DECISION:

Mario died in a car accident on March 2013 while the records from the
Register of Deeds shows that an Authority to Sell the property was given to Alberto
and was signed by Mario on June 2013. It is undisputed that there is a falsification
of the said document.
Article 169, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code[1] provides that forgery is
committed: By erasing, substituting, counterfeiting or altering by any means the
figures, letters, words or signs contained therein. In the case above, it is impossible
that a deceased man for more than two months ago was able to sign a document,
specifically, an Authority to Sell.
Alberto also violated Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code[2] which provides
that:

ARTICLE 172. Falsification by Private Individuals and Use of

Falsified Documents. — The penalty of prisión correccional in its
medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than 5,000 pesos
shall be imposed upon:

1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the falsifications

enumerated in the next preceding article in any public or official
document or letter of exchange or any other kind of commercial
document; and

2. 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 of the
acts of falsification enumerated in the next preceding article.

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 the next
preceding article or in any of the foregoing subdivisions of this article,
shall be punished by the penalty next lower in degree.

All the above-mentioned elements were established in this case. First,

petitioner is a private individual. Second, the act of falsification consisted in
petitioner’s (1) counterfeiting or imitating the signature of the late Mario causing it
to appear that the same is true and genuine in all aspects; (2) causing it to appear that
Mario had participated in selling the property when he did not in fact participate;
and (3) the falsification was committed in an Authority to Sell which is deemed a
commercial document. Commercial documents are, in general, documents or
instruments which are "used by merchants or businessmen to promote or facilitate
trade or credit transactions." [3]

In the case of Nierva vs People,[4] it was held that in the Presumption of

Authorship of the Falsification: In the absence of satisfactory explanation, one found
in possession of and who used a forged document is the forger of said document. If
a person had in his possession a falsified document and he made use of it, taking
advantage of it and profiting thereby, the clear presumption is that he is the material
author of the falsification. There is a ruling that generally, falsification of
public/commercial documents have no attempted or frustrated stages unless the
falsification is so imperfect that it may be considered as frustrated. Based on the
foregoing facts, it is undisputed that the author of the falsification of the authority to
sell is no other than Alberto.
As cited in Lim vs. Equitable PCI Bank,[5] allegations of forgery, like all other
allegations, must be proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence by the party
alleging it. This court is convinced that there is a preponderance of evidence that
falsification was made no other than by Alberto.
Wherefore in view of the foregoing, accused Alberto Miagao is found guilty
of the crime of falsification of public documents and is hereby sentenced with the
penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of
not more than P5,000 pesos shall be imposed.

[1]
ARTICLE 169. How Forgery is Committed. — The forgery referred to in
this section may be committed by any of the following means:

1. By giving to a treasury or bank note or any instrument payable to

bearer or to order mentioned therein, the appearance of a true genuine
document.

2. By erasing, substituting, counterfeiting or altering by any means the

figures, letters, words or signs contained therein.
[2]
ARTICLE 172. Falsification by Private Individuals and Use of Falsified
Documents. — The penalty of prisión correccional in its medium and
maximum periods and a fine of not more than 5,000 pesos shall be imposed
upon:

1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the falsifications

enumerated in the next preceding article in any public or official
document or letter of exchange or any other kind of commercial
document; and

2. 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 of the
acts of falsification enumerated in the next preceding article.

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 the next
preceding article or in any of the foregoing subdivisions of this article,
shall be punished by the penalty next lower in degree.
[3]
Monteverde vs. People, G.R. No. 13910, August 12, 2002 as cited in
Tanenggee vs. People, G.R. No. 179448, June 26, 2013
[4]
Nierva vs. People, G.R. No. 153133, September 26, 2006
[5]
Lim vs. Equitable PCI Bank, G.R. No. 183918, January 15, 2014
 ISSUE: Whether Alberto Miagao should be charged with Forgery.

LAW APPLICABLE:

TITLE FOUR OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE

CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST

CHAPTER ONE

SECTION FOUR

Falsification of Legislative, Public, Commercial, and Private Documents, and

Wireless, Telegraph, and Telephone Messages

ARTICLE 172. Falsification by Private Individuals and Use of Falsified

Documents. — The penalty of prisión correccional in its medium and maximum
periods and a fine of not more than 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon:

1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the falsifications enumerated in
the next preceding article in any public or official document or letter of exchange or
any other kind of commercial document; and

2. 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 of the acts of falsification
enumerated in the next preceding article.

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 the next preceding article or in any of the
foregoing subdivisions of this article, shall be punished by the penalty next lower in
degree.

Source: https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1930/12/08/act-no-3815-s-1930/
JURISPRUDENCE:

Dizon vs. People, G.R. No. 144026, June 15, 2006

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20144026.ht
m
In order to properly address the issues presented by petitioner, it is necessary
that we discuss the elements of the crime of Falsification of Private Document under
the Revised Penal Code which the petitioner has been accused of perpetrating. The
elements of Falsification under Paragraph 2 of Article 172 are as follows:

1. That the offender committed any of the acts of

falsification, except those in par. 7, enumerated in Art. 171;

2. That the falsification was committed in any private

document;

3. That the falsification caused damage to a third

party or at least the falsification was committed with intent to
cause such damage.

Under Article 171, par. 2, a person may commit falsification of a private

document by causing it to appear in a document that a person or persons
participated in an act or proceeding, when such person or persons did not in
fact so participate in the act or proceeding. On the other hand, falsification under
par. 4 of Article 171 is perpetrated by a person who, having a legal obligation to
disclose the truth, makes in a document statements in a narration of facts which are
absolutely false with the wrongful intent of injuring a third person.

In order that petitioner may be convicted of falsification under par. 2 of Article

171, it is essential that it be proved beyond reasonable doubt that he had caused it to
appear that Mr. Vicente Liwag had authorized the issuance of said certification,
when in truth, Mr. Liwag did not partake in said issuance of the certificate. Stated
differently, for petitioner to be convicted of falsification under par. 2, the allegation
in the Information that he willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously prepare a document,
to wit: a certification dated July 10, 1986, by stating and making it appear in said
document x x x that the same was executed and signed by the President of Titan
Construction Corporation, when in truth and in fact, as said accused well knew that
said certification was not issued nor authorized to be issued by Titan Construction
Corporation x x x and that the signature appearing in said certification as being that
of Titan Construction Corporations President, x x x must be clearly established.

RULING OF SC IN THIS CASE: Dizon was acquitted because the prosecution

failed to established sufficient evidence to sustain the guilt of the petitioner beyond
the point of moral certainty that convinces and satisfies the reason and the conscience
of those who are to act upon it.[14]

Tanenggee vs. People, G.R. No. 179448, June 26, 2013

https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179448_2013.html

Forgery duly established.

"Forgery is present when any writing is counterfeited by the signing of another’s

name with intent to defraud."27 It can be established by comparing the alleged false
signature with the authentic or genuine one. A finding of forgery does not depend
entirely on the testimonies of government handwriting experts whose opinions do
not mandatorily bind the courts. A trial judge is not precluded but is even authorized
by law28 to conduct an independent examination of the questioned signature in order
to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to its authenticity.

In this case, the finding of forgery on the signature of Romeo Tan (Tan) appearing
in the promissory notes and cashier’s checks was not anchored solely on the result
of the examination conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)
Document Examiner. The trial court also made an independent examination of the
questioned signatures and after analyzing the same, reached the conclusion that the
signatures of Tan appearing in the promissory notes are different from his genuine
signatures appearing in his Deposit Account Information and Specimen Signature
Cards on file with the bank. Thus, we find no reason to disturb the above findings of
the RTC which was affirmed by the CA. A rule of long standing in this jurisdiction
is that findings of a trial court, when affirmed by the CA, are accorded great weight
and respect. Absent any reason to deviate from the said findings, as in this case, the
same should be deemed conclusive and binding to this Court.

Elements of falsification of commercial documents established.

Falsification of documents under paragraph 1, Article 172 in relation to Article 171

of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) refers to falsification by a private individual or a
public officer or employee, who did not take advantage of his official position, of
public, private or commercial document. The elements of falsification of documents
under paragraph 1, Article 172 of the RPC are: (1) that the offender is a private
individual or a public officer or employee who did not take advantage of his official
position; (2) that he committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Article
171 of the RPC;33 and, (3) that the falsification was committed in a public, official
or commercial document.

All the above-mentioned elements were established in this case. First, petitioner is a
private individual. Second, the acts of falsification consisted in petitioner’s (1)
counterfeiting or imitating the handwriting or signature of Tan and causing it to
appear that the same is true and genuine in all respects; and (2) causing it to appear
that Tan has participated in an act or proceeding when he did not in fact so
participate. Third, the falsification was committed in promissory notes and checks
which are commercial documents. Commercial documents are, in general,
documents or instruments which are "used by merchants or businessmen to promote
or facilitate trade or credit transactions."34Promissory notes facilitate credit
transactions while a check is a means of payment used in business in lieu of money
for convenience in business transactions. A cashier’s check necessarily facilitates
bank transactions for it allows the person whose name and signature appear thereon
to encash the check and withdraw the amount indicated therein.35
27
Ocampo v. Land Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 164968, July 3, 2009, 591
SCRA 562, 570.
28
RULES OF COURT, Rule 132, Section 22.
34
Monteverde v. People, 435 Phil. 906, 921 (2002).
35
Domingo v. People, G.R. No. 186101, October 12, 2009, 603 SCRA 488, 505-
506.

RULING OF SC IN THIS CASE: Petition is denied. The falsification was, therefore,

a necessary means to commit estafa, and falsification was already consummated
even before the falsified documents were used to defraud the bank.
 Del Prado vs. People, G.R. No. 186030, March 21, 2012

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/march2012/186030.htm

These elements are based on the provisions of Art. 172, in relation to Art. 171,
par. 4, of the Revised Penal Code, which reads:

Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or

ecclesiastical minister. The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to
exceed P5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer,
employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall
falsify a document by committing any of the following acts:

xxx

4. Making untruthful statements in narration of facts;

xxx

Art. 172. Falsification by private individual and use of falsified

documents. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods and a fine of not more than P5,000 pesos shall be
imposed upon:

1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the

falsifications enumerated in the next preceding article in any
public or official document or letter of exchange or any other
kind of commercial document; and
2. 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 of the acts of falsification enumerated in the next
preceding article.

xxx

The material document claimed to be falsified in this case is the Deed of

Succession dated July 19, 1991, the presentation of which before the Register of
Deeds and other government agencies allowed the cancellation of OCT No. P-
22848, and the issuance of several new titles in its stead. The first and third elements
were committed by the inclusion in the subject deed of the clause that states,
(w)hereas, the parties hereto are the only heirs of the decedent, the first name, is the
surviving spouse and the rest are the children of the decedent.[22] The untruthfulness
of said statement is clear from the several other documents upon which, ironically,
the petitioners anchor their defense, such as the deed of extrajudicial partition dated
October 29, 1979, the parties confirmation of subdivision, deed of exchange and
Normas petition for guardianship of her then minor children. Specifically mentioned
in these documents is the fact that Corazon is also a daughter, thus an heir, of the
late Rafael.

XXX
We cannot subscribe to the petitioners claim of good faith because several
documents prove that they knew of the untruthful character of their statement in the
deed of succession. The petitioners alleged good faith is disputed by their prior
confirmation and recognition of Corazons right as an heir, because despite
knowledge of said fact, they included in the deed a statement to the contrary. The
wrongful intent to injure Corazon is clear from their execution of the deed, showing
a desire to appropriate only unto themselves the subject parcel of land. Corazon was
unduly deprived of what was due her not only under the provisions of the law on
succession, but also under contracts that she had previously executed with the
petitioners.

RULING OF SC IN THIS CASE: Petition is denied.