Maliwat vs. Court of Appeals, 256 SCRA 718, G.R. No.

107041 reset or cancelled no less than thirty times owing to a variety of reasons
(BONBON) May 15, 1996 | Padilla, J. | Falsification of Public Documents proffered by petitioner.
2. 20 May 1982 - the case was set for hearing of the evidence for the defense, but
the case was reset for another eight times, again owing to petitioner's absences.
PETITIONER: FELICIANO MALIWAT
3. Within said period, the defense also failed to file any written objections to the
RESPONDENTS: HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Former Special First
prosecution's formal offer of evidence.
Division, and the REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
4. 12 April 1983 - Judge Diaz took over the case, while Maliwat moved to
SUMMARY: Accused Feliciano Maliwat was found guilty beyond reasonable
postpone for yet another eight times, prompting Judge Diaz to issue an order on
doubt of Falsification of Public Documents by the CFI (RTC) of Cavite for 17 October 1983 declaring Maliwat to have waived his right to present further
issuing falsified Transfer Certificate of Titles (TCT). He questioned this, arguing evidence. When both accused and counsel still failed to appear, Judge Diaz
that he obtained the said titles when Aseo’s titles were canceled by virtue of a deemed the case submitted for decision and required the parties to file their
deed of absolute sale between him and Aseo. He further filed a motion for respective memoranda.
mistrial, stating that his right to due process was impaired, and accused that the 5. Maliwat's lawyer appealed this order to the Court of Appeals but the appeal was
Judge who is currently handling his case was a vital prosecution witness, then deemed abandoned and dismissed on 24 October 1987.
Clerk of Court Rolando Diaz, and had no choice but to render a judgment of
ISSUE/s:
conviction against him. While the records show that Diaz, then Clerk of Court of 1. WoN petitioner’s guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. – YES.
the CFI of Cavite City, indeed testified for the prosecution, it was explained by 2. Whether or not petitioner was deprived of his right to be heard and to produce
the Solicitor General that his testimony was limited to certain facts directly evidence in his own behalf – NO.
connected with or arising from the performance of his official duties as Clerk of
Court, without any reference to or pronouncement as to the innocence of guilt of RULING: WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED and the decision of the
the accused. His moves for postponements and cancellations of the hearings Court of Appeals in CA G.R. Nos. 09428-29 dated 29 November 1991, which
upholds the amended decision of the Court of First Instance of Cavite dated 28 June
were for no less than forty (40) times, from the date of his arraignment to the
1988 in Criminal Cases Nos. 158-77 and 159-77 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. Costs
promulgation of judgment, and spanned for almost a decade. Upon appeal with against petitioner.
the CA, it upheld the lower court’s amended decision finding him guilty.
RATIO:
SC denied his petition and said that due process was clearly observed by the 1. In the interest of justice, the Court treated the annexes attached to the
trial court which was evidently in the best position to weigh and evaluate petition which had been marked as exhibits in the course of the trial but
the evidence. were not formally offered, to form part of the records of this case. And after
close scrutiny thereof, the Court is of the considered opinion, and so holds, that
DOCTRINE: The settled rule is that in the absence of satisfactory explanation, petitioner was correctly convicted of having committed the crime of
one found in possession of and who used a forged document is the forger and falsification of public documents.
therefore guilty of falsification. If a person had in his possession a falsified
document and he made use of it (uttered it), taking advantage of it and profiting
2. The titles in Maliwat’s possession cannot be genuine . The Court observes that
thereby, the clear presumption is that he is the material author of the the titles presented by Maliwat for reconstitution were allegedly owner’s
falsification. duplicate reconstituted titles, since the numbers were preceded by the letters RT.
This fact, assuming it to be true, negates petitioner’s allegation that these titles
were obtained from the Registry of Deeds by canceling Aseo’s (the vendor’s)
titles which were not reconstituted titles. It also bears stressing that there must
FACTS: have been a petition for reconstitution, whether judicial or administrative, before
1. 21 June 1993 - petitioner filed a motion for declaration of mistrial, pleading for Maliwat could be issued said reconstituted titles. But no such petition was
the first time that his constitutional right to due process was impaired. The Court produced. From Maliwat’s testimony, he averred that he obtained the said titles
notes that from the time of petitioner's arraignment on 2 August 1978 up to the when Aseo’s titles were canceled by virtue of a deed of absolute sale between
time the prosecution offered its evidence, and rested, the hearings were either him and Aseo.The Court also observes that Exh. 1-A, which is TCT Nos. RT-
 11850 and Exh. 4-A which is TCT No. RT-1185425 were made to appear by Moreover, a closer scrutiny of the numbering of the titles in question which accused
accused as reconstituted titles. Thus, whether or not what were issued to the alleges to have gotten from the office of the Register of Deeds of Cavite Province when
accused bore SN 603461 and 603462 or SN 1403456 and 1403457 is of no he registered the sale executed in his favor by Benigno T. Aseo shows the letters ‘RT’
moment—because both titles should never have been reconstituted titles in the precedes the number which the Court can take judicial notice of that the letters RT stand
first place. More so, because the evidence shows that Judicial Forms with SN for reconstituted title and these initials with the corresponding number follow the
603461 and 603462 were issued to the Registry of Deeds of Cotabato province original number of the title issued, but in this case the same is missing and does not state
in May 1963. the original number of the title which is out of the ordinary procedure of the Register of
Deeds.
3. The Court further notes that the signatures of Escolastico Cuevas in SN-
1403456; SN-1403457 and SN-603461 and SN-603462 were not the same and, Likewise, it is quite absurd to see that Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’ which are accountable forms
as plain to the naked eye, very different from the specimen signature of bearing consecutive serial numbers (1403456 and 1403457) respectively would have
Register of Deeds Escolastico Cuevas executed before the NBI. It is been given non-consecutive title numbers (RT-11850 and RT-11854) and would have
ineluctable, therefore, that these titles were falsified and the evidence points been issued ten months apart (RT-11850) was issued on November 15, 1983 while RT-
to Maliwat as the author of the falsification under par. 1 of Article 172 in 11854 was issued on January 18, 1963.
relation to Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code.
Moreover, RT-11850 does not bear the number of the certificate of titles from which it
4. Maliwat certainly cannot claim that he was denied due process. The records was transferred whereas TCT No. RT-11854 is supposed to have canceled T-8331 and
show that he did testify on his own behalf and was cross-examined by the which apparently conflicts with the allegation of the accused that he acquired these two
prosecution. Admittedly, he was unable to adduce additional documentary parcels of land from Benigno T. Aseo whose ownership was evidenced by TCT No. T-
evidence that he claims would establish his innocence and which he now 2474 and T-2475. If that were the case then, the said title number would have appeared
attaches as annexes in his petition for review and memorandum of law before on Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B.’
the Court. But as noted earlier, it was Maliwat who had sought the
postponements and cancellations of the hearings for no less than forty (40) Anent, the testimony of the accused that the certificate of title, the owner’s duplicate of
times, from the date of his arraignment to the promulgation of judgment, a fact TCT No. RT-11850 and RT-11854 which he presented for reconstitution bore the serial
that spanned almost a decade (1978 to 1988). Nos. 603461 and 603462 it will be noted that he only presented xerox copies of the said
titles without producing the originals and during the investigation at the NBI as per
5. CFI decision: report marked as Exhibits H and H-4 he never submitted the originals thereof.
Whichever serial numbers they bore, it appears that said title forms were falsified in view
“From the evidence submitted, there is no question that the two certificates of title RT- of the attestations of the Land Registration Commission that they were never intended for
11850 with serial No. 1403456 and RT-11854 with Serial No. 1403457 Exhibits A and B the Register of Deeds of Cavite Province.” (emphasis supplied)
are falsified; that as per finding of the NBI, testified to by then Senior Agent Toribio
Lozada the same were among those intended for the province of Cotabato but which 6. Court of Appeals decision:
were lost in transit as per certification issued by Fortunato T. Pascual of the Land
Registration Commission (Exhs. Q and Q-2); and a memorandum circular of the loss “When Judicial forms 109-D, with Serial Nos. 1403456 and 1403457 were filled up,
was issued by then Acting Commissioner Gregorio Bilog, Jr. of the LRC (Exh. O) and the issued and made to appear in form, as Transfer Certificates of Titles Nos. RT-11850 and
titles found their way into the office of the Register of Deeds of Cavite Province pursuant RT-11854, respectively, both in the name of Feliciano Maliwat to show his ownership of
to a petition for reconstitution filed by the herein accused on January 8, 1976 (Exh. R) lots Nos. 5825 and 5826 which are included in the Imus Estate Subdivision although they
and the same were administratively reconstituted by then Acting Register of Deeds of were not, falsification as defined in paragraph 7 of Article 171 of the Revised Penal
Cavite province Atty. Jorge V. Gutierrez and for which the said owners duplicate were Code was committed.
surrendered to the office of the Register of Deeds of Cavite province and new owner’s
duplicates issued to the herein accused. The Court cannot give credence thereto over the Again, when in the same forms it was made to appear that they were signed and issued
positive identification made by Atty. Santiago in open Court together with the by Register of Deeds Escolastico Cuevas, although in truth and in fact he has neither
confirmation made by the NBI agent on the case, Atty. Tobias Lozada and the former signed, issued nor filled up the same, falsification penalized under paragraphs 1, 2, 3
Register of Deeds, Atty. Escolastico Cuevas whose signature thereon was forged. and 4 of the same Article of the Revised Penal Code has also been committed.
(emphasis supplied)
The fact that no proof was introduced to prove or show as to who committed the
falsification abovementioned, does not exempt or exculpate the herein accused-appellant
from liability. The accused-appellant is the person who stood to benefit by the
falsification of the documents in question as such, ‘it is presumed that he is the material
author of the falsifications.’ (Sarep vs. Sandiganbayan, 177 SCRA 440; 449).”