[ G.R. No.

11165, August 15, 1916 ] 19/09/2019, 12(59 PM

34 Phil. 750

[ G.R. No. 11165, August 15, 1916 ]

THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MANUEL B.

ASENSI, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

DECISION

JOHNSON, J.:

This defendant was charged with the crime of estafa, committed with the falsification of a
document. The complaint alleged:

"That on and many years before the 7th day of April, 1914, the said Manuel B.
Asensi was and had been a trusted employee of the Compania General de
Tabacos de Filipinas, a foreign corporation domiciled in the city of Manila and duly
authorized to engage in business in the Philippine Islands; that, as such
employee of the above-named corporation, it was his duty to find out, at the end
of every quarter, the total amount of the sales of the goods and merchandise
made during such period by the said corporation, in order to declare and certify
with his signature said amount before the Collector of Internal Revenue or his
duly authorized agents, making said declaration and certification on the coupons
attached with the patents, of which they form an integral part, issued annually by
the Collector of Internal Revenue in favor of the said corporation; that said
accused, as such employee of the above-named Compania General de Tabacos de
Filipinas, was also bound to pay, with the funds of the said corporation supplied
him for said purpose, the Internal Revenue taxes which it had to pay on the
amount of the sales above-referred to; that, as the accused well knew, during the
first quarter of the year 1914, the sales of goods and merchandise made in
Manila by the said corporation, amounted to the sum of P257,662.87, Philippine
currency; that on the 6th day of April, 1914, the said accused asked of, and
obtained from, the said corporation a check for the sum of P858.88, Philippine
currency, payable to the order of the Collector of Internal Revenue, with which to
pay the said Collector of Internal Revenue for the tax corresponding to the sales
made during the first quarter of 1914, which tax amounted exactly to P858.88 at
the rate of 1/8 of one per cent of the true amount of the sales referred to; that
on the 7th day of April, 1914, the said accused went to the office of the Collector
of Internal Revenue, in the city of Manila, and there presented coupon No. 1
which is an integral part of the patent to which it was attached, No. 2751,
corresponding to the year 1914, issued by the Collector of Internal Revenue to
the Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas, wherein, failing to declare the
truth in the statement of the facts, at this same time and place, did, willingly,
unlawfully, and criminally state, declare and certify falsely, with his signature,
that the amount of the sales made by the Compania General de Tabacos de
Filipinas (of which the said accused was a trusted employee), during the first
quarter of 1914, was P137,662.78; and that the Internal Revenue tax which the
corporation should pay on the said amount at the rate of 1/8 of one per cent, was

http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&…imit=0&fuzziness=3&SearchForm=C%3a%5celibrev%5celibsearch%5cdtform Page 1 of 13
[ G.R. No. 11165, August 15, 1916 ] 19/09/2019, 12(59 PM

only P458.88; that the said accused, through the false statement made by him in
the above-mentioned coupon No. 1 of patent No. 2751, induced and persuaded
the Internal Revenue officers to believe the declarations, statement and
certification made by him in the said instrument, and the said officers, acting
under such belief, accepted, out of the sum of P858.88 stated in the check drawn
to the order of the Collector of Internal Revenue by the Compania General de
Tabacos de Filipinas and which the accused delivered to them, only the sum of
P458.88 as the tax due on the sales declared, stated and certified to by the
accused himself, in the aforesaid form, time and place, at the rate of i of one per
cent, over the said amount of the sales, returning, as they in fact did return, in
cash, the difference between said amount and that stated in the check referred
to, that is, the sum of P400, Philippine currency; and the said accused in the time
and 'place referred to, namely, on April 7, 1914, in the city of Manila, once he
was in possession of the said sum of P400, Philippine currency, willingly,
unlawfully, and criminally and with the intent to defraud the said Compania
General de Tabacos de Filipinas, did appropriate the same for himself, thus
causing damages and injuries to the said corporation amounting to the said sum
of P400, Philippine currency, equivalent to 2,000 pesetas.

"An act committed in violation of law."

Upon said complaint the defendant was duly arrested, arraigned, tried, found guilty of the
crime charged, and was sentenced by the Honorable Richard Campbell, judge, to be
imprisoned for a period of ten years and one day of presidio mayor, to pay a fine of P2,500,
to suffer the accessory penalties prescribed by law, and to pay the costs.

From that sentence the defendant appealed to this court and made several assignments of
error.

From an examination of the record we find that the following facts are clearly proven, in fact,
they are not seriously denied:

First. That the defendant had been an employee of the offended corporation for a
long period prior to the 7th of April, 1914, and during said employment had been
charged with the responsibility of taking care of various branches or departments
or work of said corporation.

Second. That the offended corporation had been engaged for a long period of
years in the city of Manila in the sale of merchandise of various classes, on a
large scale, and was still so engaged during the year 1914.

Third. That the offended corporation being a merchant, engaged in the sale of
merchandise, was obliged, for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of the
Internal Revenue Law, to furnish a certified statement to the Collector of Internal
Revenue, showing the amount of sales for each and every quarter of each year.

Fourth. That the defendant was charged with the duty, on behalf of the said
corporation, of making out said certificate showing the amount of sales of said
corporation for each and every quarter, and of obtaining a check therefor from
the cashier of said corporation, for the purpose of paying the amount of taxes
due upon said sales for a particular quarter.

Fifth. That in compliance with said duty and obligation as such employee of said
offended corporation, the defendant did, on or about the 7th of April, 1914,

http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&…imit=0&fuzziness=3&SearchForm=C%3a%5celibrev%5celibsearch%5cdtform Page 2 of 13
[ G.R. No. 11165, August 15, 1916 ] 19/09/2019, 12(59 PM

prepare and sign the certificate required by the internal revenue department, in
which he certified that the gross business of said offended corporation, subject to
internal-revenue tax, ending March 31, 1914, was P137,662.87, and that the
amount of money which was necessary to pay said merchant's tax for said period
was P458.88. (See Exhibit B.)

Sixth: That, notwithstanding said certificate showing the gross business subject
to internal-revenue tax, done by said offended corporation, the defendant
represented to the cashier of said offended corporation, on the back of Exhibit C,
that the amount of gross business subject to internal revenue tax was the sum of
P257,662.87, and that the amount of money necessary to pay said tax was the
sum of P858.88. (See Exhibit C.)

Seventh. That upon the representation made by Exhibit C, the cashier of the
offended corporation executed and delivered to the defendant a check, marked
Exhibit D, for the sum of P858.88, made payable to the Collector of Internal
Revenue, for the purpose of purchasing the stamps or paying the tax which was
due, upon the representation made by the defendant in Exhibit C. (See Exhibit
C.)

Eighth. That later the defendant, with said certificate Exhibit B, and said check,
Exhibit D, went to the office of the Collector of Internal Revenue, and there
purchased the number of stamps sufficient to pay the tax upon the gross amount
of business, represented by said Exhibit B, by delivering to the Collector of
Internal Revenue the check Exhibit D. The certificate (Exhibit B) showed that the
amount of taxes due, for which stamps had to be purchased, amounted to
P458.88. The Internal Revenue Collector delivered to the defendant stamps
amounting to P458.88, and paid to him in cash the difference between said
amount and the amount of said check, or the sum of P400.

Ninth. That the P400 received by the defendant, as indicated by the preceding
paragraph, was received through the false representation made by the defendant
to the cashier of the offended corporation and by virtue of his misrepresentation
made to the cashier of said corporation. (Exhibit C.)

Tenth. That the certificate marked Exhibit B, made by the defendant, was false, in
that it represented that the gross business of said offended corporation subject to
internal-revenue tax for the period ending March 31, 1914, was P137,662.87,
and that the defendant well knew that said amount did not represent the amount
of the gross business done by said corporation.

Eleventh. That the defendant has neglected and refused to return to the offended
corporation the said P400 and has willfully appropriated the same to his own use.

Twelfth. That by reason of the false representations made by the defendant, not
only in the certificate marked Exhibit B, but in various others, covering a number
of years, the offended corporation was obliged to pay to the Collector of Internal
Revenue a great many thousand pesos to cover its unpaid taxes, as well as to
pay a fine for its failure to comply strictly with the provisions of the law.

The appellant, under his first assignment of error, attempts to show, and cites many
provisions of the different codes in force here in support of his argument, that there was no
obligation resting upon the defendant to make the certificate Exhibit B, and he was therefore
not liable, even admitting that he had falsified the same. The record shows that the

http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&…imit=0&fuzziness=3&SearchForm=C%3a%5celibrev%5celibsearch%5cdtform Page 3 of 13
[ G.R. No. 11165, August 15, 1916 ] 19/09/2019, 12(59 PM

defendant had been designated by the offended corporation as its representative, for the
purpose of ascertaining the gross amount of business done by it, and upon which it was
required by law to pay taxes for each quarter. The corporation itself, not being able to act for
itself, was under the necessity of having an agent or representative to act for it. The
defendant accepted the responsibility imposed upon him by the offended corporation. He
voluntarily assumed the obligation to perform the duty imposed upon him, and actually
undertook to perform said duty, and had, for a number of years, made out the required
certificate for and on behalf of the corporation. We do not believe that it is within his mouth
now to say that he had not been appointed to perform that particular duty in accordance
with the provisions of law. The courts will not now hear him say that he was performing the
duty thus voluntarily assumed, without authority of law. Taking into consideration the
relation of the offended corporation to the defendant, and the particular duty which the
defendant voluntarily assumed, we are of the opinion that the sentence of the lower court
should not be modified by reason of the error alleged in the first assignments

In the second assignment the appellant argues that, inasmuch as the proof fails to show that
the offended corporation had demanded a return of the said P400, and it not appearing that
the defendant had refused to return the same, he was not guilty of the crime of estafa. The
record shows that the defendant obtained possession of the said P400 by means of fraud and
false representations. When money or property is received by means of fraud or false
representations, a demand for the return of the same is not necessary in order to constitute
the crime of estafa. Any person who, to the prejudice of another, shall convert or
misappropriate money, goods, or other personal property, received by such person for safe
keeping, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other circumstances, giving
rise to the obligation to make delivery of or to return the same, etc., shall be guilty of the
crime of estafa and shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 5 of
article 535, in its relation with article 534 of the Penal Code. Considering the fraud practised
by the defendant upon the offended corporation and the fact that he obtained the money in
question by means of false representations, we are of the opinion and so hold, that a
demand for the return of the same and a refusal by him so to do is not a necessary
prerequisite as an element of the crime charged against the defendant. We find nothing in
the second assignment of error sufficient to justify a modification of the sentence of the
lower court.

With reference to the third assignment of error, the appellant contends that the document
falsified (Exhibit B) is not a public document. The Penal Code contains no definition of what
constitutes a public document. This Court held in the case of Cacnio vs. Baens (5 Phil. Rep.,
742) that any instrument authorized by a notary public or a competent public official, with
the solemnities required by law, was a public document. We have also held that the blank
forms prepared by the Auditor of the Philippine Islands, in accordance with Act No. 90 of the
Philippine Commission, are public documents. (U. S. vs. Carrington, 5 Phil. Rep., 725.) We
have also held that a receipt issued by the department of assessments and collections of the
city of Manila, for taxes collected, is a public document, and one who falsifies the same is
guilty of the falsification of a public document (U. S. vs. Leyson, 6 Phil. Rep., 447.)

In the case of United States vs. Mateo (5 Phil. Rep., 462) we held that a burial permit issued
by the Board of Public Health of the city of Manila is a public document, within the meaning
of that term as used in article 301 of the Penal Code.

In the case of United States vs. Vy Guico (12 Phil. Rep., 209) we held that the official receipt
prescribed by the Government to be issued upon the receipt of money for public purposes is
a public document, as that term is used in articles 300 and 301 of the Penal Code.

http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&…imit=0&fuzziness=3&SearchForm=C%3a%5celibrev%5celibsearch%5cdtform Page 4 of 13
[ G.R. No. 11165, August 15, 1916 ] 19/09/2019, 12(59 PM

In the case of United States vs. Weems (7 Phil. Rep., 241) we held that an official cashbook
kept by the disbursing officer of the Coast Guard and Transportation Department, was a
public or an official document, in the sense in which those words are used in article 300 of
the Penal Code.

In the case of United States vs. Barrios (10 Phil. Rep., 366) we held that the cashbook of a
public official, in which entries are made of accounts of public moneys received, is also public
document, as that term is used in article 300 of the Penal Code.

In the case of United States vs. Vy Guico (supra), an official receipt was held to be a public
document, for the reason that it was invested with the character of an official document by
reason of the fact that it was printed in accordance with the standard forms required by the
Government

In the present case the document in question (Exhibit 8) was printed in accordance with
Schedule C and furnished to merchants, in accordance with the provisions of the law of
1904. This form was evidently prescribed by the internal revenue department of the
Government. When presented to the internal revenue department of the Government, it
became a part of the records of that office and in our judgment is fully invested with the
character of an official or public document, as those terms are used in articles 300 and 301
of the Penal Code.

From all of the foregoing facts, we are of the opinion that the evidence adduced during the
trial of the cause shows that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged in the complaint,
and should be sentenced in accordance with the provisions of article 301 of the Penal Code,
in its relation with article 89 of the same code. The sentence of the lower court being fully
sustained by the evidence and the law, we are of the opinion and so hold that the same
should be and is hereby affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

Torres, Trent, and Araullo, JJ., concur.

Moreland, J., see dissenting opinion

MORELAND, J.:

The facts are briefly these: There is an annual tax in the Philippine Islands imposed upon
business concerns requiring them to pay to the Government a certain percent of the total
volume of business done by them during the year as shown by their statements thereof in
writing to the Collector of Internal Revenue. The tax is payable quarterly. For the prompt and
efficient enforcement of the law the Collector of Internal Revenue, in order that the business
concerns taxable under the law might furnish all the facts necessary for an intelligent and
accurate determination of the amount which ought to be recovered as a tax and to the end
that such statements might be uniform in size, style and contents caused blank forms of the
statements to be prepared and printed and distributed in considerable quantities to each of
the business concerns referred to so that they might have them on hand when the time
arrived for them to make the statements concerning their business transactions for the
quarter then ending. These forms were unintelligible and meaningless when delivered to the
business houses, being mere skeletons without form or substance until the blank spaces in
them were filled in and the statement signed by the particular concern executing it. The

http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&…imit=0&fuzziness=3&SearchForm=C%3a%5celibrev%5celibsearch%5cdtform Page 5 of 13
[ G.R. No. 11165, August 15, 1916 ] 19/09/2019, 12(59 PM

Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas was one of the concerns taxable under the law
and a quantity of these printed blank forms were delivered to it by the Collector of Internal
Revenue on which to make its quarterly statements as occasion should arise. The accused in
this case, who was a trusted and very competent employee of the Compania General de
Tabacos de Filipinas, was accustomed for years to fill out these blank statements and sign
them for and on behalf of the company at the termination of each quarter. On the
presentation and filing of the statement showing, as we have said, the gross volume of the
company's business for the quarter just ended, the Collector of Internal Revenue would
determine the amount of the tax to be paid, the accused would obtain that amount of the
cashier of the company and turn it over to the Collector of Internal Revenue who would issue
to him internal revenue stamps which, when duly cancelled, would show the payment of the
tax assessed for that quarter. On the particular occasion to which this action refers the
accused by written representations to the cashier of the company showed that the volume of
business of the company during the quarter just ended was P257,662.87, and, upon that
representation, which was true and entirely accurate, obtained from him a check payable to
the Collector of Internal Revenue for the amount of the tax due, which was P858.88. The
accused then filled out and signed in behalf of the company, as he was accustomed to do,
one of the printed blanks furnished by the Collector of Internal Revenue for that purpose;
but, in this particular case, filled out the blank in such way as to show that the gross volume
of the company's business during the quarter just ended was ^137,662.87 instead of the
correct amount, P257,662.87, the sum presented by him to the company's cashier and for
the payment of the tax on which he had obtained from him the company's check for
P858.88. He thereupon presented the false statement to the Collector of Internal Revenue
and the tax due according to such statement was figured by the Collector at P458.88. He
then offered the company's check of P858.88 in payment of the tax requesting that the
balance, P400, be paid him in cash. This was done. The representations as to the gross
volume of its business during the quarter just ended to obtain the check of P858.88' were
true and the amount obtained from the company's cashier to pay the tax was the correct
amount. The representations made to the Collector of Internal Revenue on the blank form
furnished by him relative to the gross volume of the company's business during the last
quarter were false and were made with the intent and purpose of obtaining the P400 and of
converting it to his own use.

The accused was charged by the information of the commission of two crimes: estafa
(swindling) and falsification of a public document by a private individual. He was convicted of
both and sentenced for the higher crime, falsification of a public document, and sentenced to
the maximum penalty provided by law. (Art. 89, Penal Code.)

I agree to the conviction of estafa. I do not agree to the conviction of the falsification of a
public document on the ground that, if there was a document falsified, it was not a public
document. The articles of the Penal Code under which he was convicted are 300 and 301.
Article 301 reads as follows:

"Any private individual who shall commit any of the falsifications enumerated in
the next preceding article fn any public or official document, letter of exchange,
or other commercial document shall suffer the penalty of presidio mayor and be
fined in a sum not less than one thousand two hundred and fifty and not more
than twelve thousand five hundred pesetas."

Article 300 to which 301 refers is as follows:

"The penalty of cadena temporal and a fine in a sum not less than one thousand
two hundred and fifty and not more than twelve thousand five hundred pesetas

http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&…imit=0&fuzziness=3&SearchForm=C%3a%5celibrev%5celibsearch%5cdtform Page 6 of 13
[ G.R. No. 11165, August 15, 1916 ] 19/09/2019, 12(59 PM

shall be imposed upon any public officer who, by taking advantage of his official
position, shall be guilty of falsification:

"1. By counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature, or rubric.

"2. By causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or

proceeding when they did not in fact so participate.

"3. By attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding

statements other than those in fact made by them.

"4. By making untruthful statements in a narration of facts.

"5. By altering true dates.

"6. By making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which

changes its meaning.

"7. By issuing in authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an

original document when ho such original exists, or by including fn such a copy a
statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original.

"8. By intercalating any instrument in a protocol, registry or official book.

"Any ecclesiastical minister who shall commit any of the offenses enumerated in
the preceding paragraphs of this article with respect to any record or document of
such a character that its falsification may affect the civil status of persons or
produce results affecting interests not merely ecclesiastical shall suffer the
penalty designated in paragraph one of this article."

The Supreme Court, by a majority, holds that the printed blank form referred to, and each
and every one of them, (1) became a public document the instant it was delivered by the
printer who printed it to the Collector of Internal Revenue; (2) that the large number of
blanks delivered to the various business houses of the Philippine Islands were all public
documents at the time they left his hands and forever after remained so; and (3) that,
thereupon, when the accused filled in the blank spaces with false figures he falsified a public
.document. The court also holds, as alternative propositions, that, even though the
document was not a public document before it was signed by the accused, it became such
the instant it was filled out and signed by him; and that even if this signature did not make it
a public document, it certainly became such when it was filed with the Collector of Internal
Revenue, i. e., filed in a public office.

Taking up these holdings in order, I may say with regard to the first that I cannot conceive of
the possibility of a blank piece of paper being a document of any kind, public or private. It is
simply a meaningless nothing creating no rights, interests or obligations and utterly
incapable of producing any effect or result whatever as to anybody or anything. It is
certainly incapable of being forged, altered, mutilated or falsified. Can a blank piece of paper
be falsified, or forged, or altered? Before a falsification can take place there must be
something to falsify. To convict any one of the acts specified in article 300 it is essential to
have a document already created and in existence, or one whose creation is simultaneous
with the act of falsification. One cannot forge, or alter or falsify nothing. The criminal must
have something to operate upon. Even in forgery, i. e., placing the name of another to an
instrument, where, generally speaking, the criminal composes or creates the instrument
himself, it is necessary to have the instrument complete in every essential detail when the

http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&…imit=0&fuzziness=3&SearchForm=C%3a%5celibrev%5celibsearch%5cdtform Page 7 of 13
[ G.R. No. 11165, August 15, 1916 ] 19/09/2019, 12(59 PM

forged name is attached thereto; or at least when the instrument is uttered. Otherwise it
would not be worth anything and the criminal would have only his work for his pains, as he
could not utter an incomplete instrument. So in every case mentioned in article 300. It is
impossible that the crime specified in article 300 or 301 be committed on a piece of blank
paper. It follows necessarily that the contention of the court that the printed blank form
became a public document when it was printed by the Collector of Internal Revenue, or even
when it was delivered to the Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas for it to fill out when
the time should arrive to do so, can not be sustained.

I shall discuss together the contentions that, when the accused signed the document, it
thereupon became a public document; and that, when the completed instrument was filed
with the Collector of Internal Revenue it became a public document.

I cannot believe that the statement in question is a public document. As I understand the
law, and it must be so from the very nature of things, a public document is one which' is
issued, executed, ratified or acknowledged by or before a public official which, in some way,
relates to the duties of his office. In other words, before a document can be called a public
document a public official must have intervened in some way in its execution. A document
executed or signed by a private person having no public office and no connection with the
public service cannot possibly be a public document. To claim the contrary would be, it
seems to me, to violate language itself. It would seem that nothing can be more certain
than that a private person cannot execute a public instrument. That is, he cannot, by any act
of his, give it a public character. Even those public documents, like mortgages, which are
signed by private persons are still private after they have been signed by the parties; and
acquire their public character only when the execution is certified in legal form by a notary
public or other public official duly authorized. It is his act, the act of the public official, which
gives them the elements by virtue of which they are entitled to be called public documents.
This, of course, must be so; otherwise, we would be driven to say that a private person can
create, execute, or issue a public document, which would be an absurdity.

The criminal law deals with the following classes of documents with respect of which the
crime of falsification may be committed: (1) Public documents; (2) official documents (which
are also public documents); (3) private documents; (4) bills of exchange and other
mercantile documents; (5) telegraph dispatches; (6) passports; (7) certificates of residence;
(8) physician's certificates issued to enable a person to evade the public service, by stating
that he is ill or has been injured; (9) certificates of merit, service, good conduct, or poverty,
or any other of similar character. These are the only documents concerning which the crime
commonly known as falsification can be committed. All of these documents are dealt with in
chapter four (4) of the Penal Code; public documents, official documents, commercial
documents, and telegraph dispatches forming the subject matter of section I (arts. 300-
303); private documents of section II (arts. 304-305) ; and passports, certificates of
residence and the other certificates named above of section III (arts. 306-311). Some of the
documents specifically mentioned in these articles are public documents, such as passports,
certificates of residence, etc; and would have been included naturally in the general term
"public document;" but for certain apparent reasons the code makers preferred to mention
them specifically. Other documents also specifically mentioned in these sections are private
documents and would naturally have fallen in the general class of private documents; but
here again certain reasons led the Legislature to mention them by name.

As will be seen from these observations, the document which is the basis of the conviction in
this case is not specifically named by the Penal Code and must, accordingly, be among those
defined by classes; public, official or private. As we have observed already it is impossible

http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&…imit=0&fuzziness=3&SearchForm=C%3a%5celibrev%5celibsearch%5cdtform Page 8 of 13
[ G.R. No. 11165, August 15, 1916 ] 19/09/2019, 12(59 PM

that a document created, executed or issued by a private person be a public document. The
same may be said of an official document. This is a document which is issued by a public
official by virtue of his office. It falls within the larger class called public documents which,
as we have seen, are those which come into existence through the exigencies of the public
service, or by the intervention of a public official in their execution. It is clear, then, that, as
with public documents, and even more so, an official document cannot be created, executed
or issued by a private individual, although he may be interested in the instrument, although
it may affect his rights, interests, or standing, still he does not in any way intervene in its
execution.

That I am correct in what I have said, viz., that, in order to be a public document it must
have been created, executed or issued by a public official in response to the exigencies of
the public service, or a public official must have intervened in its execution, is, I think,
clearly demonstrated by the Spanish codes and by the decisions of the supreme court of
Spain. In a decision of the 27th of May, 1882, the supreme court of Spain (26 Crim. Rep.,
425) states that the only public documents concerning which the crime of falsification can be
committed under section I of Chapter four (4) of the Penal Code are those "enumerated in
article 280 of the law of civil procedure of 1855, which is article 596 of the present law;" and
declares that official documents are those only which "are issued by public officials in the
exercise of the functions of their office." The court said in the case cited:

"It appears that, in one of the articles of instructions given to second lieutenant
Victorino Idigoras who was commissioned in the year 1876 to pay the members
of the battalion of Sedentarios de Orense their back salaries, he was directed,
when he made the payments mentioned, to require each person paid to produce
his license or, in case he had no license, the pass which had been issued to him
until the license could be obtained, and to sign his name to the appropriate
receipt; and, in case he could not write his own name, to have his name signed
by another person of known honesty, that payment to the right person be
assured.

"It appears also that a criminal prosecution for embezzlement committed in the
discharge of his commission was instituted against said second lieutenant in the
year 1877 by the military authorities, afterwards continued by the civil
authorities, in connection with the case of Juan Perez Conde. There was offered in
the case a document dated the 14th day of July, 1876, the date on which Perez
was in Castilla, wherein it appears that said Perez received 86 pesetas and 19
cents of his back salary. This document was signed by Idigoras and Jose Rivera.
The fact was, however, that Perez had received no pay whatever.

"The criminal branch of the Audiencia of Coruna reversed the decision of the
lower court, and rendered a decision wherein, by a majority vote, Idigoras was
sentenced to 10 years and 1 day of prisidio mayor and Rivera to 4 years 2
months and 1 day of presidio correctional, to the accessories provided by law, as
principals in the commission of the crime of falsification defined in article 315 of
the Penal Code, as a means of committing that of estafa.

* * * * * * *

"Article 315 of the code penalizes those who falsify a public or official document.
A public document embraces only those enumerated in article 280 of the law of
civil procedure of 1855, now article 596 of the present law; and the latter class,
the official document, only those issued by public officials in the exercise of their

http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&…imit=0&fuzziness=3&SearchForm=C%3a%5celibrev%5celibsearch%5cdtform Page 9 of 13
[ G.R. No. 11165, August 15, 1916 ] 19/09/2019, 12(59 PM

official functions. The lower court, in applying article 315 to the act committed by
the accused Rivera, which consists simply in affixing his signature to a receipt
supposed to have been given by Juan Perez Conde as evidence of payment of his
back salary, was in error in that the document in question was a private
document and had none of the elements of a public or official document. This is
so for the reason that the individual who pretended to execute the same, as well
as the person who signed for him, was a private person, and could not give it the
character of a public document; nor did it acquire that character by the
intervention of Second Lieutenant Idigoras for whose discharge it was issued. Its
legal character must be determined solely from the character of the person
entitled to receive the money; and its character as a document is not affected by
the position or attributes of the person charged with the payment"

This case does three things of importance: First, it gives us a list of the public documents
which may be falsified under section I above mentioned. Second, it furnishes us with a
definition of official documents (the same definition given in article 596 of the law of civil
procedure); and third, it provides us with a decision in favor of the accused under an
information charging him with falsification based on a document which comes very much
closer to being a public document than that which is the basis of the charge in the case at
bar. Dealing with the first point, we turn to article 579 of the law of civil procedure in force in
the Philippine Islands when the sovereignty changed from Spain to the United States, which
is the same as article 280 of the law of civil procedure of 1855 and as article 596 of the
same law which was in force when the decision cited was rendered, we find the following:

"Art. 579. The following are solemn public documents, viz:

"1. Notarial instruments executed as prescribed by law.

"2. Certified copies of entries in the registry books, issued by agents of the Stock
Exchange, or by commercial brokers, in the manner and form prescribed by
article 64 of the Commercial Code, and by special laws.

"3. Documents issued by public officers in reference to the performance of any of

their duties, when authority therefor is vested upon them.

"4. Record books, statutes, ordinances, registers, poll and property statistics, and
other documents kept in the public archives, departments of State, provinces or
pueblos, and copies made and certified to by the secretaries and keepers thereof,
by order of the proper authorities.

"5. The ordinances, by-laws and regulations of companies, corporations or

associations, as approved by the public authorities, and copies thereof certified to
as prescribed in the preceding subdivision.

"6. Records or certified copies of records of births, marriages and deaths, taken
from the books thereof by parish priests or by persons in charge of the civil
registers.

"7. Judgments, writs of execution, and judicial proceedings."

A glance at the provisions of this article suffices to show conclusively that the document or
writing which is the basis of this action cannot possibly be included among those enumerated
therein. This being true and the supreme court of Spain having, as we have seen, clearly
held that these are the only documents or instruments capable of being falsified under

http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&…mit=0&fuzziness=3&SearchForm=C%3a%5celibrev%5celibsearch%5cdtform Page 10 of 13
[ G.R. No. 11165, August 15, 1916 ] 19/09/2019, 12(59 PM

section I of chapter 4 of the Penal Code, it follows of necessity that the writing in the case at
bar is not susceptible of falsification under that section. It further follows, of necessity also,
that the information in this case does not legally charge and the evidence does not establish
the crime of falsification of a public document under any law of the Philippine Islands.

Let us inquire what there is common to the documents or writings enumerated in article 579
above quoted which distinguish them from private documents. The answer is that they are
executed, issued or attested by a public official. This answer is so obvious that there would
seem to be no necessity for the inquiry. But the answer disposes of the controversy before
us. The document or writing under consideration is admittedly one executed and signed by a
private individual only, viz., the accused. He signed and executed it as agent of the
Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas. No public official intervened in any way or had the
slightest thing to do with its execution. The contention of the Government, sustained by a
majority of this court, is that this writing is a public document. If it is a public document on
which an indictment for falsifying a public document will lie, it must, under the decision of
the supreme court of Spain, as we have seen, be one of the documents described in article
579 of the law of civil procedure of Spain. Does it fall within class No. 1 of that article?
Clearly not; as it is not a notarial instrument executed as required by law. Does it belong to
class No. 2 ? Clearly not; because it is not a certified copy of anything, much less of any of
the acts therein mentioned. Does it bear the description given of class No. 3? Certainly not;
as it is not a document issued by a public officer in reference to the performance of any of
his duties under authority of law. Is it included in class No. 4 ? Of course not; because it is
not a record book, statute, ordinance, register, poll or property statistics, etc. What about
class 5? It does not belong there as it is not an ordinance, by-law, etc., of companies,
corporations or associations, etc. Can it be admitted in class No. 6? Obviously not; as it is
not a record or certified copy of record of a birth, marriage or death. We have excluded it
from every class but the last. Is its place in class No. 7? No; it is not a judgment, writ of
execution or judicial proceeding. Being essentially unlike any public document known to any
law, how can the writing in question be a public document?

The Civil Code, while not so specific, gives the same definition of a public document as that
found in the law of civil procedure. Article 1216 provides:

"Public documents are those authorized by a notary or by a competent public

official, with the solemnities required by law."

There is no possibility, then, of the statement under discussion being a public document
under the Civil Code. While the Penal Code contains no definition of a public document, it
aids us nearly as much by giving us a definition of a public officer. Article 401 says:

"For the purpose of applying the provisions of this and of the preceding titles of
this book (including arts. 300 and 301), any person who, by direct provision of
law, popular election, or appointment by competent authority, shall take part in
the performance of duties in the public service shall be deemed a public officer."

Note that this article refers to the very provisions which are being applied in the case at bar.
Certainly the accused is not included in this definition. It is, of course, not claimed that he is
a public officer, as he is charged under article 301 which relates exclusively to the
falsification of a public document by a private individual. Now, if public documents can be
executed or issued only by public officials, and both the law of civil procedure and the Civil
Code clearly and incontrovertibly so declare, and if the accused is not a public official but a
private individual only, as everybody admits he is, how can he execute or produce a public
document ? And how can the writing in controversy be a public document?

http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&…mit=0&fuzziness=3&SearchForm=C%3a%5celibrev%5celibsearch%5cdtform Page 11 of 13
[ G.R. No. 11165, August 15, 1916 ] 19/09/2019, 12(59 PM

As is the law so is reason. It is unthinkable, as a mere matter of language, that a private

person may produce a public document. It is a plain contradiction in speech. A private
individual cannot perform a public act; and every public document is such by virtue of some
public act, i. e., an act of some public official. If a private individual can produce a public
document then is the day of miracles here; for then will the progeny bear no kinship to the
parent and cause no relation to its effect.

The next contention of the Government in this case is to the effect, and the majority of the
court sustains the Government therein, that, inasmuch as the blank form on which the
accused made the statement which is the bottom of the controversy here was delivered to
the Tabacalera Company by the Collector of Internal Revenue to guide it. in making the
statement of the volume of its business during the quarter then terminating, such blank form
was issued by a public official and for that reason became a public document. Let us begin
by asking the question when this blank form became a document of whatever nature. When
it was delivered by the Collector to the company, or when it was signed by the accused, or
when, having been signed, was delivered by him to the Collector? The Government
contends, and the court apparently agrees, that the blank form was always a public
document, from the moment it came from the hands of the printer; and especially was it
such when the Collector of Internal Revenue delivered it to the company. This claim is, to
my mind, untenable. The printed form when delivered to the defendant was nothing but
blank paper. The printed words thereon were meaningless. The delivery by the Collector of
the printed form had no more significance than the delivery of a piece of paper entirely
blank, devoid even of printing. Until the blank spaces were properly filled and the paper
signed by some person it meant nothing, was nothing, and produced no effect whatever as
to either the Government, the company or the defendant. Such a piece of paper is not a
document as that word is understood either in law or in common parlance. A document is
one that is made by somebody, signed by somebody, executed by somebody. It creates
obligations or states facts of public record. It can be introduced in evidence to prove and
establish those obligations or the existence of the facts therein set forth. It is created by an
act; has a significance, meaning, and effect all its own. It creates something and produces
effects. Now, to what effect or use could the blank form be put before it was signed by the
accused? Did it create any obligations on the part of any person or entity? Did it establish an
obligation against or a right in favor of the Government? Or against the company? Or against
the defendant? Could it have served as the basis of conviction even though it had been
mutilated in a thousand ways? Did it state any fact of public record? Could it have been
introduced in evidence in any action or proceeding? To all these questions, No. Until filled out
and signed by the accused it was nothing. He made it what it became. He signed it. He gave
to blank paper the only force and virtue it ever had. Until he acted it was waste paper.
Consequently, when it was delivered by the Collector it was not even a document, much less
a public document; and, if the defendant created and made it a document by his own acts, it
was the creation of a private individual and not that of a public official. It was, therefore, a
private document and remains such to this moment.

Suppose that, in filling the blank spaces in the printed form preparatory to signing it, the
accused had changed some of the printed words and stricken out others, substituing his own
phraseology therefor, thereby materially changing its form and substance; would he have
been guilty of the falsification of a public document? Or let us suppose he had discarded the
paper altogether and had substituted another printed by himself in its place; would he have
been guilty of any offense, or would he have laid himself liable civilly? Assuredly not. Then,
was it a public document, or any other kind of document?

We noted as the second matter of importance presented by the decision of the supreme

http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&…mit=0&fuzziness=3&SearchForm=C%3a%5celibrev%5celibsearch%5cdtform Page 12 of 13
[ G.R. No. 11165, August 15, 1916 ] 19/09/2019, 12(59 PM

court of Spain above referred to that it gave us a definition of an official document as

distinguished from a public document. This was to the effect that an official document is one
issued by a public official in the discharge of the duties of his office. The printed form not
being a document of any kind when the Collector delivered it to the company but blank
paper only, it was not, of course, an instrument issued by a public officer in the discharge of
the duties of his office. It could not, therefore, be either a public or official document.

Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date created: May 29, 2014

This page was dynamically generated by the E-Library Content Management System

Supreme Court E-Library

http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&…mit=0&fuzziness=3&SearchForm=C%3a%5celibrev%5celibsearch%5cdtform Page 13 of 13