21. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS VS MELECIO A. REYES

Facts: Melecio Reyes was charged with the crime of estafa through falsification of a private document. The accused was employed as timekeeper of the Calamba Sugar Estate. The accused in this case was in charge of entering the laborer’s workdays in the time book of the said corporation. He falsified the time book by making it appear that the laborer Ciriaco Sario worked twenty-one days during the month of July 1929 when in reality he had only worked eleven days, therefore committing a falsehood in the narration of facts in said time book. And by means of falsification, the accused appropriated the sum of ten pesos to his own use and personal benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the Calamba Sugar Estate in that amount which is equivalent to fifty pesetas.

The accused appealed from the judgment and his assignments of error refer to the weight of the evidence with the execution of the fifth which relates to the penalty of four years, two months and one day of presidio correctional and the fine of 250 pesetas.

Issue: Whether the contention of the accused is correct?

Ruling: Considering the offense at bar as falsification of a private document, article 90 of the Code in connection with No. 1, Article 548 is not applicable because the falsity and the fraud or intent to prejudice another are elements of the crime defined in Article 318 so indispensable and precisely conjoined that they cannot be segregated considering the falsification as a means to commit the estafa and thereby raising the penalty to the maximum degree. The weight of authority favors the doctrine that estafa with falsification of private document are not two distinct crimes committed.

The defendant’s falsification of the time book with the intent of gain at the expense of the Calamba Sugar Estate constitutes the crime of falsification of a private document with prejudice to a third person defined and penalized in Article 304 of the Penal Code. The defendant sentenced to one year, eight months and twenty-one days of presidio correccional, a fine in the amount of 2,501 pesetas and to indemnify the Calamba Sugar Estate in the amount of P10.

22. UNITED STATES VS MANUEL B. ASENSI

Facts: Manuel Asensi was charged with the crime of estafa, committed with the falsification of a document. Asensi is a trusted employee of the Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas, a foreign corporation domiciled in the city of Manila and duly authorized to engage in business in the Philippine Islands. Asensi’s duty in the said corporation is to find out, at the end of every quarter, the total amount of the sales of the goods and merchandise made during such period, in order to declare and certify with his signature said amount before the Collector of Internal Revenue making said declaration and certification on the coupons attached with patents of which they form an integral part, issued annually by the Collector of Internal Revenue in favor of the said corporation. He is also bound to pay with the funds of the corporation supplied him for said purpose, the Internal Revenue taxes which it had to pay on the amount of the sale.

It was alleged that the accused went to the Office of the Collector of Internal Revenue for the tax that corresponds to the year 1914. The said accused failed to declare the truth in the statement of the facts that the amount of the sales was P137, 662.78 and that the Internal Revenue tax which corporation should pay on the said amount at the rate of 1/3 of one percent was only P458.88. The accused through the false statement made by him induced the Internal Revenue officers to believe the said declaration and certification and the said officers acting under such belief, accepted out of the sum of P858.88. The accused only deliver to them the sum of P458.88 as the tax due on the sales declared. Meaning, there is a difference of P400 between the original amount (P858.88) and stated in the check (P458.88). The accused appropriated the said amount for himself, thus causing damage and injuries to the corporation.

However, the accused denied all accusations against him and he should not be guilty of the crime of estafa and also he contended that the document being falsified is not a public document.

Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of estafa with the falsification of public document

Ruling: The record shows that the defendant obtained possession of the said P400 by means of fraud and false representations. When money or property is received by means of fraud or false representations, a demand or the return of the same is not necessary in order to constitute the crime of estafa. “Any person who, to the prejudice of another, shall convert or misappropriate money, goods or other personal property, received by such person for safe keeping, or on commission, or administration, or under any other circumstances, giving rise to the obligation to make delivery of or return the same, etc. shall be guilty of the crime of estafa”

On the issue of questioning the status of document being falsified, public documents are any instrument authorized by a notary public or a competent public official with the solemnities required by law.

Therefore, the defendant is guilty of estafa with falsification of public document

23. UNITED STATES VS PIO CASTILLO

Facts: Appellant Pio Castillo presented a check for the sum of 56 pesos to Chinese merchant named Lim Ponso. The said check was made payable to bearer and purported to be drawn by one James Watkins. The amount of check was paid to Castillo and the signature of the drawer was a forgery made in imitation of the genuine signature of Watkins and the latter never signed or issued the said check. It was alleged that the blank upon which the check was written was stolen from a book of blank checks and this blank check was kept in the drawer in the office of Watkins. Castillo was one of the three employed by Watkin’s in the office and the former was the last person let alone in the said office.

Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of falsification of mercantile instrument or document

Ruling: Yes, the mere fact that the accused uttered the check in question is proof of the fact that he also forged it or caused it to be forged. The utterance of such an instrument when unexplained is strong evidence tending to establish the fact that the utterer either himself forged the instrument or cause it to be forged and that this evidence, taken together with the further evidence set out above and brought

out on the trial of the case, establishes the guilt of the accused of the crime with which he was charged beyond a reasonable doubt.

24. HOCK LIAN VS REPUBLIC

Facts: This is an appeal by the Solicitor-General from the decision of the Court of Instance of Negros Oriental which granted the petition for naturalization of Ong Hock Lian alias Julian Ong. The appellee is a Chinese and used to reside in Zamboanga City. He married Tan Ko Kiem also known as Alice Tan, a Chinese national by whom he has three children. Two of their children are school age and were enrolled at the St. Paul’s College. Appellee himself finished his first year high school education at Zamboanga. He has store in Dumaguete City where he sells rice, corn and general merchandise. To prove that he has none of the disqualifications enumerated in the Naturalization Law, he presented tax and police clearances. Appellant contends that the lower court erred in not holding that appellee uses an alias without court authority and in violation of the Anti-Alias Law. Another is in not holding that appellee had failed to report his true income and has no lucrative occupation.

Issue: Whether or not the contentions of appellant are correct

Ruling: On question of using alias, under the law, except as a pseudonym for literary purposes, it says that no person shall use any name different from the one with which he was christened or by which he has been known since childhood or such substitute name as may have been authorized by competent court. Since there is no evidence that the appellee has been baptized, he is clearly committed a violation of the Anti-Alias Law.

On question of income, the appellee testified that his average annual net profit from his business was P4,200 which less than that declared in his income tax returns. Aside from his net profits, he also testified that he was drawing from his store a salary of P300 which amount he entered as a deduction from his gross earnings from his business in his income tax returns. If this were true then appellee should have reported this amount as salary in the same returns. But he didn’t do, therefore, he didn’t comply with the legal requirement of lucrative occupation.