This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2012-06-27 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In Alarcon v. Court of Appeals (1967),[145] the Court applied the presumption after considering the "patent irregularity in the transaction"[146] and the "extraordinary interest" of the accused in the property covered by the forged document/s in holding that "no reasonable and fair[-]minded man" would say that the accused had no knowledge of the falsification. Sarep v. Sandiganbayan (1989 case),[147] gave occasion for the ruling that since the accused was the only person who stood to benefit by the falsification of the document found in his possession, the presumption of authorship of the falsification applies in the absence of contrary convincing proof by the accused.[148] | |||||
|
2008-05-20 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The Sandiganbayan had established the following undisputed facts: (1) the request for financial assistance of the volleyball players, represented by Abastillas, was approved by Mayor Fuentes and not by OIC-Mayor Mario; (2) the original Abastillas letter was in the custody of Toledo in her official capacity and she testified that the approving authority was Mayor Fuentes and no other; (3) Pactolin borrowed the Abastillas letter for photocopying upon oral request, and Toledo granted the said request because she knew him as a member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of their province; and (4) Pactolin filed a complaint against Mario with the Ombudsman for illegal disbursement of public funds, and the principal document he attached to show the alleged illegal disbursement was the Abastillas letter on which was superimposed Mario's signature, thus making it appear that Mario approved the financial assistance to the volleyball players, and not Mayor Fuentes. In short, the Sandiganbayan clearly established that the copy of the Abastillas letter that Pactolin attached to his complaint was spurious. Given the clear absence of a satisfactory explanation regarding Pactolin's possession and use of the falsified Abastillas letter, the Sandiganbayan did not err in concluding that it was Pactolin who falsified the letter. The settled rule is that in the absence of satisfactory explanation, one found in possession of and who used a forged document is the forger and therefore guilty of falsification.[8] | |||||
|
2008-03-26 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| We arrive at the same conclusion on petitioner's alleged liability for Estafa using the allegedly falsified TCT No. 92585. Aside from relying on conspiracy to pin petitioner for this charge, the trial court also anchored its finding on the presumption that petitioner was party to the falsification of TCT No. 92585 because she had possession of such title. However, petitioner's unrebutted testimony on this point is that it was Ty who brought with her what she represented to be her owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 92585 and which she presented to Mangali.[19] At any rate, for the presumption of authorship of falsification to apply, the possessor must stand to profit or had profited from the use of the falsified document.[20] Here, the extent of petitioner's participation on Ty's loan was to bring Ty (and Ablaza) to Mangali. The prosecution failed to show any proof that petitioner received a portion of the loan Mangali extended to Ty, just as there is no proof on record that she received any share from the loan Mangali extended to Saquitan. Petitioner is not a party to any of the documents Mangali, Ty, and Saquitan signed. | |||||
|
2006-08-28 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| However, it would have been more prudent if respondent judge avoided hearing the cases where Santos was a party because their close friendship could reasonably tend to raise suspicion that respondent judge's social relationship with Santos would be an element in his determination of the cases of Santos.[42] This may erode the trust of the litigants in respondent judge's impartiality and eventually, undermine the people's faith in the administration of justice.[43] Judges must not only render a just, correct and impartial decision but should do so in such a manner as to be free from any suspicion as to his fairness, impartiality and integrity.[44] | |||||
|
2005-11-30 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| If a person had in his possession a falsified document and he made use of it (uttered it), taking advantage of it and profiting thereby, the clear presumption is that he is the material author of the falsification. (U.S. v. Castillo, 6 Phil. 453; People v. de Lara, 45 Phil. 754 ; People v. Domingo, 49 Phil. 28; People v. Astudillo, 60 Phil. 338; People v. Manansala, cited in People v. Sandaydiego, 81 SCRA 120 [1978].).[27] | |||||