Pineda, JR

Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister (Art. 171)

Simulate or imitate a real signature; “fingiendo”

US v. Paraiso

March 22, 1906 No. 2292 CARSON, J.

Relevant RPC Provisions / Concepts / Doctrines

Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister. — The penalty of
prision mayor AND a fine not to exceed Php1M 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;

Doctrine: A conviction for the crime of falsification of a private document by attaching the signature of
another thereto cannot be sustained UNLESS it appears that an attempt has been made to simulate
the genuine signature of that person.

Elements of the Offense/Crime

Elements of Art 171:

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 committing any of 8 listed acts in the provision
4. In case the offender is an ecclesiastical minister, the act of falsification is committed with respect to any
record or document of such character that its falsification may affect the civil status of persons.

Requisites of Art 171 (1)

(1) There be an intent to imitate, or an attempt to imitate, and
(2) The two signatures or handwritings, the genuine and the forged, bear some resemblance to each
other.

Requisites of Art 171 (2)

(1) Offender caused it to appear in a document that a person or persons participated in an act or
proceeding; and
(2) Such person or persons did not in fact so participate in the act or proceeding

ISSUE/S:

Should Respondent Castro be convicted of Falsification of a Private Document by feigning the

signature of deceased Regino, who does not know how to write or sign his name, in a bill of sale?
NO

FACTS OF THE CASE

Accused Francisco Castro (not stated in the case if he was a pub officer or employee, or minister) was
charged and convicted of Falsification of a Private Document before the CFI Cagayan.

In the Information filed before the said court, accused was signed the name of one Regino Sevilla,
deceased, to a certain bill of sale of a boat or barangay (I think they meant balanghay), the property of
the estate of Sevilla.

During trial evidence was adduced tending to prove that accused attached the signature of Regino to the
document in question for the purpose of defrauding his heirs.
 RULING

The Court ruled that Accused Castro should be acquitted of the crime of Falsification of Private Document
as charged in the information.

Legal Basis
Requisites of Art 171 (1)
(1) There be an intent to imitate, or an attempt to imitate, and
(2) the two signatures or handwritings, the genuine and the forged, bear some resemblance to each
other.

Requisites of Art 171 (2)

(1) Offender caused it to appear in a document that a person or persons participated in an act or
proceeding; and
(2) Such person or persons did not in fact so participate in the act or proceeding

In US v Paraiso:
Counterfeiting (Contrahacer) – to make a thing of such close resemblance to another that it is
distinguished ONLY with difficulty
Feigning (Fingiendo) – To counterfeit something, giving it the appearance of that which is not .

Main Fact Difference from US v Paraiso

In this case, Accused Castro cannot be held to have violated either Art 171 (1) or (2), since the signature
he alleged to have attached could not possibly be of Regino’s since he did not know how to write or sign
his signature, and that he was deceased when the document was made. In US v Paraiso, the “victim” Feril
was able to testify that there were no resemblance from the fictitious signature that accused made from his
own authentic signature. Therefore, no attempt by the accused to imitate Feril’s signature.

Application
In this case, the Court found that it does not appear that any attempt was made to simulate the genuine
signature of Regino, and there is evidence on record that Regino himself did not know how to write or sign
his own name. The Court also mentioned that Accused Castro may have been guilty of estafa for such act,
but for the purposes of the crime charged in the information, he is not to be found guilty. (See Doctrine)

Conclusion
Therefore, the CFI Decision is reversed, and accused is acquitted of the crime of Falsification of Private
Document.