Lecture 4

CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST

Counterfeiting the Great Seal of the Government of the Philippine Islands, etc.

Acts Punished:
Ø Forging the Great Seal of the Government of the Philippines
Ø Forging the signature of the President
Ø Forging the stamp of the President

Forging the seal of the Government, signature, or stamp of the Chief Executive is
committed when any person forges the Great Seal of the Government of the Philippines
or the signature or stamp of the Chief Executive.

When in a Government document the signature of the President is forged, it is not called
falsification. Article 161 of RPC governs the case. The name of the crime is forging the
signature of the Chief Executive.

Using Forged Signature or Counterfeit Seal or Stamp

Elements:
Ø the Great Seal of the Republic was counterfeited or the signature or stamp of the
Chief Executive was forged by another person
Ø the offender knew of the counterfeiting or forgery
Ø he used the counterfeit seal or forged signature or stamp

Offender under this article should not be the true forger otherwise he will be liable under
art. 161.

Making and Importing and Uttering False Coins

Elements:
Ø there be a false or counterfeited coins
Ø the offender either made, imported or uttered such coins
Ø in case of uttering such false or counterfeited coins, he connived with the
counterfeiters or importers

Definitions:
 Coin is a piece of metal stamped with certain marks and made current at a
certain value.
 A coin is false or counterfeited if it is forged or if it is not authorized by the
Government as legal tender, regardless of its intrinsic value.
 Counterfeiting means the imitation of a legal or genuine coin.
 To import fake coins means to bring them into port. The importation is
complete before entry at the Custom House.
 To utter is to pass counterfeited coins. It includes their delivery or the act of
giving them away.
Mutilation of Coins

Acts Punished:
Ø mutilating coins of the legal currency, with the further requirement that there be
intent to damage or to defraud another
Ø 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 means to take off part of the metal either by filing it or substituting it for
another metal of inferior quality. It is to diminish by ingenuous means the metal in the
coin.

 Counterfeiting – refers to money or currency

 Forgery – refers to instruments of credit and obligations and securities issued by
the Philippine Government or any banking institution authorized by the Philippine
Government to issue the same
 Falsification – can only be committed in respect to documents

Selling of False or Mutilated Coin, Without Connivance

Acts Punished:
Ø possession of coin, counterfeited or mutilated by another person, with intent to
utter the same, knowing that it is false or mutilated
Elements:
 possession
 intent to utter
 Knowledge
Ø actually uttering such false or mutilated coin, knowing the same to be false or
mutilated
Elements:
 actually uttering
 knowledge

Forging Treasury or Bank Notes or Other Documents Payable to Bearer; ETC

Acts Punished:
Ø Forging treasury or bank notes or other documents payable to bearer
Ø Importing such false or forged notes and documents
Ø Uttering such false or forged notes and documents in connivance with the forgers
or importers

An instrument is payable to bearer

Ø When it is expressed to be so payable

Ø When it is payable to person named therein or bearer
Ø When it is payable to the order of a fictitious or non-existing person and such fact
is known to the person making it so payable
 Ø When the name of the payee does not purport to be the name of any person or
Ø When the only or last indorsement is an indorsement in blank
Negotiable Instrument Law section 9

Other obligations or security

Ø Bonds
Ø Certificates of indebtedness
Ø National bank notes
Ø Coupons
Ø Treasury notes
Ø Fractional notes
Ø Certificates of deposits
Ø Bills
Ø Checks
Ø Drafts for money
Ø Other representatives of value

Counterfeiting, Importing and Uttering Instruments Not Payable to Bearer

Elements:
Ø there be an instrument payable to order or other document of credit not payable to
bearer
Ø the offender either forged, imported or uttered such instrument
Ø in case of uttering, he connived with the forger or importer

Illegal Possession and Use of False Treasury and Bank Notes and Other Instruments
of Credit

Elements:
Ø 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
Ø that the offender knows that any of those instruments is forged or falsified
Ø he performs any of these acts:
o using any of such forged or falsified instruments
o possessing with the intent to use any of such forged or falsified instruments

How forgery is committed? (Art. 169)

Ø 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
Ø by erasing, substituting, counterfeiting or altering by any means the figures, letters,
words, or sign contained therein.

Notice that mere change on a document does not amount to forgery. The essence of
forgery is giving a document the appearance of a true and genuine document.
FIVE CLASSES OF FALSIFICATION:
o Falsification of Legislative Documents
o Falsification of a Document by a Public Officer, Employee or Notary Public
o Falsification of a Public or Official, or Commercial Documents by a Private
Individual
o Falsification of a Private Document by Any Person
o Falsification of Wireless, Telegraph and Telephone Messages

Falsification of Legislative Documents

Elements:
Ø there is a bill, resolution or ordinance enacted or approved or pending approval by
either House of the Legislature or any provincial board or municipal council
Ø offender alters the same
Ø he has no proper authority therefor
Ø the alteration has changed the meaning of the documents

The crime of falsification must involve a writing, that is a document in the legal sense.
The writing must be complete in itself and capable of extinguishing an obligation or
creating rights or capable of becoming evidence of the facts stated therein. Until and
unless the writing has attained this quality, it will not be considered as document in the
legal sense and, therefore, the crime of falsification cannot be committed in respect
thereto.

Four Kinds of Documents:

o Public Document – any instrument notarized by a notary public or competent
public official with the solemnities required by law
o Official Document – any instrument issued by the government or its agents or its
officers having the authority to do so and the offices, which in accordance with
their creation, they are authorized to issue
o Commercial Document – any instrument executed in accordance with the Code of
Commerce or any mercantile law containing disposition of commercial rights or
obligations
o Private Document – every deed or instrument executed by a private person
without the intervention of a notary public or of any other person legally
authorized, by which document some disposition or agreement is proved,
evidenced or set forth

What is penalized in falsification of public document?

In a crime of falsification of public document, what is punished is the violation of faith

and trust of the public and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed.
The revocation of a falsified document is immaterial to the guilt of the one charged with
falsification (Hernando vs CA, May 1993).

Falsification of a Document by a Public Officer, Employee or Notary Public or

Ecclesiastical Minister
Elements:
Ø offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public
Ø he takes advantage of his official position
Ø he falsifies a document by committing any of the following acts:

o counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric

 Incounterfeiting, there is an imitation of the original
handwriting, signature or rubric.

 It is not necessary that the imitation be perfect; it is enough

that there be an attempt to imitate, and that the two
signatures, the genuine and the forged, bear some
resemblance to each other.

 Following from this logic: if there is a sufficient resemblance

between the real and the forged signatures, then it can be
concluded that the offender had the intention to imitate the
signature of the offended party.

o causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding

when they did not in fact so participate

 In falsification under paragraph 2, the imitation of the

signature is not necessary. It is substantial that the offender
caused it to appear in a document that a person participated in
an act or a proceeding, and such person did not in fact so
participate in the said act or proceeding.

 In the case of People vs. Villanueva (58 Phil. 671), the

defendant signed two documents by forging the signatures of
the offended party in order to receive the money orders and
appropriate the respective amounts thereof.
 The Court ruled that, even if the signatures of the offended
party had not been imitated on the money orders, the fact that
they were signed thereon to make it appear that they
intervened in the execution in the sense that they received the
corresponding amounts, when in fact they did not, is
sufficient to constitute the crime of falsification.

o attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding

statements other than those in fact made by them

 The requisites of falsification under paragraph 3 are the

following: (1) that a person participated in an act or a
proceeding; (2) that such person made statements in that act
or proceeding; and (3) that the offender, in making a
document, attributed to such person statements other than
those in fact made by such person.
  The case of U.S. vs. Capule (24 Phil. 13) suitably illustrated
falsification under paragraph 3 of Article 171.

In this case, the owners did not sell their land to the defendant
or that they executed in the defendant’s favor any document
of sale.

In fact, the owners of the land only conferred a power of

attorney upon the defendant so that the latter might represent
them in a suit because of their absolute confidence in the
defendant. However, the defendant executed acts constituting
falsification by counterfeiting the intervention of the owners
of the land, to whom he ascribed statements different from
what they had made to him.

The defendant made them to understand that the document

contained a power of attorney, when in fact it was a deed of
sale of the land, whereof the owners had never consented to
its alienation.

o making untruthful statements in a narration of facts

 Paragraph 4 talks about making untruthful statements in a narration
of facts, and the following are its requisites:

1. That the offender makes in a document statements in

a narration of facts;
2. That he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of
the facts narrated by him;
3. That the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely
false; and
4. That the perversion of truth in the narration of facts
was made with the wrongful intent of injuring a third
person.

 The most important thing to remember under this paragraph is

that there must be a legal obligation on the part of the accused
to disclose the truth of the facts narrated. It simply means that
there must be a law requiring the disclosure of the truth of the
facts narrated.

Thus, absent any legal obligation to disclose such truth, an

untruthful statement would no longer constitute the crime of
 falsification perpetrated by making false statements in a
narration of facts.

In People vs. Poserio (CA 53 OG 6159) , the prosecution has

failed to point to any law or ordinance imposing upon the
defendant the legal obligation to reveal his previous
conviction in filling the personal data sheet. Hence, the
defendant was acquitted.

o altering true dates

 There is falsification under paragraph 5 only when the date

in the document is essential, and the alteration of such date
must affect the veracity and the effects of the document.

 Thus, in the case of People vs. Reodica and Cordero (62 Phil.
567), when the municipal treasurer certified that he paid the
salary of an employee on July 31, when in fact it was done
on July 23, it was held that it was immaterial whether it was
done on July 23 or July 31.

The alteration of the date of the actual payment of the salary

of the employee, not being essential, did not affect either the
veracity of the document or the effects thereof.

o making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which

changes its meaning
 Elements:
o there is a genuine document
o an alteration or intercalation is made therein
o such changes the meaning of the document
o the change made the document speak something false

The word “alteration” has inherent in it the idea of deception –

making the instrument speak of something which the parties did not intend
to speak.

 In the case of People vs. Manansala (105 Phil. 1253), the

accused was found guilty of falsification of an official
document, by making alterations on a genuine document
which changed its meaning. The accused was arrested for
having in his possession a falsified duplicate copy of
Traffic Violation Report previously issued to him as a
temporary driver’s permit. The accused made alterations
to hide his previously pending traffic violation cases and
 thereby avoid immediate arrest should he be caught
committing another traffic violation.

o 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
a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original

 Acts of falsification under paragraph 7 can only be

committed by a public officer or notary public who takes
advantage of his official position because the
authentication of a document can be made only by the
custodian or the one who prepared and retained a copy of
the original document.

 An example is when a notary public made a supposed

copy of a deed of sale which was never executed and of
which he had no copy. Another is when a civil registrar
stated in a certified copy of a record of birth that the
person mentioned therein was legitimate when there was
no such statement in the original.

o intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a

protocol, registry, or official book

 Example: Making it appear in a registry book that parties were able

to receive a copy of Court Order when in fact no such order was
served upon the parties.

Ø in case the offender is an ecclesiastical minister who shall commit any of the
offenses enumerated, with respect to any record or document of such character that
its falsification may affect the civil status of persons:

Example:
o A priest who made it appear on record that the child he baptized was
a recognized illegitimate child when the supposed father did not
issue such recognition.
o A minister who made it appear that he solemnized a marriage which
did not actually transpire.

Falsification by Private Individual and Use of Falsified Documents

Under paragraph 1 of Article 172, the offender must be a private individual or a public
officer or employee who does not take advantage of his official position. Furthermore,
the offender under this article should commit any of the acts of falsification enumerated
in Article 171, and the falsification should be done in a public or official or commercial
document.
On the other hand, the elements of falsification under paragraph 2 of Article 172 are: (1)
that the offender committed any of the acts of falsification, except those in paragraph 7,
enumerated in Art. 171; (2) that the falsification was committed in any private document;
and (3) that the falsification caused damage to a third party or at least the falsification
was committed with intent to cause such damage.

Paragraph 1 of Article 172 does not punish falsification by a public officer or employee
who takes advantage of his official position. As stated above, it only punishes
falsification by a private individual or a public officer or employee who did not take
advantage of his official position. Whereas in paragraph 2, the offender is a private
individual.

In paragraph 1, damage or intent to cause damage is not necessary because in the

falsification of a public or official documents, whether by public officials or by private
persons, the principal thing punished is the violation of the public faith and the
destruction of the truth as solemnly proclaimed. Consequently, lack of malice or criminal
intent may be a defense in falsification of a public document.

Contrary to falsification of a public document under paragraph 1, mere falsification of

private documents under paragraph 2 is not enough. Two things are required: (1) the
offender must have counterfeited the false document, and (2) the offender must have
performed an independent act which operates to the prejudice of a third person.

What is meant by the Doctrine of Common element?

According to Justice Florenz Regalado, the doctrine of common element states that an
element used to complete one crime cannot be legally re-used to complete the requisites
of a subsequent crime.

Hence, as for an example, there can be no complex crime of estafa through falsification

of a private document. The immediate result of falsifying a private document is the same
as estafa. The fraudulent gain achieved via deception in estafa, in the commission of
which a private document was falsified, is nothing more than the damage caused by the
falsification of such document.

Therefore, the crime committed is falsification of a private document under paragraph 2

of Article 172 only if a private document is falsified to obtain from the offended party the
money which the offender later misappropriated; however, if a private document is
falsified to conceal the misappropriation of the money which has been in the possession
of the offender, the crime committed is estafa only.

Contrary to the falsification of a private document, the falsification of a public, official,

or commercial document may be a means of committing estafa because damage or intent
to cause damage is not necessary in the crime of falsification of a public document. Thus,
the two crimes form a complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code.

Acts Punished as Falsification by Private Individual and Use of Falsified

Documents:
 Ø Falsification of public, official or commercial document by a private individual
Ø Falsification of private document by any person
Ø Use of falsified document

Elements under paragraph 2:

(Falsification of private document by any person)
Ø offender committed any acts of falsification
o except Art. 171(7), that is, 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 a statement contrary to, or different
from, that of the genuine original
Ø falsification was committed in any private document
Ø falsification causes damage to a third party or at least the falsification was
committed with intent to cause such damage

Elements under the last paragraph:

(Use of falsified document)
In introducing in a judicial proceeding -
Ø offender knew that the document was falsified by another person
Ø the false document is embraced in Arts. 171 or 172 (1 or 2)
Ø he introduced said document in evidence in any judicial proceeding

In use in any other transaction -

Ø offender knew that the document was falsified by another person
Ø the false document is embraced in Arts. 171 or 172 (1 or 2)
Ø he used such document
Ø the use caused damage to another or at least used with intent to cause damage

Falsification of Wireless, Cable, Telegraph and Telephone Messages, and Use of

Said Falsified Messages

Acts Punished:
Ø uttering fictitious wireless, telegraph or telephone messages
o Elements:
 offender is an officer or employee of the government or an officer or
employee of a private corporation, engaged in the service of sending
or receiving wireless, cable or telephone messages
 he utters fictitious wireless, cable, telegraph or telephone messages

Ø falsifying wireless, telegraph or telephone messages

Elements:
 offender is an officer or employee of the government or an officer or
employee of a private corporation, engaged in the service of sending
or receiving wireless, cable or telephone messages
 he falsifies wireless, cable, telegraph or telephone messages

Ø Using such falsified message

o Elements:
  offender knew that wireless, cable, telegraph or telephone message
was falsified by an officer or employee of the government or an
officer or employee of a private corporation, engaged in the service
of sending or receiving wireless, cable or telephone messages
 he used such falsified dispatch
 the use resulted in the prejudice of a third party or at least there was
intent to cause such prejudice

False Medical Certificates, False Certificates of Merit or Service, etc.

Acts Punished:
Ø issuance of a false certificate by a physician or surgeon in connection with the
practice of his profession
Ø issuance of a false certificate of merit or service, good conduct or similar
circumstances by a public officer
Intent to gain is immaterial.
Ø falsification by a private person of any certificate falling within said paragraphs
(1) and (2)

The certificate need not refer to an illness or injury to exempt a person from the
performance of a public duty.

The crime is committed if the false certificate is issued to exempt a person from
performing a private duty.

However, it is essential that the medical certificate is issued knowing it to be false.

Using False Certificate

Elements:
Ø there must a false certificate as defined in Art. 174
Ø knowledge that the certificate is false
Ø offender uses the same

Use of the false certificates mentioned in Art. 174, whether in a judicial or any
proceeding with knowledge of their falsity, will subject the offender to prosecution under
Art. 175.

Manufacturing and Possession of Instrument or Implements for Falsification

Acts Punished:
Ø making or introducing into the Philippines any stamps, dyes, marks or other
instruments or implements intended to be used for counterfeiting
Ø possession with intent to use any of the instruments or implements mentioned
above

Usurpation of Authority or Official Functions

What is Usurpation of Authority?
Usurpation of authority is a crime defined in Article 177 of the RPC. This is committed
by any person who knowingly and falsely represents himself as an officer, agent, or
representative of any department or agency of the Philippine Government or of any
foreign government. The perpetrator shall suffer the penalty of prision correcional in its
minimum and medium periods.

Emphasis should be placed on the fact that, in usurpation of authority, the offender
knowingly and falsely represented himself to be a person in authority or public officer is
already sufficient to be criminally liable under Article 177.

What is Usurpation of Official Functions?

Usurpation of Official Functions is another crime penalized in Article 177 of the RPC.
This is the performance of any act pertaining to any person in authority or public officer
of the Philippine Government or of a foreign government or any agency thereof, under
pretense of official position, and without being lawfully entitled to do so. Said crime is
also given a penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.

It should be noted that in usurpation of official functions, in addition to the other

requisites, the essential circumstance present should be that there was an act performed
by the offender that pertains to the duty of a person in authority or public officer.

Acts Punished:
Ø (Usurpation of Authority) Knowingly and falsely representing oneself to be an
officer, agent or representative of any department or agency of the Philippine
Government or of any foreign government

Ø (Usurpation of Official Functions) Performing any act pertaining to any person

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

Using Fictitious Names and Concealing True Names

A fictitious name, based on jurisprudence, is defined as any other name which a person
publicly applies to himself without authority of law. (U.S. vs. To Lee 35 Phil. 4, G.R. No.
11522. September 26, 1916)

Acts Punished:
Ø using a fictitious name
Elements:
o offender uses a name other than his true name
o he uses the fictitious name publicly
o purpose of use is to conceal a crime, to evade execution of a judgment, or to
cause damage to public interest
Ø concealing true name
Elements:
 o offender conceals his true name and other circumstances
o purpose is only to conceal his identity

The main distinction between the two crimes is that in the use of a fictitious name,
publicity is an essential element for the crime, on the other hand in concealing one’s true
name and other personal circumstances, publicity is immaterial.

The main purpose in the use of fictitious name should fall upon the three enumerated
circumstances, which are to conceal, to evade the execution of a judgment, or to cause
damage, while in concealing true name, there is only a singular purpose which is to
conceal one’s identity.

Illegal Use of Uniforms or Insignias

Elements:
Ø offender publicly makes use of insignia, uniform or dress
Ø the insignia, uniform or dress pertains to an office not held by the offender or
pertains to a class of persons of which the offender is not a member

Exact imitation of the uniform is not necessary. Colorable resemblance calculated to

deceive the common run of people and not those thoroughly familiar with every detail or
accessory is sufficient.

FALSE TESTIMONIES:

A testimony is a form evidence obtained from a witness who makes a solemn statement

or declaration of fact.

The Revised Penal Code divides false testimony into three different forms. First is false
testimony in a criminal case which is provided under Article 180 and 181. Second is false
testimony in a civil case under Article 182. Lastly, false testimony in other cases.

False Testimony Against a Defendant

Elements:
Ø there is a criminal proceeding
Ø offender testifies under oath against the defendant therein
Ø offender who gives false testimony knows that it is false
Ø defendant against whom the false testimony is given is either acquitted or
convicted by final judgment

False testimony is a declaration under oath of a witness in a judicial proceeding which is

contrary to what is true, or to deny the same, or to alter essentially the truth.

False testimony requires a criminal intent and cannot be committed through negligence.

False testimony may be committed even if the false testimony is not considered or is not
given weight or even if the accused is acquitted.
False Testimony Favorable to the Defendant

Elements:
Ø a person gives a false testimony
Ø in favor of the defendant
Ø in a criminal case

Intent to favor the accused is essential in this kind of false testimony. However, it is not
necessary that the false testimony given should directly influence the decision of
acquittal.

False Testimony in Civil Cases

Acts Punished:
Ø by falsely testifying under oath
Ø by making a false affidavit

Perjury is the willful and corrupt assertion of falsehood under oath or affirmation
administered by authority of law on a material matter.

Elements:
Ø offender makes a statement under oath or executes an affidavit upon a material
matter
Ø the statement or affidavit is made before a competent officer, authorized to receive
and administer oaths
Ø offender makes a willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood in the statement or
affidavit
Ø the sworn statement or affidavit containing falsity is required by law, that is, made
for legal purpose

Material matter means the main fact which is the subject of the inquiry, or any
circumstance which tends to prove the fact, or any fact or circumstance which tends to
corroborate or strengthen the testimony relative to the subject of the inquiry, or which
legitimately affects the credit of any witness who testified.

Distinction Between False Testimony and Perjury:

 While both are perversions of the truth, false testimony is given in the course of a
judicial proceeding, whereas perjury is any willful and corrupt assertion of
falsehood on a material matter under oath and not necessarily given in judicial
proceedings.

 False testimony contemplates an actual trial where judgment of conviction or

acquittal is rendered and not merely a preliminary investigation, whereas perjury
may be committed even during a preliminary investigation as well as in the
making of a false affidavit under oath on a material matter when required by law.
Offering False Testimony in Evidence

Elements:
Ø offender offers in evidence a false witness or testimony
Ø he knows that the witness or the testimony is false
Ø the offer was made in any judicial or official proceeding

A special law which is Republic Act [RA] No. 11584 entitled “An Act Increasing the
Penalties for Perjury, Amending for The Purpose Articles 183 And 184 Of the Act No.
3815, As Amended, Otherwise Known as The Revised Penal Code“ has been enacted.

Gordon, who chairs the Senate justice and human rights committee, hailed
the signing of Republic Act (RA) 11594 which amends Articles 183 and 184
of the Revised Penal Code that sets the punishment for the crime of perjury.

“The new law should be a stark reminder to everyone, especially to those

who are called to testify before the courts and any other legal proceeding,
that lying under oath shall be meted with stricter penalties,” he said.

“Increasing the penalties for perjury would send a strong signal to all that
even those in power shall be held accountable for their lies. You cannot lie
under oath and go scot-free anymore,” he added.

Under the new law, perjury is punishable by prison mayor, or six years and
one day to eight years, to its medium period of eight years and one day to
10 years.

The effect of the mentioned special penal law on the provisions of Article 183 of the
Revised Penal Code is that the amendment in the said law increase the penalties for
perjury from “arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correctional in it minimum
period” to “prision mayor in its minimum period”.

RA 11594 also provides “that the offender shall also suffer a fine not to exceed One
million pesos (P1,000,000.00) and perpetual absolute disqualification from holding any
appointive or elective position in the government or in any agency, entity, or
instrumentality thereof.” This change in the law, which increases the penalty for perjury,
will deter individuals from committing the crime. It will assure that folks would think
twice before committing the criminal act.

In the case of People vs. Reyes (C.A., 48 O.G. 1837), the accused in the case was the star
witness in a prosecution for robbery against Jemenia. Before the trial, an affidavit was
executed by the accused and manifested that in the prosecution of the case, he was not
interested and wanted to give the accused a chance of living in wisely and in the honest
way.

However, the dismissal of the case was being asked to refuse by the fiscal. Subsequently,
the case was called for trial and the accused testified that he could not remember anymore
the face of Jemenia when he was asked to identify Jemenia. After subsequent
interrogation failed to extract any information, the court dismissed the case against
Jemenia, resulting in his acquittal.

The court ruled that the defense’s claim that Jemenia’s acquittal was attributable to the
fiscal’s refusal to summon additional witnesses who may have accurately identified
Jemenia was irrelevant.

It is not essential for the witness’s testimony to directly impact the acquittal judgment; it
is sufficient that it was delivered with the aim to benefit and favor the accused. In this
case, false testimony in favor of defendant need not directly influence the decision of
acquittal.

ACTS PUNISHED AS MACHINATIONS

Ø By soliciting any gift or promise as a consideration for refraining from taking part
in any public auction.
Ø By attempting to cause bidders to stay away from auction by threats, gifts, promise
or any other artifice.

Elements of Soliciting gifts or promise:

Ø There be a public auction.
Ø Accused solicited any gift or promise from any of the bidders.
Ø Such gift or promise was the consideration for his refraining from taking part in
the public auction.
Ø The accused had the intent to cause the reduction of price of the thing auctioned.

Elements of attempting to cause bidders to stay away:

Ø Public auction.
Ø Accused attempted to cause the bidders to stay away from the public auction.
Ø It was done by threats, promise, or other artifice.
Ø Accused had the intent to cause the reduction of the price being auctioned.

The crime is consummated by:

   - mere solicitation of gift or promise as consideration for not bidding, or
   - by mere attempt to cause prospective bidders to stay away from an auction

The threat need not be effective nor the offer or gift accepted for the crime to arise.

Acts punished in article 187:

Knowingly (a) importing (b) selling (c) disposing of any article or merchandise made of
gold, silver of other precious metals which does not indicate actual fineness or quality of
said metals. When stamp, brand, label or mark deemed to fail to indicate actual fineness
of article:
Ø If made of gold, when less by more than one-half (1/2) karat than what is
shown in the brand or stamp;
 Ø If made of silver, when less by more than four one thousandth than what is
shown in the brand or stamp;
Ø In case of watch cases and flatware made of gold, when less by more than
three one thousandth than what is indicated in the brand or stamp.

Acts punished as substituting and altering trademarks, trade names or service

marks

Acts punished:
Ø By substituting the tradename, trademark of some other manufacturers or dealers
or a colorable imitation thereof for the trade or trademark of the real manufacturer
or dealer upon any article of commerce and (b) selling the same.
Ø By selling or offering for sale such articles of commerce, knowing that the
tradename or trademark has been fraudulently used.
Ø By using or substituting the service mark of some other person or a colorable
imitations of such marks in the sale or advertising of his services.
Ø By printing, lithographing, reproducing trademark or service mark of one person
or colorable imitation thereof to enable another person to fraudulently use the
same knowing the fraudulent purpose for which it is to be used.

One of the distinguishing characteristics of tradenames is that, unlike trademarks, they

are not necessarily attached or affixed to the goods of the owner.

Tradenames are protected against use or imitation upon the ground of unfair competition.
The purpose of the law is to protect the manufacturer or dealer as well as the public. The
trademark must be registered.

Unfair competition, Fraudulent Registration of Trademarks, etc.

Acts punished:
Ø Unfair competition by selling goods giving them the appearance of goods another;
Ø Affixing in goods false designation of origin; and
Ø Fraudulent registration of trademark, tradename or service mark.

Unfair competition consists in employing deception or any other means contrary to good
faith by which any person shall pass off the goods manufactured by him or which he
deals or his business or services for those of one having established goodwill or
committing any act calculated to produce the said result.

The true test of unfair competition is whether certain goods have been clothed with an
appearance which is likely to deceive the ordinary purchaser exercising ordinary care and
not whether a certain limited class of purchasers with special knowledge not possessed
by the ordinary purchaser could avoid mistake by the exercise of special knowledge.
The trademark owner is given protection since there is damage to him from the confusion
of goods.