AUREA MONTEVERDE VS.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 139610
August 12, 2002
PANGANIBAN, J.:
FACTS:
On January 17, 1991, Petitioner Aurea Monteverde was the Barangay Chairman at the time and in that
capacity, she received P44,800 from PAGCOR to be spent for lighting, cleanliness and beautification
programs of the Barangay. To liquidate the amount, she submitted a financial statement with copies of
sales invoices/receipts to PAGCOR. On August 1991, residents of their Barangay charged Petitioner
through the Sandiganbayan of Estafa through falsification of a commercial document. Allegedly,
petitioner falsified a sales invoice amounting to P13,565 that was supposedly issued by Sanford
Hardware, and that petitioner converted the same for her personal use and benefit. This was evidenced
by the testimony of one of the complainants who had secured a copy of the said invoice from the
Barangay Treasurer and had it authenticated by Sanford Hardware’s manager, Luz Co. According to Luz
Co, the said sales invoice was not issued by them and that she had no delivery of hardware materials to
the Barangay of Petitioner. The anti-graft court acquitted petitioner of estafa, because there was no
evidence that funds had been misappropriated or converted. However, the court convicted her for
allegedly falsifying the document she had submitted to show that the P13,565 donated by PAGCOR was
used and spent for lighting materials for her barangay. While the prosecution did not present any proof
evidencing that it was petitioner who had caused the falsification, the Sandiganbayan relied on the
presumption that in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, a person who is found in possession of a
forged document, and who uses it, is the forger. Petitioner was convicted of falsification under Article
172 of the Revised Penal Code.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the subject Sales Invoice is a public and/or a commercial document within the
meaning of “Falsification” as defined under the Revised Penal Code
2. Whether or not petitioner was the author of falsification in the absence of any proof that she
benefited from it.
RULING:
1. Yes, the subject Sales Invoice is a public and/or a commercial document within the meaning of
“Falsification” as defined under the Revised Penal Code.
Both the OSG and the OSP agree that a private document acquires the character of a
public document when it becomes part of an official record and is certified by a public officer
duly authorized by law. The OSP aptly explained this point as follows: “x x x, [I]f the document is
intended by law to be part of the public or official record, the preparation of which being in
accordance with the rules and regulations issued by the government, the falsification of that
document, although it was a private document at the time of its falsification, is regarded as
falsification of public or official document. “Prosecution witness Luz Co testified that the
duplicate original of Sales Invoice No. 21568 was submitted to the Bureau of Internal Revenue
(BIR). Thus, this Sales Invoice is intended to be part of the public records and the preparation
thereof is required by BIR rules and regulations. Moreover, Sales Invoice No. 21568 formed part
of the official records of PAGCOR when it was submitted by petitioner as one of the supporting
papers for the liquidation of her accountability to PAGCOR.”
2. No. The Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution’s evidence is not sufficient to convict. As
correctly observed by the OSG, the Decision of the SBN is based on the assumption that there
was only one set of sales invoices issued by Sanford Hardware. On such a premise, petitioner’s
Exhibit 9 thus becomes obviously falsified when compared with respondent’s Exhibit “D-l”. But
on the premise that the two Exhibits are two different Sales Invoices, falsification becomes
doubtful. The only logical explanation for the existence of both Exhibits 9 and D-l is that there
are two extant documents. Whether one is the original and the other is falsified depends on the
proof. This the prosecution had to prove, but unfortunately failed to. In all criminal
prosecutions, without regard to the nature of the defense which the accused may raise, the
burden of proof establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt remains with the
prosecution. Further, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove each and every element of the
crime charged in the information. We repeat that, in this case, it failed to discharge this duty.
