Spouses Vince and Elise Pero were the registered owners of a parcel of land. Vince died in 2004. Strange things happened after his death.
Jaymie alleged that her father Daro bought the Pero property with payments coursed through her uncle Noe. Jaymie claimed that her dad instructed her to obtain a loan from a bank of which she was an employee. Since the title of the subject property was still in the name of the spouses Pero, Jaymie asked Elise to execute a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) authorizing her to mortgage the subject property as security for the loan.
In 2009, Elise delivered to Jaymie a notarized SPA signed by the spouses Pero. Thus, Jaymie was able to obtain a loan with her employer bank using the subject property as collateral.
Uncle Noe, however, has his own version of the events. He claimed that the spouses Pero sold the subject property to him in a Deed of Absolute Sale in the year 2006. The deed was not registered with the Registry of Deeds of Iloilo City. He then later discovered that the subject property was mortgaged to bank in 2009 by Jaymie by virtue of an SPA executed in her favor by the spouses Pero. He also learned that Vince died in 2004, or more than four years prior to the execution of the SPA. For fear of losing the property, Uncle Noe paid the bank loan.
Incensed by what happened, Uncle Noe filed criminal cases against Elise and Jaymie.
As far as Jaymie is concerned, the court found her guilty of the crime of Use of Falsified Document under Article 172, last paragraph, RPC. It held that she had the capacity to forge and falsify the SPA and made it appear as true considering the fact that she was the recipient of the proceeds of the loan and also an employee of the mortgagee-bank who compiled the necessary documents to secure the bank’s approval.
It further stated that Jaymie failed to present sufficient evidence to overthrow the presumption that the possessor and user of a falsified document is the author of the falsification.
Q: What are the elements of the crime of use of falsified document in any transaction (other than as evidence in a judicial proceeding)?
A: The elements are: (a) the offender knew that a document was falsified by another person; (b) the false document is embraced in Article 171 or in any of subdivision Nos. 1 and 2 of Article 172; (c) he used such document (not in judicial proceedings); and (d) the use of the false document caused damage to another or at least it was used with intent to cause such damage.
Q: What do Article 171 and Article. 172 of the Revised Penal Code provide?
A: Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister.—The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P5,000 shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee or notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts:
- Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric;
- Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate;
- Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them;
- Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
- Altering true dates;
- Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning;
- Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original document when no such original exists, or including in such a copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original; or
- Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official book.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any ecclesiastical minister who shall commit any of the offenses enumerated in the preceding paragraphs of this article, with respect to any record or document of such character that its falsification may affect the civil status of persons.
Art. 172. Falsification by private individual and use of falsified documents.—The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than P5,000 shall be imposed upon:
- Any private individual who shall commit any of the falsifications enumerated in the next preceding article in any public or official document or letter of exchange or any other kind of commercial document; and
- Any person who, to the damage of a third party, or with the intent to cause such damage, shall in any private document commit any of the acts of falsification enumerated in the next preceding article.
Any person who shall knowingly introduce in evidence in any judicial proceeding or to the damage of another or who, with the intent to cause such damage, shall use any of the false documents embraced in the next preceding article, or in any of the foregoing subdivisions of this article, shall be punished by the penalty next lower in degree.
Q: Is Jaymie guilty of the crime charged?
A: Yes. As an employee of the mortgagee-bank, Jaymie is naturally expected to know the requirements, procedure and processes in obtaining loans, including the consequences of non-compliance.
The SPA which she requested from the spouses Pero is an official bank form. She knew that the SPA must bear his signature as attorney-in-fact including the signatures of Vince and Elise as principals. She was aware that she and the spouses Pero should sign the document in the presence of two witnesses. She also understood that as part of the loan approval process, the SPA should be notarized.
Q: What is the basic rule on notarization? What is the rationale behind the rule?
A: A notary public must not notarize a document unless the persons who signed it are the very same persons who executed the same, and personally appeared before him to attest to the truth of the contents thereof. This is to enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the party’s free and voluntary act and deed.
Jaymie, as employee of the mortgagee-bank and as borrower/beneficiary, ought to have been on guard and caused her to inquire about Vince whom she has never met since she requested for the SPA. It thus appears that Jaymie knew that Vince’s signature in the SPA was not genuine yet she went on to use it enabling her to mortgage the subject property and receive the proceeds of the loan.
(Source: Jayme vs. Jayme, G.R. No. 248827, Aug. 27, 2020)
Atty. Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis is Dean at Lyceum of the Philippines University; Chairperson of the Philippine Association of Law Schools; and founder of Mawis Law Office