Garcia v CA

Garcia v CA

GR No. 128213, 13 Dec. 2005

Azcuna,. J:

FACTS:

                Sometime in Oct. 1990, Garcia and Quijada agreed for the sale of the latter’s house and lot (46 P. Gomez St., Mandaluyong City) in the amount of P1.2M.  On 23 Oct. 1990, an earnest money of P10,000 was given by Garcia, and on 31 Oct. 1990, P155,000 as down payment was delivered.

                On January 1991, Avella Garcia made alterations to the receipt issued by Alberto Quijada, Jr. for the P5,000 down payment of the sale of house and lot on 21 Jan 1991 making it appear that it was issued on 24 Jan 1991 in the amount of P55,000.

                Garcia filed a complaint for estafa against Alberto for his failure to execute a deed of sale and deliver the subject property. Among the evidence she submitted was the copy of the receipt she prepared on January 21, 1991.

                In her defense, she admitted the alterations made but claims that it was done in the presence and at the request of Quijada.  According to her, 3 days after paying the P5,000 on 21 Jan. 1991, she called Architect Celso Cunanan and borrowed P50,000.  Upon delivery and since Quijada did not have with him his copy of the 21 Jan 1991 receipt, Quijada told Garcia to just add in her copy the amount of P50,000 to make it P55,000.  Moreover, Quijada was not able to affix his signature thereon for he was in a hurry to leave.

                She further alleges that this case was a retaliation for the estafa case she filed against Quijada for she found out that the deed of sale was fake and that the nephew of Quijada executed an affidavit stating that the signatures of the Spouses Caceres (the owner of the house and lot prior to Quijada) was forged.  Also, the notarization of the deed of sale was also fake according to a certification issued by the office of the Clerk of Court for the Regional Trial Court of Manila.

Trial Court:

                Garcia’s claim was bereft of merit.

                It would not have taken more than 5 seconds to affix his signature thereon even if he was in a hurry to leave.

                Garcia is to suffer 2 years and 4 months of arresto mayor as minimum, to 6 years of prision correccional as maximum, and pay P5,000, plus costs.

Court of Appeals:

                Lowered the penalty but affirmed the conviction: 4 months and 1 day of arresto mayor as minimum, to 3 years, 6 months, and 21 days of prision correccional as maximum, plus P3,000 fine and costs.

ISSUE:

                W/N Garcia is guilty of falsification of public documents under Art. 171, par. 6.

HELD:

                Yes.

                Elements of Art. 171, par. 6. [AID - CFI]

1. There be an alteration (change) or intercalation (insertion) on a document;
2. It was made on a genuine document;
3. The alteration or intercalation has changed the meaning of the document;
4. The changes made the document speak something false;
5. There is an independent evidence of damage or intention to cause the same to a third person.

(NOTE: Absence of the 5^th element would make the crime fall under Art. 171, par. 2.)

                 The presence of the first 4 elements is seen in the admissions of Avella that she altered the receipt, and without convincing evidence that the alteration was with the consent of private complainant.  As to the fifth, this is readily apparent as it was made to appear that Alberto had received P50,000 when in fact he did not.