CASE

Torres vs. People GR 241164 14 August 2019

SYLLABUS TOPIC FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENT

FACTS - There is a 6 criminal case for

falsification of documents against
Crizalina B. Torres an intelligence
agent 1 of the NBI Mindanao
- That she falsified her date time record
in her office from august to November
and her application for leave on
October and november
- She allegedly falsified the respective
signatures of officers on her DTR’s
making it appear that they verified the
same and that she reported for work
despite not doing so.
- Names and or signature appeared on
the subject DTRs denied having
signed the same
- Minguez in charge supervision over
Torres admitted that he has not seen
the subject DTRs or has signed any
DTR of petitioner for October to
November also there is no copy of the
subjct DTRs on the file with their
officer where they are normally kept.
He also not seen the petitioner report
to work for 6 months and he denies
his signatures appearing on the DTRs

RTC Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of

Falsification of Public Document

CA Affirmed the decision of the RTC

ISSUE Whether or not the CA erred on the decision

that she is guilty for the crime of falsification
of public document- NO

SC RULING - NO. the court held that direct

evidence is not a condition to prove
the guilt of an accused because if that
so then heinous crimes in secret
places will be hard, if not impossible
to prove
- In crimes of falsification of a public
 document it is possible that secrecy
may have been employed by the
perpetrator, in such case it is only
logical and proper for the prosecution
to resort to the presentation of
circumstantial evidence in the
absence of direct evidence to
establish the guilt of the accusedNext
is that all of the elements of
falsification were established by the
prosecution
- the offender is public officer
- offender takes advantage of
her official position
- offender falsified a document
by committing any acts of
falsification
- in first element Torres is a public
officer, second is that he take
advantage of his official position when
he has the duty to make or prepare in
the preparation of a document which
she falsifies and third is that her
continuous absent and applications
for leave are not signed by the names
mention on the document
- with all the elements present in the
crime of falsification, the court finds no
error on the part of CA in affirming the
conviction of the petitioner. Petitioner
is denied petitioner is utility for thee
crime of falsification of public
document

CASE
Liwanag Sr. vs. People GR 205260 29 July
2019

SYLLABUS TOPIC FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENT

FACTS - C/insp Ruben Liwanag a police officer

of the western police district command
was indicted for falsification of public
document under ART 171 of the RPC
- The version of he prosecution states
that a vehicular accident occurred in
Binan Laguna, involving Liwanag jr
and Noelia Enoc and Noel Agcopra.
 - Liwagan Jr did not present any
driver’s license but only a Temporary
Operators’ Permit that was issued by
his father Liwanag sr.
- It was also found out that Liwanag Jr
is a minor and he was born on 1977
and not1974 as written in the TOP
meaning he is still a minor and not
eligible to hold a driver’s license.
- As the version of the defense,
Liwanag Sr admitted that he filled out
the TOP but denied issuing it to his
son. He only uses it on the duties and
functions of traffic aides. He also
states that his son had his own
driver’s license and the TOP was only
recovered from his son’s car during
the accident

RTC - The trial court ruled that Liwanag Sr.

Is guilty for the crime of falsification of
public document

CA - CA affirmed the decision of the trial

court

ISSUE - Whether or not CA erred in affirming

the conviction for falsification of public
documents against Liwanag Sr.- NO

SC RULING - NO. The Court held that CA is correct

in affirming the decision of the trial
court for the conviction of Liwanag Sr.
- In this case Liwanag Sr. Entered his
son’s name on the TOP, he made a
false entry pertaining to the son’s
birthday, and he altered his badge
number making it appear that he had
authority to issue the subject TOP.
- indeed, Liwanag Sr. Issued a TOP to
his son in order to cause to third
person the intent to cause such
damage becomes immaterial.
- Wherefore, the court held that
Liwanag Sr. Is guilty for the crime of
falsification of public document.

CASE BATULANON V PEOPLE

SYLLABUS TOPIC FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENT

FACTS - There are four information for estafa

thru falsification of commercial
document were filed against
Batulanon
- The information states that Batulanon
falsified four commercial documents
namely Cash/check voucher in order
to make it appear that the said person
was granted a loan when in truth and
in fact the said person was never
granted a loan.
- There are 3 witnesses presented by
the prosecutor namely Medallo, Gopio
jr. And Jayoma
- Medallo stated the her job was to
assist Batulanon in the preparation of
cash voucher, she testified that the
person were not eligible to apply for
loan, she sila so states that she saw
Batulanon sigh the names of Oracion
and Arroyo in cash vouchers even if
there are not eligible to be granted by
loan
- Gopio Jr, states that he is a member
of board of directors, he corroborated
Medallo’s testimony
- Jayoma, was the vice-chairman of the
PCCI board of directors, he testified
that the loans made did not pass
through the cooperative’s credit
committee and board of directors for
screening purposes. And he claimed
that the signature was Batulanon
handwriting,
- She denied all the charges against
her and claimed that she did not sign
the vouchers.

RTC - Convicted Leonila Batulanon guilty for

the crime of Falsification of Private
Documents

CA - CA affirmed the decision of the trial

court

ISSUE - Whether or not the ca erred in

convicting Batulanon for the crime of
falsification of private document-NO
SC RULING - NO. The court held that with the
testimony of the witnesses it was
proved that he falsified the said
cash/check voucher with intent to gain
- Also, witness Medallo, declared that
she saw Batulanon forge the
signatures in the vouchers and made
it appear that the amount therein were
actually received by these persons,
also Medallo is a assistant of
Batulanon in the preparation of the
vouchers he knows the handwriting of
Batulanon and acquired knowledge
that in the document it is the
handwriting of Batulanon
- since there is no complex crime of
estafa through falsification of private
documents . Batulano was charge for
3 counts of falsification of private
document and guilty of estafa

CASE DESMOPARAN V PEOPLE

SYLLABUS TOPIC FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENT

FACTS - Convicted petitioner Juvy

Desmoparan of estafa through
falsification of commercial document
- Desmoparan applied for a salary loan
in the amount of 105,000 from Cebu
CFI community
cooperative-dumaguete branch. He
misinterpreted himself to be an
employee of the CIty Engineer’s office
by using the name Rodolfo M Cordura
to Mirasol loan clerk of CFI
- when Mirasol ask for identification
card, Desmoparan present
employee’s id bearing the name of
Rodolfo Cordura to support his
application for loan
- In order to receive initial cash
advance he also presented the id
bearing the name Cordura to Perocho
cashier/teller of CFI
- Perochoo released amounting to
20,000 on March 2, 2012 and
additional 10,000 on March 9, 2012
 and another 10,000 on March 10,
2012. Desmoparan signed all 3 cash
voucher in the name of Cordura
- On March 16, real COrdura went to
CFI to verify the information that
somebody fraudulently applied for a
salary loan using his name and
qualification. He told that he did not
apply for loan nor apply for
membership with CFI
- On the same day, Sinco branch
manager of CFI and his team caught
one Mercado using the name and
credential of Catan applying for loan,
during investigation Mercado revealed
that it was desmoparan who recruited
him to submit bogus loan applications
with CFI
- He testified that Desmoparan
approached him and told him he had
a simple job for him. Desmoparan told
him that all he needed to do is to
submit the documents and said that
he had already done this twice

RTC - Trial court finds the accused guilty for

the offense of Estafa through
Falsification of Commercial Document

CA - The CA Denied the appeal and

affirmed the decision of the trial court

ISSUE - Whether or not the CA erred in

convicting Desmoparan despite failure
to prove his guilty beyond reasonable
doubt- NO

SC RULING - NO. The Court held that the CA did

not erred in proving his guilt for the
complex crime of estafa through
falsification of commercial document
since the falsification was established
to be a necessary means to commit
estafa
- In this case all the elements of
Falsification of commercial documents
are present. First, Desmoparan is a
private individual. Second, Act of
falsification consisted in
Desmoparan's act of causing it to
 appear that Cordura had participated
in the act of applying for a loan when
in fact he did not do so. Thirds,
application for loan, deed of
assignment and promissory note is a
commercial document because it is
used by merchants or businessmen to
promote or facilitate trade or credit
transaction.
- Desmoparan also never denied that
he fraudulently used Cordura’s name
and qualification to apply for the
salary loan.
- It is clear that he is the one who uses
the name of Cordura to apply for loan
and it was also testified by Mercado
that Desmoparan done it twice and
never caught

CASE CONSTANTINO V PEOPLE

SYLLABUS TOPIC FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENT

FACTS - Atty Constantino guilty of falsification

of a public document under Art 171
(2)
- An information filed against Atty
Constantino and Saliganan charging
them with falsification of a public
document
- that Constantino taking advantage of
his being a notary public for Laoag
City and Ilocos Norte together with
Saliganan cause to appear in the Last
will and testament executed by
Cabrales in favor of the accused
Saliganan. Constantino makes it
appear that Cabrales participated in
the execution of last will and
testament when in fact he did not
participate.
- Fernando son of Cabrales secured a
copy of the purported last will and
testament, he claimed that the
signature in the document was not
severino’s and the document was
notarized by Constantino with the
witnesses signed were Cu, Balintona
 spouses and Dr Asuncion when in
truth they never appeared to
acknowledge the same.
- Dr. Asuncion admitted that he signed
the document that was being ask by
Ferrer, Saliganan son-in-law, having
known Ferrer as a member of his
motorcycle club
- In the defense of Atty, that Cabrales
said that he was executing a will and
Atty advise Cabrales to bring a listing
of his assets and properties with
which Cabrales complied
- Atty brought the copies of the Last will
and testament early in the morning
and it was signed by Cabrales with his
hands trembling. Atty also asked
Cabrales if he would like to place his
thumb mark on the document,
Cabrales agreed and asked Saliganan
to assist him.
- Trial court found Atty. liable for making
it appear that Dr. Asuncion appeared
before him and witnessed the
execution of the last will and
testament.
- It is prohibited from notarizing
incomplete document or false
information

RTC - the trial court found Atty guilty for the

crime of Falsification of public
document

CA - Affirmed the decision of the trial court

ISSUE - Whether or not Atty. Constantino is

Guilty of Falsification of Public
Document- NO

SC RULING - NO. The Court held that Dr. Asuncion

signed the Joint Acknowledgement
after it was notarized by petitioner.
- Based on the findings of the court Dr.
Asuncion signed the document at the
urging of Ferrer and that petitioner
seemed unaware that Dr. Asuncion
later signed the document. The
signing of Dr Asuncion was made
after it was notarized and the
 signature was genuine and that Dr
Asuncion was aware of what he was
signing so there is no falsification
happening in the case.
- Wherefore the court held that Atty.
Constantino is acquitted for the crime
of falsification of public documents.

CASE GALEOS V PEOPLE

SYLLABUS TOPIC FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENT

FACTS - Gales was convicted for four counts of

falsification of public documents under
ART 171 par. 4 of the RPC
- Galeos was appointed by Ong as
construction and Maintenance man
prior to permanent appoint GALEOS
was casual employee of the municipal
government
- in the SALN of Galeon for the year
1993, he answered no to the question
if he is related with the fourth degree
of consanguinity or of affinity to
anyone working in the government. In
1994 and 1995 he left it blank. In
1996, he did not fill up the box
indicating their answer to thee same
query
- in 1998 sangguniang bayan of naga
filed a letter-complaint to GALEOS for
the crime of falsification of public
document in false statement in the
year 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996
- Ong was related to GALEOS, within
the fourth degree of consanguinity as
his mother is the sister of GALEOS
mother.

RTC - sandiganbayan rendered its decision

finding GALEOS guilty for the crime of
falsification of public document

CA

ISSUE - Whether or not the Sandiganbayan

erred in not considering GALEOS
valid defense of good faith and lack of
 intent to commit the crimes imputed

SC RULING - NO. The Court held that

Sandiganbayan did not erred in
considering GALEOS valid defense of
good faith
- The petitioners are guilty of
falsification of public documents.
● The court found that the elements
of falsification of public documents
were present in this case.
● The petitioners made untruthful
statements in a narration of facts in
the SALNs.
● They had a legal obligation to
disclose the truth of the facts
narrated.
● The facts narrated were absolutely
false.
● The court also found that the
petitioners took advantage of their
official positions in making the
falsification.
● The court rejected the petitioners'
arguments that the statements in
the SALNs were conclusions of law
rather than a narration of facts.
● The court held that the statements
in question were descriptions of
relationships and did not require
the application of law.
● The court also found that the
petitioners' defense of lack of
knowledge of their relationship was
not credible, considering their
close blood relation and the nature
of local politics.
● In conclusion, the court affirmed
the conviction of the petitioners for
falsification of public documents
and upheld the decision of the
Sandiganbayan.