TL;DR

The Supreme Court acquitted Atty. Constantino of falsifying a public document, specifically a notarial will. The Court clarified that for a notary public to be guilty of falsification in this context, the prosecution must prove they actively falsified or simulated signatures of the testator or witnesses to make it seem they participated in the will’s execution when they did not. In this case, while a witness signed the will after notarization, Atty. Constantino did not induce this, and the other witnesses and testator did validly sign. The ruling emphasizes that notaries are not criminally liable for mere negligence if they do not actively create a false appearance of participation in a notarized document.

The Case of the Unsigned Witness: Did a Notary Public Falsify a Will?

Atty. Bernardo T. Constantino, a notary public, faced charges of falsification of a public document for his role in notarizing a Last Will and Testament. The accusation stemmed from the inclusion of Dr. Eliezer Asuncion’s name as a witness in the will’s acknowledgment, even though Dr. Asuncion signed the document after it had already been notarized. The central legal question before the Supreme Court was whether Atty. Constantino’s failure to remove Dr. Asuncion’s name constituted falsification under Article 171(2) of the Revised Penal Code. This article penalizes a notary public who, taking advantage of their position, causes it to appear that persons participated in an act when they did not.

The prosecution argued that Atty. Constantino falsified the document by making it appear that Dr. Asuncion was present during the will’s execution and notarization. They pointed to the Joint Acknowledgment in the will, which listed Dr. Asuncion as appearing before Atty. Constantino on September 9, 2001. However, the facts revealed that while Atty. Constantino did notarize the will on that date, Dr. Asuncion signed it later, after being approached by a relative of the will’s beneficiary. Atty. Constantino defended himself by stating he instructed the testator not to alter the document and that he relied on his secretary for document handling, admitting negligence but denying intent to falsify.

The Supreme Court began its analysis by reiterating the fundamental principle of presumption of innocence in criminal cases, requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt for conviction. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to demonstrate all elements of falsification. Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code defines falsification by a public officer, including a notary public, as:

ARTICLE 171. Falsification by Public Officer, Employee or Notary or Ecclesiastic Minister. — The penalty of prisión 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:

… 2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate [.]

The Court dissected the elements of this crime, noting that the prosecution must prove: (1) the offender is a notary public; (2) they abused their official position; (3) they falsified a document by making it appear someone participated in an act; and (4) that person did not, in fact, participate. While the first two elements were undisputed, the crucial point was whether Atty. Constantino caused it to appear that Dr. Asuncion participated when he did not.

The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of the attestation clause in a notarial will, which serves to authenticate the document and record the facts of its execution. However, the Court pointed out a critical fact overlooked by the lower courts: Dr. Asuncion signed the document after notarization. The Court reasoned that at the moment of notarization, Atty. Constantino certified the presence and participation of the witnesses who had signed at that time – not Dr. Asuncion, who signed later. The Court stated:

Since Dr. Asuncion did not sign the Joint Acknowledgment before it was notarized, he cannot be considered as having attested and subscribed to its due execution at the time of its notarization. Thus, when petitioner certified that the persons who attested and subscribed to the document were present before him, there could have been no falsity. It was not petitioner who made it appear that Dr. Asuncion participated in the execution of the Joint Acknowledgment, but Ferrer and Dr. Asuncion himself. Petitioner, therefore, must be acquitted.

The Court differentiated between criminal falsification and administrative negligence. While Atty. Constantino was acquitted of the crime, the Supreme Court noted his lapse in not removing Dr. Asuncion’s name, which contributed to the later confusion and improper signing. This negligence, the Court suggested, could warrant administrative sanctions under the Rules on Notarial Practice, particularly for executing an incomplete certificate. Referencing the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and jurisprudence like Bote v. Eduardo, the Court underscored the duty of notaries to exercise utmost care in their duties to maintain public trust in notarized documents. However, for criminal liability of falsification, active intent to deceive and create a false appearance of participation is required, which was not proven in Atty. Constantino’s case.

FAQs

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Constantino v. People, G.R. No. 225696, April 08, 2019