This is an appeal by certiorari under Rule 46 to review a  judgment  of the Court of Appeals.

The petitioner was charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila  with  estafa  thru  falsification  of  a  public, official and commercial document in  an information filed by the Office of the  City  Fiscal  (criminal case No. 19102). After trial the Court found him guilty of the crime defined and  punished under article 166, in connection with article 315, of the Revised Penal  Code, and  sentenced

*  *   *  him to suffer an indeterminate penalty  of from SIX (6) YEARS of prison correctional to EIGHT  (8)  YEARS  and FOUR MONTHS of prison mayor", to pay a  fine of P2,000, to indemnify the offended party in the amount of P384.96, without further subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency,  and  to pay  one-fourth of the costs.  (Annex A.)

On appeal,  the Court of  Appeals convicted him of estafa through falsification of an official and commercial document, as  penalized in  article  315, paragraph 3, subsection 2, in connection  with articles  172  and  48, as  amended,  of the Revised  Penal Code,  and sentenced him  to  suffer

*   *   *  from two  (2)  years  and four  (4)  months  to  five  (5) years,  two (2) months and eight  (8)  days of prision correctional, to pay a fine in the sum of P2,000, to  indemnify the  offended  party in the amount of  P384.96,  or to suffer the corresponding- subsidiary imprisonment  in  case  of insolvency of  both fine and indemnity, to the accessories of the law and to pay in lite first instance  1/4  of the costs. (Annex B.)

The petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals  committed the  following  errors:

1. The respondent erred in ignoring entirely the first error assigned by the 'appellant in his brief  to the effect that the trial court  erred in allowing the prosecution  to present evidence  in  (b) variance with the allegations in  the information  over the objection of the defense;
2. The respondent erred in  declaring that the amount of the  check in question was paid to the  supposed  payee;
3. The respondent erred  in holding the  appellant criminally and civilly  liable for  an  alleged misrepresentation  to the witnesses, Severino Aznar and Simeon Monzon;
4, The respondent erred in finding the appellant guilty as charged;
5. The respondent erred in  not imposing the minimum  of the minimum of the indeterminate  penalty; and
6. The respondent erred  in not  granting the  motion  for reconsideration filed by the appellant.

The information filed against  the petitioner  and his co-defendants  is as follows:

That on  or  about the  20th of June,  1949, in  the city of  Manila, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating together and helping  each other, did  then and there  wilfully,  unlawfully and feloniously defraud one Inés B. Bentoso and/or the Bureau  of Posts,  a government entity under  the Department of Public Works and Communications of the  Republic of the Philippines in the follow- ing manner, to wit: the said accused Severino Aznar and Juana Doe, the  latter  with identity and  whereabouts still unknown,  having somehow obtained or come into possession of a United  States Depository check No. 917,109 dated May 11, 1949 in the amount of P384.96 payable to said Inés  B. Bentoso,  which is a  public,  official and

commercial document in that the same is a written act of the sovereign authority of the United States, a foreign country and recognized  as a negotiable instrument by the Mercantile Law,  did then and there  wilfully, unlawfully and  feloniously write, print, imitate and forge  or  cause to be  written, printed,  imitated  and  forged the  signature  of  said Inés  E.  Bentoso at  the back of said check and the said accused Gregorio Furia and  Simeon Monzon, the latter  an employee in the Manila Post Office who  taking  advantage of  his position  thereat he  being  known to his co-employees  in said office who in one way or  another has something to do with the  cashing of said check,  signed their signatures at  the back  of said check as identifiers  thereof, thus causing  it to appear  that  the said  Ines B. Bentoso duly signed  said  U. S.  Depository check  No.  917,109  and that she (Inés B. Bentoso)  took part  in the transaction, although they knew  she  did not, thereby making  untruthful statements in the narration of facts;  that  as soon as said U.  S.  Depository check No.  917,109 had been' falsified  in the  manner just described, the said accused, with intent  to profit  thereby and in furtherance of their conspiracy introduced the  said accused Juana  Doe  as  the real Inés B,  Bentoso  to  the  teller  of the Postal  Savings  Bank who wanted her check to be  cashed, as in  fact  the  said  check was cashed for the amount  of  P384.96,  they (all  of  them)  knowing fully well  that the said check  had not been signed by the payee thereof,  Inés  B.  Bcntoso,  neither has  she authorized  anyone  of them to act for her, and it is only a forgery; and the said  accused, once in possession of said cash amount  of P384.96,  did then and there wilfully,  unlawfully  and  feloniously misappropriate,  misapply and  convert the said  amount to their own personal  use and benefit, to the damage and  prejudice of  said Inés B. Bentoso  and/or the Bureau of  Posts  in  the  aforementioned sum of P384.96, Philippine currency.   (See Annex A.)

Both the trial  and  appellate courts found that

Sometime on June  21, 1949,  Grogorio Furia, an  employee of the Investigation Section  of the Manila Health Department, City Hall, Manila, approached his co-employee  Severino Aznar and introduced him  to a woman  whom he Referred  to as Ines Bentoso,  allegedly a townmate of his.  Furia also told Aznar  that this woman was the payee of check No. 917107 (ExJis. A & A-1)  and that he  wanted him  Aznar) to help  said woman in cashing said check. Knowing somebody in the  Bureau  of Posts, Aznar accompanied   Furia and the alleged  Inés Bentoso to that  bureau  and  there he sought  Simeon Monzon, an employee  of the Bureau  of  Posts,  and introduced Furia as his officemate  and the  woman who went  with them  as  Inés

Bentoso, the payee of the check.   In  order  to  convince Aznar and Monzon  of  the true identity  of Inés  Bentoso,  they  presented a residence  certificate  wherein the name  "Ines Bentoso," of Agusan province,  appeared.   Forthwith Monzon  asked  Aznar  to sign  the back  of  the check and  afterwards he  himself signed it also and then  accompanied the group  to the window of  the paying teller. There the  full amount  of  the check,  P384.96,  was  paid  to  the woman (Exhs. A & A-1).

It also appears that  Ines B. Eentoso,  38 years of age, widow, teacher and a resident  of Mambalili, Agusan,  was a  war damage claimant  with card  No. 100386  of the  U.S.-Phil. War  Damage Commission'and  that the check in question was  intended by said Commission to satisfy her claim (Exh.  B.)   However, she  did not receive the  check and neither  did she  affix  her  signature  thereon or authorized anyone to do so  for  her, and  she is positive that she does not know Severino Aznar  nor  Simeon Monzon.

Because  of these  facts Severino Aznarj Gregorio Furia,  Simeon Monzon and Juana Doe  were accused  of estafa  through falsification of a  public and  commercial  document  before  the Court of  First Instance of Manila,  but upon motion of the Fiscal, Severino Aznar and  Simeon Monzon were  discharged from the  information  to be utilized as  witnesses for the State.  And as Juana Doe was  never arrested nor identified, the  case proceeded only as against Gregorio Furia who,  after proper proceedings, "was  found guilty of the  crime charged in the information and  sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of  from 6 years of prision  correctional  to 8  years  and 4 months of prision mayor, to pay a fine  of P2,000, to indemnify the offended party in the  amount  of  P384.96,  without  subsidiary  im- prisonment  in case of insolvency, and to pay 'A ' of the  costs-.

Not satisfied with  this decision Gregorio Furia brought the matter up to us on appeal and in this  instance his counsel assigns numerous errors as committed  by the trial court, all  of  which having  to do either with  the appreciation  of the evidence against  appellant or in finding him guilty and sentencing him to the  penally aforementioned instead of  acquitting him at least on reasonable doubt.

There is no dispute that  the  check for P384.96  (Exhs. A & A-1) was intended for Mrs. Ines B.  Bentoso in payment of her aforementioned war  damage  claim, and  there is  no question either  that she has not signed, nor authorized anybody to sign said check and collect for her the amount  represented therein, nor in any way intervened in the cashing of  said check.  The only  facts subject of controversy are  appellant's denial of having  accompanied the  woman  posing herself as Ines Bentoso to the Manila Post Office in cashing  the check, and  of having   assured Severino Aznar and  Simeon Monzon that the woman with him, whose signature appears at the back of check No. 917107, was Inés Bentoso.  He contends that on June 20, 1949, a townmate of his, by the namei of Venancio, Sianteng,  approached him in his office together with a woman who was introduced  to him as Inés Bentoso; that Sianteng requested him to help them  so that his woman companion would cash her check;  that  he, in turn, accompanied them to Severino Aznar,  an officemate of appellant, and asked the former  to extend to Sianteng and  the woman a helping hand; that Aznar promised him that he  would try his best, after which the trio left for the Bureau  of Posts

After due consideration of  the evidence produced, We find that the version of the case, as narrated by appellant, is utterly untenable. It appears on record  that before contacting  Aznar appellant had already accompanied the  supposed payee to  the Bureau of Posts but was not able to cash  the  check  in question because he did not know anybody in said office, and appellant's bare statement  cannot prevail over the testimony of Simeon Monzon and  Severino Aznar who  declared  that  appellant  was present in  the Bureau of Posts when  the  check in question was cashed.  If appellant's  contention about the intervention of  Sianteng were true, it would be strange that ho would  not have presented this man  as a witness in his  behalf,   or made  him  to be called  by the authorities,  and We entertain no doubt that appellant was the mastermind who engineered the whole  scheme to defraud either Inés  E. Bentoso or the Government. Consequently, We cannot declare  that the lower  court committed any error in finding  appellant  guilty of the crime he is  charged with  in the information.

True,  contrary to what is alleged in the information, the m ,  trial  and the appellate  courts  found that the petitioner  did not  sign on the back  of the check in question to identify the  signature of  the  fictitious woman as payee, but that he  approached his co-employee Severino Aznar, introduced to  him  the fictitious woman as the payee of the check, and  enlisted Aznar a help to cash  the check, who introduced her to Simeon Monzon, an employee of  the Bureau of Posts, who in turn accompanied  her to the window of the paying teller.  It was Monzon and Aznar who signed the check to identify the signature of the payee upon the petitioner's  assurance  that the  fictitious  woman  was the  payee and that the signature written on the check was hers.

Nevertheless, although the evidence for the prosecution is at variance with the fact alleged in the information that the petitioner together with Simeon Monzon signed on the back of the check to identify the signature of the fictitious payee, yet as the information charges conspiracy between the defendants to commit the crime,  the evidence for the prosecution  to show and prove such  conspiracy could not be objected  to and the overruling of the objection is not a reversible error.  Had it not been  for the introduction hj the petitioner of the fictitious woman to his officemate Severino Aznar  who  was  assured by the  petitioner that the fictitious woman was Inés B.  Bentoso and  the  payee of the check, neither Aznar nor Monzon would have signed on the back of the check to identify  the signature of the fictitious woman as payee.  The identification of the  latter and of her signature made possible the cashing of the  check and the misappropriation of the amount by the petitioner and the fictitious woman  other than  the real payee.

The crime committed is the complex crime  of estafa by  means of  falsification  of  an official and commercial document denned  and penalized in articles 315 and 172 of the Revised Penal Code.  The penalty provided for the more  serious crime is  prision correctional in its medium and maximum periods which must be  imposed in its maximum  period pursuant  to  article 48 of  the Revised  Penal Code, as amended, or from 4 years, 9 months and 11 days to 6 years of prision correctional; and  applying the  Indeterminate Sentence Law the petitioner  is sentenced to suffer a minimum  of 4  months and 1 day of arresto mayor and a maximum of 6 years of prison correctional.  Modified as to  penalty only the rest of the judgment appealed from is  affirmed,  with costs  against the petitioner.

Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes,  A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Conception, Reyes, J. B.  L.,  and  Endencia, JJ., concur.