This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2015-12-02 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| In this relation, it should be pointed out that under Section 3 (d), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, the legal presumption is that a person takes ordinary care of his concerns. To this, case law dictates that the natural presumption is that one does not sign a document without first informing himself of its contents and consequences.[36] Further, under Section 3 (p) of the same Rule, it is equally presumed that private transactions have been fair and regular.[37] This behooves every contracting party to learn and know the contents of a document before he signs and delivers it.[38] The effect of a presumption upon the burden of proof is to create the need of presenting evidence to overcome the prima facie case created, thereby which, if no contrary proof is offered, will prevail.[39] In this case, petitioner failed to present any evidence to controvert these presumptions. Also, respondent's possession of the document pertaining to the obligation strongly buttresses her claim that the same has not been extinguished.[40] Preponderance of evidence only requires that evidence be greater or more convincing than the opposing evidence.[41] All things considered, the evidence in this case clearly preponderates in respondent's favor. | |||||
|
2012-01-25 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| In this regard, we stress that a preliminary investigation for the purpose of determining the existence of probable cause is not part of a trial.[32] At a preliminary investigation, the investigating prosecutor or the Secretary of Justice only determines whether the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged.[33] Probable cause refers to facts and circumstances that engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof.[34] There is no definitive standard by which probable cause is determined except to consider the attendant conditions; the existence of probable cause depends upon the finding of the public prosecutor conducting the examination, who is called upon not to disregard the facts presented, and to ensure that his finding should not run counter to the clear dictates of reason.[35] | |||||
|
2012-01-25 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Firstly, a presumption affects the burden of proof that is normally lodged in the State.[38] The effect is to create the need of presenting evidence to overcome the prima facie case that shall prevail in the absence of proof to the contrary.[39] As such, a presumption of law is material during the actual trial of the criminal case where in the establishment thereof the party against whom the inference is made should adduce evidence to rebut the presumption and demolish the prima facie case.[40] This is not so in a preliminary investigation, where the investigating prosecutor only determines the existence of a prima facie case that warrants the prosecution of a criminal case in court.[41] | |||||
|
2012-01-25 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The presumption that whoever possesses or uses a spurious document is its forger applies only in the absence of a satisfactory explanation.[44] Accordingly, we cannot hold that the Secretary of Justice erred in dismissing the information in the face of the controverting explanation by Tobias showing how he came to possess the spurious document. Much less can we consider the dismissal as done with abuse of discretion, least of all grave. We concur with the erudite exposition of the CA on the matter, to wit: It would seem that under the above proposition of the petitioner, the moment a person has in his possession a falsified document and has made use of it, probable cause or prima facie is already established and that no amount of satisfactory explanation will prevent the filing of the case in court by the investigating officer, for any such good explanation or defense can only be threshed out in the trial on the merit. We are not to be persuaded. To give meaning to such argumentation will surely defeat the very purpose for which preliminary investigation is required in this jurisdiction. | |||||
|
2011-02-02 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| What is punished in falsification of a public document is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth as solemnly proclaimed in it.[16] Generally, the elements of Article 171 are: 1) the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public; 2) he takes advantage of his official position; and 3) that he falsifies a document by committing any of the ways it is done.[17] | |||||
|
2010-10-06 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| There is no general formula or fixed rule for the determination of probable cause since the same must be decided in light of the conditions obtaining in given situations and its existence depends to a large degree upon the findings or opinion of the judge conducting the examination.[41] | |||||
|
2009-02-13 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Thus, 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.[25] | |||||
|
2009-01-08 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In fine, the element of gain or benefit on the part of the offender or prejudice to a third party as a result of the falsification, or tarnishing of a document's integrity, is not essential to maintain a charge for falsification of public documents.[22] What is punished in falsification of public document is principally the undermining of the public faith and the destruction of truth as solemnly proclaimed therein. In this particular crime, therefore, the controlling consideration lies in 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.[23] | |||||
|
2007-09-12 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| 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.[53] 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.[54] 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.[55] | |||||