G.R. No. 186030 - NORMA DELOS REYES VDA. DEL PRADO, EULOGIA R. DEL PRADO, NORMITA R. DEL PRADO AND RODELIA R. DEL PRADO, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly adjudicate, as they do hereby adjudicate the same among themselves, herein below specified to wit: x x x [5] By virtue of the said Deed of Succession, OCT No. P-22848 was cancelled and several new titles were issued under the names of Corazons co-heirs. When Corazon discovered this, she filed a criminal complaint against now petitioners Norma, Eulogia, Normita and Rodelia. Antonio and Rafael, Jr. had both died before the filing of said complaint. Among the witnesses presented during the trial was Loreto, who confirmed that upon the request of Norma and Antonio, he prepared and notarized the deed of succession. He claimed that the petitioners appeared and signed the document before him. For their defense, the petitioners denied having signed the Deed of Succession, or having appeared before notary public Loreto. They also claimed that Corazon was not a daughter, but a niece, of the late Rafael. Norma claimed that she only later knew that a deed of succession was prepared by her son Antonio, although she admitted having executed a deed of real estate mortgage in favor of mortgagee Prudential Bank over portions of the subject parcel of land already covered by the new titles. The Ruling of the MTC The MTC rejected for being unsubstantiated the petitioners denial of any participation in the execution of the deed of succession, further noting that they benefited from the property after its transfer in their names. Thus, on August 9, 2006, the court rendered its decision [6] finding petitioners Norma, Eulogia, Normita and Rodelia guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, sentencing them to suffer an indeterminate penalty of four months and one day of arresto mayor as minimum to two years and four months and one day of prision correccional as maximum. They were also ordered to pay a fine of P5,000.00 each, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine. Considering the minority of Rodelia at the time of the commission of the crime, she was sentenced to suffer the penalty of four months of arresto mayor , plus payment of fine of P5,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of non-payment. All the petitioners were ordered to indemnify Corazon in the amount of P10,000.00 as attorneys fees, and to pay the costs of suit. Unsatisfied with the MTCs ruling, the petitioners filed a motion for new trial on the grounds of alleged gross error of law, irregularities during the trial, and new and material evidence. To prove that they did not intend to exclude Corazon from the estate of the late Rafael, the petitioners cited their recognition of Corazons right to the estate in the deed of extra-judicial partition, confirmation of subdivision, deed of exchange, joint affidavit and petition for guardianship of minors Rafael, Jr., Eulogia, Antonio and Normita, which they had earlier executed. [7] Again, the petitioners denied having signed the deed of succession, and instead insisted that their signatures in the deed were forged