[ G.R. No. 4682. December 09, 1908 ] 12 Phil. 202
[ G.R. No. 4682. December 09, 1908 ]
THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. J. BRAGA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
WILLARD, J.:
The document in the case is as follows:
“MEMORANDUM.
“Philippine Products Co., manufacturers, New York and Manila, 95 Anloague.
“MANILA, P. I., Oct. 29/07.
" TO SON CO SING: “Receipt for one hundred and fifty pesos, in currency. (This money will be returned)—to the account of the office. “(Rubber stamp) PHILIPPINE PRODUCTS CO., INCORPORATED, “By (signed) J. BRAGA. “P150.00
“Delivered P50.00 o/a “Nov. 4/907. “11-12 P50.”
The defendant, who was chief clerk in the office of the Philippine Products Company, placed with a rubber stamp the words “Philippine Products Co., Incorporated, By ———” upon the document and signed his own name thereto. He then sent it by messenger to Son Co Sing, who delivered to the messenger P150, which the messenger in turn delivered to the defendant, who used it for his private purposes. The defendant had authority to use this rubber stamp for the purpose, among others, of buying articles of small value for the company, but he had no authority to use it for the purpose of securing money for the company, and, of course, no authority to use it for the purpose of securing money for himself. The defendant was prosecuted in the court below for the falsification of a private document and was convicted of the crime of estafa. From that judgment he has appealed. Article 300 of the Penal Code is in part as follows:
“The penalties of cadena temporal and a fine of from 1,250 to 12,500 pesetas shall be imposed on a public official who, taking advantage of his authority, shall commit a falsification— “1. By counterfeiting or feigning any writing, signature, or rubric. “2. By including in any act the participation of persons who had no such participation.
* * * * * * *
“4. By perverting the truth in the narration of facts.”
Article 304 is as follows:
“He who, to the prejudice of a third person or with intent of causing it, shall, in a private document, commit any of the falsifications specified in article 300, shall be punished with the penalties of presidio correccional in its minimum and medium degrees and a fine of from 625 to 6,250 pesetas.”
We think it very clear that the defendant is guilty of the crime of estafa, but the question is,, is he also guilty of the greater crime of falsification of a private document? It is apparent that, if by means of the falsification, the money is actually secured, the crime of estafa is always included in article 304. The defendant can not be convicted of a violation of paragraph 1 of article 300, because he did not counterfeit any signature. The document in question, so far as the rubber stamp and the signature are concerned, was a genuine document; the stamp used was the genuine stamp of the company and the signature was the defendant’s own. Passing the question as to whether he violated paragraph 4 of the article, in that he stated that the money was for account of the office when it was for his own personal account, we come to paragraph 2, which, in our opinion, was violated in this case. If he had signed the document with his own name and had not used the rubber stamp, he would not have obtained the money. Son Co Sing testified that he paid the money because he saw the rubber stamp thereon, and that he believed that the money was for the benefit of the company for that reason. By using the rubber stamp the defendant made it appear that the Philippine Products Company was a party interested in the transaction when, in fact, it was not, and the ease falls clearly within paragraph 2. It is the constant doctrine of this court that, where a person signs the name of another to a document without attempting to imitate his signature, he can not be convicted under paragraph 1 of article 300; because he has not counterfeited the signature and has made no attempt to imitate it. We moreover held in the case of The United States vs. Buenaventura (1 Phil. Rep., 428) that, where the name of another was signed to the document without any attempt to imitate the genuine signature of such person, the defendant could not be convicted either under paragraph 1 or under paragraph 2. If in this case the defendant, without using the stamp, had signed the name of Hellis, the manager of the company, to the document, without attempting to imitate the genuine signature of Heliis, he could not have been convicted under either paragraph 1 or 2. But the case at bar is very different from the supposed case, and from the case of The United States vs. Buenaventura. In this case the only name signed was the name of the defendant, and it was his genuine signature. The falsification consists in his using the rubber stamp for the purpose of making Son Co Sing’ believe that the company had something to do with the transaction when, in fact, it had nothing to do with it. It is said by counsel for the defendant in his brief that the court below acquitted the defendant of the crime of falsification of a private document and that that acquittal, whether right or wrong, is final and conclusive. It was however, held in the case of Trono vs. The United States (199 U. S., 521 )[1] that, notwithstanding such acquittal in the court below, if the defendant appealed, he could, in this court be convicted of the offense of which he had been acquitted in the court below. The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the defendant is convicted of the crime defined in article 304 of the Penal Code and is sentenced to one year, eight months and twenty-one days of presidio correccional, and a fine of 025 pesetas, and suffer subsidiary imprisonment at the rate of P2.50 for each day in case of nonpayment of the fine, not to exceed, however, one-third of the imprisonment hereby imposed, with the right to an allowance of one-half the time for which he has been imprisoned prior to the date of the judgment to be rendered herein with the costs of the first instance and of this instance against the appellant, and the accessories of the law. So ordered. Arellano, C. J., Torres, Mapa, Carson, and Tracey, JJ., concur.