Forgery

"x x x.

It is further crucial to remember that RTC-Branch 9, the RTC in Civil Case No. 2001-09-135, already found that with the claim of forgery unfounded, the Deeds of Sale are considered to have been validly executed, viz.:

x x x This Court is not impressed with the said evidence presented by the plaintiffs in support of their claim that the three (3) Deeds of Absolute Sale were falsified, hence null and void.

In the case of Veloso vs. CA. 260 SCRA 593, the Supreme Court had the occasion to rule that:

Mere variance of the signatures cannot be considered as conclusive proof that the same were forged; forgery cannot be presumed. Forgery should be proved by clear and convincing evidence and whoever alleges it has the burden of proving the same. Just like the petitioner, witness Atty. Tubig merely pointed out that his signature was different from that in the Power of Attorney and Deed of Sale. There had never been an accurate examination of the signature, even that of the petitioner.

To determine forgery, it was held in Cesar vs. Sandiganbayan (G.R. Nos. 54719-50m, 17 Hab 185) quoting Osbora x x x that:

The process of identification, therefore, must include the determination of the extent, kind and significance of this resemblance as well as the variation. It then becomes necessary to determine whether the variation is due to the operation of a different personality or is only the expected and inevitable variation found in the genuine writing of the same writer. It is also necessary to decide whether the resemblance is the result of more skillful imitation, or is the habitual and characteristic resemblance which naturally appears in a genuine writing. When these two questions are correctly answered, the whole problem of identification is solved.
Failure, therefore, on the part of the plaintiffs to show that the variation of the signature in Exhibit "E" (if ever there was) with that of the three (3) Deeds of Absolute Sale was due to the operation of a different personality negates their claim of forgery and cannot overcome the regularity of the herein questioned documents.107
X x x. "


G.R. No. 220916, June 14, 2021

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. CAMILO CAMENFORTE AND ROBERT LASTRILLA, Respondents.


https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2021junedecisions.php?id=757