FORGERY & EXPERT TESTIMONY
Gepulle-Garbo v. Garabato, G.R. No. 200013, January 14, 2015 (THIRD DIVISION, VILLARAMA, JR., J.)
As a rule, forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence, the
burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery. 29 One who alleges forgery has the burden to establish
his case by a preponderance of evidence, or evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than
that which is offered in opposition to it.30 The fact of forgery can only be established by a comparison
between the alleged forged signature and the authentic and genuine signature of the person whose
signature is theorized to have been forged. 31
In Jimenez v. Commission on Ecumenical Mission, United Presbyterian Church, USA, 32 the Court identified
and explained the factors involved in the examination and comparison of handwritings:
x x x [T]he authenticity of a questioned signature cannot be determined solely upon its general
characteristics, similarities or dissimilarities with the genuine signature. Dissimilarities as regards
spontaneity, rhythm, pressure of the pen, loops in the strokes, signs of stops, shades, etc., that may be
found between the questioned signature and the genuine one are not decisive on the question of the
former’s authenticity. The result of examinations of questioned handwriting, even with the benefit of aid
of experts and scientific instruments, is, at best, inconclusive. There are other factors that must be taken
into consideration. The position of the writer, the condition of the surface on which the paper where the
questioned signature is written is placed, his state of mind, feelings and nerves, and the kind of pen
and/or paper used, play an important role on the general appearance of the signature. Unless, therefore,
there is, in a given case, absolute absence, or manifest dearth, of direct or circumstantial competent
evidence on the character of a questioned handwriting, much weight should not be given to characteristic
similarities, or dissimilarities, between that questioned handwriting and an authentic one. 33
The opinion of handwriting experts are not necessarily binding upon the court, the expert’s function being
to place before the court data upon which the court can form its own opinion. 34 This principle holds true
especially when the question involved is mere handwriting similarity or dissimilarity, which can be
determined by a visual comparison of specimens of the questioned signatures with those of the currently
existing ones.35 A finding of forgery does not depend entirely on the testimonies of handwriting experts,
because the judge must conduct an independent examination of the questioned signature in order to
arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to its authenticity. 36
The Heirs of Peter Donton v. Stier and Maggay, G.R. No. 216491, August 23, 2017 (SECOND DIVISION,
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.)
Furthermore, forgery, as a rule, cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing
evidence, and the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery - in this case, petitioners. The fact of
forgery can only be established by a comparison between the alleged forged signature and the authentic
and genuine signature of the person whose signature is theorized to have been forged. [57] Pertinently,
Section 22, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:
Section. 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved. - The handwriting of a person may be proved by any
witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has seen the person write, or has
seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged, and has thus
acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be
given by a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine
by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the
judge. (Emphasis supplied)
