TITLE FOUR

CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST (Articles 161 – 189)

ARTICLE 161 – COUNTERFEITING THE GREAT SEAL OF THE GOVERNMENT OF

THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, FORGING THE SIGNATURE OR STAMP OF THE CHIEF
EXECUTIVE

ACTS PUNISHED:

I. Forging the Great Seal of the Government of the Philippines.

II. Forging the signature of the President.
III. Forging the stamp of the President.

➢Punishes the person who forges the great seal of the Philippines, signature of the
chief executive and forging the stamp of the chief executive.

➢Art 161 is the crime when the person is the one who committed the forgery, but if the
offender is not the one who forges the great seal or signature but he knows that the
document contains a forged stamp or signature of the President and despite
knowledge that it was a forgery he makes use of the same, liability is under Article
162.

ARTICLE 162 – USING FORGED SIGNATURE OR COUNTERFEIT SEAL OR STAMP

ELEMENTS:

1. That the Great Seal of the Republic was counterfeited or the signature or stamp of
the Chief Executive was forged by another person.
2. That the offender knew of the counterfeiting or forgery.
3. That he used the counterfeit seal or forged signature or stamp.

➢Art 162 punishes the person who, despite knowledge of the forged signature, stamp,
or great seal of the Republic of the Philippines, makes use of the same document.

ARTICLE 163 – MAKING AND IMPORTING AND UTTERING FALSE COINS

ELEMENTS:

1. That there be false or counterfeited coins.

2. That the offender either made, imported or uttered such coins.
3. That in case of uttering such false or counterfeited coins, he connived with the
counterfeiters or importers.

PUNISHABLE ACTS:

I. Counterfeiting (imitation of false coins)

➢committed by any person who shall imitate a genuine and authentic coin making it
appear that it is a true, genuine, and authentic coin. The offender copies the peculiar
design of the coin and makes a spurious one out of it.

➢The coins which may be the subject of counterfeiting may be any coin so long as it is
authentic and genuine. It can be a coin of present circulation, a vintage coin, a coin of
foreign currency.

II. Importing false coins

➢committed by any person who shall bring into the Philippine ports any false and
counterfeited coins. It is not necessary for the offender to be liable that he shall
circulate the false coins because there is a third act of uttering false coins.

III. Uttering false coins

➢committed by any person who shall circulate, give away to another, pass from one
person to another any counterfeited or false coins.

ARTICLE 164 – MUTILATION OF COINS

ACTS PUNISHED:

I. Mutilating coins of the legal currency, with the further requirement that there be
intent to damage or to defraud another.
II. Importing or uttering such mutilated coins, with the further requirement that there
must be connivance with the mutilator or importer in case of uttering.

 Mutilation is the act of taking off a part of the metal content by filling it or substituting it
for another metal of inferior quality. The offender gathers the metal dust that he has
taken off from the said coin. While the offender took out a part of the metal coin, he is in
effect diminishing the intrinsic value of the said coin therefore, anyone who would be
given the said coin would be deceived of the this crime hence a crime in violation of
public interest is committed.

NOTE: The crime would only apply if the coin mutilated is one which is in present
circulation or currency. It does not apply if the coin is an old coin or coin of foreign
currency. This is because if the coin is old and vintage or of foreign currency, even if a
part of metal was scrapped off, the public will not be deceived because it is not used as
a medium of exchange.

ARTICLE 165 – SELLING OF FALSE OR MUTILATED COIN, WITHOUT

CONNIVANCE

ACTS PUNISHED:

I. Possession of coin, counterfeited or mutilated by another person, with intent to utter

the same, knowing that it is false or mutilated.

ELEMENTS:

1. Possession;
2. With intent to utter; and
3. Knowledge

➢ Under the first act, the offender is in possession of the false, mutilated, counterfeited
coin. It is another person who counterfeited the coin. The offender is only in possession
of it but in order for him to be held liable; he must have the knowledge that the coin is
counterfeited or mutilated and despite having such knowledge; he has the intent to utter,
circulate, pass away, to give away to another the said coin. Possession includes actual
and constructive possession.

II. Actually uttering such false or mutilated coin knowing the same to be false or
mutilated.

ELEMENTS:





 1. Actually uttering; and

2. Knowledge.

➢In the second act it is the act of actually circulating or uttering the counterfeited coin
despite knowledge that it is counterfeited or mutilated.

ARTICLE 166 – FORGING TREASURY OR BANK NOTES OR OTHER DOCUMENTS

PAYABLE TO BEARER; IMPORTING, AND UTTERING SUCH FALSE OR FORGED
NOTES AND DOCUMENTS

ACTS PUNISHED:

I. Forging or falsification of treasury or bank notes or other documents payable to

bearer.
II. Importation of such false or forged obligations or notes.
III. Uttering of such false or forged obligations or notes in connivance with the forgers or
importers.

ARTICLE 167 – COUNTERFEITING, IMPORTING, AND UTTERING INSTRUMENTS

NOT PAYABLE TO BEARER

ELEMENTS:

1. That there be an instrument payable to order or other document of credit not

payable to bearer.
2. That the offender either forged, imported or uttered such instrument.
3. That in case of uttering, he connived with the forger or importer.

ARTICLE 168 – ILLEGAL POSSESSION AND USE OF FALSE TREASURY OR

BANK NOTES AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS OF CREDIT

ELEMENTS:

1. That any treasury or bank note or certificate or other obligation and security payable
to bearer, or any instrument payable to order or other document of credit not
payable to bearer is forged or falsified by another person.
2. That the offender knows that any of those instruments is forged or falsified.
3. That he performs any of these acts –







 a. Using any of such forged or falsified instruments; or

b. Possessing with intent to use any of such forged or falsified instruments.

➢An instrument is payable to bearer when it can be transferred by mere delivery. (e.g.
Check payable to cash). Whoever is in possession of the said check can come to the
bank. It can be transferred by mere delivery.

➢On the other hand a check payable to order is when there is an endorsement coming
from the person named or specified therein. It is an instrument payable to the order of
a specific person or his order (e.g. Payable to the order of Charmaine). This cannot be
transferred from one person to another without an order coming from Charmaine.

ARTICLE 169 – HOW FORGERY IS COMMITTED:

I. By giving to a treasury or bank note or any instrument payable to bearer or to order

mentioned therein, the appearance of a true and genuine document.
II. By erasing, substituting, counterfeiting, or altering by any means the figures, letters,
words, or sign contained therein.

NOTES:

➢If what has been falsified is a coin, you call it counterfeiting.

➢If it is the stamp, seal or signature of the President, you call it forging.
➢If it is treasury or bank notes, it is considered as forging.
➢It is a document, you call it falsification.

FALSIFICATION (ART 170, 171, 172)

➢To amount to falsification, it is necessary that the writing that is falsified must be a
document in a legal sense of the word – one which is capable of making rights and/
or extinguishing an obligation. Therefore, it must be complete in itself so that it would
be sufficient to convey a particular meaning, it must be susceptible of becoming
evidence of the facts stated therein.

➢If a person is found is in possession of fake and unfilled out forms, (e.g. unfilled out
forms of driver’s license, resident certificate, etc) such person cannot be held liable for
falsification. Falsification of mere forms does not amount to falsification of a
public document. Because the said form is not yet a document in the legal sense of

 the word, it is not yet complete in itself – it has no name, no address – an unfilled-out/
up form. It is not falsification. It is not susceptible of becoming evidence because no
fact has been stated. The crime committed would be Article 176 or possession of
instruments or implements which may be used for falsification but not yet falsification.

Four types of documents which may be falsified:

1. PUBLIC DOCUMENT – a document which is issued by a notary public or competent

public officer with the solemnities required by law.
2. OFFICIAL DOCUMENT – a document issued by a public official in the exercise of
his official functions.
3. COMMERCIAL DOCUMENT – any document defined and regulated by the Code of
Commerce or any other mercantile law.
4. PRIVATE DOCUMENT – a document, a deed or instrument executed by a private
person without the intervention of the notary public of any other person legally
authorized, by which document some disposition or agreement is proved, evidenced
or set forth.

➢All official documents are public documents, but not all public documents are
considered official documents. Before a public document may be considered as an
official document, it is necessary that it shall be issued by a public officer in the
exercise of his official functions. If there is a law that requires a public officer to issue
the said public document, then it becomes an official document.

➢A private document may become public or official document if the said private
document is submitted to a government office and the same shall be released by the
custodian of the said office.

➢A private document, one which has been executed by a private person, is that which
has no intervention of a public official. A private document, however, even though
executed by a private person without the intervention of a notary public or a legally
authorized person, can also become a public document. That is when the said private
document is submitted to the public officer and it becomes part of the public records.
The moment the said private document becomes part of the public records, it is now a
public document and when it is issued and it is falsified, what is falsified is a public
document and no more a private document.



 NOTE: It is necessary to distinguish the kind of document that is being falsified -

whether it is a public, official, commercial or private because of the different
effects.

a. If what has been falsified is a PUBLIC, OFFICIAL OR COMMERCIAL DOCUMENT,

damage or intent to cause damage to the offended party or to any other person is
not an element.
b. If what has been falsified is a PRIVATE DOCUMENT, for the crime to arise, it is
necessary that there must be damage or at least, intent to cause damage to the
private offended party or to any other party.

➢If what has been falsified is a PUBLIC OR OFFICIAL DOCUMENT, it is not necessary
that there be damage or intent to cause damage. Because a public document – an
official document - is presumed authentic and legal. It is presumed to be “prima facie
evidence” of the facts stated therein. As such, the moment it is falsified, the crime will
immediately arise, without need that there be damage on the part of the offended
party. Because in Falsification of a Public Document, what has been violated is the
PERVERSION OF TRUTH being solemnly proclaimed by the said document. Hence
DAMAGE IS NOT AN ELEMENT.

ARTICLE 171 – FALSIFICATION BY PUBLIC OFFICER, EMPLOYEE, NOTARY

PUBLIC, OR ECCLESIASTICAL MINISTER

ELEMENTS:

1. The offender is a public officer, employee, notary public, or an ecclesiastical

minister.
2. He takes advantage of his official position.
3. That the said offender falsifies a document by committing any of the following
modes stated therein:
a. By counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric.
b. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or
proceeding when they did not in fact so participate.
c. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding
statement other than those in fact made by them.
d. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts.
e. Altering true dates.

 f.
Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which
changes its meaning.
g. Issuing in authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of any
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.
h. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a
protocol, registry or official book.
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 the falsification may
affect the civil status of persons.

First element: The offender is a public officer, employee, notary public or an

ecclesiastical minister.

➢If the offender is an ecclesiastical minister, for him to be liable under Article 171, it is
necessary that the document that he falsifies must affect the civil status of a person. If
the document falsified by an ecclesiastical minister will not affect the civil status of a
person, he is still liable for falsification, but not under Art. 171, rather under Art. 172.

Second element: He takes advantage of his official position.

➢The offender is said to have taken advantage of his position or office when:
a. He has the duty to make or prepare or to otherwise intervene in the preparation
of the document; or
b. He has the official custody of the document which he falsifies

Third element: That the said offender falsifies a document by committing any of the
following modes stated therein:

NOTE: If you will look at Art. 171, it does not state the kind of document that has
been falsified, it may not be stated because it necessarily follows that the
document falsified is a public or official document because the offender is public
officer or employee or notary public. Therefore necessarily, the document being
falsified in Art. 171 is a public official or official document.

DIFFERENT ACTS OF FALSIFICATION:

NOTE: (These acts of falsification are also applicable in Art. 172)



 I. BY COUNTERFEITING OR IMITATING ANY HANDWRITING, SIGNATURE OR

RUBRIC.

➢COUNTERFEITING - imitating an official handwriting, signature or rubric.

NOTE: Feigning a handwriting, signature or rubric is NOT THE SAME as

counterfeiting. When you say FEIGNING, it means “simulating” a handwriting,
signature or rubric. That is, making a handwriting, signature or rubric out of
nothing which does not exist. It is an imaginable, an inexistent handwriting,
signature or rubric.

II. CAUSING IT TO APPEAR THAT PERSONS HAVE PARTICIPATED IN ANY ACT OR

PROCEEDING WHEN THEY DID NOT IN FACT SO PARTICIPATE.

III. ATTRIBUTING TO PERSONS WHO HAVE PARTICIPATED IN AN ACT OR

PROCEEDING STATEMENT OTHER THAN THOSE IN FACT MADE BY THEM.

➢The offender made statements making it appear that persons have made certain
statements which were not in fact made by them.

IV. MAKING UNTRUTHFUL STATEMENTS IN A NARRATION OF FACTS

ELEMENTS:

1. That the offender makes in a document untruthful statement in a narration of facts;

2. That he has legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him.
3. The facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false.
4. The untruthful narration must be such as to affect the integrity of the document and
that the offender does so with the intent to injure or prejudice another person.

➢It is necessary that the intention of the intention of the offender must be to INJURE
ANOTHER PERSON.

➢In case of making false statements in a narration of facts, it is necessary that the
offender must have the legal obligation to disclose the truth in the said narration of
facts. But the Supreme Court has ruled that if the document wherein the falsity was
stated happens to be a residence certificate or a driver’s license, there is no need for

 a law to state that only the truth must be stated therein because by the nature of these
documents, only true statements must be stated therein.

➢Absence of such legal obligation, then it cannot be said that he is liable for
falsification.

➢When you say legal obligation, there is a law which requires him to state nothing but
the truth in the said document.

V. ALTERING TRUE DATES

➢It is necessary that what has been altered must be a true date and in the alteration of
the said true date, the document will no longer have any effect.

VI. MAKING ANY ALTERATION OR INTERCALATION IN A GENUINE DOCUMENT

WHICH CHANGES ITS MEANING

TWO ACTS:

I. The offender makes an alteration.

II. The offender makes an intercalation in a genuine document which changes its
meaning.

➢Alteration – changes in a document.

➢Intercalation – there must be some insertion made in a genuine document that

changed the meaning of the said document.

VII. ISSUING IN AUTHENTICATED FORM A DOCUMENT PURPORTING TO BE A

COPY OF ANY 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

TWO ACTS PUNISHED:

I. The offender issued in an authenticated form a document purporting to be an

authenticated copy of an original document, but no such original exists.









 II. By including such copy a statement contrary to or different from a genuine original.

VIII. INTERCALATING ANY INSTRUMENT OR NOTE RELATIVE TO THE ISSUANCE

THEREOF IN A PROTOCOL, REGISTRY OR OFFICIAL BOOK.

ARTICLE 172 – FALSIFICATION BY PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS AND USE OF

FALSIFIED DOCUMENTS

THREE PUNISHABLE ACTS:

I. Falsification of a public, official or commercial document by a private individual

ELEMENTS:

1. Offender is a private person or a public officer acting in his private capacity.

2. Offender commits any act of falsification under Article 171.
3. It must be done either in a public, official, or commercial document.

➢Falsification of a public, official or commercial document by a private individual is just

the same as ARTICLE 171 – they only differ in that in Art. 171, the offender is a public
officer or employee while in Article 172, the offender is a private individual.

➢Even if the offender is a private individual, since the document falsified is a public,
official or commercial document, DAMAGE OR INTENT TO CAUSE DAMAGE IS NOT
AN ELEMENT.

II. Falsification of private document by any person

ELEMENTS:

1. The document falsified is a private one.

2. There is damage or intent to cause damage
3. He commits any of the act of falsification under Article 171 except paragraph 7 (can
be committed only by a public officer).

➢The document falsified is a PRIVATE DOCUMENT. The offender is any person. He

can be a private individual, he can be a private officer or employee for as long as the
document falsified is a private document, it necessary that there must be damage





 caused to a third person or at least the intention of the offender is to CAUSE
DAMAGE.

➢Absence of damage or intent to cause damage, then falsification of a private

document will not arise.

III. Use of falsified document

➢A document has been falsified and the offender uses the said document.

➢If the falsified document is used in a JUDICIAL PROCEEDING, again, DAMAGE or

INTENT TO CAUSE DAMAGE is NOT AN ELEMENT because it is a judicial
proceeding.

➢But if the said falsified document is used in any other transaction, this time, damage
or intent to cause damage is an ELEMENT.

ARTICLE 173 – FALSIFICATION OF WIRELESS TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE

MESSAGES

PUNISHABLE ACTS:

I. Uttering fictitious, wireless, telegraph or telephone message

II. Falsifying wireless, telegraph or telephone message
III. Using such falsified message

➢If the act punished is uttering fictitious, wireless, telegraph or telephone messages
and falsifying wireless, telegraph or telephone messages, note that these can only be
committed by a person working in a department, agency or corporation which is
engaged in a business of receiving and sending wireless, telegraph and telephone
messages.

➢On the other hand, using falsified wireless, telegraph or telephone messages can be
committed by any person.

ARTICLE 174 – FALSE MEDICAL CERTIFICATES, FALSE CERTIFICATES OF

MERIT OR SERVICE, ETC

 NOTE: Articles 174 and 175 refer to the persons who shall be criminally liable in
case of falsified document.

I. A PHYSICIAN OR SURGEON who issues a false medical certificate in the practice

of his profession.
II. A PUBLIC OFFICER who issues a false certificate of merit, service or good conduct,
moral character, etc.
III. ANY PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL who falsifies a medical certificate or certificate of merit
or service or good conduct.

➢The offender is the person who falsifies, issues the false medical certificate or
certificate or merit.

➢ If the offender is not the falsifier, but he knows that the said document is falsified and
he makes use of the same, his liability is under Art. 175.

ARTICLE 175 – USING FALSE CERTIFICATE

➢The offender knows that the medical certificate or certificate of merit has been falsified
and despite that knowledge, he makes use of the same.

ARTICLE 176 – MANUFACTURING AND POSSESSION OF INSTRUMENTS OR

IMPLEMENTS FOR FALSIFICATION

➢This is the felony committed if a person was found in possession of unfilled-out forms
of driver’s license. He cannot be held liable for falsification of a public document but
only for manufacturing and possession of instruments or implements for falsification.

ACTS PUNISHED:

I. Making or introducing into the Philippines any stamps, dies, marks or other
instruments or implements for counterfeiting or falsification.
II. Possessing with intent to use the instrument or implements for counterfeiting or
falsification made in or introduced into the Philippines by another person.

ARTICLE 177 – USURPATION OF AUTHORITY OR OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS

ACTS PUNISHED:



I. Usurpation of authority

➢Committed when a person knowingly and falsely represents himself to be an officer or

agent of any department of the Philippine government or agency thereof or of a
foreign government.

➢The crime will immediately arise from the mere act of knowingly and falsely
representing himself to be an officer or agent of any department or agency of the
Philippines or of a foreign country. It is not necessary for the offender to commit or
perform any act. It suffices that he falsely represents himself to be an officer or agent
of the Philippine government. However, the said false representation, aside from being
done knowingly, must be such that he intended to be known by such other person or
by public as a representative or agent of the Philippine government.

II. Usurpation of official function

➢Committed by any person who performs an act pertaining to a person in authority or a

public officer of the Philippine Government or of a foreign government or agency
thereof, under pretense of official position, and without being lawfully entitled to do so.

➢It is necessary that the offender performs an act pertaining to a person in authority or
a public officer of any department or agency of the Philippine government or of a
foreign government. Mere representation will not suffice.

➢It is also necessary that the act pertaining to a person in authority or a public officer
must be under pretense of official position and without being lawfully entitled to do so.
Without false pretense, the crime will not arise.

ARTICLE 178 – USING FICTITIOUS NAME AND CONCEALING TRUE NAME

ACTS PUNISHED:

I. Using fictitious name

➢Committed by any person who shall use a name other than his real name publicly for
concealing a crime, or evade the execution of a judgment, or to cause damage to
public interest.

ELEMENTS:

1. The offender uses a name other than his real name;

2. That he uses that fictitious name publicly; and
3. That the purpose of the offender is either:
a. to conceal a crime; or
b. to evade execution of a judgment; or
c. to cause damage to public interest.

II. Concealing true name

ELEMENTS:

1. The offender conceals:

a. his true name; AND
b. all other personal circumstances
2. That the purpose is only to conceal his identity.

USING FICTITIOUS NAME CONCEALING TRUE NAME

It is not necessary that the use of another name,
The use of a name other than his real name is done concealing his true and real name, must be done
publicly. There is the element of publicity. publicly.
Purpose is to conceal a crime, evade the execution Only purpose of the offender is to conceal his true
of judgment or to cause damage to public interest. and real identity.

ANTI-ALIAS LAW
(C.A. No. 142, as amended)

➢Under C.A. 142, except as pseudonym, in literary, cinema, television, radio and other
entertainment purposes, and in athletic events wherein the use of a pseudonym is a
normally accepted practice, no person can use any name other than his name by
which he is registered at birth at the local civil registrar or by which he is registered by
the Bureau of Immigration upon his entry into the Philippines, in case of an alien.

➢The use of a substitute name is only allowed upon approval by the judicial or
competent authority. Therefore, no person can use any other name than the name by
which he is baptized at the office of the civil registrar or the name by which he is

 recorded in the Bureau of Immigration, in case he is a foreigner coming here in the

Philippines.

Instance where a pseudonym may be used:

1. For entertainment purposes;

2. For literary purposes;
3. In athletic events; and
4. If the use of substitute name is allowed by competent or judicial authority.

NOTE: ALIAS is a name or names used or intended to be used by a person

publicly and habitually, usually in business transactions, other than the name
registered at birth for the first time before the local civil registrar. Absent the
elements of habituality and publicity, the offender is not liable under CA 142, as
amended.

ARTICLE 179 – ILLEGAL USE OF INSIGNIA, UNIFORM, OR DRESS

➢Committed by any person who makes use of any insignia, uniform or dress which
pertains to an office not being held by the offender or to a class of person of which he
is not a member and he makes use of such insignia, uniform or dress publicly and
improperly.

ELEMENTS:

1. The offender makes use of INSIGNIA, UNIFORM or DRESS.

2. That the insignia, uniform or dress pertains to an office not being held by the
offender or to a class of person of which he is not a member.
3. That the said insignia, uniform or dress is used publicly and improperly.

➢The offender uses the insignia, uniform or dress of an office not held by him or a by a
class of person of which he is not a member and he used the same publicly and
improperly.

FALSE TESTIMONY (ART 180, 181, 182)

➢ False testimony can either be false testimony in criminal cases (Articles 180 and
181), false testimony in civil cases (Article 182) and false testimony in other cases.

 ➢False testimony in criminal cases can either be:

a. false testimony against a defendant (Article 180) or
b. false testimony favorable to defendant (Article 181)

ARTICLE 180 – FALSE TESTIMONY AGAINST A DEFENDANT

➢In a criminal proceeding, the offender-witness testified falsely against a defendant

knowing that his testimony is false and then the said defendant is either acquitted or
convicted.

ELEMENTS:

1. That there be a criminal proceeding.

2. That the offender testifies falsely under oath against the defendant therein.
3. That the offender who gives false testimony knows that it is false.
4. That the defendant against whom the false testimony is given is either acquitted or
convicted in a final judgment.

ARTICLE 181 – FALSE TESTIMONY FAVORABLE TO DEFENDANT

➢In a criminal proceeding, the offender-witness testified falsely in favor of the defendant
and he knew that his testimony is indeed false.

ELEMENTS:

1. There is a criminal proceeding.

2. The offender testifies falsely in favor of the defendant.
3. The offender knew that his testimony is false.

NOTE: Notice that the fourth element of Article 180 is absent in Article 181. This is
because right after the hearing of false testimony, the false witness can already
be prosecuted under Article 181, but in case of Article 180, before the false
witness can be prosecuted, it is necessary that the defendant must first be
acquitted or convicted by final judgment.

REASON: Under Article 180, the penalty to be imposed on the false witness is
dependent on the final sentence imposed on the defendant against whom the false
testimony is given.

 FINAL SENTENCE PENALTY WHICH SHALL BE IMPOSED ON

IMPOSED ON DEFENDANT FALSE WITNESS
Death Reclusion Temporal

Reclusion perpetua Prision mayor

Any other afflictive penalty Prision correccional

A correctional penalty Fine or the defendant

Acquitted Arresto mayor

NOTE: If it is an acquittal, the case can be immediately filed because an acquittal

is immediately executory and can no longer be appealed.

ARTICLE 182 – FALSE TESTIMONY IN CIVIL CASES

➢Right after the giving of the false testimony, the private complainant or the aggrieved
party can immediately file a case against the false witness who testified in favor of the
defendant.

ELEMENTS:
1. The testimony must be given in a civil case
2. The testimony must relate to the issues presented in said case (relative or pertinent)
3. The testimony must be false
4. The false testimony must be given by the defendant knowing the same to be false.
5. The testimony must be malicious and given with intent to affect the issues presented
in the said case.

➢In order to amount to false testimony in civil cases, there must be litigation. If the false
testimony is given in a special proceeding (e.g. petition for nullity of marriage,
petition for separation, petition for habeas corpus), the crime committed is under
Article 183, false testimony in other proceedings.

ARTICLE 183 – PERJURY

➢PERJURY is the willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood on a material matter

made before an officer duly authorized to receive and administer oath.

ELEMENTS:

 1. The accused made a statement under oath or executed an affidavit upon a material
matter.

Two ways of committing perjury:

The offender either:

I. Makes a statement under oath (he makes a false testimony); or
II. Executes an affidavit on a material matter (if it is an affidavit, it is also
required under oath)

2. The said statement under oath or affidavit was made before a competent officer duly
authorized to receive and administer oath.

➢In order to amount to perjury, it is necessary that the said oath must be given before
an officer duly authorized to receive and administer. Otherwise, it cannot be
considered as perjury because the essence of perjury is the violation of the
solemnity of oath.

➢If the person who received the oath is not duly authorized, it cannot be said that there
is a violation of the solemnity of the oath.

3. That in the said statement or affidavit, the offender makes a willful and deliberate
assertion of falsehood.

➢It is necessary for perjury to arise that the offender deliberately or knowingly
ascertained a falsehood. There was a deliberate intent on his part; therefore, good
faith is a defense in perjury.

➢Perjury likewise cannot be committed out of mere negligence. It is necessary that

there must be a deliberate intent on his part to assert a falsity either in the statement
or affidavit.

4. The said statement or affidavit containing falsity is required by law.

➢ If it is not required by law then it cannot be considered as a crime.

NOTE: If the false statement under oath is made in a judicial proceeding whether
it be a criminal or civil proceeding, the crime committed is FALSE TESTIMONY.










 If the said false statement, however, is made in a non-judicial proceeding,

administrative proceedings, or quasi-judicial proceedings, then the crime
committed is PERJURY.

➢So if the false testimony or the false statement is made in a labor case, in an
administrative case, in an application for search warrant, during the preliminary
investigation, or before the fiscals’ office, the crime committed is perjury.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FALSIFICATION AND PERJURY

FALSIFICATION PERJURY

Document is not required to be under oath. Document is required to be under oath.

DIFFERENCE OF FALSE TESTIMONY AND PERJURY

FALSE TESTIMONY PERJURY

Made in a non-judicial proceeding, administrative

Made in a judicial proceeding. proceeding, or quasi-judicial proceeding.

SUBORNATION OF PERJURY

➢Committed by a person who knowingly and willfully procures another to swear falsely
and the witness suborned does testify under the circumstances rendering him guilty of
perjury.

NOTE: Subornation of perjury is not expressly penalized in RPC; but the direct
induction of a person by another to commit perjury may be punished under
Article 183 in relation to Article 7, meaning, the crime is plain perjury but the one
inducing another will be liable as principal by inducement and the one who
testified as principal by direct participation.

ARTICLE 184 – OFFERING FALSE TESTIMONY IN EVIDENCE

➢Committed by any person who shall offer in evidence any false testimony or any false
witness either in a judicial proceeding or in any official proceeding.

ELEMENTS:

 1. The offender offered in evidence a false witness or false testimony.

2. The offender knew the witness or the testimony was false.
3. The offer was made in a judicial or official proceeding.

Is this the same as subornation of perjury?

➢Subornation of perjury is committed by any person who procures a false witness in

order to perjure himself and testify falsely in a case. There is no such crime as
subornation of perjury under the present RPC because we already have Article 184.

➢When any person procures a witness and offers him as evidence in court, he can be
held liable under Article 184 or he can be held liable as a principal by inducement in
false testimony or as a principal by inducement in perjury; therefore subornation of
perjury is not necessary and it is not a crime under Philippine jurisdiction, under the
RPC.

ARTICLE 185 – MACHINATIONS IN PUBLIC AUCTIONS

ACTS PUNISHED:

I. Soliciting gift or promise

➢By soliciting any gift or promise as a consideration for refraining from taking part in
any public auction.

➢The mere act of soliciting any gift or promise, so that he will refrain from taking part of
the public auction, will already give rise to the crime. It is neither necessary that he
actually received the gift nor participate in the said auction.

ELEMENTS:

1. That there be a public auction.

2. The accused solicited any gift or a promise from any of the bidders.
3. That such gift or promise was the consideration for his refraining from taking part in
that public auction.
4. The accused had the intent to cause the reduction of the price of the thing
auctioned.



 II. Attempting to cause bidders to stay away

➢By attempting to cause bidders to stay away from an auction by threats, gifts,
promises or any other artifice.

➢The mere attempt to cause bidders not to participate in the said public auction by
threats, gifts or promise will already give rise to the crime. It is not necessary that the
bidders would not actually participate.

ELEMENTS:

1. That there be a public auction.

2. The accused attempted to cause the bidders to stay away from that public auction.
3. It was done by threats, gifts, promises or any other artifice.
4. The accused had the intent to cause the reduction of the price of the thing
auctioned.

NOTE: In order to be liable for this crime, whether it be the act of solicitation or
the act of attempting to cause bidders to stay away from public auction, it is
necessary that the intention of the offender is to cause the reduction of the price
of the thing which is the subject of the public auction. The acts complained of
must be done for the purpose of reducing the price of the thing being auctioned.

ARTICLE 186 – MONOPOLIES AND COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE

ACTS PUNISHED:

I. Combination to prevent free competition in the market

➢This is committed by any person who shall enter into any contract or agreement or
any combination whether in the form of trust or otherwise, in restraint of trade or
commerce or to prevent by artificial means free competition in the market.

II. Monopoly to restrain free competition in the market

➢This is committed by monopolizing any merchandise or object of trade or commerce

or by combining with any other person or persons in order to alter the prices thereof

 by spreading false rumors or making use of any other artifice to restrain free
competition in the market.

III. Manufacturer, producer, or processor or importer combining, conspiring or agreeing

with any person to make transaction prejudicial to lawful commerce or to increase
the market price of merchandise

➢The FIRST TWO ACTS under Article 186 can be committed by any person and not
necessarily by manufacturers, producers or processors. The THIRD ACT however,
can be committed only by manufacturers, processors, producers and importers who
combined with any other person or persons in order to commit a transaction
prejudicial to lawful commerce or to increase the market price of any merchandise or
object of commerce.

➢Whether it be the first, second or third act, the mere conspiracy in order to restrain or
to prevent free competition will already give rise to the crime. It is not necessary that
there be actual restraint in trade or commerce.

NOTE: Juridical corporations cannot be the subject of criminal action. First, it

cannot be said that juridical persons can act with intent. Second, you cannot
imprison a juridical person in case of conviction. Thus, if the offender is a
juridical entity, the ones liable are the president, the directors or any of the
members of the said corporation, association or partnership, who knowingly
permitted and allowed this combination or monopoly in restraint of trade or
commerce.

➢If the objects, which are the subject of this monopoly or combination in restraint of
trade or commerce are prime commodities such as food, motor fuel, lubricants, it is
not even necessary that there be conspiracy. A mere proposal, a mere initial step
to hoard, to prevent free competition in the market will already give rise to the
crime.

ARTICLE 187 – IMPORTATION AND DISPOSITION OF FALSELY MARKED

ARTICLES

➢Committed by any person who shall import, sell, or dispose any article or
merchandise made of gold, silver, other precious materials, or their alloys.

 ELEMENTS:

1. The offender IMPORTS, SELLS or DISPOSES any article or merchandise made of

gold, silver, other precious materials, or their alloys.
2. That the STAMPS, BRANDS, or MARKS of those articles or merchandise FAIL TO
INDICATE the actual fitness or quality of said metals or alloys.
3. The OFFENDER KNOWS that the stamps, brands or marks fail to indicate the
actual fitness or quality of the metals or alloys.

➢This is considered a criminal act because the offender, despite knowing that the
articles or merchandise that he imported are misbranded, he still imports the same,
sells the same or disposes the same.

➢It is not necessary for the offender to be held liable that he must have sold the
misbranded articles or that he must have disposed the article because mere
importation will already give rise to the crime.