You are on page 1of 17

1.

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. In this case, all the elements for falsification were met especially when Siquian 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. It is further bolstered by the fact that when the budget was deemed re-enacted, there is no such position as Clerk to the Municipal Secretary, the position to which Carreon was appointed. And there is also no appropriation made in the Annual Budget for the Fiscal Year 1974-75 for such position, thus rendering Siquian's statement in his certification utterly false. Siquian also had the legal obligation to disclose the truth of such facts. Under the civil service rules and regulations, a certification of the availability of funds for the position to be filled up is required to be signed by the head of office or any officer who has been delegated the authority to sign. As an officer authorized by law to issue the certification, Siquian has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him in said certification which includes information as to the availability of the funds for the position being filled up. He also took advantage of his official position in falsifying the document. Abuse of public office is considered present when the offender falsifies a document in connection with the duties of his office which consist of either making or preparing or otherwise intervening in the preparation of a document. In this case, Siquian was charged with the duty of issuing the certification necessary for the appointment of Carreon. Lastly, the existence of a wrongful intent to injure a third person is not necessary when the falsified document is a public document. The SC relied on the Go Tiok case in stating that wrongful intent on the part of an accused to injure a third person is not an essential element of the crime of falsification of public document. This is because the principal thing punished in falsifying

2. Siquian v. People Facts: Jesusa Carreon went to the office of Manuel Siquian, the municipal mayor of Isabela, to apply for a job in the office of the mayor. Siquian then appointed her as a clerk in the office of the municipal secretary and even said that her salary would be included in the budget. Accompanying her appointment is the certification, among others, of the availability of funds through a form issued by Siquian and addressed to the CSC, pursuant to the requirements of the latter. It should be noted that the Municipal council of Isabela, failed to enact the annual budget for the municipality for the Fiscal Year 1975-76. As such, the annual budget for the previous Fiscal Year 1974-75, was deemed re-enacted. No such position existed then. Carreon worked for five months and was supposed to receive her salary of P120. She approached the municipal treasurer to ask for the money but the latter said that there was no money yet. She then sued Siquian for falsification of a public document. The RTC and CA ruled in favour of Carreon. Siquian interposed the defense of a lack of criminal intent. Issue: Was Siquian guilty of falsification of public documents? Ruling: Yes. He was found guilty under par 4 of art 171, making untruthful statements in a narration of facts; the elements of which are: (a) That the offender makes in a document untruthful

public documents is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of truth as therein solemnly proclaimed. Siquian cannot raise the defense of good faith. He presides at all meetings of the municipal council and signs all ordinances and resolutions passed by the municipal council. He was also aware that there was no budget and no such position (clerk of municipal secretary) existed.

3. Samson v. CA - 103 Phil. 277 FACTS: Lascano and his wife are entitled to some money because their son was a soldier for the USAFFE during the 2nd world war. Amado Cruz was with 2 persons purporting to be the Lascano spouses. Cruz asked the help of his friend Rufino Samson, the appellant in this case, in order for the Lascano spouses to get their checks. Samson verified the identity of the purported Lascanos by examining their residence certificates. True enough, Samson had a friend with the Finance Dept of the AFP, Lt. Valencia, and they were able to get their checks that amounted to 12K. The group then went to the Treasury Dept to cash the checks. Samson also knew the teller and represented that the Lascanos were the real Lascanos. Mrs. Lascano placed her thumbprint on the back of the 2 checks while Mr. Lascano signed his name. SAMSON, on the other hand, SIGNED ON THE BOTTOM AS THE LAST INDORSER of the CHECK. The 12K was released. The group went to Aristocrat with about 11 other persons. They had their lunch and Samson was given P310 as gratitude money. Thereafter, the purported Lascanos were never seen again. Days later, Samson was informed that the Lascanos were not the real Lascanos. Samson investigated and found that real Mr. Lascano could barely walk and the real Mrs. Lascano was a teacher who denied receiving any money. Samson was charged together with Cruz, a Mr. Vergara and two john does for estafa through falsification of a commercial document.

RTC convicted all of them. On appeal to the CA, Samson was only found guilty of Reckless Imprudence. ISSUE: 1. Can falsification be committed through Negligence? YES. HELD: Samson was definitely grossly negligent in assuring the identity of the impersonators to Lt. Valencia and the Teller as a result of which the govt lost 12K. Samson should not have relied on the mere representations of his friend and the residence certificates of the impersonators. Samson cooperated in the commission of estafa through falsification of a commercial document without which the estafa would not have been accomplished.1 Insofar as the falsification is concerned the act of endorsing the check constituted a written representation that the true payees were the ones who indorsed and cashed the checks, when in truth and fact the true payees had no part in the endorsement.2 Falsification can be committed through negligence since intent to cause damage is not an element of falsification because what the law seeks to ensure that the public has confidence in these documents.3

Note: J. Reyes dissented on this point such that, liability as a principal by indispensable co-operation requires knowledge of the criminal act and since Samson was ultimately made responsible for his reckless negligence, its fallacious to argue that he cooperated to the falsification through his negligence. 2 Article 171 Paragraph 2 Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate. 3 Please be careful with this statement because I think the SC made a mistake here since in Reckless Imprudence what is punished is the negligence and the result merely determines the penalty imposed. If intent to falsify was not an essential element of falsification then it would be mala prohibita and we all know that falsification is mala in se. Remember the case about tampering of Election Results, court said that its mala in se, I think the same rule applies here. OR is intent to cause damage different from intent to falsify? I dont know.

SC affirmed the conviction for Reckless Imprudence resulting in falsification under Art.365.4 DOCTRINE FALSIFICATION CAN BE COMMITTED BY NEGLIGENCE.

4. ANDAYA v PEOPLE FACTS: Armed Forces and Police Savings and Loan Association Inc. (AFPSLAI) is a non-stock non-profit corporation rendering savings and loan services to its members. Petitioner NoeAndaya was its president. NoeAndaya proposed to increase the capitalization of the AFPSLAI to boost its lending capacity to its members. Pursuant to this, the Board of Trustees passed a resolution creating the Finders Fee Program which provided that any officer, member or employee of AFPSLAI who can solicit at least 100,000 pesos worth of investment is entitled to a Finders Fee equivalent to 1% of the solicitation.

The Trial Court convicted Andaya saying that all the elements of the crime are present. First, Andaya caused to it appear in the disbursement voucher that Guilas, instead of Hernandez, was entitled to the Fee and Second, that this was done with criminal intent to cause damage to the government in the form of evading taxes. ISSUES: Whether or not Andaya is guilty of the crime charged - NO HELD: Petitioner must be acquitted on reasonable doubt

Petitioner should not have been charged with estafa through


falsification of commercial document but only estafa through falsification of private document whose elements are as follows: (1) offender commits any of the acts of falsification mentioned in 171 (2) falsification was committed on a private document and (3) the falsification caused damage or there was intent to cause damage to a third person.

Thereafter, the Central Bank notified AFPSLAI that its financial


position was precarious because of mismanagement. The Board ordered an investigation which resulted to the filing of criminal information against Andaya for ESTAFA THROUGH FALSIFICATION OF COMMERCIAL DOCUMENTS. What happened was Ernesto Hernandez was able to solicit from an outsider an investment worth 2.1M. Since Hernandez did not want his Finders Fee worth 21,000 reflected in his Income Tax Return, he asked Andaya if the latter could find someone who can receive the cash in his behalf. Thus Andaya told Guilas (who was a clerk of AFPSLAI) to receive the Fee and turn it over to him (Andaya) so that the latter may give it to Hernandez. To this end, Andaya allegedly substituted the name of Hernandez for Guilas in the disbursement voucher.
4

1st element is satisfied. Prosecution was able to establish the


participation of Andaya in causing the voucher to be named after Guilas rather than Hernandez. Although Andaya did not personally cause the substitution, he is nevertheless a principal by induction for having ordered so. In this case, the act of falsification done by Andaya is under 171(2) or causing it to appear that a person has participated in something but in fact has not.

2nd element is satisfied. However, the prosecution wrongfully


classified a disbursement voucher as a commercial document. It is not. it is a private document. A commercial document is an instrument commonly used by merchants to facilitate trade and credit transactions. They are regulated by the Code of Commerce. On the other hand, a private document is an instrument executed by a private person without the intervention of a notary by which some disposition or agreement is proved.Again, a voucher is not a commercial document.

Note: Strong Dissent was made by Justice Reyes that Samson cannot be convicted of Reckless Imprudence resulting in Falsification because this is not necessarily included in the intentional crime of Estafa through Falsification, the crime charged in the information. In the words of Justice Reyes malice or intent cannot co-exist with negligence

3rd element was not satisfied. This is because irrespective of who


really has the right to claim the Fee Guilas or Hernandez the fact remains that AFPSLAI is indebted to the extent of 21,000. AFPSLAI suffered no damage because in the first place it was under obligation to make such payment. The ration of the Trial Court that it was the Government which stands to suffer because of tax evasion is untenable. Why? Because the information alleged damaged to AFPLSAI and not damage to the Government. If you sustain the finding of the TC you violate Andayas right to be properly informed of the crime he is charged with. Note however that in the book theres no such thing daw as estafa through falsification of private document. Pero the court did not even mention this.

4) the subject deeds were only registered with the RD only on 2000, or 15 years after the purported sales The City Prosecutor of Tacloban resolved that 3 informations of falsification (under Art 172, Par 1 in relation to Art 171, Par 2) be filed against Silvina and Camenforte (a lawyer who conspired with Lastrilla). However, it did not find any probable cause to file against Lastrilla. Granda appealed to the DOJ but the DOJ just affirmed. On appeal to the CA, the CA finally resolved that 3 informations of falsification (under Art 172, Par 1 in relation to Art 171, Par 1, 2 and 5) be filed against Lastrilla. In essence, the CA said that Lastrilla falsified the documents in three ways imitating the signature of the grandparents, causing it to appear that persons have participated when in fact they did not (since the grandparents were dead), and altering true dates. Lastrilla claimed that the CA committed error in finding probable cause against him. Lastrilla also claimed that there was no damage done because he allegedly paid P18m for the land, hence he cant be held liable for falsification. Issue: was there probable cause to engender the belief that petitioner is one of the authors of the falsification? Held: Yes, there was probable cause. Lastrilla attested to the fact that the grandparents signed the deeds in his presence in 1985. However, he also admitted that the negotiations for the sales only started in 1998 (even when the documents said 1985) so how could the negotiations happen only after the deeds were executed? The PNP Crime Lab also reported that the signatures of the grandparents did not match specimen signatures of the spouses. To his claim that no damage was done, the Court said that in 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

5. Lastrilla v Granda Granda was the grandson of the lot owners (Rafael and Aurora). The lot owners died in 1989 and 2000, respectively. Granada claims that Lastrila, et al, falsified three deeds of sale covering numerous parcels of land in favor of the latter and the latters relatives. Because of the 3 deeds of sale, the parcels of land were registered to Lastrilla and his relatives. The first deed covered 2 parcels of land. The second deed covered 2 parcels of land. While the third deed covered 3 parcels of land. Granda claims that 1) the signatures on the 3 deeds of sale were falsified and were not of his grandparents, 2) the 3 deeds of sale were antedated (the deeds said that the transactions took place on Dec 1985, but in fact they took place in 1999 or 2000) 3) the witness to the deed (Grandas sister Silvina) could not have possibly signed the 3 deeds in 1985 because she was cloistered in a convent at that time.

person for the reason that in these cases, the principal thing punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed. The case teaches us that there are as many counts of falsification as to documents falsified, regardless of the parcels of land contained in each deed. In this case, there were 3 deeds of sale falsified thats why 3 counts of falsification were charged to Lastrilla and his cohorts. Moreover, it also teaches us that even if there are multiple modes of falsifying a single document, it will still be considered as 1 crime thats why even if Lastrilla falsified each document in three ways (1, 2 and 5), he was still charged of 1 count of falsification per document. With regard to Art 171, Par 2, the case teaches us that the provision applies even if those who were made to appear to participate are already dead.

6. LAURINIO GOMA and NATALIO UMALE vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, and SANGGUNIAN MEMBER MANUEL G. TORRALBA ARTICLE 171 (2). The Ombudsman filed an information for FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENT under ARTICLE 171 (2) against Goma and Umale. It was alleged that Brgy. Chairperson Goma and Secretary Umale falsified a brgy. Resolution by allocating the amount of P18,000 as disbursement for a seminar of 2 officials. In the said Resolution, it was indicated that it was passed on motion of Kgwd. Dizon and seconded by Kgwd. Dela Cruz when in truth and in fact no meeting was held as there was no quorum. The said Resolution was even signed by Goma and Umale and with the official seal of the brgy. Goma and Umale denied the allegations, claiming that the said Resolution was a mere draft and it is not sufficient to disburse funds.

RTC: GUILTY. The Resolution have all the appearance of a complete and "true and genuine document," sealed and signed by the Sanggunian secretary.CA: affirmed. ISSUE: WON the Resolution is a public document? WON petitioners can be held liable? RULING: 1. Resolution is a Public Document. Revised Rules on Evidence, public documents include "[t]he written official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether of the Philippines, or of a foreign country." There can be no denying that the public money-disbursing and seemingly genuine Resolution, in the preparation of which petitioners, in their official capacity, had a hand, is, in context, a public document in a criminal prosecution for falsification of public document. And it bears to stress that in falsification under Art. 171(2) of the RPC, it is not necessary that there be a genuine document; it is enough that the document fabricated or simulated has the appearance of a true and genuine document or of apparent legal efficacy. 2. GUILTY of Falsification (Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate). The elements of the crime of falsification of public documents, as above defined and penalized, 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 persons have participated in any act or proceeding. 4. That such person or persons did not in fact so participate in the proceeding. The first two elements clearly obtain, petitioners, during the period material, being local government elected officials who, by reason of their position, certified, as Umale did, as to the holding of a barangay session and falsely attested, as Goma did, as to the veracity of a resolution supposedly taken up therein. The other two elements are likewise present. As correctly observed by the CA:

[Petitioners] made it appear in the Barangay resolution that all members of the Sangguniang Barangay deliberated upon and unanimously approved the questioned resolution, when in fact no such deliberation and approval occurred. The non-participation of the members of the Sangguniang Barangay in the passage of the resolution was established by the 15 October 1995 resolution issued by 7 of the 8 members of the Sangguniang Barangay denying that the challenged resolution was passed upon and approved by the council. Indeed, the contents and appearance of the Resolution argue against the very idea of its being merely a proposal or a draft barangay enactment. Falsification of a public document is consummated upon the execution of the false document. And criminal intent is presumed upon the execution of the criminal act. Erring public officers failure to attain their objectives, if that really be the case, is not determinative of their guilt or innocence. The simulation of a public document, done in a manner so as to give it the appearance of a true and genuine instrument, thus, leading others to errors as to its authenticity, constitutes the crime of falsification. In fine, the element of gain or benefit on the part of the offender or prejudice to a third party as a result of the falsification, or tarnishing of a documents integrity, is not essential to maintain a charge for falsification of public documents. What is punished in falsification of public document is principally the undermining of the public faith and the destruction of truth as solemnly proclaimed therein. In this particular crime, therefore, the controlling consideration lies in the public character of a document; and the existence of any prejudice caused to third persons or, at least, the intent to cause such damage becomes immaterial.

Facts: Leonila was employed as a cashier/manager of Polomolok Credit Cooperative Incorporated (PCCI). She was in charge of receiving deposits from and releasing loans to the members of the cooperative. During an audit in 1982 certain discrepancies were discovered in relation to the release of loans. 4 informations for estafa through falsification of commercial documents were filed against Leonila. In summary, these informations stated that Leonila falsified cash/check vouchers in the name of 4 different persons, thereby making it appear that these persons were granted loans when in fact they did not even apply for them, and moreover, they did not sign any of the said vouchers. The witnesses testified that 3 out of the 4 persons were not even members of PCCI and that one of them [the non-members] was the son of Leonila who was, at that time, only 3 years old. Eventually, the TC found her guilty of estafa through falsification of commercial documents. On appeal however, the CA affirmed with modification, finding her guilty instead of falsification of private documents (Art. 172, par2). Issue: What crimes were committed? Held/Ratio: 3 counts of falsification of private documents and one estafa. Elements of the crime: 1) Offender committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Art. 171, except par7; 2) Falsification was committed in any private document; and

3) Falsification caused damage to a 3rd party OR at least the


falsification was committed with intent to cause such damage.

7. Re: first element Leonilas act falls under par2 of Art. 171 causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate.

8. Leonila Batulanon vs. People September 15, 2006 Ynares-Santiago, J.

Re: third element PCCI only grants loans to its bona fide members with no subsisting loans. As mentioned earlier, 3 out of the 4 persons were not members. The remaining one had actually settled the loan but only for the purpose of avoiding legal prosecution, with the understanding however that she will be reimbursed once the money is collected from Leonila. Re: second element The vouchers were indeed private documents because they were not documents used by merchants or businessmen to promote or facilitate trade or credit transactions, nor are they defined and regulated by the Code of Commerce or other commercial laws. Rather they are private documents, which have been defined as deeds or instruments executed by a private person without the intervention of a public notary or of other persons legally authorized, by which some disposition or agreement is proved, evidenced, or set forth. No complex crime of estafa through falsification of private document! If the falsification is done as a means to commit estafa, then the crime would be falsification. On the other hand, if estafa could have been committed without the necessity of falsifying the document, the proper crime would be estafa. NB: SC didnt say why but it cited Gregorio, citing Cuello Calon. And according to J. Callejo (feeling ko ancestor niya si Cuello Calon Cuello Calon = Callejo), both crimes share a similar element damage or intent to cause damage. So what crimes were committed? As to the 3 persons falsification of private documents (3 counts) As to Leonilas 3-year-old child estafa! Why estafa??? Because Leonila did not falsify the signature of her son. In fact, it appeared in the voucher that she wrote by: Batulanon, indicating that she received the proceeds of the loan in behalf of her son.

Such act does not fall under any of the instances of falsification enumerated in Art. 171. Nonetheless, such representation caused damage to PCCI which makes her liable for estafa!

9. R.F. Navarro Co. and Heirs of R. Navarro vs. Vailoces and Heirs of E. Rodriguez FACTS: Petitioners (Laura Navarro5 and other heirs of R. Navarro) instituted an action for annulment of documents, titles and/or reconveyance against the heirs of E. Rodriguez and Luzon Surety Co. Petitioners alleged that they are the owners of certain lots by virtue of TCT 61619 registered under the name of Raymundo Navarro (deceased) and R.F. Navarro Co6. Raymundo entrusted said property to E. Rodriguez, but it was discovered by petitioners that after Raymundos death, E. Rodriguez was able to transfer the property in his name. Petitioners claim that the transfer of property in E. Rodriguez name was fraudulent as it was done without any consideration and knowledge of the petitioners, and that the signature of Raymundo on the Deeds was forged. Upon discovery of such fraudulent transfers, petitioners demanded that from private respondents to return the properties. On the other hand, private respondents (heirs of E. Rodriguez and Luzon Surety Co.) alleged that the transfer of the property was done through a Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage executed by Raymundo in favor of E. Rodriguez. Thus, TCT 61619 was cancelled and a new one (TCT 62411) was issued in the name of E. Rodriguez. The RTC found the transfer as fictitious, thus ruling in favor of petitioners. On appeal, the CA reversed the RTC decision, ruling in favor of private respondents

5 6

Wife of the deceased Raymundo Navarro. Raymundo Navarro was the President of R.F. Navarro Co.

ISSUE: W/N the Deed of Sale is spurious since it was not signed by Raymundo Navarro. HELD/RATIO: NO. Petitioners claim that the aforementioned deed of sale is spurious as the same was not signed by Raymundo F. Navarro. Petitioners' attempts to show that the Deeds of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage executed by Navarro and Rodriguez are false do not impress the SC. The bare assertions on the part of Laura Navarro, wife of Raymundo, that the signature appearing on the Deeds of Sale is not that of her husband is not enough. Forgery is not presumed; it must be proven by clear, positive and convincing evidence. Those who make the allegation of forgery have the burden of proving it since a mere allegation is not evidence. In the case at bar, where the alleged forged signature was that of a President of a Corporation, petitioners could have easily presented other documents bearing the true signature of R.F. Navarro Sr., to substantiate their claim. Not having done so, Lauras uncorroborated claim cannot be given much weight. This is so especially in light of the fact that Laura was one of the plaintiffs and stood to gain by having the deeds of sale and the transfer certificate of title in the name of Luzon Surety Company declared void. In any case, assuming, ex gratia argumenti, that the Deeds of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage were spurious, petitioners are already barred by laches.

10 ) THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v PO GIOK TO FACTS: In the Court of First Instance of Cebu, the defendant appellee Po Giok To was charged with the crime of falsification. He misrepresented to the City Treasurer of Cebu that his name is Antonio Perez, that his place of birth is Jaro, Leyte and that his citizenship is Filipino. From such misrepresentation of facts the City Treasurer issued him a residence certificate.

The accused filed a motion to quash on the ground that the information does not allege sufficient facts to constitute the crime of falsification. The City Fiscal opposed the motion to quash claiming that the information alleges all the integral elements of the offense charged as defined by the statute. The lower Court, however, found the motion to quash meritorious and ordered the amendment of the information. Hence, this appeal by the Government. ISSUE: Whether or not the information in question should allege the following facts in order to be sufficient to convict the defendant of the crime of falsification: 1) That the accused had the obligation to disclose the truth in the document allegedly falsified; 2) That the accused had the wrongful intent to injure a third HELD: We agree with the Solicitor-General that the first element allegedly lacking in the information, that is, the obligation on the part of the accused to disclose the truth as to the facts that should appear in a residence certificate, is inherent in the very nature and purpose of said document. Section 3 Commonwealth Act 465 provides: "that the residence certificate for persons shall contain the full name, place and date of birth, citizenship, civil status, length of residence in the city or municipality where the certificate is issued, occupation or calling. Needless to say, this provision implies that the person to whom the certificate is issued must state to the officer who issues the same, the true facts, required to appear therein, the latter having merely the ministerial function of recording thereon the facts as supplied by this person. And to guarantee that the facts given correctly and truly identify the holder of the certificate, he is also required by Sec. 3 above to sign the document and affix his right hand thumb mark thereon. There is, therefore, no question that the accused had the duty to disclose the true facts about his name, place of birth, and citizenship to the officer or employee who issued

his residence certificate and such duty being inherent in the transaction, there was no need for the criminal charge to allege that the accused had such duty. Anent the second element allegedly lacking in the information in question, the law is clear that wrongful intent on the part of the accused to injure a third person is not an essential element of the crime of falsification of public document. Article 172, par. 1, in connection with Art. 171, par. 4, of the Revised Penal Code provides as follows: ART. 171. Falsification by the public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister. The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed 5,000 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: 4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts. ART. 172. Falsification by private individuals and use of falsified documents. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon: 1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the falsifications enumerated in the next preceding article in any other kind of commercial document. On the other hand, Art. 172, par 2, defining the crime falsification of private document, provides: 2. Any person who, to the damage of a third party, or with intent to cause such damage, shall in any private document commit any of the acts of falsification enumerated in the next preceeding article. The distinction made by the law between falsification by private persons of PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AND PRIVATE DOCUMENTS IS CLEAR. The first (FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS BY PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS) is committed by the mere performance of any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Art. 171 While the second (FALSIFICATION OF PRIVATE DOCUMENTS BY PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS) is committed not only by the performance of any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Art. 171 but it must

likewise be shown that such act of falsification was committed to the damage of a third party or with intent to cause such damage. The reason for the distinction is given in a decision of the Supreme Court of Spain in the case of People vs. Pacana that in the falsification of public or official documents, whether by public officials or by private persons, it is unnecessary that there be present the idea of gain or the intent to injure a third person, for the reason that, in contradiction to private documents, the principal thing punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed. Moreover, the acts charged, if true, would result in confusion in the government records, since the fingerprint of the accused would not correspond to that of the person whose personal circumstances are recited in the certificate. Such confusion in its records evidently operates to the Government's prejudice. Being the natural and direct result of the criminal act charged, the accused must be presumed to have intended it. Side issue: It is argued for the defendant that there being a special law with respect to residence certificates expressly punishing their falsification (Commonwealth Act No. 465), this special law, and not the provisions of the Revised Penal Code, should apply in this case. RPC can still apply since under Art. 10 of the RPC has supplementary application to all special laws, unless the latter should provide the contrary, and CA No. 465 makes no provision that it exclusively applies to all falsifications of residence certificates. Thus the information was sufficient, and its dismissal for insufficiency by the Court below was improper and erroneous.

11. DAVA v. PEOPLE (ponente: Fernan) FACTS: Michael Dava bumped pedestrians Bernadette Roxas Clamor and Dolores E. Roxas, causing death to former and physical injuries to the latter. As a consequence, his driver's license was confiscated and he was charged with homicide and serious physical injuries. One day, the brother of Bernadette and the father of Dolores, saw Dava driving a Volkswagen. Knowing that Dava's driver's license

was used as an exhibit in court and that no traffic violation receipt had been issued to Dava, they had Dava apprehended for driving without a license. When he was apprehended, he showed the police officers a nonprofessional driver's license No. 2706887 with official receipt No. 0605870 issued by Agency Pampanga in the name of Michael T. Dava. When asked about the source of his license, Dava informed them that his officemate (Manalili) had secured it for him. He was brought to the police station and charged w falsification of a public document. Prosecution witnesses: Caroline Vinluan of the Angeles City branch of the Bureau of Land Transportation (BLT). He testified that the license was earlier brought to him and he was asked whether it was fake or genuine. He examined it and found that it was "fake or illegally issued" because form No. 2706887 was one of the 50 forms which had been reported missing from their office sometime in November, 1976 and that it was never issued to any applicant for a license. He added that any license that was not included their office index card was considered as "coming from illegal source' and "not legally issued by any agency." Although the form used for the license was genuine, the signature of the issuing official was fake. Defense witness: Manalili. He said he obtained the license by paying fixers ISSUE: WON Dava can be convicted of falsification? YES RATIO: Elements of the crime of using a falsified document in transaction (other than as evidence in a judicial proceed penalized under the last paragraph of Article 172) are following: (a) the offender knew that a document was falsified by another person; (b) the false document is embraced in Article 171 or in any of subdivisions Nos. 1 and 2 of Article 172; (c) he used such document (not in judicial proceedings), and (d) the use of the false document caused damage to another or at last it was used with intent to cause such damage. Except for last, all of these elements have been proven beyond reason doubt in this case.

a. Petitioner himself requested officemate Manalili to get him a license. He misrepresented to Manalili that he has not at any time been issued a driver's license. Through this misrepresentation petitioner was ableto induce Manalili to deal with "fixers" in securing the subject driver's license. b. A driver's license is a public document. The blank form of the drivers license becomes a public document the moment it is accomplished. Thus, when driver's license No. 2706887 was filled up with petitioner's personal data and the signature of the region of the San Fernando LTC agency was affixed therein, even if the same was simulated, the driver's license became a public document. c. When petitioner was apprehended he presented the license to the officer. Because he was a detailman who did his job with the use of a car, it is probable that hes been using the license. d. The driver's license being a public document, proof of the fourth element of damage caused to another person or at least an intent to cause such damage has become immaterial. In falsification of public or official documents, the principal thing being punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth proclaimed therein. People vs. Sendaydiego, The rule is that if a person had in his possession a falsified document and he 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 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 We agree with the petitioner that the presumption enunciated in the Sendaydiego case is not absolute as it is subject to the exception that the accused should have a satisfactory explanation why he is in possession of a false document. His explanation, however, is unsatisfactory as it consists mainly in passing the buck to his friend, Manalili.

12. RAFAEL T. FLORES, HERMINIO C. ELIZON, ARNULFO S. SOLORIA, petitioners, vs. HON. LYDIA QUERUBIN LAYOSA, In her capacity as Judge of RTC, Quezon City, Branch 217, BENIGNO S. MONTERA and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. Facts: On Dec 1991, private respondent Benigno Montera, employee of the National Food Authority (NFA), filed a complaint in the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) against the petitioners Flores, Elizon and Soloria, and 2 others (Dansal and Vallada). OMB filed an Information charging the petitioners with the offense of Estafa through Falsification of Public Documents. It was alleged that Dansal and Flores were dept manager and asst manager respectively while Elizon, Soloria and Vallada were security personnel of NFA.That the petitioners conspired in falsifying the DAILY TIME RECORD of Vallada, making it appear that the latter reported for work as a security guard at the NFA when in fact, he never reported for work. And because of this, Vallada was still able to collect his salary. Prosecutors filed a motion to suspend the petitioners pendent lite, which was granted by the court, suspending them for 90 days. Trial court applied Sec 13 of RA 3019 (Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) which mandates that a public officer charged for an offense involving fraud upon govt or public funds or property shall be suspended pending case in court. Petitioners filed an MR which was denied. A certiorari to the Sandiganbayan, which only affirmed the TCs issuance of order of suspension pendente lite because it falls under Sec 13 of RA 3019. While petitioners concede that the Information sufficiently alleges the elements of the offense of falsification of public document, they assert that it does not contain an averment of fraud or deceit on their part. Hence, they claim that the

Information does not charge them with estafa but only falsification of public document. And that they shouldnt be suspended. Also, that it was private res Montera who filed for suspension, not prosecutors. Respondent People argue that the Information sufficiently alleges the elements of estafa through falsification of public document under Article 318 in relation to Article 171 of the RPC. According to the People, this complex crime is an "offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or property" under Section 137, R.A. 3019. Thus, the suspension pendente lite of petitioners is justified. Also, although Montera filed the motion to suspend, it was with conformity of the public prosecutor. Issue: W/N the offense charged is a complex crime of estafa through falsification of public docs. W/N offense charged falls within the coverage of Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019. YES! W/N suspension of petitioners pendente lite is proper. YES! Held/Ratio: The Information alleges that petitioners took their positions and conspired and falsified the DTR make it appear as if he reported for work that month didnt and in the processes appropriated Valladas prejudice of NFA.

advantage of of Valleda to but he in fact salary to the

Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019 provides: Suspension and loss of benefits.Any incumbent public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid information under this Act or under Title 7, Book II of the Revised Penal Code or for any offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or property whether as a simple or as a complex offense and in whatever stage of execution and mode of participation, is pending in court, shall be suspended from office. Should he be convicted by final judgment, he shall lose all retirement or gratuity benefits under any law, but if he is acquitted, he shall be entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries and benefits which he failed to receive during suspension, unless in the meantime administrative proceedings have been filed against him. (Emphasis supplied)

Still, any error in the Information, with regard to the specification of the particular mode of estafa, allegedly committed by petitioners will not result in its invalidation because the allegations therein sufficiently inform petitioners that they are being charged with estafa through falsification of public document. Crimpro rules state that the Information should contain the designation of the offense and the criminal acts/omissions complained as constituting the offense. BUT the SC has clarified in several cases that the designation of the offense is NOT controlling because what actually determines that nature and characted of the crime charged are the facts alleged in the information. Thus, notwithstanding the discrepancy between the mode of commission of the estafa as alleged in the Information (which states that petitioners committed estafa under Article 315), or as claimed by the People in their Comment (that petitioners committed estafa under Article 318) and the absence of the words "fraud" or "deceit" in the Information, the Court agrees with the Sandiganbayan and the RTC that the factual allegations therein sufficiently inform petitioners of the acts constituting their purported offense and satisfactorily allege the elements of estafa in general committed through the offense of falsification of public document. In the case at bar, although the word "deceit" or "fraud" was not specifically alleged in the information, nonetheless, the same alleges the manner by which deceit or fraud was committed. It was committed by falsifying the daily time record of accused Vallada; and that it was committed by using said falsified daily time record to collect the corresponding salary of Vallada to the damage and prejudice of the National Food Authority. To our mind these allegations are sufficient to maintain the validity of the information. It must be noted that the crime for which the accused are charged is the complex crime of estafa through falsification of

public document wherein the falsification of the public document is a necessary means to commit the estafa. It bears stressing that the words "fraud" or "deceit" need not be used in an information for the allegations therein to sufficiently allege the offense of estafa. It is enough that acts constituting abuse of confidence or deceit, which are indispensable to estafa, are averred in the information. The court determines whether the information charging a public officer with an offense that falls under Sec 13 of R.A. No. 3019, such as to warrant suspension pendent lite. If it does, the court is bound to issue an order of preventive suspension of the accused public officer as a matter of course. The order of suspension pendente lite, while mandatory in nature, is by no means automatic or self-operative. Before such suspension is imposed, a determination as to the validity of the information must first be made in a pre-suspension hearing. Accused must be given an opportunity to challenge the validity of the criminal proceedings against him. In this case, petitioners were afforded the opportunity to challenge the validity of the charges against them, and whether it falls under Sec 13 of RA 3019 when they filed a opposition to Monteras motion.

13. Caubang v. People Doctrine: possessor of falsified document is deemed as the forger/ immaterial if falsified document contains no false contents, so long as signature has been forged! Facts: Caubang is charged with falsification of public document, as a private individiual, by forging the signature of treasurer Pagaduan contained in the statement of assets and liabilities of the BANGANGA consolidated arrastre stevedoring services

(BCASS), making it appear that said PAGADUAN participated in said registration of the newly formed corporation. Petitioner and Pagaduan's stevedoring companies were merged after an agreement by both parties, which was called the aformentioned BCASS. Caubang was designated as the representative to register the merged company with the SEC, although thereafter Pagaduan stated that said merger shall not push through. Pagaduan was then surprised when said BCASS was already registered with the SEC and wondered why his signature was affixed in the STatement of assets and liabilities as treasurer thereof. Petitioner's defense is that he brought to the SEC only the AOI, treasurer's affidavit, and the 2,5oo paid up capital, and denied having presented the statement of assets and liabilities. ISSUE: WON guilty of falsification of document by forging the signature of Pagaduan, even though he denied having brought or made such statement of assets and liabilities. HELD: guilty. RATIO: the arguments of petitioner are mere denials which, if weighed agaonst documentary evidence and testimony of witnesses, do not convince the court to reverse its decision. Moreover, having been the one responsible for the filing of registration papers, the accused must likewise be accountable therefore. As the authorized rep, he is deemed to be the one in custody and possession of the statement of assets and liabilities. Hence, the court is convinced that the possessor and user of a falsified document is presumed to be the forger thereof. Also equally important, it is immaterial whether or not the contents set forth in the forged statement were false, so long as the signature of another was counterfeited. Lastly, in this crime of falsification, the princal thing punished is the PUBLIC FAITH AND

DESTRUCTION OF TRUTH as therein proclaimed. The act of forging Pagaduan's signature is the act punishable, and so INTENT TO CAUSE DAMAGE OR GAIN IS IMMATERIAL, moreso actual damage. ( as opposed to private documents, wherein intent to cause damage or gain is necessary).

14.

15.

16. Galeos v. People & Ong v. People / Feb. 9, 2011 FACTS: Galeos and Ong were charged and found guilty by the Sandiganbayan of falsification of public documents under Article 171, Paragraph 48 of the RPC; Galeos with 4 counts and Ong with 8 counts. Ong was the Mayor of the Municipality of Naga, Cebu. Ong extended permanent appointments to Galeos and Federico T. Rivera for the positions of Construction and Maintenance Man and Plumber I, respectively, in the Office of the Municipal Engineer. The prosecution alleged that on several occasions, Galeos and Rivera (River later died so the charges were dropped as to him) falsified their individual Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN). On 4 occasions, Galeos either answered No or left blank the boxes pertaining to the question of whether he was related within the 4th degree of consanguinity or of affinity to anyone working in the government. The SALNs were filed by Galeos and subscribed and sworn to before Ong. It was later found out that Galeos and Ong were first degree cousins, as their mothers were sisters.
8 Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister. The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed 5,000 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: 4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;

Galeos claimed that he was not being untruthful when he merely left the box blank (unanswered), while Ong argued that the subject SALN do not contain any untruthful statements containing a narration of facts and that there was no wrongful intent of injuring a third person at the time of the execution of the documents, and that he cannot be held liable for falsification for merely administering the oath in a document since it is not among the legal obligations of an officer administering the oath to certify the truthfulness and/or veracity of the contents of the document. Both accused claimed that they had no knowledge that they were in fact related and there was no intent on their part to make the untruthful statements. ISSUE: Whether both accused were guilty of falsification YES. HELD: All the elements of falsification of public documents by making untruthful statements have been established by the prosecution. The elements of falsification under Article 171, par. 4 are as follows: (a) the offender makes in a public document untruthful statements in a narration of facts; (b) he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him; and (c) the facts narrated by him are absolutely false. It must also be proven that the public officer or employee had taken advantage of his official position in making the falsification. In falsification of public document, the offender is considered to have taken advantage of his official position when (1) he has the duty to make or prepare or otherwise to intervene in the preparation of a document; or (2) he has the official custody of the document which he falsifies. Likewise, in 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 because in the falsification of a public document, what is punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed.

The first element was proven. The question of whether or not persons are related to each other by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth degree is one of fact. Contrary to petitioners assertion, statements concerning relationship may be proved as to its truth or falsity, and thus do not amount to expression of opinion. When a government employee is required to disclose his relatives in the government service, such information elicited therefore qualifies as a narration of facts contemplated under Article 171 (4) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Further, it bears to stress that the untruthful statements on relationship have no relevance to the employees eligibility for the position but pertains rather to prohibition or restriction imposed by law on the appointing power. The second element is likewise present. "Legal obligation" means that there is a law requiring the disclosure of the truth of the facts narrated. Permanent employees employed by local government units are required to file the following: (a) sworn statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN); (b) lists of relatives within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity in government service; (c) financial and business interests; and (d) personal data sheets as required by law. A similar requirement is imposed by Section 8 (B) of Republic Act No. 6713 otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, The third element was also satisfied. As to Ong: As chief executive and the proper appointing authority, Ong is deemed to have issued the certification recommending to the CSC approval of Galeos appointment. Since Ong was duty bound to observe the prohibition on nepotistic appointments, his certification stating compliance with Section 79 of R.A. No. 7160 constitutes a solemn affirmation of the fact that the appointee is not related to him within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity. Having executed the certification despite his knowledge that he and Rivera were related to each other within the fourth degree of affinity, as in fact Rivera was his cousin-in-law because the mother of Riveras wife is the sister of Ongs mother, Ong was

guilty of falsification of public document by making untruthful statement in a narration of facts. He also took advantage of his official position as the appointing authority who, under the Civil Service rules, is required to issue such certification. As to Galeos As to Galeos contention that leaving the boxes in blank cannot be considered as untruthful, the Court held that one is guilty of falsification in the accomplishment of his information and personal data sheet if he withholds material facts which would have affected the approval of his appointment and/or promotion to a government position. By withholding information on his relative/s in the government service as required in the SALN, Galeos was guilty of falsification considering that the disclosure of such relationship with then Municipal Mayor Ong would have resulted in the disapproval of his permanent appointment pursuant to Article 168 (j) (Appointments), Rule XXII of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No. 7160).

(basically made it appear that P5k P55k) plus other changes.9 QUIJADA noticed the alterations and instituted criminal action against GARCIA. GARCIA admitted the alteration, but countered that it was done in the presence and at the request of QUIJADA (no signature of QUIJADA coz he was in a hurry daw). GARCIA added that this was retaliation to the estafa case filed against QUIJADA. RTC: Against GARCIA. If she made changes in the receipt while Alberto was counting the money it would not have taken more than five (5) seconds to affix his signature thereon even if he was in a hurry to leave. Elements of Article 172 (2) in relation to Art 171(6) proven BRD. CA: Affirm conviction ISSUE: W/N GARCIA falsified the receipt (a private document) in violation of Art 172 in relation to Art 171. YES. RATIO: The elements of the crime of falsification under Article 171 (6) of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) that there be an alteration (change) or intercalation (insertion) on a document; (2) that it was made on a genuine document; (3) that the alteration or intercalation has changed the meaning of the document; and (4) that the changes made the document speak something false. When these are committed by a private individual on a private document the violation would fall under paragraph 2, Article 172 of the same code, but there must be, in addition to the aforesaid elements, independent evidence of damage or intention to cause the same to a third person. Given the admissions of GARCIA that she altered the receipt, and without convincing evidence that the alteration was with the consent of private complainant, the Court holds that all four (4) elements have been proven beyond reasonable doubt. As to the requirement of damage, this is readily apparent as it was made to appear that Alberto had
9 Inserted additional words 'Now covered by T.C.T. # 3998 R.D. Mandaluyong MM. the parties agree to execute of [sic] valid deed of conveyance covering the same sale, changed the date of the receipt and put P55k on top of the receipt

17.

18. GARCIA VS CA FACTS: GARCIA was charged with Falsification of a Private Document by being altering a receipt for P5000 to make it appear to be P55k. The receipt was the product of a verbal agreement between QUIJADA and GARCIA for the sale of formers house. A partial payment of P5k was made by GARCIA, and he prepared two handwritten, one for each of them. The deal went sour and GARCIA filed a complaint for estafa against QUIJADA for his failure to execute a deed of sale and deliver the subject property. Among the evidence she submitted was the copy of the receipt she prepared. However, the receipt appeared to have been altered, by inserting fifty before five and the number 5 was inserted before 5,000

received P50,000 when in fact he did not. Hence, GARCIA's conviction.

of the RPC. It was alleged that the accused falsified the vital information as appearing on the LTO Official Receipt. Panuncio denied that she was the source of the falsified documents. She alleged that Manlite, which she used to co-own with her late husband, had already stopped operating and the new business was under her name. She alleged that she was not home when the raid took place and when she did get home, the authorities had already emptied her shelves. She was forced to sign the warrant, inventory receipt and certificate of orderly search. She claimed that she was charged with falsification because she refused the police authorities demand for money. The RTC founder her guilty for the crime of falsification of a public document under Arts. 171 and 172. The CA affirmed with modification as to the sentence. Issue: Whether the elements of falsification of a public document under Art. 172 (1) in relation to Art. 171 of the RPC have been established - YES Ratio: The elements of the crime of falsification of a public document under these provisions are: 1) That the offender is a private individual or a public officer or employee who did not take advantage of his official position; 2) That he committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Art. 171; and 3) That the falsification was committed in a public, official or commercial document. In this case, Panuncio is a private individual. The MVRR is an official document issued by the LTO. It is the owners copy of the OR of the payment of the vehicles registration fee. Panuncio
registry, or official book. 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.

19. PANUNCIO v. PEOPLE Facts: Operatives of the LTO and the Special Mission Group Task Force Lawin of the Presidential Anti-Crime Commission (PACC) led by PNP Superintendent Panfilo Lascon and Senior Inspector Ouano, Jr. raided the residence of Panuncio, who was a jeepney operator. They were armed with a search warrant and confiscated LTO documents, 17 pieces of private vehicle plates, a copy machine, typewriters, etc. One of the LTO docs confiscated was MVRR No. 63231478 (Official Receipt ata) issued to Manlite Transport Corporation. Panuncio was arrested and brought to the PACC. The LTO filed a complaint against Panuncio and an Information was filed against him for violating Art. 172 (1) 10 in relation to Art. 171 11
10 Art. 172. Falsification by private individuals 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 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.
11

Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister. - The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed 5,000 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 of 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,

falsified the owners copy by making it appear that it was issued to a vehicle of Manlite with a plate number different from the vehicle for which it was issued in the LTOs files. The alteration she made changed the meaning of the document within the context of Art. 171 (6). Panuncio argues that the MVRR was not found in her possession and that it was not proved that she had participated in the criminal act. The SC disagrees. The falsified copy was found during a valid search conducted in her residence. It was issued in the name of Manlite, which she admitted was owned by her and her late husband. Thus, there is a presumption that she falsified it and she was using it for her benefit. The falsified document could be used for another vehicle operated by Manlite to make it appear that it was validly registered with the LTO.