ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION

COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

CRIMINAL LAW BOOK 2

CRIMES AGAINST
PUBLIC INTEREST

SUBMITTED BY:

PALABASAN, JOSEPH LOUISE S.

DE JESUS, RENATO
BSCRIM3A

SUBMITTED TO:
JUDGE MARVIC ALFONSO
Title Four
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST

What are the crimes against public interest?

1.Counterfeiting the great seal of the Government of the Philippines, forging the signature or stamp of
the Chief Executive. (Art. 161)

2.Using forged signature or counterfeit seal or stamp. (Art. 162)

3.Making and importing and uttering false coins. (Art. 163)

4.Mutilation of coins, importation and uttering of mutilated coins. (Art.

164)

5.Selling of false or mutilated coins, without connivance. (Art. 165)

8.Illegal possession and use of forged treasury or bank notes and other instruments of credit. (Art.168)

9.Falsification of legislative documents. (Art. 170)

10.Falsification by public officer, employee or notary. (Art. 171)

11.Falsification by private individuals and use of falsified documents. (Art. 172)

12.Falsification of wireless, cable, telegraph and telephone messages and use of said falsified messages.
(Art. 173)

13.False medical certificates, false certificates of merit or service. (Art. 174)

14.Using false certificates. (Art. 175)

15.Manufacturing and possession of instruments or implements for falsification. (Art. 176)

16.Usurpation of authority or official functions. (Art. 177)

17.Using fictitious name and concealing true name. (Art. 178)

18.Illegal use of uniform or insignia. (Art. 179)

19.False testimony against a defendant. (Art. 180)

20.False testimony favorable to the defendant. (Art. 181)

21.False testimony in civil cases. (Art. 182)

22.False testimony in other cases and perjury. (Art. 183)

23.Offering false testimony in evidence. (Art. 184)

24.Machinations in public auction. (Art. 185)

25.Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade. (Art. 186)

26.Importation and disposition of falsely marked articles or merchandise made of gold, or other
precious metals or their alloys. (Art. 187)

27.Substituting and altering trade marks and trade names or service marks. (Art. 188)

28.Unfair competition and fraudulent registration of trade mark or trade name, or service mark;
fraudulent designation of origin, and false description. (Art. 189)

Chapter One
FORGERIES

1. Forging the seal of the Government, signature or stamp of the Chief Executive. (Art. 161)

2. Counterfeiting coins. (Art. 163)

3. Mutilation of coins. (Art. 164)

4. Forging treasury or bank notes or other documents payable to bearer. (Art. 166)

5. Counterfeiting instruments not payable to bearer. (Art. 167)

6. Falsification of legislative documents. (Art. 170)

7. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastical minister. (Art. 171)

8. Falsification by private individuals. (Art. 172)

9. Falsification of wireless, cable, telegraph and telephone messages. (Art. 173)

10. Falsification of medical certificates, certificates of merit or service. (Art. 174)

FORGERY

Section One. — Forging the seal of the Government of the Philippine Islands, the signature or stamp of
the Chief Executive.

Art. 161. Counterfeiting the great the Government the Philippine forging the signature or
stamp the Chief Executive.

— The penalty of reclusion temporal be imposed upon any person who shall forge the Great Seal of
the Government of the Philippine Islands or the signature or stamp of the Chief Executive.

Acts punished:

 1. Forging the Great Seal of the Government of the Philippines.

 2.Forging the signature of the President.

 3.Forging the stamp of the President.

The Great Seal of the Republic of the Philippines.

The Great Seal is circular in form, with arms consisting of paleways of two pieces, azure and gules; a
chief argent studded with three golden stars equidistant from each other; in point of honor, ovoid
argent over the sun rayonnant with eight minor and lesser rays; in sinister base gules, the Lion Rampant
of Spain; in dexter base azure, the American eagle displayed proper; and surrounding the whole is a
double marginal circle within which are the words "Republic of the (Sec. 18 of the Revised
Administrative Code, as amended by Com. Acts Nos. 602 , 614, and 731)

Custody and use of the Great Seal.

The Great Seal shall be and remain in the custody of the President of the Philippines, and shall be
affixed to or placed upon all commissions signed by him, and upon such other official documents and
papers of the Republic of the Philippines as may by law be provided, or as may be required by custom
and usage in the discretion of the President of the Philippines. (Sec. 19, Revised Administrative Code, as
amended)

The offense is not falsification of public document.

When in a Government document the signature of the President is forged, it is not called falsification.
Art. 161 supplied the specific provision to govern the case. The name of the crime is forging the
signature of the Chief Executive.

The signature of the President must be formed.

The act punishable, among others, is counterfeiting or making an imitation of the signature of the Chief
Executive on what is made to appear as an official document of the Republic of the Philippines.

It would seem that if the Chief Executive left with his secretary a signature in blank, and a document is
written above it, the crime committed is not covered by Art. 161. The one applicable is Art. 171 or Art.
172.

Art.162. Using forged signature or counterfeit seal or stamp.

— The penalty of prison mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall knowingly make use of the
counterfeit seal or forged signature or stamp mentioned in the preceding article.

Elements:

1. That the Great Seal of the Republic was counterfeited or the signature or stamp of the Chief
Executive was forged by another person.

2.That the offender knew of the counterfeiting or forgery.

3.That he used the counterfeit seal or forged signature or stamp.

The offender under this article should not be the forger.

 The offender should not be the one who forged the great seal or signature of the Chief
Executive. Otherwise, he will be penalized under Art. 161.

 The act is that of an accessory but the penalty is only one degree lower.
  In using forged signature or stamp of the Chief Executive, or forged seal, the participation of the
offender is in effect that of an accessory, and although the general rule is that he should be
punished by a penalty two degrees lower, under Art. 162 he is punished by a penalty only one
degree lower.

Section Two. — Counterfeiting coins

What are the crimes under counterfeiting coins?

1. Making and importing and uttering false coins (Art. 163)

2.Mutilation of coins — importation and utterance of mutilated coins (Art. 164); and

3.Selling of false or mutilated coin, without connivance. 165)

Art.163. Making and importing and uttering false coins.— Any person who makes, imports, or
utters false coins, inconnivance with counterfeiters or importers, shall suffer:

1. Prision mayor in its minimum and medium and a fine not to exceed 10,000 pesos, if the
counterfeited coin be silver coin of the Philippines or coin of the Central Bank of the Philippines
of ten-centavo denomination or above.
2. Art.163. Making and importing and uttering false coins.— Any person who makes,
imports, or utters false coins, inconnivance with counterfeiters or importers, shall suffer:
3. 1. Prision mayor in its minimum and medium and a fine not to exceed 10,000 pesos, if the
counterfeited coin be silver coin of the Philippines or coin of the Central Bank of the Philippines
of ten-centavo denomination or above.

Elements

1. That there be false or counterfeited coins.

2. That the offender either made, imported or uttered such coins.

3. That in case of uttering such false or counterfeited coins, he connived with the counterfeiters or
importers.

When is a coin false or counterfeited?

 A coin is false or if it is forged or if it is not authorized by the Government as legal tender,

regardless of its intrinsic value.

 Counterfeiting means the imitation of a legal or genuine coin. It may contain more silver than
the ordinary coin.

 There is counterfeiting when a spurious coin is made. There must be an imitation of the peculiar
design of a genuine coin. (U.S. Basco, 6 Phil.

When is a coin false or counterfeited?

 Thus, if a person gave a copper cent the appearance of a silver piece, it being silver plated,
and attempted to pay with it a package of cigarettes which he bought at a store, such person is
not liable for counterfeiting of coin, but for estafa under Art. 318.

 The coin in question is a genuine copper cent, bearing its original design and inscription.

"Import," its meaning.

 To import fake coins means to bring them into port. The importation is complete before entry
at the Customs House. (U.S. vs. Lyman, 26 Fed. Cas. 1024)

"Utter," its meaning.

To utter is to pass counterfeited coins. It includes their delivery or the act of giving them away. A
counterfeited coin is uttered when it is paid, when the offender is caught counting the counterfeited
coins preparatory to the act of delivering them, even though the utterer may not obtain the gain he
intended. (Decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain of Jan. Jan. 4, 1893; Nov. 12, 1888; and Dec.
24, 1885) Hence, damage to another is not necessary.

Kinds of coins the counterfeiting of which is punished:

 Silver coin of the Philippines or coin of the Central Bank of the Philippines.
 Coin of the minor coinage of the Philippines or of the Central Bank of the Philippines.
 Coin of the currency of a foreign country.

What are the minor coins?

Under Art. 163, as amended, the minor coins of the Philippines are the coins below ten-centavo
denomination.

Former coins withdrawn from circulation may be counterfeited under Article

Thus, a goldsmith accused of counterfeiting for making five-dollar, ten- dollar, and twenty-dollar U.S.
gold coins which had been withdrawn from circulation under the Gold Reserve Act of 1934, is liable
under paragraph 3 of Article 163 of this Code.

The reason for punishing the fabrication of a coin withdrawn from circulation is not alone the harm
that may be caused to the public in case it goes into circulation again, but the possibility that the
counterfeiter may later apply his trade to the making of coins in actual circulation. (People vs. Kong
Leon, C.A., 48 O.G. 664)

Article 163 of the Revised Penal Code penalizes the making, importing and uttering of false coins
whether of the United States, of the Philippines or of a foreign country, because it is intended to
protect not only the coins legally minted in said countries, but also the public in general. The
legislator has taken into consideration the bad effect of the crime of counterfeiting of coins, its
importing and uttering. (People vs. Tin Ching Ting 90 Phil. 870)

Note: Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Art. 163 mention "coin," without any qualifying word, such as "current."

As regards paragraph 3, which says: "if the counterfeited coin be currency of a foreign country," the
use of the word "currency" is not correct,

because the Spanish text uses the word which embraces not only those that are legal tender, but
also those out of circulation.

Art. 164. Mutilation coins — Importation and utterance mutilated coins. — The penalty
correccional in its minimum and a fine not to exceed 2,000 pesos shall be

imposed any person wh o shall mutilate coins of the legal currency of the (United States or of
the) Philippine Islands or import or utter mutilated current coins, in connivance with the mutilator or
importer.

Acts punished under Art. 164:

Mutilating coins of the legal currency, with the further requirement that there be intent to
damage or to defraud another.

Importing or uttering such mutilated coins, with the further requirement that there must be
connivance with the mutilator or importer in case of uttering.

Meaning of mutilation.

means to take off part of the metal either by filing it or substituting it for another metal of inferior
quality.

Mutilation is to diminish by ingenuous means the metal in the coin. One who mutilates a coin
does not do so for the sake of mutilating, but to take advantage of the metal abstracted; he
appropriates a part of the metal of the coin. Hence, the coin diminishes in intrinsic value. One who
utters said mutilated coin receives its legal value, much more than its intrinsic value. (People vs. Tin
Ching Ting, G.R. No. L-4620, Jan.

The coin must be of "legal tender" in mutilation.

A reading of the provisions under this chapter will reveal that only in this article does the law
require "legal tender" as an element of the offense in the case of mutilation. Note the phrases
"coins of the legal currency" and
"current coins" used in the law. It is indispensable that the mutilated coin be of legal tender.
(People vs. Tin Ching Ting, supra)

Coins of foreign country not included.

The coin mutilated must be genuine and has not been withdrawn from circulation. The coin must
be of the legal currency or current coins of the Philippines. Therefore, if the coin mutilated is
legal tender of a foreign country, it is not a crime of mutilation under the Revised Penal Code.

Art. 165. Selling of false or mutilated coin, without connivance. — Any person who knowingly,
although without the connivance mentioned in the preceding articles, shall

possess false or mutilated coin with intent to utter the same, or shall actually utter such coin, shall
suffer a penalty lower by one degree than that prescribed in said articles.

Acts punished under Art. 165:

1. of coin, counterfeited or mutilated by another person, with intent to utter the same,
knowing that it is false or mutilated.

Elements:

Possession,

 With intent to utter, and Knowledge.

 Actually uttering such false or mutilated coin, knowing the same to be false or mutilated.

Elements:

 Actually uttering, and

 Knowledge.
 Possession of or uttering false coin does not require that the counterfeited coin is legal
tender.

Thus, a person in possession of, with intention to put into circulation, a false five-dollar gold coin,
an imitation of the genuine five-dollar gold coin of the United States, is liable under Article 165,
even if such gold coin is no

longer legal tender in the United States, and much less in the Philippines. Art. 165 does not require
that the coin be of legal tender. We should not add a condition not provided by the law. (People vs.
Tin Ching Ting, G.R. No. L-4620, Jan. 30, 1952, unreported, 90 Phil. 870)
But if the coin being uttered or possessed with intent to utter is a mutilated coin, it must be legal
tender coin, because of Article 164 to which Article 165 is related.

Constructive possession included.

The possession prohibited in Article 165 of the Revised Penal Code is possession in general, that
is, not only actual, physical possession, but also constructive possession or the subjection of the
thing to one's control pari materia: People vs. Umali, [CA] 46 O.G. 2648; People vs. Misa, CA-
G.R. No.00800-CR, Oct. People vs.CA-G.R. No. 1074, Feb.

People vs. Lera, CA-G.R. No.Feb. 28, 1957), otherwise offenders could easily evade the law by the
mere expedient of placing other persons in actual, physical possession of the thing although
retaining constructive possession or actual control thereof. (People vs. 11 C.A. Rep. 147)

Possession of counterfeiter or importer not punished as separate offense.

If the false or mutilated coins are found in the possession of the counterfeiters, or mutilators, or
importers, such possession does not constitute a separate offense, but is identified with the
counterfeiting or mutilation or importation. (Dec. Sup. Court of Spain, June 28, 1877)

The offense punished under this article is the mere holding of the false or mutilated coin with intent
to utter.

"Although without the connivance mentioned in the preceding articles."

Actually uttering false or mutilated coin, knowing it to be false or mutilated, is a crime under Art.
165, even if the offender was not in connivance with the counterfeiter or mutilator.

The accused must have knowledge of the fact that the coin is false.

A Chinese merchant was paid by purchaser of goods in the former's store a false 50-centavo coin. He
placed it in his drawer. During a search by some constabulary officers, the false coin was found in
the drawer.

May the Chinaman be convicted of illegal possession of a false coin?

No, because Art. 165 requires three things as regards possession of false coins, namely: (1)
possession; (2) intent to utter; and (3) knowledge that the coin is false.

The fact that the Chinaman received it in payment of his good and placed it in his drawer shows that
he did not know that such coin was false. (People vs. Go Po, G.R. No. 42697 , V L. J. 393 , August,
1985)
Section Three. — Forging treasury or bank notes, obligations and securities; importing and
uttering false or forged notes, obligations and securities

Art. 166. Forging or bank notes or other documents payable to bearer; importing, and
uttering such false or forged notes and — The forging or falsification of treasury or bank
notes or certificates or other obligations and securities payable to bearer and the importation and
uttering in connivance with forgers or importers of such false or forged obligations or notes, shall
be punished as follows:

By reclusion temporal in its minimum and a fine not to exceed 10,000 pesos, if the document
which has been falsified, counterfeited, or altered is an obligation or security of the (United States
or of the) Philippine Islands.

The words or security of the (United States or of the) Philippine Islands" shall be held to mean all
bonds, certificates of indebtedness, national bank notes, coupons, (United States or) Philippine
Islands notes, treasury notes, fractional notes, certificates of deposit, bills, checks, or drafts for
money, drawn by or upon authorized officers of the (United States or of the) Philippine Islands, and
other representatives of value, of whatever denomination, which have been or may be issued under
any Act of the Congress of the (United States or the) Philippine Legislature.

 By prision mayor in its maximum and a fine not to exceed 5,000 pesos, if the falsified or
altered document is a circulating note issued by any banking association duly authorized by
law to issue the same.
 By prision mayor in its medium and a fine not to exceed 5,000 pesos, if the falsified or
counterfeited document was issued by a foreign government.
 By prision mayor in its minimum and a fine not to exceed 2,000 pesos, whe n the
forged or altered document is a circulating note or bill issued by a foreign bank duly
authorized therefor.

Three acts penalized under Art. 166:

 Forging or falsification of treasury or bank notes or other documents payable to bearer.

 Importation of such false or forged obligations or
 Uttering of such false or forged obligations or notes in connivance with the forgers or
importers.

How are "forging" and "falsification" committed.

 Forging is committed by giving to a treasury or bank note or any instrument payable to

bearer or to order the appearance of a true and genuine document; and falsification is
 committed by erasing, substituting, counterfeiting, or altering by any means, the figures,
letters, words, or signs contained therein. (Art. 169)
 To forge an instrument is to make false instrument intended to be passed for the genuine
one.

Example of falsifying, counterfeiting or altering an obligation or security of the (par. 1 of Art. 166)

The accused erased and changed the last digit 9 of Serial No. F- 79692619 of a genuine treasury note
so as to read 0. (Del Rosario vs. People, 113 Phil. 626)

Meaning of importation of false or forged obligations or notes.

Importation of false or forged obligations or notes means to bring them into the Philippines, which
presupposes that the obligations or notes are forged or falsified in a foreign country.

Meaning of uttering false or forged obligations or notes.

It means offering obligations or notes knowing them to be false or forged, whether such offer is
accepted or not, with a representation, by words or actions, that they are genuine and with an
intent to defraud. (See 26 C.J. 924)

Uttering forged bill must be with connivance to constitute a violation of Art. 166.

By pleading guilty to the charge of having passed a P10 counterfeit bill in a store in violation of Art.
166, the accused admitted all the material allegations of the information, including that of
connivance with the authors of the forgery, which characterizes the crime defined by Art. 166 of the

Revised Penal Code. (People vs. Valencia, et 59 Phil. 42)

Notes and other obligations and securities that may be forged or falsified under Art. 166.

They are:

 Treasury or bank notes,

 Certificates, and
 Other obligations and securities, payable to bearer.

 A bank note, certificate or obligation and security is payable to bearer when it can be
negotiated by mere delivery.
  A five-peso bill, etc., or a winning sweepstakes ticket is payable to bearer, because its
ownership is transferred to another by mere delivery to him of such bill or ticket.

The instrument is payable to bearer —

 When it is expressed to be so payable; or

 When it is payable to a person named therein or bearer; or
 When it is payable to the order of a fictitious or non-existing person, and such fact was
known to the person making it so payable; or
 When the name of the payee does not purport to be the name of any person; or
 When the only or last indorsement is an indorsement in blank. (Negotiable Instruments Law,
Sec. 9)

Penalties depend on the kind of forged treasury or bank notes or other documents.

There are four penalties prescribed in Art. 166, and those penalties are respectively imposed if the
document falsified, altered or counterfeited is any of the following:

 Obligation or security issued by the Government of the Philippines.

 Circulating note issued by any banking association duly authorized by law to issue the
same.
 Document issued by a foreign government.
 Circulating note or bill issued by a foreign bank duly authorized to issue the same.

The Code punishes forging or falsification of bank notes and of documents of credit payable to
bearer and issued by the State more severely than it does the counterfeiting of coins.

The reason for this is that the first tends to bring such documents into discredit and the offense
produces a lack of confidence on the part of the holders of said documents to the prejudice of
the interests of society and of the State. Moreover, it is easier to forge or falsify such certificates,
notes and documents of credit than to make counterfeit coins, and the profit which is derived
therefrom by the forger of such documents is greater and the incentive for the commission of such
a crime more powerful. (U.S. vs. Gardner, 3 Phil. 403)

Example of forging obligation or security.

The accused-appellant was charged with having falsified a genuine 1/8 unit of the Philippine Charity
Sweepstakes ticket for the June, 1947 draw by tearing off at its bottom in a crosswise direction, a
portion, thereby removing the true and unidentified number of said ticket and substituting in
writing in ink at the bottom on the left side the number 074000, thus making said ticket bear a prize-
winning number. He was convicted of attempted estafa thru falsification of an obligation or security
and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor to 12
years and 1 day of reclusion temporal, and to pay a fine of P100 plus the costs. (People vs.
85 Phil. 497)

Note: The accused was convicted of the complex crime of attempted estafa through falsification of
an obligation or security of the Philippines, because he attempted to cash the ticket so altered as
one with a prize-

winning number.

"Obligation or security of the United States."

Now that the Philippines is independent of the United States, is the forging of the obligation or
security of the United States punishable under paragraph No. 1 of Article 166?

The provisions of Art. 166 relative to U.S. obligations were repealed upon the grant of independence
to the Philippines. (People vs. C.A., 50 O.G. 632)

In the case of People vs. Santiago, et 48 O.G. 4401, it was held that script money (U.S.
payment military certificate used as legal tender payable to bearer in place of the dollar currency
within military

installations in the Philippines) is expressly covered in the definition of or security of the United
States" given in the second paragraph, No. 1 of Article 166 of the Code.

Art.166 FORGING TREASURY OR BANK NOTES OR OTHER DOCUMENTS

Note: With due respect to the ruling of the Court of Appeals, it is believed that the words in Article
166 were written there,

because when the Revised Penal Code was enacted, the Philippines was yet a colony of the United
States.

It would seem that the script money should be considered a document issued by a foreign
government under paragraph No. 3 of Article 166. (See People vs. Esteban, CA-G.R. No. Aug. 22,
1955).

Meaning of "obligation or security" of the Philippines.

The words "obligation or security x x x of the Philippine Islands" shall be held to mean all —

 bonds, certificates of indebtedness,

 national bank notes,
 coupons,
 treasury notes, fractional notes,
  certificates of deposits,
 bills,
 checks
 drafts for money,
 and other representatives of value issued under any Act of Congress.

Money bills issued by the Central Bank are national bank notes.

The P5-bills, P20-bills etc., issued by the Central Bank of the Philippines are national bank notes.

Art. 167. Counterfeiting, importing, and uttering instruments not payable to bearer. — Any
person who shall forge, import, or utter, in connivance with the forgers or importers, any
instrument payable to order or other document of credit not payable to bearer, shall suffer the
penalties prision correccional in its medium and maximum and a fine not exceeding 6,000 pesos.

Elements:

That there be an instrument payable to order or other document of credit not payable to bearer.

2. That the offender either forged, imported or uttered such instrument.

That in case of uttering, he connived with the forger or importer.

Application of Art.167 is limited to instruments payable to order.

 The counterfeiting under Art. 167 must involve an instrument payable to o rder or other
document of credit not payable to bearer.
 The instrument is payable to order where it is drawn payable to the order of a specified
person or to him or his order. (Negotiable Instruments Law, Sec. 8) It is negotiated by
indorsement and delivery.

Does this article cover instruments or other documents of credit issued by a foreign government
or bank?

It is believed that it includes such instruments or documents of credit, because the act punished
includes that of importing, without specifying the country or government issuing them.

If the document is payable to bearer, there is no doubt that it may be issued by a foreign
government or bank. Art. 166, pars. 3 and 4, cover such documents.
Falsification of U.S. treasury warrants.

The falsification of U.S. treasury warrants not payable to bearer is punished under Art. 172, not
under Art. 167. (People vs. Loteyro, C.A., 50O.G. 632)

But in the case of People vs. Esteban, et C.A., 55 O.G. 3510, the prosecution for uttering forged
U.S. treasury warrants was made under Art. 166.

Reason for punishing forgery.

Forgery of currency is punished so as to maintain the integrity of the currency and thus insure
the credit standing of the government and prevent the imposition on the public and the government
of worthless notes or obligations. (People vs. Galano, 54 O.G. 5897)

Connivance is not required in uttering if the utterer is the forger.

The utterer should not be the forger. If the utterer was the one who forged the instrument payable
to order, obviously is not required, for he can be held liable as a forger of the instrument. (People
vs. Orqueza, 14 C.A. Rep. 730)

Art. 168. Illegal possession and use of false treasury or bank notes and other instruments
of credit. — Unless the act be one of those coming under the provisions of any of the preceding
articles, any person wh o shall knowingly use or have in his possession, with intent to use any of the
false or falsified instruments referred to in this section, shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree
than that prescribed in said articles.

Elements:

 That any treasury or bank note or certificate or other obligation and security payable to
bearer, or any instrument payable to order or other document of credit not payable to
bearer is forged or falsified by another person.
 That the offender knows that any of those instruments is forged or falsified.

TREASURY OR BANK NOTES

  That he performs any of these acts —
 using any of such forged or falsified instruments; or
 possessing with intent to use any of such forged or falsified instruments.

Intent to possess is not intent to use.

Possession of false treasury or bank notes alone is not a criminal offense. For it to constitute an
offense under Article 168 of the Penal Code, the possession must be with intent to use said false
treasury or bank notes. Hence, it follows that an information alleging possession of false treasury
and bank notes without alleging intent to use the same but only "intent to them, charges no
offense. (People vs. Digoro, G.R. No. L-22032, March 4, 1966)

How to prove that a bank note is forged.

Evidence must be presented that the number which the questioned bank note bears does not check
with the genuine one issued with the same number. (People vs. 76 Phil. 490)

The accused must have knowledge of the forged character of the note.

Thus, where the accused in aiding his brother to utter a counterfeit bank note was not aware of its
counterfeit character, he was not guilty of illegal possession and use of false bank note. (U.S. vs.
De Leon, et 4 Phil.

496)

Conduct of the accused considered to establish knowledge of forgery.

Buying eggs worth P0.30 at one instance, and making a purchase of P0.50 at another instance,
paying in each instance a false ten-peso bill, receiving on both occasions the proper amount of
change in lawful money, and when arrested and asked by a policeman to explain the possession of
the same, the offender refused to make any explanation, stating he would know what to say in
court. In court, he failed to explain his possession of the forged bank bills. (People vs. Co Pao, 58
Phil. 545)

When somebody discovered that the P20-bill to be changed was forged, the owner snatched it from
the one who was examining it and tore it to pieces. (People vs. Quinto, 60 Phil. 351)
 The accused at first denied to the policeman who was conducting the search that he had
counterfeit five-peso bills in his possession and although he knew that the policeman was after the
forged bills as

mentioned in the search warrant, he said he had only a revolver without license to mislead the
policeman. When the policeman insisted in the further search, he delivered to him the package of
counterfeit bills concealed in a straw hat. (People vs. Vacani, 61 Phil. 796)

Possession of counterfeit U.S. $20 bills is punished under Art. 168.

Possession of counterfeit U.S. $20 bills is punished under Art. 168, because the counterfeit dollar
bills are comprehended in the words, of the false or falsified instruments referred to in this
section," of Art. 168. It is incumbent upon the person in possession thereof to satisfactorily
explain his innocence for said possession, it being a fact relied upon by him as a justification or
excuse and which lies peculiarly within his knowledge. (People vs. Perez, CA-G.R. No. Jan. 31 ,
1955)

Is it an impossible crime when the act performed would have been a crime of illegal possession of
false treasury notes?

Certain one-peso, ten-peso, and twenty-peso treasury notes were so made by pressing a genuine
treasury note against a coupon bond, saturated with chemicals. All the printed matter in the
treasury note is inversely reproduced in the coupon bond. Their appearance carries an
inherent impossibility for anyone to accept them as genuine money. Held: This case

falls within the purview of paragraph 2, Article 4, in relation to Article 59 of the Revised Penal
Code. (People vs. Casals, et al, CA-G.R. No. May 17, 1955)

Note: In impossible crimes under paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Code, the act performed would
have been an offense against persons or property. Forging or falsification of treasury notes is neither
an offense against persons nor an offense against property.

Art. 169. How forgery is committed. — The forgery referred to in this section may be committed by
any of the following means:

1. By giving to a treasury or bank note or any instrument payable to bearer or to order mentioned
therein, the appearance of a true and genuine document.

2. By erasing, substituting, counterfeiting, or altering by any means the figures, letters, words, or
sign contained therein.
Forgery includes falsification and counterfeiting.

With the definition given in this article, the crime of counterfeiting or forging treasury or bank notes
or other documents payable to bearer or to order includes (1) acts of counterfeiting or forging said
instruments, and (2) acts of falsification. (Guevara)

Example of forgery under paragraph No. 1

People vs. Galano 54 O.G. 5899)

Facts: The accused admitted, during the investigation at the police headquarters, having written the
word in ink at the back of the one-peso bill (Exhibit A) which he gave to Cruz as payment for the
four eggs.

The one-peso paper bill (Exhibit A) is a genuine pre-war treasury certificate "payable to the bearer
on demand" which has been, however, withdrawn from circulation. It is, however, redeemable at its
face value if presented to the Central Bank, pursuant to Republic Acts Nos. 17 and 199.

Held: The forgery here committed comes under this first paragraph of Article 169 of the Code (By
giving to a treasury or bank note or any instrument payable to bearer or to order mentioned
therein, the appearance of a true and genuine document). We believe that this provision
contemplates not only the situations where a spurious, false or fake document, but also the
situations involving originally true and genuine documents which have been withdrawn or
demonetized, or have outlived their usefulness. The case under consideration could not come
within the second paragraph of the aforesaid article (By erasing, substituting, counterfeiting or
altering by any means the figures, letters, works or signs contained therein), because no figure,
letter, word or sign contained in Exhibit A has been erased, substituted, counterfeited or altered.
The forgery consists in the addition of a word in an effort to give to the present document the
appearance of the true and genuine certificate that it used to have before it was withdrawn or has
outlived its usefulness.

Giving fake checks the appearance of true and genuine documents.

The accused caused the printing of the checks and, to give them the appearance of true and
genuine documents, he directed the printer to incorporate therein the important details and
wording contained in checks regularly issued by a U.S. Government Office or agency. In
furtherance of the same objective, the accused availed of the service of the Advance Bookbinding
Service to engrave on the checks in block bold types the date of issue, name of the payee and the
amount payable, in words and figures. Finally, he caused rubber stamp and dry seal to be made
and used them on the checks.

The accused admitted that he signed the name "A. Lobster" on each of the checks in question,
without having any authority to do so. As a matter of fact, that name was chosen by the accused as
part of the deception, without knowing whether there was in fact a living person bearing that name.
In the light of all the foregoing, the accused had in effect committed forgery within the meaning of
paragraph 1 of Article 169 of the Revised Penal Code on instruments payable to order, thereby
making him guilty of a violation of Article 167 of the Revised Penal Code. (People vs. Orqueza, 14
C.A. Rep. 730)

Example of forgery under paragraph No. 2:

Facts: A received a treasury warrant, a check issued by the Government. It was originally made
payable to B, or his order. A wrote B's name on the back of said treasury warrant as if B had
indorsed it, and then presented it for payment. It was paid to A.

Held: This is forgery, because when A wrote B's name on the back of the treasury warrant which
was originally made payable to B or his order, he converted, by such supposed indorsement, the
treasury warrant to one payable to bearer. It had the effect of erasing the phrase "or his order"
upon the face of the warrant. There was material alteration on a genuine document. (U.S. vs. Solito,
36 Phil. 785)

Defacement, mutilation, tearing, burning or destroying of Central Bank notes and coins, penalized.

It is ordered and decreed:

That it shall be unlawful for any person to willfully deface, mutilate, tear, burn or destroy, in any
manner whatsoever, currency notes and coins issued by the Central Bank of the Philippines; and

Art.170 FALSIFICATION OF LEGISLATIVE DOCUMENTS

That any person who shall violate this Decree shall, upon con• viction, be punished by a fine of
not more than twenty thousand pesos and/or by imprisonment of not more than five years.

laws, orders and regulations, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are hereby modified or
repealed accordingly. (Presidential Decree No. 247, which took effect on July 18, 1973)

Section Four. — Falsification of legislative, public, com• mercial, and private documents, and wire•
less, telegraph, and telephone messages

Five classes of falsification:

 Falsification of legislative documents. (Art. 170)

 Falsification of a document by a public officer, employee or notary public. (Art. 171)
  Falsification of a public or official, or commercial document by a private individual. (Art. 172,
par. 1)
 Falsification of a private document by any person.172, par.
 Falsification of wireless, telegraph and telephone messages. 173)

Forgery and falsification, distinguished.

The term forgery as used in Art. refers to the falsification and counterfeiting of treasury or
bank notes or any instruments payable to bearer or to order. Falsification is the commission of any
of the eight acts mentioned in Art. on legislative (only the act of making public or official,
commercial, or private documents, or wireless, or telegraph messages. See Title Four, Chapter One,
Section Four.

Forging and falsification are crimes under See Title Four.

Chapter One.

Art. 170. Falsification of legislative documents. — The penalty prision correccional in its
maximum and a fine not exceeding 6,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, without
proper authority therefor, alters any bill, resolution, or ordinance enacted or approved or pending
approval by either House of the Legislature or any provincial board or municipal council.

Elements:

 That there be a bill, resolution or ordinance enacted or approved or pending approval by

either of the Legislature or any provincial board or municipal council.
 That the offender alters the same.
 That he has no proper authority therefor.
 That the alteration has changed the meaning of the document.
 Note: The words "municipal should include the city council or municipal board.

The bill, resolution or ordinance must be genuine.

Note: that the falsification in Article 170 is committed by altering a legislative document, which
presupposes that the bill, resolution, or ordinance altered must be genuine. Besides, the bill,
resolution or ordinance is or approved or pending approval by the National Assembly or any
provincial board or municipal council." A fabricated or simulated legislative document is not covered
by Art. 170.
The offender is any person.

Art. 170 does not require that the offender be a private individual. All that the provision requires is
that the offender has no proper authority to make the alteration. Hence, the offender may be a
private individual or a public officer.

The act of falsification in legislative document is limited to altering it which changes its meaning.

Art. 170 punishes "any person who, without proper authority therefor, alters any bill," etc. Hence,
other acts of falsification, even in legislative document, are punished either under Art. 171 or under
Art. 172.

Art.171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastical minister.—

The penalty of prision and a fine not to exceed 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public
officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by
committing any of the following acts:

 Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature, or rubric;

 Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding whe n they
did not in fact so participate;
 .Attributing to persons wh o have participated in an act or proceeding statements other
than those in fact made by them;
 Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
 Altering true dates;
 Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning;
 Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original
document whe n no such original exists, or including in such copy a statement contrary to,
or different from, that of the genuine original; or
 Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry,
or official book. same penalty shall be imposed 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 character that its falsification may affect the civil
status of persons.

Elements:

 That the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public.

 That he takes advantage of his official position.
 That he falsifies a document by committing any of the following
  Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric.
 Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did
not in fact so participate.
 Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than
those in fact made by them.
 Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts. e. Altering true dates.
 Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning.
 Issuing in authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original document
when no such original exists, or including in such copy a statement contrary to, or different
from, that of the genuine original.
 Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry
or official book.

4. In case the offender is an ecclesiastical minister, the act of falsification is committed with
respect to any record or document of such character that its falsification may affect the civil status
of persons.

First element. — Persons liable under Art.170

Under this article, only public officer, employee or notary public or ecclesiastical minister can be the
offender.

The ecclesiastical minister is liable under this article if he shall commit any of the acts of falsification
enumerated in this article with respect to any ecord or document of such character that its
falsification may affect the civil status of persons.

Second element. — The offender takes advantage of his official position.

The offender takes advantage of his official position in falsifying a document when he has the
duty to make or to prepare or otherwise to intervene in the preparation of the document; or (2)
he has the official custody of the document which he falsifies. (See People vs. Santiago Uy, 53

O.G. 7236, and U.S. vs. Inosanto, 20 Phil. 376)

Even if the offender was a public officer but if he did not take advantage of his official position, he
would be guilty of falsification of a document by a private person under Art. 172.

Thus, a court stenographer who deliberately and maliciously changed, in making transcription of his
notes, the statements of a witness taken by him is guilty of falsification under this article; while
any other officer, say a chief of police, who happened to make the same changes or alterations
in the same document, is guilty of falsification of a public document by a private person under
Article 172, par. 1. (U.S. vs. Austero, 14 Phil. 377;

People vs. Teves, 44 Phil. 275)

A municipal president falsified an inscription in the register of births kept by, and under the charge
of, the municipal secretary who issued a certified copy of such false inscription.

Is he guilty under Art. 171?

No, because, although he is a public officer, the falsification committed by him was upon an act,
certificate or instrument the issuance of which does not pertain to his office and, therefore, it was
without abuse of his office. (U.S. vs. Inosanto, 20 Phil. 376)

Third element. — The offender falsifies a document.

Definition of document.

 A document is any written statement by which a right is established or an obligation

extinguished. (People vs. Moreno, C.A., O.G. 119)
 A document is a writing or instrument by which a fact may be proven and affirmed.

Thus, if the payroll is merely a draft, because it has not been approved by the proper authority, it
can prove nothing and affirm nothing. (People vs. 44 Phil. 488)

The pamphlets cannot be said to evidence a fact, agreement or disposition. They are rather
merchandise as any other article usually sent by C.O.D. mail. (People vs. 47 Phil. 945)

The document must be complete or at least it must have the appearance of a true and genuine
document.

The document must be of apparent legal efficacy. Thus, making a writing which is invalid on its
face, as in the case of a will not signed by the requisite number of witnesses, is not falsification.
(Miller on Criminal Law, 406)

Must there be a genuine document in falsification?

In falsification by (1) making alteration or intercalation, or (2) including in a copy a different

statement, there must be a genuine document that is falsified. Thus, in paragraphs 6, 7, in its second
part, and 8 of Art. 171, the law requires that there be a genuine document where the intercalation
or alteration is made changing its meaning.

In the other paragraphs of Art. falsification may be committed by simulating or fabricating a

document.

Documents may be simulated or fabricated.

In falsification of a public document, the falsification need not be made on an official form. It is
sufficient that the document is given the appearance of, or made to appear similar to, the official
form. (People vs. Tupasi, CA- G.R. Nos. 290-292, March 22, 1937)

The simulation of public, official or mercantile document is also contemplated in falsification of

those documents. (People vs. David, CA- G.R. No. 44368 , Nov. 27, 1936)

"Shall falsify a document."

It will be noted that Art. 171 does not specify the kind of document falsified, the phrase "shall falsify
a document" not mentioning whether it is public, official, private or commercial document.

It is not necessary to specify in Art. 171 the document falsified, because when the document is
executed with the intervention of a public officer, employee or notary public, such document must
necessarily be a public or official document. Even if the document is originally a private document,
if it is in the official custody of the public officer or employee or if it forms part of the official record
when it is falsified by the public officer or employee, then the crime committed should be
punished under Art.

Different modes of falsifying a document.

Any of the eight (8) acts of falsification enumerated in Art. 171 may be committed on any
document by a public officer or notary public, or by a private individual — only that if the offender is
a private individual or a public officer who does not take advantage of his official position, Art. 172
shall apply.

The offender falsifies a document by committing any of the following acts:

Par. No. 1 — Counterfeiting or imitating (feigning) any handwriting, signature or rubric.

There are two ways of committing falsification under paragraph 1 of Art. 171. They are: (1)
counterfeiting, which is imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric; and (2) feigning, which is
simulating a signature, handwriting or rubric out of one which does not in fact exist.

Under paragraph 1 of Art. 171, the mere drawing up of a false document is not sufficient to
constitute the crime of falsification. The signature, handwriting or mark of another person must be
signed or made

by the offender, without authority to do so. (U.S. vs. Paraiso, 1 Phil. 66)
In counterfeiting, there is an original signature or handwriting which is imitated. An imitation is
necessary, but it need not be perfect.

Requisites of counterfeiting.

Imitation of another's signature need not be perfect. It is necessary only (1) that there be an
intent to imitate, or an attempt to imitate, and (2) that the two signatures or handwritings, the
genuine and the forged, bear some resemblance to each other. (U.S. vs. 26 Phil. 189)

There must be an intent or attempt to imitate.

The attempt or the intent to imitate may be shown by a comparison of the handwriting or
signature on the document alleged to have been falsified with the genuine handwriting or signature
supposed to have been counterfeited. If there is sufficient resemblance between the genuine and
the forged signatures, it can be concluded that the accused had the intention and attempted to
imitate the signature of the offended party. (U.S. vs.supra)

The forged and the genuine signatures or handwritings must bear some resemblance to each
other.

The resemblance must be such that it is likely to deceive an ordinary person receiving or dealing
with the document. (U.S. vs. Rampas, supra)

Thus, it has been held that the fact of imitating a person's signature on a check in such a way that
the same, when presented for collection have passed in the rush of business," although the
handwriting is a little bit different, constitutes falsification. (U.S. vs. Litonjua, 4 Phil. 485)

When any of the requisites of counterfeiting is not present.

If there is no attempt whatsoever by the accused to imitate the signatures of other persons so that
they are entirely unlike the genuine signatures of those persons, the accused may be
found guilty under paragraph 2, Art. 171, in causing it to appear that those persons have
participated in the act when they did not in fact so participate. (U.S. vs. 3 Phil. 318; U.S. vs.
Cinco, et 42 Phil. 839; People vs. C.A., 40 O.G. 1908)

Imitating (feigning).

The Spanish text of Art. 171 (for imitation). In feigning, there is no original signature, handwriting
or rubric, but a forgery of a signature, handwriting or rubric that does not exist.

To feign means to represent by a false appearance; to give a mental existence to; to imagine.
Example:

Drawing up an open will purporting to have been executed in March, 1901, by one Petra Mariano
and signed by Norberto Cajucom at her request and by attesting witnesses, when as a matter of
fact she died on July 28,

1900, is falsification by feigning. (U.S. vs. De Angeles, et 4 Phil.

597)

Making it appear that a person who does not know how to write has signed the document, may be
considered feigning of signature.

U.S. vs. Castro (6 Phil.

Facts: The accused is charged with the falsification of a private document in that he signed the
name of one deceased, to a

certain bill of sale of a boat or the property of the estate of the said Sevilla.

The accused attached the signature of Regino Sevilla to the document in question for the purpose of
defrauding heirs and depriving them of their property in the said boat. It does not appear,
however, that any attempt was made to simulate the genuine signature, and there is evidence of
record that Sevilla himself did not know how to write or even to sign his own name.

Held: This court, adopting the doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court of Spain, has frequently
held that upon a charge of falsification by attaching the signature of another to a written
document, conviction cannot

be had unless it appears that an attempt has been made to simulate the genuine signature of that
person; and, therefore, the accused can not be

convicted of the crime of falsification as charged in the information.

Note: The crime committed could not be falsification under paragraph 2 of Art.170 because it
could not be made to appear that the deceased participated in the execution of the document by
signing it, since he did not know how to write.

Par. No. 2 —Causing it to appear that persons have participated in an act or a proceeding.

The imitation of the signature of the offended party is not necessary in falsification under
paragraph 2 of Art. 171. (People vs. De la C.A., 40 O.G. 1908)
Requisites:

That the offender caused it to appear in a document that a person or persons participated in an act
or a proceeding; and

That such person or persons did not in fact so participate in the act or proceeding.

Art. 172. Falsification by private individuals and use of documents. — The penalty of prision
correccional in its medium and maximum and a fine of not more than 5,000 pesos shall be imposed
upon:

 1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the falsifications enumerated in the
next preceding article in any public or official document or letter of exchange or any
other kind of commercial document; and

 2. Any person who, to the damage of a third party, or with the intent to cause such
damage, shall in any private document commit any of the acts of falsification
enumerated in the next preceding article. Any person who shall knowingly introduce in
evidence in any judicial proceeding or to the damage of another or who, with the intent
to cause such damage, shall use any of the false documents embraced in the next
preceding article or in any of the foregoing subdivisions of this article, shall be punished
by the penalty next lower in degree.

Three acts are punished under Article 172

1. Falsification of public, official or commercial document by a private individual. (Paragraph No. 1)

2. Falsification of private document by any person. (Paragraph No. 2)

3. Use of falsified document. (Last paragraph)

Falsification under paragraph 1 of Article 172

Elements of falsification of public, official, or commercial document by a private individual:

 1. That the offender is a private individual or a public officer or employee who did not
take advantage of his official position.

 2. That he committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Art.171.

 3. That the falsification was committed in a public or official or commercial

document.

 The offender should not be a public officer, employee or notary public, who takes
advantage of his official position.

 Art. 172 does not punish falsification by public officer, employee or notary public who
takes advantage of his official position.
  The offender under Art. 172 must be a private individual or even a public officer,
employee or notary public who does not take advantage of his official position.

 The acts of falsification are the same as those in Article

171 Any one of the different modes of falsification in paragraphs 1 to 6 of Article 171 must be
employed by the offender in committing the crimes defined in paragraph Nos. 1 and 2 of Article 172.

 The acts of falsification mentioned in paragraph 7 of Art. 171 cannot be committed by

a private individual.

 Such acts of falsification can be committed only by a public officer or notary public
who takes advantage of his official position, since the authentication of a document can
be made only by the custodian or the one who prepared and retained a copy of the
original document.

The document falsified must be public, official or commercial. Four kinds of document:

 (1) Public document — a document created, executed or issued by a public official

in response to the exigencies of the public service, or in the execution of which a public
official intervened. (U.S. vs. Asensi, 34 Phil. 765)

 A public document is any instrument authorized by a notary public or a competent

public official, with the solemnities required by law. et al. vs. Baens, 5 Phil. 742)

 (2) Official document — a document which is issued by a public official in the

exercise of the functions of his office. An official document is also a public
document. It falls within the larger class called public documents. (U.S. vs. Asensi, supra)

 (3) Private document - a deed or instrument executed by a private person without

the intervention of a notary public or other person legally authorized, by which
document some disposition or agreement is proved, evidenced or set forth. (U.S. vs.
Orera, 11 Phil. 596). A theater ticket is a private document, because it evidences an
agreement for the rent of a place in the theater to enable a possessor to witness a
theatrical performance. (U.S. vs. Orera, supra)

 (4) Commercial document — any document defined and regulated by the Code of
Commerce (People vs. Co Beng, C.A., 40 O.G. 1913) or any other commercial law.

Private document considered public document.

 1. A deed acknowledged before a notary public is a public document, and in a

criminal prosecution for of document, the fact that the falsification was committed
before the document was presented to the notary does not alter the character of the
crime as falsification of public document, if the document was presented to the notary
by the party who committed the falsification, or at his instance. (People vs. Tan
Bomping, 48 Phil. 877)
  2. A private document may acquire the character of a public document when it
becomes part of an official record and is certified by a public officer duly authorized by
law.

Cash disbursement vouchers are not commercial documents.

 Cash disbursement vouchers or receipts evidencing payment to borrowers of the loans

extended to them are not negotiable instruments nor are they and regulated by the
Code of Commerce and as such are private documents only. (People vs. Francisco, C.A.,
64 O.G. 537)

 Article 173. FALSIFICATION OF WIRELESS, CABLE, TELEGRAPH, AND TELEPHONE MESSAGES,

AND USE OF SAID FALSIFIED MESSAGES

-engaged in the service of sending or receiving wireless, cable, telegraph, or telephone messages
who utters a fictitious wireless, telegraph, or telephone message of any system or falsifies the
same.

- Any person who shall use such falsified dispatch to the prejudice of a third party or with the
intent to cause such prejudice, shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree.

Three acts are punishable under Art. 173.

1. Uttering fictitious wireless, telegraph or telephone message.

2. Falsifying wireless, telegraph or telephone message.

3. Using such falsified message.

Requisites:

1. That the offender is an officer or employee of the government or an officer or employee of a

private corporation, engaged in the service of sending or receiving wireless, cable or telephone
message.

2. That the accused commits any of the following acts:

– uttering fictitious wireless, cable, telegraph, or telephone message, or

– falsifying wireless, cable, telegraph, or telephone message

2. Falsifying wireless, telegraph or telephone message

 The public officer, to be liable, must be engaged in the service of sending or receiving
wireless, cable, telegraph or telephone message.
The officer or employee of the Government, to be liable, must be engaged in the service of
sending or receiving wireless, cable, telegraph or telephone messages, like the telegraph
operator of the Bureau of Posts or the operator of Government telephone.

Example of falsifying telegraph message.

The accused, a telegraph operator, who received two telegrams for transmission, reduced the
number of words of the telegraph messages by twelve and eight words, respectively, without
having been authorized to do so by the sender.
He pocketed the differences in the prices charged in
the sums of P0.72 and P0.48, respectively. Held: The accused was guilty of falsification of
telegraph messages. (U.S. vs. Romero, 17 Phil. 76)

Use of said falsified messages. (Par. 2, Art. 173)

Elements:

1. That the accused knew that wireless, cable, telegraph, or telephone

message was falsified by any of the persons specified in the first paragraph of Art. 173.

2. That the accused used such falsified dispatch.

3. That the use of the falsified dispatch resulted in the prejudice of a third party, or that the use
thereof was with intent to cause such prejudice.

Private individual cannot be a principal by direct participation in falsification of telegraphic dispatches

under Art. 173.

A private individual cannot commit the crime of falsification of telegraphic dispatches by direct
participation, unless he is an employee of a corporation engaged in the business of sending or receiving
wireless, telegraph or telephone messages.

But a private individual can be held criminally liable as principal by inducement in the
falsification of telegraph dispatches or telephone messages.

But if he knowingly uses any falsified telegraph, wireless or telephone messages to the prejudice
of a third person, or with intent to cause such prejudice, it is not necessary that he be connected with
such corporation.

Article 174. FALSIFICATION OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATES, CERTIFCATES OF MERIT OR SERVICE AND THE
LIKE:
Persons liable:

1. Physician or surgeon who, in connection with the practice of his profession, issued a false certificate
(note: such certificate must refer to the illness or injury of a person)

2. Public officer who issued a false certificate of merit of service, good conduct or similar circumstances

3. Private individual who falsified a certificate under (1) and (2)

Example of falsification of certificate of merit.

In an application to the Civil Service Board for examination a document printed in accordance with the
form prescribed by said Board, and in that part thereof which contained recommendations of the
applicant, certificate No. 3 appeared to be subscribed by Frank N. West, the latter having neither

subscribed it nor written the contents thereof, the same not being correct in some respects, viz., as
regards the age of the party and the length of time during which he knew the candidate
recommended. (See U.S. vs. Michelena, 4 Phil. 492)

Article 175 Using false certificates. — The penalty of arresto shall be upon any one who shall
knowingly use any of the false certificates mentioned in the

next preceding article.

ELEMENTS OF USING FALSE CERTIFICATES:

1. That a physician or surgeon has issued a false medical certificate, or a public officer has issued a false
certificate of merit or service, good conduct, or similar circumstances, or a private person had falsified
any of said certificates.

2. That the offender knew that the certificate was false.

3. That he used the same.

Article 176. MANUFACTURING AND POSSESSION OF INTRUMENTS OR IMPLEMENTS FOR

FALSIFICATION:

Elements:
1. That a physician or surgeon had issued a false medical certificate, or a public officer had issued a
false certificate of merit or service, good conduct, or similar circumstances, or a private person had
falsified any of said certificates.

2. That the offender knew that the certificate was false.

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

Section Six. — Manufacturing, importing, and possession of instruments or implements intended for
the commission of falsification.

Art. 176. Manufacturing and possession of instruments or implements for falsification. — The
penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum and a fine not to exceed pesos shall be
imposed upon any person who shall make or introduce into the Philippine Islands any stamps, dies,
marks, or other instruments or implements intended to be used in the commission of the offenses of
counterfeiting or falsification mentioned in the preceding sections of this chapter.

Any person who, with the intention of using them, shall have in his possession any of the instruments or
implements mentioned in the preceding paragraph, shall suffer the penalty next lower in than that
provided therein.

Acts punished under Article 176:

1. Making or introducing into the Philippines any stamps, dies, marks, or other instruments or
implements for counterfeiting or falsification.

2. Possessing with intent to use the instruments or implements for counterfeiting or

falsification made in or introduced into the Philippines by another person.

Examples:

1. A person who manufactured a seal in imitation of the seal of Lipa, Batangas, for making false
certificates for the transfer of livestock, is guilty of making instrument for falsification of certificates.
(U.S. vs. Angeles, 6 Phil. 435)
2. A person who possessed an iron brand to be used in falsifying the official brand of a municipality for
cattle branding, is guilty of illegal possession of instrument for falsification. (People vs. Magpale, 70
Phil.177)

The implements confiscated need not form a complete set.

In order to secure a conviction under the 2nd paragraph of Art. 176, it is not necessary that the
implements confiscated form a complete set for counterfeiting, it being enough that they may be
employed by themselves or together with other implements to commit the crime of
counterfeiting or falsification. (People vs. Santiago, et C.A. 48 O.G. 4401)

Chapter Two
OTHER FALSITIES

Section One. — Usurpation of authority, rank, title, and improper use of names, uniforms, and
insignia

Art. 177. Usurpation of authority or official functions.

— Any person who shall knowingly and falsely represent himself to be an officer, agent, or
representative of any department or agency of the Philippine Government or of any foreign
government, or who, under pretense of official position, shall perform any act pertaining to any person
in authority or public officer of the Philippine Government or of any foreign government, or any agency
thereof, without being lawfully entitled to do so, shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in
its minimum and medium (As amended by Rep. Act No. 379)

Two offenses are contemplated in Art.177

— In usurpation of authority, covered by the first portion thereof; and usurpation of official functions,
covered by the second portion. (People vs. C.A., 58 O.G. 6284)

Two ways of committing the crime under Art. 177:

1. By knowingly and falsely representing oneself to be an officer, agent or representative of any

department or agency of the Philippine Government or any foreign government.
Note that in usurpation of authority, the mere act of knowingly and falsely representing oneself to be an
officer, etc. is sufficient. It is not necessary that he performs an act pertaining to a public officer.

2. By performing any act pertaining to any person in authority or public officer of the Philippine
Government or of a foreign government or any agency thereof, under pretense of official position, and
without being lawfully entitled to do so.

Note that in usurpation of official functions, it is essential that the offender should have performed an
act pertaining to a person in authority or public officer, in addition to other requirements.

There must be positive, express and explicit representation.

The law demands positive, express and explicit representation on the part of the offender
before he can be convicted of usurpation of authority.

The crime is not committed if the accused merely did not deny that he was

an agent of the Philippine Government when introduced as such by public officials who responded to
the intrigues of one Jose B. Lazaro. (People vs. 8 C.A. Rep. 20)

The offender should have represented himself to be an officer, agent or representative of any
department or agency of the government; or (2) should have performed an act pertaining to a person in
authority or public officer.

False representation may be shown by acts.

It is not necessary that the offender should falsely represent himself to be an officer, agent or
representative of any department or agency of the government. Thus, even in the absence of
evidence that the accused represented himself as a police officer, his acts in blowing his whistle,
stopping buses and ordering drivers to step down their passenger vehicles produce their driver's
licenses, sufficiently establish his culpability for the crime of usurpation of official functions under Art.
177 of the Revised Penal Code. (People vs. Reyes, C.A., 70 O.G. 7801)

Art. 177 may be violated by a public officer.

Art. 177 as amended, does not apply to occupant under color of title.
Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, punishes the usurper or one who acts under false
pretenses and not the occupant under color of title. A usurper is "one who introduces himself into an
office that is vacant, or who, without color of title, ousts the incumbent and assumes to

act as an officer by exercising some of the functions of the (People vs. Buenaflor, et C.A., 72 O.G.
364)

Art. 178. USING FICTITIOUS NAME AND CONCEALING TRUE NAME.

— The penalty of arresto and a fine not to exceed 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any person
who shall publicly use a fictitious name for the purpose of concealing a crime, evading the execution of
a judgment, or causing damage.

Any person who conceals his true name and other personal circumstances shall be punished by
arresto menor or a fine not to exceed 200 pesos.

ELEMENTS (using fictitious name) :

1. That the offender uses a name other than his real name.

2. That he uses that fictitious name publicly.

3. That the purpose of the offender is –

a. To conceal a crime,

b. To evade the execution of a judgment, or

c. To cause damage to public interest. (ex. Signing fictitious name for a passport)

ELEMENTS (concealing true name):

1. That the offender conceals –

2. His true name, and

3. All other personal circumstances.

4. That the purpose is only to conceal his identity.

Article 179

 ELEMENTS OF ILLEGAL USE OF UNIFORM OR INSIGNIA:

1. That the offender makes use of insignia, uniform or dress.

2. That the insignia, uniform or dress pertains to an office not held by the offender or to a class of
persons of which he is not a member.

3. That said insignia, uniform or dress is used publicly and improperly.

 an exact imitation of the dress or uniform is unnecessary

Article 180

 ELEMENTS OF FALSE TESTIMONY AGAINST A DEFENDANT:

1. That there be a criminal proceeding.

2. That the offender testifies falsely under oath against the defendant therein.

3. That the offender who gives false testimony knows that it is false.

4. That the defendant against whom the false testimony is given is either acquitted or convinced in
a final judgment (prescriptive period starts at this point)

 Requires criminal intent, can’t be committed through negligence. Need not impute guilt upon
the accused

 The defendant must at least be sentenced to a correctional penalty or a fine or must have been
acquitted

 The witness who gave false testimony is liable even if the court did not consider his testimony

 Penalty is dependent upon sentence imposed on the defendant

Article 181

FALSE TESTIMONY IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT in a criminal case:

 False testimony by negative statement is in favor of the defendant

 False testimony need not in fact benefit the defendant

 A statement of a mere opinion is not punishable

 Conviction or acquittal is not necessary (final judgement is not necessary). The false testimony
need not influence the acquittal
  A defendant who voluntarily goes up on the witness stand and falsely imputes the offense to
another person the commission of the offense is liable under this article. If he merely denies the
commission of the offense, he is not liable.

 Basis of penalty: gravity of the felony charged against the defendant

Article 182

 ELEMENTS OF FALSE TESTIMONY IN CIVIL CASES:

1. That the testimony must be given in a civil case.

2. That the testimony must relate to the issues presented in said case.

3. That the testimony must be false.

4. That the false testimony must be given by the defendant knowing the same to be false.

5. That the testimony must be malicious and given with an intent to affect the issues presented in
the said case

 Not applicable when testimony given in a special proceeding (in this case, the crime is perjury)

 Basis of penalty: amount involved in the civil case

Article183

ELEMENTS OF FALSE TESTIMONY IN OTHER CASES AND PERJURY IN SOLEMN AFFIRMATION:

1. That an accused made a statement under oath or made an affidavit upon a material matter.

2. That the statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer, authorized to receive and
administer oath.

3. That in that statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of a
falsehood, and

4. That the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law.

 2 ways of committing perjury:

 Subornation of perjury: procures another to swear falsely. Solemn affirmation: refers to non-
judicial proceedings and affidavits

 A false affidavit to a criminal complaint may give rise to perjury

 A matter is material when it is directed to prove a fact in issue

  A “competent person authorized to administer an oath” means a person who has a right to
inquire into the questions presented to him upon matters under his jurisdiction

 There is no perjury through negligence or imprudence since the assertion of falsehood must be
willful and deliberate

 Even if there is no law requiring the statement to be made under oath, as long as it is made for a
legal purpose, it is sufficient

 Perjury is an offense which covers false oaths other than those taken in the course of judicial
proceedings

 False testimony before the justice of the peace during the P.I. may give rise to the crime of
perjury because false testimony in judicial proceedings contemplates an actual trial where a
judgment of conviction or acquittal is rendered

 A person who knowingly and willfully procures another to swear falsely commits subornation of
perjury and the witness suborned does testify under circumstances rendering him guilty of
perjury.

 The false testimony is not in a judicial proceeding

1. by falsely testifying under oath

2. by making a false statement

Article 184

 ELEMENTS OF OFFERING FALSE TESTIMONY IN EVIDENCE:

a That the offender offered in evidence a false witness or false testimony.

b That he knew the witness or the testimony was false.

c That the offer was made in a judicial or official proceeding.

 Article applies when the offender without inducing another, but knowing him to be a false
witness, presented him and the latter testified falsely in a judicial or official proceeding

 The false witness need not be convicted of false testimony. The mere offer is sufficient.

III. FRAUDS

Article 185

 ELEMENTS OF MACHINATIONS IN PUBLIC AUCTION:

a That there be a public auction.

b That the accused solicited any gift or a promise from any of the bidders.
c That such gifts or promise was the consideration for his refraining from taking part in that public
auction.

d That the accused had the intent to cause the reduction of the price of the thing auctioned.

 ELEMENTS OF ATTEMPTING TO CAUSE BIDDERS TO STAY AWAY:

a That there be a public auction.

b That the accused attempted to cause the bidders to stay away from that public auction

c That it was done by threats, gifts, promises, or any other artifice.

d That the accused had the intent to cause the reduction of the price of the thing auctioned.

Article 186

MONOPOLIES AND COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE:

 Acts punished:

1. Combination to prevent free competition in the market

2. By entering into a contract or agreement or taking part in any conspiracy or combination in the
form of a trust or otherwise, in restraint of trade or commerce or prevent by artificial means
free competition in the market (It is enough that initial steps are taken. It is not necessary that
there be actual restraint of trade)

3. Monopoly to restrain free competition in the market

– By monopolizing any merchandise or object of trade or commerce, by combining with any person or
persons to monopolize said merchandise or object in order to alter the prices thereof by spreading false
rumors or making use of any other artifice to restrain free competition in the market

4. Manufacturer, producer or processor or importer combining, conspiring or agreeing with any

person to make transactions prejudicial to lawful commerce or to increase the market price of
the merchandise.

 Person/s liable:

 Crime is committed by:

 The purpose is:

 Also liable as principals:

 Aggravated if items are:

1. manufacturer

2. producer

3. processor
 4. importer

1. combining

2. conspiring

3. agreeing with another person

1. to make transactions prejudicial to lawful commerce

2. to increase the market price of any merchandise or object of commerce manufactured,

produced, processed, assembled or imported into the Phil

1. corporation/association

2. agent/representative

3. director/manager – who willingly permitted or failed to prevent commission of above offense

1. food substance

2. motor fuel or lubricants

3. goods of prime necessity

Article 187

 ELEMENTS OF IMPORTATION AND DISPOSITION OF FALSELY MARKED ARTICLES OR

MERCHANDISE MADE OF GOLD, SILVER, OR OTHER PRECIOUS METALS OR THEIR ALLOYS:

a That the offender imports, sells or disposes of any of those articles or merchandise.

b That the stamps, brands, or marks or those articles or merchandise fails to indicate the actual
fineness or quality of said metals or alloys.

c That the offender knows that the said stamp, brand, or mark fails to indicate the actual fineness or
quality of the metals or alloys.

Article 188

SUBSTITUTING – ALTERING TRADE-MARK, TRADENAME, OR SERVICE MARK

 Acts punishable:

a By (a) substituting the trade name (t/n) or trademark (t/m) of some other manufacturer or dealer or
a colorable imitation thereof, for the t/n or t/m of the real manufacturer or dealer upon any article of
commerce and (b) selling the same.

b By selling or by offering for sale such article of commerce, knowing that the t/n or t/m has been
fraudulently used
c By using or substituting the service mark of some other person, or a colorable imitation of such
marks, in the sale or advertising of services

d By printing, lithographing or reproducing t/n, t/m or service mark of one person, or a colorable
limitation thereof, to enable another person to fraudulently use the same, knowing the fraudulent
purpose for which it is to be used.

Article 189

UNFAIR COMPETITION, FRAUDULENT REGISTRATION OF TRADENAME, TRADEMARK SERVICE MARK,

FRAUDULENT DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN, AND FALSE DESCRIPTION

 Acts punished:

a Unfair competition by selling his goods, giving them the general appearance of the goods of another
manufacturer or dealer

b Fraudulent designation of origin; false description by (a) affixing to his goods or using in connection
with his services a false designation of origin; or any false description or representation, and (b) selling
such goods or services

c Fraudulent registration by procuring fraudulently from the patent office the registration of t/m, t/m
or service mark.

 ELEMENTS:

a That the offender gives his goods the general appearance of the goods of another manufacturer or
dealer

b That the general appearance is shown in the (a) goods themselves, or in the (b) wrapping of their
packages, or in the (c) device or words therein, or in (d) any other feature of their appearance

c That the offender offers to sell or sells those goods or gives other persons a chance or opportunity
to do the same with a like purpose.

d That there is actual intent to deceive the public or defraud a competitor.