The Perils of Being a Witness: Understanding Liability for Falsified Documents in the Philippines

n

Signing as a witness might seem like a mere formality, but in the Philippines, it carries significant legal weight. This case highlights that witnesses to documents, especially public documents like deeds of sale, can face serious legal repercussions if those documents turn out to be falsified. It underscores the importance of due diligence and understanding the gravity of attesting to the veracity of signatures and the integrity of transactions, as even a witness can be drawn into the legal crosshairs of falsification charges.

nn

G.R. NO. 160257, January 31, 2006

nn

INTRODUCTION

n

Imagine witnessing a seemingly legitimate property sale between family members. Years later, you find yourself facing criminal charges because the signatures on the deed were forged. This isn’t a far-fetched scenario; it’s the reality faced by Robert Lastrilla in this landmark Philippine Supreme Court case. The case of Robert Lastrilla v. Rafael A. Granda delves into the crucial question of when a witness to a falsified public document can be held liable for falsification under Philippine law. At the heart of the matter is the concept of probable cause – what level of evidence is needed to charge someone with a crime, and how does this apply to witnesses of potentially fraudulent transactions?

nn

LEGAL CONTEXT: Falsification of Public Documents and Probable Cause

n

Philippine law takes a stern view of falsification, especially when it involves public documents. Articles 171 and 172 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) are the cornerstones of this legal stance. Article 171 outlines how falsification of legislative documents, public documents, official documents, and commercial documents is committed by public officers, employees, or notaries.

n

For private individuals, Article 172(1) comes into play, penalizing “any private individual who shall commit any of the falsifications enumerated in the next preceding article in any public or official document…”. The ‘falsifications enumerated’ in Article 171, relevant to this case, include:

n

n
1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric.

n

2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate.

n

3. Altering true dates.

n

n

In essence, these provisions aim to protect public trust and the integrity of official records. Crucially, the prosecution in this case hinged on establishing ‘probable cause.’ Probable cause, in the context of preliminary investigations, is not about proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, it’s about determining if there is sufficient evidence to suggest that a crime has been committed and that the person being charged is likely responsible. As the Supreme Court reiterated, probable cause is defined as:

n

…the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief, in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted.

n

This standard is lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt, focusing on the likelihood of guilt, not absolute certainty.

nn

CASE BREAKDOWN: The Granda Land Sales and the Falsification Allegations

n

The story begins with the Granda family and their land holdings in Tacloban City. After the deaths of spouses Rafael and Aurora Granda, their grandson, Rafael A. Granda (the respondent), discovered that several properties owned by his grandmother Aurora had been sold. The sales were purportedly documented in three Deeds of Absolute Sale, all dated December 7, 1985. Robert Lastrilla (the petitioner) signed as a witness to these deeds. The vendees were Lastrilla’s siblings and his spouse.

n

Suspicious, Rafael A. Granda initiated an investigation. His suspicions were fueled by several factors:

n

n
• He learned the sales might have actually occurred much later, around 1999-2000.

n

• He questioned the authenticity of his grandparents’ signatures on the deeds.

n

• He found evidence suggesting one of the witnesses, Silvina Granda (the youngest daughter of the deceased spouses), could not have been present on December 7, 1985, as she was in a monastery.

n

n

Forensic examination by the PNP Crime Laboratory confirmed Rafael’s suspicions – the signatures of Rafael Granda on the deeds were indeed forged. Furthermore, the deeds were not among the notarized documents submitted to the Regional Trial Court for 1985, and the registration with the Register of Deeds happened only in 2000, fifteen years after the purported sale date.

n

Rafael A. Granda filed a complaint for falsification against Lastrilla, Silvina Granda, the notary public, and the vendees. The City Prosecutor initially dismissed the complaint against Lastrilla and the vendees, finding no probable cause. However, the Department of Justice (DOJ) reversed this in part, finding probable cause against Silvina Granda and the notary public but still clearing Lastrilla. The DOJ reasoned that Lastrilla, as a buyer who paid a substantial amount, lacked criminal intent to falsify documents that would undermine his own transaction. The DOJ also noted that Rafael A. Granda had signed a Deed of Assignment acknowledging the sale and receiving proceeds, suggesting he initially accepted the transactions.

n

Undeterred, Rafael A. Granda appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA overturned the DOJ’s decision regarding Lastrilla, finding probable cause to indict him. The CA highlighted several points:

n

n
• Lastrilla knew the deeds were falsified but signed as a witness anyway.

n

• He was responsible for registering the falsified deeds and transferring titles.

n

n

The CA concluded that these circumstances provided reasonable grounds to believe Lastrilla was probably guilty of falsification. Lastrilla then elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA erred in finding probable cause.

n

The Supreme Court sided with the Court of Appeals. The Court emphasized that probable cause only requires evidence showing it is “more likely than not” a crime was committed and the suspect committed it. The Court highlighted several key pieces of evidence against Lastrilla:

n

n
• **His Witness Signature:** Lastrilla signed as a witness, attesting that the Granda spouses signed in his presence on December 7, 1985, which was demonstrably false. The Court stated, “By petitioner’s own admission, however, the negotiations for the sales only started in 1998, thus, the deeds were admittedly antedated.”

n

• **Registration of Deeds:** Evidence showed Lastrilla personally presented the deeds for registration, further linking him to the falsified documents. The Court noted, “a copy of Control No. 183 dated February 28, 2000 and the certification of the Register of Deeds state that petitioner ‘presented for registration’ the three deeds in question to the Register of Deeds.”

n

• **Presumption of Intent:** The Court invoked the presumption that a person intends the ordinary consequences of their voluntary acts. Given Lastrilla’s role in ensuring the authenticity of signatures for his siblings’ large investment, his act of witnessing the deeds despite the falsification strongly suggested knowledge and intent. The Court quoted precedents, stating,