You are on page 1of 11


Sales v. Director of Prisons
We are of the opinion that article 159 of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes violation of a
conditional pardon as an offense, and the power vested in the President by section 64 (i) of the
Revised Administrative Code to authorize the recommitment to prison of a violator of a conditional
pardon to serve the unexpired portion of his original sentence, can stand together and that the
proceeding under one provision does not necessarily preclude action under the other. In other
words, one who violates the condition of his pardon may be prosecuted and sentenced to suffer
prision correccional in its minimum period without prejudice to the authority conferred upon the
President by section 64 (i) of the Revised Administrative Code to recommit him to serve the
unexpired portion of his original sentence, unless such unexpired portion exceeds 6 years, in
which case the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period provided by article 159 of the
Revised Penal Code shall no longer be imposed.
Culanag v. Director of Prisons
Appellant's stand is that a person released on parole cannot be re-arrested and made to serve
the remaining unexpired portion of his sentence under Sec. 64 (i) of the Revised Administrative
Code, if the State prosecutes and has him convicted for violation of conditional pardon under Art.
159, Revised Penal Code. And since he has been convicted and has served sentence for
violation of conditional pardon under Art. 159 (Crim. Case No. 789), Revised Penal Code, he now
argues that he can no longer be made to serve the rest of his sentence in Crim. Case No. 671
from which he was paroled. 1äwphï1.ñët

The power of the Chief Executive under Section 64(i) of the Rev. Administrative Code to arrest
and re-incarcerate any person who violates his parole condition, stands even in the face of
prosecution, conviction and service of sentence for violation of conditional pardon under Art. 159,
Rev. Penal Code (Sales v. Director of Prisons, 87 Phil. 492). There is no double jeopardy,
because the sentences refer to different offenses; in this case, to falsification (Crim. Case 671)
and to violation of conditional pardon (Crim. Case 789).
People v. Tiongson  There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person,
employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and
specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the

IMPORTATION AND UTTERANCE OF MUTILATED COINS People v. Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court[64] to prove the judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City and to prove that said judgment had become final and executory.  The accused was then a detainee and hence is guilty only of the crime of Homicide in the killing of PC Constable Canela and Pat. Baldogo  Quasi-recidivism should not be appreciated. People v. but also as to the presence or absence of the modifying circumstances so alleged. Tin Ching Ting  The contention that the defendant had not committed any infringement since the . the prosecution was burdened to adduce in evidence a certified copy of the judgment convicting accused-appellant of homicide and to prove that the said judgment had become final and executor. It was then grave error for the trial court to appreciate against the accused-appellant the aggravating circumstance of recidivism simply because of his failure to object to the prosecutions omission as mentioned earlier. to prove quasi-recidivism. ARTICLE 164: MUTILATION OF COINS. there was a joinder of issues not only as to his guilt or innocence. Quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance. In the present case. The barefaced fact that accused-appellant was detained in the penal colony does prove the fact that final judgment for homicide has been rendered against him. Gelera. The prosecution was thus burdened to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the existence of the modifying circumstances. offended party might make. Quasi-recidivism as defined in Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code is alleged in both Informations. Said excerpt is merely secondary or substitutionary evidence which is inadmissible absent proof that the original of the judgment had been lost or destroyed or that the same cannot be produced without the fault of the prosecution.  The excerpt of the prison record of accused-appellant is not the best evidence under Section 3. The raison detre is that: x x x Since the accused-appellant entered a plea of not guilty to such information. Accused-appellant is alleged to have committed murder and kidnapping while serving sentence in the penal colony by final judgment for the crime of homicide. The prosecution is burdened to prove the said circumstance by the same quantum of evidence as the crime itself.

knowing that said bills were counterfeit. intent to use cannot be clearly inferred. cannot be grounds for dismissal of the case under Article 163. [17] Hence. for which reason he had to leave things as they were until the following day. For it to constitute an offense under Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code the possession must be with intent to use said false treasury or bank notes  It follows that an information. in his possession and under his control. instead of acquitting him with costs de oficio. ARTICLE 168: ILLEGAL POSSESSION AND USE OF FALSE TREASURY OR BANK NOTES AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS OF CREDIT People v. 2) that the offender knows that any of the said instruments is forged or falsified. is not a criminal offense. and with intent of using and circulating them. A plea of guilty to such an information. does not warrant conviction of the accused. Exhibit C. counterfeit currency was no longer legal tender. alleging possession of false treasury and bank notes without alleging intent to use the same but only "intent to possess" them. From the allegations in the information to which the accused pleaded guilty. as in this case. and 3) that he either used or possessed with intent to use any of such forged or falsified instruments. Tecson v. therefore. possession of fake . is childish. It is well recognized that a plea of guilty is an admission only of the material allegations of the information but not that the facts thus alleged constitute an offense. Court of Appeals  The elements of the crime charged for violation of Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code. Vacani  The court a quo erred in holding that the accused Manuel Valdes Vacani had the 192 counterfeit bank notes. are: 1) that any treasury or bank note or certificate or other obligation and security payable to bearer. People v. 164 and 169 of the RPC. or any instrument payable to order or other document of credit not payable to bearer is forged or falsified by another person. with animus possidendi. Digoro  Possession of false treasury or bank notes alone without anything more. and in convicting him by virtue thereof of the crime defined in article 168 of the Revised Penal Code. charges no offense.  The excuse given by the appellant to the policemen in the same afternoon of his arrest that his state of mind on the night he received the packaged containing the revolver and the counterfeit bills was such that he knew not what to do.

S. People v. The change made it payable to "bearer" and it was thereafter negotiable and transferable by delivery simply.  that he saw the petitioner drew several pieces of fake US dollar notes from his wallet to show to them after they were introduced by the civilian informer as the interested buyers ARTICLE 169: HOW FORGERY IS COMMITTED U. for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the indorsement operated to alter the terms or conditions of the original contract. . [18] as was sufficiently proven in the case at bar. but to the face of the document also. we are not prepared to say that it would have been impossible for the appellant to consummate the crime of estafa thru falsification of said ticket if the clerk to whom it was presented for the payment had not exercised due care. in relation to article 59. dollar notes must be coupled with the act of using or at least with intent to use the same as shown by a clear and deliberate overt act in order to constitute a crime. Riley. In any event. V. or order. Judging from the appearance of the falsified ticket in question.  Petitioner’s natural reaction to the seeming interest of the poseur buyers to buy fake US dollar notes constitutes an overt act which clearly showed his intention to use or sell the counterfeit US dollar notes. Petitioner cannot validly claim that he had no intention of committing the crime by citing the testimony of Pedro Labita to the effect that he (petitioner) was merely convinced by the civilian informer that Labita and Marqueta were interested to buy fake US dollar notes. Riley only. but the recklessness and clumsiness of the falsification did not make the crime impossible within the purview of paragraph 2. what we have here is a case of entrapment which is allowed. of the Revised Penal Code. In constructing the effect of the indorsement we must not only look to said indorsement. article 4. it was negotiable by the indorsement of Alvah D. While the instrument was payable to Alvah D. and not instigation. Balmores  It may be that appellant was either reckless or foolish in believing that a falsification as patent as that which he admitted to have perpetrated would succeed. Solito  Changing the phrase "or order" to "bearer" is a material alteration.

a part of the court records in said proceedings. Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that in criminal cases. If the estafa can be committed without the necessity of falsifying a document.ARTICLE 171: FALSIFICATION BY PUBLIC OFFICER.  The Court of Appeals40 correctly ruled that the subject vouchers are private documents and not commercial documents because they are not documents used by merchants or businessmen to promote or facilitate trade or credit transactions 41 nor are they defined and regulated by the Code of Commerce or other commercial law. the best witness is the person whose signature was allegedly forged. evidenced or set forth  As there is no complex crime of estafa through falsification of private document.  Section 27. If the falsification of a private document is committed as a means to commit estafa. which have been defined as deeds or instruments executed by a private person without the intervention of a public notary or of other person legally authorized. EMPLOYEE OR NOTARY OR ECCLESIASTICAL MINISTER Batulanon v.42Rather. appellant could be convicted of falsification of private document under the well-settled rule that it is the allegations in the information that determines the nature of the offense and not the technical name given in the preamble of the information.  Although the offense charged in the information is estafa through falsification of commercial document. Barrios  Considering that the petition for habeas corpus (Special Proceedings No. V-2669) alleged the illegal confinement. or deprivation of liberty. and that said petition was duly subscribed and sworn to before Clerk of Court Leopoldo B. it is important to ascertain whether the offender is to be charged with falsification of a private document or with estafa. they are private documents. the proper crime to be charged is estafa. of one Soterania Carmorin. by which some disposition or agreement is proved. Dorado and filed with the Court of First Instance of Capiz. except those involving quasi-offenses or criminal negligence or those allowed by law to be compromised. People  Batulanon argues that in any falsification case. therefore. . Bermejo v. the proper crime to be charged is falsification. it cannot be disputed that said petition is a public or official document as contemplated in Articles 171 and 172 of the Revised Penal Code. an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt. forming.

such that the offense cannot exist without the office. but for purposes of determining whether petitioner. the following requisites must concur: (1) the offense committed is a violation of (a) R. (c) and (e) is a public official or employee[42] holding any of the positions enumerated in paragraph A of Section 4. 2. Adaza v. or (e) other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes. as amended (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). there is no showing that the alleged falsification was committed by the accused. 3019. the relation between the crime and the office must be direct and not accidental. would be legally responsible under Article 171 or Article 172 Galeos v. The writing here in question proves nothing and confirms nothing. People  A conclusion of law is a determination by a judge or ruling authority regarding the law that .  In the instant case. it is not a document but merely a draft of one. as a consequence of. Section 2. (2) the offender committing the offenses in items (a). or (2) he has the official custody of the document which he falsifies  The element of taking advantage of ones position under the Revised Penal Code becomes relevant only in the present case. 14 and 14-A. official functions. without giving rise to criminal liability on his part.A. (d) Executive Order Nos.People v. (b).  This Court held that for an offense to be committed in relation to the office. not for the purpose of determining whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction. Title VII. it would not be entitled to filing in any public office or archive and might be disapproved or even destroyed by the official whose approval was necessary to give it effect. (b) R. (c) Chapter II. 1. Sandiganbayan  For an offense to fall under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. and (3) the offense committed is in relation to the office.  The offender takes advantage of his official position in falsifying a document when (1) he has the duty to make or to prepare or otherwise intervene in the preparation of the document. if at all. Book II of the Revised Penal Code (the law on bribery).A. if he is held to be liable at all. The information does not allege that there was an intimate connection between the discharge of official duties and the commission of the offense. issued in 1986 (sequestration cases). Camacho  A document is a writing or instrument by which a fact may be proven and affirmed. Until approved or certified to by one or more of the proper officials. and while they were discharging. 1379 (the law on ill-gotten wealth).

v. constitutes the crime of falsification. SIGNATURE OR RUBRIC Pacasum v. What is important is the fact that the signature of another was counterfeited. ARTICLE 171. it does not call for an application of law in a particular set of facts.S. .31  A narration of facts is merely an account or description of the particulars of an event or occurrence. It is opposed to a finding of fact.  It is to be made clear that the "use" of a falsified document is separate and distinct from the "falsification" of a public document. the falsification of the Employees Clearance was consummated the moment the signature of Laura Pangilan was imitated. Using falsified documents is punished under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code. U. It is not essential that the falsification shall have been made in a real public or official document. Corral  The simulation of a public or official document. the presumption is that he is the material author of the falsification. 1. In the case at bar.  In the falsification of a public document. the required disclosure or identification of relatives "within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity" in the SALN involves merely a description of such relationship. applies in a particular case.55 Thus. COUNTERFEITING OR IMITATING ANY HANDWRITING.  In this case. People  The rule is that if a person had in his possession a falsified document and he made use of it (uttered it). it is not necessary that there be present the idea of gain or the intent to injure a third person for the reason that in the falsification of a public document.  When a government employee is required to disclose his relatives in the government service. taking advantage of it and profiting thereby. The act of "using" falsified documents is not necessarily included in the "falsification" of a public document. as amended. which interprets the factual circumstances to which the law is to be applied. done in such a manner as to easily lead to error as to its authenticity. it is immaterial whether or not the contents set forth therein were false.  It is a settled rule that in the falsification of public or official documents. such information elicited therefore qualifies as a narration of facts contemplated under Article 171 (4) of the Revised Penal Code. the principal thing punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed.

petitioner should have presented clear and convincing evidence to overcome such burden. a criminal case for falsification may still prosper if the . or may no longer be produced in court. he must have reasonable notice to produce it. which if woven together would produce a single network establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 6. or refuses to produce it.  The effect of a presumption upon the burden of proof is to create the need of presenting evidence to overcome the prima facie case created. will thereby prevail.  The Sandiganbayan correctly admitted in evidence the photocopy of the Employees Clearance. secondary evidence may be admitted.  The lack of direct evidence showing that petitioner "actually" imitated the signature of Laura Pangilan in her Employees Clearance will not exonerate her. the prosecution would not always have the means for obtaining such direct evidence to confute acts contrived clandestinely. he fails to produce the document. When such party has the original of the writing and does not voluntarily offer to produce it. which. Courts have to rely on circumstantial evidence consisting of pieces of facts.62 A prima facie case of falsification having been established. the mere fact that the original is in the custody or control of the adverse party against whom it is offered does not warrant the admission of secondary evidence. secondary evidence may be presented as in the case of loss. the purpose for which the falsification was made and whether the offender profited or hoped to profit from such falsification are no longer material. Thus.  This Court decrees that even though the original of an alleged falsified document is not. Sec. If after such notice and after satisfactory proof of its existence. When original document is in adverse party’s custody or control. We have ruled that it is not strange to realize that in cases of forgery. The offeror must prove that he has done all in his power to secure the best evidence by giving notice to the said party to produce the document which may be in the form of a motion for the production of the original or made in open court in the presence of the adverse party or via a subpoena duces tecum. if no contrary proof is offered. provided that the party in custody of the original has sufficient time to produce the same. – If the document is in the custody or control of the adverse party.

she cannot be held liable. The civil action for the civil liability is separate and distinct from the criminal action  The crimes committed in these three cases are not complex. Sendaydiego  The claim of complainant Province of Pangasinan for the civil liability survived Sendaydiego because his death occurred after final judgment was rendered by the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan.66Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court. the falsification and malversation are separate offenses. the action survives him. It is settled that if the falsification was resorted to for the purpose of hiding the malversation. ARTICLE 171.  The civil action for the civil liability is deemed impliedly instituted with the criminal action in the absence of express waiver or its reservation in a separate action (Sec. which convicted him of three complex crimes of malversation through falsification and ordered him to indemnify the Province in the total sum of P61.23. Rule 111 of the Rules of court).048. The bank tellers who processed the illegal transactions of petitioner involving the account of Remedios were consistent in their testimonies that it was petitioner herself who presented the encashment . The falsification was used as a device to prevent detection of the malversation. The implication is that. People v. People  Moreover. These are not cases where the execution of a single act constitutes two grave or less grave felonies or where the falsification was used as a means to commit malversation. if the defendant dies after a money judgment had been rendered against him by the Court of First Instance. 1. 2. person wishing to establish the contents of said document via secondary evidence or substitutionary evidence can adequately show that the best or primary evidence – the original of the document – is not available for any of the causes mentioned in Section 3. The falsifications cannot be regarded as constituting one continuing offense impelled by a single criminal impulse. Separate crimes of falsification and malversation were committed. Causing it to appear that persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them Domingo v. it cannot be said that since none of the prosecution witnesses saw the falsification actually done by petitioner. It may be continued on appeal.

a complex crime is formed by the two crimes  The falsification of a public. The first element. or commercial document to defraud another is estafa. the crime of falsification has already been consummated. official. But the damage is caused by the commission of estafa. need not be discussed all over. The falsified . 2(a) of the RPC was likewise proven. ARTICLE 171. damage or intent to cause damage not being an element of the crime of falsification of public. such as estafa or malversation. the presumption is that he is the material author of the falsification  It has been ruled that damage or intent to cause damage is not an element in falsification of a commercial document. Office of the  Criminal intent must be shown in felonies committed by means of dolo. ARTICLE 171. official. Mangagey v. 3. or commercial document any of the acts enumerated in Art. we find that the charge of estafa through falsification of public documents under Art. there is no reasonable ground to believe that the requisite criminal intent or mens rea was present. the falsification of the public. slips and received the proceeds of the slips. the crime of falsification has already existed. because before the falsified document is actually utilized to defraud another. Actually utilizing that falsified public. the applicable rule is that if a person has in his possession a falsified document and he made use of it.[30] In this case. official. because what the law seeks to repress is the prejudice to the public confidence in such documents  It has been held that whenever a person carries out on a public. Therefore. par. 315. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts. In other words. In such a situation. taking advantage of it and profiting from it. official. official. not by the falsification of the document. The same holds true with the requirement that these falsifications were made during the commission of the crime. 171 of the RPC as a necessary means to perpetrate another crime. or commercial document is only a necessary means to commit estafa. such as Ombudsman falsification. Sandiganbayan  Similarly. or commercial document. that the accused made false pretenses or fraudulent representations. 4. or commercial document may be a means of committing estafa. We have sufficiently gone over this matter. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than those in facts made by them Mendoza-Arce v.

certificates of inspection and acceptance resulted in the government paying for the unfinished project to the disadvantage and injury of the State. ARTICLE 171. Altering true dates… People v. Altogether. 5. and (b) that such person or persons did not in fact so participate in the act or proceeding. Pantaleon  Falsification under paragraph 2 is committed when (a) the offender causes it to appear in a document that a person or persons participated in an act or a proceeding. . the elements of the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document are present.