GR L 21846; (March, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-21846; March 31, 1967
Romeo Alarcon, petitioner, vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals, et al., respondents.
FACTS
The petitioner, Romeo Alarcon, a representative of Magpayo & Basa Brokerage, was charged with estafa through falsification of an official or public document. On January 30, 1959, he paid an arrastre fee for four cases of camphor chests from Hongkong. On February 2, 1959, using a delivery permit containing a falsified certification by a fictitious customs examiner stating the cargo was examined and release was authorized, and without the required processing, unlifting, or payment of customs duties and taxes, Alarcon requested and obtained the four cases from a checker of the Manila Port Service. Alarcon’s companion also exhibited a falsified written authority from the supposed consignee. Alarcon gave the gate pass to the gatekeeper, hired a truck, accompanied the cargo to 101 Mayon Street, Quezon City, and paid the truck driver. The cargo was later recovered from that address. The named consignee, Rufino Achacoso, denied importing the goods, executing the import application, or owning the residence certificate used in the application. The Court of First Instance of Manila found Alarcon guilty, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner, Romeo Alarcon, is guilty of estafa through falsification of an official or public document.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court ruled that, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, one found in possession of and who used a forged document is presumed to be the forger or the one who caused the forgery, and is therefore guilty of falsification. The Court found Alarcon’s claim of innocence and lack of knowledge of the falsification to be inherently incredible, negated by the circumstances: the consignee did not import the goods; Alarcon used falsified documents to obtain release of the goods; he displayed extraordinary personal interest in the shipment by handling all aspects of its withdrawal and transport despite being a broker’s representative; and the transaction was patently irregular. The guilty participation was further shown by his payment of the arrastre service under suspicious circumstances. The judgments of the lower courts were affirmed.