Title 4 - Public Interest

8/6/2019 Title 4 - Public Interest

1/26

Title FourCRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST

Chapter One. Forgeries

Section One Forging the seal of the Governmentof the

Philippine Islands, the signature or stamp of

the Chief ExecutiveArticle 161. Counterfeiting the great seal of the

Government of the PhilippinesArticle 162. Using forged signature or

counterfeitingseal or stamp

Section Two Counterfeiting coinsArticle 163. Making and importing and uttering

falsecoins

Article 164. Mutilation of coins, importation anduttering of mutilated coins

Article 165. Selling of false or mutilated coins,withoutconnivance

Section Three Forging treasury or bank notes,obligations and securities; importing anduttering false or forged notes, obligationsand securities

Article 166. Forging treasury or bank notes orother documents payable to bearer,importing and uttering of such false orforged notes and documentsArticle 167. Counterfeiting, importing anduttering instruments not payable to bearer

Article 168. Illegal possession and use of forgedtreasury or bank notes and otherinstruments of credit

Article 169. How Forgery is committed.

Section Four Falsification of legislative, public,commercial and private documents, andwireless, telegraph and telephone messages

Article 170. Falsification of legislative documentsArticle 171. Falsification by public officer,employee ornotary

Article 172. Falsification by private individualsand useof falsified documents

Article 173. Falsification of wireless, cable,telegraph and telephone messages and useof said falsified messages

Section Five Falsification of medical certificates,certificates of merit or service, and the like

Article 174. False medical certificates, false

certificates of merit or serviceArticle 175. Using false certificates

Section Six Manufacturing, importing andpossession of instruments or implementsintended for the commission of falsification

Article 176. Manufacturing and possession ofinstruments or implements for falsification

Chapter Two. Other Falsities

Section One Usurpation of authority, rank, title andimproper use of names, uniforms and

The crimes in this title are in the nature offraud or falsity to the public. The essence ofthe crime under this title is that which defraudthe public in general. There is deceit perpetrated upon the public. This is the act

that is being punished under this title.

Article 161. Counterfeiting the Great Sealof the Government of the PhilippineIslands, Forging the Signature or Stampof the Chief Executive

Acts punished

1. Forging the great seal of the Governmentof the Philippines;

2. Forging the signature of the President;3. Forging the stamp of the President.

When in a State document, the signature of thePresident is forged, the crime is notfalsification of public document. It isforging the signature of the Chiefexecutive.

The Signature of the Chief executive must beforged. If Chief Executive left with hissecretary a signature in blank and adocument is written above it, the crime isnot under Art. 161 but Falsification bypublic officer or private individual underArt. 171 or 172.

Article 162. Using Forged Signature orCounterfeit Seal or Stamp

Elements1. The great seal of the Republic was

counterfeited or the signature or stamp ofthe Chief Executive was forged by anotherperson;

2. Offender knew of the counterfeiting orforgery;

3. He used the counterfeit seal or forgedsignature or stamp.

Offender under this article should not be the

forger. Otherwise, it would fall under Art 161.

Article 163. Making and Importing andUttering False Coins

Elements1. There be false or counterfeited coins;2. Offender either made, imported or uttered

such coins;

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer31


2/26

3. In case of uttering such false orcounterfeited coins, he connived with thecounterfeiters or importers.

Kinds of coins the counterfeiting of which ispunished

1. Silver coins of the Philippines or coins ofthe Central Bank of the Philippines;

2. Coins of the minor coinage of thePhilippines or of the Central Bank of thePhilippines;

3. Coin of the currency of a foreign country.

When is a coin false or counterfeited?if it is forgedif it is not authorized by government as

legal tenderif it is a spurious copy (imitation of the

design of a genuine coin)

Importation means bringing into port.

Importation is complete before entry at theCustoms House.

Uttering is passing counterfeited coins. Itincludes their delivery or the act of givingthem away.

Former coins withdrawn from circulation maybe counterfeited under this article.

People vs. Kong Leon

Kong Leon, a goldsmith, was selling illegally fabricated USdollar coins which are already withdrawn from circulation.Several unfinished coins were found by the police in hisshop and pockets.

HELD: When RPC was enacted, the Spanish text was theone approved. Thus it controls the interpretation ofprovisions. Therefore, under Spanish Penal Code,fabrication of coin withdrawn from circulation is punishablebecause of (1) the harm it caused to the public when itgoes into circulation again, (2) the danger of acounterfeiter staying within the country (he maycounterfeit coins in actual circulation and (3) collectorswill be defrauded.

Article 164. Mutilation of Coins

Acts punished

1. Mutilating coins of the legal currency, withthe further requirements that there beintent to damage or to defraud another;

2. Importing or uttering such mutilated coins,with the further requirement that theremust be connivances with the mutilator orimporter in case of uttering.

Mutilation means to take off part of the metaleither by filing it or substituting it for anothermetal of inferior quality.

The coin must be of legal tender in mutilation.Coins of foreign country not included.

Requisites of mutilation under the RPC

(1) Coin mutilated is of legal tender;(2) Offender gains from the precious metal

dust abstracted from the coin; and(3) It has to be a coin.

Presidential Decree No. 247Prohibiting and Penalizing Defacement,

Mutilation, Tearing, Burning or DestroyingCentral Bank Notes and Coins

It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully deface,mutilate, tear, burn, or destroy in any mannerwhatsoever, currency notes and coins issued bythe Central Bank.

Any person who shall violate this Decree shall, uponconviction, be punished by a fine of not more thantwenty thousand pesos and/or by imprisonment ofnot more than five years.

Mutilation under the RPC is true only to coins.It cannot be a crime under the RPC tomutilate paper bills because the idea ofmutilation under the code is collecting theprecious metal dust. However, under PD247, mutilation is not limited to coins.

Article 165. Selling of False or Mutilated

Coin, without Connivance

Acts punished

1. Possession of coin, counterfeited ormutilated by another person, with intent toutter the same, knowing that it is false ormutilated;

ElementsPossession;With intent to utter; andKnowledge.

2. Actually uttering such false or mutilatedcoin, knowing the same to be false ormutilated.

ElementsActually uttering; andKnowledge.



3/26

Possession of or uttering false coin does notrequire that the counterfeited coin is legaltender.

Possession, ether actual or constructive, ofthe counterfeiter or importer is not punished asa separate offense.

Article 166. Forging Treasury or BankNotes or Other Documents Payable toBearer; Importing and Uttering SuchFalse or Forged Notes and Documents

Acts punished

1. Forging or falsification of treasury or banknotes or other documents payable tobearer;

2. Importation of such false or forgedobligations or notes;

3. Uttering of such false or forged obligations

or notes in connivance with the forgers orimporters.

Importation means to bring them into the Philswhich presupposes that the obligations ornotes are forged or falsified in a foreigncountry.

Uttering meand offering obligations or notesknowing them to be false or forged WON suchoffer is accepted with a representation bywords or action thats that they are genuineand with an intent to defraud.

Uttering forged bills must be with connivanceto constitute a violation of Art. 166.

Notes and other obligations and securities thatmay be forged or falsified under Art 166 are:

treasury or bank notescertificates, andother obligations and securities payable

to bearer

Penalties depend on the kind of forgedtreasury or bank notes or other documents

obligation/security issued by RPcirculating note issued by any banking

institution duly authorized by law to

issue the samedocument issued by foreign govtcirculating note or bill issued a foreign

bank duly authorized to issue thesame.

PNB checks are commercial documents notcovered by Art 166.

Article 167. Counterfeiting, Importing,and Uttering Instruments Not Payable toBearer

Elements There is an instrument payable to order or

other documents of credit not payable to

bearer;Offender either forged, imported or uttered

such instrument;In case of uttering, he connived with the forger

or importer.

Application of Art 167 is limited to instrumentspayable to order. But it covers instruments orother documents of credit issued by a foreigngovernment or bank.

Connivance is not required in uttering if theutterer is the forger,

Article 168. Illegal Possession and Use of

False Treasury or Bank Notes and OtherInstruments of Credit

Elements1. Any treasury or bank note or certificate or

other obligation and security payable tobearer, or any instrument payable to orderor other document of credit not payable tobearer is forged or falsified by anotherperson;

2. Offender knows that any of thoseinstruments is forged or falsified;

3. He either -a. uses any of such forged or falsified

instruments; orb. possesses with intent to use any ofsuch forged or falsified instruments.

Intent to possess is not intent to use. Merepossession alone is not a criminal offense. Itmust be with intent to use.

The conduct of the accused is considered toestablish knowledge of forgery.

A person in possession of falsified documentand who makes use of the same is presumedto be the material author of falsification.

Accused has the burden to give satisfactoryexplanation of his possession of forged bills.

When an act performed would have been a

crime of illegal possession of false treasurynote, it cannot be an impossible crimebecause forging or falsification of treasurynotes is neither an offense against personsnor an offense against property under Art4(2) but one case held otherwise.

Article 169. How forgery is committed



4/26

By giving to a treasury or bank note or anyinstrument payable to bearer or to ordermentioned therein, the appearance of atrue and genuine document;

2. By erasing, substituting, counterfeiting, oraltering by any means the figures, letters,words, or sign contained therein.

Forgery includes falsification andcounterfeiting.

Giving checks the appearance of true andgenuine document is forgery.

Mere change on a document does not amountto this crime. The essence of forgery isgiving a document the appearance of a trueand genuine document.

Del Rosario vs. People

Del Rosario was shown by the accused a P1 bill and a P2 billinducing him to believe that the bills were counterfeited

when they were in fact genuine treasury notes. One of thedigits of each bill was altered to make it appearcounterfeited.

Held: The possession of genuine treasury notes of thePhils, where any of the figures, letters, words or signscontained therein had been erased and/or altered, withknowledge of such erasure/alteration, and with intent touse such notes in enticing another to advance funds for thepurpose of financing the manufacture of counterfeit notesis punishable by Art. 168 in relation to Art 169 (1).

People vs. Galano

Galano bought 4 balut eggs with a P1 bill with the wordvictory written on it. The P1 bill had been withdrawn

from circulation. It is however redeemable at face its facevalue if presented to the Central Bank.

Held: The forgery committed falls under Art 169(1) wherethe treasury note by the addition of the word victory wasgiven the appearance of a true and genuine document. Thisprovision also covers the situation where originally true andgenuine documents have been withdrawn or demonetizedwere made to appear a true legal tender.

Article 170. Falsification of Legislative

Documents

Elements1. There is a bill, resolution or ordinance

enacted or approved or pending approvalby either House of the Legislature or anyprovincial board or municipal council;

2. Offender alters the same;3. He has no proper authority therefor;4. The alteration has changed the meaning of

the documents.

The words "municipal council" should includethe city council or municipal board.

The bill, resolution or ordinance must begenuine.

The offender is any person, private individual

or public officer, who has no authority tomake the alteration.

The act of falsification in legislative documentis limited to altering it which changes itsmeaning.

Distinction between falsification and forgery:

Falsification is the commission of any of theeight acts mentioned in Article 171 onlegislative (only the act of making alteration),public or official, commercial, or privatedocuments, or wireless, or telegraphmessages.

The term forgery as used in Article 169 refers

to the falsification and counterfeiting oftreasury or bank notes or any instrumentspayable to bearer or to order.

Note that forging and falsification are crimesunder Forgeries.

Article 171. Falsification by Public Officer,Employee or Notary or EcclesiasticalMinister

Elements1. Offender is a public officer, employee, or

notary public;

2. He takes advantage of his official position;3. He falsifies a document by committing anyof the following acts:

a. Counterfeiting or imitating anyhandwriting, signature or rubric;

b. Causing it to appear that personshave participated in any act orproceeding when they did not infact so participate;

c. Attributing to persons who haveparticipated in an act or proceedingstatements other than those in factmade by them;

d. Making untruthful statements in anarration of facts;

e. Altering true dates;f. Making any alteration or

intercalation in a genuinedocument which changes itsmeaning;

g. Issuing in an authenticated form adocument purporting to be a copyof an original document when nosuch original exists, or including insuch a copy a statement contrary



5/26

to, or different from, that of thegenuine original; or

h. Intercalating any instrument ornote relative to the issuancethereof in a protocol, registry, orofficial book.

4. In case the offender is an ecclesiastical

minister who shall commit any of theoffenses enumerated, with respect to anyrecord or document of such character thatits falsification may affect the civil status ofpersons.

Even if the offender is a public officer but thefalsification committed by him is upon adocument which does not pertain to hisoffice, it was committed without abuse of hisoffice. Thus it will not fall under Art 171 butArt 172.

A private person who cooperates with a publicofficer in the falsification of public documentsis guilty under Art 171 and incurs the same

liability and penalty as the public officer asthere is conspiracy.

Must there be a genuine document infalsification?

In Par. 6, 7 in its 2nd part and 8 of Art 171,the law requires that there be a genuinedocument where the intercalation or alterationis made changing its meaning.

in other paragraphs, of Art 171, falsificationmay be committed by simulating or fabricationa document.

Counterfeiting and Feigning

In Counterfeiting, there must be (1) an intentor attempt to imitate and (2) that the twosignatures/handwritings, the genuine and theforged, bear some resemblance to eachother.

In feigning, there is no original signature,handwriting, or rubric but a forgery of asignature, handwriting or rubric that does notexist.

Making untruthful statements in a narration offacts

There must be a narration of facts not ofconclusion of law and there must be a legalobligation on the part of the accused todisclose the truth of the facts narrated.

The narration of facts must be absolutely falseand the person making such narration mustbe aware of the falsity of the facts narratedby him.

The perversion of truth in the narration of factsmust be made with the wrongful intent ofinjuring a third person. If the documentfalsified is a public document, wrongful intentis not essential.

There is no falsification by one who acted ingood faith.

The fact that ones consent to a contract wasobtained by means of violence does notmake the facts narrated therein false.

Legal obligation to disclose the truth isinherent in residence certificate.

There can be a falsification by omission (P vDizon).

Altering True DatesDate must be essential.Altering dates in official receipts to prevent the

discovery of malversation is falsification.

Making alteration or intercalationAlteration which speaks the truth is not

falsification. The alteration must affect the integrity or

change the effects of the documents.Altering the grades in examination papers

involves several acts of falsification. (see P v

Romualdez)

Caubang vs. People 1992

Accused was organizing the merger of two stevedoringcompanies. Among the documents presented and filed withthe SEC for the registration of the company was aStatement of Assets and Liabilities (SAL) of the company.This had the signature of the treasurer; but this signaturewas forged.

HELD: Accused guilty of falsification of public documents.In the absence of contrary proof, the accused who filed allthe documents with the SEC, is presumed to have also filedthe forged SAL. And thus since his possession of the forged

instrument is presumed, it is also presumed from this factthat he is the forger of the document.

It is immaterial that the entries in the SAL were true, theimportant thing is that the signature of the treasurer wasforged. What is punished in this crime is the violation ofthe faith in public documents and the destruction of thetruth in making it appear that a person did something whenin fact he did not; damage is not essential.

People vs. Romualdez

Romualdez, the secretary of Justice Romualdez, changedthe grade of bar examinee, Mabunay, to enable him toreach the required average to pass the bar. She claimed

she had been given the authority to do so.

HELD: The acts of falsification are: (1) making alterationson genuine documents (2) making it appear that thecorrectors had participated in blotting out the grades andwriting out new and increased grades opposite their initialsand (3) attributing to the correctors statements other thanthose in fact made by them.

Beradio vs. CA



6/26

Beradio is the lawyer and election registrar accused offalsifying her daily time record, a public document. Herdaily time record shows she was at the office 8am-5pmwhen in fact she went to court.

HELD: Beradio belongs to a class of officers who areexempt from keeping and submitting daily time records. Nocriminal intent to commit falsification can be imputed to

her when she submits her time record not as a legalobligation but as a matter of practice. The entries shemade contain a color of truth and no damage was caused tothe govt or a third party.

Luague vs. CA

Luague, a widow, signed her husbands name on the salarychecks with the knowledge of her deceased husbandssupervisor. She encashed the same and use it to pay debtsincurred for the illness and death of her husband.

HELD: There was no estafa thru falsification of acommercial document. No damage was incurred against thegovernment as the deceased employee deserved the salaryhis wife availed of. Even if there was falsification when shesigned for her husband, this was done with the knowledgeof her deceased husbands supervisor that the husband was

indeed dead. (Reezas dad in the RTC ruled otherwise )

Cabigas vs. People

Cabigas, a securities custodian of Landbank, was convictedof falsification when he changed the entry of the figure oftreasury bills from 1539 to 1533 pieces in the Daily Reportof Securities/Documents under Custody (DR SDUC) for thepurpose of hiding the loss of 6 treasury bills in his custody.

HELD: SC acquitted him since the elements of Art 171(4)were not present. The correction of the figure from 1539 to1533 pieces to conform to the actual pieces of treasury

notes in custody is not falsification since it was made tospeak the truth. Also, the DR/SDUC is a form purely devisedand adopted by Cabigas and was never required thus hewas not legally obligated to disclose or reveal the truth inthat document. In the absence of legal obligation, therecan be no falsification.

People vs. Sendaydiego

Sendaydiego, a provincial treasurer, used 6 forgedprovincial vouchers to embezzle from the road and bridgefund. TC convicted them of malversation thru falsificationof public document.

HELD: SC held that the crimes committed are separate

crimes of malversation and falsification because in the 6vouchers, the falsification was used to conceal themalversation. Each falsification and malversationconstituted independent offenses which must be punishedseparately.

Siquian vs. People

Siquian, a municipal mayor, appointed a clerk and signedthe latters appointment papers which stated that therewas such a position available and that funds for this

position was available. However, no such position and fundswere in existence. The mayor knew that the MunicipalCouncil failed to enact a new budget and has adopted theprevious years budget.

HELD: SC held Mayor liable under Art 171(4), when he madean untruthful statement in a narration of facts contained inthe certification which he issued in connection with the

appointment of the clerk. The existence of a wrongfulintent to injure a third person is not necessary when thefalsified document is a public document. It is because theprincipal thing punished is the violation of public faith andthe destruction of truth proclaimed therein.

People vs. Villalon

Carrera brothers were co-owners of a parcel of land. Apower of attorney was executed authorizing de Guzman tomortgage one brothers half. De Guzman used the power ofattorney to obtain a loan from the mortgagee bank. Loanwas unpaid, bank foreclosed the mortgage and sold land toSerafia who filed ejectment suit against the brothers.

HELD: The crime committed was estafa thru falsification ofpublic document. The falsification of public document maybe a means to commit estafa because before the falsifieddocument is actually used to defraud another, the crime offalsification is already consummated and damage or intentto cause damage is not an element of falsification. Thedamage to another is caused by the commission of estafa.

Santos v. Sandiganbayan (2000)

Valentino occupies a public position as bookkeeper at theClearing Office of the Central Bank. He intercepted andpilfered BPI-Laoag checks with the assistance of petitionerEstacio, a janitor-messenger at the Central Bank. In thecomfort room of the bank, Valentino and/or one Villasantatampered with the clearing statements and clearingmanifests. Valentino then brought the altered clearing

statements back to the clearing center and prepared aClearing Bank Manifests where he changed the figure in theoriginal copy to tally with those in the altered clearingstatement. The tampered documents, along with thepilfered demand envelopes, were then sent to the CentralBank Regional Clearing Center in Laoag. In utilizing thisscheme from October to December of 1981, the syndicatenetted P9 Million.

Lumancas v. Intas (2000)

Lumancas and Uriarte were regular employees of thePhilippine Postal Corporation in Tandag, Surigao del Sur.They made false entries in their respective Personal Data

Sheets (PDS, [CSC Form 212]) regarding their educationalattainment, resulting in their promotion to higherpositions. Uriarte asserted that he finished his Bachelor ofScience in Commerce, Major in Management, at the IHU in1968. In fllling up her PDS, Lumancas on the other handindicated that she is a graduate of Bachelor of Science inCommerce Major in Management at the IHU. She alsoclaimed that she is a graduate of Pharmacy from the CEU.Both are not college gradutes.

HELD: All the elements of falsification through the makingof untruthful statements in a narration of facts are



7/26

present: (a) That the offender makes in a documentstatements in a narration of facts; (b) That he has a legalobligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated byhim; (c) That the facts narrated by the offender areabsolutely false; and, (d) That the perversion of truth inthe narration of facts was made with the wrongful intent ofinjuring a third person. In People v. Po Giok To, the Courtheld that "in the falsification of public or official

documents, whether by public officials or by privatepersons, it is unnecessary that there be present the idea ofgain or the intent to injure a third person, for the reasonthat, in contradistinction to private documents, theprincipal thing punished is the violation of the public faithand the destruction of the truth as therein solemnlyproclaimed." Hence, the last requisite need not be present.Also, petitioners themselves have affirmed in their petitionthat their Personal Data Sheets were not sworn to beforeany administering officer thereby taking their case awayfrom the confines of perjury. Nonetheless, they argue thatthey have no legal obligation to disclose the truth in theirPDS since these are not official documents. The Courtdisagrees and cited the case of Inting v. Tanodbayan,where it was held that "the accomplishment of the PersonalData Sheet being a requirement under the Civil ServiceRules and Regulations in connection with employment inthe government, the making of an untruthful statementtherein was, therefore, intimately connected with suchemployment. The filing of a Personal Data Sheet isrequired in connection with the promotion to a higherposition and contenders for promotion have the legalobligation to disclose the truth. Otherwise, enhancing theirqualifications by means of false statements will prejudiceother qualified aspirants to the same position.

Article 172. Falsification by PrivateIndividual and Use of Falsified Documents

Acts punished

1. Falsification of public, official orcommercial document by a privateindividual;

2. Falsification of private document by anyperson;

3. Use of falsified document.

Elements under paragraph 11. Offender is a private individual or public

officer or employee who did not takeadvantage of his official position;

He committed any act of falsification under Art171;

3. The falsification was committed in a public,official, or commercial document or letter

of exchange.

There are four kinds of documents:(1) Public document in the execution of

which, a person in authority or notarypublic has taken part;

(2) Official document in the execution ofwhich a public official takes part;

(3) Commercial document or anydocument recognized by the Code ofCommerce or any commercial law; and

(4) Private document in the execution ofwhich only private individuals takepart.

NOTE: Private document may acquire thecharacter of a public document when itbecomes part of an official record and iscertified by a public officer duly authorizedby law.

Public document is broader than the termofficial document. Before a document maybe considered official, it must first be a publicdocument. But not all public documents areofficial documents. To become an officialdocument, there must be a law whichrequires a public officer to issue or to rendersuch document. Example: A cashier isrequired to issue an official receipt for theamount he receives. The official receipt is apublic document which is an officialdocument.

Cash disbursement vouchers are notcommercial documents.

Mere blank forms of an official document isnot itself a document. It is necessary that theblank spaces be filled and the signature ofthe party authorized to issue it be written byanother in the counterfeited instrument.

The possessor of a falsified document ispresumed to be the author of thefalsification. But this presumption is notapplied where the evidence is extremely

doubtful. Damage or intent to cause damage is not

necessary as the principal thing punished isthe violation of public faith and destruction oftruth.

Lack of malice or criminal intent is a defensein falsification of public document.

Elements under paragraph 2Offender committed any of the acts of

falsification except Article 171(7), that is,issuing in an authenticated form adocument purporting to be a copy of anoriginal document when no such original

exists, or including in such a copy astatement contrary to, or different from,that of the genuine original;

Falsification was committed in any privatedocument;

Falsification causes damage to a third party orat least the falsification was committedwith intent to cause such damage.



8/26

Mere falsification of public document is notenough as it is necessary that it must causedamage to a third person or must becommitted with intent to cause suchdamage.

It is also not necessary that the offenderprofited or hoped to profit by the falsification.

When the falsification is a necessary means tocommit another crime, the two crimes form acomplex crime under Art. 48. Note that thedocument falsified as a necessary meansmust be public, official or commercial.

a. Malversation throughfalsification of public documentsb. Estafa through falsification of apublic document.c. Estafa through falsification of acommercial document by recklessimprudenced. Theft through falsification ofofficial document.e. Attempted estafa throughfalsification of public or officialdocuments.

There is no complex crime of estafa throughfalsification of a private document becausethe immediate effect of falsification of aprivate document is the same as that ofestafa.

If a private document is falsified to obtainfrom the offended party the money or otherpersonal property which the offender latermisappropriated, the crime committed isfalsification of private document only.

If a private document is falsified to concealthe misappropriation of the money or otherpersonal property which has been in thepossession of the offender, the crimecommitted is estafa with abuse of confidenceonly.

If estafa was already consummated at thetime of the falsification of a private documentor if the falsification was committed to for thepurpose of concealing estafa, the falsificationis not punishable as because as regards thefalsification, there was no damage or intentto cause damage.

There is no falsification through reckless

imprudence if the document is private and noactual damage is caused.

The crime is falsification of a publicdocument, even if the falsification took placebefore the private document becomes part ofthe public records, if the document isintended by law ro be part of the public orofficial record.

Generally, falsification has no attempted orfrustrated stage. But there may be a

frustrated falsification if the falsification isimperfect. (Reyes)

Falsification of aPublic document

Falsification of aPrivate document

Mere falsification isenough

Prejudice to 3rd person orintent to cause it isenough

Committed by any of the8 means under Art 171

Cannot be committed bythe ways in par 7 & 8 ofArt 171

Principal thing punishedis violation of public faithand destruction of truthas therein solemnlyproclaimed

Elements under the last paragraph

In introducing in a judicial proceeding -1 Offender knew that the document was

falsified by another person;2 The false document is in Articles 171 or

172 (1 or 2);He introduced said document in evidence in

any judicial proceeding.

In use in any other transaction -1 Offender knew that a document was

falsified by another person;2 The false document is embraced in Articles

171 or 172 (1 or 2);3 He used such document;The use caused damage to another or at least

used with intent to cause damage.

Damage is not necessary in the crime of

introducing in judicial proceeding a falsedocument.

Use of falsified document in a proceedingwhich is not judicial is requires at least intentto cause damage.

If the one who used the falsified document isthe same person who falsified it, the crime isonly falsification and the use of the same isnot a separate crime.

Use of false document is not necessarilyincluded in the crime of falsification.

The user of the falsified document is deemedthe author of the falsification ifo the use was so closely connected in

time with the falsification, ando the user had the capacity of falsifying

the document.

Batulanon v. People (2006)

Cash vouchers are private documents and notcommercial documents because they are notdocuments used by merchants or businessmen topromote or facilitate trade or credit transactions nor



9/26

are they defined and regulated by the Code ofCommerce or other commercial law. Rather, theyare private documents, which have been defined asdeeds or instruments executed by a private personwithout the intervention of a public notary or ofother person legally authorized, by which somedisposition or agreement is proved, evidenced or set

forth.

Article 173. Falsification of Wireless,Cable, Telegraph and TelephoneMessages, and Use of Said FalsifiedMessages

Acts punished

1. Uttering fictitious wireless, telegraph ortelephone message;

Elements

1. Offender is an officer or employeeof the government or an officer oremployee of a private corporation,engaged in the service of sendingor receiving wireless, cable ortelephone message;

2. He utters fictitious wireless, cable,telegraph or telephone message.

2. Falsifying wireless, telegraph or telephonemessage;

Elements1. Offender is an officer or employee

of the government or an officer oremployee of a private corporation,engaged in the service of sendingor receiving wireless, cable ortelephone message;

2. He falsifies wireless, cable,telegraph or telephone message.

3. Using such falsified message.

Elements1. Offender knew that wireless, cable,

telegraph, or telephone messagewas falsified by an officer oremployee of the government or an

officer or employee of a privatecorporation, engaged in the serviceof sending or receiving wireless,cable or telephone message;

2. He used such falsified dispatch;3. The use resulted in the prejudice of

a third party or at least there wasintent to cause such prejudice.

The public officer, to be liable, must beengaged in the service of sending orreceiving wireless, cable or telephonemessage.

Private individual cannot be a principal bydirect participation in falsification oftelegraphic dispatches under Art. 173 unless

he is an employee of a corporation engagedin the business of sending or receivingwireless, telegraph or telephone message.

Private individual can be criminally liable asprincipal by inducement in falsification oftelegraphic dispatches.

Act. No. 1851, Sec $, punishes privateindividuals who forge or alter telegram by anfine of not more than P100.

Article 174. False Medical Certificates,False Certificates of Merit or Service, Etc.

Persons liable1 Physician or surgeon who, in connection

with the practice of his profession, issues afalse certificate (it must refer to the illnessor injury of a person);

[The crime here is false medical certificateby a physician.]

2 Public officerwho issues a false certificateof merit of service, good conduct or similarcircumstances;

[The crime here is false certificate of merit

or service by a public officer.]

3 Private person who falsifies a certificatefalling within the classes mentioned in thetwo preceding subdivisions.

[The crime is false medical certificate byprivate person or false certificate of meritor service by a private person]

The falsification of the certificate of largecattle is not covered by Art 174 but by Art171 or 172.

Certificate of residence for voting purposes is

certificate of similar circumstances.

Article 175. Using False Certificates

Elements1. The following issues a false certificate:

a. Physician or surgeon, in connectionwith the practice of his profession,issues a false certificate;



10/26

b. Public officer issues a falsecertificate of merit of service, goodconduct or similar circumstances;

c. Private person falsifies a certificatefalling within the classesmentioned in the two precedingsubdivisions.

2. Offender knows that the certificate wasfalse;

He uses the same.

When any of the false certificates mentionedin Art. 174 is used in the judicial proceedings,Art 172 does not apply because the use offalse document in judicial proceeding underArt 172 is limited to those false documentsembraced in Arts 171 and 172.

Article 176. Manufacturing andPossession of Instruments or Implementsfor Falsification

Acts punished

1. Making or introducing into the Philippinesany stamps, dies, marks, or otherinstruments or implements forcounterfeiting or falsification;

2. Possessing with intent to use theinstruments or implements forcounterfeiting or falsification made in orintroduced into the Philippines by anotherperson.

It is not necessary that the implementsconfiscated form a complete set forcounterfeiting. It is enough that they may beemployed by themselves or together withother implements to commit the crime ofcounterfeiting or falsification.

Possession punished here may be actual orconstructive possession.

Article 177. Usurpation of Authority orOfficial Functions

Acts punished

1. Usurpation of authority;

Elements1. Offender knowingly and falsely

represents himself;2. As an officer, agent or

representative of any departmentor agency of the Philippine

government or of any foreigngovernment.

2. Usurpation of official functions.

Elements1. Offender performs any act;

2. Pertaining to any person inauthority or public officer of thePhilippine government or anyforeign government, or any agencythereof;

3. Under pretense of official position;4. Without being lawfully entitled to

do so.

In usurpation of authority, it is not necessarythat he performs an act pertaining to publicoffice. However in usurpation of officialfunctions, it is essential that the offendershould have performed an act pertaining to aperson authority or public officer.

There must be positive, express and explicitrepresentation. Such false representationmay be shown by acts.

This article applies to any person and thuscovers even a public officer. (ex. Councilorusurping mayors office)

This article does not apply to occupant undercolor of title.

This article also punishes usurpation ofauthority or official functions of any officer ofany foreign government.

RA 75 provides additional penalties for

usurping the authority of diplomatic orconsular or any other official of foreigngovernment if offender has intent to defraud.

RA 10 applies only to members of seditiousorganization engaged in subversive activitieswho performed any act pertaining to thegovernment, to any person in authority or toany public officer.

People vs. Cortez

Accused introduced himself to a proprietress of a meatshoppresenting an id card bearing another name. He claimed tobe authorized to waive inspection of books for P400. Uponlearning that the accused was not a real BIR agent, theowner and authorities set up a string operation. Accusedwas apprehended after taking the money.

HELD: Crime committed was usurpation of authority thrufalsification of a public document by a private individual. Itis not robbery because there was no force or intimidation.

Gigantoni v People



11/26

Gigantoni, working on an investigation for anothercompany, represented himself to PAL legal officer as a PC-CIS agent. He requested that he be shown the PAL recordswhich was granted and he xeroxed them.

HELD: He cannot be held liable for usurpation of authoritybecause he did not knowingly represented himself to be anagent. AT the time he went to PAL office, he was still an

agent though he knew he was suspended. The conveyanceto him of the notice of dismissal was not proven. He shouldhave been charged with usurpation of official functionswhere dismissal or suspension would make no differencebecause both imply the absence of the power to representhimself as vested with authority to perform acts pertainingto an office which he knowingly was deprived of.

Article 178. Using Fictitious Name andConcealing True Name

Acts punished

1. Using fictitious name

Elements1. Offender uses a name other than

his real name;2. He uses the fictitious name

publicly;3. Purpose of use is to conceal a

crime, to evade the execution of a judgment or to cause damage [topublic interest - Reyes].

2. Concealing true name

Elements1. Offender conceals his true name

and other personal circumstances;2. Purpose is only to conceal hisidentity.

A fictitious name is any other name which aperson publicly applies to himself withoutauthority of law.

Causing damage must be to public interest. Ifit is damage to private interest, the crime willbe estafa under Art 315,subdivision 2paragraph (a).

Signing fictitious name in an application forpassport is publicly using such fictitiousname.

Where a person takes the place of anotherwho has been convicted by final judgment,he is guilty of using a fictitious name underArt 178 and not evasion of service ofsentence because the real convict alone isguilty thereof.

Use of Fictitious name Concealing true name

Element of publicitymust be present

Element of publicity isnot necessary

Purpose is to conceal a Purpose is merely to

crime, to evade theexecution of a judgmentor to cause damage

conceal identity

Legamia v IAC

Corazon Legamia lived with Emilio Reyes for 19 years andgave him a son. She was known and introduced to others asMrs. Reyes. Upon Emilios death, Corazon filed for deathbenefits on behalf of their son. The real Mrs. Reyes,Felicisima, filed a complaint against Corazon for usingfictitious name.

HELD: Corazon was acquitted. It is not uncommon for awoman to represent herself as the wife of the person she isliving with. Corazon assumed the role of a wife not for anypersonal material gain but for her son. Ours is a tolerantand understanding society

Use of unregistered aliases

R.A. 6085

AN ACT AMENDING COMMONWEALTH ACTNUMBERED ONE HUNDRED FORTY-TWO

REGULATING THE USE OF ALIASES

What is prohibited?

1. No person shall use any name different from theone with which he was registered at birth in theoffice of the local civil registry, or with which he wasregistered in the bureau of immigration upon entry;or such substitute name as may have beenauthorized by a competent court.

Exception: Pseudonym solely for literary, cinema,television, radio, or other entertainment and inathletic events where the use of pseudonym is anormally accepted practice. (Sec. 1)

2. No person having been baptized with a namedifferent from that with which he was registered atbirth in the local civil registry, or in case of an alien,registered in the bureau of immigration upon entry,or any person who obtained judicial authority to usean alias, or who uses a pseudonym, shall representhimself in any public or private transaction orshall sign or execute any public or privatedocument without stating or affixing his real ororiginal name and all names or aliases orpseudonym he is or may have been authorizedto use. (Sec. 3)

What is the process?Any person desiring to use an alias shall apply for

authority therefor in proceedings like those legallyprovided to obtain judicial authority for a change ofname, and no person shall be allowed to secure such judicial authority for more than one alias. Thepetition for an alias shall set forth the person'sbaptismal and family name and the name recordedin the civil registry, if different, his immigrant'sname, if an alien, and his pseudonym, if he has suchnames other than his original or real name,specifying the reason or reasons for the use of thedesired alias. The judicial authority for the use of



12/26

alias the christian name and the alien immigrant'sname shall be recorded in the proper local civilregistry, and no person shall use any name or namesother, than his original or real name unless the sameis or are duly recorded in the proper local civilregistry. (Sec. 2)

Penalties imposed

Any violation of this Act shall be punished withimprisonment of from one year to five years and afine of P5,000 to P10,000. (Sec. 5)

Article 179. Illegal Use of Uniforms orInsignia

Elements1 Offender makes use of insignia, uniforms or

dress;2 The insignia, uniforms or dress pertains to

an office not held by such person or a classof persons of which he is not a member;

3. Said insignia, uniform or dress is usedpublicly and improperly.

Wearing the uniform of an imaginary office isnot punishable.

An exact imitation of a uniform or dress isunnecessary; a colorable resemblancecalculated to deceive the common run ofpeople is sufficient.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 75(Immunity of Diplomats and Consuls)

An Act to Penalize Acts which would Impair theProper Observance by the Republic and Inhabitants

of the Philippines of the Immunities, Rights, AndPrivileges Of Duly Accredited Foreign Diplomatic AndConsular Agents In The Philippines

When applicable

The provisions of the Act are applicable only in caseswhere the country of the diplomatic or consularrepresentative adversely affected has provided forsimilar protection to duly accredited diplomatic orconsular representatives of the Republic of thePhilippines by prescribing like or similar penalties forlike or similar offenses herein contained.

Who are punishable?

1. Any person who shall falsely assume and takeupon himself to act as a diplomatic, consular, or anyother official of a foreign government duly accreditedas such to the Government of the Republic of thePhilippines with intent to defraud such foreigngovernment or the Government of the Philippines;

2. Any person who, in such pretended character shalldemand or obtain, or attempt to obtain from anyperson or from said foreign government or theGovernment of the Philippines, or from any officer

thereof, any money, paper, document, or other thingof value;

3. Any person, other than a diplomatic or consularofficer or attache, who shall act in the Republic of thePhilippines as an agent of a foreign governmentwithout prior notification to, and registration with,the Secretary of Foreign Affairs;

4. Any person who, with intent to deceive or mislead,within the jurisdiction of the Republic, shall wear anynaval, military, police, or other official uniform,decoration, or regalia of any foreign State, nation orgovernment with which the Republic of thePhilippines is at peace, or any uniform, decoration orregalia so nearly resembling the same as to becalculated to deceive, UNLESS such wearing thereofbe authorized by such State, nation, or government;

5. Any person by whom any writ or process isobtained, whereby the person of any ambassador orpublic minister of any foreign State, authorized andreceived as such by the President, or any domesticor domestic servant of any such ambassador or

minister is arrested or imprisoned, or his goods orchattels are distrained, seized, or attached, whetheras party or as attorney;

6. Every officer concerned in executing the writs orprocess in (5) above.

(5) and (6) above are NOT APPLICABLE where:

the person against whom theprocess is issued is a (1) citizen orinhabitant of the Republic of thePhilippines, (2) in the service of anambassador or a public minister, and(3) the process is founded upon a debtcontracted before he entered upon

such service; or the person against whom theprocess is issued is a domestic servantof an ambassador or a public minister,UNLESS the name of the servant has,before the issuing thereof, beenregistered in the Department of ForeignAffairs, and transmitted by theSecretary of Foreign Affairs to the Chiefof Police of the City of Manila, who shallupon receipt thereof post the same insome public place in his office.

7. Any person who assaults, strikes, wounds,imprisons or in any other manner offers violence tothe person of an ambassador or a public minister, inviolation of the law of nations.

Penalties

The penalties provided in the act shall be imposed inaddition to the penalties that may be imposed underthe Revised Penal Code



13/26

RA 493An Act to Prohibit the Use or Conferring of

Military or Naval Grades or Titles By or UponPersons Not in the Service of the Armed Forces

of the Philippines or the PhilippineConstabulary, to Regulate the Wearing, Use,

Manufacture and Sale of Insignias, Decorationsand Medals, Badges, Patches and IdentificationCards Prescribed for the Said Armed Forces or

Constabulary, and for Other Purposes

Sec. 1. It shall be unlawful for any person NOT inthe service of the AFP or the PNP to use, or conferupon himself or another who is not in the service,any military or naval grade or title.

Exceptions:(a) All veterans of any war when recognized bythe Philippine and only for the ranks for which theyare recognized;

(b) Commissioned officers and personnel,retired or in active duty, of the Bureau of Coast andGeodetic Survey, of the quarantine service, and ofthe customs service;(c) Commissioned and enlisted reservistsincluding recognized guerrilla officers on inactivestatus when using their authorized grades for apurely military purposes;(d) Trainees in the Armed Forces whileundergoing any period of trainee instruction pursuantto law.

Sec. 2. It shall be unlawful for any person not in theservice (EXCEPT those excluded from the prohibitionin Section 1), to use or wear the duly prescribedinsignia, badge or emblem or rank or any

colorable imitation thereof, of the members of theAFP or PNP,

Exception: use or the wearing of any insignia, badgeor emblem of rank:a. in any play-house or theater orb. in moving-picture films while actually engaged in

representing therein a military or navalcharacter

not tending to bring discredit or reproach uponthe AFP and PNP

Sec. 3. The use, wearing, manufacture and sale ofany medal or decoration, badge, insignia,patch, or identification card, authorized by

Congress or prescribed or awarded by the Presidentof the Philippines or the Secretary of NationalDefense for the members of the AFP, or anycolorable imitation thereof, is prohibited

Exception: when so authorized by the Secretary ofNational Defense.

FALSE TESTIMONY

False testimony is committed by a personwho, being under oath and required to testifyas to the truth of a certain matter at ahearing before a competent authority shalldeny the truth or say something contrary toit.

Three forms of false testimony

1. False testimony in criminal cases (Arts 180,181)

2. False testimony in civil case (Art 182)3. False testimony in other cases (Art 183)

Article 180. False Testimony against ADefendant

Elements1. There is a criminal proceeding;2. Offender testifies falsely under oath

against the defendant therein;3. Offender who gives false testimony knows

that it is false.4. Defendant against whom the false

testimony is given is either acquitted orconvicted in a final judgment.

Penalty for false testimony depends upon thesentence of the defendant against whomfalse testimony was given.

The defendant in the principal case must besentenced at least a correctional penalty, afine or shall have been acquitted in order

that the witness who falsely testified can beheld liable.

The witness who gave false testimony isliable even if his testimony was notconsidered by the court as the law intends topunish the mere giving of false testimony.

Article 181. False Testimony Favorable tothe Defendant

Elements1. A person gives false testimony;2. In favor of the defendant;3. In a criminal case.

Conviction or acquittal of defendant inprincipal case, not necessary as it issufficient that the defendant is prosecutedfor a felony punishable by afflictive penaltyor by other penalty.

False testimony favorable to the defendant isequally repugnant to the orderlyadministration of justice.



14/26

False testimony is punished because of itstendency to favor or to prejudice thedefendant.

False testimony by negative statement is infavor of defendant.

False testimony in favor of defendant neednot directly influence the decision of acquittal

nor benefit the defendant as it is sufficientthat it was given to favor the accused.

A statement by a witness that he is an expertin handwriting is a statement of mereopinion, the falsity of which is not sufficientto convict him.

The defendant who falsely testified in hisown behalf in a criminal case is guilty of falsetestimony favorable to the defendant. Theright to testify in his own behalf is secured tohim, not that he may be enabled tointroduced false testimony into the record,but to enable him to spread upon the record

the truth as to any matter within hisknowledge (US v Soliman)

Rectification made spontaneously afterrealizing the mistake is not false testimony.

Article 182. False Testimony in Civil Cases

Elements1. Testimony given in a civil case;2. Testimony relates to the issues presented

in said case;3. Testimony is false;4. Offender knows that testimony is false;5.

Testimony is malicious and given with anintent to affect the issues presented in saidcase.

The testimony given in the civil case must befalse.

Art. 182 is not applicable when the falsetestimony is given in special proceeding as itapplies only to ordinary civil cases.

Penalty depends on the amount of thecontroversy.

Article 183. False Testimony in OtherCases and Perjury in Solemn Affirmation

Acts punished

1. By falsely testifying under oath;2. By making a false affidavit.

Elements of perjury1. Offender makes a statement under oath or

executes an affidavit upon a materialmatter;

2. The statement or affidavit is made before acompetent officer, authorized to receiveand administer oaths;

3. Offender makes a willful and deliberateassertion of a falsehood in the statement oraffidavit;

4. The sworn statement or affidavit containing

the falsity is required by law, that is, it ismade for a legal purpose.

Oath is any form of attestation by which aperson signifies that he is bound inconscience to perform an act faithfully andtruthfully.

An affidavit is a sworn statement in writing; adeclaration in writing made upon oath orbefore an authorized magistrate or officer.

Perjury is an offense which covers false oathsother than those taken in the course of judicial proceedings.

A false affidavit to a criminal complaint may

give rise to perjury. Material matter is the main fact which is the

subject matter of the inquiry or anycircumstance which tends to prove that fact,or any fact or circumstance which tends tocorroborate or strengthen the testimonyrelative to the subject of inquiry or whichlegitimately affects the credit of any witnesswho testifies.

There must be competent proof ofmateriality. The matter is material when it isdirected to prove a fact in issue.

There is no perjury if sworn statement is notmaterial to the principal matter under

investigation. There is no perjury if defendant subscribed

and swore before a clerk in treasurers officeas a competent person authorized toadminister oath is a person who has a rightto inquire into the questions presented tohim upon matters under his jurisdiction.

The assertion of falsehood must be willfuland deliberate. Good faith or lack of malice isa defense in perjury.

The phrase when the law so requires doesnot mean that the sworn statement oraffidavit must be required by law. It has beeninterpreted to mean in cases in which the

law so authorizes. Hence, even if there is nolaw requiring the statement to be madeunder oath, as long as it is made for a legalpurpose, it is sufficient (P v Angcangco)

Two contradictory sworn statements are notsufficient to convict for perjury because theprosecution must prove which of the twostatements is false by other evidence thanthe contradictory statement.

The direct induction of a person by anotherto commit perjury is treated as plain perjury.



15/26

The one inducing another is principal byinduction and the latter as principal by directparticipation.

False testimony Perjury

Perversions of truthGiven in the course of judicial proceeding

Not given in judicialproceeding

Contemplates an actualtrial

May be committedduring preliminaryinvestigation and inmaking false affidavits

Diaz vs. People

Diaz was charged with falsification of official document. Heallegedly executed and filed in CSC a personal data sheet,an official document, where he stated he was a 4 th yr ABstudent at Cosmopolitan and Harvardian Colleges w/c ledto his reappointment. The accused was never enrolled insaid schools. He presented a transcript of record with noimprint of college seal nor signature of school president.

HELD: The crime committed was perjury. This offense isthe willful and corrupt assertion of a falsehood under oathor affirmation administered by authority of law on amaterial matter.

Acuna v. Deputy Ombudsman (2005)

FACTS: Petitioner Acua is a former teacher of theAngeles City National Trade School ("ACNTS") in Pampanga.Pascua was ACNTS' Officer-In-Charge while Turla was amember of the faculty. Yabut, another ACNTS teacher,together with other school personnel, requested a dialoguewith Pascua on some unspecified matter. Turla attendedthe meeting upon Pascua's directive. Acua, upon Yabutsinvitation also attended the meeting. As an offshoot to anincident during the meeting which was held on July 16,1998, Acua charged Pascua with misconduct ("OMB-ADM-1-99-0387") and with violation of Article 131 of the RPC ("OMB1-99-903") before the Office of the Ombudsman. In hissworn counter-affidavit in OMB-ADM-1-99-0387, Pascuaalleged, among others, that: (1) OMB-ADM-1-99-0387 is a"rehash and a duplication with a slight deviation of fact" ofan administrative case pending with DECS which Acua andYabut earlier filed against him and (2) Yabut had noauthority to invite in the meeting a non-employee of ACNTSlike Acua considering that Pascua was the one who calledthe meeting. Pascua also submitted a sworn statement ofTurla confirming that respondent Pascua and not Yabutcalled the said meeting. The Ombudsman dismissed OMB-ADM-1-99-0387 and OMB 1-99-0903. Contending that Pacuaand Turla perjured themselves in their sworn statements in

OMB-ADM-1-99-0387, petitioner charged the former withperjury before the office of the Deputy Ombudsman forLuzon. Acua alleged that Pascua and Turla were liable forperjury because: (1) the complaint she and Yabut filedagainst Pascua before the CSC, later endorsed to the DECS,was not "the same" as her complaint in OMB-ADM-1-99-0387and (2) it was Yabut and not respondent Pascua who calledthe meeting. The Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon dismissedthe complaint.

HELD: In prosecutions for perjury, a matter ismaterial if it is the "main fact which was the subject of the

inquiry, or any circumstance which tends to prove that fact. . ." 24 To hold private respondents liable, there must beevidence that their assailed statements in OMB-ADM-1-99-0387 were the subject of inquiry in that case. Petitionerhas presented no such evidence. The records are hardlyhelpful, as petitioner did not furnish the Court a copy ofher complaint in OMB-ADM-1-99-0387.

What is before the Court is a portion of Pascua's

counter-affidavit in that case as quoted by publicrespondent in his 4 April 2000 Resolution. Admittedly, someinference is possible from this quoted material, namely,that the basis of petitioner's complaint in OMB-ADM-1-99-0387 is that Pascua prevented her from taking part in theJuly 1998 meeting. However, it would be improper for theCourt to rely on such inference because the element ofmateriality must be established by evidence and not left toinference.At any rate, petitioner's complaint for perjury will still notprosper because Pascua's statement that OMB-ADM-1-99-0387 is significantly the same as petitioner's and Yabut'sadministrative complaint against respondent Pascua beforethe DECS is immaterial to the inferred issue.The third element of perjury requires that the accusedwillfully and deliberately assert a falsehood. Good faith orlack of malice is a valid defense. Here, the Court finds thatrespondent Pascua's statement in his counter-affidavit inOMB-ADM-1-99-0387 that he called the 16 July 1998meeting does not constitute a deliberate assertion offalsehood. While it was Yabut and some unidentified ACNTSpersonnel who requested a dialogue with respondentPascua, it was Pascua's consent to their request which ledto the holding of the meeting. Thus, Pascua's statement inquestion is not false much less malicious. It is a good faithinterpretation of events leading to the holding of themeeting.Regarding Pascua's allegation in his counter-affidavit inOMB-ADM-1-99-0387 that petitioners complaint was a mere"rehash and duplication with a slight deviation of fact" ofthe DECS administrative case petitioner and Yabut filedagainst Pascua, it was not shown by petitionerwhy this isfalse. Petitioner again did not furnish the Court a copy of

her and Yabut's complaint with the DECS.Turla's statement in OMB-ADM-1-99-0387 that respondentPascua called the 16 July 1998 meeting was a merereiteration of what respondent Pascua told him.Consequently, it was correct for the Deputy Ombudsmanfor Luzon to hold that since respondent Turla merelyrepeated what he heard from respondent Pascua, he couldnot be held liable for making a false and maliciousstatement. The dismissal is affirmed.

People v. Choa (2003)

FACTS: Alfonso Chan Choa, petitioner, a Chinese national,filed with the RTC a verified petition for naturalization.During the initial hearing of the case, Choa testified on

direct examination but he was not able to finish the same.He subsequently filed a motion to withdraw his petition fornaturalization for which the trial court granted. Meanwhile,State Prosecutor Delfin, acting upon the complaint ofpetitioner's wife, Leni, filed an Information with the MTCC,charging petitioner with perjury under Article 183 of theRPC with respect to alleged false statements he made inhis Petition for Naturalization. Petitioner alleged that thereis no basis to convict him of perjury because almost 2 yearsprior to the filing of the Information, his motion towithdraw the petition for naturalization containing thealleged false statements was granted, hence, the alleged



16/26

false statements were no longer existing or had become functus officio. The lower courts found Choas allegationdevoid of merit and convicted him guilty of perjury. In hispetition, Choa and the Solicitor General contend that (a)not all the elements of the crime of perjury are present;and (b) the withdawal of the petition for naturalizationwhich contains the alleged untruthful statements bars theprosecution of petitioner for perjury.

HELD: Fully cognizant of the truth surrounding his moralcharacter and residence, petitioner instead declaredfalsely in his verified petition for naturalization that "hehas all the qualifications and none of the disqualificationunder C.A. No. 473." Clearly, he willfully assertedfalsehood under oath on material matters required by law.It is not necessary that the proceeding in which the perjuryis alleged to have been committed be first terminatedbefore a prosecution for the said crime is commenced. Atthe time he filed his petition for naturalization, he hadcommitted perjury. All the elements of the crime werealready present then. He knew all along that he wilfullystated material falsities in his verified petition.Surprisingly, he withdrew his petition without even statingany reason therefor. But such withdrawal only terminatedthe proceedings for naturalization. It did not extinguish hisculpability for perjury he already committed. Indeed, thefact of withdrawal alone cannot bar the State fromprosecuting petitioner, an alien, who made a mockery notonly of the Philippine naturalization law but the judicialproceedings as well. And the petition for naturalizationtainted with material falsities can be used as evidence ofhis unlawful act.Petitioner then claims that since the petition fornaturalization is a pleading, the allegations therein areabsolutely privileged and cannot be used for any criminalprosecution against him, citing Sison vs. David, People vs.

Aquino and Flordelis vs. Himalaloan.The argument is unavailing. Sison and Aquino both involvelibel cases. In Sison, this Court categorically stressed thatthe term "absolute privilege" (or "qualified privilege") hasan "established technical meaning, in connection with civil

actions for libel and slander." The purpose of the privilegeis to ensure that "members of the legislature, judges ofcourts, jurors, lawyers, and witnesses may speak theirminds freely and exercise their respective functionswithout incurring the risk of a criminal prosecution or anaction for the recovery of damages. It is granted in aid andfor the advantage of the administration of justice."Certainly, in the present case, petitioner cannot seekrefuge under the absolutely privileged communication rulesince the false statements he made in his petition fornaturalization has instead made a mockery of theadministration of justice.The Flordelis case is likewise not in point. There, Flordeliswas charged with perjury for having alleged falsestatements in his verified answer. This Court held that noperjury could be committed by Flordelis because "ananswer to a complaint in an ordinary civil action need notbe under oath," thus, "it is at once apparent that oneelement of the crime of perjury is absent . . ., namely,that the sworn statement complained of must be requiredby law.d

Article 184. Offering False Testimony inEvidence

Elements

1. Offender offers in evidence a false witnessor testimony;

2 He knows that the witness or the testimonywas false;

3. The offer is made in any judicial or official

proceeding.

To consummate the offense, the witness ortestimony must be offered in evidence. Offerof evidence begins the moment the witnessis called to the witness stand andinterrogated by counsel.

Art. 184 applies when the offender withoutinducing another, but knowing him to be afalse witness, presented him as a witnessand he testified falsely.

The penalty shall be that for false testimonyif committed in a judicial proceeding or thatfor perjury if committed in anotherproceeding.

OBSTRUCTIONOF JUSTICE(PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO.1829)

Prohibited Acts

Preventing witnessesfrom testifying in any criminalproceeding or from reporting thecommission of any offense or theidentity of any offender/s by means ofbribery, misrepresentation, deceit,intimidation, force or threats;

Faltering, destroying,suppressing or concealing anypaper, record, document, orobject, with intent to impair itsverity, authenticity, legibility,availability, or admissibility asevidence in any investigation of orofficial proceedings in, criminal cases,or to be used in the investigation of, orofficial proceedings in, criminal cases;

Publicly using afictitious name for the purpose of

concealing a crime, evadingprosecution or the execution of ajudgment, or concealing his true nameand other personal circumstances forthe same purpose or purposes;

Delaying the prosecutionof criminal cases by obstructing theservice of process or court ordersor disturbing proceedings in the



17/26

fiscal's offices, in Ombudsman, orin the courts;

Making, presenting orusing any record, document, paperor object with knowledge of itsfalsity and with intent to affect the

course or outcome of theinvestigation of, or officialproceedings in, criminal cases;

Soliciting, accepting,or agreeing to accept any benefitin consideration of abstainingfrom, discounting, or impeding theprosecution of a criminal offender;

Threatening directlyor indirectly another with theinfliction of any wrong upon hisperson, honor or property or thatof any immediate member ormembers of his family in order toprevent such person fromappearing in the investigation of,or official proceedings in, criminalcases, or imposing a condition, whetherlawful or unlawful, in order to prevent aperson from appearing in theinvestigation of or in officialproceedings in, criminal cases;

Giving of false orfabricated information to misleador prevent the law enforcementagencies from apprehending theoffender or from protecting the life orproperty of the victim; or

Fabricatinginformation from the datagathered in confidence byinvestigating authorities forpurposes of backgroundinformation and not for publicationand publishing or disseminating thesame to mislead the investigator or thecourt.

Article 185. Machinations in PublicAuctions

Acts punished

1. Soliciting any gift or promise as aconsideration for refraining from takingpart in any public auction;

Elements1. There is a public auction;2. Offender solicits any gift or a

promise from any of the bidders;3. Such gift or promise is the

consideration for his refraining

from taking part in that publicauction;

4. Offender has the intent to causethe reduction of the price of thething auctioned.

2. Attempting to cause bidders to stay awayfrom an auction by threats, gifts, promisesor any other artifice.

Elements1. There is a public auction;2. Offender attempts to cause the

bidders to stay away from thatpublic auction;

3. It is done by threats, gifts, promisesor any other artifice;

4. Offender has the intent to cause thereduction of the price of the thingauctioned.

This crime is consummated by meresolicitation of gift or promise as aconsideration for not bidding. Likewise, mereattempt to cause prospective bidders to stayaway from an auction by means of threats,gifts, promises or any other artificeconsummates the crime.

Reason: so execution should be opened to

free and full competition to secure themaximum benefit for the debtor.

People vs. Ouano

Echavez and Ouano had an oral agreement that only theformer would make a bid for a parcel of land in a publicbidding, and if accepted, they would divide the property inproportion to their adjoining properties. To ensure thesuccess of their plans, they induced the only other partyinterested by paying her P2000 to desist from bidding.

HELD: The acts constituted a crime under Art 185. Theycaused another bidder to stay away from the auction inorder to cause the reduction of the price of the property

auctioned. The parties have no cause of action against eachother to and are both liable for the crime.

Article 186. Monopolies andCombinations in Restraint of Trade

Acts punished

1. Combination to prevent free competition inthe market;



18/26

Elements1. Entering into any contract or

agreement or taking part in anyconspiracy or combination in theform of a trust or otherwise;

2. In restraint of trade or commerce

or to prevent by artificial meansfree competition in the market.

2. Monopoly to restrain free competition inthe market;

Elements1. By monopolizing any merchandise

or object of trade or commerce, orby combining with any otherperson or persons to monopolizesaid merchandise or object;

2. In order to alter the prices thereofby spreading false rumors ormaking use of any other artifice;

3. To restrain free competition in themarket

3. Manufacturer, producer, or processor orimporter combining, conspiring or agreeingwith any person to make transactionsprejudicial to lawful commerce or toincrease the market price of merchandise.

Elements1. Manufacturer, producer, processor

or importer of any merchandise orobject of commerce;

2. Combines, conspires or agrees with

any person;3. Purpose is to make transactionsprejudicial to lawful commerce orto increase the market price of anymerchandize or object of commerce manufactured,produced, processed, assembled orimported into the Philippines.

Mere conspiracy or combination is punished.

If the offense affects any food substance orother article of prime necessity, it issufficient that initial steps are taken towardcarrying out the purposes of combination.

When offense is committed by a corporationor association, the president and directors ormanagers are liable. But they are liable onlywhen they (1) knowingly permitted or (2)failed to prevent the commission of suchoffense.

Article 187. Importation and Dispositionof Falsely Marked Articles or Merchandise

Made of Gold, Silver, or Other PreciousMetals of Their Alloys

Elements1. Offender imports, sells or disposes articles

made of gold, silver, or other preciousmetals or their alloys;

2. The stamps, brands, or marks of thosearticles of merchandise fail to indicate theactual fineness or quality of said metals oralloys;

3. Offender knows that the stamps, brands, ormarks fail to indicate the actual fineness orquality of the metals or alloys.

Articles involved are those made of gold,silver, other precious metals or their alloys.

Selling the misbranded articles is notnecessary but there must be evidenceshowing that the articles were imported.

Art 187 does not apply to manufacturer ofmisbranded articles made of gold, silver,other precious metals or their alloys.

Article 188. Substituting and AlteringTrademarks, Trade names, or ServiceMarks

Acts punished

1. Substituting the trade name or trademarkof some other manufacturer or dealer, or acolorable imitation thereof for the tradename or trademark of the realmanufacturer or dealer upon any article of

commerce and selling the same;2. Selling or offering for sale such articles of

commerce knowing that the trade name ortrademark has been fraudulently used;

3. Using or substituting the service mark ofsome other person, or a colorable imitationof such mark n the sale or advertising ofhis services;

4. Printing, lithographing or reproducing tradename, trademark, or service mark of oneperson or a colorable imitation thereof toenable another person to fraudulently usethe same knowing the fraudulent purposefor which it is to be used.

The tradename, trademark or service markused by the offender need not be identicalwith the infringed tradename, trademark orservice mark. A colorable imitation issufficient. But there must not be differenceswhich are glaring and striking to the eye.

They function of a trademark is to indicatethe origin or ownership of the goods to whichit is fixed.



19/26

It is not necessary that the goods of the prioruser and the late user of the trademark areof the same categories.

The trademark or tradename must beregistered. It must not be merely descriptiveor generic.

The exclusive right to an originally validtrademark or tradename is lost, if for anyreason it loses its distinctiveness or hasbecomepublici juris.

Article 189. Unfair Competition,Fraudulent Registration of Trade Name,Trademark, or Service Mark, FraudulentDesignation of Origin, and FalseDescription

Acts punished

1. Unfair competition;

Elements1. By selling his goods;2. Giving them the general

appearance of the goods ofanother manufacturer or dealer;

3. The general appearance is shownin the goods themselves, or in thewrapping of their packages, or inthe device or words therein, or inany feature of their appearance;

4. There is actual intent to deceivethe public or defraud a competitor.

2. Fraudulent designation of origin; false

description:Elements

1. By affixing to his goods or using inconnection with his services a falsedesignation of origin, or any falsedescription or representation; and

2. Selling such goods or services.

3. Fraudulent registrationElements

1. By procuring fraudulently from thepatent office;

2. The registration of trade name,trademark or service mark

Unfair competition consists in employingdeception or any other means contrary togood faith by which any person shall pass offthe goods manufactured by him or in whichhe deals, or his business, or his services forthose of the one having established goodwill,or committing any acts calculated to producesuch result.

Mere offer for sale completes the commissionof the crime. Evidence of actual fraudulentintent is not necessary.

The true test of unfair competition is WONcertain goods have been clothed with anappearance which is likely to deceive theordinary purchaser exercising ordinary.

The master is criminally responsible for actsof his servants and employees in violation ofthe penal provisions touching trademarks,tradenames; and unfair competition if hecauses the illegal act to be done, or requests,command or permits it or in any mannerauthorizes it, or aids or abets the servant inits commission of , whether he is present atthe time the unlawful act is committed ornot.

La Chemise Lacoste v Fernandez

In 1975, Hemandas & Co., a domestic firm was issued

registration for the trademark "CHEMISE LACOSTE &CROCODILE DEVICE" by the Philippine Patent Office for useon T-shirts, sportswear and other garment products of thecompany.

La Chemise Lacoste, S.A.,the actual owner of the TMs"LACOSTE", "CHEMISE LACOSTE", "CROCODILE DEVICE" usedon clothings and sporting apparels sold worldwide filed aPetition for Cancellation of Hamandas registration as it isclaiming prior registration of the TMs.

HELD: The records show that the goodwill and reputation ofLa Chemise products bearing the TM LACOSTE date backeven before 1964 when LACOSTE clothing apparels werefirst marketed in the Philippines. To allow Hemandas tocontinue using the trademark Lacoste for the simple reason

that he was the first registrant of a trademark used ininternational commerce and not belonging to him is torender nugatory the very essence of the law on trademarksand tradenames.

The purpose of the law is to point out distinctly the originor ownership of the article to which it is affixed, to secureto him, who has been instrumental in bringing into amarket a superior article of merchandise, the fruit of hisindustry and skill, and to prevent fraud and imposition. It isbased on the principle of business integrity and commonjustice.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8293The Intellectual Property Code of the

Philippines

TRADEMARKS, TRADENAMES, SERVICEMARKS

What acts are punishable?

1. Infringement

Elements:1. Registration of TN, TM or SM

2. Use in commerce by another (inc. reproductionand application of reproduction)

3. Use is without owners consent4. Use is likely to cause confusion, cause mistake or



20/26

deceive

regardless of whether or not thereis actual sale

2. Unfair Competition

Elements:1. Person has established goodwill (has

identified in the mind of the public hisgoods, business or services), whether or nota registered mark is employed

2. Another person passes of the goods hedeals in for those of the person who hasestablished goodwill

3. By means contrary to good faith (malice andintent to deceive essential)l

The ff. are DEEMED to have committed unfaircompetition:

(a) gives goods the general appearance of goods ofanother or such appearance as is likely to deceivethe public or defraud another of his legitimate trade+ to influence purchasers to believe that the goods

offered are those of another + sells the goods(includes subsequent vendor and agent of anyvendor)

(b) induces the false belief that he is offering theservices of another who has established goodwill +by any artifice or device

(c) makes any false statement in the course of tradeor any other act contrary to good faith + act orstatement calculated to discredit the business ofanother

3. False Designation of Origin / FalseDescription of Fact

Elements:1. Uses in commerce any false designation of origin,false description or representation of fact which:

is likely to deceive as to sponsorship or approvalof goods by another person

misrepresents nature, characteristics, qualitiesand geographic origin of goods incommercial advertising or promotion

PATENTS

What act are punishable?

Repetition of Infringement

Elements:

1.Existence of a final judgment against the

offender in a civil action for infringement ofpatent

2. Infringer or anyone in connivance with himrepeats the infringement after the finality ofthe judgment

By the way, what is infringement with respect topatents?

It is the making, using, offering for sale, selling, orimporting of a (1) patented product or a product

obtained directly or indirectly from a patentedprocess, or the use of a patented process (2) withoutauthorization of the patentee.

Prescription: The criminal action for repetition ofinfringement of patent prescribes in three (3) yearsfrom date of the commission of the crime.

COPYRIGHT

Who are punishable?

1. Any person infringing any right secured by theprovisions of the law on copyright (like copy oreconomic rights, moral rights etc.) or of aiding orabetting such infringement;

2. Any person who at the time when copyrightsubsists in a work has in his possession an articlewhich he knows, or ought to know, to be an infringingcopy of the work for the purpose of:

(a) Selling, letting for hire, or by wayof trade, offering or exposing forsale, or hire, the article;

(b) Distributing the article for purposesof trade, or for any other purposeto an extent that will prejudice therights of the copyright owner in thework; or

(c) Trade (?) exhibit of the articles inpublic.

RA 8792E-Commerce Act

SECTION 25. Actions Related to Contracts of

Carriage of Goods. Without derogating from theprovisions of Part Two of this Act, this Chapterapplies to any action in connection with, or inpursuance of, a contract of carriage of goods,including but not limited to:(a) (i) furnishing the marks, number,

quantity or weight of goods;(ii) stating or declaring the nature orvalue of goods;(iii) issuing a receipt for goods;(iv) confirming that goods have been

loaded;

(b) (i) notifying a person of terms andconditions of the contract;(ii) giving instructions to a carrier;

(c) (i) claiming delivery of goods;(ii) authorizing release of goods;(iii) giving notice of loss of, or damageto goods;

(d) giving any other notice or statement inconnection with the performance of the contract;(e) undertaking to deliver goods to a namedperson or a person authorized to claim delivery;(f) granting, acquiring, renouncing,



21/26

surrendering, transferring or negotiating rights ingoods;(g) acquiring or transferring rights andobligations under the contract.

SECTION 26. Transport Documents. (1)Subject to paragraph (3), where the law requires thatany action referred to in Section 25 be carried out in

writing or by using a paper document, thatrequirement is met if the action is carried out byusing one or more electronic data messages orelectronic documents.(2) Paragraph (1) applies whether therequirement therein is in the form of an obligation orwhether the law simply provides consequences forfailing either to carry out the action in writing or touse a paper document.(3) If a right is to be granted to, or an obligationis to be acquired by, one person and no other person,and if the law requires that, in order to effect this,the right or obligation must be conveyed to thatperson by the transfer, or use of, a paper document,that requirement is met if the right or obligation isconveyed by using one or more electronic data

messages or electronic documents: Provided, That areliable method is used to render such electronicdata messages or electronic documents unique.(4) For the purposes of paragraph (3), thestandard of reliability required shall be assessed inthe light of the purpose for which the right orobligation was conveyed and in the light of all thecircumstances, including any relevant agreement.(5) Where one or more electronic datamessages or electronic documents are used to effectany action in subparagraphs (f) and (g) of Section 25,no paper document used to effect any such action isvalid unless the use of electronic data message orelectronic document has been terminated andreplaced by the use of paper documents. A paperdocument issued in these circumstances shallcontain a statement of such termination. Thereplacement of electronic data messages orelectronic documents by paper documents shall notaffect the rights or obligations of the partiesinvolved.(6) If a rule of law is compulsorily applicable toa contract of carriage of goods which is in, or isevidenced by, a paper document, that rule shall notbe inapplicable to such a contract of carriage ofgoods which is evid