The Supreme Court has affirmed the penalty of imprisonment imposed on a person for illegal possession and use of false bank notes.
In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the Supreme Court’s Second Division denied the petition for review on certiorari filed by Allan Gacasan (Gacasan) which challenged the rulings of the Court of Appeals (CA) and the Regional Trial Court (RTC) finding Gacasan guilty of violating Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
In a test-buy operation conducted in Bukidnon, Misamis Oriental, the Criminal Investigation Detection Group (CIDG) arrested Gacasan after the latter offered to sell counterfeit bills to a confidential CIDG agent.
Gacasan was caught in possession of 100 pieces of counterfeit 1000-peso bills and 25 pieces of counterfeit 500-peso bills. The said bills were confirmed to be counterfeit upon examination by Atty. Andrew E. Asperin (Atty. Asperin) of the Currency Issue and Integrity Office of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.
The RTC convicted Gacasan for the crime of illegal possession and use of false treasury or bank notes under Article 168 of the RPC. The CA affirmed the conviction, prompting the present petition before the Court.
In resolving Gacasan’s petition, the Court enumerated the elements of illegal possession and use of false bank notes as follows: (1) that any treasury or bank note or certificate or other obligation and security payable to bearer, or any instrument payable to order or other document of credit not payable to bearer is forged or falsified by another person; (2) that the offender knows that any of the said instruments is forged or falsified; and (3) that the offender either used, or possessed with intent to use, any of such forged or falsified instruments.
The Court also stressed that possession of fake notes must be coupled with the act of using or at least with intent to use the same.
In Gacasan’s case, the Court found that all the foregoing elements are present.
On the first element, the seized bank notes were confirmed to be counterfeit by Atty. Asperin, who examined the bills immediately after the buy-bust operation.
As to the second element, Gacasan’s knowledge that the bills were counterfeit was proven by his acceptance of the payment for the marked money. As previously held by the Court in People v. Co Pao, receipt of consideration in exchange for counterfeit notes establishes knowledge of the counterfeit nature of the notes.
Finally, the third element of intent was established by Gacasan’s demand for payment in exchange for the envelope handed over to the poseur buyer.
As regards Gacasan’s claims that no admissible evidence upon which a criminal conviction may stand since there was no valid buy-bust operation and since he was a victim of a frame-up, the Court reiterated that mere denial and allegation of frame-up are not given sufficient weight absent clear proof.
It found that “Gacasan’s unverified and flimsy defense of a frame-up is not corroborated by any evidence, and pales in comparison to consistent and positive identifications by several law enforcement officers who categorically testified that Gacasan, for consideration, delivered the envelope full of counterfeit notes.”
Gacasan was thus sentenced to imprisonment of eight years and one day to 10 years, eight months and one day, plus a fine of PhP10,000.00. (Courtesy of the Supreme Court Public Information Office)
FULL TEXT of G.R. No. 261670 (Gacasan v. People) at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/261670-allan-gacasan-y-langamin-vs-people-of-the-philippines/