Atty. Constantino v. People

 

Atty. Constantino v. People

G.R. No. 225696

April 8, 2019

FACTS:

                The RTC and CA convicted Atty. Bernardo T. Constantino for the crime of falsification of a public document under Art. 171(2) of the RPC. That on or about September 9, 2001 in the City of Laoag, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, ATTY. BERNARDO CONSTANTINO taking advantage of his being a notary public for Laoag City and Ilocos Norte, together with TERESITA C. SALIGANAN, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping each other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously cause to appear in the LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT executed by Severino C. Cabrales in favor of the accused TERESITA C. SALIGANAN, of the Notarial Register of Atty. BERNARDO CONSTANTINO, a notary public for Laoag City and Province of Ilocos Norte, that SEVERINO C. CABRALES participated in the execution of the LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT, when in fact he did not so participate, and making it appear that the testator Severino Cabrales and the attesting witnesses, Dr. Eliezer Asuncion, Mary Balintona and Dr. Justino Balintona acknowledge the Last Will and Testament before Atty. Bernardo Constantino while in truth they never appeared to acknowledge the same.

ISSUE:

                Whether or not the CA erred in convicting the accused for the crime

HELD:

                No. Before one can be held criminally liable for falsification of public documents, it is essential that the document allegedly falsified is a public document. In Cacnio v. Baens, public documents are “those instruments authorized by a notary public or by a competent public official with all the solemnities required by law.” Public documents are: (a) The written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country; (b) Documents acknowledged before a notary public except last wills and testaments; and (c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to be entered therein. All other writings are private. Petitioner's failure to cross out Dr. Asuncion's name when he notarized the Joint Acknowledgment has allowed Dr. Asuncion to still sign the document despite not having participated in its due execution. This is the mischief being guarded against in disallowing notaries public to notarize incomplete documents. Rule XI, Section l(b)(9), in relation to Rule IV, Section 569 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, states: RULE XI Revocation of Commission and Disciplinary Sanctions SECTION 1. Revocation and Administrative Sanctions. — . . . (b) In addition, the Executive Judge may revoke the commission of, or impose appropriate administrative sanctions upon, any notary public who: . . . (9) executes a false or incomplete certificate under Section 5, Rule IV.

Respondent [notary public] was . . . negligent when he notarized the deed with unfilled spaces and incomplete entries, making uncertified and fraudulent insertions easy to accomplish. Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with such substantial public interest that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. For this reason, notaries must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties. Otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of this form of conveyance would be undermined. Wherefore the Atty. Constantino’s conviction be reversed and set aside.

No comments:

Post a Comment