TABUK CITY, Kalinga – A local court found guilty two individuals, including a former vice mayor and now punong barangay, for alleged falsification of documents in the subdivision of a five-hectare land located in barangay Appas more than five years ago.
In an 11-page decision, Judge Tshaine Taguinod-Maggay of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), here, sentenced former Vice Mayor Bernard Glenn Daoas and Arthur Dirige (deceased) to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of four months and one day to two years and four months and to pay a fine of P10,000 for the aforesaid offense.
The court noted that Daoas admitted that the affidavit of conformity used in the subdivision of a 5-hectare property in barangay Appas was allegedly falsified and that he was aware and knowledgeable of the said falsity. It added that such admission prevails over the presumption of regularity accorded to notarized documents.
“When a person denies his or her signature therein, a prima facie case for falsification is established which the defendant must overcome. The rule is that if a person had in his possession a falsified document and he made use of it, taking advantage of it and profiting thereby, the presumption is that he is the material author of the falsification. 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, which, if no contrary proof is offered, will thereby prevail. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation, one who is found in possession of a forged document and who use or uttered it is presumed to be the forger,” the decision stressed.
Records showed that the complainant asserted that his signature and that of his co-heirs in the affidavit of conformity are forged and such affidavit was used by Daoas in support to the affidavit of adverse claim that he submitted to the Registry of Deeds of Kalinga.
The court pointed out that instead of rebutting the said claim to prove otherwise and buttress his denial having falsified and denying knowledge to the falsification, Daoas even bolstered the claim of the prosecution in the exchange during his cross-examination.
Further, despite full opportunity, the court emphasized that both accused were not able to rebut such presumption, instead, an admission was made to strengthen the claim of the prosecution that the document was falsified and that the same was used in having the adverse claim annotated in the certificate of title of the property and such admission by Daoas during the cross-examination conducted to him constitutes a judicial admission. An admission is a party’s acknowledgement of a fact which is against his interest. A party may make an admission in any of the prescribed ways, in written pleadings, motions and other papers and stipulations filed in the case; in open court, either by his testimony on the stand or by his statement or that of his counsel and in his statement made outside the proceedings in the same case.
The court stipulated that even as early as December 2014, even without the consent of his co-heirs Dirige has already conveyed the whole property to Daoas through a deed of transfer of rights. In September 2014, Dirige, again without the knowledge and consent of his co-heirs, caused the preparation of a subdivision plan of the property. The said plan bears only the signature of the said individual and in the said plan, only one parcel had a direct access to the national highway as in fact it is adjacent to the road while all other subdivided lots have none. In 2015, when all heirs have allegedly executed the extra-judicial settlement of state of Modesto Dirige, he saw the same as an opportunity to carry out what he planned all along to obtain the conformity of all his co-heirs to the subdivision plan he caused to be prepared about surreptitiously through the falsified affidavit of conformity.
The court stated that the falsified affidavit of conformity in effect gave color of legitimacy to the unconsented subdivision plan that he caused to be prepared.
According to the decision, Daoas’s declaration that the affidavit of conformity produced no force and effect is of no moment. The fact that the complaining witness and his co-heirs need to file a case for declaration of nullity of deed of transfer of rights and possession and deed of sale, cancellation of the notice of adverse claim speaks volume to the damage caused to them when Daoas filed a notice of adverse claim with the use of the falsified affidavit of conformity.
The decision explained that such use of falsified affidavit of conformity prejudiced and caused damage to the complaining witness and his co-heirs as they had to file a case for the cancellation of documents derived from the falsified affidavit and for Daoas to vacate the area he occupied on the basis of falsified document
The court also found that there is an implied conspiracy on the said case. The overt acts of both accused from the moment they transacted over the property proved that they acted in an implied conspiracy. An implied conspiracy exists when two or more persons are shown to have aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful objective, each doing a part so that their combined acts, though apparently independent, were in fact connected and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment.
In his motion for reconsideration, Daoas reiterated that the prosecution, after they were given ample opportunity to prove their case, failed or their evidence presented and offered are reportedly insufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
He claimed that the court mis-interpreted or committed an error in interpreting the answers that he made and those of his co-accused during their cross-examinations as judicial admissions that the subject affidavit of conformity was a product of forgery and despite such knowledge, the used it for their own personal gain which eventually led to their conviction. By Dexter A. See
