FACTS:

Petitioner Maximino B. Gamido was accused in 11 cases of forging the signature of the President of the Philippines in various documents. These documents included appointments, memorandums, letters, executive orders, and certifications. The prosecution was made under Article 161 of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes counterfeiting the great seal of the Government of the Philippine Islands or forging the signature or stamp of the Chief Executive.

A memorandum circular was issued by Executive Assistant Juan C. Tuvera informing all heads of ministries, agencies, government corporations, and instrumentalities of the non-existence of the Presidential Regional Assistant Monitoring Services (PRAMS) within the Office of the President. The memo stated that PRAMS is a non-existent agency and that Maximino B. Gamido, the alleged Executive Director of PRAMS, is not connected with the Office of the President. It further clarified that Mr. Gamido had not been given authorization to sign for and on behalf of the President of the Philippines. The memo was issued to counter fraudulent activities using Presidential directives and to inform that the Presidential Regional Monitoring Officer (PREMO) System is the authorized regional monitoring arm of the Office of the President.

During the trial, the lone witness for the prosecution, Melquiades T. de la Cruz, Presidential Staff Director of the Malacañang Records Office, testified that there were no copies of the documents on file in his office and that the signatures thereon did not appear to be those of the former President. Petitioner claimed that he was the Executive Director of PRAMS and that his appointment and the related documents had been signed by the former President in his presence.

The Regional Trial Court of Manila found petitioner guilty, stating that his defense was preposterous and unbelievable. The court considered the established facts that the documents did not exist in the Malacañang Records Office and thus were spurious. The court also found petitioner's testimony to be untrustworthy and unreliable.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of forging the signature of the Chief Executive.

2. Whether or not the defense presented by the petitioner is believable.

RULING:

1. The Court affirmed the petitioner's conviction on eleven counts of forging the signature of the Chief Executive. The Court held that the defense put up by the petitioner, claiming that the documents were actually signed by President Ferdinand E. Marcos in his presence, was preposterous and unbelievable. The Court found that the petitioner did not present any credible evidence to support his defense and that the established facts, such as the non-existence of the documents in the Malacañang Records Office, proved that the documents were spurious. Therefore, the Court upheld the findings of the trial court that the petitioner forged the signature of the Chief Executive.

PRINCIPLES:

• The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be imposed upon any person who shall forge the Great Seal of the Government of the Philippine Islands or the signature or stamp of the Chief Executive.

• The defense of the accused must be supported by credible evidence and should not be preposterous or unbelievable.

• The Court gives weight to established facts and records in determining the credibility of the evidence presented.