Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 700 views

    Tanenggee v. People

    Uploaded by

    qwerty
    Tanenggee v. People, GR 179448, 26 June 2013 involved five cases of estafa through falsification of commercial documents against Tanenggee. The prosecution alleged that Tanenggee, as branch manager of Metrobank, approved and signed cashier's checks with forged signatures of a client, Romeo Tan, and released the proceeds for his own benefit. During an internal audit, Tanenggee signed a written statement regarding irregular loans. The court ruled the written statement was admissible as it was made during an administrative inquiry by his employer, not a criminal investigation. The court also ruled it could make an independent examination of signatures to determine authenticity and did not solely rely on expert testimony in finding

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Tanenggee v. People

    Uploaded by

    qwerty
    700 views2 pages
    Tanenggee v. People, GR 179448, 26 June 2013 involved five cases of estafa through falsification of commercial documents against Tanenggee. The prosecution alleged that Tanenggee, as branch manager of Metrobank, approved and signed cashier's checks with forged signatures of a client, Romeo Tan, and released the proceeds for his own benefit. During an internal audit, Tanenggee signed a written statement regarding irregular loans. The court ruled the written statement was admissible as it was made during an administrative inquiry by his employer, not a criminal investigation. The court also ruled it could make an independent examination of signatures to determine authenticity and did not solely rely on expert testimony in finding

    Original Description:

    Tanenggee v. People

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Tanenggee v. People, GR 179448, 26 June 2013 involved five cases of estafa through falsification of commercial documents against Tanenggee. The prosecution alleged that Tanenggee, as branch manager of Metrobank, approved and signed cashier's checks with forged signatures of a client, Romeo Tan, and released the proceeds for his own benefit. During an internal audit, Tanenggee signed a written statement regarding irregular loans. The court ruled the written statement was admissible as it was made during an administrative inquiry by his employer, not a criminal investigation. The court also ruled it could make an independent examination of signatures to determine authenticity and did not solely rely on expert testimony in finding

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    700 views2 pages

    Tanenggee v. People

    Uploaded by

    qwerty
    Tanenggee v. People, GR 179448, 26 June 2013 involved five cases of estafa through falsification of commercial documents against Tanenggee. The prosecution alleged that Tanenggee, as branch manager of Metrobank, approved and signed cashier's checks with forged signatures of a client, Romeo Tan, and released the proceeds for his own benefit. During an internal audit, Tanenggee signed a written statement regarding irregular loans. The court ruled the written statement was admissible as it was made during an administrative inquiry by his employer, not a criminal investigation. The court also ruled it could make an independent examination of signatures to determine authenticity and did not solely rely on expert testimony in finding

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Tanenggee v. People, GR 179448, 26 June 2013.

    DEL CASTILLO, J.

    FACTS: Five separate informations for estafa through falsification of commercial


    documents were filed against Tanengge.
    The prosecution alleged that on different occasions, appellant caused to be prepared
    promissory notes and cashier’s checks in the name of Romeo Tan, a valued client of
    the bank since he has substantial deposits in his account, in connection with the
    purported loans obtained by the latter from the bank. Appellant approved and signed
    the cashier’s check as branch manager of Metrobank Commercio Branch. Appellant
    affixed, forged or caused to be signed the signature of Tan as endorser and payee of the
    proceeds of the checks at the back of the same to show that the latter had indeed
    endorsed the same for payment. He handed the checks to the Loans clerk, Maria
    Dolores Miranda, for encashment. Once said documents were forged and falsified,
    appellant released and obtained from Metrobank the proceeds of the alleged loan and
    misappropriated the same to his use and benefit. After the discovery of the irregular
    loans, an internal audit was conducted and an administrative investigation was held in
    the Head Office of Metrobank, during which appellant signed a written statement in
    the form of questions and answers.

    ISSUE: Is the petitioner’s written statement that was given during an administrative
    inquiry conducted by his employer in connection with an anomaly/irregularity he
    allegedly committed in the course of his employment, admissible?

    RULING: Yes. The constitutional proscription against the admissibility of admission


    or confession of guilt obtained in violation of Section 12, Article III of the Constitution,
    as correctly observed by the CA and the OSG, is applicable only in custodial
    interrogation. In Carbonel v. Civil Service Commission the court ruled “However, it
    must be remembered that the right to counsel under Section 12 of the Bill of Rights is
    meant to protect a suspect during custodial investigation. Thus, the exclusionary rule
    under paragraph (2), Section 12 of the Bill of Rights applies only to admissions made
    in a criminal investigation but not to those made in an administrative investigation.”

    Here, petitioner’s written statement was given during an administrative inquiry


    conducted by his employer in connection with an anomaly/irregularity he allegedly
    committed in the course of his employment. No error can therefore be attributed to
    the courts below in admitting in evidence and in giving due consideration to petitioner’s
    written statement as there is no constitutional impediment to its admissibility.
    ISSUE: Is the court precluded to conduct an independent examination of the
    questioned signature in order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to its authenticity?

    RULING: No. "Forgery is present when any writing is counterfeited by the signing of
    another’s name with intent to defraud."27 It can be established by comparing the
    alleged false signature with the authentic or genuine one. A finding of forgery does not
    depend entirely on the testimonies of government handwriting experts whose opinions
    do not mandatorily bind the courts. A trial judge is not precluded but is even authorized
    by law28 to conduct an independent examination of the questioned signature in order
    to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to its authenticity.

    In this case, the finding of forgery on the signature of Tan appearing in the promissory
    notes and cashier’s checks was not anchored solely on the result of the examination
    conducted by the NBI Document Examiner. The trial court also made an independent
    examination of the questioned signatures and after analyzing the same, reached the
    conclusion that the signatures of Tan appearing in the promissory notes are different
    from his genuine signatures appearing in his Deposit Account Information and
    Specimen Signature Cards on file with the bank.

    You might also like