FIRST
DIVISION
THE UNITED
STATES,
ET AL.,
Complainants-Appellees,
G.
R.
No. 971
February
3, 1903
-versus-
PONCIANO
VILORIA,
Defendant-Appellant.
D E C I S I
O N
TORRES, J :
On the 15th of June 1900,
Maria Mina, a citizen of Narvacan, Ilocos Sur, filed a complaint
against
Ponciano Viloria for the redemption of a piece of land sold by her to
the
latter for $120, subject to the right of redemption, alleging that the
purchaser had refused to reconvey the same. The defendant declined to
answer
the complaint on the ground that the justice of the peace of Narvacan
was
without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the value of the property sold was
$220
as shown by a private document exhibited at that time. This document,
which
appears in the record on page 88, was impugned by the private
prosecutor
as a forgery, and she asked that a prosecution be instituted for this
crime.
This petition was reproduced in a formal complaint dated on the 14th of
August, 1900 [Record, p. 1], in which she alleges that the accused
presented
the said false document animus lucrandi, and to the damage of the
complainant.
That she had not drawn, authorized, or signed the said document,
inasmuch
as she was absent from Narvacan at the date thereof, and that it was
not
true that she had agreed to limit the time within which to redeem the
property,
nor that she had received an increase of $100 over the $120, which was
the consideration for the land covered by the original document
[Record,
p. 87], and denied that in consideration of the increased price she had
sold upon similar terms another piece of adjacent land lying to the
east
of the first tract, alleging that she was still in possession of the
latter
property and citing several witnesses to that effect.
Upon this complaint
and in view of the result of the preliminary investigation conducted at
the instance of the complainant, the judge directed that the defendant
be prosecuted for the crime of falsification of a private document. The
accused appeared for arraignment and plead not guilty. In this
subsequent
testimony he stated [Record, p. 128] that about five years ago Maria
Mina
had mortgaged to him a piece of land belonging to her situated at a
place
called Tamdagan, at the town of Narvacan, for the sum of $120; that on
the 8th of June, 1898, at the request of Maria Mina, who needed money
to
pay an indebtedness to one Bonifacio Azada, and in accordance with
their
agreement, the witness advanced her another $100 in consideration of
another
small piece of land adjacent to the land covered by the mortgage, which
it was agreed was to be converted into a sale, with the reservation to
the vendor of the right to redeem within one year; that in accordance
with
this agreement he directed Juan Martinez and Severino Cabaya, since
deceased,
on the afternoon of June 8, 1898, to go to the house of the complaining
witness and pay her the said sum of $100, and that the woman, Mina,
herself
made the final copy of the contract from the draft drawn, writing it at
the foot of the old document, which, together with the draft of the
agreement,
had been taken to her by the bearers of the money; that the latter upon
their return to the house after nightfall brought with them the said
writing
[Original Record, p. 88; translation Record, p. 211]; that Basilia
Ballejos,
Bonifacio Azada, and the two messengers were eyewitnesses to the
writing
of the document by Maria Mina. The witness added that when the justice
of the peace of Narvacan appointed Don Gregorio Navarro receiver to
take
possession of the two pieces of land as the result of the civil action
brought by Maria Mina that the witness was in possession of the land,
and
that when the receiver was discharged the land was returned to him.
He who to the damage
of another or with the intention to cause damage commits any one of the
foregeries or falsifications designated in Article 300 of the Penal
Code
in a private document, is subject to the penalty prescribed by Article
304 thereof.
The complaining witness
charged the accused with having counterfeited, simulated, or feigned in
the document on page 88 of the record her handwriting, signature, and
scroll,
and of having been guilty of falsehood by having expressed in this
document
contracts and stipulations which were not agreed upon between them,
this
with the intention of causing her damage as shown by the fact of his
having
introduced it in evidence in the civil case as a defense to her action.
The complaining
witness,
Mina, having denied the authenticity of the document and of the
signature
and scroll, which it purports to bear, alleging that they are not her
signature
or scroll, and that she did not write the same, the burden of proof is
on the accused who affirms the authenticity of the document and the
veracity
of its contents to show these facts, and her denial is sufficient for
the
document to be regarded as false unless these facts are properly proven.
However,
notwithstanding
the denial of Maria Mina and her allegation of the falsity of this
document,
and notwithstanding the testimony of the witnesses presented by her at
the trial for the purpose of proving that she was absent from Narvacan
and was in Vigan on the date in which the document purports to have
been
written and signed, and therefore that she could not have written it,
and
that the land said to have been sold by this document to Viloria with
the
right of redemption had not been delivered to the latter but was still
in her possession, and was under cultivation by Cornelio Cardona at her
account, the record shows sufficient evidence to the contrary to prove
that the sale actually took place, and that the document attacked as
false
is authentic.
Upon an examination
of the evidence introduced by the accused it appears that four
witnesses
were present when the complainant wrote and signed the document on the
afternoon of June 8, 1898. Only three of them testified to this fact,
the
fourth witness having died after the occurrence and prior to the trial,
although it appears from the record of the preliminary investigation in
the case and which was sent up with the trial record that this witness
also testified in the same way. It can not therefore be believed that
the
complaining witness was absent on that afternoon from the town of
Narvacan
or that she was in Vigan, as testified to by four witnesses. This view
is further supported by the fact that two of these witnesses testified
only to statements made by one of the other two. The fifth witness,
Anatalio
Pichay, in whose house the complaining witness, Mina, alleges that she
stopped while in Vigan does not remember the date or the year in which
this occurred.
Three witnesses,
residents
of the neighborhood, and owners of property adjacent to the land
referred
to in the deed, testified that the accused is the owner of the said
land
which was formerly and property of the complaining witness, Mina, and
that
Juan Martinez and Bibiana de la Cuadra have been successively
cultivating
it for the account of the accused since 1898. This is corroborated by
the
testimony of other witnesses who, however, state that the land was
being
cultivated in the name of Bonifacio Azada, to whom the accused conveyed
the second piece of land. this statement was also made by the accused
in
his testimony. It is worthy of note that when the land was put in the
hands
of a receiver at the instance of Maria Mina on account of the civil
action
referred to, the receiver, Gregorio Navarro, who took charge of the
land,
upon being examined as a witness for the prosecution stated that he did
not remember who possessed the lands of which he had been receiver, nor
did he remember to whom they were returned at the expiration of the
receivership.
Upon this examination
of the merits of the case and of the evidence introduced, and in view
of
the result of the examination by experts of the handwriting, signature,
and scroll of the complaining witness, the exercise of a sound
discretion
leads to a complete conviction that the contract expressed in the
document
referred to was actually entered into; that the document is authentic;
that Ponciano Viloria purchased the said lands which were not possessed
by or under the control, even of the complaining witness, who, for the
purpose of recovering them, was obliged to invoke the aid of the
courts,
and, therefore, Viloria is not guilty of the crime of which he is
charged.
Upon these grounds
justice requires that the appealed judgment should be reversed and the
accused Ponciano Viloria acquitted for lack of evidence of the crime of
which he is charged, with the costs of both instances de oficio.
The Court below is directed to make the necessary orders with respect
to
the property of the accused, which has been attached. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J.,
Cooper, Willard, Mapa, and Ladd, JJ., concur.
|