U.S. vs.

Gregorio
17 Phil. 522 (1910)

FACTS:

In a case filed by Pedro Salazar, as creditor, against Eustaquio

Balistoy for the payment of a sum of money, judgment was
rendered wherein the debtor was sentenced to pay to
the plaintiff P275.92 with interest thereon. For the execution
of the judgment, two rural properties of the debtor were
attached. The date for the sale and adjudication of the attached
properties to t h e h i g h e s t b i d d e r w as s e t o n M a y 2 7,
1 9 0 8. O n t h e 1 8 th of the same month, Bernardo
Gregorio requested the deputy sheriff to exclude the said
realty from the attachment, alleging that he was the owner of
one of the properties levied upon for the reason that he had acquired
it by purchase from the debtor Balistoy in 1905, prior
to the filing of the complaint. Bernardo presented to
the sheriff a document at the end of which appears
a memorandum which states that Eustaquio Balistoy bought
the land referred to in the said document from Luis Balistoy
and sold it to Bernardo Gregorio. Subsequently, falsification
charges were brought against Gregorio and Balistoy. The
complaint for falsification alleged that the defendants
simulated a conveyance of one of the attached properties
in favor of Gregorio. However, the original document
setting forth the memorandum was not presented. Only a copy
thereof was produced in court. The trial court found the defendants
guilty. They appealed.

ISSUE:

Whether or not in a criminal case for the

falsification of a document, the original document alleged to
have been falsified must be produced

RULING:
 Yes. The Court reversed the lower court. Defendants were
acquitted. In a criminal case for the falsification of a document, it is
indispensable that the judges and the courts have before them the
document alleged to have been simulated, counterfeited, or falsified,
in order that they may find, pursuant to the evidence produced
at trial, whether or not the crime of falsification was actually
committed; in the absence of the original document, it is
improper to conclude, with only a copy of the said original in
view, that there has been a falsification of a document which
was neither found nor exhibited, because, in such a case, even
the existence of such original may be doubted.