View full case

FELICIANO MALIWAT v. CA

FACTS:

The case involves a petition for review on certiorari of the decision affirming the conviction of Feliciano Maliwat for falsification of public documents. Maliwat filed a motion for mistrial, claiming violation of his constitutional right to due process by Judge Rolando Diaz. Maliwat had previously testified against Maliwat while serving as the Clerk of Court of the Court of First Instance in Cavite City. The Court required Judge Diaz to comment and issued a temporary restraining order against him. The Court lifted the entry of final judgment and reinstated the petition after deliberations.

The antecedent facts include Maliwat's visit to the office of Atty. Milagros Santiago, the acting Register of Deeds, to inquire about the original copies of TCT Nos. T-11850 and T-11854. Atty. Santiago noticed that the annotations on the titles appeared to be forged and referred Maliwat to the Clerk of Court. Maliwat allegedly did not return. Atty. Santiago reported the alleged fake titles to the NBI Director and later received a letter from Atty. Jorge Gutierrez, who acted in her stead, informing her that he approved the administrative reconstitution of title requested by Maliwat. Concerned, Atty. Santiago reported the reconstitution to the NBI and requested an investigation. NBI Agent Tobias Lozada conducted an investigation, revealing that Atty. Gutierrez reconstituted the titles without knowledge of their spurious nature. It was also discovered that Maliwat had a previous conviction for estafa thru falsification of public documents and was believed to be part of a criminal syndicate in Cavite. Atty. Gutierrez testified that the titles were neither originally issued to Maliwat nor genuine. Retired Register of Deeds Atty. Escolastico Cuevas testified denying his alleged signatures on the titles and recalled encountering them in a previous criminal case.

In court, Benito Maceda testified that the signatures attributed to him on two titles were forgeries. The defendant, Patricio Maliwat, denied authorship of the forged titles and claimed to have bought the parcels of land from Benigno T. Aseo with a Deed of Absolute Sale. Maliwat registered the sale and surrendered Aseo's titles for cancellation, receiving new titles. Maliwat asserted that he witnessed Escolastico Cuevas sign his name on the titles. From 1963 to 1975, Maliwat possessed the lands and paid real estate taxes, except during a period when he went to Canada. He denied knowledge of adverse titles and only learned about Green Valley Corporation's titles during the trial. In 1975, when potential buyers showed interest, he verified his titles at the Register of Deeds.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether petitioner's constitutional right to due process was impaired when Judge Diaz, who previously testified against the petitioner, rendered the judgment of conviction.

  2. Whether the petitioner's guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING:

  1. Impairment of Due Process The Supreme Court ruled that there was no denial of due process. Despite the petitioner's various postponements and absences, the trial proceeded with ample opportunity granted to the petitioner to present his case. Judge Diaz's testimony was limited to factual matters related to his duties as Clerk of Court and did not indicate bias or prejudgment against the petitioner.

  2. Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, stating that the petitioner's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The falsification of public documents by the petitioner was substantiated by credible evidence, including discrepancies in the serial numbers of the titles and the presentation of forged documents.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Impartiality of Judges A judge must render a just, correct, and impartial decision free from any suspicion of bias or prejudgment.

  • Legal Qualifications Under Rule 137, Sec. 1 of the Rules of Court Previous actions as a Clerk of Court do not legally disqualify a judge unless they exhibit bias or lack of impartiality.

  • Presumption of Falsification In the absence of satisfactorily explanation, one found in possession of and using a forged document is presumed to be the forger and therefore guilty of falsification.

  • Due Process Violation Claims Courts extensively assess records and trial conduct to ensure fair trial standards are upheld.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED and the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED in toto. Costs against petitioner.