G.R. No.

180314 April 16, 2009

NORMALLAH A. PACASUM, Petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

- NORMALLAH A. PACASUM, a high ranking public official being the Regional Secretary of the Dept. of
Tourism, while in the performance of her official duties, unlawfully falsified her Employee Clearance
submitted to the Office of the Regional Governor of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, by
imitating the signature of Laura Y. Pangilan, the Supply officer I of the DOT-ARMM, for the purpose of
claiming her salary for the months of August and September 2000.
- The "use" of a falsified document is separate and distinct from the "falsification" of a public document.
The act of "using" falsified documents is not necessarily included in the "falsification" of a public
document. Using falsified documents is punished under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code which
reads:

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

- In the case at bar, the falsification of the Employee’s Clearance was consummated the moment the
signature of Laura Pangilan was imitated.
- In the falsification of a public document, it is immaterial whether or not the contents set forth therein were
false. What is important is the fact that the signature of another was counterfeited.
- The principal thing punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein
solemnly proclaimed.

G.R. No. 129015 August 13, 2004

SAMSUNG CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PHILIPPINES, INC., petitioner,
vs.
FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY AND COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

- Roberto Gonzaga presented for payment FEBTC Check No. 432100 to the bank’s branch in Bel-Air,
Makati. The check, payable to cash and drawn against Samsung Construction’s current account
- After comparing the two signatures, Justiani was satisfied as to the authenticity of the signature
appearing on the check. She then asked Gonzaga to submit proof of his identity, and the latter
presented three (3) identification cards
- When a signature is forged or made without the authority of the person whose signature it purports to
be, it is wholly inoperative, and no right to retain the instrument, or to give a discharge therefor, or to
enforce payment thereof against any party thereto, can be acquired through or under such signature,
unless the party against whom it is sought to enforce such right is precluded from setting up the forgery
or want of authority.

G.R. No. L-68624

BARTOLOME ALONZO, petitioner,
vs.
HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

- Under Rule 132, Section 22 of the Rules of Court, the genuineness of handwriting may be proved in the
following manner: (1) by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has
seen the person write; or he has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been
charged; (2) by a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine
by the party, against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.
Corollary thereto, jurisprudence states that the presumption of validity and regularity prevails over allegations
of forgery and fraud. As against direct evidence consisting of the testimony of a witness who was physically
present at the signing of the contract and who had personal knowledge thereof, the testimony of an expert
witness constitutes indirect or circumstantial evidence at best.