People v. Balmores 1950 Defendant Rafael Balmores, accused of attempted estafa through falsification of a security Crime details:

o September 22, 1947 in Manila: tore off at the bottom in a crosswise direction a portion of a genuine 1/8 unit Philippine Charity Sweepstakes ticket thereby removing the true and real unidentified number, substituting and writing in ink at the bottom on the left side of the ticket the figure 074000, the winning number in the June 29, 1947 draw for P359.55

o Failed to perform all acts of execution that would have produced the crime of estafa through falsification of a security as a consequence by reason of some causes other than his spontaneous desistance

o Employee Bayani Miller discovered that ticket was falsified, so he called for a policeman who apprehended Balmores

o Sentenced to 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor to 12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal P100 plus costs

Arguments of Balmores: no genuine 1/8 unit for that draw; issued only four ¼ units for each ticket; information does not show that the ticket did not really have the winning number; no falsification because 074000 was the true and real number of ticket

Court’s responses:o If there’s no genuine 1/8 unit for that draw, then the ticket was spuriouso If it had the winning number, there would have been no need to tear off the bottom

Recklessness and clumsiness of falsification did not make the crime impossible under Par. 2, Art 4 in relation to Art. 59 of the RPC

o Court could not say that it would have been impossible to commit the crime had the clerk to whom the ticket was presented for payment had not exercised due care (so even he hadn’t exercised due care, there’s still a chance of completing the crime)

Art. 166 imposes penalty for falsification of treasury or bank notes or certificates or other obligations and securities

o Complex crime of attempted estafa through falsification of an obligation or security of the Philippines, hence penalty to be imposed in maximum period; but there’s a mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction, and via the Indeterminate Sentence Law, minimum cannot be lower than prision mayor in its maximum period

o TC’s penalty is correct