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