respondent Atty. Emmanuel P. Saño for allegedly notarizing several documents despite the expiration of his commission.

Respondent was the counsel for a certain Pablo Burgos, an intervenor in a civil case docketed as EJF-01-03-10 for Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage.2 In the course of the proceedings, respondent introduced before the trial court, certain documents, including a Deed of Absolute Sale3 which he notarized on December 7, 2001 under Doc. No. 376, Page No. 73, Book No. V, Series of 2001.

It appeared, however, in a letter dated February 9, 2004 of Atty. Blanche AstillaSalino, Clerk of Court VI, that no notarial commission was issued to respondent for the years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. Hence, the instant administrative case.

Respondent, for his part, admitted that he was not issued a notarial commission during the aforesaid period: yet, he performed notarial works. He, however, explained that he applied, through a representative, for a notarial commission in the year 1998 and was commissioned as such from 1998 to 1999.5 In 2000, he applied for the renewal of his commission, again through an office aide, who later informed him that his application was approved. By virtue of said representation, respondent resumed his notarial work; only to find out later that he was not given a new commission. He exerted earnest efforts in locating the whereabouts of the office aide but to no avail. Having acted on the mistaken belief that he still had his

notarial commission, respondent pleaded that he be excused and given elementary for this fiasco and be allowed to correct and make amends.

In a Resolution dated December 8, 2004, we referred the case to the Integrated Bar

2 Rollo, p. 2.

3 Id. at 11-12.

4 Id. at 13.

5 Id. at 37.

6 Id. at 38.

7 Id. 8 Id. at 39. • Id. at 44.

of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.

On September 1, 2005, Commissioner Rebecca Villanueva-Maala submitted her report and recommendation. 10 the pertinent portion of which reads:

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION:

From the facts and evidence presented, we find sufficient proof to warrant disciplinary action against the respondent. Notarizing documents after the lawyer's commission as notary public had expired is malpractice and gross misconduct (Flores vs. Lozada, 21 SCRA 1267). Respondent's explanation that he was made to believe by his agent that his commission has been filed and approved cannot be accepted for to rule otherwise will be to enable irresponsible lawyers to avoid disciplinary action by simply attributing the problem to his aide/secretary or employee (Gutierrez vs. Zulueta, 187 SCRA 607).

Wherefore, premises considered, we hereby recommend that respondent ATTY. EMMANUEL SAÑO be SUSPENDED for a period of SIX MONTHS from receipt hereof from the practice [of] his profession as a lawyer and as a member of the Bar.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED."1

Per Resolution No. XVII-2006-115 dated March 20, 2006, the IBP Board of Governors modified the report and recommendation of Commissioner Villanueva-Maala by increasing the recommended period of suspension from six (6) months to one (1)

In addition, the Board resolved to revoke respondent's notarial commission and disqualified him from reappointment as notary public for a period of two (2) years.

We agree with the IBP's conclusion, finding respondent guilty of malpractice, warranting disciplinary action. We, however, find the penalty recommended by the Board of Governors to be too harsh; instead, we sustain the Investigating Commissioner's recommendation.

At the threshold, it is worth stressing that the practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege.

10 Id. at 92-95.

11 Id. at 95.

The bar should maintain a high standard of legal proficiency as well as of honesty and fair dealing. A lawyer brings honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. To this end, a member of the legal fraternity should refrain from doing any act which might lessen, in any degree, the confidence and trust reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the legal profession. 13

Apropos to the case at bar, it has been emphatically stressed that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is nvested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified and authorized may act as notaries public. It must be underscored that the act of motarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public document making it admissible in evidence without urther proof of authenticity. A notorial document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. For this reason, hotaries public must observe with utmost are the basic requirements in the performance of their duties.14

Respondent admitted that he applied for a notarial commission in 1998. Such application, according to him, was facilitated oy a representative. In renewing his commission for 2000 until 2002, he again relied on the assistance offered by an office aide. It appears from respondent's Comment that he, in fact, did not personally

12 St. Louis Laboratory High School (SLU-LHS) Faculty and Staff v. Dela Cruz, A.C. No. 6010. August 48, 2006, 499 SCRA 614, 621-622; Zoreta v. Simpliciano, A.C. No. 6492, November 18, 2004, 443 CRA 1, 8.

13 St. Louis Laboratory High School (SLU-LHS) Faculty and Staff v. Dela Cruz, A.C. No. 6010. August 28, 2006, 499 SCRA 614, 622; Zoreta v. Simpliciano, A.C. No. 6492, November 18, 2004, 443 SCRA 1, 9. 14 St. Louis Laboratory High School (SLU-LHS)

Faculty and Staff v. Dela Cruz, A.C. No. 6010. August #8, 2006, 499 SCRA 614, 626-627; Zoreta v. Simpliciano, A.C. No. 6492, November 18, 2004, 443 ¡CRA 1, 9-10; see Buensuceso v. Barrera, A.C. No. .727. December 11, 1992, 216 SCRA 309, 312, citing oson v. Baltazar, 194 SCRA 114, 119 (1991).

051045-2

relied on his representation that this office aide would facilitate respondent's renewal of his notarial commission. At the very least, respondent should have demanded from the office aide documentary proofs of the approval of his commission. Besides, respondent could have easily verified the aide's representation at the office of the Executive Judge. Executive Judge. His actuation clearly shows disregard of the requirements for the issuance of notarial commission. His effort in shifting the responsibility to the office aide does not strike the Court as the kind of diligence properly required of a member of the bar in performing his duties as notary public. 15

To be sure, the requirements for the issuance of a commission as notary public must not be treated as a mere casual formality. The Court has characterized a lawyer's act of notarizing documents without the requisite commission therefor as reprehensible, constituting as it does, not only malpractice, but also the crime of falsification of public documents. For such reprehensible conduct, the Court has sanctioned erring lawyers by suspension from the practice of law, revocation of the notarial commission and disqualification from acting as such, and even disbarment.16

Time and again, we have held that where the notarization of a document is done by a member of the Philippine Bar at a time when he has no authorization or commission to do so, the offender may be subjected to disciplinary action. One who is performing a notarial act without such commission is a violation of the lawyer's oath to obey the laws, more specially, the Notarial Law. Then, too, by making it appear that he is duly commissioned when he is not, he is, for all legal intents and purposes, indulging in deliberate falsehood, which the lawyer's oath similarly proscribes. These violations fall squarely within the prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides that “a lawyer

15 Buensuceso v. Barrera, A. C. No. 3727, December 11, 1992, 216 SCRA 309, 311.

16 Zoreta v. Simpliciano A.C. No. 6492, November 18, 2004, 443 SCRA1, 10.

shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." By acting as a notary public without the proper commission to do so, the lawyer likewise violates Cannon 7 of the same Code, which directs every lawyer to uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. 17

As to the appropriate penalty, considering the circumstances obtaining in the instant case, and based on jurisprudence on this matter, suspension for six (6) months is adequate.

Complaint in the instant case presented only one document showing respondent's unauthorized notarization. However, by respondent's own admission, he had been placed in a mistaken belief that his commission was renewed from 2000 to 2002. During this two-year period, it seems entirely possible that he had similarly notarized, without legal authority, other still unidentified documents.18

In Buensuceso v. Barrera, 19 Atty. Joelito Barrera was administratively sanctioned for committing acts of unauthorized notarization. As in the instant case, Atty. Barrera claimed that he was unaware of said lack of authority, and he shifted the blame to his secretary to whom he had entrusted the task of making sure that this notarial commission would be renewed. Though only five documents were presented to prove his culpability, considering that more than twelve (12) years had lapsed, and it was possible that similar documents had been unlawfully notarized, the Court suspended him from the practice of law for a period of one year.

In the instant case, since only two years had lapsed prior to the discovery of the unauthorized act, six-month suspension suffices.

An attorney's right to practice law may be resolved by a proceeding to suspend him, based on conduct rendering him unfit to hold a license or to exercise the duties

and responsibilities of an attorney. It must be understood that the purpose of suspending or disbarring him as an attorney is to remove from the profession a person whose misconduct has proved him unfit to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities belonging to an office of attorney, and thus, to protect the public and those charged with the administration of justice, rather than to punish an attorney.20

Wherefore, premises premises considered. respondent Emmanuel P. Saño is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months. In addition, his present notarial commission, if any, is HEREBY REVOKED, and he is DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as a notary public for a period of two (2) years. He is further WARNED that any similar act or infraction in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished all the courts of the land through the Court Administrator, as well as the IBP, and the Office of the Bar Confidant, and recorded in the personal records of the respondent

SO ORDERED.

Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Velasco, Jr. and Reyes, J,J. concur.

20 St. Louis Laboratory High School (SLU-LHS Faculty and Staff v. Dela Cruz, A.C. No. 6010. August 28, 2006, 499 SCRA 614, 622, Zoreta v. Simplicianc A.C. No. 6492. November 18, 2004, 443 SCRA 1, 9.

[CR No. 22585. March 21, 2006]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FELY I. BORI, accused-appellant.

CRIMINAL LAW; ANTI-DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT (R.A. 6425); CORPUS DELICTI; WHAT CONSISTS THE CORPUS DELICTI IN THE OFFENSE OF ILLEGAL SALE OF PROHIBITED OR REGULATED DRUGS.Corpus delicti or the body or substance of the crime consists of both proof of the commission of a criminal act, and proof of some person's criminal responsibility for the act. (People v. Michael Monte y Abdul, 408 SCRA 305 [2003]). In the offense of illegal sale of prohibited or regulated drugs, the commission of the criminal act is established upon proof of the existence of the following elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. (People v. Hairatul Jubail, et al., 428 SCRA 478 [2004]).

ID.; ID.; ID.; LACK OF IDENTIFICATION OF THE SUBSTANCE, OR EVEN AN IRREGULARITY IN ITS IDENTIFICATION, IS ENOUGH TO ENGENDER REASONABLE DOUBT IN THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED.-It is evident that the first element already requires the existence, identification and presentation of the very same substance which the accused allegedly sold and delivered, and its determination as a prohibited or regulated drug. The lack of identification of the substances or even an irregularity in its identification, is enough to engender reasonable doubt in the guilt of the accused. (People v. Danilo Simbahon, 401 SCRA 94 [2003]).

ON THE CLAIM THAT THERE WAS A BUYBUST OPERATION.-It is highly surprising that PO2 Reyes was not aware of the identity of Boy Bori at the time of the alleged transaction. If there was in fact a buy-bust operation PO2 Reyes, as poseur buyer, would have been briefed about the identity of Boy Bori as target of the operation. As it were, PO2 Reyes was clueless about the identity of Boy Bori. Such ignorance casts doubt on the claim of the prosecution that there was a buybust operation and that appellant was apprehended in the course of such operation. On this point, the Court quotes with approval appelee's disquisition, to wit: The initial hearing was initially set on 28 November 2001 which is certainly within the period required by the law. The notice of initial hearing was not immediately published, however, because there were some corrections on the technical description of the property required by the Land Registration Authority. Hence, on 16 September 2001, however, the appellant (then applicant) filed a motion to reset the date of initial hearing in order to allow a tirnely publication of the Notice of Hearing on the Official Gazette and in a newspaper of general circulation. This was granted by the court below and the initial hearing was then reset to 11 February 2002, the grant of the lower court of the motion to reset initial hearing was made for valid reasons and well within its discretion considering, particularly, the need to ensure that the proper authorities are able to timely publish the notice of initial hearing.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 219.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Rom-Voltaire C. Quizon for accusedappellant.

Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

JACINTO, J.:

This is an Appeal from the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (Branch 219), Quezon City in Criminal Case No. Q96

66092 entitled "People of the Philippines, Plaintiff, versus Fely Bori y Ignacio, Accused" for Violation of Section 15 Article III in relation to 2 (e), (f), (m), (0), Article I of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by PD 1683.

Accused Fely Bori was charged with Violation of Section 15, Article III in relation

to 2 (e), (f), (m), (0), Article I of Republic

Act No. 6425 under an Information which reads:

That on or about the 13th day of May, 1996 in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating with other persons, whose true identity and other personal circumstances *** has not as yet been ascertained, and mutually helping each other, not having been authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any regulated drug, did then and there willfully and unlawfully sell or offer for sale 4.28 grams of white crystalline substance known as "SHABU" containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, which is a regulated drug. (p. 1, Record)

When arraigned Fely Bori pleaded innocent to the charge (pp. 28-30, Record) and she was later provisionally released on bail.

Trial ensued with the prosecution presenting its evidence and the testimonies of its witnesses. PO2 Teresita Reyes testified that the Philippine National Police Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) received information from an unidentified informant that Joseph "Boy" Bori was engaged in the sale of shabu along Natib Street, Barangay Kaunlaran, Quezon City. Acting on said information, the PDEA organized a team to conduct a surveillance of the reported activities of Boy Bori, in the course of which the informant witnessed Boy Bori sell shabu to a third person. After one week of surveillance, the PDEA was convinced that Boy Bori was indeed selling shabu. Thus, the PDEA decided to conduct a "buy bust operation" on May 13, 1996. The buy-bust operation team was composed of SPO4 Juan Aguilar, PO2 Antonio Imson, PO2 Teresita Reyes, and the informant. PO2 Reyes was designated as the poseur-buyer. (TSN, July 15, 1996, pp. 6-9)

On May 13, 1996, at around 8:30 in the evening, the team proceeded to the residence of Boy Bori at No. 7 Natib Street, Brgy. Kaunlaran, Cubao, Quezon City. PO2

Reyes and the informant positioned themselves in front of the house of Boy Bori, while the rest of the team posted themselves 3 meters away. Shortly thereafter, a woman, who was later identified as Fely Bori, approached PO2 Reyes who asked her, "Meron ka ba dyan?" Fely Bori replied "Meron." Fely Bori then asked PO2 Reyes about the money. PO2 Reyes gave Fely Bori P5,000.00 in marked bills. Fely Bori received the money, placed them inside the right pocket of her pants, and went inside the house. (pp. 9-13, supra)

A few minutes later, a person who was later identified as Boy Bori, came out of the house carrying a clutch bag. He took an object from the clutch bag and gave it to PO2 Reyes. (pp. 42-44, supra)

PO2 Reyes examined the object that was handed to her. She observed that it was a

transparent plastic sachet containing some white crystalline substance, which she suspected to be shabu. (pp. 13-15 and 1617, supra) PO2 Reyes then gave a prearranged signal to her teammates. SPO4 Aguilar and PO2 Imson came out and identifying themselves as police officers. they announced the arrest of Boy Bori. However, the latter pushed PO2 Reyes towards SPO4 Aguilar who initially lost his balance but still managed to get hold of Boy Bori. Boy Bori struggled with SPO4 Aguilar and managed to run inside the house and locked the door. The team gave chase but by the time the other residents of the house had unlocked the door Boy Bor had already escaped through a window or the second floor. The latter, however, hac dropped his clutch bag on the floor which SPO4 Aguilar was able to retrieve. 47-64, supra)

(pp.

Fely Bori was left behind. She tried to block PO2 Reyes when the latter ran afte Boy Bori. Thus, PO2 Reyes placed Fe Bori under arrest and recovered from he the marked bills which were still in the right pocket of her pants. (pp. 20-22, supra)

Witness SPO2 Elmer Feliciano testifie: that he made a report and requested laboratory examination of the specime