[ G.R. No. 1537. April 08, 1905 ] 4 Phil. 391
[ G.R. No. 1537. April 08, 1905 ]
THE UNITED STATES, COMPLAINANT AND APPELLEE, VS. GERONIMO MILLA ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS. D E C I S I O N
WILLARD, J.:
In the principal document, with the falsification of which the defendants were charged, it was recited that the defendant Geronimo Milla stated that he was owner of the lands therein described and it was further recited that the complaining witness, Victoriano Barcena, and the four other complaining witnesses, ceded to the defendant Geronimo Milla an undivided half of the said lands. That these complaining witnesses actually signed this document is undisputed. They so testified themselves. By such signatures they gave their consent to the contract and to the terms thereof, as stated in the said instrument.
It is claimed by them, however, that their consent to the contract was obtained by intimidation on the part of the defendant Juan Cardona, in which the defendant Geronimo Milla participated, and of which the other defendants Agustin Ramos and Manuel Navarro had knowledge at the time. The defendant Agustin Ramos was at the time the municipal president and Manuel Navarro the municipal secretary of the pueblo of Gerona, in the Province of Tarlac, and they signed the contract in their official capacity, the said Ramos claiming to exercise the functions of a notary public. The complaint charges all the defendants with the falsification of a public document, in the particular that they made in the contract in question a false statement of the facts (Art. 300, par. 4, Penal Code). But in view of the fact that the parties to the contract gave their consent to the document, we do not see how there could have been any false statement of the facts contained therein, at least such a false statement as would subject the parties to the contract to the penalties contained in article 300 of the Penal Code. It is claimed by the Government that, because their consent to this contract was obtained by intimidation, the effect is the same as if no consent had ever been given and the entire document had been simulated. We can not agree with this contention. The document was not a simulated or a false document, but was a genuine one, bearing the genuine signatures of the parties to it.The fact that one’s consent to a contract may be obtained by mistake, violence, intimidation, or fraud does not make the contract a false contract. The rights of a party whose consent has thus been obtained are denned in articles 1265, 1300 et seq., of the Civil Code. Whatever other crime these defendants, and especially Cardona, may have been guilty of, they were not, we think, guilty of the crime of falsification, either of a public or private document. The other documents with the falsification of which the defendants are charged but state the result of the principal document, and if the latter is not falsified the former can not be. The defendant Cardona having died pending the appeal, the cause is dismissed as to him. As to the other defendants, the judgment of the court below is reversed and they are acquitted, with the costs of this instance de ofcio.
Arellano, C. J,, Mapa, and Johnson, JJ., concur. Carson, J., reserves his opinion.