Del Rosario v People

The complainant here together with Del pilar and Araneta was
held liable of illegal possession of treasury notes.
Del Rosario in this case appealed whether the mere possession
of the counterfeited and altered treasury notes of the Philippines is
punishable. As known in this case, Del Rosario here was convinced by Del
Pilar and Araneta to finnce the manufacturing of the said notes which were
manufactured by the two earlier mentioned.
Issue: IS the mere possession a violation of Article 168, being a treasury
note of the Philippines?
Held: Yes, according to:
ART. 168. Illegal possession and use of false treasury or bank notes
and other instruments of credit. any person who 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; and
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 signs contained therein.
In the present case, it is not disputes that, that a portion of the
last digit 9 of Serial No had been erased and changed so as to read 0 and
that similar erasures and changes had been made in the penultimate digit
9.
Conclusion: It is clear from these provisions that the possession of
genuine treasury notes of the Philippines any of "the figures, letters, words
or signs contained" in which had been erased and or altered, with
knowledge of such notes, as they were used by petitioner herein and his
co-defendants in the manner adverted to above, is punishable.
Siquian v People
The accused in this is a mayor, being so falsified a public document. The
said document An official communication to the Civil Service
Commissioner which is required by law in order to support the
appointment of a certain Jesusa B. Carreon to the position of clerk in the
Office of the Municipal Secretary which (sic) he appointed as such by
stating and making it appear in said document that there was such a
position existing and that funds therefore were available. Where in truth;
there was no available fund for the position in the Fiscal Budget neither
ordinance creating for such position for appropriation. It was found out that
vacancy for the said position was already filled before the mayor
appointed Carreon. Thus mayors issuance of appointment certification,
dated July 1, 1975, pursuant to the requirements of Memorandum Circular
No. 5, Series of 1975, addressed to the Commissioner of Civil Service is a
fraud. The mayor here were charged and held gulty of falsification of
public document under Art. 171, p. 4.
However the mayor on appeal raised the issue about his criminal intention
and his contention that what he stated in the said document is a
conclusion of law not a narration of fact.
Issue: Are the mayors contention tenable?
Held: No, they are not tenable.
As to the contention of the criminal intention: criminal intention is not a
defense in the violation of article 171 p 4.
People v. Po Giok To [96 Phil. 913 (1955)]. The Court in the
aforementioned case explicitly stated that wrongful intent on the part of the
accused to injure a third person is not an essential element of the crime of
falsification of public document. The rationale for this principal distinction
between falsification of public and private documents has been stated by
the Court in this wise: "In the falsification of public or official documents,
whether by public officials or private persons, it is unnecessary that there
be present the Idea of gain or the intent to injure a third person, for the
reason that, in contradistinction to private documents, the principal thing
punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of truth as
therein solemnly proclaimed" [People v. Po Giok To, supra at 918, citing
People v. Pacana, 47 Phil. 48 (1924)]. In falsification of public documents
therefore, the controlling consideration is the public character of a
document and the existence of any prejudice caused to third persons or,
at least, the intent to cause such damage becomes immaterial [People v.
Pacana, supra].

Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code is committed by "any public officer,
employee or notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall
falsify a document by committing any of the following acts: . . . p4. Making
untruthful statements in a narration of fact; . . .' It is settled that in this
fourth kind of falsification, the following requisites must concur:
(a) That the offender makes in a document untruthful statements in a
narration of facts;

Conclusion of law" is defined as a proposition not arrived at by

any process of natural reasoning from a fact or combination of
facts stated but by the application of the artificial rules of law to
the facts pleaded despite the presence of the records which
shows that there is no position and funds therefor referred to in
the certification, the appellant, fully aware of the data provided
by the records, certified falsely that "funds for the position are
available"
(b) that he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated
by him; and
the certification was prepared by petitioner in accordance with
the standard forms prescribed by the government (specifically
the Civil Service Commission) pursuant to law, the certification
was invested with the character of a public document
(c) That the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false
Accordingly, there is no appropriation made in the Annual
Budget for the Fiscal Year 1974-1975 for such position, thus
rendering petitioner's statement in his certification utterly false
Conclusion: Petitioner must be held criminally liable for his act of issuing
the absolutely false certification as to the availability of funds for the
subject position. It amounts to an untruthful statement in a narration of
facts in a public document [Article 171 (4), Revised Penal Code]. Criminal
intent and the will to commit a crime are presumed to exist on the part of
the person who executes an act which the law punishes, unless the
contrary shall appear. In this case, the presumption that petitioner
committed the act with criminal intention, which arose from proof of his
commission of the unlawful act, stands unrebutted.
People v Villalon
De guzman in this case were charges of Estafa thru falsification of a public
document. The crime was culled when De guzman falsified a special
power of attorney allowing de guzman as attorney in fact to mortgage the
parcel of land. Both documents were in public instrument and registered in
the Registry of Deeds. 1964
The said mortgage were approved. However, on the expiration De gusman
werent able to pay the mortage. Mortgagee bank foreclosed said
mortgage and the land was sold to one Ramon Serafica and Vileta Quinto.
In January, 1972, an action for the ejectment of the former from the
premises came into the discovery of the said ownership the other.
The court of first instance dismissed the case because of prescription as
well as the motion for reconsideration. Hence the following appeal:
1. Whether the charge of estafa thru falsification of a public document filed
against the private respondent has sufficient ground to exist in law and in
fact; and,
2. Whether the offense charged in the aforementioned criminal case is
already extinguished by prescription.
Issue: Are the two petitions raised tenable?
Held: Yes, The falsification of a public 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 documents. The
damage to another is caused by the commission of estafa, not by the
falsification of the document, hence, the falsification of the public, official
or commercial document is only a necessary means to commit the estafa.
Yes, the crime committed has prescribed. Based Article 90 of the Code,
and Article 91 thereof states that the prescriptive period commences to
run "from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party,
the authorities, or their agents on the Crimes punishable by correctional
penalties prescribe in ten (10) years. In this case, the discovery happened
in 1972 when ejectment case was filed, 8 years from the registration on
the Registry of Deeds of the said documents which id 1964. The petitioner
reckoned the year 1972 as to the discovery. This is not meritorious. As
decided by the court the reckoning point here was upon the registration in
the Registry of deeds which was on 1964, exactly ten years from the filing.

People vs. Reyes cites authorities on the well established rule

that registration in a public registry is a notice to the whole
world.

Armentia vs. Patriarca, et al., in interpreting the phrase "from

the discovery" found in Article 1391 of the Civil Code which
authorizes annulment, in case of mistake or fraud, within four
years from the time of the discovery of the same, the Court also
held that the discovery must be reckoned to have taken place
from the time the document was registered in the Register of
Deeds, for the familiar rule is that registration is a notice to the
whole world and this should apply to both criminal and civil
cases.:

Conclusion: The criminal information against private respondent

having been filed only on March 29, 1974, or more than ten (10)
years thereafter, the crime with which private respondent was
charged has indubitably prescribed.
US v Capule
Charged: falsification of a public document and estafa
Nicasio Capule in this case appropriated himself a tract of coconut
land. This was in cooperation and agreement with a notary public,
which latter died. Making it appear that the said real property was set
forth a sale in his favor with witnesses and also signers to take part
for the couple who owned the property since the alleged vendors
didnt know how to do so.
Held Liable

People v Manansala
The accused in this case make believed the complainant that the
former will deliver the latter 6 tons of opium upon P600 in advance.
Which in truth was not opium instead a black substance.