People v. Rosario
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the alleged illegal possession of Philippine treasury notes that had been altered. Sergio del Rosario, along with Alfonso Araneta and Benedicto del Pilar, were accused of counterfeiting these notes. They allegedly defrauded Apolinario del Rosario of P1,700.00 by convincing him that certain genuine treasury notes, which they possessed, were counterfeit and that they needed financing to manufacture more. 2. Procedural History: The accused, including Sergio del Rosario, were initially convicted by the Court of First Instance of Davao for illegal possession of forged treasury notes and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but increased the maximum indeterminate penalty. Sergio del Rosario then appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: Sergio del Rosario filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. The sole issue raised by the appellant is whether the possession of genuine treasury notes, from which certain figures, letters, words, or signs had been erased or altered, constitutes a violation of Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code. The appellant argues that possession of genuine notes cannot be illegal.
Issue(s)
Whether the possession of genuine treasury notes, with altered figures, constitutes a violation of Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code. Whether the acts of the accused fall under the purview of Article 168 in relation to Article 166, subdivision (1), of the Revised Penal Code.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that the possession of genuine treasury notes with altered figures constitutes illegal possession of falsified instruments under Article 168 in relation to Article 166, subdivision (1), of the Revised Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the possession of genuine treasury notes with altered figures constitutes a violation of Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code: The Court held that the possession of genuine treasury notes of the Philippines, where any of the figures, letters, words, or signs contained therein have been erased and/or altered, with knowledge of such alteration, is punishable under Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court clarified that the act of altering figures on genuine treasury notes falls under the definition of forgery as provided in Article 169, specifically subdivision (2), which states that forgery may be committed by erasing, substituting, counterfeiting, or altering by any means the figures, letters, words, or signs contained therein. Therefore, the possession of such altered notes, with the intent to use them as contemplated by Article 168, is indeed illegal. The Court cited previous rulings in U.S. vs. Gardner and U.S. vs. Solito to support its conclusion. The petitioner's contention that possession of genuine notes cannot be illegal was found to be without merit in light of the alterations made. On the issue of whether the acts of the accused fall under the purview of Article 168 in relation to Article 166, subdivision (1), of the Revised Penal Code: The Court found that the acts of the accused squarely fit the provisions of the Revised Penal Code. Article 168 penalizes the knowing use or possession, with intent to use, of false or falsified instruments. Article 169 defines how forgery is committed, including the alteration of figures, letters, words, or signs in treasury or bank notes. The facts established that the accused possessed genuine treasury notes, but had altered specific digits within their serial numbers. This alteration, coupled with their act of showing these altered notes to the complainant and obtaining money from him under the pretense that they were counterfeit, demonstrated both the possession of falsified instruments and the intent to use them. The Court explicitly stated that the possession of genuine treasury notes with altered figures, as in this case, is punishable under Article 168 in relation to Article 166, subdivision (1), of the Revised Penal Code, which deals with forgery of treasury or bank notes.
Main Doctrine
The possession of genuine treasury notes of the Philippines, any of the figures, letters, words or signs contained therein having been erased and/or altered, with knowledge of such alteration, constitutes illegal possession of falsified instruments under Article 168 in relation to Article 166, subdivision (1), of the Revised Penal Code.