1.

Commercial Document

In Seaoil Petroleum Corporation v. Autocorp Group 1, the Court

considered a sales invoice a commercial document and explained:

The vehicle sales invoice [autocorp sold to Seaoil one unit

Robex 200 LC Excavator paid for by checks issued by one
Romeo Valera] is the best evidence of the transaction. A sales
invoice is a commercial document. Commercial documents or
papers are those used by merchants or businessmen to
promote or facilitate trade or credit transactions. Business
forms, e.g., order slip, delivery charge invoice and the like, are
commonly recognized in ordinary commercial transactions as
valid between the parties and, at the very least, they serve as
an acknowledgment that a business transaction has in fact
transpired.

2. Falsification as a necessary means to commit estafa

In Domingo v. People2, the Supreme Court held that:

The falsification of a public, official or commercial document

may be a means of committing estafa, because before the
falsified document is actually utilized to defraud another, the
crime of falsification has already been consummated, damage
or intent to cause damage not being an element of the crime of
falsification of public, official or commercial document. In other
words, the crime of falsification has already existed. Actually
utilizing that falsified public, official or commercial document
to defraud another is estafa. But the damage is caused by the
commission of estafa, not by the falsification of the document.
Therefore, the falsification of the public, official or commercial
document is only a necessary means to commit estafa.
3. For petitioner to be convicted of the complex crime of estafa through
falsification of public document committed in the manner described in the
Information, all the elements of the two crimes of estafa and falsification of
public document must exist.3

To secure a conviction for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the

Revised Penal Code (RPC), the following requisites must concur:

a) The accused made false pretenses or fraudulent representations as to his

power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or
imaginary transactions;
b) The false pretenses or fraudulent representations were made prior to or
simultaneous with the commission of the fraud;
c) The false pretenses or fraudulent representations constitute the very cause
which induced the offended party to part with his money or property;
d) That as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.4

4. The elements of the crime as found in paragraph 1, Article 172 of the

RPC, are:
1
Seaoil Petroleum Corpora 'ion v. Autocorp Group, 590 Phil. 410, 419 (2008).
2
Domingo v. People, G.R. No. 186101, October 12, 2009, 603 SCRA 488, 505-506.
3
Gonzaludo v. People, G.R. No. 150910, February 6, 2006, 481 SCRA 569, 577.
4
Id.
 a. The offender is a private individual or a public officer or employee who
did not take advantage of his official position;
b. The offender committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated in
Article 171; and
c. The falsification was committed in a public or official or commercial
document.5

5
 Guillergan v. People, G.R. No. 185493, February 2, 2011, 641 SCRA 511, 516.