G.R. No. 165678 Case Digest

G.R. No. 165678, July 17, 2009

Rosario Panuncio, petitioner

vs People of the Philippines, respondents

Ponente: Carpio

Facts:

This is a petition for review assailing the decision of Court of Appeals.

On August 3, 1992 around 4pm, the LTO and a special task force led by PNP Superintendent Panfilo Lacson and Police Senior Inspector Cesar Ouano Jr., with search warrant issued by RTC judge Pardo raided the residence of Panuncio a jeepney operator in Quezon City. They confiscated LTO documents and 17 pieces of private vehicle plates, copying machine, typewriters and other tools. 

Panuncio signed a certification of orderly search with Brgy. Chairman Manalo, Panuncio's employee Velasco and Nidua. They all signed the receipt of property seized issued by PO3 Abuda. Panuncio and one Jaime Lopez were arrested.

LTO filed a complaint against Panuncio for violation of Articles 171, 172, 176 and 315 of RPC (on falsified documents). Lopez was not charge because Lopez was just a visitor when the raid took place.

Panuncio filed a motion for reinvestigation which RTC QC granted which gave prosecutor 20 days to submit his report on the reinvestigation. DOJ thenn recommended for Panuncio be prosecuted for falsification. RTC set the arraingment and June 28, 1994 Panuncio entered a plea of not guilty.

During the trial, the falsified documents was presented (showing Manlite as the owner) but which the petitioner denied that she was the source of falsified documents. She alleged that Manlite which she co-own with her husband before has stopped operating and her business now is under the name of Rosario Panuncio. She alleged that she was not at home when the raid took place, that she was just forced to sign the search warrant, inventory receipt and certificate of orderly search.

RTC decision: Panuncio is guilty of falsification.

Panuncio appealed to CA.

CA decision:Affirm RTC with modification. The search warrant did not suffer from any legal infirmity because the items to be seized were already specified and identified in the warrant.

Panuncio filed a motion for reconsideration.

Issues:

1.Whether the elements of falsification of a public document under Article 172(1) in relation to Article 171 of the RPC have been established;

2.Whether the search was regularly conducted;

3.Whether the evidence gathered during the search are  admissible in evidence; and

4.Whether the Court of Appeals properly applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL).

Ruling: The petition has no merit.

1. Petitioner failed to raise the issue of the defective information before the trial court through a motion for bill of particulars or a motion to quash the information.  Petitioner’s failure to object to the allegation in the information before she entered her plea of not guilty amounted to a waiver of the defect in the information.The elements of falsification of documents under paragraph 1, Article 172 of the RPC are:

(1)  that the offender is a private individual or a public officer or employee who did not take advantage of his official position;

(2) that he committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Article 171 of the RPC; and

(3) that the falsification was committed in a public, official or commercial document.

The falsified copy of  MVRR No. 63231478 was found during a valid search conducted  in petitioner’s residence.  It was issued in the name of Manlite which petitioner admitted as co-owned by her together with her late husband.  Thus, there is a presumption that she falsified it and she was using it for her benefit.

2 and 3. Even assuming that petitioner or any lawful occupant of the house was not present when the search was conducted, the search was done in the presence of at least two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality.  Manalo was the barangay chairman of the place while Velasco was petitioner’s employee. Petitioner herself signed the certification of orderly search when she arrived at her residence.  Clearly, the requirements of Section 8, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court were complied with by the police authorities who conducted the search.  Further, petitioner failed to substantiate her allegation that she was just forced to sign the search warrant, inventory receipt, and the certificate of orderly search. 

4.In this case, the Court of Appeals sentenced petitioner to serve an indeterminate penalty of two years and four months of prision correccional as minimum to six years of prision correccional as maximum.  There being no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, we deem it proper in this case to lower the maximum penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals from six years to four years, nine months and eleven days of prision correccional.