Constantino v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The case originated from an Information filed on May 27, 2008, charging Atty. Bernardo T. Constantino and Teresita C. Saliganan with falsification of a public document under Article 171(2) of the Revised Penal Code. The charge stemmed from the alleged falsification of a Last Will and Testament of Severino Cabrales, notarized by Atty. Constantino on September 9, 2001. The prosecution alleged that Atty. Constantino, as a notary public, made it appear that Severino Cabrales and the attesting witnesses, Dr. Eliezer Asuncion, Dr. Justino Balintona, and Mary Balintona, acknowledged the will before him, when in fact they did not all appear for the acknowledgment. Procedural History: Atty. Constantino was arrested and posted bail after a motion for recognizance was denied. He pleaded not guilty and trial ensued. The prosecution presented evidence that Severino Cabrales suffered a stroke in 1998 and died in 2003. A petition for probate of his will was filed in 2005, which led Fernando Cabrales, Severino's son, to question the authenticity of the signature on the will. Dr. Asuncion, one of the named witnesses, testified that he signed the document after it was notarized, at the behest of Saliganan's son-in-law. Atty. Constantino, in his defense, claimed Severino was of sound mind and that he assisted Severino in signing due to his trembling hands, and that Dr. Asuncion's name was left on the document as per Severino's instruction. The Regional Trial Court found Atty. Constantino guilty of falsification, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Atty. Constantino then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Petition: Atty. Constantino filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals. He argued that his physical condition made it difficult to remove Dr. Asuncion's name from the document, and that he relied on his secretary to file documents, leading to his failure to check the will upon its return. He also claimed his failure to surrender was due to ill health and family matters. The Office of the Solicitor General argued that the petition raised questions of fact improper for a Rule 45 petition. The Supreme Court, however, agreed to review the case, framing the issue as whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Atty. Constantino committed falsification by causing it to appear that Dr. Asuncion participated in the act when he did not.
Issue(s)
Whether the Petition presents questions of fact not cognizable in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Whether Atty. Bernardo T. Constantino is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of falsifying a public document under Article 171(2) of the Revised Penal Code.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the Petition, reversed and set aside the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court, and acquitted Atty. Bernardo T. Constantino of the crime of falsification of a public document. The bail bond posted for his provisional liberty was ordered canceled. A copy of the Decision was to be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant for appropriate administrative action.
Ratio Decidendi
On the procedural issue of questions of fact: The Court acknowledged that appeals in criminal cases generally throw the whole case open for review, and it can correct errors even if not assigned. While Rule 45 generally limits review to questions of law, the Court may still review factual findings if not convinced they conform to the evidence, especially when significant facts might have been overlooked. However, in this case, the Court found that the core factual sequence was not disputed: Severino executed a will, it was notarized by petitioner, the acknowledgment indicated Dr. Asuncion was present, but he did not sign in petitioner's presence. The dispute was legal: whether petitioner's actions constituted falsification. On the substantive issue of guilt for falsification of a public document: The Court reiterated the elements of falsification under Article 171(2) of the Revised Penal Code: (1) the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary; (2) taking advantage of his official position; (3) falsifying a document by causing it to appear that persons participated in an act or proceeding; and (4) such person or persons did not in fact so participate. The Court found that while the first two elements were established, the prosecution failed to prove the last two. Crucially, the Court highlighted that Dr. Asuncion signed the Joint Acknowledgment after the document was notarized. At the time of notarization, only three witnesses had signed. The Court reasoned that since Dr. Asuncion did not sign before notarization, he could not be considered as having attested and subscribed to the will's due execution at that time. Therefore, petitioner did not make it appear that Dr. Asuncion participated when he did not; rather, it was Ferrer and Dr. Asuncion himself who caused the later signing. The Court concluded that petitioner must be acquitted of the criminal charge, though his actions might warrant administrative sanctions.
Main Doctrine
A notary public is not criminally liable for falsification of a public document under Article 171(2) of the Revised Penal Code when a witness signs a last will and testament after it has been notarized, provided the notary did not simulate the signatures or cause it to appear that persons participated in an act or proceeding when they did not. The notary's failure to delete the witness's name, while potentially grounds for administrative sanctions, does not constitute criminal falsification if the witness genuinely signed the document later and the notary did not actively falsify the participation.