Dear PAO,
My cousin forged the signature of my late grandmother in a notarized deed of donation, making it appear that my grandmother donated a parcel of land to him. Nevertheless, thanks to the intervention of our PAO lawyer, we were able to divide the estate of my grandmother accordingly. Now, we want to file a criminal case against such cousin. However, he pointed out that he did not have any intent to gain and he merely wanted to effectuate the alleged promise of our grandmother to donate the land to him. Does the absence of intent to gain effectively negates his liability in forging our lola’s signature?
Foe
Dear Foe,
No, absence of intent to gain does not negate the criminal liability of your cousin.
Indubitably, the deed of donation you have mentioned is a public document since notarization converts a private document into a public document and makes such document admissible as evidence without further proof of its authenticity. (Atty. Manzano vs. Atty. Rivera, G.R. No. 12173, November 03, 2020, Ponente: Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando).
In relation thereto, in Jesus O. Typoco vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 221857, August 16, 2017, penned by Chief Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, the Supreme Court ruled that it is not necessary that there be present the idea of gain or even the intent to injure a person, saying:
“xxx... 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.
“The law is clear that wrongful intent on the part of the accused to injure a third person is not an essential element of the crime of falsification of public document. It is jurisprudentially settled that in the falsification of public or official documents, whether by public officers or private persons, it is not necessary that there be present the idea of gain or the intent to injure a third person for the reason that, in contradistinction to private documents, the principal thing punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of truth as therein solemnly proclaimed. In falsification of public documents, therefore, the controlling consideration is the public character of a document; and the existence of any prejudice caused to third persons or, at least, the intent to cause such damage becomes immaterial.”
Thus, even assuming, without conceding, that your cousin forged the deed of donation without any intent to gain, such absence of intent will not negate his criminal liability because the gravamen of falsification of public documents is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed. By making it appear that a parcel of land was donated to him, your cousin consummated the distortion of truth by forging the signature of your grandmother in a notarized document.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
Thank you for your continued trust and support.
Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net
