Alarcon v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Romeo Alarcon, a representative of Magpayo & Basa Brokerage, was found guilty of estafa through falsification of an official or public document. The charge stemmed from the release of four cases of camphor chests from the Manila Port Service on February 2, 1959. Alarcon paid the arrastre fee on January 30, 1959. On February 2, 1959, using a delivery permit (Exhibit C) with a falsified certification by a fictitious customs examiner (Exhibit C-1), and without customs duties and taxes being paid, Alarcon obtained the release of the cargo. His companion presented a falsified written authority from the supposed consignee, Rufino Achacoso, to withdraw the goods. Alarcon then gave the gate pass (Exhibit E) to the gatekeeper, who allowed the truck carrying the cargo to pass. Alarcon accompanied the truck to 101 Mayon Street, Quezon City, where the chests were recovered from Mrs. Soledad Montalbo. Mrs. Montalbo stated that Alarcon undertook to secure the release of the cargo for P200.00, including customs duties and taxes. Rufino Achacoso denied importing the articles, executing the application for permit, or owning the residence certificate used, stating it contained false data and was different from his own. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Manila found petitioner guilty and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. The Petition: The case was brought before the Supreme Court for review.
Issue(s)
Whether Romeo Alarcon is guilty of estafa thru falsification of an official or public document.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, which upheld the decision of the trial court, finding petitioner Romeo Alarcon guilty of estafa through falsification of an official or public document. Costs were assessed against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court found petitioner Romeo Alarcon guilty of estafa thru falsification of an official or public document. The Court held that Alarcon's claim of innocence and good faith was inherently incredible and negated by the circumstances and prosecution evidence. First, Rufino Achacoso, the purported consignee, denied importing the goods, executing the permit application, or owning the residence certificate used, which differed from his actual records. Second, Alarcon's averment that the delivery permit was already falsified when he received it was not given credence by both the trial court and the Court of Appeals. Third, to procure the release of the goods, Alarcon utilized not only the falsified delivery permit but also a companion who presented another falsified document—a written authority from the consignee—to withdraw the goods. Fourth, despite being a customs broker's representative, Alarcon acted alone, displaying extraordinary interest by personally overseeing the entire process from securing the release, hiring the truck, accompanying the shipment, to paying the driver. Considering these patent irregularities and Alarcon's active participation, the Court applied the well-buttressed rule that, "in the absence of satisfactory explanation, one found in possession of and who used a forged document, is the forger or one who caused the forgery, and, therefore guilty of falsification."
Main Doctrine
A person found in possession of and who used a forged document, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, is presumed to be the forger or the one who caused the forgery, and is therefore guilty of falsification.