People v. Bomping
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused, Tan Bomping and others, were charged with falsification of public documents. The information alleged that on or about November 21 and 22, 1923, in Jimenez, Misamis, the accused confederated to prepare eight fictitious and simulated documents, acknowledged before a notary public, wherein Tan Bomping conveyed eight parcels of land to his co-accused. These documents were made to appear to have been executed on earlier dates between 1919 and August 1923, but were in fact executed and signed by all five defendants on November 21, 1923, and acknowledged before a notary public on November 22, 1923. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance found all defendants guilty of falsification of private documents. Tan Bomping was sentenced to one year, eight months, and twenty-one days of presidio correccional and a fine. The other defendants were sentenced to six months of arresto mayor with the same fine. All defendants appealed. The Petition: The accused appealed their conviction, raising several legal questions.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty of falsification of private documents instead of public documents. Whether certified copies of the falsified documents were admissible as evidence. Whether the trial court erred in ordering the amendment of the information.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Tan Bomping guilty of falsification of public documents and sentenced him to four years, nine months, and eleven days of prision correccional, with a fine and subsidiary imprisonment. The other co-accused were acquitted. The conviction for falsification of private documents by the trial court was reversed, and the crime was classified as falsification of public documents.
Ratio Decidendi
On the classification of the crime: The Court held that a deed acknowledged before a notary public is a public document. The act of intentionally antedating these documents, even if the false dates were written prior to their acknowledgment before the notary, constitutes falsification of a public document. Tan Bomping was not only instrumental in falsifying the documents but also in causing them to be made public documents by presenting them to the notary. Therefore, the trial court erred in classifying the offense as falsification of private documents. On the admissibility of certified copies: The Court ruled that certified copies of the falsified documents were admissible as secondary evidence. The originals were in the possession of the defendants, and they refused to produce them in court despite demand. Under sections 321 and 322 of the Code of Civil Procedure, secondary evidence is admissible when primary evidence is unobtainable, a rule applicable to both civil and criminal cases. The case cited by the appellants, United States vs. Gregorio and Balistoy, was distinguished as the facts did not indicate a reasonable effort was made to procure the original documents in that instance. On the amendment of the information: The Court affirmed the trial court's authority to direct amendments to an information or complaint. Citing United States vs. Muyot, the Court stated that there is no substantial difference between an amended information and a new one, and the styling of the information is immaterial. The contention that the court could order a new information but not an amendment was rejected.
Main Doctrine
A deed acknowledged before a notary public is a public document. The act of intentionally antedating such a document, even if the false dates were written before presentation to the notary, constitutes falsification of a public document. Certified copies of falsified documents are admissible as secondary evidence when the originals are in the possession of the accused and their production is refused.