Scribd
Upload
68 views1 page

US vs. Gregorio

Gregorio claimed ownership of one of the properties attached to satisfy Balistoy's debt to Salazar. Gregorio presented a 1905 memorandum stating he bought the land from Balistoy, but it was only a copy, not the original document. The court found this insufficient to suspend the property sale, as the original document's authenticity was not proven. Balistoy and Gregorio were acquitted of falsifying the document because the original was never produced or authenticated, so there was doubt as to whether it truly existed. The best evidence rule requires the original document be presented in court to determine if falsification occurred.

Uploaded by

Gillian Caye Geniza Briones
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
68 views1 page

US vs. Gregorio

Gregorio claimed ownership of one of the properties attached to satisfy Balistoy's debt to Salazar. Gregorio presented a 1905 memorandum stating he bought the land from Balistoy, but it was only a copy, not the original document. The court found this insufficient to suspend the property sale, as the original document's authenticity was not proven. Balistoy and Gregorio were acquitted of falsifying the document because the original was never produced or authenticated, so there was doubt as to whether it truly existed. The best evidence rule requires the original document be presented in court to determine if falsification occurred.

Uploaded by

Gillian Caye Geniza Briones
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

49 US vs. Gregorio, Balistoy i.

the sheriff who testified that he had seen its


GR No. 5791, December 17, 1910 original for but a few moments; or
Topic: Best evidence rule ii. any officer authorized by law to certify
documents; or
FACTS iii. even by 2 witnesses of the document.
Pedro Salazar, creditor sued Balistoy, debtor, for payment of
sum of money. Judgment was rendered in favor of Salazar. For Thus, presumed innocent.
the execution of judgment, 2 rural properties belonging to
Balistoy were attached. Acquitted.

Meanwhile, Gregorio requested the deputy sheriff to exclude


one of the realty from attachment, alleging that he was the owner
of the one of the land levied upon; that he acquired it by
purchase from Balistoy in 1905, prior to the filing of the
complaint. Thus, Salazar had to give a bond in view of which,
sheriff proceeded with the sale.

In order to warrant its claim, Gregorio presented a


document/memorandum dated 1905 stating that he bought
the land from Balistoy for P300.

Now, Salazar charged Balistoy, with intent to injure his creditor


(Salazar) and for the purpose of avoiding the attachment and
sale of one of the properties belonging to him – executed a
simulated conveyance of the properties.

A complaint for falsification of a private document was filed.


Balistoy and Gregorio were convicted. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUES
1. Whether the sale of the land must be suspended
because of the memoranda presented
2. Whether the Gregorio and Balistoy shall be convicted

HELD
1. No.
2. No.

This case concerns the falsity of a document alleged to have


been written on a date prior to the one when it actually was
prepared, which instrument simulates the sale of a parcel of land
by its owner to a third party, with the intent to defraud the
creditor.

In a criminal cause 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 document may be doubted.

Case at bar
The mere exhibition of a copy of an unauthenticated private
document could not legally produce the effect of suspending
the sale of the said land, inasmuch as such copy is not sufficient
proof of the right of the intervener and opponent, being a mere
copy of a private document whose legality has not been proven.

Doubt arises as to whether the original of the document


really existed at all. Deficiencies
a. The document presented was not the original
document;
b. The said memorandum, presumed to be simulated and
false, was not literally compared by:

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy