A falsified official or public document was found in the possession of the accused. No evidence was introduced to show that the accused was the author of the falsification. As a matter of fact, the trial court convicted the accused of Falsification of Official or Public Document mainly on the proposition that "the only person who could have made the erasures and the superimposition mentioned is the one who will be benefited by the alterations thus made" and that "he alone could have the motive for making such alterations."

Was the conviction of the accused proper although the conviction was premised merely on the aforesaid ratiocination? Explain your answer. (1999 BAR)