Alberto Garong y Villanueva v.

People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 172539, November 16, 2016

Facts:
In the Municipality of Calapan, Province of Oriental Mindoro, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the accused being a government employee, and such took advantage of
his official position as court interpreter, did then prepare and issue a court order dated August 11,
1189 entitled “IN RE: PETITION FOR JUDICIAL RECONSTITUTION OF TRANSFER
CERTIFICATE PETITION OF TITLE NO. T-NO. 40361. In this court order, he falsified
“Exhibit B” which bore the stamp mark “ORIGINAL SIGNED” above the printed name of
Judge Mario dela Cruz, presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, and other words
“CERTIFIED TRUE COPY” with a signature but no printed name appeared beneath the
signature.
The RTC concluded the petitioner to have committed falsification committed by a
private person under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code, with a generic aggravating
circumstance of taking advantage of his public position under Article 14 (1) of the same code.
That his position as a court interpreter had facilitated the commission of the offense by him as a
private individual.

However, on his appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA), the petitioner mainly argued that
“the prosecution did not prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt because of the failure to present
the original pf the document in question.”

But the CA rejected the petitioner’s argument and thereby affirmed the conviction WITH
MODIFICATION. CA disregarded the RTC’s appreciation of the aggravating circumstance
because his being a court interpreter did not facilitate the falsification, observing that any person
with access to or knowledge of the procedure for judicial reconstitution of titles could have
committed the crime. Thereby finding the accused guilty of falsification under Article 172 in
relation to Article 171 (2) of the RPC.

However, the petitioner continues to insist that the CA erred in affirming the conviction
despite the failure to establish his guilt. Hence, the case was elevated to the Supreme Court.

The SC, denied the fact of the CA committing an error and therefore, uphold the
petitoner’s conviction but WITH MODIFICATION as to the characterization of the crime.

Issue:
Whether or not Alberto Garong y Villanueva is found guilty of falsification under Article
172 (1) of the Revised Penal Code.

Ruling:
 Yes. The Supreme Court affirms the decision promulgated on January 25, 2006 or found
Villanueva guilty of falsification. All elements of the said offense are all satisfied in the case at
bar.
(1) That the offender is a private individual, or a public officer or employee who did not
take advantage of his official position;

In the present case, the accused is a Court interpreter or a public officer which that has a
duty to make or prepare or otherwise to intervene in the preparation of the document or
has an official custody of the document which he falsifies. However, inspite of being a
public officer, it should be noted that the accused did not take advantage of his official
position as guided by the teaching in the case of People v. Sumaoy, GR. 105961, “If the
accused could have perpetrated the crime without occupying his position, then there is no
abuse of public position”. Though having a knowledge of the falsification as he is a court
interpreter, he could have still committed the crime even as an outsider.

(2) The offender committed any of the acts mentioned in Article 171 of the RPC;

In this case, the accused committed the crime of falsification under Article 172 (1) of the
RPC in relation to Article 171 paragraph 7 (modified by the SC).

Paragraph 7 provides- issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a

copy of an original document when no such original exists, or including in such copy a
statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original

(3) The falsification was committed in a public or official or commercial document.

The document falsified herein is a public document. Public document is defined as any
instrument authorized by a notary public or competent public official, with the
solemnities required by law (Cacnio, et al v. Baens)