the charge for Falsification of Public Document had already been dismissed.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s decision. The legal logic is grounded in the nature of the crimes of falsification and use of falsified documents under the Revised Penal Code. The Court explained that in the crime of use of falsified document, the user must be a person other than the one who falsified it. If the same person who falsified a document is also the one who uses it, the act of use is absorbed by the crime of falsification; it does not constitute a separate and distinct offense. Consequently, with the dismissal of the falsification charge via the granted demurrer to evidence, the factual basis for a separate charge of use of falsified documents ceased to exist. The allegations in the Informations themselves implicated respondent as both the falsifier and the user. Therefore, the remaining charge could not stand independently. The Court also found no denial of due process, as petitioner was afforded full opportunity to present her case and participate in the proceedings.