Crim 2 Notes 5

(170-179)
Forgery in 169 falsification and counterfeiting of treasury/bank notes or any instruments
payable to bearer or to order.
Falsification commission of any of the 8 acts mentioned in Art. 171 on legislative (only the act
of altering), public/official, commercial, or private documents, or wireless, or telegraph
messages.
170
Elements:
o There be a bill, resolution or ordinance 1) enacted or approved or 2) pending
approval by either a) House of the Legislature or any b) provincial board or
municipal council
o Offender alters the same
o With no proper authority therefor
o That the alteration has changed the meaning of the document
Note: Municipal council includes city council or municipal board.
-

Penalty: Prision correccional (maximum) and 6,000php or less fine

The bill, resolution, or ordinance altered must be genuine. A fabricated or simulated

legislative document is not covered.
Offender may be a private individual or a public officer
Application: Falsification via altering to change meaning
o Other falsifications fall under 171 or 172 even if it is a legislative document
RA 248 prohibits reprinting, reproduction or republication of government publications
and official documents without previous authority.

171
Elements:
o Offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public
o He takes advantage of his official position
o He falsified a document by committing any of the following:
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 authenticated form a document 1) purporting to be a copy of
an original document when no such original exists, or 2) including in such
copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine
original.
8 - Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a
protocol, registry or official book.
o In case the offender is an ecclesiastical minister, the act of falsification is
committed with respect to any record or document of such character that its
falsification may affect the civil status of persons.

Penalty: prision mayor and 5,000php or less fine

Persons Liable: only public officer, employee or notary public or ecclesiastical minister
can be the offender
o Eccelesiastical minister violates this article via committing any of the acts on a
record/document of such character that falsification may affect civil status of
persons
Takes advantage of official position
o 1 he had duty to 1) make or to 2) prepare or otherwise to 3) intervene in the
preparation of the document
o 2 he has the official custody of the document which he falsifies
If no taking advantage = liable under 172 as private person
If a private individual OR a public officer not taking advantage of position = 172!

Offender falsifies a document

o Document any written statement by which a right is established or an
obligation extinguished; a writing by which a fact may be proven and affirmed
A draft not yet approved by proper authority can prove nothing and
affirm nothing NOT document
Pamphlets does not proved a fact, agreement or disposition NOT
document but merchandise
o Document must be complete or have the appearance of a true and genuine
document.
o Document must be of apparent legal efficacy.
Making an invalid writing will not signed by requisite number of
witnesses = NOT falsification
o Genuine Document Necessary In par. 6, 7 (2nd part), and 8
In other paragraphs, falsification may be committed by simulating or
fabricating a document

o Document is deemed to be an official document. Even private documents, when

put under official custody or put part of official record treated as if official
document. = punishable if falsified
o Falsification the document need not be made on official form; it suffices that it
is given appearance or made to appear similar to the official form
-

Par. 1 Counterfeiting or Imitating (Feigning) any Handwriting, Signature or Rubric

(HSR)
o 2 Ways of Committing Falsification in par. 1
Counterfeiting imitating any HSR
Feigning simulating a HSR out of one which does in fact exist
o Mere making a false document = not enough; signature, handwriting or mark
of another person MUST be SIGNED OR MADE by offender without authority
o In counterfeiting, there is original signature or handwriting which is imitated
but need not be perfectly imitated
REQUISITES of Counterfeiting:
o 1 there be intent to imitate OR attempt to imitate
o 2 the two signatures or handwritings (genuine and forged) bear some
resemblance to each other
o Intent or Attempt may be proven by comparison of the genuine and alleged
forged signature/handwriting if there is sufficient resemblance = conclude that
there was intention and attempt
o Resemblance must be that which is likely to deceive an ordinary person
receiving or dealing with the document.
Includes signatures in check which is a bit different but may have passed
in rush of business
o If there was intent/attempt to imitate BUT there is NO resemblance may be
guilty under par. 2 of 171 causing it to appear that those persons have
participated in the act when they did not in fact so participate.
Feigning
o NO original S,H,R
o Forgery of a non-existent signature, handwriting or rubric
o Feign to represent by false appearance; to give mental existence to; to imagine
Ex. Making will signed by a certain Cajucom when as a matter of fact she
died a year before = falsification by feigning
Making it appear that a person who does not know how to write has
signed, may be considered feigning.

Par. 2 Causing it To Appear That Persons Have Participated in Act or Proceeding

REQUISITES:
o Offender caused it to appear that a person participated in an act or proceeding
o That such person/s did not in fact so participate in the act or proceeding
o Applies to private individuals.
Ex. Putting thumbmarks in list of voters opposite the names of electors
who have not actually voted

Par. 3 Attributing to Persons who have Participated in any act or proceeding statements
other than those in fact made by them
REQUISITES:
o Person/s participated in an act or proceeding
o Such person/s made statements in that act/proceeding
o Offender, in making a document, attributed to such person/s statements other than
those in fact made by such person/s

Par. 4 Making Untruthful Statements in a Narration of Facts

REQUISITES
o Offender makes in a document statements in narration of facts
o He has legal obligation to disclose the truth of facts narrated by him
o Facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false
o The perversion of truth in narration of facts was made with wrongful intent of
injuring a 3rd person
o It must be a narration of facts, not of conclusion of law.
Ex. Conclusion of Law eligible to be councilor (despite below 23)
Narration of Facts birthday is April 10, 1990 when in fact it was
1995
o Legal obligation = law requiring disclosure of the truth of facts narrated
Ex. When law requiring such is abolished/removed the untruthful
statement is not covered by this provision.
Legal obligation to disclose truth is inherent in residence certificate by
its nature and purpose. it was for establishing his true and correct
identity
o Person making narrations of facts must be aware of the falsity of the facts
narrated by him. (as there must be malicious intent)
o Absolutely false must be totally and not just partly false
Ex. Worked for 3 hours and left narration: worked at the days stated
NOT falsification

 If there is colorable truth in such statements = not falsification

o Perversion of truth must be animated by a desire to do wrong to, or injure, a third
person which must be clearly shown.
Wrongful intent is not essential when document falsified is public
document.
There is no falsification by one who acted in good faith ex. Belief that
he actually owned the thing.
Consent to contract obtained via violence = NOT false narrated facts
not a simulated document, signature are genuine just vitiated consent
Can be committed by omission signed several chits, intentionally did not
record in personal account such chits and destroyed them to avoid
paying the amount guilty
-

Par. 5 Altering true dates

o Date must be essential to the document. Such date must affect either the
veracity of the document or the effects thereof.
Ex. Altering records in police blotter to allow case be within 10 days or
be out of it delay in preliminary investigation
Dates of birth, marriage, and death are essential because without
them the documents cannot produce any legal effect.
Even if the integrity of the document was not affected, there is
falsification if the act is committed, not by ignorance or mistake but rather
to prevent discovery of an illegal appropriation of public funds.

Par. 6 Making Alteration/Intercalation in a Genuine Document which changes meaning

REQUISITES
o There be alteration (change) or intercalation (insertion) on a document;
o It was made on a genuine document
o Aleration/intercalation has changed the meaning of the document
o The change made the document speak something false
Ex. Traffic violation report = 3 1 to avoid 4th violation
o Alteration which speaks the truth is not falsification. This would be a
correction and not a falsification.
o Altering grades in bar exam papers involves several acts of falsification 1)
making alterations on genuine documents; 2) making it appear correctors
participated in blotting out the grades and writing new increased grades; 3)
attributing to correctors statements other than those made

Par. 7 Issuing in authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy when no such

original exists; or including in copy a statement different from that of genuine original

o Such acts can be committed ONLY by a public officer or notary public who
takes advantage of his official positions, since 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.
o 1 purporting to be a copy of a factually non-existent original
Ex. Notary public made supposed copy of a deed of sale which was never
executed and of which he had no copy.
o 2 including in a copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the
genuine original
Ex. Civil registrar stated in certified copy of record of birth that the person
mentioned therein was legitimate when there was no such statement in the
original.
o A private individual in falsification by a public officer with conspiracy is guilty
of this crime.
o Intent to gain or prejudice is not necessary as it is the official character of the
offender which is mainly taken into consideration.
Lastrilla vs. Granda (Jan. 31, 2006) 481 SCRA 324
-

Granda is the grandson and legal heir of deceased spouses Rafael and Aurora (who had
10 children including Silvina and Jesse)
o Jesse died before the spouses
Duing Auroras (lola) lifetime, she owned several parcels of land in Tacloban all
registered in her name
o These lands were allegedly sold by the spouses according to 3 deeds of absolute
sale (dated 1985) to Uy siblings, to some Uy Siblings again, and to Lastrilla
spouses
As witnessed by grandson Granda, daughter, Silvina, and Atty.
Camenforte
On 2000, the deeds of absolute sale were cancelled and new ones were issued in favor of
the buyers.
The deed of absolute sale to Lastrilla spouses were not annotated as the TCT was
found to be non-existent
2001 5 months after Aurora died; Granada filed this case for violation of 171 and 172
against Silvina, Atty. Camenforte, Wife Lastrilla, and Uy siblings
o All properties were sold in 1999-2000
o The signature of his deceased grandparents were falsified as confirmed by
PNP
o The PNP says that the strokes of forged signature of his deceased
grandfathers and signature of Silvina had similarities possibly made by
one same person

o Also, the 3 deeds of sale were antedated the sale took place on 1999-200 but
it was made to appear that it happened in 1985 when both of the spouses
Granda were still alive
Lastrilla himself told Granda that he bought it in 1999
Silvina couldnt have testified as she was cloistered in Cariana Movement
Monastery as noted by Fr. Odon Castro
Aurora still exercised rights of ownership over the properties after 1985
as evidenced when in 1999 she executed Gen. Power of Atty. to Silvina to
administer properties and collect rentals (meaning it was still under her
name and only Silvina administered)
Not notarized in 1985 but in 2000 (15 years after alleged sale)
Silvina and Camenforte probably conspired!
o Uy spouses presented Deed of Assignment from Rafael Granda himself
o Robert Lastrilla (and his siblings and wife) also claimed that it was bad faith and
for additional money consideration since Rafael Granda had to share the 1M with
his six siblings
It was Robert who had to ensure that signatures on deeds were all authentic
and genuine. Rafael affixed signature as witness as asked by Aurora (grandma)
o Defense of Lastrilla: They never acquired the land even if registered only in 2000
because there was adverse claimant.
Who falsified? (Fiscal said: )
o NOT Uy siblings they proved they paid in full 18M to Aurora and heirs and not
denied by Granda
o NOT spouses Lastrilla as they paid 200,000php without acquiring property since
the description is erroneous
Appealed to DOJ affirmed City Prosecutor
o Granda did not question sale transactions he in fact confirmed validity of sale
made by Aurora by signing
o Granda acknowledge sufficient consideration in form of money payment for the
lands
o Other heirs of Aurora did not join Rafael Granda
o No right violated as Aurora had free disposition
o It is odd for the action to be filed only after death of Aurora as Rafael knew of the
sale even before Auroras death he in fact signed a Ded of Assignment
Lack of criminal intent of Lastrilla = no falsification
Filed for review in CA
CA probable cause exists, city prosecutor should filed information against Lastrilla
o Lastrilla knew that he knew that the 3 deeds of sale were falsified and yet still
signed them as witness
o Lastrilla was personally responsible for registering the falsified deeds
o Lastrilla caused he cancellation of the TCTs
o Lastrilla effected the issuance of the new TCTs

Hence, this case as appeal by Lastrilla questioning the probable cause finding violation of
172 (1) and 171 (1, 2, 5)

SC: No question that all elements of falsification are present counterfeiting signature,
causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act when they did not, and altering
true dates
W/N there is probable cause to engender belief that Lastrilla is one of the authors of
falsification
YES.
Probable Cause - the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief, in
a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person
charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted
It is well-settled that "a finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing
that more likely than not a crime has been committed and was committed by the suspects.
Lastrilla signed as witness to the deeds of sale attesting that the Granda spouses signed
said deeds in is presence on 1985. His own admission, however, states that negotiations
only started in 1998 such deeds were antedated. The PNP also found the signatures of the
spouses were forged especially since husband Granda died in June 1989.
The disputable presumption is that a person intends the ordinary consequences of his
voluntary act and takes ordinary care of his concerns. This presumption assumes greater
significance to the case of petitioner who, as "the one tasked [by his siblings] to ensure that
the signatures on the subject deeds were all authentic and genuine," is naturally expected to
not have voluntarily affixed his signature in the subject deeds unless he understood the clear
significance of his act.
Also, he did cause the registration of the falsified deeds and caused cancellation of TCTs
and eventually effected issuance of new TCTs.
Petitioner's defense that it was actually Aurora who effected the transfer cannot
overcome the presumption in favor of the Register of Deeds that in issuing the certifications,
official duty has been regularly performed claim not corroborated vs. Register of Deeds
show date is 2000 and it was Lastrilla who presented for registration.
Other Defenses: No criminal intent as DOJ said Granda did not question the deeds and
even signed; other heirs did not complain; Granda had no right violated as properties were
free disposition for Aurora (grandma) + good faith falsified yes but not punishable as it was
authorized by Aurora
SC: NO!
1- contention that the validity of the sale transactions was not disputed is contrary to the
allegations of respondent and the evidence on record. he complained via filing case that
such deeds were false and fraudulent nga eh + TCTs had an adverse claim Granda
himself actually saying that deeds were simulated

2- The signature in the deeds of assignment were for acknowledging money from the Uy
siblings
3- The charge of ill-motive due to late complaint (after death of Aurora) are speculative and
not sufficient to overcome legal presumptions
We have clarified that the absence of damage does not necessarily imply that there
can be no falsification as it is merely an element to be considered to determine whether or
not there is criminal intent to commit falsification.It is a settled rule that in the 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 for the reason that in the falsification of a public
document, the principal thing punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction
of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed
1) Signing as witness to 3 deeds of sale antedated when there is probable cause that
signatures were falsified
2) Knowingly causing registration of 3 falsified deeds and cancellation of old TCTs for
issuance of new ones
To further sow doubt on the claim of authority, respondent's claim that in 1999, his
grandmother Aurora was already "too sickly and frail to execute said documents,"
finds support in the evidence on record. as testified to by a helper + affixed thumbmark
in Gen. Power of Atty instead of signature
From the records of the case at bar, it is clear that a prima facie case for falsification
exists against petitioner.
DENIED.
Galeos vs. People (Feb. 9, 2011) 642 SCRA 485
-

Ong was appointed OIC-Mayor of Naga, Cebu and then elected as Mayor.
While mayor, Ong extended permanent appointments to
o Galeos (his cousin) Construction and Maintenance Man
o Rivera (husbands of Ongs cousin) Plumber
Prior to that, they were casual employees in the municipal government.
In their SALNs Galeos answered NO to the questions whether he had a relative in 4th
degree of consanguinity/affinity working in the government while Rivera answered
N/A. Some years, the box for that answer was left blank.
Ongs signature appears in the documents as person who administered oath when Galeos
and Rivera executed such SALN documents. This is pursuant to the Local Government
Code as certified by Ong to the CSC.
Sangguniang Bayan Naga filed with Ombudsman a complaint against Ong for
dishonesty, nepotism, violation of Code of Conduct for Public Officials/Employees, and
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and for the crime of falsification of public
documents.

Criminal charges were filed against Ong, Galeos, and Rivera for falsification of public
documents (171) re: Certification to CSC made by Ong and SALNs of Galeos and
Rivera
Evidence of their Relations Canoneo, resident of Naga and friends with the 3 accused.
Suarez sisters were the mother/aunts of Ong/Galeos.
Defense of Galeos: Already filled-up SALNs by the people in the municipal hall and the
accused just signed them. + did not understand the questions 4th degree of
consanguinity/affinity
Defense of Rivera: Did not know wife was close relative of the Municipal Mayor because
he was told that the mayor was a distant relative + it was not Ong who appointed him
but predecessor Mayor Mendiola
Defense of Ong: Did not know familial relations with Galeos (not close to some relatives
due to business in Cebu and Manila) before case was filed + many surnamed Galeos in
municipality + case filed by political enemy + Rivera was casual employee of previous
administration and just re-appointed
Sandiganbayan guilty of falsification of public document
Defense: SALN statements are not statements but mere silence/non-disclosure; not
narration of facts but maybe conclusions of law + No evidence that he was
aware of their relationship at time of execution of SALN = good faith NO 4th
element (perversion of truth in narration of facts made with wrongful intent of
injuring 3rd person) + merely administering oath not equal to falsification

SC:
1- Defense of lack of knowledge of a particular fact being a state of mind is selfserving + not considered in arriving at conviction
2- Oath-administering official, as a general rule, need not ascertain truth of statements in
a document BUT when an administering officer administers oaths despite falsity
of document being known to him as false = he is liable NOT because he violate his
duty as administering officer but because he participated in falsification of a
document
171 includes making untruthful statements in a narration of facts
Elements of which: 1) offender makes untruthful statements in narration of facts in a
public document; 2) has legal obligation to disclose truth of facts narrated; 3) facts
narrated are absolutely false
SC: In addition to this, it must also be proven that the public officer/employee had
taken advantage of his official position in making the falsification which is proven
when:
1- He has duty to make/prepare or intervene in preparation of document
2- He has official custody of document falsified

SC: There is no need for idea of gain or intent to injure 3rd person because what is
punished is violation of public faith and destruction of truth as therein solemnly
proclaimed.
W/N not related within 4th degree is a narration of fact YES
SC: A narration of facts is merely an account or description of the particulars of an event
or occurrence. Here, it involves merely a description of such relationship; it does not
call for an application of law in a particular set of facts. It is a question of fact and not an
opinion.
W/N material fact YES
It was 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.
prohibited by the Local Government Code
W/N there is legal obligation YES
"Legal obligation" means that there is a law requiring the disclosure of the truth of the
facts narrated. SALN is among those required by the Local Government Code from
public employees. It is similarly required by the Code of Conduct of Public
Officials/Employees
W/N not knowing cousin-relationship is valid defense NO
Given the Filipino cultural trait of valuing strong kinship and extended family
ties, it was unlikely for Galeos who had been working for several years in the municipal
government, not to have known of his close blood relation to Ong who was a prominent
public figure having ran and won in the local elections four times.
It was simply unthinkable that as a resident of Naga, Cebu since birth and a
politician at that, he was all the time unaware that he himself appointed to permanent
positions the son of his mothers sister (Galeos) and the husband of his first cousin
(Rivera). Indeed, the reality of local politics and Filipino culture renders his defense of
good faith (lack of knowledge of their relationship) unavailing.
= Conspiracy inferred from acts of the accused which clearly manifests
concurrence of wills, a common design to commit a crime
Ong administered oat to Galeos and Rivera (re: SALN) not just once but 3 times =
concurrence in making untruthful statement
Ongs certification to CSC was violative of the Local Government Code. He is guilty of
falsification and also took advantage of his official position as the appointing
authority who is required to issue such certification.
DENIED. GUILTY all 3!
172

3 Acts Punished:
o 1 Falsification of public, official or commercial document by a private
individual
o 2 Falsification of private document by any person
o 3 Use of falsified document
-

Penalty: Prision correctional (medium-maximum) and 5000php or less fine

Act 1 Elements

1. Offender is private
individual or public
officer/employee who
did not take advantage of
his official position.
2. He committed any of
the acts of falsification
enumerated in Art. 171

3. The falsification was

committed in a public,
official, or commercial
document.

Act 2 Elements

Act 3 Elements
Introducing in a
Use in any Other
Judicial Proceeding
Transaction
1. That the offender
1. Offender knew that a 1. Offender knew that a
committed any acts of
document was falsified document was falsified
falsification, except those by another person.
by another person.
in par. 7, enumerated in
Art. 171
2. That the falsification
2. That the false
2. That a false
was committed in any
document is embraced
document is embraced
private document.
in Art. 171 or in any
in Art. 171 or in any
subdivisions of Art. 172 subdivision #1 or 2 of
# 1 or 2
Art. 172
3. That the falsification
3. That he introduced
3. That he used such
caused damage to a third said document in
document (not in
party or at least the
evidence in any judicial judicial proceeding)
falsification was
proceeding.
committed with intent to
cause such damage
4. That the use of the
false document caused
damage to another or at
least it was used with
intent to cause such
damage.

ACT 1
o Must be private individual or public officer/employee/notary public who does
NOT take advantage of official position.
o Acts of falsification in par. 7, art. 171 CANNOT be committed by a private
individual. only by a public officer/notary public who takes advantage of
official positions because of authentication requirement
o 4 Kinds of Document

Public document created, executed or issued by a public official in line

with public service, or in the execution of which a public official
intervened. | Any instrument authorized by a notary public or a competent
public official, with solemnities required by law.
Ex. Receipt issued by tax collector; burial permit issued by Board
of Public Health of Manila City; official receipt by Government
Official document which is issued by public official in the exercise of
the functions of his office. This is also a public document, the larger
class.
Ex. Document required by bureau to be filled by its officers for
purposes of record and information.
Ex. Official cashbook by disbursing officer of Coast Guard
Ex. All pleadings filed with the court as it is in court records
Private deed/instrument executed by a private person without the
intervention of a notary public or other person legally authorized, by
which document some disposition/agreement is proved, evidence or set
forth.
Ex. Theater ticket evidences agreement for rent of place to
enable witnessing a theatrical performance
Commercial any document defined and regulated by the Code of
Commerce or any other commercial law. | Used by merchants or
businessmen to promote/facilitate trade.
Ex. Letters of credit, drafts, checks, quedans, bonds, books of
accounts, journal books, air way bills, etc.
Cash disbursement voucher (borrowers of loan) are not negotiable
instruments nor are they defined in Code of Commerce = private
Public Writings (RoC) official acts of sovereigns, bodies and tribunals,
officers; documents acknowledge before notary public except last will and
testament; public records of private documents required by law to be entered
therein
Deed acknowledge by notary public = public; if falsified before presented to
notary public = still falsification
Blank form is NOT covered by 166,167,171, or 171. It is necessary that the
blank spaces be filled and the signature of party purported to be authorized to
issue it be written by another in counterfeited instrument.
The possessor of the effects of the falsification is presumed to be the author of
the falsification that made possible the effect.
Ex. Certificate of title was issued via falsified document
This is like a person possessing the stolen goods and offers no good
explanation after a larceny has been committed.
The possessor of a falsified document is presumed to be the author of the
falsification.

o
o

o BUT the accused is entitled to constitutional presumption of innocence

especially where evidence on the alleged forged voucher is extremely doubtful.
o Here (Act 1) for public or official documents, damage or intent to cause
damage is not necessary. no need for idea of gain or intent to cause damage to
3rd person because the principal thing punished is the violation of the public
faith and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed.
The same applies to commercial documents protection of credit
o HOWEVER, lack of malice (criminal intent) is a defense in falsification of
public document. (ex. Acted with authority of children of deceased heir)
ACT 2
o With intent to cause damage requisites:
He must have counterfeited the false document
He must have performed an independent act which operates to the
prejudice of a 3rd person.
o The resulting prejudice is not needed to occur suffice that an act tending
towards that is done.
No need to actually profit.
o Falsified, kept in house, without showing to anyone, destroyed it = not covered
o The damage/prejudice need not be material. Also, it includes damage to
ones honor.
o Jurisdiction: place where falsification was made.
Ex. Falsification in Rizal while damage in Manila = Rizal has jurisdiction
o COMPOUND CRIME when the offender commits on a public, official, or
commercial document any of the acts of falsification (171) as a necessary
means to commit another crime (estafa, theft or malversation)
This is because before the falsified document is actually utilized to
defraud another, the crime of falsification has already been
consummated as damage/intent is not an element of the
falsification crime.
The damage to another is caused by the final crime (estafa) and NOT by
falsification.
Ex. Falsifies a traffic police sticker as a bridge pass (falsification) and then
also sells it (estafa through falsification).
Ex. Falsifies the official document, a purchase order (falsification) and
then obtained the goods and loaded on the truck (theft through
falsification).
Ex. Got a check and by way of identifying the supposed payees who he
did not actually know, got the money. (Estafa through falsification by
reckless imprudence) did not verify the real owners like a prudent man
would
Ex. Public officer who altered the duplicates of cedulas to allow and to
actually collect the sum of 2php from each taxpayer they were issued and

misappropriated the 2php a public fund (malversation through

falsification)
o

o
o

o
o
o

There is NO such thing for private documents because damage or intent is

necessary = when used to defraud another only one crime: falsification of
private document. | The damage caused became the element of the crime of
falsification of private document. Estafa cannot exist without its own element of
damage.
Ex. No complex crime of estafa through falsification of a private
document because the fraudulent gain through deceit in estafa is also the
very damage caused by falsification of private document they have the
same immediate effect
Ex. Falfisied private document to obtain laborers wages for 10 days
(falsification of private document only and not estafa through falsification)
Ex. If private document is falsified to conceal misappropriation of money
in possession of offender = estafa with abuse of confidence only
Note: If estafa was already consummated then falsified private
document = if falsification of private document was to conceal
the estafa = the falsification is NOT punishable. the falsification
of the private document, in this case, has no damage or intent to
cause damage. The damage is caused by estafa not by the
falsification.
Ex. Signed a bill wherein there was wrong data 31 days instead of 6 days
confinement and collected for the 31 days relying entirely upon
personnels reports without in any way checking them (falsification
through reckless imprudence)
Exception: When he had right to rely on subordinate employee and
not necessary to compare copy with original entry (re: registrar and
clerk)
NO falsification of private document through reckless imprudence. no
malice
If falsified document eventually becomes part of official record = falsification
of private document only re: time crime is committed
BUT if the law intends the private document to be part of public/official
record, falsification before become public document = falsification of
public document
Falsification of private documents needs prejudice to 3rd party or malice
Falsification of public documents immaterial whether or not prejudice
Generally no attempted or frustrated stage

ACT 3
o Judicial Proceeding
Damage not necessary

o Other transactions
Intent to cause damage is necessary (re: other proceedings not judicial)
The person who uses is another person from the one who falsified but
knows of the falsification too. punish other people benefitting from
falsification indirectly (by use)
USE is not included in crime of falsification of public document by
public/private persos.
Presumption of Authorship if:
1 use was so closely connected in time with falsification
2 user had the capacity of falsifying the document
173
3 Acts Punished:
o 1 Uttering fictitious wireless, telegraph or telephone message
o 2 Falsifying wireless, telegraph or telephone message
o 3 Using such falsified message
-

Penalty: Prision correcional (med-max) for #1 & 2

Penalty: Next lower in degree for # 3
Elements of Uttering or Falsifying (Par. 1)
o Offender is an officer/employee of the Government or of a private corporation,
engaged in the service of sending or receiving wireless, cable or telephone
messages
o Offender commits any of the following acts:
Uttering fictitious wireless, cable, telegraph or telephone message
Falsifying wireless, cable, telegraph, or telephone message
Ex. Telephone operator of Bureau of Posts
Ex. Telegrams reduced words without authority pocketed the price difference
charged
Elements of Use of Falsified Messages (Par. 2):
o Accused knew that wireless, cable, telegraph, or telephone message was falsified
by any of the persons specified in 1st paragraph of 173.
o Accused used such falsified dispatch.
o Use of falsified dispatch resulted in the prejudice of a 3rd party, or that the use
thereof was with intent to cause such prejudice.

Only if employee of corporation or government principal by direct participation

If private individual can be principal by inducement
o But if he knowingly uses such falsified telegraph et al to the prejudice of 3rd
person it is not necessary that he be connected with such corporation

Act 1851 any person (including private individuals) who forge or alter or who utters
(knowing it is falsified) telegram punished

174
-

Certificate any writing by which testimony is given that a fact has or has not taken
place
Penalty: Arresto mayor (max) to prision correccional (minimum) and 1,000php or less
fine for physician/surgeon and public officer
Penalty: Arresto mayor for private person
Persons Liable for Falsification of Certificates
o Physician or surgeon who, in connection with the practice of his profession,
issued a false (medical) certificate
Referring to the illness or injury of a person
o Public officer who issued a false certificate of merit or service, good conduct or
similar circumstances
o Private individual who falsified a certificate falling in classes # 1& 2
Referring to false medical certificate or false certificate of merit or service
Ex. Recommendation certificate passed as made by another person but wrong age,
certifying, and length of time during which the person knew

Falsification of certificate of large cattle not covered here

o Covered by 171 or 172 (depending on whether offender is public officer or private
individual) as it is a public document
o Certificate on property is not covered. Similar circumstances should pertain
to the conduct, honor, or status of the person.
Certificate of residence for voting purposes is certificate of similar circumstances.

175
Elements:
o Physician or surgeon had issued a false medical certificate, or public officer had
issued false certificate of merit, service, conduct, et al, or a private person had
falsified any of said certificates
o That offender knew that the certificate was false.
o That he used the same.
-

When any of the false certificate in Art. 174 is used in judicial proceeding, Art. 172 does
not apply, because the use of false document in judicial proceeding under 172 is limited
to those false documents embraced in Arts. 171 and 172.

176
Acts Punished:
o Making or introducing into the Philippines any stamps, dies, marks, or other
instruments or implements for counterfeiting or falsification
o Possessing with intent to use the instruments or implements for counterfeiting or
falsification made in or introduced into the Philippines by another person.
-

Penalty: Prision correccional (med-max) and 10,000php or less fine for #1

Penalty: Next lower in degree for # 2

Implements confiscated under 2nd paragraph need not form a complete set for
counterfeiting suffice that they may be 1) employed by themselves or 2) together with
other implements to commit the crime.
165 and 176 prohibits not only actual physical possession but also constructive
possession or the subjection of the thing to ones control.
o Ex. Sale of counterfeited paraphernalia intercepted vendor is not there during
interception but is deemed to be in constructive possession of articles

177
Two Offenses Contemplated:
o Usurpation of authority
o Usurpation of official functions
2 Ways to Commit Crime
o 1 By knowingly and falsely representing oneself to be an officer, agent or
representative of any department or agency of the Philippine Government OR any
foreign government
Note: No need to perform act of public officer; just represent is ok
o 2 By performing 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.
-

There must be positive, express and explicit representation

o Mere not denying that he was an agent of government = not covered
o May be shown by acts
Ex. Blowing whistle, stopping buses, and ordering for drivers license
Must be a department or agency if representing if not public corporation = not
covered
May be violated by a public officer
o Ex. Councilor designated to be mayor despite Vice mayor existing
Does NOT apply to occupant under color of title

o It applies to the usurper the one who acts under false pretenses
Includes foreign government
RA 75 punishes person who falsely assume and to act as diplomatic, consular or any
other official of a foreign government duly accredited as such, with intent to defraud
either governments. Added penalty: 5,000php or less fine OR 5 years or less
imprisonment OR both
RA 10 act performed, without offender being lawfully entitled to do so, must pertain 1)
to the government, or 2) to any person in authority, or 3) to any public officer
o Applies only to members of seditious organization engaged in subversive
activities hence, the elimination of the element of pretense of official position

178
2 Acts Punished:
o Use of Fictitious Name
o Conceal True Name and personal circumstances
-

Penalty for # 1 arresto mayor and 500php or less fine

Penalty for # 2 arresto menor or 200php or less fine

Differences:
o #1 (fictitious name) element of publicity must be present; not needed in #2
o #1 (fictitious name) purpose is any of the 3 enumerated; in #2 merely to
conceal identity
Elements of #1 - Using Fictitious Name:
o Offender uses a name other than his real name
o He uses that fictitious name publicly
o Purpose of offender is:
To conceal a crime
To evade the execution of judgment
To cause damage to public interest

Fictitious name any other name which a person publicly applies to himself without
authority of law.
Causing Damage must be to public interest
o If it is to private interest = estafa (Art. 315)
Signing fictitious name in an application for passport = public use covered!

Situation: A person takes the place of a convicted by final judgment person

o The person who took the place

Guilty using fictitious name to conceal the crime (of delivering from
jail)
Not guilty of evasion of service of sentence
Reason the real convict alone is guilty of such evasion
o Also liable for delivering prisoners from jail (156) by helping the escape of the
real convict by other means
o Real convict
Guilty using fictitious name to evade execution of judgment against him

Elements of #2 Concealing True Name:

o Offender conceals
His true name; and
All other personal circumstances
o Purpose is to conceal his identity
-

Com.Act 142 regulates use of aliases as amended by Rep. Act 6085 (Anti-Alias Law)
o 1 pseudonym solely for literary, cinema, television, radio or other entertainment
purposes and in athletic events; otherwise, use the one registered at birth in local
civil registry, or registered in Bureau of Immigration upon entry, or substitute
name authorized by competent court. | If not registered, register within 1 year
o 2 to use an alias apply for authority in proceedings (like judicial ones for
change of name) | Use only 1 alias.
o 3 State real name, and all aliases/pseudonym authorized to use when
representing himself in any public/private transaction or when signing/executing
any public/private document
o 5 penalty 1-5 year imprisonment and 5k-10k php fine

Ex. Ong Hick Lian used the unauthorized alias Julian Ong

179
Elements:
o Offender makes use of insignia, uniform or dress
o That the insignia, uniform or dress pertains to an office not held by the offender
OR to a class of persons of which he is not a member
o That said insignia, uniform, or dress is used publicly and improperly
-

Wearing insignia, uniform or dress of an imaginary (made-up) office = not punishable

There is NO need for exact imitation.
o A colorable resemblance calculated to deceive the common run of people is
sufficient
Includes layman wearing publicly the ecclesiastical habit of a Catholic priest
Rep. Act 75 punishes using uniform, decoration or regalia of foreign State even
resemblance so long as it is with intent to deceive or mislead

Rep. Act 493 punishes using/wearing insignia, badge or emblem of rank of AFP
members or Phil. Constabulary or any colorable imitation thereof
o This does not include use and wear of such in playhouse, theater or movies
EO 297 punishes unauthorized manufacture, sale, distribution and use of PNP
uniforms, insignias and other accoutrements
o Applies also to use of PNP uniforms et al by person not a member of the
uniformed PNP personnel
o Penalty: Public censure w/o prejudice to filing administrative, civil and/or
criminal actions Effect: Adds penalty prior to 179 penalty public censure
Any person who shall publicly and improperly make use of such insignias, uniforms or
dress pertaining exclusively for uniformed PNP personnel of which he/she is NOT a
member shall be criminally liable under 179.