G.R. No. 3247

Parties:
The United States, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. Angelo San Jose, Defendant-Appellant

FACTS:
Angelo San Jose was charged with and convicted of falsification of a public document. He found a sunken banca, which was an obstruction in the Pasig River, and, with the permission of his employer (who had a contract with the municipality to remove obstructions), he took possession of the broken pieces. After two months, with no owner appearing, his employer instructed him to “Go ahead and take charge of it.” San Jose then took the banca to a shipyard, rebuilt it with new materials where necessary, at a cost of 250 pesos, and its finished value was 300 pesos. He later filed an affidavit with the custom-house authorities to obtain a license, declaring himself the owner of the banca, stating its construction details and year. The original owner, Francisca Pascual, later recognized the banca and reported it as stolen. Evidence suggested that the original banca’s identification and license numbers, though partially obliterated, might have corresponded to the numbers on the rebuilt banca.

ISSUE:
Whether the affidavit filed by Angelo San Jose, declaring himself the owner of the rebuilt banca, constituted falsification of a public document, given the circumstances of its recovery and reconstruction.

RULING:
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the lower court and acquitted Angelo San Jose. The Court held that it was impossible to pronounce San Jose a criminal guilty of falsehood without first determining the ownership of the rebuilt banca in a civil suit. The Court invoked Article 88 of the Law of Waters, which states that sunken objects in public streams continue to belong to their owners but become the property of those who raise them with permission from public authorities if not raised within one year. If such objects obstruct navigation, owners are given a reasonable time to remove them, after which they may be raised as abandoned. Since the ownership of the banca had not been definitively established as still belonging to the original owner at the time of the affidavit, and it was possible that it had become abandoned property transferred to San Jose’s ownership, his declaration of ownership in the affidavit might have been truthful and lawful. Therefore, without a preliminary determination of ownership, he could not be convicted of falsehood.