Tenenggee Digest

CARLOS L.
TANENGGEE, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G. R. No. 179448 June 26, 2013
Facts:
The petitioner was charged of 5 information of five counts of estafa through falsification of
commercial documents and was found guilty.
appellant caused to be prepared promissory notes and cashier’s checks in the name of
Romeo Tan, a valued client of the bank since he has substantial deposits in his account, in
connection with the purported loans obtained by the latter from the bank. Appellant approved
and signed the cashier’s check as branch manager of Metrobank Commercio Branch.
Appellant affixed, forged or caused to be signed the signature of Tan as endorser and payee
of the proceeds of the checks at the back of the same to show that the latter had indeed
endorsed the same for payment. He handed the checks to the Loans clerk, Maria Dolores
Miranda, for encashment. Once said documents were forged and falsified, appellant released
and obtained from Metrobank the proceeds of the alleged loan and misappropriated the same
to his use and benefit. After the discovery of the irregular loans, an internal audit was
conducted and an administrative investigation was held in the Head Office of Metrobank,
during which appellant signed a written statement (marked as Exhibit "N") in the form of
questions and answers.
Appellant claimed that all the signatures of Tan appearing on the promissory notes and the
cashier’s checks were the genuine signatures of Tan although he never saw the latter affix
them thereon.
Appellant claimed that Elevado asked him to sign a paper (Exhibit "N") in connection with the
audit investigation; that he inquired what he was made to sign but was not offered any
explanation; that he was intimidated to sign and was threatened by the police that he will be
brought to the precinct if he will not sign; that he was not able to consult a lawyer since he
was not apprised of the purpose of the meeting; and that "just to get it over with" he signed
the paper which turned out to be a confession. After the said meeting, appellant went to see
Tan at his office but was unable to find the latter. He also tried to phone him but to no avail.
The RTC ruled finding the petitioner guilty as charged and the CA affirming the decision of the
RTC with Modification.
Issues: whether the essential elements of estafa through falsification of commercial

documents were established by the prosecution?
Ruling:
Yes, Falsification of documents under paragraph 1, Article 172 in relation to Article 171 of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC) refers to falsification by a private individual or a public officer or
employee, who did not take advantage of his official position, of public, private or commercial
document. 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;33 and, (3) that the falsification was committed in a
public, official or commercial document.
All the above-mentioned elements were established in this case. First, petitioner is a private
individual. Second, the acts of falsification consisted in petitioner’s (1) counterfeiting or
imitating the handwriting or signature of Tan and causing it to appear that the same is true
and genuine in all respects; and (2) causing it to appear that Tan has participated in an act or
proceeding when he did not in fact so participate. Third, the falsification was committed in
promissory notes and checks which are commercial documents. Commercial documents are,
in general, documents or instruments which are "used by merchants or businessmen to
promote or facilitate trade or credit transactions."34 Promissory notes facilitate credit
transactions while a check is a means of payment used in business in lieu of money for
convenience in business transactions. A cashier’s check necessarily facilitates bank
transactions for it allows the person whose name and signature appear thereon to encash the
check and withdraw the amount indicated therein.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 23653 dated December 12, 2006 and September 6, 2007,
respectively, are hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the minimum term of
the indeterminate sentence to be imposed upon the petitioner should be four (4) years
and two (2) months of prision correccional.

Tenenggee Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tenenggee Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tenenggee Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CARLOS L.

G. R. No. 179448 June 26, 2013

Issues: whether the essential elements of estafa through falsification of commercial

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.