You are on page 1of 8

Art.

171 Falsification by public officer, employee or notary public or ecclesiastical minister


Penalty:
1.
Imposed upon public officer, employee or notary public, and ecclesiastical PRISION MAYOR, and a FINE not to Exceed 5,000
Elements:
1.
2.
3.

4.

That the offender is a public officer, employee or notary public


That he takes advantage of his official position
That he falsifies a document by committing any of the following acts:
i.
Counterfeiting or imitating [feigning or simulating] any handwriting, signature or rubric
ii.
Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate
iii.
Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements in a narration of facts
iv. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts
v. Altering true dates
vi.
Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which engages its meaning
vii.
Issuing in a authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original document when no such original exists, or including in such copy a statement contrary to, or
different from, that of the genuine original
viii.
Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry or official book
In case the offender is an ecclesiastical minister the act of falsification is committed with respect to any record or document of such character that its falsification may affect the civil status of
persons.

DOCUMENT; define
A document is any written statement by which a right is established or an obligation extinguished [PP vs Moreno, CA, 38 OG 119]. A document is a writing or instrument by which a fact may be
proven or affirmed.
If the payroll is merely a DRAFT, because it has not been approved by the proper authority, it can prove nothing and affirm nothing [Pp vs Camacho, 44 Phil 488]. The pamphlets cannot be said to
evidence a fact, agreement or disposition. They are rather merchandise as any other article usually sent by COD mail [pp vs Agnis, 47 Phil 945].
Kinds of document:
1.
Public document a document created, executed or issued by a public official in response to the exigencies of the public service, or in the execution of which a public office intervened [US vs
Asensi, 34 Phil 765].
2.

Official document a document which is issued by a public official in the exercise of the functions of his office. An official document is also a public document. It falls within the larger class
called public documents.

3.

Private documents a deed or instrument executed by a private person without the intervention of a notary public or other person legally authorized, by which document some disposition or
agreement is proved, evidenced or set forth [US vs Orera, 11 Phil 596]

4.

Commercial document any document defined and regulated by the Code of Commerce:
Example:
a.
Letters of exchange, letters of credit, drafts, trade acceptances, checks, notes or pagares issued in the course of a business transaction, quedans, bonds, books of
accounts, and in general any negotiable instrument.
b.
Quedans or warehouse receipts
c.
Cash files, deposit slips and bank statements
d.
Surety account, journal books, ledgers
e.
Air way bills. These are in the nature of bills of lading

What kind of document is falsified in Art. 171?


The document must necessarily be public or official not private or commercial because the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary or ecclesiastical minister, who intervene in the execution
thereof or has official custody.
Even if the document is originally a private document, if it is in the official custody of the public officer or employee or it forms part of the official record when it is falsified by the public officer or employee,
then the crime committed should be punished under art. 171.
Discussions:
Art. 171, you notice, has a higher penalty compared to art. 174. Who can be convicted for violation of art. 171? Only public officer who took advantage of their position. As far as public officers are
concerned, the document here falsified is an official or public document.
What are the different acts mentioned in art. 171.
Par. 1 counterfeiting or imitating
So the accused here tried to imitate the hand writing of the offended party. So there is an attempt to imitate. And the 2 signatures have the resemblance of similarities.
Aside from counterfeiting, another way of committing par. 1 is feigning or simulating. US vs De los angeles in this case the accused presented a will to the court for probate. Purportedly
executed by the testatrix where in fact the alleged testatrix died a year before. So the will was presented to the court for probate sometime in 1900 when in fact the alleged testatrix died the
year before. So the falsification is by feigning. The will was purportedly executed in march 1901 by the testatrix when in fact she died on july 1900. So patay na cya sa dihang g.execute. so
this is an example of feigning. [gbuhat2 ra]
Another way of feigning is when the offended party does not know how to write and somebody prepared a document purportedly signed by him. So dli cya kabaw musuwat unya dunay
document gbuhat2 kunohay pernirmahan niya. Now that would fall under par. 1 [FEIGNING]. So there is an attempt.
Par. 2 causing it appear
Suppose there is no attempt to copy the signature of the offended party. So panalitan ngbuhat2 ug deed of sale ang anak. The deed alleged that a parcel of land owned by his father was sold
to him. Unya didto sa deed of sale wala niya sun.a ang perma sa iyang papa. Lahi raj d kaau. So for example, name sa iyang papa ky JOSE DELA CRUZ, ang gbutang didto PEDRO
BALIGWAT unya Father. Or shall we say, the same name but the signature is different. A perma sa iyang PAPA sa tinud.anay dunay star2. Ang perma kadto iyang gbuhat2 wlay star2. So
there is no attempt to imitate. Question is there falsification? There could still be falsification by causing it to appear that such person has executed that deed of sale or has participated in that
act when in fact he did not. So that would be under par. 2.
Par. 3 attributing
The offended party here has participated or has made statement, but the offender added or deducted. Pwde ni ciya gkuhaan or gpun.an. as I said, the stenographer, ky g.taga.an cya ug
bribe, iyang g.usab ug iyang gpun.an ang testimony sa witness. Ingon ang witness na I HAVE SEEN THE ACCUSED STABBING THE VICTIM, iyang gbutangan og not, I HAVE NOT SEEN
THE ACCUSED STABBING THE VICTIM. So the stenographer attributed or added statements other than those in fact made by such witness. That would be under par. 3
Par. 4 making untruthful statements in a narration of facts.
The accused here is making a false statement of facts. The offender makes in a document false statements of facts. BAKAK ra iya gsulti. One of the important requisites under this paragraph
is that the accused must have the legal obligation under the law to state the facts. So if there is no legal obligation to state the true facts, then he could not be liable for falsification.
For example, he filed a certificate of candidacy dagan ka pagka town MAYOR. Unsa may age qualification ana? 18? 21? For example dili pa siya sa age 21, iya lang g.advance iyang edad.
There is falsification under par. 4 making untruthful statements of facts.
However, in the case of Pp vs Yanza, April 29, 1960 were the accused only declared that she was ELEGIBLE as she merely expressed her belief that the 23 years requirement could be
adequately met if she reached 23 years upon assuming the councillorship was not guilty of falsification because she only made a mistake of judgment or wrote of conclusion of law.
Had she stated that she was born on Mar 29, 1931, she would undoubtedly have been guilty of falsification because date of birth is a matter of fact.
Therefore, narration must be of fact not of conclusion of law.
Another example, the accused secured a residence certificate to prove his residency. Diba kung mubutar ka duna manay residency requirement, I think 6 months. So this ruling is still
applicable. So he secured a resident certificate to prove that he has been residing in that particular place. Pero gpangbutang niya na mga vital information ky mga sayup FALSE. So he was
convicted of falsification. Number of years na mistay dha, sayop iyang gbutang.
So as we have said earlier, there must be a legal obligation on the part of the accused to state the facts. Duna bay law ngsugo na imo jud nang isulti kung pila naka katuig napuyo dha?
Answer is yes because that is required by law. pareho ra pd nang ni file ka ug Certificate of Candidacy. There is falsification.

Question: an administrative officer applying for promotion filled up an information sheet which asked him if he have been convicted of a case involving moral turpitude or have a case pending
in court. the applicant checked no, but in fact he had been convicted or had a pending case in court.
Answer: you know, kanang mga personal data sheet sa mga government employees, sa CSC, naa dihay note na any misrepresentation would be a ground for prosecution of perjury. Nay
gibutang dha I declare the statements under the penalties of perjury. So sato pa, tungod sa imong pagbutang dha, as expressly stated pwde ka ma.charge ug perjury adto sa Art. 183 dili dha
sa art. 171.
Just in case wala gbutang maong declaration [I declare under the penalties of perjury], so question is that is there a law requiring to state the truth whether or not you have been convicted or
you have a case filed against you. If the prosecution cannot proved that there is such a law, requiring the accused to state the truth then he cannot be convicted. So the prosecution has to
prove that there is such a law.
Nay caso, ni.apply ang accused paka.polis. he was charged for falsification by making untruthful application. Gbutang didto sa iyang application na wala cyan a convicted of any offense
when in fact he has been previously convicted. So he was charged with falsification for making untruthful statements. FALSE jd na ky na convicted namn na cya. But that per se cannot make
you liable for falsification because there is another important requirement, it must be proven that there is a law requiring you to state the truth whether you have been convicted or not. In that
case the accused was acquitted because the prosecution failed to point any provision of law requiring the accused to state whether or not he had been previously convicted.
However, sa pagkakaron, kung mangapply mu sa governo, naa didto gbutang na you are swearing under the penalty of perjury that your declared statements are true and correct. So sa ato
pa if you are found that there are statements are false then you can be prosecuted under art. 183 for perjury.
Q: can a public officer be held liable for falsification of public documents even if the document is fabricated or simulated? For example, dihay usa ka polis unya gusto niya dakpon niya ang
iyang asawa na mi commit ug adultery. Iyang gbuhat nagbuhat2 cya ug warrant of arrest, kunohay signed by the judge, against his wife, when in fact there is no such warrant of arrest. So
pwede ba sya macharged of falsification of public documents when in fact kadtong document dli man genuine, hinimuhimu mn niya. PWEDE? Answer is YES
Note: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 could be fabricated.
For example, ngbuhat2 ka ug deed of sale. Pro dili di ay tinuod. Pwede baka maconvicto bsan dili na tinud.anay na deed of sale of gbuhat2? Yes. Falsification by fabrication or simulation.
Par. 5 altering of true dates
Another way of committing falsification of public document is by altering true dates. The dates here must be material or essential. For example, do you remember when we discussed art. 125,
delay in the delivery of person to judicial authority or in the filing of a case in court. there is a reglementary period there, 12, 18, 36. And if you do not file a case against the arrested person
you could be held liable for arbitrary detention. Suppose you have arrested the accused with legal ground last Monday and the crime committed is theft. Up to now [next Monday], you did not
file a case against the person that arrested. And therefore, you can now be charged with violation of art. 125 because the arrested person is still detained. In order to escape liability, imung
g.usab ang date didto sa police blotter. Imbis June 27, imung g.ilisan ug July 1. Purportedly karon pa nimo nadakpan ang accused. As far as the changing of date of the arrest is concern
appearing in the police blotter what is your criminal liability? You could be held liable for falsification of public document by altering true date. Is a police blotter is a public document? Answer
is yes, that is a public document. What act did you do in committing falsification? You alter, change the correct date, in your effort to evade any criminal liability as far as the detention of the
arrested person is concerned. So the date must be essential. So if the date is not essential then you can have no liability.
Panalitan karon jud na petsaha cya na dakpan, tinuod jud na karon, JULY 4, 2011. Pro pagtanaw nimo sa police blotter dili mn july 4 ang na butang didto July 1 mn. Imung g.usab. are you
liable for falsification? Answer is no. if you correct a wrong entry there is no falsification. Because the essence of falsification is you change the correct one, the correct one is
made false.
Par. 6 Making alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning.
Alteration there are changes, you erase, you superimpose [you write over it] which changes its meaning
Intercalation inserted some words or figures in a genuine document which changes it meaning. You add.
For example, statement of votes, election return. Imbis 100 votes imung gpun.an. imu gpun.an ug zero. So from 100 to 1000. Or imung g.bali 100 to 10. What crime committed? Falsification
under par. 6. Has the meaning been change when you add zero? Yes. Or when you erase one of the zeros? Yes.
Another, what crime is committed when you change the amount appearing in the official receipt. Imbis ang gbayad didto sa Official receipt ky 5,000 gkuha.an nimo usa zero to make it appear
na 500 nalang. That is falsification.
Par. 7 issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original when no such original exists, or including in such a copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the
genuine original.
What crime committed by a notary public when he issues a certification that in his file there is such a deed of sale, when in fact there is none? Falsification of public document by issuing in an
authenticated form purporting to be a copy of a original document when in fact no such original exist.
There is no original copy in the first part.
Par.7 can only be committed by a custodian. So there is no such original copy but ni.issue cyan a dunay copy.
2nd part there is an original copy but he issued a statement contrary to, or different from , that of the genuine copy. Example: the LCR issued a certification that a certain person is a
legitimate child when in fact there is no such entry that siya legitimate sa iyang birth record. Diba kung mulokat ka ug birth certificate issuehan ra man kag kanang certification. So issuing a
statement contrary or different from that of the genuine contents of original document. So this could be committed by a custodian or by one who retained a copy of the original such as the
notary public.
Par.8 intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official book.
What is the crime committed by the civil registrar when he inserted a document purporting to be a marriage contract when in fact sa maong file walay marriage contract pero iyang g.insertan
didto na kunohay there is such a marriage contract? Falsification under par.8
Ecclesiastical minister when held liable?
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any ecclesiastical minister who shall commit any of the offenses enumerated in the preceding paragraphs of this article, with respect to any record or document of
such character that its falsification may affect the civil status of persons.
So unsa may mga documento na maka affect sa civil status sa usa ka tao?
Kanang for example, marriage contract. Ang simbahan makakasal mn. So panalitan, didto sa ilahang record of marriage butangbutangan, insertan didto, na there was such a marriage contract entered by
this persons where in fact there was none. What crime is committed? Falsification of public document.
JURISPRUDENCE:
1.
So what crime is committed, for example, you are a public teacher and you request your co-teacher to punch in you DTR or punch Card so that you will not be late. What is the crime
committed by you and your co-teacher? Falsification under par.2
2.

You requested your cousin to take the civil service exam or PRC exam in your behalf. Ikaw lay take para nako. What is the crime committed? Falsification under par.2

3.

Mo.vote in behalf of another. Can you issue a SPA so that somebody can vote for? No. voting is a personal act. If you do that, that would be falsification under par. 2

4.

Pp vs Romualdez, 57 Phil 151 accused romualdez, was a relative of the justice romualdez, who was the chairman of the 1926 bar exams. Unya duna siya kaila, co-accused mabunay, who
took the bar exams. Mabunay failed in that examinations but through the initiative of accused romualdez, the latter change the scores of Mabunay in civil law and remedial law. in civil law his
score was 63 and this was change to 73. In remedial law, his score was 58 and was change to 64. Mabunay passed the exam. So what crime was committed by Romaualdez and Mabunay?
They committed falsification under par. 6, par. 2 and par. 3.

Liability of private individual conspiring with public officer


The private person would have the same liability with the public officer. US vs Ponte, 20 Phil 379 a private person who cooperates with a public officer in the falsification of a public document is guilty of
this crime incurs the same liability and penalty as the public officer.
Note: Intent to gain or prejudice not necessary under art. 171 unlike under art. 172 par.2.
Remember that when the document falsified is a public document, the damage to third person is not necessary or intent to gain or prejudice is not necessary because it is the interest of the community
which is intended to be guaranteed by the strictest faithfulness of the officials charged with the preparation and preservation of the acts in which they intervene.
Art. 172. Falsification by private individuals and use of falsified documents
Penalty:
1.
Prision correcional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than 5,000 pesos, imposed upon acts committed under par.1 and 2
2.

The penalty next lower in degree imposed upon those who used falsified document

Falsification under par.1


Elements:
1.
That the offender is a private individual or a public officer or employee, or a notary public who did not take advantage of his official position
2.
That he committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Art. 171
3.
That the falsification was committed in a public or official or commercial document
Discussion:
Art. 172 the twin brother of art. 171. You might be mislead by this term private individuals you might have the impression that art. 172 could be violated only by private individuals where in fact even public
officers or employee even the notary public could be charged under art. 172.
Those public officers, employees, or notary public who falsified public documents but did not take advantage in their position in doing the falsification could not be convicted under art. 171 but can be
convicted under art. 172. That is why I told you, you might be mislead by that term private individuals.
And you notice that under art. 172, the penalty is much lower. Diba?
What are the acts penalized under art. 172?
1st par - It says that any private individual [which includes public officer, employee, or notary public who did not take advantage of their public position] who shall commit any of the
falsification mentioned in art. 171 in any PUBLIC or OFFICIAL document or LETTER OF EXCHANGE or any other kind of COMMERCIAL document.
Who are liable under par.1
1.
Public officer or employee, Notary public, who did not take advantage of their public position.
2.
Private individuals but they falsified public documents.
Example: ang usa ka anak, ngbuhat2 ug deed of sale unya iyang gapa.notaryohan. kunohay, purportedly, tanan kauta.an sa iyang parents was sold to him. What crime that the son committed? He
committed the crime of falsification of public document, but under what article? Under article 172 because he is a private person falsifying a public document.
2nd par any person who, to the damage of a third party, or with the intent to cause such damage, shall in any private document commit any the acts of falsification enumerated under art.
171. [ang g.falsify ky a private document, and the offender could be a public officer, employee, or notary public or a private person]
Elements:
1.
2.
3.

That the offender committed any acts of falsification under art. 171, except those in par.7
That the falsification was committed in any private document
That the falsification caused damage to a third party or at least the falsification was committed with intent to cause such damage

Mere falsification of private document is not enough. Two things are required:
1.
The offender must have counterfeited the false document
2.
He must have performed an independent act which operates to the prejudice of a third person
with the intent to cause such damage means that the offender performs some other independent act in order to make use of it an act which, while it does not result in prejudice to a third party, has been
done nevertheless with the intention of causing such prejudice [US vs paraiso, 1 Phil 127].
NOTE: to be held liable for falsification, if the document being falsified is a private document, there must be damaged or intent to cause damage. Without damage there is no falsification of private
document.
So for example, ngtrabaho ka sa call center, imu gtxan imung amigo na ipa.pansu to imung DTR ky malate ka. What crime is committed? You committed the crime of falsification of private document under
art. 172 par. 2. Is there damage? Yes. By making it appear that you arrived on time, you will receive the exact pay of the wage. But if you did not falsify the document, your wage will be reduced. Thus,
damage against the employer.
For example, you make a false transcript of records purporting that youve graduate in a university like USJ-R. what crime is committed? That is falsification under art. 172 par. 2. Damage is inflicted
against the honor of the school.
For example, the Transcript of records that you falsified was that of the University of the Philippines. Then that is falsification of public document kay UP is a government university. [take note of this]
last paragraph Any person who shall knowingly introduce in evidence in any judicial proceeding or to the damage of another or who, with the intent to cause such damage, shall use any
of the false documents embraced in Art. 171 or in any of the foregoing subdivisions of this article, shall be punished by the penalty next lower in degree.
So this is now the penalty for the person who will use. So dili siya mao ang ngfalsify pro g.gamit lang siya. Kung siya mismo ang ni falsify or ni.conspire siya sa ngfalsify, then he should be prosecuted
under par. 1 or par. 2. Pero kung igo ra siya mugamit then ari siya sa 3rd paragraph.
Now remember that under present jurisprudence, it would be hard to point the person who falsified the document. So for example deed of sale, imong gbutang2 didto na kunohay ang imong ginikanay
mibaligya nimo sa maong yuta, when in fact wala. Unya, wlay may nakakita sa ngperma nimo ana be. Kay gibuhat na nimo ikaw ra man usa. Unsaon, mn nimo pagproweba na ikaw jud mismo ang
ng.suon2 anang perma sa imong papa. Unsaon mn nimo pagproweba nimo na ikaw jud ang author ana.
Now, there is jurisprudence that the user or the person who is in possession of a falsified document if presume to be the author. If you cannot explain to the court how come you are in possession of that
falsified document plus the fact that you were the one benefited by that falsified document. You will be presumed to be the author. And if you cannot present controverting evidence, then that presumption
will become conclusive. So possession of falsified document, is presumed to be the author.
Another act which is penalized under the last paragraph is the introduction of this falsified document in court. And you know very well that these documents are falsified then you could be charged for
violation of art. 172.
Kanang mu.use ka or mugamit ka sa falsified document, kani para ni sa accessory, diba? You are benefited by the proceeds or effect of the crime. Is it not? Suppose to be you are an accessory to the
crime of falsification. And as such the penalty that can be imposed upon you should be two degrees lower. But here the law itself provides that next lower in degree. Wa kay mahimo ky kadtong general
rule dili ma.apply kay ang bala.ud mao nag ingon na ang next lower in degree shall be imposed.
What the crime committed, you are falsifying an official receipt, for example you are a treasurer, unya imong g.falsify ang mga O.R. after falsigying the O.R. imong gspent for personal use the public funds.
What crime did you commit? You committed a complex crime of malversation through falsification of public documents.
What about if, the receipts na imohang g.falsify ky private receipts. Pananglitan cashier ka karon sa usa ka private na tindahan. Unya imong g.falsify ang mga recibo. Sa mga halin nimo for that day unya
imong g.spend. what crime did you commit? Could you be charged with estafa through falsification of private documents? Now if the documents that you falsified are considered private, the same could
not be complex with the crime of estafa because in falsification of private documents and in estafa there must be damage to third person. They have common element so dili pwede macomplex siya.
So the crime committed could either be, falsification of private document or estafa. Dili pwede ma.complex. it would depend under the circumstances given. If you committed falsification prior to estafa,
kung imo sa g.change ang figures usa nimo g.spend, then the crime would be falsification of private document. But if you spend first and then committed the falsification, the crime committed is ESTAFA.
So it depends kung kinsay nag.una. depende na. mao nay existing jurisprudence.
When we discuss par. 4- untruthful statements in a narration of facts, remember that if a narration of facts is stated in an affidavit there is no falsification. You cannot be held liable for falsification of public
document under art. 171 but the crime committed if there is a false affidavit under art. 183.
If you can remember in your evidence, affidavit is not considered a public document. Why? It only contains a jurat, no acknowledgement.
Duna bay private document maconsidered as public document. For example, deed of sale being notarized a notary public, that is considered a private document but becomes a public document once
notarized. As well as private document which is submitted to a government office and made part of an official record.
Art. 173 Falsification of wireless, cable, telegraph, and telephone messages, and use of said messages
The Penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon any officer or employee of the Government or of any private corporation or concern engaged in the service
of sending or receiving wireless, cable, telegraph, or telephone message who utters a fictitious wireless, telegraph, or telephone message of any system or falsifies the same.
Any person who shall use such falsified dispatch to the prejudice of a third party or with the intent to cause such prejudice, shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree.
Elements Par. 1:
1.
That the offender is an officer or employee of the Government or an officer or employee of a private corporation, engaged in the service of sending or receiving wireless, cable or telephone
message
2.
The offender commits any of the following acts:
a.
Uttering fictitious wireless, cable, telegraph or telephone message or

b.

Falsifying wireless, cable, telegraph, or telephone message

Elements Par. 2:
1.
That the accused knew that wireless, cable, telegraph, or telephone message was falsified by any of the persons specified by any of the persons specified in the first par. Of art. 173
2.
The accused used such falsified dispatch
3.
That the use of the falsified dispatch resulted in the prejudice of a third party, or that the use thereof was with intent to cause such prejudice.
Illustration: US vs Romero, 17 Phil 76
The accused, a telegraph operator, who received two telegrams for transmission, reduced the number of words of the telegraph messages by 12 and 8 words, respectively, without having been authorized
to do so by the sender. He pocketed the differences in the prices charged in the sums of P.72 and P.48, respectively. Held: the accused was guilty of falsification of telegraph messages.
Note: a private individual cannot commit the crime of falsification of telegraphic dispatches by direct participation, unless he is an employee of a corporation engaged in the business of sending or receiving
wireless, telegraph or telephone messages.
But a private individual can be held criminally liable as principal by inducement in the falsification of telegraph dispatches or telephone messages.
But if he knowingly uses any falsified telegraph, wireless or telephone messages to the prejudice of a third person, or with intent to cause such prejudice, it is not necessary that he be connected with such
corporation.
Art. 174 False medical certificates, false certificates of merit or service, etc ISSUANCE OF FALSE CERTIFICATE
The penalties of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed 1,000 shall be imposed upon:
1.
Any physician or surgeon who, in connection with the practice of his profession, shall issue a false certificate and
2.
Any public officer who shall issue a false certificate of merit or service, good conduct, or similar circumstnaces
The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon any private person who shall falsify a certificate falling within the classes mentioned in the 2 preceding subdivisions.
Certification is any writing by which testimony is given that a fact has or has not taken palce.
Persons liable for falsification of certificates
1.
Physician or surgeon [whether public or public] who, in connection with the practice of his profession, issued a false certificate
The crime is FALSE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE BY A PHYSICIAN
2.

Public officer who issued a false certificate of merit or service, good conduct or similar circumstances
The crime is FALSE CERTIFICATE OF MERIT OR SERVICE BY A PUBLIC OFFICER

3.

Private individual who falsified a certificate falling in the classes mentioned in Nos. 1 and 2
The crime is FALSE MEDICAL CERITIFICATE by a private individual or false certificate of Merit or Service by a private individual.

Example:
Muattend ka ug kasal karong sabado, unya dili mn jud ka pa.absent.ton sa imong amu. so niabsent jud ka wla jud ka mananghid. Unya paglunes pagbalik nimo, ngdala nlang ka ug medical certificate na
kunohay nasakit ka. Unya ngkinanghanglan ug emergeny attention. So unsay liable sa doctor? That is par.1.
Example, gpusposan ka. Tanaw sa doctor, the injury would held within 7 days. That slight physical injuries. Unya imo g.ingnan ang doctor na pwde himu.on ug 15 days haron mahimo ug less serious
physical injuries. If the doctor will agree what crime is committed? Issuance of false medical certificate.
For example, you are applying for a position which requires experience, naa mana, kninanghalang ka ug at least a minimum of 5 years experience. So nangayo ka ug certification sa ni.anang maong office
ka office na ikaw nakatrabaho ka ni.ingana na opisina for a length of time. When in fact you only render service for 2 months. What crime is commited? The crime would not be falsification under art. 171
or 172. It would be issuance of false certificate of merit or service, good conduct or similar circumstances.
Art. 175 Using false certificates The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon any one who shall knowingly use any of the false certificates mentioned in the next preceding article.
Elements:
1.
2.
3.

That a physician or surgeon had issued a false medical certificate, or a public officer had issued a false certificate of merit or service, good conduct, or similar circumstances, or a private
person had falsified any of said certificates
That the offender knew that the certificate was false
That he used the same.

For example, ikaw mismo ang nagsugo sa doctor, ikaw pa gani ang naghangyo sa doctor nga issuehan ka ug minamao na medical certificate. Asa mn ka macharge, art. 175 or 174? You will be charged
under art. 175.
Note: when any of the false certificates mentioned in Art. 174 is used in the judicial proceeding, Art. 172 does not apply, because the use of false document in judicial proceeding under Art. 172 is limited to
those false documents embraced in Arts. 171 and 172.
Art. 176 Manufacturing, importing, and possession of instruments or implements intended for the commission of falsification
The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine not to exceed 10,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall make or introduce into the Philippine Islands
any stamps, dies, marks, or other instruments or implements intended to be used in the commission of the offenses of counterfeiting or falsification mentioned in the preceding sections of this chapter.
Any person who, with the intention of using them, shall have in his possession any of the instruments or implements mentioned in the preceding paragraph, shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree
than that provided therein.
Acts punished under art. 176:
1.
Making or introducing into the Philippines any stamps, dies, marks, or other instruments or implements for counterfeiting or falsification
2.
Possessing with intent to use the instruments or implements for counterfeiting or falsification made in or introduced into the Philippines by another person
Examples:
1.
2.

A person who manufactured a seal in imitation of the seal of Lipa, Batangas, for making false certificates for the transfer of livestock, is guilty of making instrument for falsification of
certificates.
A person who possessed an iron brand to be used in falsifying the official brand of a municipality for cattle branding, is guilty of illegal possession of instrument for falsification.

Art. 177. Usurpation of authority or official functions any person who shall knowingly and falsely represent himself to be an officer, agent, or representative of any department or agency of the Philippine Government or of any foreign
government, or who, under pretense of official position, shall perform any act pertaining to any person in authority or public officer of the Philippine Government or of any foreign
government, or any agency thereof, without being lawfully entitled to do so, shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.
Two ways of committing the crime under Art. 177:
1.
By knowingly and falsely representing oneself to be an officer, agent or representative of any department or agency of the Philippine Government or any foreign government.
Note: that in usurpation of authority, the mere act of knowingly and falsely representing oneself to be an officer, etc. is sufficient. It is not necessary that he performs an act
pertaining to a public officer.
2.

By performing any act pertaining to any person in authority or public officer of the Philippine Government or of a foreign government or any agency thereof, under pretense of official position,
and without being lawfully entitled to do so.
Note: that in usurpation of official functions, it is essential that the offender should have performed an act pertaining to a person in authority or public officer, in addition to other
requirements.

NOTE: One act could exist without the other.


Example: 1st acts
Kamo, dba ang tawag sa inyong silangan ky attorney naman, unya tando2 sab mo. Unsa mana liable mo ani under art. 177? Kani sa governo man ka. You cannot be held liable under this article.

Pro pananglitan mo.ingon ka pulis ka. Sakay ka ug bus. Pikpik dayon ka sa abaga. So you are representing to be a police officer. You could be held liable under art. 177 for usurpation of authority.
Example of 2nd acts:
For example, wala ka musulti na polis ka, pro nagtraffic ka didto, you confiscated licenses. Unsa may crime imong na commit? You are liable for usurpation of official functions.
Now it could be na kaning duha imohang ma.violate. for example you misrepresented yourself as a police man at the same time you perform acts pertaining to a police man, so duha jud imong buhat.
Nagpa.ila ka na police ka ug ngbuhat pd ka ug mga acts na buhat ka sa mga police.
Kanang mg pari2 ka labi nag panahon sa kalag2. Sulob ka ug puti unya dala2 ka ug botilya sa alcohol unya wesikwesikan nimo. Can you be held liable under art. 177? Answer is no. why? Ang gbutang
diri, who shall knowingly and falsely representing himself to be an officer, agent or representative of any department or agency of the Philippine Government or any foreign government, except kung
nagpa.ila ka na chaplain ka anang mga police baron. Kung mag.pari2 ra jud ka, then you do not commit. Violation of art. 177. It could be ESTAFA. You commit a crime but could not be under Art. 177, it
could be under the succeeding articles.
Kanang mgpa.abogado2 ka. Duna may uban ana. Dghan gpangcharge ana. May man pd musulti masabogado man jd paminawn ky sa tinud.anay na abogado. Pro wla mn ka passar sa bar. Barbarian
man lang ghapon. Unsa mana, art. 177? Dili ghapon ky he is not representing himself to be a government employee. Pero kung nagpaabogado siya sa PAO or ngpa.fiscal2 siya. Then that would be
violation under art. 177.
Land mark case: PP vs Hilvano, 99 Phil 655
Under this case, the Mayor in one of the towns in Samar, Mayor of VILLAREAL, took a leave of absence about one month. Unya kay lagi ang Vice-Mayor iya mang Contra sa politika basin unyang di na
siya pabalikon. So instead of designating the Vice-Mayor as the acting Mayor in his absence, he designated the first councilor to be the Mayor in his absence. Rule is that when the Mayor took a leave of
absence, it should be the vice-mayor who shall act the mayor. So pagkabaw sa Vice-mayor na dili cya mao ang gdesignate as the Mayor, iyaha dayon nang ginform niya ang kadtong First Councilor that
he [vice-mayor] is assuming the office of the Mayor. Plus pa jud nangayo pa jud siya ug legal opinion from the office of the President, from the prosecutor office. And both offices give the opinion that it
shall be the vice-mayor who shall act as the Mayor in the absence of the latter. Despite this knowledge and demand, the first councilor did not vacate the office of the Mayor. He continued to perform
functions of a mayor, he solemnized marriages, appointed some policemen, collected the corresponding salary for mayor.
What crime did he commit? He committed the 2 acts mentioned in art. 177. He represented himself to be the mayor and at the same time perform acts pertaining to the office of the mayor. So pwede ba
ang public officer maconvicto under art. 177? Yes because the law says any person.
Now, you should remember that under art. 177 the accused could also be held liable for usurpation of authority or official function if he represent himself to be an agent of a foreign government. FBI ni Bai,
FBI ni Bai.
Art. 178 Using Fictitious Name and Concealing True Name
The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceed 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall publicly use a fictitious name for the purpose of concealing a crime, evading the
execution of a judgment, or causing damage.
Any person who conceals his true name and other personal circumstances shall be punished by arresto menor or a fine not to exceed 200 pesos.
Two acts committed:
1.
Using fictitious name
2.
Concealing true name
1st act: Elements
1.
That the offender uses a name other than his real name
2.
That he uses that fictitious name publicly
3.
That the purpose of the offender is
a.
To conceal a crime
b.
To evade the execution of a judgment
c.
To cause damage to public interest
2nd act: Elements
1.
That the offender conceals
a.
His true name, and
b.
All other personal circumstances
2.
That the purpose is only to conceal his identity
Kanang magtago ka sa imong ngalan. Imbis imong ngalan ky ROLANDA himoun nimo ug LANDA. Unsaon mana nimo. Do you commit any crime? May be you could be held liable under the 2 nd act, any
person who conceals his true name and all other personal circumstances.
Fictitious name vs concealing true name
Fictitious name
The purpose is to conceal crime, to evade the execution of a judgment, or to cause damage to
public interest.

Concealing true name


The purpose is only to conceal identity.
The element of publicity must be present.

Here, it presupposes that a crime is committed and the offender in order to conceal that he
committed he use a fictitious name.
The element of publicity must be present.
Bar: Com. Act no. 142, as amended by RA no. 6085
Sec. 1 - Except as pseudonym solely for literary, cinema, television, radio or other entertainment purposes and athletic events where the use of pseudonym is a normally accepted practice, no person
shall use any name different from the one which he was registered at birth in the office of the local civil registry, or with which he was registered in the bureau of immigration upon entry [alien]; or such
substitute name as may have been authorized by a competent court; provided, that persons, whose births have not been registered in any local civil registry and who have not been baptized, have one
year from the approval of this Act within which to register their names in the civil registry of their residence. The name shall comprise the patronymic name and one or two surnames.
GR: the name you should use should be the name by which you are registered and if you are an alien, you are going to use the name that is being registered before the Bureau of Immigration upon your
entry. Duna man goy mga foreigner, labina na ang mga chinese, na inig abot diri mu.adopt sila ug name sa Filipino. Now that could be legal if they are authorized to use that name.
So unsaon mana nimo kung gusto jd ka mugamit ana na name? so under sec.1 you can only use your pseudonym bsan wlay judicial court authority kung ikaw aritista ka, or naa ka sa literally pareha ni
rizal. Sa radio program, awa gud na si TEBAN.
Pro kung imo nang gamiton sa politika, dili nana cinema, TV or Radio. Kung imo nang gamiton maong ALIAS or NAME, you must have to secure an authority from the Court under Sec.2.
Sec.2. any person desiring to use an alias shall apply for authority therefor in proceedings like those legally provided to obtain judicial authority for a change of name, and no person shall be allowed to
secure such judicial authority for more than one alias. The petition for alias shall set forth the persons baptismal and family name and the name recorded in the civil registry, if different, his immigrants
name, if an alien, and his pseudonym, if he has such names other than his original or real name, specifying the reason or reasons for the use of the desired alias.
The judicial authority for the use of alias, the Christian name and the aliens immigrant name shall be recorded in the proper local civil registry, and no person shall use any name or names other than his
original or real name unless the same is or are duly recorded in the proper local civil registry.
Sec.3. No person having ben baptized with a name different from that which he was registered at birth in the Local civil registry, or in case of an alien, registered in the bureau of immigration upon entry, or
any person who obtained judicial authority to use an alias, or who uses a pseudonym, shall represent himself in any public or private transaction or shall sign or execute any public or private document
without stating or affixing his real or original name and all names or aliases or pseudonym he is or may have been authorized to use.
So sa.ato pa, if you have been granted by court to use that alias, and duna kay official document for example, mu.apply ba noon karon ug passport. So imo jud nang ibutang didto kung unsa nang imong
other alias. So Butangan jud na nimo ug JUAN DE LA CRUZ also known as [A.K.A] JOSE PIDAL.
Kanang lahi imong name ug surname. Example, sugu.on ang silingan, unya ang silingan taga.an lang ug kwarta. So ang silingan na daghan kaau ug g.huna2 unya ga.huna2 ra pd sa suhol. Unya sa wala
pa muadto sa civil registrar nagtigbakay usa. So inig parehistro didto lahi na ang name na gsulti. Nagtuo ang ginika.nan na ang tinuod jud na name mao ang narehistro were in fact dili di ay. Pagbunyag
ang true name ang gigamit. Lahi ang na rehistro lahi ang naa sa baptismal. So asa mn jud ang imong follow.hon ana? Suppose to be kadto jud sa registered nanme nimo. You if you dont want to follow
what is registered, you may file a petition for change of name. unya karon mas.sayon nalang tungod kay naa nay administrative remedies but that is only limited to first name and typographical errors.

Art. 179 Illegal use of uniforms or insignia The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall publicly and improperly make use of insignia, uniforms, or dress pertaining to an office not held by such person
or to class of persons of which he is not a member.
Elements:
1.
2.
3.

That the offender makes use of insignia, uniform or dress


That the insignia, uniform or dress pertains to an office not held by the offender or to a class of persons of which is not a member
That said insignia, uniform or dress is used publicly and improperly

Kanang magpari2 ka? Ari na diri to class of perons.


Kanang Ngsulot ka ug pari2 unya nagwisik2 ka adto holy water unya nangayo ka ug kwarta para bayad. That could be estafa. And what happened to the crime illegal wearing of uniform or dress?
Absorbed.
Art. 180. False Testimony against a defendant [ the accused]Any person who shall give false testimony against the defendant [accused] in any criminal case shall suffer:
1.
The penalty of reclusion temporal, if the defendant in said case shall have been sentenced to death
2.
The penalty of prision mayor, If the defendant shall have been sentenced to reclusion temporal or perpetua
3.
The penalty of prision correccional, if the defendant shall have been sentenced to any other afflictive penalty; and
4.
The penalty of arresto mayor, if the defendant shall have been sentenced to a correctional penalty or a fine, or shall have been acquitted
In case provided in subdivisions 3 and 4 of this article the offender shall further suffer a fine not to exceed 1,000 pesos.
Elements:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

That there be a criminal proceeding


That the offender testifies falsely under oath against the defendant therein
That the offender who gives false testimony knows that it is false
That the defendant against whom the false testimony is given is either acquitted or convicted in a final judgment (pp vs Maneja, 72 Phil 256).
That the criminal case filed against the accused must be resolved first [final judgment]. Reason: because the penalty imposed under art. 180 depends upon the crime to which the accused
was convicted.

Note:
The severity of the penalty depends upon the crime to which the accused was convicted or acquitted. Kung mas grabe na sala iyang naconvictohan then dako ang selot sa ni make of false testimony.
Now is it necessary that the testimony of the witness, in order to be held liable under art. 180, should have convicted the accused. Pananlitan siya ni testify against the accused but the accused was,
instead of being convicted, he was acquitted. could that false witness be convicted for violation of art. 180. The answer is yes under par.4, the penalty would be arresto mayor if the accused shall have
been sentenced to a correccional penalty or a fine, or shall have been acquitted. so bisan na abswelto.
Observed that under this article, there is no penalty imposed for making a false testimony for light felonies. No mentioned of light felonies. What is the crime committed by the witness who makes false
testimony against the accused who eventually was convicted of a light felony? Per REGALDOs opinion, the crime committed by the witness could be perjury not under art. 180. Although wla pay
jurisprudence ana.
Reyes opinion: A is accused of slight physical injuries punishable by one month imprisonment. B falsely testified against him. A is convicted and sentenced to 15 days of arresto menor. Is B guilty of false
testimony? No, because art. 180, par.4, provides that the defendant in the principal case shall be sentenced at least to a correccional penalty or a fine, or shall have been acquitted.
Art. 181. False Testimony Favorable to the defendant Any person who shall give false testimony in favor of the defendant [accused] in a criminal case, shall suffer the penalties of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in
its minimum period and a fine not to exceed 1,000 pesos, if the prosecution is for a felony punishable by an afflictive penalty, and the penalty of arresto mayor in any other case.
Supposed the accused was convicted. And there is a witness who made a testimony favorable to the accused. Ang court wala mn naminaw sa iyang testitmony. G.convicto mn jud ang accused. Can that
witness be convicted for violation of art. 181? Answer is yes. it is not necessary that the favorable testimony affected the case. It is enough that he gave a false testimony in favor of the accused.
Another question that might be asked under art. 181 is that, suppose it was the accused who testified in favor of himself. Because there are instances, that the accused has no other witnesses except
himself. The accused under the law is allowed to testify in favor of himself. Supposed the accused testify falsely in his favor, for example, tinud.anay jud na cya ang nagpatay, or nag.rape, pro sa dihang ni
tistigo siya he denied having committed the crime and that is false. Could he be convicted under art. 181 for falsely testifying in favor of the accused. Now according to legal experts, If you are going to
strictly follow the provision of art. 181, he could be convicted because the law says any person. But regalado commented that if that would be the case that would be unrealistic and impracticable
because according to regalado, it would be impractical and unrealistic to hold the accused liable if he merely denied or disputed the allegations against him, otherwise he would have no other defense at
all except to admit the charge. Wala na siyay lain kappa.ingnan.
US vs Soliman, 36 Phil 5 prior to the filing of the case in court, the accused has executed an extrajudicial confession. A criminal case was filed in court. during trial, the accused disowned his extrajudicial
confession and attributed to the police and he testified that it was the police who forced him to execute and subjected him to torture in order for him to execute an extrajudicial confession. Matod pa diri,
that he did not simply deny the charged but he attributed or imputed to some other persons particularly to the police a grave offense of alleging forcing him to execute an extrajudicial confession. Wala lang
kuno siya mudeny, nangamasangil pa jud siya.
According to Regaldo, if the accused in this case had simply denied the charged and did not impute to the policemen, the commission of such grave offense of coercion then the accused could be
convicted of violation of art. 181.
Art. 182 False testimony in civil case Any person found guilty testimony in a civil case shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed 6,000 pesos, if the amount in controversy
shall exceed 5,000 pesos; and the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed 1,000 pesos, if the amount in
controversy shall not exceed said amount or cannot be estimated.
Remember here, art. 182 do not apply to special proceedings. Civil cases ra jud.
For example, a false witness was presented in a special proceeding. Unsa may iyahang liability. Dili siya art. 180, 181 or 182. All cases na dili ma.apil sa 180, 181,or 182, naa sa 183. He shall be
prosecuted for perjury.
So there is a case which reached to the Supreme Court kanang US vs Vasquez, 26 Phil 480 now the defendant here testified falsely that he has already paid his loan. He presented a receipt which was
not genuine. So he was convicted of falsely testimony in a civil case.
Art. 183 False testimony in other cases and perjury in solemn affirmation The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any person who, knowingly making untruthful statements and not
being included in the provisions of the next preceding articles, shall testify under oath, or make an affidavit, upon any material matter before a competent person authorized to administer an
oath in cases in which the law so requires.
Any person who, in case of a solemn affirmation made in lieu of an oath, shall commit any of the falsehoods mentioned in this and the three preceding articles of this section, shall suffered
the respective penalties provided therein.
2 ways of committing perjury
1.
By falsely testifying under oath, and
Note: falsely testified in a judicial proceeding. Testimony was made before the court.
2.
Elements:
1.
2.
3.
4.

By making a false affidavit [perjury]


Note: the false testimony was made before the fiscal
That the accused made a statement under oath or executed an affiant upon a material matter
That the statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer authorized to receive and administer oath
That in that statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood; and
That the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law

It says that any person who, knowingly making untruthful statements and not being included in the provisions of the next preceding articles, Sa to tanang dili ma.apil sa Art. 180 to 182, ari na sila sa art.
183, shall testify under oath, or make an affidavit, upon any material matter before a competent person authorized to administer an oath in cases in which the law so requires.

It is not automatic kung false imong affidavit liable naka ug Perjury [making false affidavit]. Dili na siya automatic. It must be proven, to be held liable for perjury, one of the requisites is that it must be
proven that the sworn statement, containing the falsity, is required by law. So in other words, if you execute an affidavit and the contains of which are false, you could not be held liable for perjury if the
execution of the affidavit is not required by law. But if it is required by law then you could be held liable for perjury. So usa sa mga question nimo ana kay kung kanang pagexecute nimo sa affidavit duna
bay bala.od na ngrequired ana na it must be under oath. Because if there is then you committed perjury.
For example, graduating ka, unya gpangita.an naka ug ID. Gusto nimo na himo.on nimo ug souvenir imong ID. Dili nimo gusto nimo e.surrender ky miss jud nimo ang SAN JOSE. So mubuhat ka ug
affidavit of lost unya under oath. So question are you liable for perjury? If there is a law requiring you execute that affidavit of lost then you are liable for perjury. If there is no law requiring to execute such
affidavit then you are not liable for perjury.
Another example, kanang mufile ka ug rape charged kunohay g.rape ka. You execute an affidavit. Mu.execute jud ka ug affidavit ana. Unya ang affidavit must be under oath, subscribe and sworn to and
you file before the prosecutors office. Is it not? It turn out that you were not really rape. The contents in your affidavit are false. Question can you be held liable for perjury. So the very important question,
that you should ask is it required that you affidavit submitted before the prosecutors office be under oath? Kinahanglan ba jud na SUBSCRIBE and SWORN TO. Entertain.non bas a prosecutors office
ang imong reklamo kung dili na under oath dili? What have you learned in your criminal procedure? It must be under oath. And therefore, there is a law requiring it to be under oath and if you execute a
false affidavit in support to your complaint you could be held liable for perjury. Why? Because there is a law requiring it. One of the requirement is that there must be a law requiring it to be under oath. If
there is such then you are liable for perjury.
IMPORTANT: Now in one case, you are familiar with VERIFICATION sa usa ka civil case. the defendant filed an answer and the answer is verified. Unsa manay contents sa verification? That all the
statements stated in your answer are true and correct. Sa to pa ang verification is a form of affidavit. Kanang verification actually is an affidavit. You are certifying under oath that na kanang imu gpanulti sa
imong answer are true and correct. Unya it was found out that there were false statements in his answers. And the defendant now is charged with perjury because he executed an affidavit, verification in a
form of affidavit, na all statements stated in his answer are true and correct to his own personal knowledge. It turn out na false. He was charged with perjury. Question is he liable for perjury? The answer
is NO. Because verification is not required in all civil cases. Kanang verification is only required if that is required by the rules of court. for example sa SUMMARY PROCEDURE required na verified jud na
ang imo mga pleading dha. Pero sa uban na mga caso dili kinahanglan na verified. Sa ato pa kadtong verification sa maong answer was superfluous, that was unnecessary. Ok? That was unnecessary.
Why? Because the rules of court does not require that an answer be verified except in cases under SUMMARY PROCEDURE. Considering that the execution of that verification is not required by law
therefore, even if the contents are false the accused is not liable for perjury. So imu jud nang tanaw kung naa bay rule or law na nagrequire ana na kinahanglan jud na e.under oath in order to be held
liable for perjury. If there is none then you cannot be held liable for perjury.
Flordelis vs Himalaloan July 30, 1978 - Without delving any further into the detailed circumstances of the proceeding in the City Court of Tagbilaran City referred to in the information and confining Our
attention even only to the mention thereon of "a verified answer to a complaint filed in the City Court", it is at once apparent that one element of the crime of perjury is absent in the charge as filed
against petitioner, namely, that the sworn statement complained of must be required by law. (The Revised Penal Code by Justice Ramon C. Aquino, Vol. 111, 1976 ed., pp. 1062-1063.) The answer to a
complaint in an ordinary civil action need not be under oath.
Now aside from the element that the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law, sa ato pa the execution of the sworn statement or affidavit is required by law or rules, another
element is that the accused made a statement under oath or executed an affidavit upon a material matter.
So in other words kinahanglan na kadto false statement must be relevant or pertinent.
Another element is that the statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer authorized to receive and administer oath. So imo tong gpanotaryohan. Unya ang ngnotaryo walay notarial
commission, then there is absence of the element.
Art. 183 vs Art. 171 (4)
Art. 183 Perjury
Requisites:
1.
The accused made a statement under oath or executed an affidavit upon a material
matter
2.
The statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer, authorized to receive
and administer oath
3.
The accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood
4.
The sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law
Difference:
1.
It should be under oath

Art. 171 (4) Falsification of public document by making untruthful statements in a


narration of facts
Requisites:
1.
That the offender makes in a document statements in a narration of facts
2.
That he has legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him
3.
That the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false; and
4.
That the perversion of truth in the narration of facts was made with the wrongful intent of
injuring a third person
Difference:

1.

It need not be under oath

Note: IMPORTANT: if the false statements are stated in an affidavit, it is penalized under art. 183 not under art. 171.
US vs Capistrano, 40 Phil 902 it is not sufficient convict the accused executed when he made 2 contradictory sworn statements. The prosecution must prove which of these sworn statements is false.
Not just because a person has executed two contradictory sworn statements. He could already be convicted of perjury. The prosecution has to prove which of these 2 sworn statements is false.
Illustration: A testified under oath before the fiscal during the preliminary investigation of a homicide case. when the case was filed in court and there A testified, he gave a different testimony contradicting
his testimony before the fiscal. If his testimony before the fiscal is false, it is perjury. If his testimony before the court is false, it is false testimony in a judicial proceeding.
Subornation of perjury BAR
Refers to an act of inducing another to commit a perjury. So if you induced another person to execute a false affidavit, so your act of inducing that person to execute a false affidavit that is what we call
subornation of perjury. So what is your liability, you are liable as principal by induction for the crime of perjury. Or you procure a false witness to testify subornation of perjury.
Subornation of perjury is committed by a person who knowingly and willfully procure another to swear falsely and the witness suborned does testify under circumstances rendering him guilty of perjury [US
vs Ballena, 18 Phil 382].
Example:
B induced A to testify falsely against a fiscal. A, after having been duly sworn, knowingly and willfully testified falsely against the fiscal that the latter attempted to rape her (As) duagther.
HELD: B was guilty of subornation of perjury. B not only knowingly and willfully induced A to swear falsely, but he did so maliciously, as it appeared from the record that he was an enemy of the fiscal who
had prosecuted him before (US vs Ballena, 18 Phil 382).
Art. 184 Offering false testimony in evidence Any person who shall knowingly offer in evidence a false witness or testimony in any judicial or official proceeding, shall be punished as guilty of false testimony and shall suffer the
respective penalties provided in this section.
ELEMENTS:
1.
That the offender offered in evidence a false witness or false testimony
2.
That he knew the witness or the testimony was false
3.
That the offer was made in a judicial or official proceeding
NOTE: kani sa art. 184, wala ka mu.conspire ani. igo ra ka mu.offer or mupresent sa maong false witness or testimony. The offender did not induce to tell a lie but he know the witness is lying. And iya
ghapon g.offer, that what makes him criminally liable.
KANANG, mu.offer ka ug false testimony. You offer a false testimony of a witness and you offer it in court. unsa may liability nimo? You are liable for violation of art. 184. So abogado ka, or ikaw ang
plaintiff unya g.offer nimo in evidence a false witness as one of your witnesses. Then you are liable for offering false testimony in evidence.
Ang kadtong witness mismo na mitestify na false. Asa man to nimo siya mahold liable? It could be under art. 180, 181, 182 or 183. And kadtong mi.offer sa maong false witness asa man siya maliable?
Under art. 184.
Pananglitan siya [attorney] maoy nagahulhog, siya mao nagabuhat2 ug storya na ingani.on pagstorya, ing.ani.on pagtubag ot testigo. Asa mn siya maliable? Aw either art. 180, 181, 182, or 183, there is
conspiracy. Kung ato ni.tinud.on daghan mga abogado mapriso ani.
Pananlitan ang imung g.offer falsified document. Diba kanang witness, testimonial evidence mana. Kung pananlitan documento na false. Unsa may imong liability? Art. 184? No. art. 184 is limited only to
offering false testimony. What about falsified document? Kadto ka sa art. 172 last paragraph.