KOH TIECK HENG VS PEOPLE *.

+nder
+nder the two nform
nformati
ation
ons,
s, the mode
mode of falsi
falsific
ficati
ation
on
(192 SCRA 533) attri$uted to the accused is that of haing erased and altered the
dates
tes and amo amounts of the the checkscks in -ue-uestio
stion,
n, and
and
ESTAFA WITH FRAUDULENT MEANS superimposing oer the original dates and amounts, there$y
making alterations and changes in genuine documents which
FACTS changed their meaning. Accused misappropriated, misapplied
and conerted to his own personal use and $enefit checks in
1. Koh Tieck Heng, alias Teddy Koh, alias Tomas P. Flores was arious amounts.
charged of estafa thru falsification of a commercial document
in the following manner: ISSUE

A. After
After opening
opening a saings account
account with
with !"T# under
under the name )/ there was attempted estafa in the a$sence of deceit and
Tomas
Tomas P. Flores and somehow
somehow illegally
illegally o$tained
o$tained a P"# damage
check issued $y one F. %ycaico,
". Accus
Accuseded making
making or causin
causingg altera
alteratio
tions
ns and chang
changes
es in a HELD
genuine
genuine documen
documentt w&c changed
changed its meaning and there$y
there$y
affi'ing his signature at the $ack of the check, which check  YES.
was cleared $y the P"#.
The fact that appellant was the possessor and utterer of the
(. )n the second instance, accused did not perform all the acts checks in -uestion and haing $enefited from the su$se-uent
of e'ecution which should hae produced the crime of estafa withdrawals, as well as haing attempted to gain $y trying to
thru falsification of a commercial
commercial document $y reason of some withdraw an amount thereon. The use of the spurious checks is
cause other than his own spontaneous desistance, that is, $y  $y itself fraud or deceit. The appellant made use of and
timely discoery made $y officials&employees of said $ank of   $enefited from
from the falsified document
document is strong
strong eidence
eidence that he
the forgery and falsificat
falsification
ion made on the aforesai
aforesaid
d check 
check  either himself falsified it or caused the same to $e falsified, he
 $efore payment could $e made which led then and there to the  $eing criminally responsi$le in either case. !ince Heng is the
apprehension of said accused. only person who stood to $e $enefited $y the falsification of 
the document that was found in his possession, it is presumed
that he is the material author of such falsification.