View full case

ROBERTO FERNANDEZ v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

The case involves a petition for review on certiorari filed by Roberto Fernandez (FERNANDEZ) to set aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals. FERNANDEZ, together with Efren O. Olesco and Nicanor R. Gatchalian, Jr., were charged with the crime of estafa through falsification of public document. The information alleges that the accused defrauded Sta. Ines Melale Forest Products, Inc. by falsely representing that they could secure a counterbond to lift a writ of attachment. The accused induced the complainant to give them P50,000 in exchange for a counterfeit counterbond issued by First Integrated Bonding & Insurance Co., Inc. During the trial, the prosecution presented several witnesses and documentary evidence. FERNANDEZ filed a Demurrer to Evidence, which was denied, and he, along with Olesco, chose not to present evidence for their defense. The facts established by the evidence show that in December 1987, MELALE sought to secure the lifting of a writ of preliminary attachment issued against them, and FERNANDEZ and Olesco were involved in the fraudulent scheme.

In this case, the petitioner Efren Olesco (Olesco) and Roberto Fernandez (Fernandez) were convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of estafa through falsification of a public document. The case stemmed from an incident wherein Santa Ines Melale Forest Product Corporation (MELALE) filed a motion to quash a writ of preliminary attachment issued against it. MELALE requested Jose Beltran (Beltran), their counsel, to secure a counter attachment bond. Beltran then sought the assistance of Olesco, whom he knew as a Branch Manager of Interworld Assurance Corporation, a bonding company. Olesco asked for the help of Fernandez and Nicanor Gatchalian Jr., resulting in a counterbond being issued by the First Integrated Bonding and Insurance Company. Beltran paid the premium amount of P50,000. However, it was later discovered that the counterbond was spurious or fake. Olesco and Fernandez were then charged with estafa through falsification of a public document. The RTC found them guilty and sentenced them to imprisonment and ordered them to pay indemnity to MELALE. Only Fernandez appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the RTC's judgment. Olesco filed a petition for review, arguing that there was no direct evidence linking him to the offense and that the Court of Appeals relied on hearsay and imputations of guilt made by Beltran.

The case involves the petitioner, Fernandez, who is charged with the crime of estafa through falsification of public document in conspiracy with Olesco. The prosecution alleges that Fernandez, together with Olesco and another accused, defrauded the complainant by falsely pretending to possess a fake bond and took advantage of it for their own benefit. The trial court convicted Fernandez based on the presumption that if a person possesses a falsified document, uses it, takes advantage of it, and profits thereby, he is presumed to be the material author and forger of the falsification. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, stating that Fernandez's participation was proven by the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. However, the Supreme Court disagrees, stating that the evidence is not sufficient to support Fernandez's conviction. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses linking Fernandez to the crime are all hearsay and not based on their own personal knowledge.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the offense of estafa through falsification of a public document was in fact established.

  2. Whether or not conspiracy attended the commission of the alleged offense.

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court ruled that the offense of estafa through falsification of a public document was not established because the evidence was not sufficient to form a basis for petitioner's conviction. The testimonies presented were hearsay and did not link FERNANDEZ directly to the commission of the crime.

  2. The Supreme Court determined that there was no evidence to prove that a conspiracy existed between FERNANDEZ and OLESCO. The prosecution failed to provide proof beyond reasonable doubt of any act that could be construed as an overt act in furtherance of a conspiracy.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Estafa through falsification of a public document: To convict for this crime, the following requisites must concur:

    • False pretenses or fraudulent representations

    • Such representations were made prior to or simultaneous with the commission of the fraud

    • Such representations induced the offended party to part with his money or property

    • The offended party suffered damage as a result

  2. Requirements for hearsay evidence: Testimony based on what someone else has said rather than on the direct knowledge of the witness is generally inadmissible.

  3. Res inter alios acta rule: Rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act, declaration, or omission of another.

  4. Proof of conspiracy: The same degree of proof necessary to establish the crime is required to establish a finding of conspiracy, i.e., proof beyond reasonable doubt.

  5. Presumption of innocence: The presumption of innocence until proven guilty can only be overturned by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Where reasonable doubt exists, the accused must be acquitted.