FACTS:

Atty. Bernardo T. Constantino and Teresita C. Saliganan were charged with falsification of a public document. It was alleged that Atty. Constantino, as a notary public, conspired with Saliganan and falsified a last will and testament executed by Severino C. Cabrales. Atty. Constantino pleaded not guilty and the trial ensued. The prosecution presented evidence that Severino suffered a stroke and was taken care of by Saliganan until his death. Fernando Cabrales, Severino's son, claimed that the signature in the will was not his father's. The document was notarized by Atty. Constantino. Atty. Constantino alleged that Severino willingly executed the will stating that he wanted his properties to be given to Saliganan. Atty. Constantino claimed that Severino promised to bequeath all his properties to Fernando, provided that Saliganan approved of it. Atty. Constantino brought three copies of the will for signing, with Severino, Atty. Constantino, Saliganan, and other witnesses present. Atty. Constantino claimed that Severino was of sound mind when he executed the will. Atty. Constantino was found guilty by the trial court for falsification of a public document. The trial court also cited the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice which prohibited notaries public from notarizing incomplete or false documents. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. Atty. Constantino filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing that his conviction was based on conjectures and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Office of the Solicitor General contended that there was no error in the finding of guilt. The Supreme Court had to determine whether the Petition presented questions of fact not cognizable in a Rule 45 petition.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner Atty. Bernardo T. Constantino was guilty of falsifying a public document under Article 171(2) of the Revised Penal Code.

2. Whether exceptions to Rule 45 apply in this case, considering that the conviction was allegedly based on conjectures, presumptions, and speculations.

3. Whether a last will and testament executed before a notary public requires further evidence to prove its due execution.

4. Whether the absence of the notary public's signature in the attestation clause of a last will and testament renders it invalid.

5. Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of falsification of a public document.

6. Whether or not the respondent is guilty of gross misconduct.

7. Whether or not the respondent should be disbarred.

RULING:

1. The court must first address the procedural question of whether the Petition presents questions of fact not cognizable in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The court generally gives great respect to the factual findings of the trial court, which had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor during trial and assess their testimonies. However, appeals of criminal cases before the court are not necessarily treated in the same manner as appeals in civil cases. The court has full jurisdiction to examine the records, revise the judgment, increase the penalty, and cite the appropriate penal law provision. Therefore, the court may still review the factual findings of the trial court if it is not convinced that such findings are conformable to the evidence on record and to its own impressions of the credibility of the witnesses.

2. The legal question before the court is whether petitioner, as a notary public, falsified a public document when he failed to delete a name in the Joint Acknowledgment upon notarization. Before one can be held criminally liable for falsification of public documents, it is essential that the document allegedly falsified is a public document. Public documents are those instruments authorized by a notary public or by a competent public official with all the solemnities required by law. By this definition, any notarized document is considered a public document.

3. Yes, a last will and testament executed before a notary public requires further evidence to prove its due execution, whether notarized or not. While notarization confers a public character upon private documents and gives them the force of evidence, the Rules on Evidence specifically exclude last wills and testaments from the presumption of regularity attached to notarized documents. The formalities required to prove a notarial will's authenticity pertain to the attestation and subscription of the testator and the attesting witnesses.

4. The absence of the notary public's signature in the attestation clause of a last will and testament renders it invalid. The attestation clause, which certifies that the instrument has been executed before the attesting witnesses and records the facts surrounding its execution, provides strong legal guaranties for the due execution of a will. It must not only contain the names of the instrumental witnesses but must also be signed by them before the will is notarized by the notary public. Failure to sign the attestation clause invalidates the will as it would be possible and easy to add the clause on a subsequent occasion in the absence of the testator and the witnesses.

5. The petitioner is acquitted of the crime of falsification of a public document. While it was found that the petitioner falsely certified that a person participated in the execution of a will, it was determined that the person in question signed the document after it was notarized. As such, the falsity was not caused by the petitioner but by the person herself. Additionally, the prosecution failed to prove that the other witnesses who attested to the execution of the will did not participate in its due execution. However, the petitioner may still be liable for administrative sanctions for allowing the document to be signed by someone who did not participate in its execution. The petition is granted and the petitioner is acquitted of the crime of falsification of a public document.

6. The respondent is found guilty of gross misconduct.

7. The respondent is disbarred from the practice of law. The respondent's name is stricken from the Roll of Attorneys, and the bail bond posted for his provisional liberty is ordered canceled.

PRINCIPLES:

• The Constitution guarantees that an accused is presumed innocent until the contrary is proven. Every conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt.

• The burden of proof rests with the prosecution. Guilt must be founded on the strength of the prosecution's evidence, not on the weakness of the defense.

• In a criminal case, courts must evaluate the evidence in relation to the elements of the crime charged.

• Appeals of criminal cases confer upon the reviewing court full jurisdiction and render it competent to examine the records, revise the judgment, increase the penalty, and cite the appropriate penal law provision.

• Before one can be held criminally liable for falsification of public documents, it is essential that the document allegedly falsified is a public document. Public documents are those instruments authorized by a notary public or by a competent public official with all the solemnities required by law.

• Notarization confers a public character upon private documents, eliminating the need for further evidence to prove their authenticity.

• Notarized documents are clothed with the presumption of regularity but last wills and testaments are specifically excluded from this presumption.

• The formalities required to prove a notarial will's authenticity pertain to the attestation and subscription of the testator and the attesting witnesses.

• The attestation clause in a last will and testament certifies the due execution of the will and must be signed by the instrumental witnesses.

• Absence of the notary public's signature in the attestation clause invalidates the will.

• Falsification of a public document undermines public trust and is punished under the law.

• The elements of falsification of a public document under Article 171(2) of the Revised Penal Code include the offender being a public officer, employee, or notary public; taking advantage of their official position; causing a document to appear that persons participated in an act or proceeding; and those persons did not actually participate.

• The due execution of a notarized will is proven through the validity of its attestation clause.

• Notaries public must be careful in notarizing incomplete documents to avoid the possibility of fraudulent insertions or uncertified entries.

• While the previous Notarial Law did not contain a provision on false and incomplete certificates, the Supreme Court has cautioned notaries public from notarizing incomplete documents to uphold public confidence in the integrity of notarized documents.

• The Supreme Court has the power to discipline lawyers and may disbar attorneys from the practice of law for misconduct.

• Gross misconduct may warrant disbarment and the cancellation of the attorney's bail bond.