Crime of Falsification of by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister

In the case, facts alleged seek to answer the following issues:

I. Whether or not Atty. Alberto Miagao violated Art. 171 of Book II of the Revised
Penal Code known as “Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or
ecclesiastic minister.”
a. If proven, would such crime amount to disbarment and remove him from Roll of
Attorneys
Alleged in the facts that the writer of the will and owner of Makati property subject in the
proceeding, Mario Marquez, died on March 2013. The Court questions the authenticity of the
document containing the Authority to Sell attached to the deed of sale as such was signed by
Mario on June 2013. Obviously, Mario could not have signed the document as his death occurred
before his supposed signature of Authority to Sell.
The court may conclude that Atty. Miagao violated Art. 171 which states:
“The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos shall
be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage
of his official position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the
following acts:
1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric;
2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding
when they did not in fact so participate;
x x x”
Even though the alleged facts are silent of the overt acts which Atty. Miagao could have
possibly committed to falsify the document, nor they are pointing out an identity who committed
the said falsification, he has a motive. With his interest to the said property as he raised the
protest on a will proceeding in which his only wife herself is the direct party to the case, Atty.
Miagao has a motive to commit such crime and warrants sufficiency to point him being the
proximate suspect of the said crime. Motive is not an element of a crime and becomes immaterial
in the determination of criminal liability. However, it is used in a case to identify the accused.
Therefore, Atty. Miagao is criminally liable for violating Art. 171 of the Revised Penal Code.
In addition, his crime is aggravated under Art. 15 of the Revised Penal Code. Art. 15
states: “Alternative circumstances are those which must be taken into consideration as
aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and the other
conditions attending its commission. They are the relationship, intoxication and the degree of
instruction and education of the offender.”
Atty. Miagao is a member of the bar, officer of the Court, and administrator of justice,
which warrants him to be a public officer knowledgeable of penal laws, and expected of highest
degree of morality and integrity. Such status aggravates his crime because of his education. The
Court deems him to uphold his profession with ethical and moral responsibility. The penalty of
prision mayor in its maximum period shall be imposed.
With the crime he violated against the state, Atty. Miagao is subject to a sui generis case
that merits his disbarment. Atty. Miagao violated Rule 7.03 of Code of Professional
Responsibility which states that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on
his fitness to practice law, nor shall he whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous
manner to the discredit of the legal profession. Such deceit is present in the deed of sale, and his
crime not only violating a stranger, but his own wife and siblings-in-law suffices his immorality
to disbar him. It shows that his malice can even violate whom the law deems as his family.
Clearly, he committed an immoral conduct so gross as such is so corrupt as to constitute a
criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree.
His action violated the first and foremost rule in the first canon of CPR which states:
“A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.”
Even though Jose Sebastian or the accused’s wife withdraws such case, the Court shall
deem it proper to continue the case to protect the public and uphold the integrity of legal
profession. Therefore, disbarment will prosper against Atty. Miagao.