Title Four Article 179.
Illegal use of uniforms or insignia
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST
Chapter One. Forgeries
Section One – Forging the seal of the Government of the
Philippine Islands, the signature or stamp of the
Chief Executive
Article 161. Counterfeiting the great seal of the
Government of the Philippines
Article 162. Using forged signature or counterfeiting
seal or stamp
Section Two – Counterfeiting coins
Article 163. Making and importing and uttering false
coins
Article 164. Mutilation of coins, importation and
uttering of mutilated coins
Article 165. Selling of false or mutilated coins, without
connivance
Section Three – Forging treasury or bank notes,
obligations and securities; importing and uttering
false or forged notes, obligations and securities
Article 166. Forging treasury or bank notes or other
documents payable to bearer, importing and
uttering of such false or forged notes and
documents
Article 167. Counterfeiting, importing and uttering
instruments not payable to bearer
Article 168. Illegal possession and use of forged
treasury or bank notes and other instruments of
credit
Article 169. How Forgery is committed.
Section Four – Falsification of legislative, public,
commercial and private documents, and wireless,
telegraph and telephone messages
Article 170. Falsification of legislative documents
Article 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or
notary
Article 172. Falsification by private individuals and use
of falsified documents
Article 173. Falsification of wireless, cable, telegraph
and telephone messages and use of said falsified
messages
Section Five – Falsification of medical certificates,
certificates of merit or service, and the like
Article 174. False medical certificates, false certificates
of merit or service
Article 175. Using false certificates
Section Six – Manufacturing, importing and possession of
instruments or implements intended for the
commission of falsification
Article 176. Manufacturing and possession of
instruments or implements for falsification
Chapter Two. Other Falsities
Section One – Usurpation of authority, rank, title and
improper use of names, uniforms and insignia
Article 177. Usurpation of authority or official functions
Article 178. Using fictitious name and concealing true
name
Section Two – False testimony
Article 180. False testimony against a defendant
Article 181. False testimony favorable to the defendant
Article 182. False testimony in civil cases
Article 183. False testimony in other cases and perjury
Article 184. Offering false testimony in evidence
Chapter Three. Frauds
Section One – Machinations, monopolies, and combinations
Article 185. Machinations in public auction
Article 186. Monopolies and combinations in restraint of
trade
Section Two – Frauds in commerce and industry
Article 187. Importation and disposition of falsely
marked articles or merchandise made of gold,
silver, or other precious metals or their alloys
Article 188. Substituting and altering trade marks and
trade names or service marks
Article 189. Unfair competition and fraudulent
registration of trade mark or trade name, or
service mark; fraudulent designation of origin, and
false description
The crimes in this title are in the nature of fraud or
falsity to the public. The essence of the crime under
this title is that which defraud the public in general.
There is deceit perpetrated upon the public. This is
the act that is being punished under this title.
Article 161. Counterfeiting the Great Seal of
the Government of the Philippine Islands,
Forging 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.
When in a State document, the signature of the
President is forged, the crime is not falsification
of public document. It is forging the signature of
the Chief executive.
The Signature of the Chief executive must be forged.
If Chief Executive left with his secretary a
signature in blank and a document is written
above it, the crime is not under Art. 161 but
Falsification by public officer or private individual
under Art. 171 or 172.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
31
Article 162. Using Forged Signature or goes into circulation again, (2) the danger of a
Counterfeit Seal or Stamp counterfeiter staying within the country (he may
counterfeit coins in actual circulation and (3) collectors
will be defrauded.
Elements
1. The great seal of the Republic was counterfeited
or the signature or stamp of the Chief Executive
Article 164. Mutilation of Coins
was forged by another person;
2. Offender knew of the counterfeiting or forgery;
Acts punished
3. He used the counterfeit seal or forged signature
or stamp.
1. Mutilating coins of the legal currency, with the
further requirements that there be intent to
Offender under this article should not be the forger.
damage or to defraud another;
Otherwise, it would fall under Art 161.
2. Importing or uttering such mutilated coins, with
the further requirement that there must be
connivances with the mutilator or importer in
Article 163. Making and Importing and
case of uttering.
Uttering False Coins
Mutilation means to take off part of the metal either
Elements
by filing it or substituting it for another metal of
1. There be false or counterfeited coins;
inferior quality.
2. Offender either made, imported or uttered such
The coin must be of legal tender in mutilation.
coins;
Coins of foreign country not included.
3. In case of uttering such false or counterfeited
coins, he connived with the counterfeiters or
Requisites of mutilation under the RPC
importers.
(1) Coin mutilated is of legal tender;
Kinds of coins the counterfeiting of which is punished
(2) Offender gains from the precious metal dust
abstracted from the coin; and
1. Silver coins of the Philippines or coins of the
(3) It has to be a coin.
Central Bank of the Philippines;
2. Coins of the minor coinage of the Philippines or
of the Central Bank of the Philippines; Presidential Decree No. 247
Prohibiting and Penalizing Defacement, Mutilation,
3. Coin of the currency of a foreign country.
Tearing, Burning or Destroying Central Bank Notes
and Coins
When is a coin false or counterfeited?
if it is forged It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully deface,
if it is not authorized by government as legal mutilate, tear, burn, or destroy in any manner whatsoever,
tender currency notes and coins issued by the Central Bank.
if it is a spurious copy (imitation of the design of
a genuine coin) Any person who shall violate this Decree shall, upon
conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than twenty
thousand pesos and/or by imprisonment of not more than
Importation means bringing into port. Importation is five years.
complete before entry at the Customs House.
Uttering is passing counterfeited coins. It includes
their delivery or the act of giving them away. Mutilation under the RPC is true only to coins. It
Former coins withdrawn from circulation may be cannot be a crime under the RPC to mutilate paper
counterfeited under this article. bills because the idea of mutilation under the code
is collecting the precious metal dust. However,
under PD 247, mutilation is not limited to coins.
People vs. Kong Leon

Kong Leon, a goldsmith, was selling illegally fabricated US Article 165. Selling of False or Mutilated Coin,
dollar coins which are already withdrawn from circulation. without Connivance
Several unfinished coins were found by the police in his
shop and pockets.
Acts punished
HELD: When RPC was enacted, the Spanish text was the
one approved. Thus it controls the interpretation of 1. Possession of coin, counterfeited or mutilated by
provisions. Therefore, under Spanish Penal Code,
another person, with intent to utter the same,
fabrication of coin withdrawn from circulation is punishable
because of (1) the harm it caused to the public when it knowing that it is false or mutilated;

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

32

Elements
Possession;
With intent to utter; and
Knowledge.
2. 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.
Possession, ether actual or constructive, of the
counterfeiter or importer is not punished as a
separate offense.
Article 166. Forging Treasury or Bank Notes or
Other Documents Payable to Bearer; Importing
and Uttering Such False or Forged Notes and
Documents
Acts punished
1. Forging or falsification of treasury or bank notes
or other documents payable to bearer;
2. Importation of such false or forged obligations or
notes;
3. Uttering of such false or forged obligations or
notes in connivance with the forgers or
importers.
Importation means to bring them into the Phils which
presupposes that the obligations or notes are forged
or falsified in a foreign country.
Uttering meand offering obligations or notes knowing
them to be false or forged WON such offer is
accepted with a representation by words or action
that’s that they are genuine and with an intent to
defraud.
Uttering forged bills must be with connivance to
constitute a violation of Art. 166.
Notes and other obligations and securities that may
be forged or falsified under Art 166 are:
treasury or bank notes
certificates, and
other obligations and securities payable to
bearer
Penalties depend on the kind of forged treasury or
bank notes or other documents
obligation/security issued by RP
circulating note issued by any banking
institution duly authorized by law to issue
the same
document issued by foreign gov’t
circulating note or bill issued a foreign bank
duly authorized to issue the same.
PNB checks are commercial documents not covered
by Art 166.
Article 167. Counterfeiting, Importing, and
Uttering Instruments Not Payable to Bearer
Elements
There is an instrument payable to order or other
documents of credit not payable to bearer;
Offender either forged, imported or uttered such
instrument;
In case of uttering, he connived with the forger or
importer.
Application of Art 167 is limited to instruments
payable to order. But it covers instruments or other
documents of credit issued by a foreign
government or bank.
Connivance is not required in uttering if the utterer is
the forger,
Article 168. Illegal Possession and Use of False
Treasury or Bank Notes and Other Instruments
of Credit
Elements
1. 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;
2. Offender knows that any of those instruments is
forged or falsified;
3. He either -
a. uses any of such forged or falsified
instruments; or
b. possesses with intent to use any of such
forged or falsified instruments.
Intent to possess is not intent to use. Mere
possession alone is not a criminal offense. It must
be with intent to use.
The conduct of the accused is considered to establish
knowledge of forgery.
A person in possession of falsified document and who
makes use of the same is presumed to be the
material author of falsification.
Accused has the burden to give satisfactory
explanation of his possession of forged bills.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
33
When an act performed would have been a crime of
illegal possession of false treasury note, it cannot
be an impossible crime because forging or
falsification of treasury notes is neither an offense
against persons nor an offense against property
under Art 4(2) but one case held otherwise.
Bar Questions
False Notes; Illegal Possession (1999)
1 Is mere possession of false money bills punishable under
Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code? Explain. (3%)
2 The accused was caught in possession of 100 counterfeit
P20 bills. He could not explain how and why he possessed
the said bills. Neither could he explain what he intended to
do with the fake bills. Can he be held criminally liable for
such possession? Decide. (3%}
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1 No. Possession of false treasury or bank note alone
without an intent to use it, is not punishable. But the
circumstances of such possession may indicate intent to
utter, sufficient to consummate the crime of illegal
possession of false notes.
2 Yes. Knowledge that the note is counterfeit and intent to
use it may be shown by the conduct of the accused. So,
possession of 100 false bills reveal: (a) knowledge that the
bills are fake; and (b) intent to utter the same.
Article 169. How forgery is committed
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.
Giving checks the appearance of true and genuine
document is forgery.
Mere change on a document does not amount to this
crime. The essence of forgery is giving a document
the appearance of a true and genuine document.
Del Rosario vs. People
Del Rosario was shown by the accused a P1 bill and a P2 bill
inducing him to believe that the bills were counterfeited
when they were in fact genuine treasury notes. One of the
digits of each bill was altered to make it appear
counterfeited.
Held: The possession of genuine treasury notes of the
Phils, where any of the figures, letters, words or signs
contained therein had been erased and/or altered, with
knowledge of such erasure/alteration, and with intent to
use such notes in enticing another to advance funds for the
purpose of financing the manufacture of counterfeit notes
is punishable by Art. 168 in relation to Art 169 (1).
People vs. Galano
Galano bought 4 balut eggs with a P1 bill with the word
“victory” written on it. The P1 bill had been withdrawn
from circulation. It is however redeemable at face its face
value if presented to the Central Bank.
Held: The forgery committed falls under Art 169(1) where
the treasury note by the addition of the word “victory” was
given the appearance of a true and genuine document. This
provision also covers the situation where originally true and
genuine documents have been withdrawn or demonetized
were made to appear a true legal tender.
Article 170. Falsification of Legislative
Documents
Elements
1. There is a bill, resolution or ordinance enacted or
approved or pending approval by either House of
the Legislature or any provincial board or
municipal council;
2. Offender alters the same;
3. He has no proper authority therefor;
4. The alteration has changed the meaning of the
documents.
The words "municipal council" should include the city
council or municipal board.
The bill, resolution or ordinance must be genuine.
The offender is any person, private individual or
public officer, who has no authority to make the
alteration.
The act of falsification in legislative document is
limited to altering it which changes its meaning.
Distinction between falsification and forgery:
Falsification is the commission of any of the eight acts
mentioned in Article 171 on legislative (only the act
of making alteration), public or official, commercial,
or private documents, or wireless, or telegraph
messages.
The term forgery as used in Article 169 refers to the
falsification and counterfeiting of treasury or bank
notes or any instruments payable to bearer or to
order.
Note that forging and falsification are crimes under
Forgeries.
Article 171. Falsification by Public Officer,
Employee or Notary or Ecclesiastical Minister
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer, employee, or notary
public;
2. He takes advantage of his official position;
3. He falsifies a document by committing any of the
following acts:
a. Counterfeiting or imitating any
handwriting, signature or rubric;
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
34
 b. Causing it to appear that persons have
participated in any act or proceeding
when they did not in fact so participate;
c. Attributing to persons who have
participated in an act or proceeding
statements other than those in fact
made by them;
d. Making untruthful statements in a
narration of facts;
e. Altering true dates;
f. Making any alteration or intercalation in
a genuine document which changes its
meaning;
g. Issuing in an authenticated form a
document purporting to be a copy of an
original document when no such original
exists, or including in such a copy a
statement contrary to, or different from,
that of the genuine original; or
h. 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
who shall commit any of the offenses
enumerated, with respect to any record or
document of such character that its falsification
may affect the civil status of persons.
Even if the offender is a public officer but the
falsification committed by him is upon a document
which does not pertain to his office, it was
committed without abuse of his office. Thus it will
not fall under Art 171 but Art 172.
A private person who cooperates with a public officer
in the falsification of public documents is guilty
under Art 171 and incurs the same liability and
penalty as the public officer as there is conspiracy.
Must there be a genuine document in falsification?
 In Par. 6, 7 in its 2 nd 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 other paragraphs, of Art 171, falsification may
be committed by simulating or fabrication a
document.
Counterfeiting and Feigning
In Counterfeiting, there must be (1) an intent or
attempt to imitate and (2) that the two
signatures/handwritings, the genuine and the
forged, bear some resemblance to each other.
In feigning, there is no original signature,
handwriting, or rubric but a forgery of a signature,
handwriting or rubric that does not exist.
Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts
There must be a narration of facts not of conclusion
of law and there must be a legal obligation on the
part of the accused to disclose the truth of the facts
narrated.
The narration of facts must be absolutely false and
the person making such narration must be aware of
the falsity of the facts narrated by him.
The perversion of truth in the narration of facts must
be made with the wrongful intent of injuring a third
person. If the document falsified is a public
document, wrongful intent is not essential.
There is no falsification by one who acted in good
faith.
The fact that one’s consent to a contract was
obtained by means of violence does not make the
facts narrated therein false.
Legal obligation to disclose the truth is inherent in
residence certificate.
There can be a falsification by omission (P v Dizon).
Altering True Dates
Date must be essential.
Altering dates in official receipts to prevent the
discovery of malversation is falsification.
Making alteration or intercalation
Alteration which speaks the truth is not falsification.
The alteration must affect the integrity or change the
effects of the documents.
Altering the grades in examination papers involves
several acts of falsification. (see P v Romualdez)
Article 172. Falsification by Private Individual
and Use of Falsified Documents
Acts punished
1. Falsification of public, official or commercial
document by a private individual;
2. Falsification of private document by any person;
3. Use of falsified document.
Elements under paragraph 1
1. Offender is a private individual or public officer or
employee who did not take advantage of his
official position;
He committed any act of falsification under Art 171;
3. The falsification was committed in a public,
official, or commercial document or letter of
exchange.
There are four kinds of documents:
(1) Public document in the execution of which, a
person in authority or notary public has
taken part;
(2) Official document in the execution of which a
public official takes part;
(3) Commercial document or any document
recognized by the Code of Commerce or any
commercial law; and
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
35
(4) Private document in the execution of which
only private individuals take part.
NOTE: 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.
 Public document is broader than the term official
document. Before a document may be considered
official, it must first be a public document. But not
all public documents are official documents. To
become an official document, there must be a law
which requires a public officer to issue or to render
such document. Example: A cashier is required to
issue an official receipt for the amount he receives.
The official receipt is a public document which is an
official document.
 Cash disbursement vouchers are not commercial
documents.
 Mere blank forms of an official document is not
itself a document. It is necessary that the blank
spaces be filled and the signature of the party
authorized to issue it be written by another in the
counterfeited instrument.
 The possessor of a falsified document is presumed
to be the author of the falsification. But this
presumption is not applied where the evidence is
extremely doubtful.
 Damage or intent to cause damage is not necessary
as the principal thing punished is the violation of
public faith and destruction of truth.
 Lack of malice or criminal intent is a defense in
falsification of public document.
Elements under paragraph 2
Offender committed any of the acts of falsification
except Article 171(7), that is, issuing in an
authenticated form a document purporting to be
a copy of an original document when no such
original exists, or including in such a copy a
statement contrary to, or different from, that of
the genuine original;
Falsification was committed in any private document;
Falsification causes damage to a third party or at least
the falsification was committed with intent to
cause such damage.
 Mere falsification of public document is not enough
as it is necessary that it must cause damage to a
third person or must be committed with intent to
cause such damage.
 It is also not necessary that the offender profited or
hoped to profit by the falsification.
 When the falsification is a necessary means to
commit another crime, the two crimes form a
complex crime under Art. 48. Note that the
document falsified as a necessary means must be
public, official or commercial.
a. Malversation through falsification of public
documents
b. Estafa through falsification of a public
document.
c. Estafa through falsification of a commercial
document by reckless imprudence
d. Theft through falsification of official
document.
e. Attempted estafa through falsification of
public or official documents.
 There is no complex crime of estafa through
falsification of a private document because the
immediate effect of falsification of a private
document is the same as that of estafa.
 If a private document is falsified to obtain from the
offended party the money or other personal
property which the offender later misappropriated,
the crime committed is falsification of private
document only.
 If a private document is falsified to conceal the
misappropriation of the money or other personal
property which has been in the possession of the
offender, the crime committed is estafa with abuse
of confidence only.
 If estafa was already consummated at the time of
the falsification of a private document or if the
falsification was committed to for the purpose of
concealing estafa, the falsification is not punishable
as because as regards the falsification, there was
no damage or intent to cause damage.
 There is no falsification through reckless
imprudence if the document is private and no
actual damage is caused.
 The crime is falsification of a public document, even
if the falsification took place before the private
document becomes part of the public records, if the
document is intended by law ro be part of the
public or official record.
 Generally, falsification has no attempted or
frustrated stage. But there may be a frustrated
falsification if the falsification is imperfect. (Reyes)
Falsification of a Public Falsification of a Private
document document
Mere falsification is enough Prejudice to 3rd person or
intent to cause it is enough
Committed by any of the 8 Cannot be committed by the
means under Art 171 ways in par 7 & 8 of Art 171
Principal thing punished is
violation of public faith and
destruction of truth as
therein solemnly proclaimed
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
36
Elements under the last paragraph
Romualdez, the secretary of Justice Romualdez, changed
the grade of bar examinee, Mabunay, to enable him to
In introducing in a judicial proceeding -
reach the required average to pass the bar. She claimed
1 Offender knew that the document was falsified she had been given the authority to do so.
by another person;
2 The false document is in Articles 171 or 172 (1 or HELD: The acts of falsification are: (1) making alterations
2); on genuine documents (2) making it appear that the
He introduced said document in evidence in any correctors had participated in blotting out the grades and
writing out new and increased grades opposite their initials
judicial proceeding.
and (3) attributing to the correctors statements other than
those in fact made by them.
In use in any other transaction -
1 Offender knew that a document was falsified by
another person; Beradio vs. CA
2 The false document is embraced in Articles 171
Beradio is the lawyer and election registrar accused of
or 172 (1 or 2);
falsifying her daily time record, a public document. Her
3 He used such document; daily time record shows she was at the office 8am-5pm
The use caused damage to another or at least used when in fact she went to court.
with intent to cause damage.
HELD: Beradio belongs to a class of officers who are
 Damage is not necessary in the crime of exempt from keeping and submitting daily time records. No
criminal intent to commit falsification can be imputed to
introducing in judicial proceeding a false document.
her when she submits her time record not as a legal
 Use of falsified document in a proceeding which is obligation but as a matter of practice. The entries she
not judicial is requires at least intent to cause made contain a color of truth and no damage was caused to
damage. the gov’t or a third party.
 If the one who used the falsified document is the
same person who falsified it, the crime is only
Luague vs. CA
falsification and the use of the same is not a
separate crime. Luague, a widow, signed her husband’s name on the salary
 Use of false document is not necessarily included in checks with the knowledge of her deceased husband’s
the crime of falsification. supervisor. She encashed the same and use it to pay debts
 The user of the falsified document is deemed the incurred for the illness and death of her husband.
author of the falsification if
HELD: There was no estafa thru falsification of a
o the use was so closely connected in time
commercial document. No damage was incurred against the
with the falsification, and government as the deceased employee deserved the salary
o the user had the capacity of falsifying the his wife availed of. Even if there was falsification when she
document. signed for her husband, this was done with the knowledge
of her deceased husband’s supervisor that the husband was
indeed dead. (Reeza’s dad in the RTC ruled otherwise )
Caubang vs. People 1992
Cabigas vs. People
Accused was organizing the merger of two stevedoring
companies. Among the documents presented and filed with
Cabigas, a securities custodian of Landbank, was convicted
the SEC for the registration of the company was a
of falsification when he changed the entry of the figure of
Statement of Assets and Liabilities (SAL) of the company.
treasury bills from 1539 to 1533 pieces in the Daily Report
This had the signature of the treasurer; but this signature
of Securities/Documents under Custody (DR SDUC) for the
was forged.
purpose of hiding the loss of 6 treasury bills in his custody.
HELD: Accused guilty of falsification of public documents.
HELD: SC acquitted him since the elements of Art 171(4)
In the absence of contrary proof, the accused who filed all
were not present. The correction of the figure from 1539 to
the documents with the SEC, is presumed to have also filed
1533 pieces to conform to the actual pieces of treasury
the forged SAL. And thus since his possession of the forged
notes in custody is not falsification since it was made to
instrument is presumed, it is also presumed from this fact
speak the truth. Also, the DR/SDUC is a form purely devised
that he is the forger of the document.
and adopted by Cabigas and was never required thus he
was not legally obligated to disclose or reveal the truth in
It is immaterial that the entries in the SAL were true, the
that document. In the absence of legal obligation, there
important thing is that the signature of the treasurer was
can be no falsification.
forged. What is punished in this crime is the violation of
the faith in public documents and the destruction of the
truth in making it appear that a person did something when
People vs. Sendaydiego
in fact he did not; damage is not essential.
Sendaydiego, a provincial treasurer, used 6 forged
provincial vouchers to embezzle from the road and bridge
People vs. Romualdez

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

37
fund. TC convicted them of malversation thru falsification
of public document.
HELD: SC held that the crimes committed are separate
crimes of malversation and falsification because in the 6
vouchers, the falsification was used to conceal the
malversation. Each falsification and malversation
constituted independent offenses which must be punished
separately.
Siquian vs. People
Siquian, a municipal mayor, appointed a clerk and signed
the latter’s appointment papers which stated that there
was such a position available and that funds for this
position was available. However, no such position and funds
were in existence. The mayor knew that the Municipal
Council failed to enact a new budget and has adopted the
previous year’s budget.
HELD: SC held Mayor liable under Art 171(4), when he made
an untruthful statement in a narration of facts contained in
the certification which he issued in connection with the
appointment of the clerk. The existence of a wrongful
intent to injure a third person is not necessary when the
falsified document is a public document. It is because the
principal thing punished is the violation of public faith and
the destruction of truth proclaimed therein.
People vs. Villalon
Carrera brothers were co-owners of a parcel of land. A
power of attorney was executed authorizing de Guzman to
mortgage one brother’s half. De Guzman used the power of
attorney to obtain a loan from the mortgagee bank. Loan
was unpaid, bank foreclosed the mortgage and sold land to
Serafia who filed ejectment suit against the brothers.
HELD: The crime committed was estafa thru falsification of
public document. The falsification of public document may
be a means to commit estafa because before the falsified
document is actually used to defraud another, the crime of
falsification is already consummated and damage or intent
to cause damage is not an element of falsification. The
damage to another is caused by the commission of estafa.
Santos v. Sandiganbayan (2000)
Valentino occupies a public position as bookkeeper at the
Clearing Office of the Central Bank. He intercepted and
pilfered BPI-Laoag checks with the assistance of petitioner
Estacio, a janitor-messenger at the Central Bank. In the
comfort room of the bank, Valentino and/or one Villasanta
tampered with the clearing statements and clearing
manifests. Valentino then brought the altered clearing
statements back to the clearing center and prepared a
Clearing Bank Manifests where he changed the figure in the
original copy to tally with those in the altered clearing
statement. The tampered documents, along with the
pilfered demand envelopes, were then sent to the Central
Bank Regional Clearing Center in Laoag. In utilizing this
scheme from October to December of 1981, the syndicate
netted P9 Million.
Lumancas v. Intas (2000)
Lumancas and Uriarte were regular employees of the
Philippine Postal Corporation in Tandag, Surigao del Sur.
They made false entries in their respective Personal Data
Sheets (PDS, [CSC Form 212]) regarding their educational
attainment, resulting in their promotion to higher
positions. Uriarte asserted that he finished his Bachelor of
Science in Commerce, Major in Management, at the IHU in
1968. In fllling up her PDS, Lumancas on the other hand
indicated that she is a graduate of Bachelor of Science in
Commerce Major in Management at the IHU. She also
claimed that she is a graduate of Pharmacy from the CEU.
Both are not college gradutes.
HELD: All the elements of falsification through the making
of untruthful statements in a narration of facts are present:
(a) That the offender makes in a document statements in a
narration of facts; (b) That he has a legal obligation to
disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him; (c) That the
facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false; and,
(d) That the perversion of truth in the narration of facts
was made with the wrongful intent of injuring a third
person. In People v. Po Giok To, the Court held that "in the
falsification of public or official documents, whether by
public officials or by 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 the
truth as therein solemnly proclaimed." Hence, the last
requisite need not be present. Also, petitioners themselves
have affirmed in their petition that their Personal Data
Sheets were not sworn to before any administering officer
thereby taking their case away from the confines of
perjury. Nonetheless, they argue that they have no legal
obligation to disclose the truth in their PDS since these are
not official documents. The Court disagrees and cited the
case of Inting v. Tanodbayan, where it was held that "the
accomplishment of the Personal Data Sheet being a
requirement under the Civil Service Rules and Regulations
in connection with employment in the government, the
making of an untruthful statement therein was, therefore,
intimately connected with such employment….” The filing
of a Personal Data Sheet is required in connection with the
promotion to a higher position and contenders for
promotion have the legal obligation to disclose the truth.
Otherwise, enhancing their qualifications by means of false
statements will prejudice other qualified aspirants to the
same position.
Article 173. Falsification of Wireless, Cable,
Telegraph and Telephone Messages, and Use of
Said Falsified Messages
Acts punished
1. Uttering fictitious wireless, telegraph or
telephone message;
Elements
1. 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;
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
38
 2. He utters fictitious wireless, cable,
telegraph or telephone message.
2. Falsifying wireless, telegraph or telephone
message;
Elements
1. 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. He falsifies wireless, cable, telegraph or
telephone message.
3. Using such falsified message.
Elements
1. Offender knew that wireless, cable,
telegraph, or telephone message was
falsified by 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. He used such falsified dispatch;
3. The use resulted in the prejudice of a
third party or at least there was intent
to cause such prejudice.
 The public officer, to be liable, must be engaged in
the service of sending or receiving wireless, cable
or telephone message.
 Private individual cannot be a principal by direct
participation in falsification of telegraphic
dispatches under Art. 173 unless he is an employee
of a corporation engaged in the business of sending
or receiving wireless, telegraph or telephone
message.
 Private individual can be criminally liable as
principal by inducement in falsification of
telegraphic dispatches.
 Act. No. 1851, Sec $, punishes private individuals
who forge or alter telegram by an fine of not more
than P100.
Article 174. False Medical Certificates, False
Certificates of Merit or Service, Etc.
Persons liable
1 Physician or surgeon who, in connection with the
practice of his profession, issues a false
certificate (it must refer to the illness or injury of
a person);
[The crime here is false medical certificate by a
physician.]
2 Public officer who issues a false certificate of
merit of service, good conduct or similar
circumstances;
[The crime here is false certificate of merit or
service by a public officer.]
3 Private person who falsifies a certificate falling
within the classes mentioned in the two
preceding subdivisions.
[The crime is false medical certificate by private
person or false certificate of merit or service by a
private person]
 The falsification of the certificate of large cattle is
not covered by Art 174 but by Art 171 or 172.
 Certificate of residence for voting purposes is
certificate of “similar circumstances”.
Article 175. Using False Certificates
Elements
1. The following issues a false certificate:
a. Physician or surgeon, in connection with
the practice of his profession, issues a
false certificate;
b. Public officer issues a false certificate of
merit of service, good conduct or similar
circumstances;
c. Private person falsifies a certificate
falling within the classes mentioned in
the two preceding subdivisions.
2. Offender knows that the certificate was false;
He uses the same.
 When any of the false certificates mentioned in Art.
174 is used in the judicial proceedings, 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.
Article 176. Manufacturing and Possession of
Instruments or Implements for Falsification
Acts punished
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.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
39

 It is not necessary that the implements confiscated
form a complete set for counterfeiting. It is enough
that they may be employed by themselves or
together with other implements to commit the
crime of counterfeiting or falsification.
 Possession punished here may be actual or
constructive possession.
Article 177. Usurpation of Authority or Official
Functions
Acts punished
1. Usurpation of authority;
Elements
1. Offender knowingly and falsely
represents himself;
2. As an officer, agent or representative of
any department or agency of the
Philippine government or of any foreign
government.
2. Usurpation of official functions.
Elements
1. Offender performs any act;
2. Pertaining to any person in authority or
public officer of the Philippine
government or any foreign government,
or any agency thereof;
3. Under pretense of official position;
4. Without being lawfully entitled to do so.
 In usurpation of authority, it is not necessary that
he performs an act pertaining to public office.
However in usurpation of official functions, it is
essential that the offender should have performed
an act pertaining to a person authority or public
officer.
 There must be positive, express and explicit
representation. Such false representation may be
shown by acts.
 This article applies to “any person” and thus covers
even a public officer. (ex. Councilor usurping
mayor’s office)
 This article does not apply to occupant under color
of title.
 This article also punishes usurpation of authority or
official functions of any officer of any foreign
government.
 RA 75 provides additional penalties for usurping the
authority of diplomatic or consular or any other
official of foreign government if offender has intent
to defraud.
 RA 10 applies only to members of seditious
organization engaged in subversive activities who
performed any act pertaining to the government, to
any person in authority or to any public officer.
People vs. Cortez
Accused introduced himself to a proprietress of a meatshop
presenting an id card bearing another name. He claimed to
be authorized to waive inspection of books for P400. Upon
learning that the accused was not a real BIR agent, the
owner and authorities set up a string operation. Accused
was apprehended after taking the money.
HELD: Crime committed was usurpation of authority thru
falsification of a public document by a private individual. It
is not robbery because there was no force or intimidation.
Gigantoni v People
Gigantoni, working on an investigation for another
company, represented himself to PAL legal officer as a PC-
CIS agent. He requested that he be shown the PAL records
which was granted and he xeroxed them.
HELD: He cannot be held liable for usurpation of authority
because he did not knowingly represented himself to be an
agent. AT the time he went to PAL office, he was still an
agent though he knew he was suspended. The conveyance
to him of the notice of dismissal was not proven. He should
have been charged with usurpation of official functions
where dismissal or suspension would make no difference
because both imply the absence of the power to represent
himself as vested with authority to perform acts pertaining
to an office which he knowingly was deprived of.
Article 178. Using Fictitious Name and
Concealing True Name
Acts punished
1. Using fictitious name
Elements
1. Offender uses a name other than his
real name;
2. He uses the fictitious name publicly;
3. Purpose of use is to conceal a crime, to
evade the execution of a judgment or to
cause damage [to public interest -
Reyes].
2. Concealing true name
Elements
1. Offender conceals his true name and
other personal circumstances;
2. Purpose is only to conceal his identity.
 A fictitious name is any other name which a person
publicly applies to himself without authority of law.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
40
 Causing damage must be to public interest. If it is
damage to private interest, the crime will be estafa
under Art 315,subdivision 2 paragraph (a).
 Signing fictitious name in an application for
passport is publicly using such fictitious name.
 Where a person takes the place of another who has
been convicted by final judgment, he is guilty of
using a fictitious name under Art 178 and not
evasion of service of sentence because the real
convict alone is guilty thereof.
Use of Fictitious name Concealing true name
Element of publicity must be Element of publicity is not
present necessary
Purpose is to conceal a Purpose is merely to conceal
crime, to evade the identity
execution of a judgment or
to cause damage
Legamia v IAC
Corazon Legamia lived with Emilio Reyes for 19 years and
gave him a son. She was known and introduced to others as
Mrs. Reyes. Upon Emilio’s death, Corazon filed for death
benefits on behalf of their son. The real Mrs. Reyes,
Felicisima, filed a complaint against Corazon for using
fictitious name.
HELD: Corazon was acquitted. It is not uncommon for a
woman to represent herself as the wife of the person she is
living with. Corazon assumed the role of a wife not for any
personal material gain but for her son. Ours is a tolerant
and understanding society…
Use of unregistered aliases
R.A. 6085
AN ACT AMENDING COMMONWEALTH ACT
NUMBERED ONE HUNDRED FORTY-TWO
REGULATING THE USE OF ALIASES
What is prohibited?
1. No person shall use any name different from the one with
which he was registered at birth in the office of the local civil
registry, or with which he was registered in the bureau of
immigration upon entry; or such substitute name as may
have been authorized by a competent court.
Exception: Pseudonym solely for literary, cinema,
television, radio, or other entertainment and in athletic
events where the use of pseudonym is a normally accepted
practice. (Sec. 1)
2. No person having been baptized with a name different
from that with which he was registered at birth in the local
civil registry, or in case of an alien, registered in the bureau
of immigration upon entry, or any person who obtained
judicial authority to use an alias, or who uses a pseudonym,
shall represent himself in any public or private
transaction or shall sign or execute any public or
private document without stating or affixing his real
or original name and all names or aliases or
pseudonym he is or may have been authorized to
use. (Sec. 3)
What is the process?
Any person desiring to use an alias shall apply for
authority therefor in proceedings like those legally provided
to obtain judicial authority for a change of name, and no
person shall be allowed to secure such judicial authority for
more than one alias. The petition for an alias shall set
forth the person's baptismal and family name and the name
recorded in the civil registry, if different, his immigrant's
name, if an alien, and his pseudonym, if he has such names
other than his original or real name, specifying the reason or
reasons for the use of the desired alias. The judicial
authority for the use of alias the christian name and the
alien immigrant's name shall be recorded in the proper local
civil registry, and no person shall use any name or names
other, than his original or real name unless the same is or
are duly recorded in the proper local civil registry. (Sec. 2)
Penalties imposed
Any violation of this Act shall be punished with imprisonment
of from one year to five years and a fine of P5,000 to
P10,000. (Sec. 5)
Article 179. Illegal Use of Uniforms or Insignia
Elements
1 Offender makes use of insignia, uniforms or
dress;
2 The insignia, uniforms or dress pertains to an
office not held by such person or a class of
persons of which he is not a member;
3. Said insignia, uniform or dress is used publicly
and improperly.
 Wearing the uniform of an imaginary office is not
punishable.
 An exact imitation of a uniform or dress is
unnecessary; a colorable resemblance calculated to
deceive the common run of people is sufficient.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 75
(Immunity of Diplomats and Consuls)
An Act to Penalize Acts which would Impair the Proper
Observance by the Republic and Inhabitants of the
Philippines of the Immunities, Rights, And Privileges Of Duly
Accredited Foreign Diplomatic And Consular Agents In The
Philippines
When applicable
The provisions of the Act are applicable only in cases where
the country of the diplomatic or consular representative
adversely affected has provided for similar protection to
duly accredited diplomatic or consular representatives of the
Republic of the Philippines by prescribing like or similar
penalties for like or similar offenses herein contained.
Who are punishable?
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
41
1. Any person who shall falsely assume and take upon addition to the penalties that may be imposed under the
himself to act as a diplomatic, consular, or any other official Revised Penal Code
of a foreign government duly accredited as such to the
Government of the Republic of the Philippines with intent to
defraud such foreign government or the Government of the
RA 493
Philippines;
An Act to Prohibit the Use or Conferring of Military or
Naval Grades or Titles By or Upon Persons Not in the
2. Any person who, in such pretended character shall
Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or the
demand or obtain, or attempt to obtain from any person or
Philippine Constabulary, to Regulate the Wearing,
from said foreign government or the Government of the
Use, Manufacture and Sale of Insignias, Decorations
Philippines, or from any officer thereof, any money, paper,
and Medals, Badges, Patches and Identification Cards
document, or other thing of value;
Prescribed for the Said Armed Forces or
Constabulary, and for Other Purposes
3. Any person, other than a diplomatic or consular officer or
attache, who shall act in the Republic of the Philippines as
Sec. 1. It shall be unlawful for any person NOT in the
an agent of a foreign government without prior notification
service of the AFP or the PNP to use, or confer upon himself
to, and registration with, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs;
or another who is not in the service, any military or naval
grade or title.
4. Any person who, with intent to deceive or mislead, within
the jurisdiction of the Republic, shall wear any naval,
Exceptions:
military, police, or other official uniform, decoration, or
(a) All veterans of any war when recognized by the
regalia of any foreign State, nation or government with
Philippine and only for the ranks for which they are
which the Republic of the Philippines is at peace, or any
recognized;
uniform, decoration or regalia so nearly resembling the same
(b) Commissioned officers and personnel, retired or in
as to be calculated to deceive, UNLESS such wearing thereof
active duty, of the Bureau of Coast and Geodetic Survey, of
be authorized by such State, nation, or government;
the quarantine service, and of the customs service;
(c) Commissioned and enlisted reservists including
5. Any person by whom any writ or process is obtained,
recognized guerrilla officers on inactive status when using
whereby the person of any ambassador or public minister of
their authorized grades for a purely military purposes;
any foreign State, authorized and received as such by the
(d) Trainees in the Armed Forces while undergoing
President, or any domestic or domestic servant of any such
any period of trainee instruction pursuant to law.
ambassador or minister is arrested or imprisoned, or his
goods or chattels are distrained, seized, or attached,
whether as party or as attorney;
Sec. 2. It shall be unlawful for any person not in the
service (EXCEPT those excluded from the prohibition in
6. Every officer concerned in executing the writs or process
Section 1), to use or wear the duly prescribed insignia,
in (5) above.
badge or emblem or rank or any colorable imitation
 (5) and (6) above are NOT APPLICABLE where:
thereof, of the members of the AFP or PNP,

Exception: use or the wearing of any insignia, badge or

 the person against whom the process is
emblem of rank:
issued is a (1) citizen or inhabitant of the
a. in any play-house or theater or
Republic of the Philippines, (2) in the service
b. in moving-picture films while actually engaged in
of an ambassador or a public minister, and
representing therein a military or naval character
(3) the process is founded upon a debt
contracted before he entered upon such
not tending to bring discredit or reproach upon the
service; or
AFP and PNP
 the person against whom the process is
issued is a domestic servant of an
Sec. 3. The use, wearing, manufacture and sale of any
ambassador or a public minister, UNLESS the
medal or decoration, badge, insignia, patch, or
name of the servant has, before the issuing
identification card, authorized by Congress or prescribed
thereof, been registered in the Department of
or awarded by the President of the Philippines or the
Foreign Affairs, and transmitted by the
Secretary of National Defense for the members of the AFP,
Secretary of Foreign Affairs to the Chief of
or any colorable imitation thereof, is prohibited
Police of the City of Manila, who shall upon
receipt thereof post the same in some public
Exception: when so authorized by the Secretary of
place in his office.
National Defense.
7. Any person who assaults, strikes, wounds, imprisons or in
any other manner offers violence to the person of an
ambassador or a public minister, in violation of the law of FALSE TESTIMONY
nations.
 False testimony is committed by a person who,
Penalties
being under oath and required to testify as to the
The penalties provided in the act shall be imposed in
truth of a certain matter at a hearing before a

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

42
 competent authority shall deny the truth or say
something contrary to it.
Three forms of false testimony
1. False testimony in criminal cases (Arts 180, 181)
2. False testimony in civil case (Art 182)
3. False testimony in other cases (Art 183)
Article 180. False Testimony against
Defendant
Elements
1. There is a criminal proceeding;
2. Offender testifies falsely under oath against the
defendant therein;
3. Offender who gives false testimony knows that it
is false.
4. Defendant against whom the false testimony is
given is either acquitted or convicted in a final
judgment.
 Penalty for false testimony depends upon the
sentence of the defendant against whom false
testimony was given.
 The defendant in the principal case must be
sentenced at least a correctional penalty, a fine or
shall have been acquitted in order that the witness
who falsely testified can be held liable.
 The witness who gave false testimony is liable even
if his testimony was not considered by the court as
the law intends to punish the mere giving of false
testimony.
Article 181. False Testimony Favorable to the
Defendant
Elements
1. A person gives false testimony;
2. In favor of the defendant;
3. In a criminal case.
 Conviction or acquittal of defendant in principal
case, not necessary as it is sufficient that the
defendant is prosecuted for a felony punishable
by afflictive penalty or by other penalty.
 False testimony favorable to the defendant is
equally repugnant to the orderly administration of
justice.
 False testimony is punished because of its tendency
to favor or to prejudice the defendant.
 False testimony by negative statement is in favor of
defendant.
 False testimony in favor of defendant need not
directly influence the decision of acquittal nor
benefit the defendant as it is sufficient that it was
given to favor the accused.
 A statement by a witness that he is an expert in
handwriting is a statement of mere opinion, the
falsity of which is not sufficient to convict him.
 The defendant who falsely testified in his own
behalf in a criminal case is guilty of false testimony
favorable to the defendant. The right to testify in
his own behalf is secured to him, not that he may
be enabled to introduced false testimony into the
record, but to enable him to spread upon the
A record the truth as to any matter within his
knowledge (US v Soliman)
 Rectification made spontaneously after realizing the
mistake is not false testimony.
Bar Questions
False Testimony (1994)
Paolo was charged with homicide before the Regional Trial
Court of Manila. Andrew, a prosecution witness, testified that
he saw Paolo shoot Abby during their heated argument.
While the case is still pending, the City Hall of Manila burned
down and the entire records of the case were destroyed.
Later, the records were reconstituted. Andrew was again
called to the witness stand. This time he testified that his
first testimony was false and the truth was he was abroad
when the crime took place. The judge immediately ordered
the prosecution of Andrew for giving a false testimony
favorable to the defendant in a criminal case. 1.] Will the
case against Andrew prosper? 2.] Paolo was acquitted. The
decision became final on
January 10, 1987. On June 18, 1994 a case of giving false
testimony was filed against Andrew. As his lawyer, what
legal step will you take?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) Yes. For one to be criminally liable under Art. 181, RFC, it
is not necessary that the criminal case where Andrew
testified is terminated first. It is not even required of the
prosecution to prove which of the two statements of the
witness is false and to prove the statement to be false by
evidence other than the contradictory statements (People
vs. Arazola, 13 Court of Appeals Report, 2nd series, p. 808).
2) As lawyer of Andrew, I will file a motion to quash the
Information on the ground of prescription. The crime of false
testimony under Art. 180 has prescribed because Paolo, the
accused in the principal case, was acquitted on January 10,
1987 and therefore the penalty prescribed for such crime is
arresto mayor under Art. 180, par. 4, RPC. Crimes
punishable by arresto mayor prescribes in five (5) years (Art.
90, par. 3, RPC). But the case against Andrew was filed only
on June 18, 1994, whereas the principal criminal case was
decided with finality on January 10, 1987 and, thence the
prescriptive period of the crime commenced to run. From
January 10, 1987 to June 18, 1994 is more than five (5)
years.
Article 182. False Testimony in Civil Cases
Elements
1. Testimony given in a civil case;
2. Testimony relates to the issues presented in said
case;
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
43
3. Testimony is false;
4. Offender knows that testimony is false;
5. Testimony is malicious and given with an intent
to affect the issues presented in said case.
 The testimony given in the civil case must be false.
 Art. 182 is not applicable when the false testimony
is given in special proceeding as it applies only to
ordinary civil cases.
 Penalty depends on the amount of the controversy.
Article 183. False Testimony in Other Cases and
Perjury in Solemn Affirmation
Acts punished
1. By falsely testifying under oath;
2. By making a false affidavit.
Elements of perjury
1. Offender makes a statement under oath or
executes an affidavit upon a material matter;
2. The statement or affidavit is made before a
competent officer, authorized to receive and
administer oaths;
3. Offender makes a willful and deliberate assertion
of a falsehood in the statement or affidavit;
4. The sworn statement or affidavit containing the
falsity is required by law, that is, it is made for a
legal purpose.
 Oath is any form of attestation by which a person
signifies that he is bound in conscience to perform
an act faithfully and truthfully.
 An affidavit is a sworn statement in writing; a
declaration in writing made upon oath or before an
authorized magistrate or officer.
 Perjury is an offense which covers false oaths other
than those taken in the course of judicial
proceedings.
 A false affidavit to a criminal complaint may give
rise to perjury.
 Material matter is the main fact which is the subject
matter of the inquiry or any circumstance which
tends to prove that fact, or any fact or
circumstance which tends to corroborate or
strengthen the testimony relative to the subject of
inquiry or which legitimately affects the credit of
any witness who testifies.
 There must be competent proof of materiality. The
matter is material when it is directed to prove a fact
in issue.
 There is no perjury if sworn statement is not
material to the principal matter under investigation.
 There is no perjury if defendant subscribed and
swore before a clerk in treasurer’s office as a
competent person authorized to administer oath is
a person who has a right to inquire into the
questions presented to him upon matters under his
jurisdiction.
 The assertion of falsehood must be willful and
deliberate. Good faith or lack of malice is a defense
in perjury.
 The phrase “when the law so requires” does not
mean that the sworn statement or affidavit must be
required by law. It has been interpreted to mean
“in cases in which the law so authorizes”. Hence,
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 (P v Angcangco)
 Two contradictory sworn statements are not
sufficient to convict for perjury because the
prosecution must prove which of the two
statements is false by other evidence than the
contradictory statement.
 The direct induction of a person by another to
commit perjury is treated as plain perjury. The one
inducing another is principal by induction and the
latter as principal by direct participation.
False testimony Perjury
Perversions of truth
Given in the course of Not given in judicial
judicial proceeding proceeding
Contemplates an actual trial May be committed during
preliminary investigation and
in making false affidavits
Diaz vs. People
Diaz was charged with falsification of official document. He
allegedly executed and filed in CSC a personal data sheet,
an official document, where he stated he was a 4 th yr AB
student at Cosmopolitan and Harvardian Colleges w/c led
to his reappointment. The accused was never enrolled in
said schools. He presented a transcript of record with no
imprint of college seal nor signature of school president.
HELD: The crime committed was perjury. This offense is
the willful and corrupt assertion of a falsehood under oath
or affirmation administered by authority of law on a
material matter.
Acuna v. Deputy Ombudsman (2005)
FACTS: Petitioner Acuña is a former teacher of the
Angeles City National Trade School ("ACNTS") in Pampanga.
Pascua was ACNTS' Officer-In-Charge while Turla was a
member of the faculty. Yabut, another ACNTS teacher,
together with other school personnel, requested a dialogue
with Pascua on some unspecified matter. Turla attended
the meeting upon Pascua's directive. Acuña, upon Yabut’s
invitation also attended the meeting. As an offshoot to an
incident during the meeting which was held on July 16,
1998, Acuña charged Pascua with misconduct ("OMB-ADM-1-
99-0387") and with violation of Article 131 of the RPC ("OMB
1-99-903") before the Office of the Ombudsman. In his
sworn counter-affidavit in OMB-ADM-1-99-0387, Pascua
alleged, among others, that: (1) OMB-ADM-1-99-0387 is a
"rehash and a duplication with a slight deviation of fact" of
an administrative case pending with DECS which Acuña and
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
44
Yabut earlier filed against him and (2) Yabut had no
authority to invite in the meeting a non-employee of ACNTS
like Acuña considering that Pascua was the one who called
the meeting. Pascua also submitted a sworn statement of
Turla confirming that respondent Pascua and not Yabut
called the said meeting. The Ombudsman dismissed OMB-
ADM-1-99-0387 and OMB 1-99-0903. Contending that Pacua
and Turla perjured themselves in their sworn statements in
OMB-ADM-1-99-0387, petitioner charged the former with
perjury before the office of the Deputy Ombudsman for
Luzon. Acuña alleged that Pascua and Turla were liable for
perjury because: (1) the complaint she and Yabut filed
against Pascua before the CSC, later endorsed to the DECS,
was not "the same" as her complaint in OMB-ADM-1-99-0387
and (2) it was Yabut and not respondent Pascua who called
the meeting. The Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon dismissed
the complaint.
HELD: In prosecutions for perjury, a matter is
material if it is the "main fact which was the subject of the
inquiry, or any circumstance which tends to prove that fact
. . ." 24 To hold private respondents liable, there must be
evidence that their assailed statements in OMB-ADM-1-99-
0387 were the subject of inquiry in that case. Petitioner
has presented no such evidence. The records are hardly
helpful, as petitioner did not furnish the Court a copy of
her complaint in OMB-ADM-1-99-0387.
What is before the Court is a portion of Pascua's
counter-affidavit in that case as quoted by public
respondent in his 4 April 2000 Resolution. Admittedly, some
inference is possible from this quoted material, namely,
that the basis of petitioner's complaint in OMB-ADM-1-99-
0387 is that Pascua prevented her from taking part in the
July 1998 meeting. However, it would be improper for the
Court to rely on such inference because the element of
materiality must be established by evidence and not left to
inference.
At any rate, petitioner's complaint for perjury will still not
prosper because Pascua's statement — that OMB-ADM-1-99-
0387 is significantly the same as petitioner's and Yabut's
administrative complaint against respondent Pascua before
the DECS — is immaterial to the inferred issue.
The third element of perjury requires that the accused
willfully and deliberately assert a falsehood. Good faith or
lack of malice is a valid defense. Here, the Court finds that
respondent Pascua's statement in his counter-affidavit in
OMB-ADM-1-99-0387 that he called the 16 July 1998
meeting does not constitute a deliberate assertion of
falsehood. While it was Yabut and some unidentified ACNTS
personnel who requested a dialogue with respondent
Pascua, it was Pascua's consent to their request which led
to the holding of the meeting. Thus, Pascua's statement in
question is not false much less malicious. It is a good faith
interpretation of events leading to the holding of the
meeting.
Regarding Pascua's allegation in his counter-affidavit in
OMB-ADM-1-99-0387 that petitioner’s complaint was a mere
"rehash and duplication with a slight deviation of fact" of
the DECS administrative case petitioner and Yabut filed
against Pascua, it was not shown by petitioner why this is
false. Petitioner again did not furnish the Court a copy of
her and Yabut's complaint with the DECS.
Turla's statement in OMB-ADM-1-99-0387 that respondent
Pascua called the 16 July 1998 meeting was a mere
reiteration of what respondent Pascua told him.
Consequently, it was correct for the Deputy Ombudsman
for Luzon to hold that since respondent Turla merely
repeated what he heard from respondent Pascua, he could
not be held liable for making a false and malicious
statement. The dismissal is affirmed.
People v. Choa (2003)
FACTS: Alfonso Chan Choa, petitioner, a Chinese national,
filed with the RTC a verified petition for naturalization.
During the initial hearing of the case, Choa testified on
direct examination but he was not able to finish the same.
He subsequently filed a motion to withdraw his petition for
naturalization for which the trial court granted. Meanwhile,
State Prosecutor Delfin, acting upon the complaint of
petitioner's wife, Leni, filed an Information with the MTCC,
charging petitioner with perjury under Article 183 of the
RPC with respect to alleged false statements he made in
his Petition for Naturalization. Petitioner alleged that there
is no basis to convict him of perjury because almost 2 years
prior to the filing of the Information, his motion to
withdraw the petition for naturalization containing the
alleged false statements was granted, hence, the alleged
false statements were no longer existing or had become
functus officio. The lower courts found Choa’s allegation
devoid of merit and convicted him guilty of perjury. In his
petition, Choa and the Solicitor General contend that (a)
not all the elements of the crime of perjury are present;
and (b) the withdawal of the petition for naturalization
which contains the alleged untruthful statements bars the
prosecution of petitioner for perjury.
HELD: Fully cognizant of the truth surrounding his moral
character and residence, petitioner instead declared
falsely in his verified petition for naturalization that "he
has all the qualifications and none of the disqualification
under C.A. No. 473." Clearly, he willfully asserted
falsehood under oath on material matters required by law.
It is not necessary that the proceeding in which the perjury
is alleged to have been committed be first terminated
before a prosecution for the said crime is commenced. At
the time he filed his petition for naturalization, he had
committed perjury. All the elements of the crime were
already present then. He knew all along that he wilfully
stated material falsities in his verified petition.
Surprisingly, he withdrew his petition without even stating
any reason therefor. But such withdrawal only terminated
the proceedings for naturalization. It did not extinguish his
culpability for perjury he already committed. Indeed, the
fact of withdrawal alone cannot bar the State from
prosecuting petitioner, an alien, who made a mockery not
only of the Philippine naturalization law but the judicial
proceedings as well. And the petition for naturalization
tainted with material falsities can be used as evidence of
his unlawful act.
Petitioner then claims that since the petition for
naturalization is a pleading, the allegations therein are
absolutely privileged and cannot be used for any criminal
prosecution against him, citing Sison vs. David, People vs.
Aquino and Flordelis vs. Himalaloan.
The argument is unavailing. Sison and Aquino both involve
libel cases. In Sison, this Court categorically stressed that
the term "absolute privilege" (or "qualified privilege") has
an "established technical meaning, in connection with civil
actions for libel and slander." The purpose of the privilege
is to ensure that "members of the legislature, judges of
courts, jurors, lawyers, and witnesses may speak their
minds freely and exercise their respective functions
without incurring the risk of a criminal prosecution or an
action for the recovery of damages. It is granted in aid and
for the advantage of the administration of justice."
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
45
Certainly, in the present case, petitioner cannot seek prosper. In other words, A's civil status is not a defense to
refuge under the absolutely privileged communication rule the charge of immorality, hence, not a material matter that
since the false statements he made in his petition for could influence the charge. There is no crime of subornation
naturalization has instead made a mockery of the of perjury. The crime is now treated as plain perjury with the
administration of justice. one inducing another as the principal inducement, and the
The Flordelis case is likewise not in point. There, Flordelis latter, as principal by direct participation (People vs. Podol
was charged with perjury for having alleged false 66 Phil. 365). Since in this case A cannot be held liable for
statements in his verified answer. This Court held that no perjury, the matter that he testified to being immaterial, he
perjury could be committed by Flordelis because "an cannot therefore be held responsible as a principal by
answer to a complaint in an ordinary civil action need not
inducement when he induced C to testify on his status.
be under oath," thus, "it is at once apparent that one
Consequently, C is not liable as principal by direct
element of the crime of perjury is absent . . ., namely,
participation in perjury, having testified on matters not
that the sworn statement complained of must be required
material to an administrative case.
by law.”
Perjury (2005)
Al Chua, a Chinese national, filed a petition under oath for
Perjury (1996)
naturalization, with the Regional Trial Court of Manila. In his
Sisenando purchased the share of the stockholders of
petition, he stated that he is married to Leni Chua; that he is
Estrella Corporation in two installments, making him the
living with her in Sampaloc, Manila; that he is of good moral
majority stockholder thereof and eventually, its president.
character; and that he has conducted himself in an
Because the stockholders who sold their stocks failed to
irreproachable manner during his stay in the Philippines.
comply with their warranties attendant to the sale,
However, at the time of the filing of the petition, Leni Chua
Sisenando withheld payment of the second installment due
was already living in Cebu, while Al was living with Babes
on the shares and deposited the money in escrow instead,
Toh in Manila, with whom he has an amorous relationship.
subject to release once said stockholders comply with their
After his direct testimony, Al Chua withdrew his petition for
warranties.
naturalization. What crime or crimes, if any, did Al Chua
The stockholders concerned, in turn, rescinded the sale in
commit? Explain. (5%)
question and removed Sisenando from the Presidency of the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Estrella Corporation, Sisenando then filed a verified
Al Chua committed perjury. His declaration under oath for
complaint for damages against said stockholders in his
naturalization that he is of good moral character and residing
capacity as president and principal stockholder of Estrella
at Sampaloc, Manila are false. This information is material to
Corporation. In retaliation, the stockholders concerned, after
his petition for naturalization. He committed perjury for this
petitioning the Securities and Exchange Commission to
willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood which is
declare the rescission valid, further filed a criminal case for
contained in a verified petition made for a legal purpose.
perjury against Sisenando, claiming that the latter perjured
(Choa v. People, G.R. No. 142011, March 14, 2003)
himself when he stated under oath in the verification of his
complaint for damages that he is the President of the
Estrella Corporation when in fact he had already been Article 184. Offering False Testimony in
removed as such. Under the facts of the case, could Evidence
Sisenando be held liable for perjury? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Elements
No, Sisenando may not be held liable for perjury because It
cannot be reasonably maintained that he willfully and
1. Offender offers in evidence a false witness or
deliberately made an assertion of a falsehood when he
alleged in the complaint that he is the President of the
testimony;
Corporation, obviously, he made the allegation on the 2 He knows that the witness or the testimony was
premise that his removal from the presidency is not valid false;
and that is precisely the issue brought about by his 3. The offer is made in any judicial or official
complaint to the SEC. It is a fact that Sisenando has been proceeding.
the President of the corporation and it is from that position
that the stockholders concerned purportedly removed him,  To consummate the offense, the witness or
whereupon he filed the complaint questioning his removal.
testimony must be offered in evidence. Offer of
There is no willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood
which is a requisite of perjury.
evidence begins the moment the witness is called
Perjury (1997) to the witness stand and interrogated by counsel.
A, a government employee, was administratively charged  Art. 184 applies when the offender without
with immorality for having an affair with B, a coemployee in inducing another, but knowing him to be a false
the same office who believed him to be single. To exculpate witness, presented him as a witness and he
himself, A testified that he was single and was willing to testified falsely.
marry B, He induced C to testify and C did testify that B was  The penalty shall be that for false testimony if
single. The truth, however, was that A had earlier married D,
committed in a judicial proceeding or that for
now a neighbor of C. Is A guilty of perjury? Are A and C
guilty of subordination of perjury?
perjury if committed in another proceeding.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. A is not guilty of perjury because the willful falsehood OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
asserted by him is not material to the charge of immorality. (PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO.1829)
Whether A is single or married, the charge of immorality
against him as a government employee could proceed or
Prohibited Acts

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

46

 Preventing witnesses
from testifying in any criminal
proceeding or from reporting the
commission of any offense or the identity
of any offender/s by means of bribery,
misrepresentation, deceit, intimidation, force
or threats;
 Faltering, destroying,
suppressing or concealing any paper,
record, document, or object, with
intent to impair its verity, authenticity,
legibility, availability, or admissibility
as evidence in any investigation of or
official proceedings in, criminal cases, or to
be used in the investigation of, or official
proceedings in, criminal cases;
 Publicly using a fictitious
name for the purpose of concealing a crime,
evading prosecution or the execution of a
judgment, or concealing his true name and
other personal circumstances for the same
purpose or purposes;
 Delaying the prosecution of
criminal cases by obstructing the service
of process or court orders or disturbing
proceedings in the fiscal's offices, in
Ombudsman, or in the courts;
 Making, presenting or
using any record, document, paper or
object with knowledge of its falsity and
with intent to affect the course or
outcome of the investigation of, or
official proceedings in, criminal cases;
 Soliciting, accepting, or
agreeing to accept any benefit in
consideration of abstaining from,
discounting, or impeding the
prosecution of a criminal offender;
 Threatening directly or
indirectly another with the infliction of
any wrong upon his person, honor or
property or that of any immediate
member or members of his family in
order to prevent such person from
appearing in the investigation of, or
official proceedings in, criminal cases, or
imposing a condition, whether lawful or
unlawful, in order to prevent a person from
appearing in the investigation of or in official
proceedings in, criminal cases;
 Giving of false or
fabricated information to mislead or
prevent the law enforcement agencies
from apprehending the offender or from
protecting the life or property of the victim;
or
 Fabricating information
from the data gathered in confidence
by investigating authorities for
purposes of background information
and not for publication and publishing or
disseminating the same to mislead the
investigator or the court.
Bar Questions
Falsification; Presumption of Falsification (1999)
A falsified official or public document was found in the
possession of the accused. No evidence was introduced to
show that the accused was the author of the falsification. As
a matter of fact, the trial court convicted the accused of
falsification of official or public document mainly on the
proposition that "the only person who could have made the
erasures and the superimposition mentioned is the one who
will be benefited by the alterations thus made" and that "he
alone could have the motive for making such alterations".
Was the conviction of the accused proper although the
conviction was premised merely on the aforesaid
ratiocination? Explain your answer. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the conviction is proper because there is a
presumption in law that the possessor and user of a falsified
document is the one who falsified the same.
Forgery & Falsification (1999)
How are "forging" and "falsification" committed? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
FORGING or forgery 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; or by
erasing, substituting, counterfeiting, or altering by any
means the figures, letters, words or signs contained therein.
FALSIFICATION, on the other hand, is committed by:
1 Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or
rubric;
2 Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any
act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate;
3 Attributing to persons who have participated in an act
or proceeding statements other than those in fact made by
them;
4 4 Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
5 Altering true dates;
6 Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine
document which changes its meaning;
7 Issuing in an 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; or
8 Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the
issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official book.
Article 185. Machinations in Public Auctions
Acts punished
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
47
1. Soliciting any gift or promise as a consideration
for refraining from taking part in any public
auction;
Elements
1. There is a public auction;
2. Offender solicits any gift or a promise
from any of the bidders;
3. Such gift or promise is the consideration
for his refraining from taking part in that
public auction;
4. Offender has the intent to cause the
reduction of the price of the thing
auctioned.
2. Attempting to cause bidders to stay away from
an auction by threats, gifts, promises or any
other artifice.
Elements
1. There is a public auction;
2. Offender attempts to cause the bidders
to stay away from that public auction;
3. It is done by threats, gifts, promises or
any other artifice;
4. Offender has the intent to cause the
reduction of the price of the thing
auctioned.
 This crime is consummated by mere solicitation of
gift or promise as a consideration for not bidding.
Likewise, mere attempt to cause prospective
bidders to stay away from an auction by means of
threats, gifts, promises or any other artifice
consummates the crime.
 Reason: so execution should be opened to free and
full competition to secure the maximum benefit for
the debtor.
People vs. Ouano
Echavez and Ouano had an oral agreement that only the
former would make a bid for a parcel of land in a public
bidding, and if accepted, they would divide the property in
proportion to their adjoining properties. To ensure the
success of their plans, they induced the only other party
interested by paying her P2000 to desist from bidding.
HELD: The acts constituted a crime under Art 185. They
caused another bidder to stay away from the auction in
order to cause the reduction of the price of the property
auctioned. The parties have no cause of action against each
other to and are both liable for the crime.
Article 186. Monopolies and Combinations in
Restraint of Trade
Acts punished
1. Combination to prevent free competition in the
market;
Elements
1. Entering into any contract or agreement
or taking part in any conspiracy or
combination in the form of a trust or
otherwise;
2. In restraint of trade or commerce or to
prevent by artificial means free
competition in the market.
2. Monopoly to restrain free competition in the
market;
Elements
1. By monopolizing any merchandise or
object of trade or commerce, or by
combining with any other person or
persons to monopolize said merchandise
or object;
2. In order to alter the prices thereof by
spreading false rumors or making use of
any other artifice;
3. To restrain free competition in the
market
3. 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
merchandise.
Elements
1. Manufacturer, producer, processor or
importer of any merchandise or object
of commerce;
2. Combines, conspires or agrees with any
person;
3. Purpose is to make transactions
prejudicial to lawful commerce or to
increase the market price of any
merchandize or object of commerce
manufactured, produced, processed,
assembled or imported into the
Philippines.
 Mere conspiracy or combination is punished.
 If the offense affects any food substance or other
article of prime necessity, it is sufficient that initial
steps are taken toward carrying out the purposes of
combination.
 When offense is committed by a corporation or
association, the president and directors or
managers are liable. But they are liable only when
they (1) knowingly permitted or (2) failed to
prevent the commission of such offense.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
48
Article 187. Importation and Disposition of
Falsely Marked Articles or Merchandise Made of
Gold, Silver, or Other Precious Metals of Their
Alloys
Elements
1. Offender imports, sells or disposes articles made
of gold, silver, or other precious metals or their
alloys;
2. The stamps, brands, or marks of those articles of
merchandise fail to indicate the actual fineness or
quality of said metals or alloys;
3. Offender knows that the stamps, brands, or
marks fail to indicate the actual fineness or
quality of the metals or alloys.
 Articles involved are those made of gold, silver,
other precious metals or their alloys.
 Selling the misbranded articles is not necessary but
there must be evidence showing that the articles
were imported.
 Art 187 does not apply to manufacturer of
misbranded articles made of gold, silver, other
precious metals or their alloys.
Article 188. Substituting and Altering
Trademarks, Trade names, or Service Marks
Acts punished
1. Substituting the trade name or trademark of
some other manufacturer or dealer, or a
colorable imitation thereof for the trade name or
trademark of the real manufacturer or dealer
upon any article of commerce and selling the
same;
2. Selling or offering for sale such articles of
commerce knowing that the trade name or
trademark has been fraudulently used;
3. Using or substituting the service mark of some
other person, or a colorable imitation of such
mark n the sale or advertising of his services;
4. Printing, lithographing or reproducing trade
name, trademark, or service mark of one person
or a colorable imitation thereof to enable another
person to fraudulently use the same knowing the
fraudulent purpose for which it is to be used.
 The tradename, trademark or service mark used by
the offender need not be identical with the
infringed tradename, trademark or service mark. A
colorable imitation is sufficient. But there must not
be differences which are glaring and striking to the
eye.
 They function of a trademark is to indicate the
origin or ownership of the goods to which it is
fixed.
 It is not necessary that the goods of the prior user
and the late user of the trademark are of the same
categories.
 The trademark or tradename must be registered. It
must not be merely descriptive or generic.
 The exclusive right to an originally valid trademark
or tradename is lost, if for any reason it loses its
distinctiveness or has become publici juris.
Article 189. Unfair Competition, Fraudulent
Registration of Trade Name, Trademark, or
Service Mark, Fraudulent Designation of Origin,
and False Description
Acts punished
1. Unfair competition;
Elements
1. By selling his goods;
2. Giving them the general appearance of
the goods of another manufacturer or
dealer;
3. The general appearance is shown in the
goods themselves, or in the wrapping of
their packages, or in the device or
words therein, or in any feature of their
appearance;
4. There is actual intent to deceive the
public or defraud a competitor.
2. Fraudulent designation of origin; false
description:
Elements
1. By affixing to his goods or using in
connection with his services a false
designation of origin, or any false
description or representation; and
2. Selling such goods or services.
3. Fraudulent registration
Elements
1. By procuring fraudulently from the
patent office;
2. The registration of trade name,
trademark or service mark
 Unfair competition consists in employing deception
or any other means contrary to good faith by
which any person shall pass off the goods
manufactured by him or in which he deals, or his
business, or his services for those of the one having
established goodwill, or committing any acts
calculated to produce such result.
 Mere offer for sale completes the commission of the
crime. Evidence of actual fraudulent intent is not
necessary.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
49
 The true test of unfair competition is WON certain
goods have been clothed with an appearance which
is likely to deceive the ordinary purchaser
exercising ordinary.
 The master is criminally responsible for acts of his
servants and employees in violation of the penal
provisions touching trademarks, tradenames; and
unfair competition if he causes the illegal act to be
done, or requests, command or permits it or in any
manner authorizes it, or aids or abets the servant in
its commission of , whether he is present at the
time the unlawful act is committed or not.
La Chemise Lacoste v Fernandez
In 1975, Hemandas & Co., a domestic firm was issued
registration for the trademark "CHEMISE LACOSTE &
CROCODILE DEVICE" by the Philippine Patent Office for use
on T-shirts, sportswear and other garment products of the
company.
La Chemise Lacoste, S.A.,the actual owner of the TM’s
"LACOSTE", "CHEMISE LACOSTE", "CROCODILE DEVICE" used
on clothings and sporting apparels sold worldwide filed a
Petition for Cancellation of Hamandas registration as it is
claiming prior registration of the TM’s.
HELD: The records show that the goodwill and reputation of
La Chemise products bearing the TM LACOSTE date back
even before 1964 when LACOSTE clothing apparels were
first marketed in the Philippines. To allow Hemandas to
continue using the trademark Lacoste for the simple reason
that he was the first registrant of a trademark used in
international commerce and not belonging to him is to
render nugatory the very essence of the law on trademarks
and tradenames.
The purpose of the law is to point out distinctly the origin
or ownership of the article to which it is affixed, to secure
to him, who has been instrumental in bringing into a
market a superior article of merchandise, the fruit of his
industry and skill, and to prevent fraud and imposition. It is
based on the principle of business integrity and common
justice.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8293
The Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines
TRADEMARKS, TRADENAMES, SERVICEMARKS
What acts are punishable?
1. Infringement
Elements:
1. Registration of TN, TM or SM
2. Use in commerce by another (inc. reproduction and
application of reproduction)
3. Use is without owner’s consent
4. Use is likely to cause confusion, cause mistake or
deceive
 regardless of whether or not there is actual
sale
2. Unfair Competition
Elements:
1. Person has established goodwill (has identified in
the mind of the public his goods, business or
services), whether or not a registered mark is
employed
2. Another person passes of the goods he deals in
for those of the person who has established
goodwill
3. By means contrary to good faith (malice and
intent to deceive essential)l
The ff. are DEEMED to have committed unfair competition:
(a) gives goods the general appearance of goods of another
or such appearance as is likely to deceive the public or
defraud another of his legitimate trade + to influence
purchasers to believe that the goods offered are those of
another + sells the goods (includes subsequent vendor and
agent of any vendor)
(b) induces the false belief that he is offering the services of
another who has established goodwill + by any artifice or
device
(c) makes any false statement in the course of trade or any
other act contrary to good faith + act or statement
calculated to discredit the business of another
3. False Designation of Origin / False Description of
Fact
Elements:
1. Uses in commerce any false designation of origin, false
description or representation of fact which:
is likely to deceive as to sponsorship or approval of
goods by another person
misrepresents nature, characteristics, qualities and
geographic origin of goods in commercial
advertising or promotion
PATENTS
What act are punishable?
Repetition of Infringement
Elements:
1. Existence of a final judgment against the offender
in a civil action for infringement of patent
2. Infringer or anyone in connivance with him
repeats the infringement after the finality of the
judgment
By the way, what is infringement with respect to patents?
It is the making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing
of a (1) patented product or a product obtained directly or
indirectly from a patented process, or the use of a patented
process (2) without authorization of the patentee.
Prescription: The criminal action for repetition of
infringement of patent prescribes in three (3) years from
date of the commission of the crime.
COPYRIGHT
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
50

Who are punishable?
1. Any person infringing any right secured by the provisions
of the law on copyright (like copy or economic rights, moral
rights etc.) or of aiding or abetting such infringement;
2. Any person who at the time when copyright subsists in a
work has in his possession an article which he knows, or
ought to know, to be an infringing copy of the work for the
purpose of:
(a) Selling, letting for hire, or by way of
trade, offering or exposing for sale, or
hire, the article;
(b) Distributing the article for purposes of
trade, or for any other purpose to an
extent that will prejudice the rights of
the copyright owner in the work; or
(c) Trade (?) exhibit of the articles in public.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 455
AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION TWO THOUSAND SEVEN
HUNDRED AND TWO, AND TWO THOUSAND SEVEN
HUNDRED AND THREE OF THE REVISED
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
Sec. 2703. Various fraudulent practices against customs
revenues. — Any person who makes or attempts to make
any entry of imported or dutiably exported merchandise by
means of any false or fraudulent invoice, declaration,
affidavit, letter, paper, or by means of any false statement,
written or verbal, or by means of any false or fraudulent
practice whatsoever, or shall be guilty of any willful act or
omission by means whereof the Government of the Republic
of the Philippines might be deprived of the lawful duties, or
any portion thereof, accruing from the merchandise or any
portion thereof, embraced or referred to in such invoice,
declaration, affidavit, letter, paper, or statement, or affected
by such act or omission, shall, for each offense, be punished
by a fine of not less than six hundred pesos but not more
than five thousand pesos and by imprisonment for not less
than six months nor more than two years and, if the
offender is an alien, he may be subject to deportation.
RA 8792
E-Commerce Act
SECTION 25. Actions Related to Contracts of Carriage
of Goods. — Without derogating from the provisions of Part
Two of this Act, this Chapter applies to any action in
connection with, or in pursuance of, a contract of carriage of
goods, including but not limited to:
(a) (i) furnishing the marks, number, quantity
or weight of goods;
(ii) stating or declaring the nature or value of
goods;
(iii) issuing a receipt for goods;
(iv) confirming that goods have been loaded;
(b) (i) notifying a person of terms and
conditions of the contract;
(ii) giving instructions to a carrier;
(c) (i) claiming delivery of goods;
(ii) authorizing release of goods;
(iii) giving notice of loss of, or damage to
goods;
(d) giving any other notice or statement in connection
with the performance of the contract;
(e) undertaking to deliver goods to a named person
or a person authorized to claim delivery;
(f) granting, acquiring, renouncing, surrendering,
transferring or negotiating rights in goods;
(g) acquiring or transferring rights and obligations
under the contract.
SECTION 26. Transport Documents. — (1) Subject to
paragraph (3), where the law requires that any action
referred to in Section 25 be carried out in writing or by using
a paper document, that requirement is met if the action is
carried out by using one or more electronic data messages
or electronic documents.
(2) Paragraph (1) applies whether the requirement
therein is in the form of an obligation or whether the law
simply provides consequences for failing either to carry out
the action in writing or to use a paper document.
(3) If a right is to be granted to, or an obligation is to
be acquired by, one person and no other person, and if the
law requires that, in order to effect this, the right or
obligation must be conveyed to that person by the transfer,
or use of, a paper document, that requirement is met if the
right or obligation is conveyed by using one or more
electronic data messages or electronic documents: Provided,
That a reliable method is used to render such electronic data
messages or electronic documents unique.
(4) For the purposes of paragraph (3), the standard of
reliability required shall be assessed in the light of the
purpose for which the right or obligation was conveyed and
in the light of all the circumstances, including any relevant
agreement.
(5) Where one or more electronic data messages or
electronic documents are used to effect any action in
subparagraphs (f) and (g) of Section 25, no paper document
used to effect any such action is valid unless the use of
electronic data message or electronic document has been
terminated and replaced by the use of paper documents. A
paper document issued in these circumstances shall contain
a statement of such termination. The replacement of
electronic data messages or electronic documents by paper
documents shall not affect the rights or obligations of the
parties involved.
(6) If a rule of law is compulsorily applicable to a
contract of carriage of goods which is in, or is evidenced by,
a paper document, that rule shall not be inapplicable to such
a contract of carriage of goods which is evidenced by one or
more electronic data messages or electronic documents by
reason of the fact that the contract is evidenced by such
electronic data message or electronic documents instead of
by a paper document.
SECTION 30. Extent of Liability of a Service Provider.
— Except as otherwise provided in this Section, no person or
party shall be subject to any civil or criminal liability in
respect of the electronic data message or electronic
document for which the person or party acting as a service
provider as defined in Section 5, merely provides access if
such liability is founded on —
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
51
a.) The obligations and liabilities of the parties under the
electronic data message or electronic document;
b.) The making, publication, dissemination or distribution of
such material or any statement made in such material,
including possible infringement of any right subsisting in or
in relation to such material: Provided, That
i.The service provider does not have actual
knowledge, or is not aware of the facts or circumstances
from which it is apparent, that the making, publication,
dissemination or distribution of such material is unlawful or
infringes any rights subsisting in or in relation to such
material;
ii.The service provider does not knowingly receive
a financial benefit directly attributable to the unlawful or
infringing activity; and
iii.The service provider does not directly commit
any infringement or other unlawful act and does not induce
or cause another person or party to commit any
infringement or other unlawful act and/or does not benefit
financially from the infringing activity or unlawful act of
another person or party: Provided, further, That nothing in
this Section shall affect —
a)Any obligation founded on contract;
b)The obligation of a service provider as such
under a licensing or other regulatory regime established
under written law; or
c)Any obligation imposed under any written law;
d)The civil liability of any party to the extent that
such liability forms the basis for injunctive relief issued by a
court under any law requiring that the service provider take
or refrain from actions necessary to remove, block or deny
access to any material, or to preserve evidence of a violation
of law.
SECTION 31. Lawful Access. — Access to an
electronic file, or an electronic signature of an electronic
data message or electronic document shall only be
authorized and enforced in favor of the individual or entity
having a legal right to the possession or the use of the
plaintext, electronic signature or file and solely for the
authorized purposes. The electronic key for identity or
integrity shall not be made available to any person or party
without the consent of the individual or entity in lawful
possession of that electronic key.
SECTION 32. Obligation of Confidentiality. — Except
for the purposes authorized under this Act, any person who
obtained access to any electronic key, electronic data
message or electronic document, book, register,
correspondence, information, or other material pursuant to
any powers conferred under this Act, shall not convey to or
share the same with any other person.
SECTION 33. Penalties. — The following Acts shall be
penalized by fine and/or imprisonment, as follows:
a) Hacking or cracking which refers to unauthorized
access into or interference in a computer
system/server or information and communication
system; or any access in order to corrupt, alter,
steal, or destroy using a computer or other similar
information and communication devices, without
the knowledge and consent of the owner of the
computer or information and communication
system, including the introduction of computer
viruses and the like, resulting in the corruption,
destruction, alteration, theft or loss of electronic
data messages or electronic documents shall be
punished by a minimum fine of One hundred
thousand pesos (P100,000.00) and a maximum
commensurate to the damage incurred and a
mandatory imprisonment of six (6) months to
three (3) years;
b) Piracy or the unauthorized copying, reproduction,
dissemination, distribution, importation, use,
removal, alteration, substitution, modification,
storage, uploading, downloading, communication,
making available to the public, or broadcasting of
protected material, electronic signature or
copyrighted works including legally protected
sound recordings or phonograms or information
material on protected works, through the use of
telecommunication networks, such as, but not
limited to, the internet, in a manner that infringes
intellectual property rights shall be punished by a
minimum fine of One hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00) and a maximum commensurate to
the damage incurred and a mandatory
imprisonment of six (6) months to three (3) years;
c) Violations of the Consumer Act or Republic Act No.
7394 and other relevant or pertinent laws through
transactions covered by or using electronic data
messages or electronic documents, shall be
penalized with the same penalties as provided in
those laws;
d) Other violations of the provisions of this Act, shall
be penalized with a maximum penalty of One
million pesos (P1,000,000.00) or six (6) years
imprisonment.
RA 9160
ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT OF 2001, AS
AMENDED BY RA 9194
SECTION 3. Definitions. — For purposes of this Act,
the following terms are hereby defined as follows:
(a) “Covered Institution” refers to:
(1) banks, non-banks, quasi-banks, trust entities,
and all other institutions and their subsidiaries and
affiliates supervised or regulated by the Bangko
Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP);
(2) insurance companies and all other institutions
supervised or regulated by the Insurance
Commission; and
(3) (i) securities dealers, brokers, salesmen,
investment houses and other similar
entities managing securities or
rendering services as investment agent,
advisor, or consultant,
(ii) mutual funds, close-end investment
companies, common trust funds, pre-
need companies and other similar
entities,
(iii) foreign exchange corporations,
money changers, money payment,
remittance, and transfer companies and
other similar entities, and
(iv) other entities administering or
otherwise dealing in currency,
commodities or financial derivatives
based thereon, valuable objects, cash
substitutes and other similar monetary
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
52
 instruments or property supervised or
regulated by Securities and Exchange
Commission.
(b) ‘Covered transaction’ is a transaction in cash or
other equivalent monetary instrument involving a total
amount in excess of Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) within one (1) banking day. (as amended by
RA 9194)
(b-1) ‘Suspicious transactions’ are transactions with
covered institutions, regardless of the amounts involved,
where any of the following circumstances exist:
(1) there is no underlying legal or trade obligation,
purpose or economic justification;
(2) the client is not properly identified;
(3) the amount involved is not commensurate with
the business or financial capacity of the client;
(4) taking into account all known circumstances, it
may be perceived that the client's transaction is
structured in order to avoid being the subject of
reporting requirements under the Act;
(5) any circumstance relating to the transaction
which is observed to deviate from the profile of
the client and/or the client's past transactions with
the covered institution;
(6) the transaction is in any way related to an
unlawful activity or offense under this Act that is
about to be, is being or has been committed; or
(7) any transaction that is similar or analogous to
any of the foregoing.
(c) “Monetary instrument” refers to:
(1) coins or currency of legal tender of the
Philippines, or of any other country;
(2) drafts. checks and notes;
(3) securities or negotiable instruments,
bonds, commercial papers, deposit certificates,
trust certificates, custodial receipts or deposit
substitute instruments, trading orders, transaction
tickets and confirmations of sale or investments
and money marked instruments; and
(4) other similar instruments where title
thereto passes to another by endorsement,
assignment or delivery.
(d) "Offender" refers to any person who commits a
money laundering offense.
(e) "Person" refers to any natural or juridical person.
(f) "Proceeds" refers to an amount derived or realized
from an unlawful activity.
(g) “Supervising Authority” refers to the appropriate
supervisory or regulatory agency, department or office
supervising or regulating the covered institutions
enumerated in Section 3(a).
(h) “Transaction” refers to any act establishing any
right or obligation or giving rise to any contractual or legal
relationship between the parties thereto. It also includes any
movement of funds by any means with a covered institution.
(i) “Unlawful activity” refers to any act or omission or
series or combination thereof involving or having direct
relation to the following:
(1) Kidnapping for ransom under Art. 267 of
Act 3815, otherwise known as the RPC, as
amended;
(2) Sections 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14,
15, and 16 of RA 9165, otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002;
(3) Sect. 3 pars. B, C, E, G, H and I of RA
3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act;
(4) Plunder under RA 7080, as amended;
(5) Robbery and extortion under Arts. 294,
295, 296, 299, 300, 301 and 302 of the RPC, as
amended;
(6) Jueteng and Masiao punished as illegal
gambling under PD 1602;
(7) Piracy on the high seas under the RPC,
as amended, and PD 532;
(8) Qualified theft under Art 310 of the RPC,
as amended;
(9) Swindling under Art 315 of the RPC, as
amended;
(10) Smuggling under RAs 455 and 1937;
(11) Violations under RA 8792, otherwise
known as the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000;
(12) Hijacking and other violations under RA
6235; destructive arson and murder, as defined
under the RPC, as amended, including those
perpetrated by terrorists against non-combatant
persons and similar targets;
(13) Fraudulent practices and other violations
under RA 8799, otherwise known as the Securities
Regulation Code of 2000;
(14) Felonies or offenses of a similar nature
that are punishable under the penal laws of other
countries.
SECTION 4. Money Laundering Offense. — Money
laundering is a crime whereby the proceeds of an unlawful
activity as herein defined are transacted, thereby making
them appear to have originated from legitimate sources. It is
committed by the following:
(a) Any person knowing that any monetary instrument
or property represents, involves, or relates to, the proceeds
of any unlawful activity, transacts or attempts to transact
said monetary instrument or property.
(b) Any person knowing that any monetary instrument
or property involves the proceeds of any unlawful activity,
performs or fails to perform any act as a result of which he
facilitates the offense of money laundering referred to in
paragraph (a) above.
(c) Any person knowing that any monetary instrument
or property is required under this Act to be disclosed and
filed with the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), fails to
do so.
SECTION 9. (c) Reporting of Covered and Suspicious
Transactions. — Covered institutions shall report to the
AMLC all covered transactions and suspicious transactions
within 5 working days from occurrence thereof, unless the
Supervising Authority prescribes a longer period not
exceeding 10 working days.
Should a transaction be determined to be both a covered
transaction and a suspicious transaction, the covered
institution shall be required to report the same as a
suspicious transaction.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
53

When reporting covered or suspicious transactions to the
AMLC, covered institutions and their officers and employees
shall not be deemed to have violated RA 1405, as amended;
RA 6426, as amended, RA 8791 and other similar laws, but
are prohibited from communicating, directly or indirectly, in
any manner or by any means, to any person, the fact that a
covered or suspicious transaction report was made, the
contents thereof, or any other information in relation
thereto. In case of violation thereof, the concerned officer
and employee of the covered institution shall be criminally
liable. However, no administrative, criminal or civil
proceedings, shall lie against any person for having made a
covered or suspicious transaction report in the regular
performance of his duties in good faith, whether or not such
reporting results in any criminal prosecution under this Act
or any other law.
When reporting covered or suspicious transactions to the
AMLC, covered institutions and their officers and employees
are prohibited from communicating directly or indirectly, in
any manner or by any means, to any person or entity, the
media, the fact that a covered or suspicious transaction
report was made, the contents thereof, or any other
information in relation thereto. Neither may such reporting
be published or aired in any manner or form by the mass
media, electronic mail, or other similar devices. In case of
violation thereof, the concerned officer and employee of the
covered institution and media shall be held criminally liable.
SECTION 14. Penal Provisions. —
(a) Penalties for the Crime of Money Laundering. The
penalty of imprisonment ranging from 7 to 14 years and a
fine of not less than P3,000,000 but not more than twice the
value of the monetary instrument or property involved in the
offense, shall be imposed upon a person convicted under
Section 4(a) of this Act.
The penalty of imprisonment from 4 to 7 years and a fine of
not less than P1,500,000 but not more than P3,000,000,
shall be imposed upon a person convicted under Section
4(b) of this Act.
The penalty of imprisonment from 6 months to 4 years or a
fine of not less than P100,000 but not more than P500,000,
or both, shall be imposed on a person convicted under
Section 4(c) of this Act.
(b) Penalties for Failure to Keep Records. The penalty
of imprisonment from 6 months to one 1 year or a fine of
not less than P100,000 but not more than P500,000, or
both, shall be imposed on a person convicted under Section
9(b) of this Act.
(c) Malicious Reporting. Any person who, with malice,
or in bad faith, reports or files a completely unwarranted or
false information relative to money laundering transaction
against any person shall be subject to a penalty of 6 months
to 4 years imprisonment and a fine of not less than
P100,000 but not more than P500,000, at the discretion of
the court:
Provided, That the offender is not entitled to avail the
benefits of the Probation Law.
If the offender is a corporation, association, partnership or
any juridical person, the penalty shall be imposed upon the
responsible officers, as the case may be, who participated
in, or allowed by their gross negligence, the commission of
the crime. If the offender is a juridical person, the court may
suspend or revoke its license. If the offender is an alien, he
shall, in addition to the penalties herein prescribed, be
deported without further proceedings after serving the
penalties herein prescribed. If the offender is a public official
or employee, he shall, in addition to the penalties prescribed
herein, suffer perpetual or temporary absolute
disqualification from office, as the case may be.
Any public official or employee who is called upon to testify
and refuses to do the same or purposely fails to testify shall
suffer the same penalties prescribed herein.
(d) Breach of Confidentiality. The punishment of
imprisonment ranging from 3 to 8 years and a fine of not
less than P500,000 but not more than P1,000,000 shall be
imposed on a person convicted for a violation under Section
9(c).
In the case of a breach of confidentiality that is published or
reported by media, the responsible reporter, writer,
president, publisher, manager and editor-in-chief shall be
liable under this Act.
Bar Questions
R.A. No. 9160 Anti-Money Laundering Act (2005)
Don Gabito, a philanthropist, offered to fund several projects
of the Mayor. He opened an account in the
Mayor’s name and regularly deposited various amounts
ranging from P500,000.00 to P1 Million. From this account,
the Mayor withdrew and used the money for constructing
feeder roads, barangay clinics, repairing schools and for all
other municipal projects. It was subsequently discovered
that Don Gabito was actually a jueteng operator and the
amounts he deposited were proceeds from his jueteng
operations. What crime/s were committed? Who are
criminally liable? Explain. (6%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Don Gabito violated the Anti-Money Laundering Act (Sec. 4,
R.A. No. 9160) for knowingly transacting money as property
which involves or relates to the proceeds of an unlawful
activity such as jueteng. In addition, he may be prosecuted
for liability as ajueteng operator. (R.A. No. 9287) The mayor
who allowed the opening of an account in his name is
likewise guilty for violation of the AMLA. He, knowing that
the money instrument or property involves the proceeds of
an unlawful activity, performs or fails to perform any act
which results in the facilitation of money laundering.
R.A. 8203
Special Law on Counterfeit Drugs
What are counterfeit drugs?
Counterfeit drug/medicine refers to medicinal
products:
 with the correct ingredients but not in
the amounts as provided hereunder,
 wrong ingredients,
 without active ingredients,
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
54
  with insufficient quantity of active
ingredient,
which results in the reduction of the drug's safety,
efficacy, quality, strength or purity. It is a drug which is
deliberately and fraudulently mislabeled with respect to
identity and/or source or with fake packaging, and can apply
to both branded and generic products. It shall also refer to:
the drug itself, or the container or labeling thereof or any
part of such drug, container or labeling bearing without
authorization the trademark, trade name or other
identification mark or imprint or any likeness to that
which is owned or registered in the Bureau of Patent,
Trademark and Technology Transfer (BPTTT) in the
name of another natural or juridical person;
a drug product refilled in containers by unauthorized persons
if the legitimate labels or marks are used;
an unregistered imported drug product, except drugs
brought in the country for personal use as confirmed
and justified by accompanying medical records; and
a drug which contains no amount of, or a different active
ingredient, or less than eighty percent (80%) of the
active ingredient it purports to possess, as
distinguished from an adulterated drug including
reduction or loss of efficacy due to expiration.
What are the prohibited acts under the law?
1. The manufacture, sale, offering for sale,
donation, distribution, trafficking, brokering,
exportation, or importation or possession of
counterfeit drugs.
The presence or availability of such counterfeit drugs
within the premises of any entity engaged in the sale,
manufacture or distribution of drugs and/or
pharmaceutical products or in a private residence, or in
public or private vehicle, or in the premises not covered
by a valid license to operate from the Bureau, shall
constitute a prima facie evidence of violation of this
Act.
This presumption shall not apply to the legitimate
owners of trademarks, trade names or other identifying
marks, or the legitimate or authorized representatives
or agents of such owners, who have in their possession
counterfeit drugs which bear the trademarks, trade
names or marks if they can show the sales invoices or
official receipts evidencing their purchase from a
drugstore, manufacturer or distributor suspected by
them of dealing in counterfeit drugs involving the
trademarks, trade names and other similar identifying
marks registered in their names. Such counterfeit
products shall be reported and immediately turned over
to the Bureau.
Compliance with the preceding proviso shall be made
within a reasonable period from the date of purchase of
such counterfeit drugs as indicated in the sales invoice,
official receipt, or other similar documents
abovementioned to the time the counterfeit drugs are
reported and turned over to the Bureau.
2. Possession of any such counterfeit drugs.
However, any person found in possession of counterfeit
drugs in violation of this subsection, shall be excepted
from liability under the provisions of this Act after:
presentation of sales invoices, official receipts, or other
legally acceptable documents evidencing his
purchase thereof from a drugstore, distributor,
manufacture, hospital pharmacy or dispensary, or
any other person or place duly licensed to sell
and/or dispense drugs or medicines, and
indicating therein the batch and lot numbers, as
well as the expiry dates such drugs; or
presentation of certificates and other documents
evidencing the importation or exportation of the
counterfeit drugs found in his possession as
required by existing laws including those
documents required in the preceding paragraph
covering the commercial transactions involving
counterfeit drugs.
In both cases, the subject counterfeit must not on
their face, appear to be as such, or do not bear
any marking or any patently unusual characteristic
sufficient to arouse the suspicion of a reasonable
and prudent person that such drugs are
counterfeit. Furthermore, the amount or volume of
counterfeit drugs held is such that it does not
negate or is inconsistent with the averment that
the same are for personal use, notwithstanding
the presentation by the possession of medical
records and other similar documents
accompanying and justifying the use of such
drugs.
3. Forging, counterfeiting, simulating or
falsely representing, or without proper
authority, using any mark, stamp, tag, label or other
identification mark or device authorized or required by
Republic Act No. 3720, as amended, and/or the
regulations promulgated under this Act.
4. Photocopying, duplicating, altering,
printing, transferring, obliterating or removing
the approved label or any part thereof, lawfully
belonging to another person, for the purpose of using
such label or a part thereof on any counterfeit drug.
That if the person who committed any of the acts
enumerated in this paragraph and the person who used
the labels produced thereby are not one and the same
person and the former had knowledge of the purpose
for which the labels are intended, the former shall also
be liable under this Act notwithstanding the failure of
the latter to achieve the intended purpose; and
5. Making, selling, or concealing any punch,
dye, plate or any other equipment or instrument
designed to print, imprint or reproduce the
trademark, trade name or other identifying mark
of another registered producer or any likeness thereof,
upon any drug product or device or its container or
label without authority from the legitimate owners of
the trademark or trade name.
Who are liable?
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
55
a) the manufacturer, exporter or importer of the
counterfeit drugs and their agents. The agents shall be
liable only upon proof of actual or constructive
knowledge that the drugs are counterfeit;
b) the seller, distributor, trafficker, broker or donor and
their agents, upon proof of actual or constructive
knowledge that the drugs sold, distributed, offered or
donated are counterfeit drugs;
c) the possessor of counterfeit drugs as provided in
Section 4 (b) hereof;
d) the manager, operator or lessee of the laboratory
facilities used in the manufacture of counterfeit drugs;
e) the owner, proprietor, administrator or manager of the
drugstore, hospital pharmacy or dispensary, laboratory
or other outlets or premises where the counterfeit drug
is found who induces, causes or allows the commission
of any act herein prohibited;
f) the registered pharmacist of the outlet where the
counterfeit drug is sold or found who, sells or dispenses
such drug to a third party and who has actual or
constructive knowledge that said drug is counterfeit;
and
g) should the offense be committed by a juridical person,
the president, general manager, the managing partner,
chief operating officer or the person who directly
induces, causes or knowingly allows the commission of
the offense shall be penalized.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

56