DIZON v People [G.R. No.

144026 June 15, 2006]

FACTS:
Fernando S. Dizon, committed falsification of a private document necessary to pre-qualify his
company to participate in the bidding for government projects, by preparing a certification on July
10, 1986, , by stating and making it appear in said document that the First United Construction
Corporation has undertaken building construction, sewage, water, and other civil works, for the
Titan Construction Corporation projects in Calapan, Masbate and Catarman Super Area Shops and
that it was executed and signed by the latter’s President, Vicente Liwag. However, Dizon knew that
the certification was not not issued nor authorized to be issued by Titan Construction Corporation.
First United Construction Corporation never had any participation of the projects undertaken by
Titan Construction Corporation. The signature of Titan’s President in the certification is false and a
forgery since it was not signed by its President.
ISSUE: Whether or not the signature of Mr. Vicente Liwag was forged.
RULING: No. 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. Both of this conditions were not proved by
competent evidence in the case at bar.
First, the prosecution did not present Liwag, or any other knowledgeable witness to testify
whether the signature appearing on said certification was indeed not by Mr. Liwag to establish that
the certification was falsified by making it appear that the issuance was actually consented to him.
Second, the prosecution failed to prove that it was indeed Dizon who prepared the document nor that
he was the one who provided the facts contained in the certification. The admissions only established
that Dizon requested his father to secure a certification that they had done  some construction work
for Titan Construction Corporation. Nothing in their testimony indicates that Dizon had asked his
father to commit any falsification. Dizon did not provide nor even suggest what detailed information
will be included in said certification.
Due to the failure of the prosecution to prove with moral certainty that Mr. Liwag did not
authorize the issuance of the certification, it cannot be concluded that his signature was forged, thus,
acquitting Dizon of the crime of Falsification of Private Document based on reasonable doubt.
Bernardino v. People [G.R. No. 170453, October 30, 2006]
FACTS:

On December 8, 1997, in Guimba, Nueva Ecij, Celedonia N. Tomas, PBAC Acting Secretary
of the municipality, Nestor A. Bernardino, then Mayor and PBAC Chairman, and Eugelio G.
Barawid, Municipal Treasurer were charged of falsification for preparing and making it appear in the
‘Abstract of Bidding', 'Abstract of Proposal’, Minutes of the Opening Bids and the PBAC
Recommendation that a public bidding for the construction of the New Guimba Public Market
Extension (wet market) was concluded and that four (4) firms: Bounty Builders, M.O.M Enterprise,
F.L. Reguyal Construction, and MASCOM Design and Engineering International purportedly
participated and submitted their bids. A COA representative was supposedly present during the
opening of the bids, and that the PBAC supposedly convened and deliberated on the purported bids.
But no such public bidding was conducted and said documents were executed to justify the award of
the contract to build the aforesaid public market extension to MASCOM Design and Engineering
International to the damage and prejudice of the government.
ISSUE: Whether or not Bernardino, Tomas and Barawid are guilty of falsification under par. 2, Art.
171 of the Revised Penal Code.
RULING: The elements of falsification are: (1) that the offender is a public officer, employee or
notary public; (2) that he takes advantage of his official position; (3) that he falsifies a document by
causing it to appear that a person or persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they
did not in fact so participate. In the case at bar, Bernardino and Barawid must be acquitted because
the evidence showing that seven members of the PBAC did not attend the public bidding does not
prove beyond reasonable doubt that Tomas as acting Secretary and the other three members,
deceased Rillo, Bernardino and Barawid, did not convene on December 8, 1997.
But Tomas must be convicted of the crime of falsification because even assuming that all the
PBAC members attended the bidding, including those who executed an affidavit to the contrary, in
making it appear that COA representative Ronquillo attended the bidding when the latter
categorically testified that he never attended a public bidding Tomas took advantage of her official
position, rendering her liable for falsification under Article 171 paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal
Code. The testimony of Ronquillo is convincing and there being no ill motive shown that would impel
him to perjure himself, the Court gave credence to his declaration and sustains the judgment of
conviction against Tomas.
Siquian v. People [GR No. 82197, Mar 13, 1989]
FACTS:
On July 1, 1975, Manuel L. Siquian, Municipal Mayor of Angadanan, Isabela prepared and
signed a false document, knowing it to be false, an official communication to the Civil Service
Commissioner, which is required by law in order to support the appointment of a certain Jesusa B.
Carreon to the position of clerk in the Office of the Municipal Secretary which he appointed as such
by stating and making it appear in said document that there was such a position existing and that
funds therefore were available, when in truth and in fact, there was no such position or item and no
funds were available for said position in the Fiscal Budget of Angadanan for 1975-76, nor was there
any special ordinance creating said position and appropriating the necessary funds therefor. The
RTC and CA convicted Siquian of the crime of falsification.
ISSUE: Whether or not Siquian committed falsification.
RULING: Yes. All the requisites for the offense of falsification by a public officer under Art. 171 of
the RPC had been fully met in the case at bar. Siquian, a public officer, being then the mayor of the
municipality of Angadanan, made an untruthful statement in the narration of facts contained in the
certification which he issued in connection with the appointment of complainant Jesusa Carreon.
The certification, having been issued by a public official in the exercise of the function of his office is
a public document. It is immaterial whether or not the Civil Service Commissioner to whom the
certification was addressed received the document issued by petitioner. Since the certification was
prepared by petitioner in accordance with the standard forms prescribed by the government
(specifically the Civil Service Commission) pursuant to law, the certification was invested with the
character of a public document. Here, falsification of such document was committed when the
petitioner stated that funds were available for the position to which Jesusa Carreon was appointed
when he knew that, in reality, the position itself did not even exist and no funds had been
appropriated therefor.
N.B. The offense of falsification by a public officer under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code is
committed by "any public officer, employee or notary who, taking advantage of his official position,
shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts: . . . ; 4. Making untruthful
statements in a narration of facts; . . ." It is settled that in this fourth kind of falsification, the
following requisites must concur:
(a) That the offender makes in a document untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
(b) That he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him; and,
(c) That the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false [Cabigas v. People, G. R. No. 67472,
July 3, 1987, 152 SCRA 18.]
People v. Pacusun [G.R. No. 180314, April 16, 2009]
FACTS:
On August 22-23, 2000 in Cotabato City, Normallah A. Pacusun, a high ranking public
official being the Regional Secretary of the Department of Tourism in the Autonomous Region in
Muslim Mindanao, Cotabato City, while in the performance of her official functions, 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
Sandiganbayan found the signature of DOT-ARMM Supply Officer Laura Y. Pangilan appearing in
the Employees Clearance of petitioner to have been falsified/forged. Thus, she was convicted of the
crime of falsification of public documents.
ISSUE: Whether or not Pacusun committed falsification of documents?
RULING: Yes. 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 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. In the case at bar, the falsification of the Employees 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. It is a settled rule that in
the falsification of public or official documents, 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, the principal thing punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the
truth as therein solemnly proclaimed. Thus, the purpose for which the falsification was made and
whether the offender profited or hoped to profit from such falsification are no longer material.
The records further show that petitioner used or uttered the Employees Clearance. The fact
that the same was circulated to the different division heads for their signatures is already considered
use of falsified documents as contemplated in Article 172. 

N.B.
 WNO the signature of Laura Pangilan was imitated? - Yes. Pangilan herself said that the
signature in petitioner’s Employees Clearance was not hers. The same was an imitation. So,
when a person whose signature was affixed to a document denies his/her signature therein,
a prima facie case for falsification is established which the defendant must overcome.
 The lack of the stamp mark Received in the Employees Clearance does not mean that said
document was not received by the Office of the Regional Governor. We find the certification
signed by Atty. Randolph C. Parcasio, Executive Secretary of Office of the Regional Governor
- ARMM, as contained in the Employees Clearance, to be sufficient proof that the same was
submitted to the Office of the Regional Governor. It must be stressed that the Executive
Secretary is part of the Office of the Regional Governor.
 The lack of direct evidence showing that petitioner actually imitated the signature of Laura
Pangilan in her Employees Clearance will not exonerate her. We have ruled that it is not
strange to realize that in cases of forgery, the prosecution would not always have the means
for obtaining such direct evidence to confute acts contrived clandestinely. Courts have to rely
on circumstantial evidence consisting of pieces of facts, which if woven together would
produce a single network establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
  This Court decrees that even though the original of an alleged falsified document is not, or
may no longer be produced in court, a criminal case for falsification may still prosper if the
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, [66] Rule 130 of
the Revised Rules of Court.