People vs Sendaydiego GR NO.

L-33254 January 20, 1978

The rule is that if a person had in his possession a falsified document and be made use of it (uttered it), taking
advantage of it and profiting thereby, the presumption is that he is the material author of the falsification. This is
especially true if the use or uttering of the forged documents was so closely connected in time with the forgery that
the user or possessor may be proven to have the capacity of committing the forgery, or to have close connection
with the forgers, and therefore, had complicity in the forgery. (U.S. vs. Castillo, 6 Phil., 453; People vs. De Lara, 45
Phil. 754; People vs. Domingo, 49 Phil. 28; People vs. Astudillo, 60 Phil. 338 People vs. Manansala, 105 Phil.
1253).

In the absence of a satisfactory explanation, one who is found in possession of a forged document and who used or
uttered it is presumed to be the forger (Alarcon vs. Court of Appeals, L-21846, March 31, 1967, 19 SCRA 688;
People vs.Caragao, L-28258, December 27, 1969, 30 SCRA 993).

xxxxxx

It was held in the Regis case, that the falsification and malversation did not constitute a complex crime because the
falsifications were not necessary means for the co on of the malversations. Each falsification and each malversation
constituted independent offenses which must be punished separately.

The municipal treasurer was convicted of two falsifications and two malversations. Four distinct penalties were
imposed.

In the instant cases, the provincial , as the custodian than of the money forming part of the road and bridge could
have malversed or misappropriated it without falsifiying any voucher. The falsification was used as a device to
prevent detection of the malversation.

The falsifications cannot be regarded as constituting one continuing offense impelled by a single criminal impulse.

Each falsification of a voucher constitutes one crime. The falsification of six vouchers constitutes six separate or
distinct offenses (People vs. Madrigal-Gonzales, 117 Phil. 956).

And each misappropriation as evidenced by a provincial voucher constitutes a separate crimes of malversation were
committed. Appellant Samson is a co-principal in each of the said twelve offenses.

As already stated, he is presumed to be the author of the falsification because he was in possession of the forged
vouchers and he used them in order to receive public monies from the provincial treasurer.

He is a co-principal in the six crimes of malversation because he conspired with the provincial treasurer in
committing those offenses. The trial court correctly ruled that a private person conspiring with an accountable public
officer in committing malversation is also guilty of malversation (People vs. Rodis, 105 Phil. 1294; U.S. vs. Ponte, 20
Phil. 379; U.S. vs. Dato and Lustre, 37 Phil. 359; U.S. vs. Dowdell, 11 Phil. 4; People vs. Caluag, 94 Phil. 457).

Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic 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:
1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric;
2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate;
3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them;
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
5. Altering true dates;
6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning;
7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original document when no such original exists, or
including in such a copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original; or
8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official book.chanrobles virtual
law library
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.
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.
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.