FACTS:

Carlos L. Tanenggee, the branch manager of Metrobank Commercio Branch, was charged with five counts of estafa through falsification of commercial documents. He allegedly prepared and filled up promissory notes and cashiers' checks in the name of Romeo Tan, a client of the bank, forging Tan's signature and misappropriating the loan proceeds for his own use. After an internal audit and administrative investigation, Tanenggee signed a written statement admitting to his involvement. When the cases were consolidated and jointly tried, Tanenggee refused to enter a plea and pleaded not guilty.

In another account of the facts, Tanenggee, the manager of Metrobank Commercio Branch, was charged with six counts of estafa through falsification of commercial documents. It was alleged that he forged promissory notes and presented them to the bank for his own benefit. During an interview with the Internal Affairs Department of Metrobank, Tanenggee admitted to the allegations and the forgery of the promissory notes. Witnesses testified that the signatures on the promissory notes did not match the supposed debtor Romeo Tan's signatures. A handwriting expert from the NBI also testified to the discrepancy. The appellant claimed that Romeo Tan used a different name and opened a fictitious account for security reasons, stating that he facilitated the loans through phone instructions and received the documents from Tan's office.

Carlos Lo Tanenggee was found guilty of five counts of estafa through falsification of commercial documents by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. He appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC decision with modifications. Tanenggee filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the CA. Dissatisfied, he filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, raising issues on the admissibility of his written statement and the establishment of the essential elements of the crime. He argued that his statement was taken in violation of his constitutional rights, while the Office of the Solicitor General contended that the statement is admissible and urged the court to affirm the CA decision.

ISSUES:

1. Whether petitioner's written statement is admissible in evidence.

2. Whether petitioner's written statement was given voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently.

3. Whether forgery was duly established.

4. Whether the trial court's finding of forgery on the signature of Romeo Tan was justified.

5. Whether there was suppression of evidence on the part of the prosecution.

6. Whether the petitioner's denial is sufficient to discredit the allegations against him.

7. Whether the elements of falsification of commercial documents were proven.

8. Whether the crimes of falsification and estafa form a complex crime in this case.

9. Whether the falsification of a commercial document is a necessary means to commit estafa.

RULING:

1. Yes. The constitutional proscription against the admissibility of admission or confession of guilt obtained in violation of Section 12, Article III of the Constitution is applicable only in custodial interrogation. Since the questioning was not initiated by a law enforcement authority and petitioner was not under custodial investigation, he cannot be said to have been deprived of his constitutional rights during the taking of his written statement. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to its admissibility.

2. Yes. Petitioner's claim of duress and intimidation lacks sustainable basis as there is nothing in the records to support it. As the trial court and the Court of Appeals noted, the written statement reflected spontaneity, coherence, and the respondent's conformity to corrections. It contained details that only the perpetrator of the crime could provide, demonstrating its voluntariness. The fact that petitioner did not raise any protest or file charges against the alleged intimidators further negates his assertions of compulsion and intimidation. Moreover, petitioner's failure to read the contents of his statement before signing it does not save him, considering his education and experience as a bank manager.

3. Yes. Forgery was duly established by comparing the alleged false signature with the genuine one. The testimonies of government handwriting experts are not the sole basis for determining forgery, and the trial judge has the discretion to consider all relevant evidence.

4. The finding of forgery on the signature of Romeo Tan was justified as it was based not only on the result of the examination by the NBI Document Examiner but also on the trial court's independent examination of the questioned signatures. The court held that the trial court's findings, affirmed by the CA, should be deemed conclusive and binding.

5. There was no suppression of evidence on the part of the prosecution. The prosecution has the prerogative to choose the evidence or witnesses it wishes to present. Moreover, the presumption that suppressed evidence is unfavorable does not apply when the evidence was at the disposal of both the defense and the prosecution.

6. The petitioner's denial was deemed insufficient as it was unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence. Denials without clear evidence cannot be given greater weight than the testimony of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters.

7. The elements of falsification of commercial documents were proven. These elements are: (1) the offender is a private individual or a public officer or employee who did not take advantage of his official position; (2) the offender committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC); and (3) the falsification was committed in a public, official, or commercial document.

8. Falsification and estafa formed a complex crime in this case as the falsification of the commercial documents was a necessary means to commit the crime of estafa. A complex crime may refer to a single act constituting two or more grave or less grave felonies, or an offense as a necessary means for committing another.

9. The Supreme Court held that the falsification of a commercial document is a necessary means to commit estafa. The falsification of the document has already been consummated before it is actually utilized to defraud another. The actual utilization of the falsified document to defraud another constitutes estafa. Therefore, the falsification of the document is only a necessary means to commit estafa.

PRINCIPLES:

• The constitutional proscription against the admissibility of admission or confession of guilt obtained in violation of Section 12, Article III of the Constitution applies only in custodial interrogation.

• The right to counsel under Section 12 of the Bill of Rights applies only to admissions made in a criminal investigation, not to those made in an administrative investigation.

• A confession or admission is presumed voluntary until the contrary is proved, and the confessant has the burden of proving coercion.

• The details contained in a written statement, which only the perpetrator of the crime could furnish, attest to its voluntariness.

• The failure to raise a protest or file charges against alleged intimidators can negate assertions of compulsion and intimidation.

• The fact that a defendant did not read the contents of a statement before signing does not save him if he had the education and experience to understand the significance of signing an instrument.

• Forgery can be established by comparing the alleged false signature with the genuine one, and the opinions of government handwriting experts are not binding on the courts.

• Trial court findings affirmed by the CA are accorded great weight and deemed conclusive and binding unless there is a reason to deviate from them.

• The prosecution has the prerogative to choose the evidence or witnesses it presents in court.

• The presumption that suppressed evidence is unfavorable does not apply when the evidence was available to both the defense and the prosecution.

• Denials without clear and convincing evidence have no weight in law.

• The elements of falsification of commercial documents are: (1) the offender is a private individual or a public officer or employee who did not take advantage of his official position; (2) the offender committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Article 171 of the RPC; and (3) the falsification was committed in a public, official, or commercial document.

• Falsification of a public, official, or commercial document as a necessary means to commit another crime, like estafa, forms a complex crime.

• The falsification of a public, official, or commercial document may be a means of committing estafa, as the falsification is a necessary means to commit estafa. (Domingo v. People)

• Estafa is committed when the accused defrauds another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit and the offended party or a third party suffers damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation. Deceit is the false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or conduct, which deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. (Domingo v. People)