SERIAL NO. PCS. AMOUNT SERIAL NO. PCS. AMOUNT PX626388 1 P500.00 CC077337 1 P500.00 CC077337 1 500.00 CC077337 1 500.00 CC077337 1 500.00 CC077337 1 500.00 BR666774 1 500.00 CC077337 1 500.00 CC077337 1 500.00 BR666774 1 500.00 BB020523 1 500.00 BR666774 1 500.00 PX626388 1 500.00 CC077337 1 500.00 BR666774 1 500.00 WW164152 1 500.00 PX626388 1 500.00 WW164152 1 500.00 BR666774 1 500.00 BR666774 1 500.00 UU710062 1 500.00 PX626388 1 500.00 CC077337 1 500.00 PX626388 1 500.00
Which are false and falsified.
Contrary to law.
The prosecution presented three (3) witnesses, namely: Jail Officer 1 (JO1) Michael Michelle Passilan, the Investigator of the Manila City Jail; JO1 Domingo David, Jr.; and Loida Marcega Cruz, the Assistant Manager of the Cash Department of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.
[Their testimonies established the following:]
Appellant is a detainee at the Manila City Jail. On August 7, 2007, at around 3:30 pm, an informant in the person of inmate Francis dela Cruz approached JO1s Domingo David, Jr. and Michael Passilan. The informant narrated that he received a counterfeit P500.00 bill from appellant with orders to buy a bottle of soft drink from the Manila City Jail Bakery. The bakery employee, however, recognized the bill as a fake and refused to accept the same. Consequently, JO1s David and Passilan, along with the informant, proceeded to appellant's cell for a surprise inspection. Pursuant to their agreement, the informant entered the cubicle first and found appellant therein, lying in bed. The informant returned to appellant the latter's P500.00 bill. The jail guards then entered the cell and announced a surprise inspection. JO1 Passilan frisked appellant and recovered a black wallet from his back pocket. Inside the wallet were twenty-three (23) pieces of P500.00, all of which were suspected to be counterfeit. They confiscated the same and marked them sequentially with "IIB-2" to "II-B24". They likewise marked the P500.00 bill that was returned by informant to appellant with "IIB-1". Appellant was consequently arrested and brought out of his cell into the office of the Intelligence and Investigation Branch (IIB) of the Manila City jail for interrogation.
Meanwhile, the twenty-four (24) P500.00 bills confiscated from appellant were turned over to the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas for analysis. Pursuant to a Certification dated August 7, 2007, Acting Assistant Manager Loida Marcega Cruz of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas examined and found the following bills as counterfeit, viz: one (1) P500.00 bill with Serial Number BB020523; six (6) P500.00 bills with Serial Number BR666774; nine (9) P500.00 bills with Serial Number CC077337; five (5) P500.00 bills with Serial Number PX626388; one (1) P500.00 bill with Serial Number UU710062; and two (2) P500.00 bills with Serial Number WW164152.
For the defense, appellant was the lone witness presented on the stand.
Appellant simply raised the defense of frame-up. He testified that in the afternoon of August 5, 2007, he was inside his room located at Dorm 1 of the Manila City Jail. At around 3:00 pm, JO1 Michael Passilan entered appellant's room while JO1 Domingo David, Jr. posted himself outside. Without any warning, JO1 Passilan frisked appellant and confiscated his wallet containing one (1) P1,000.00 bill. JO1s David and Passilan left immediately thereafter. Appellant was left with no other choice but to follow them in order to get back his wallet. Appellant followed the jail officers to the Intelligence Office of the Manila City Jail where he saw JO1 Passilan place the P500.00 bills inside the confiscated black wallet. Appellant was then told that the P500.00 bills were counterfeit and that he was being charged with illegal possession and use thereof. Appellant also added that JO1 Passilan bore a grudge against him. This was because appellant refused to extend a loan [to] JO1 Passilan because the latter cannot offer any collateral therefor. Since then, JO1 Passilan treated him severely, threatening him and, at times, putting him in isolation.
I.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, CONVICTING PETITIONER OF THE CRIME CHARGED, DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE AN ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE.II.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT EXCLUDING THE COUNTERFEIT BILLS SINCE THEY WERE DERIVED FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE.18
ART. 168. Illegal possession and use of false treasury or bank notes and other instruments of credit. -- Unless the act be one of those coming under the provisions of any of the preceding articles, any person who shall knowingly use or have in his possession, with intent to use any of the false or falsified instruments referred to in this section, shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed in said articles. [Emphasis supplied.]The elements of the crime charged for violation of said law are: (1) that any treasury or bank note or certificate or other obligation and security payable to bearer, or any instrument payable to order or other document of credit not payable to bearer is forged or falsified by another person; (2) that the offender knows that any of the said instruments is forged or falsified; and (3) that he either used or possessed with intent to use any of such forged or falsified instruments.20 As held in People v. Digoro,21 possession of false treasury or bank notes alone, without anything more, is not a criminal offense. For it to constitute an offense under Article 168 of the RPC, the possession must be with intent to use said false treasury or bank notes.22
Endnotes:
* Designated additional member per Raffle dated December 6, 2010 in lieu of Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales who took no part.
1 Rollo, pp. 27-43. Penned by Justice Ramon R. Garcia with Justices Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente and Elihu A. Ybanez concurring.
2 Id. at 47-58. Penned by Judge Ma.Theresa Dolores C. Gomez-Estoesta. The dispositive portion of the RTC decision reads:
WHEREFORE, this Court finds accused Mark Clemente y Martinez a.k.a. Emmanuel Dino GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of a violation of Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code for Illegal Possession and Use of False Bank Notes which is penalized under Article 168 of the same Code.
There being neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstance alleged nor proven, pursuant to the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, this Court imposes upon said Mark Clemente y Martinez a.k.a. Emmanuel Dino an indeterminate penalty of EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor in its medium period as minimum to TEN (10) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor in its medium period as maximum and to pay a FINE OF FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00).
The preventive imprisonment accused has undertaken shall be CREDITED to the service of his sentence.
In contemplation of Circular No. 61, Series of 1995, issued by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, the Branch Sheriff of this Court is directed to TRANSMIT the twenty[-four] (24) pieces of P500.00 bills found to be counterfeit to the Cash Department of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas for proper disposition.
With costs de oficio against the accused.
SO ORDERED.
3 Article 168.Illegal possession and use of false treasury or bank notes and other instruments of credit.--Unless the act be one of those coming under the provisions of any of the preceding articles, any person who shall knowingly use or have in his possession, with intent to use any of the false or falsified instruments referred to in this section, shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed in said articles.
4 Rollo, pp. 45-46.
5 Id. at 27 and 47-48.
6 Id. at 29-32.
7 Id. at 53-54.
8 Id. at 54.
9 Id. at 55.
10 Id. at 55-56.
11 Id. at 56.
12 Id. at 59-60.
13 Id. at 35-36.
14 The dispositive portion reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby DENIED. The Judgment dated November 3, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Manila is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
15 Id. at 38-39.
16 Id. at 39-40.
17 Id. at 45-46.
18 Id. at 13.
19 Ortega v. People, G.R. No. 177944, December 24, 2008, 575 SCRA 519, 529.
20 Tecson v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 113218, November 22, 2001, 370 SCRA 181, 188.
21 G.R. No. L-22032, March 4, 1966, 16 SCRA 376, 378.
22 People v. Digoro, G.R. No. L-22032, March 4, 1966, 16 SCRA 376, 378.
23 Rule 130, Section 36. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge; hearsay excluded. -- A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own perception, except as otherwise provided in these Rules. (30a)
24 PNOC Shipping & Transport Corp. v. CA, 358 Phil. 38, 56 (1998); Phil. Home Assurance Corp. v. CA, 327 Phil. 255, 267-268 (1996); Valencia v. Atty. Cabanting, Adm. Cases Nos. 1302, 1391 and 1543, April 26, 1991, 196 SCRA 302, 310.
25 People v. Sariol, G.R. No. 83809, June 22, 1989, 174 SCRA 237, 242.