View full case

LEONILA BATULANON v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

Leonila Batulanon was employed as the Cashier/Manager of the Polomolok Credit Cooperative Incorporated (PCCI) from May 1980 to December 22, 1982. She was responsible for managing the cooperative's affairs, including receiving deposits and releasing loans to its members. In December 1982, irregularities related to the release of loans were discovered during an audit. Batulanon was subsequently charged with four counts of estafa through falsification of commercial documents.

The first case, Criminal Case No. 3625, alleges that Batulanon falsified Cash/Check Voucher No. 30-A by making it appear that Erlinda Omadlao was granted a loan of P4,160 and received the amount when, in fact, she was not granted a loan and did not receive the money. The second case, Criminal Case No. 3626, accuses Batulanon of falsifying Cash/Check Voucher No. 237 A by making it seem that Gonafreda Oracion was granted a loan of P4,000 and received the amount when she did not. The third case, Criminal Case No. 3453, alleges that Batulanon falsified an Individual Deposits and Loan Ledger of Ferlyn Arroyo by indicating that she had a fixed deposit of P1,000 and was granted a loan of P3,500 when she did not make the deposit and was not granted the loan. These acts were done with the intent to defraud PCCI.

During the trial, witnesses testified that Batulanon released cash vouchers to individuals who were not eligible for loans according to the cooperative's by-laws. Maria Theresa Medallo, the posting clerk, stated that she saw Batulanon sign the names of Oracion and Arroyo on the cash vouchers, falsely making it appear that they were payees and recipients of the stated amounts. Benedicto Gopio, Jr., a board member of PCCI, testified that the loans made to Oracion, Omadlao, Arroyo, and Dennis Batulanon did not go through the cooperative's screening process. He also claimed that Oracion's signature on one of the cash vouchers was actually Batulanon's handwriting, and that only the loan in Arroyo's name was settled.

In defense, Batulanon denied all the charges against her. She asserted that she did not sign the vouchers in the names of Omadlao, Oracion, and Arroyo, but rather, those were signed by the loan applicants themselves.

Batulanon was convicted of falsification of private documents and sentenced to imprisonment, payment of fines, and indemnification of PCCI. She filed a petition arguing that the prosecution should have presented the individuals whose signatures were allegedly forged as witnesses and that prejudice to a third person is an element of the crime of falsification. The court held that Batulanon could be convicted of falsification of private documents based on the allegations in the information and not the technical name given in the preamble.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the prosecution should have presented the persons whose signatures were allegedly forged as witnesses

  2. Whether the subject vouchers are private documents or commercial documents.

  3. Whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

  4. Whether the proper crime to be charged is estafa or falsification of a private document.

  5. Whether petitioner Batulanon is guilty of falsification of a private document in Criminal Case No. 3627.

  6. Whether the misappropriation of funds by the appellant caused injury to the complainant.

  7. Whether the misappropriation of funds by the appellant constitutes estafa.

RULING:

  1. The prosecution is not duty-bound to present the persons whose signatures were forged. The eyewitness testimony of the witness who saw the accused forge the signatures was sufficient to establish the act of falsification.

  2. The subject vouchers are private documents and not commercial documents. They are not used by merchants or businessmen to promote or facilitate trade or credit transactions and are not defined and regulated by the Code of Commerce or other commercial law.

  3. The prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

  4. The proper crime to be charged is falsification of a private document for Criminal Case Nos. 3625, 3626, and 3453. However, for Criminal Case No. 3627, the crime committed is estafa and not falsification of a private document.

  5. Petitioner Batulanon is not guilty of falsification of a private document in Criminal Case No. 3627. The act of petitioner Batulanon, signing the cash voucher "by: lbatulanon" to indicate that she received the proceeds of the loan in behalf of her son Dennis, does not fall under any of the modes of falsification under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code. Falsification requires the act of making untruthful or false statements, which is not present in this case. However, petitioner Batulanon may be liable for estafa if her representation involves fraud which caused damage to the offended party, but not for falsification.

  6. The court held that the misappropriation of funds by the appellant caused injury to the complainant. The disturbance in property rights caused by the misappropriation, even if only temporary, is sufficient to constitute injury under the law. The amount misappropriated could have been loaned to qualified members or used in other productive undertakings. Therefore, the appellant is liable for the damages caused.

  7. The court found the appellant guilty of estafa. The amount misappropriated by the appellant is within the range prescribed under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. Considering that no modifying circumstances are present, the appellant is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of three months of arresto mayor as minimum to one year and eight months of prision correccional as maximum.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The allegations in the information determine the nature of the offense charged, not the technical name given in the preamble of the information.

  • The elements of falsification of private document are: (1) commission of any act of falsification, (2) falsification committed in a private document, and (3) falsification caused damage to a third party or was committed with intent to cause such damage.

  • Witness testimony may be used to prove handwriting if the witness believes it to be the handwriting of the person because they have seen the person write or have seen writing purporting to be theirs upon which the witness has acted or been charged.

  • An offer of compromise in criminal cases may be received as an implied admission of guilt.

  • In criminal prosecutions, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

  • There is no complex crime of estafa through falsification of a private document. The proper crime to be charged depends on whether the falsification of a private document is committed as a means to commit estafa or if estafa can be committed without the necessity of falsifying a document.

  • Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code punishes the crime of falsification of a private document.

  • The penalty for falsification of a private document is prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, with a duration of two (2) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day to six (6) years.

  • The Indeterminate Sentence Law applies to determine the penalty to be imposed, with the minimum within the range of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period.

  • The accused shall suffer the penalties for each count of the offense charged.

  • Falsification requires the act of making untruthful or false statements.

  • The elements of estafa through conversion or misappropriation are: (1) receipt of money or property in trust, commission, or obligation involving the duty to return or deliver the same; (2) misappropriation or conversion of the money or property; (3) prejudice caused to another; and (4) demand made by the offended party (except when there is evidence of misappropriation).

  • The temporary disturbance in property rights caused by misappropriation of funds is sufficient to constitute injury within the meaning of the law.

  • The misappropriation of funds, even if the amount is reflective as receivables in the records, still causes damage because the money could have been used in productive undertakings.

  • The applicable penalty for estafa is based on the amount defrauded, with the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.