Transcript
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES National Capital Judicial Region METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT Branch 47, Pasay City PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, Criminal Cases No. M-PSY- 00 – 862 -versus- For: Falsification of Public Document CHARISA KEY ESTEBAN, Accused. x--------------------------------------x DECISION Courts are required to put the prosecution evidence through the crucible of a severe testing, and the constitutional right to presumption of innocence requires them to take a more than casual consideration of every circumstance or doubt favoring the innocence of the accused. 1 THE CHARGE Accused stands charged with Falsification of Public Document, the accusatory portion of the Information reads as follows: “That on or about November 22, 1996, in Pasay City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said accused, in utter disregard of truth and in violation of public faith, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit falsification in a Philippine passport bearing no. K341338, which affects the integrity of said document, by tampering and/ or making and causing false entries therein to the damage and prejudice of the real owner Maria Bella A. Bustos and the Department of Foreign Affairs. CONTRARY TO LAW.” STATEMENT OF THE CASE When arraigned on August 19, 2002, accused Charisa Key Esteban assisted by her counsel de parte Atty. Ricky Jones Macabaya pleaded not guilty to the charge. On September 24, 2002, the pre-trial was terminated. Forthwith, trial on the merits ensued. On October 23, 2007, the prosecution formally offered its documentary 1 People vs. Santos, Jr., G.R. No. 175593, October 17, 2007. evidence, and thereafter, it rested its case. On August 31, 2010, the defense terminated the presentation of its evidence. Thereafter, this case was submitted for decision. EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION Testimonial Evidence The prosecution presented the following witnesses: LORNA CAPILAN , an NBI employee assigned at the records division, identified the investigation report of the conducting agent who is special investigator Isaac Garbeso. 2 She testified that she has no participation in the investigation of this case. 3 No cross examination was conducted. LOIDA UY , identified the passport evaluation report of accused whose passport number is No. K341338. 4 The findings about the passport of the accused showed that the database was replaced and the edges of the photo page were cut in the lamination and the entire page was overlaid by a plastic. 5 The passport is genuine but there is tampering inside it. 6 She prepared the said report, signed it and forwarded it to the NBI. During her cross – examination, she answered that the photograph in the passport was substituted with another photograph. ISAAC CARPESO , the arresting officer, testified that on November 22, 1996, he was assigned at the International Airport Division, NAIA when the Bureau of immigration Atty. Danilo Perez turned over to them three (3) passengers bound for Los Angeles, USA because of possession of tampered passport. 7 One of the passengers is the accused Charisa Key Esteban. The passport used by the accused bearing no. K341338 was issued to Maria Bella Busto. He made a report and he recommended the filing of Falsification of Public Document against the herein accused. Documentary Evidence The prosecution formally offered the following documentary evidence: (1) NBI report marked as Exhibit “A”; (2) Authorization letter from NBI office marked as Exhibit “B” with sub-markings; (3) photocopies of the accused passport with no. K341338 marked as Exhibit “C” with sub-markings. Only Exhibits “A” and “C” with sub-markings were admitted by this Court. 2 TSN dated March 18, 2003, p. 9. 3 TSN dated March 18, 2003, p. 10. 4 TSN dated April 26, 2005, p. 5. 5 TSN dated April 26, 2005, p. 8. 6 TSN dated April 26, 2005, p. 9. 7 TSN dated September 9, 2005, p. 7. EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE Testimonial Evidence The defense presented the following witnesses: CHARISA KEY ESTEBAN testified that on November 22, 1996, she was at the NAIA, Pasay City. 8 She was bound for Los Angeles, USA. Her travel documents were facilitated by a certain Shirley. 9 She recommended her to a recruiter named “Kuya Boy Perez”. She met him twice. He asked from her picture and money. He told her that after she gave the money to him, she will leave in few weeks. As to the processing of the documents for her employment abroad, she was asked her ID and passport. She showed to him her ID. He kept it. She gave him the initial down payment of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20, 000.00) for the processing of her passport. She has no receipt. After several weeks, they met at the airport where she gave the balance of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) when she received her passport. She entered the airport where she followed the procedures. She was able to check in and when she exited from the place, two men talked to her. They are members of the NBI airport. They brought her to their office. She was informed that her passport was fake. She was deeply sad and frustrated. She was asked if she still wanted to go abroad. She answered yes. They asked from her Four Hundred Dollars ($400.00). She was not able to get the money because her money in the same amount was forcibly taken from her. She failed to leave abroad. She did not take any necessary actions. She did not tamper the passport. It was Boy Perez who tampered her passport. 10 During her cross-examination, she admitted holding her passport in the checking in area of the airport. 11 On re-direct examination, she testified that a passport was given to her by Boy Perez. CYNTHIA ESTEBAN testified that accused Charisa Key Esteban is her daughter. 12 On November 22, 1996, they were at the airport. They met Boy Perez. She gave him One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00). In turn, he showed the passport and the ticket. 13 She gave them to her daughter. When they went home to Bulacan, she was surprised because her daughter arrived. Her daughter told her that the passport was fake. 14 Documentary Evidence The defense did not have any documentary evidence to formally offer. 8 TSN dated May 27, 2009, p. 4. 9 TSN dated May 27, 2009, p. 5. 10 TSN dated May 27, 2009, p. 12. 11 TSN dated July 8, 2009, p. 5. 12 TSN dated October 15, 2009, p. 4. 13 TSN dated October 15, 2009, p. 6. 14 TSN dated January 14, 2010, p. 4. ISSUE The issue is whether or not accused is guilty as charged. APPLICABLE LAW The law in point is Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code that provides: Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister. -- The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts: 1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric; 2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate; 3. Attributing to persons who have participated in any act or proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them; 4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts; 5. Altering true dates; 6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning; 7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an srcinal document when no such srcinal exists, or including in such a copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine srcinal; or 8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official book. The same penalty shall be imposed upon any ecclesiastical minister who shall commit any of the offenses enumerated in the preceding paragraphs of this article , with respect to any record or document of such character that its falsification may affect the civil status of persons. RULING For falsification of a public document to be established, the following elements must concur: 1) that the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public; 2) that he takes advantage of his official position; and 3) that he falsifies a document by committing any of the aforementioned acts. Likewise, in falsification of public or official documents, it is not necessary that there be present the idea of gain or the intent to injure a third person because in the falsification of a public document, what is
