REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

National Capital Judicial Region

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
Branch 47, Pasay City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,
Criminal Cases No. M-PSY- 00 862
-versus- For: Falsification of Public Document

CHARISA KEY ESTEBAN,

Accused.
x--------------------------------------x

DECISION

Courts are required to put the prosecution evidence through the crucible of a
severe testing, and the constitutional right to presumption of innocence requires them
to take a more than casual consideration of every circumstance or doubt favoring the
innocence of the accused.1

THE CHARGE

Accused stands charged with Falsification of Public Document, the accusatory

portion of the Information reads as follows:

That on or about November 22, 1996, in Pasay City,

Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said
accused, in utter disregard of truth and in violation of public faith, did
then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit falsification
in a Philippine passport bearing no. K341338, which affects the integrity
of said document, by tampering and/ or making and causing false entries
therein to the damage and prejudice of the real owner Maria Bella A.
Bustos and the Department of Foreign Affairs.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

When arraigned on August 19, 2002, accused Charisa Key Esteban assisted by
her counsel de parte Atty. Ricky Jones Macabaya pleaded not guilty to the charge. On
September 24, 2002, the pre-trial was terminated. Forthwith, trial on the merits
ensued. On October 23, 2007, the prosecution formally offered its documentary

1 People vs. Santos, Jr., G.R. No. 175593, October 17, 2007.
evidence, and thereafter, it rested its case. On August 31, 2010, the defense terminated
the presentation of its evidence. Thereafter, this case was submitted for decision.

EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION

Testimonial Evidence

The prosecution presented the following witnesses:

LORNA CAPILAN , an NBI employee assigned at the records division, identified

the investigation report of the conducting agent who is special investigator Isaac
Garbeso.2 She testified that she has no participation in the investigation of this case.3

No cross examination was conducted.

LOIDA UY, identified the passport evaluation report of accused whose passport
number is No. K341338.4 The findings about the passport of the accused showed that
the database was replaced and the edges of the photo page were cut in the lamination
and the entire page was overlaid by a plastic.5 The passport is genuine but there is
tampering inside it.6 She prepared the said report, signed it and forwarded it to the
NBI.

During her cross examination, she answered that the photograph in the
passport was substituted with another photograph.

ISAAC CARPESO, the arresting officer, testified that on November 22, 1996, he
was assigned at the International Airport Division, NAIA when the Bureau of
immigration Atty. Danilo Perez turned over to them three (3) passengers bound for Los
Angeles, USA because of possession of tampered passport.7 One of the passengers is the
accused Charisa Key Esteban. The passport used by the accused bearing no. K341338
was issued to Maria Bella Busto. He made a report and he recommended the filing of
Falsification of Public Document against the herein accused.

Documentary Evidence
The prosecution formally offered the following documentary evidence: (1) NBI
report marked as Exhibit A; (2) Authorization letter from NBI office marked as Exhibit
B with sub-markings; (3) photocopies of the accused passport with no. K341338
marked as Exhibit C with sub-markings. Only Exhibits A and C with sub-markings
were admitted by this Court.

2 TSN dated March 18, 2003, p. 9.

3 TSN dated March 18, 2003, p. 10.
4 TSN dated April 26, 2005, p. 5.
5 TSN dated April 26, 2005, p. 8.
6
TSN dated April 26, 2005, p. 9.
7 TSN dated September 9, 2005, p. 7.
 EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE

Testimonial Evidence

The defense presented the following witnesses:

CHARISA KEY ESTEBAN testified that on November 22, 1996, she was at the
NAIA, Pasay City.8 She was bound for Los Angeles, USA. Her travel documents were
facilitated by a certain Shirley.9 She recommended her to a recruiter named Kuya Boy
Perez. She met him twice. He asked from her picture and money. He told her that after
she gave the money to him, she will leave in few weeks. As to the processing of the
documents for her employment abroad, she was asked her ID and passport. She showed
to him her ID. He kept it. She gave him the initial down payment of Twenty Thousand
Pesos (P20, 000.00) for the processing of her passport. She has no receipt. After several
weeks, they met at the airport where she gave the balance of One Hundred Thousand
Pesos (P100,000.00) when she received her passport. She entered the airport where she
followed the procedures. She was able to check in and when she exited from the place,
two men talked to her. They are members of the NBI airport. They brought her to their
office. She was informed that her passport was fake. She was deeply sad and frustrated.
She was asked if she still wanted to go abroad. She answered yes. They asked from her
Four Hundred Dollars ($400.00). She was not able to get the money because her
money in the same amount was forcibly taken from her. She failed to leave abroad. She
did not take any necessary actions. She did not tamper the passport. It was Boy Perez
who tampered her passport.10

During her cross-examination, she admitted holding her passport in the checking
in area of the airport.11

On re-direct examination, she testified that a passport was given to her by Boy
Perez.

CYNTHIA ESTEBAN testified that accused Charisa Key Esteban is her

daughter.12 On November 22, 1996, they were at the airport. They met Boy Perez. She
gave him One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00). In turn, he showed the
passport and the ticket.13 She gave them to her daughter. When they went home to
Bulacan, she was surprised because her daughter arrived. Her daughter told her that
the passport was fake.14

Documentary Evidence

The defense did not have any documentary evidence to formally offer.

8 TSN dated May 27, 2009, p. 4.

9 TSN dated May 27, 2009, p. 5.
10 TSN dated May 27, 2009, p. 12.
11 TSN dated July 8, 2009, p. 5.
12 TSN dated October 15, 2009, p. 4.
13 TSN dated October 15, 2009, p. 6.
14 TSN dated January 14, 2010, p. 4.
 ISSUE

The issue is whether or not accused is guilty as charged.

APPLICABLE LAW

The law in point is Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code that provides:

Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister. --

The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed 5,000 pesos shall be imposed
upon any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official
position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts:

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

2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding

when they did not in fact so participate;

3. Attributing to persons who have participated in any act or proceeding

statements other than those in fact made by them;

4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;

5. Altering true dates;

6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes

its meaning;

7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an

original document when no such original exists, or including in such a copy a
statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original; or

8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a

protocol, registry, or official book.

The same penalty shall be imposed upon any ecclesiastical minister who shall
commit any of the offenses enumerated in the preceding paragraphs of this article , with
respect to any record or document of such character that its falsification may affect the
civil status of persons.

RULING

For falsification of a public document to be established, the following elements

must concur: 1) that the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public; 2) that
he takes advantage of his official position; and 3) that he falsifies a document by
committing any of the aforementioned acts. Likewise, in falsification of public or official
documents, it is not necessary that there be present the idea of gain or the intent to
injure a third person because in the falsification of a public document, what is
punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein
solemnly proclaimed.15

The foregoing elements were not established. There was no positive testimony
and positive identification from the prosecutions witnesses that the accused Charisa
Key Esteban falsified a public document. Neither did the prosecution refute the
testimony of the herein accused and her witness that the falsification was committed by
a certain Boy Perez. In Alonzo vs. IAC 151 SCRA 552, our Supreme Court held, The
respondent court mistakenly applied the rule that: one found in the possession of and
who used a forged document is the forger or the one who caused the forgery and
therefore, guilty of falsification. The accused is entitled to the constitutional
presumption of innocence especially where the evidence on the alleged forged voucher
is extremely doubtful. In all criminal cases, mere speculations cannot substitute for
proof in establishing the guilt of the accused.16 Indeed, suspicion no matter how strong
must never sway judgment. Where there is reasonable doubt, the accused must be
acquitted even though their innocence may not have been established. The Constitution
presumes a person innocent until proven guilty by proof beyond reasonable doubt.
When guilt is not proven with moral certainty, it has been our policy of long standing
that the presumption of innocence must be favored, and exoneration granted as a
matter of right. Although the evidence for the defense may be frail, criminal conviction
must come, not from its weakness, but from the strength of that for the prosecution.17

DISPOSITIVE PORTION

WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, this Court finds the accused NOT

GUILTY. She is ACQUITTED of the charge of Falsification of Public Document on
reasonable doubt.

SO ORDERED.

Pasay City, October 18, 2010.

ELIZA B. YU
Judge

15 Lastrilla vs. Granda, G.R. No. 160257, January 31, 2006, 481 SCRA 324, 345, citing Lumancas vs. Uriarte, 347 SCRA 22, 33-34

(2000), further citing People vs. Po Giok To, 96 Phil. 913, 918 (1955).
16 Fernandez vs People, 341 SCRA 277, September 28, 2000.
17 Layug vs. Sandiganbayan, 338 SCRA 156, August 16, 2000.
Copy furnished:
ACP John Giselher Imperial
City Prosecutors Office
Hall of Justice, Pasay City

Atty. Remmel Balinbin

Defense Counsel
Public Attorneys Office
Hall of Justice, Pasay City

Charisa Key Esteban

Accused
No. 8 Bermudez Apartment
Norsagary, Bulacan