GR 96227; (February, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 96227 February 1, 1993
TELESFORO OPENA, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Spouses Julian Gotgotao and Guillerma Opena were the registered owners of Lot No. 1584-B, evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 61957, which they mortgaged to the Rural Bank of Mangaldan, Inc. They discovered that Telesforo Opena, Guillerma’s half-brother, had withdrawn the title from the bank by presenting a forged Special Power of Attorney purportedly executed by them. Upon verification with the Register of Deeds, they found that Telesforo Opena had caused the transfer of the title to his name by presenting a forged Deed of Absolute Sale, resulting in the cancellation of their title and the issuance of a new one (TCT No. 131474) in his name. Consequently, a complaint for falsification of public documents was filed against Telesforo Opena, leading to his conviction, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner Telesforo Opena’s conviction for falsification of public document.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the crime of falsification was established. While a dactyloscopy report confirmed the genuineness of Julian Gotgotao’s thumbmark on the Deed of Absolute Sale, the signature of Guillerma Opena on the same document was indubitably confirmed to be counterfeit and forged, both by her testimony and by the testimony of a handwriting expert from the PC Crime Laboratory. The forged signature of Guillerma invalidated the entire instrument, as her consent was essential for the alienation of conjugal property under Articles 165 and 166 of the Civil Code. The Court also upheld the lower courts’ finding that the defense suppressed evidence by repeatedly failing to present the notary public, Atty. Anastacio Caoayan, who could have validated the deed’s execution, giving rise to the presumption that his testimony would have been adverse to the petitioner. Finally, the Court found petitioner’s claim that the property was conveyed to settle previous loans inconsistent and unconvincing, as the total amounts he claimed to have lent exceeded the purported consideration in the deed.