GR L 62126; (March, 1985) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-62126. March 25, 1985
TERENCIO RAÑON, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Terencio Rañon, President and General Manager of Apollo Surveying Co., Inc., was convicted of the complex crime of estafa through falsification of a public document. The charge stemmed from his encashment of a Treasury Warrant worth P23,257.80, payable to the company, which bore the forged countersignature of corporate treasurer Augusto Apo. Rañon presented the warrant to the National Treasury, where cashier Antonio Luna noticed Apo’s signature already appeared on it. After Rañon provided additional signatures, the warrant was paid. Apo later disowned his signature on the warrant. The company’s board subsequently removed Rañon and filed a criminal complaint. An initial investigation by the City Fiscal recommended dropping the charge for lack of evidence, but a reinvestigation, prompted by sworn statements from treasury personnel and an NBI handwriting expert, led to the filing of the information.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in convicting Rañon of estafa through falsification based on the evidence presented.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Rañon on the ground of reasonable doubt. The legal logic centered on the insufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence to prove guilt beyond a moral certainty. Mere possession of the falsified document does not conclusively establish that the possessor was the author of the falsification, especially when the petitioner, as company president, was the natural custodian of such corporate instruments. The Court found no credible motive for Rañon to forge the signature, as the encashed funds were allegedly used for legitimate company operations like salaries and expenses, with no evidence showing he personally misappropriated the money. Furthermore, the circumstantial context raised doubts about the prosecution’s revival of the case, which appeared retaliatory following Rañon’s successful civil suit for damages against the corporate officers for malicious prosecution—a suit that had resulted in a final judgment and a compromise agreement involving a P50,000 payment to Rañon. The totality of these circumstances created reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal.