G.R. No.
L-22642 December 19, 1924
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
VICENTE P. CASTRO and PEDRO A. PACANA, defendants-appellants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G.R. No. L-22645 December 19, 1924
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ISIDRO ADORABLE and PEDRO A. PACANA, defendants-appellants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G.R. No. L-22646 December 19, 1924
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
VICENTE P. CASTRO and PEDRO A. PACANA, defendants-appellants.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ponente: Malcolm, J.
FACTS:
Pedro Pacana, the secretary of the provincial board of Misamis, was charged in three cases with
the crime of falsification of public documents and in two other cases with the crime of estafa
committed by means of falsification of public documents. Isidro Adorable and Vicente Castro,
members of the provincial board of Misamis, were each charged with the crime of estafa
committed by means of falsification of public documents for the alleged unlawful taking of P25
(per diems for two meetings).
The prosecution insisted that the following documents were falsified by the defendants and that
the meetings in question were fictitious:
a. Regular Meeting of the Provincial Board of Misamis Held at Cagayan on Thursday,
June 9, 1923
b. Regular Meeting of the Provincial Board of Misamis held at Cagayan on Saturday,
June 16, 1923
c. Excerpt from the Minutes of the regular meeting of Provincial board of Misamis held at
Cagayan on Thursday, June 9, 1923
The prosecution argued that the provincial board could not have celebrated a session at the said
dates due to conflict of events. Moreover, they contended that the said criminal acts were
committed for the following purposes:
To permit the district engineer to incur illegal expenses in the reconstruction of a
provincial road
To permit the members of the provincial board to collect a total of P50 not legally due to
them
Defendants contend that the errors committed is only due to the carelessness of the provincial
and the amount of work thrown on his inexperienced shoulders, and that instead of meetings
being held on June 9 and 16, meetings were in reality held on June 19 and 21.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not there was an intentional and deliberate falsification of public documents on the
part of the accused.
2. Whether or not the defendants are guilty of the crimes of falsification of public documents and
estafa committed by means of falsification of documents.
RULING:
1. No, there was no intentional falsification of public documents by the accused.
The evidence of record closely examined and found that, instead of meetings of the provincial
board of Misamis being held on June 9 and June 16, 1923, as appeared in the minutes, meetings
were in reality held on June 19 and June 21, 1923. There was merely an error committed in
which criminal intent was wholly lacking.
The documents could not have been fabricated on June 9 and June 16, if the matters to which
they relate were not then before the provincial board for action. As to the defendant’s motive
contended by the prosecution, the Supreme Court held that fictitious meetings are not necessary
to achieve the desired ends as actual meetings can still serve the same purposes effectively.
2. No, the defendants are not guilty of the crimes of falsification of public documents and
estafa committed by means of falsification of documents.
Ordinarily, evil intent must unite with an unlawful act for there to be a crime. Actus non facit
reum, nisi mens sit rea. There can be no crime when the criminal mind is wanting. Ignorance or
mistake as to particular facts, honest and real, will, as a general rule, exempt the doer from
criminal responsibility.
Moreover, if the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations,
one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused of the crime charged and the other
consistent with their guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not
sufficient to support a conviction.
Therefore, the Court REVERSED the judgments appealed from and ACQUITTED the accused
of the charges laid against them.
