G.R. No.

L-62634 June 26, 1992

ADOLFO CAUBANG, petitioner,

Petitioner, ADOLFO CAUBANG, was found guilty beyond

Digest by: DASMARIÑAS, B.

As per the syllabus of ATTY. LEXIE REYES, facts discussed herein

FACTS:

• ADOLFO CAUBANG, with his brother, Melquiades Caubang, Florencio Teves, and Teodoro
Diaz, organized BANGANGA MUTUAL ASSOCIATION (BMA), a stevedoring service in
Davao Oriental which has been operating since its establishment in 1954.

• BALTAZAR PAGADUAN was the manager of EAST COAST ARRASTRE

• The Collector of Customs at Mati, Davao, suggested that the two arrastre companies merge.
Following the suggestion, the officials of the respective organizations entered into a merger
agreement. They drew and signed the Articles of Incorporation of a newly merged organization
called the Baganga Consolidated Arrastre Stevedoring Services, Inc. and elected BALTAZAR
as its treasurer, who then accomplished a Treasurer’s Affidavit.

• BALTAZAR, for failure to receive P500.00 as an initial subscription payment from each of the
incorporators, except Solomon Baja and himself, claimed that he had announced to the rest of
the incorporators that the merger would not push through. He had left the Treasurer’s Affidavit,
which he signed, with the accused.

• After the execution of the Articles of Incorporation and the Treasurer’s Affidavit, the accused
ADOLFO brought these papers to Manila on January 14, 1975, as well as the sum of P2,500.00
on the paid-up capital and P500.00 for filing fees for the registration of the new corporation
with the Securities and Exchange Commission. During the process of such, the accused
accomplished and signed an information sheet and an undertaking to change the corporate
name and that another person, firm, or entity has acquired a prior right to use the same or one
similar to it. As part of the requirement of the registration of the merger company, the
incorporators are to disclose and present their Tax Account Number (TAN) in the registration.
Clemente Caubang’s TAN was not represented during the roster because the accused did not
know of such information. Thus, the accused resorted to writing a note at the bottom of the
undertaking promising to submit the Tax Account Number of Clemente Caubang.

• At a later date, the newly merged corporation was then registered with the SEC.
 • Concerning the preceding, BALTAZAR was surprised that the proposed merger was already
registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). He also learned that he had
supposedly executed and signed a Statement of Assets and Liabilities before a notary public
who was not known to him, a document submitted, as part of the requirements, to the SEC,
ultimately leading to the merger company’s registration.

• BALTAZAR and Solomon Bojo filed an action concerning such falsification, with evidence in
the form of testimonies of them and other persons, namely JUABA JULARBAL and ATTY.
BERNARDO ESPEJO, who received the incorporation papers for processing in the SEC.

It was also proved, based on the narration of ADOLFO, he was the person who had possession
and use of the papers for incorporation, including the questioned Statement of Assets and
Liabilities.

• But ADOLFO, as his contention, that he entrusted the papers and the filing of the Articles of
Incorporation to his associate LUIS GRANADOS to whom he gave P2,500.00 representing
the paid-up capital of the corporation, plus expense money.

After that, LUIS went to SEC to register the articles through a fixer named “PETE,” who
agreed to file the papers for a fee of P300.00.

• On July 31, 1976, the trial court rendered the judgment that the accused, ADOLFO
CAUBANG, was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of falsification of a public document
and sentenced him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of from one (1) year and one (1) day of
prision correctional, as a minimum, to three (3) years, six (6) months and twenty-one (21) days
of prision correctional as the maximum, and t pay (1) a fone of P3,000 – with subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency at the rate of P8.00 a day but not exceeding one-third of
the principal penalty, and (2) the costs.

• Thus, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate court, which affirmed the decision of
the Trial Court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the judgment of conviction for falsification of
the official document in question where the entries therein are not false.

RULING:

Petitioner states that he brought with him to Manila from Baganga, Davao, only the Articles of
Incorporation, the Treasurer's Affidavit, and the cash amount of P2,500 paid-up capital. He did not
mention the Statement of Assets and Liabilities to be carried by him for registration purposes. Despite
this, the records show that there was on file a copy of the Statement of Assets and Liabilities executed
on January 15, 1975, and notarized on the same date by a notary public in Manila, Atty. Justo Agtarap,
and bearing a signature purporting to be that of Baltazar Pagaduan. The signature appears to be written
in crooked strokes. Comparing that signature to those sample signatures of Pagaduan appearing
in the Treasurer’s Affidavit and the Articles of Incorporation proves it is not genuine or authentic.
Considering that the accused petitioner acted as the representative of the new corporation to file the
documents and that the named officers were in Davao in January 1975, it was physically impossible for
BALTAZAR to have signed the statement and subscribed to it before Atty. Agtarap in Manila.
The fact that the accused petitioner did not carry with him the statement throws open the question of
how that document came into being and who caused its execution.

Having represented himself as the authorized person to register the company, it logically follows that
the petitioner knew of the document’s existence, which along with the information sheet and the
undertaking, was an equally important requirement for the registration of a corporation. Thus, it
behooved the accused petitioner to shed light on the sudden appearance of the spurious document.

The records also reveal the report of SEC Examiner Juna Jularbal dated January 15, 1975, declaring
that she had made a physical count of the paid-up capital of the Baganga Consolidated Arrastre-
Stevedoring Services in the amount of P2,500.00 PRESENTED by Mr. Adolfo Caubang as
representative of the corporation.

Instead, the petitioner insists on his version that it was some other person, a fixer named PETE, who
personally appeared before the SEC in all stages of the process for a fee until claiming the certificate of
registration. He alleges that Pete finished the registration upon agreement with Luis Granados, from
whom the petitioner asked for assistance.

The petitioner contends that the respondent appellate court erred in finding that he followed up on
registering the Articles of Incorporation with the SEC. The respondent court, he alleges, overlooked
that he gave the Articles of Incorporation, the Treasurer's Affidavit, and the cash of P2,500.00 to
Granados on January 14, 1975. From that time on, he never saw the papers again, except for the
information sheet and the undertaking, until the completion of the process. It was allegedly the fixer
who took charge of the registration in order to expedite it. He denies having received and signed the
letter transmitting the certificate of incorporation and the Certificate of Incorporation dated January 15,
1975.

The Court finds that the accused petitioner has consistently made use of the fixer as a necessary
character to block the possibility of his having gone to the SEC. The petitioner not only had to use the
person of Luis Granados but also a third person whose shadowy character and shady occupation do not
help at all to convince us of the veracity of the defense theory.

There needed to be a way of verifying the existence of the fixer in the defense version. It is quite likely
that no fixer in his right mind would audaciously volunteer to disclose his true identity in court and
testify that he acted as such. Whatever the reason for the non-production of this key participant, utilizing
a fixer as part of the scenario becomes a convenient ploy to divert the mind of the court from the more
plausible inference that the accused petitioner engineered the spurious statement of assets and liabilities.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED for the absence of reversible error on the part of
the respondent court. The appealed judgment of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED in toto.
.