GR 36391; (March, 1989) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 36391-92 March 9, 1989
Arturo Reyes, petitioner, vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals & People of the Philippines, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Arturo Reyes was convicted for illegal possession and use of falsified American Express checks under Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code. The cases originated from two transactions in September 1961. First, Reyes’s co-accused, Ceferino Melendez, offered to sell two checks to complainant Rufo Saruca, executing an affidavit guaranteeing their genuineness. Days later, Reyes himself, accompanied by Melendez, encashed four more checks with Saruca, also executing a similar affidavit promising a refund if the checks were fake.
Saruca later grew suspicious and examined the six checks with a magnifying glass in the presence of the Chief of Police, discovering blot marks, erasures, and superimpositions on the amounts. The Philippine Constabulary confirmed the checks were altered. When Saruca demanded a refund, Reyes refused unless the checks were returned, but they were already in PC custody. Reyes and Melendez were charged, and after trial, the Court of First Instance acquitted Melendez but convicted Reyes.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding petitioner Arturo Reyes guilty of illegal possession and use of falsified instruments under Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the conviction. The crime under Article 168 requires: (1) possession with knowledge (animus possidendi) that the instruments are falsified, and (2) fraudulent intent to use them. The Court held that the appellate court’s factual finding on guilty knowledge is generally binding. The record substantiates this finding through substantial evidence.
Saruca’s testimony established that Reyes directly uttered the falsified checks. Major Jose Fernandez of the PC Central Laboratory testified that the check amounts were altered to reflect higher sums without proper authentication, the checks were dishonored by American Express, and all six originated from Reyes, indicating his awareness of their forged character and intent to profit. Reyes’s failure to identify any source for the checks further supported the inference that he was their possessor with guilty knowledge. The penalty was correctly imposed under Article 166(4) for falsified documents issued by a duly authorized foreign bank. No reversible error was committed by the Court of Appeals.