TITLE FOUR
otherwise to intervene in the preparation
CHAPTER 1- FORGERIES
ART. 171: Falsification by public officer, employee
or notary or ecclesiastical minister.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a public officer,
employee, or notary public
2. That he takes advantage of his official
position
3. That he falsifies a document by committing
any of the following acts:
 Counterfeiting or imitating any
handwriting, signature or rubric
 Causing it to appear that persons have
participated in any act or proceeding
when they did not in fact so participate
 Attributing to persons who have
participated in an act or proceeding
statements other than those in face made
by them
 Making untruthful statement in a
narration of facts
 Altering true dates
 Making any alteration or intercalation in
a genuine document which changes its
meaning
 Issuing in authenticated form a
document purporting to be a copy of an
original document when no such original
exists, or including in such a copy a
statement contrary to, or different from,
that of the genuine original
 Intercalating any instrument or note
relative to the issuance thereof in
protocol, registry or official book
4. In case the offender is an ecclesiastical
minister, the act of falsification is committed
with respect to any record or document of
such character that its falsification may affect
the civil status of persons.
First Element: Persons liable under Art. 171 are
only public officer, employee or notary public or
ecclesiastical minister
Second Element: The offender takes advantage
of his official position in falsifying a document
when:
WILSON, ANGELINE V. CRIMINAL LAW 2 REYES
 He has the duty to make or to prepare or
of the document
 He has the official custody of the
document which he falsifies
Third Element: The offender falsifies a
document.
Document- is a writing or instrument by
which a fact may be proven and affirmed; any
written statement by which a right is
established or an obligation extinguished.
Par. 1 of Art. 171: Two ways of committing
a falsification under this paragraph:
 Counterfeiting which is imitating any
handwriting, signature or rubric
Requisites: That there be an intent to
imitate, or an attempt to imitate;
That the two signatures or handwritings,
the genuine and the forged, bear some
resemblance to each other
 Feigning which is simulating a
signature, handwriting or rubric out of
one which does not in fact exist; There is
no original signature, handwriting or
rubric, but a forgery of it that does not
exist.
Par. 2 of Art. 171: Requisites
 That the offender caused it to appear in a
document that a person or persons
participated in an act or a proceeding
 That such person or persons did not in
fact so participate in the act or
proceeding
Par. 3 of Art. 171: Requisites
 That a person or persons participated in
an act or a proceeding
 That such person or persons made
statements in that act or proceeding
 That the offender, in making a
document, attributed to such person or
persons, statements other than those in
fact made by such person or persons
Par. 4 of Art. 171: Requisites
 That the offender makes in a document
statements in a narration of facts
  That he has a legal obligation to disclose
the truth of the facts narrated by him
 That the facts narrated by the offender
are absolutely false
 That the perversion of truth in the
narration of facts was made with the
wrongful intent of injuring a third person
Legal Obligation means that there is a law
requiring the disclosure of the truth of the
facts narrated.
There must be narration of facts, not of
conclusion of law.
The person making the narration of facts must
be aware of the falsity of the facts narrated by
him.
The narration of the facts must be absolutely
false.
The rule is that if the statements ware not
altogether false, there being some colorable
truth in such statement, the crime of
falsification is not deemed to have been
committed.
Wrongful intent is not essential when the
document falsified is public document.
There is no falsification by one who acted in
good faith.
Par. 5 of Art. 171: Altering true dates
There is falsification under this paragraph
only when the date mentioned in the
document is essential.
The alteration of the date or dates in a
document must affect either the veracity of
the document or the effects thereof.
Par. 6 of Art. 171: Requisites
 That there be an alteration (change) or
intercalation (insertion) on a document
 That it was made on a genuine document
 That the altercation or intercalation has
changed the meaning of the document
 That the change made the document
speak something false
WILSON, ANGELINE V. CRIMINAL LAW 2 REYES
Alteration which speaks the truth is not
falsification. It was a correction, not
falsification.
The word alteration has inherent in it the idea
of deception – of making the instrument
speak something which the parties did not
intend it to speak.
The alteration must affect the integrity or
change the effects of the document.
Par. 7 of Art. 171:
The acts of falsification mentioned in this
paragraph cannot be committed by a private
individual or by a notary public or a public
officer who does not take advantage of his
official position.
Such acts of falsification can be committed
only by a public officer or notary public who
takes advantage of his official position.
A private individual who cooperates with a
public officer in the falsification of a public
document is guilty of this crime and incurs
the same liability and penalty as the public
officer.
ART. 172: falsification by private individuals and use
of falsified documents.
Acts punished under this article:
 Falsification of public, official or
commercial document by a private
individual. (Par. 1)
 Falsification of private document by any
person. (Par. 2)
 Use of falsified document (Par. 3)
Par. 1 of Art. 172: Elements
 That the offender is a private individual
or a public officer or employee who did
not take advantage of his official
position
 That he committed any of the acts of
falsification enumerated in Art. 171
 That the falsification was committed in a
public or official or commercial
document.
Any one of the different modes of
falsification in paragraphs 1 to 6 of Art. 171
 must be employed by the offender in
committing the crimes defined in par. 1 and 2
of Art. 172.
That acts of falsification mentioned in Par. 7
of Art. 171 cannot be committed by a private
individual since the authentication of a
document can be made only by the custodian
or the one who prepared and retained a copy
of the original document.
Four kinds of documents:
1. Public: a document created, executed or
issued by a public official in response to the
exigencies of the public service, or in the
execution of which a public official
intervened; any instrument authorized by a
notary public or a competent public official,
with the solemnities required by law.
2. Official: a document which is issued by a
public official in the exercise of the functions
of his office; it is also a public document
which falls within its larger class.
3. Private: a deed or instrument executed by a
private person without the intervention of a
notary public or other person legally
authorized, by which document some
disposition or agreement is proved,
evidenced set forth.
4. Commercial: any document defined and
regulated by the Code of Commerce or any
other commercial law; documents or
instruments used by merchants or
businessmen to promote or facilitate trade or
credit transactions.
Mere blank form of an official document is not in
itself a document, it is necessary that the blank
spaces be filled and the signature of a party
purported to be authorized to issue it be written by
another in the counterfeited instrument.
The possessor of a falsified document id
presumed to be the author of the falsification.
The rule is that if a person had in his possession a
falsified document and he made use of it taking
advantage of it and profiting thereby, the
presumption is that he is the material author of the
falsification.
In par. 1 of Art. 172, damage or intent to cause
damage is not necessary because the principal
WILSON, ANGELINE V. CRIMINAL LAW 2 REYES
thing to be punished is the violation of the public
faith and the destruction of the truth as therein
solemnly proclaimed.
Par. 2 of Art. 172: Elements
 That the offender committed any of the
acts of falsification, except those in
paragraph 7, enumerated in Art. 171
 That the falsification was committed in
any private document
 That the falsification caused damage to a
third party or at least the falsification was
committed with intent to cause such
damage.
Mere falsification of private documents is not
enough., it is necessary that: he must have
counterfeited the false document and he must
have performed an independent act which
operates to the prejudice of a third person.
It is not necessary that the offender profited
or hoped to profit by the falsification as all
that the law requires is an intent to prejudice
another person.
When the offender commits falsification as a
necessary means to commit another crime,
like estafa, theft, or malversation, the two
crimes form a complex crime. But the
document falsified must be public, official or
commercial.
There is no complex crime of estafa through
falsification of public 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.
Difference between Falsification of public
documents and of private documents:
  In private documents, the prejudice to a
third party is primarily taken into
account so that if such damage is not
apparent, or there is at least no intention
to cause it, the falsification is not
punishable.
 In public documents, the principal thing
punished is the violation of public faith
and the perversion of truth which the
document solemnly proclaims, and it is
immaterial whether some prejudice has
been caused to third persons.
Generally, falsification has no attempted or
frustrated stage because it is consummated
the moment the genuine document is altered
or the moment the dales document is
executed and it is immaterial that the offender
did not achieve his objectives.
But, there may be a frustrated crime of
falsification, if the falsification is imperfect.
Par. 3 of Art. 172: Elements
Introducing in a judicial proceeding:
 That the offender knew that a document
was falsified by another person
 That the false document is embraced in
Art. 171 or in any subdivisions No. 1 or
2 of Art. 172.
 That he introduced said document in
evidence in any judicial proceeding.
Use in any other transaction:
 That the offender knew that a document
was falsified by another person
 That the false document is embraced in
Art. 171 or in any subdivisions No. 1 or
2 of Art. 172.
 That he used such document (not in a
judicial proceeding)
 That the use of the false document
caused damage to another or at least t
was used with intent to cause such
damage.
Damage is not necessary in the crime of
introducing in judicial proceeding a false
document, the phrase “or to the damage of
another or who, with the intent to cause such
WILSON, ANGELINE V. CRIMINAL LAW 2 REYES
damage,” refers to the use of the false
document in a proceeding not judicial.
Use of falsified document in proceeding not
judicial, requires at least intent to cause
damage.
The user of the falsified document is
deemed the author of the falsification if:
 the use was so closely connected in time
with the falsification, and
 the user had the capacity of falsifying the
document.
ART. 173: Falsification of wireless, cable, telegraph,
and telephone messages, and use of said falsified
messages.
Three acts punishable under Art. 173:
1) Uttering fictitious wireless, telegraph, or
telephone messages
2) Falsifying wireless, telegraph, or telephone
messages
3) Using such falsified message
Par. 1 of Art. 173: Elements:
 That the offender is an officer or
employee of the Government or an
officer or employee of a private
corporation, engaged in the service of
sending or receiving wireless, cable or
telephone message
 That the offender commits any of the
following acts: Uttering fictitious
wireless, telegraph, or telephone
messages; Falsifying wireless, telegraph,
or telephone messages
Par. 2 of Art. 173: Elements:
 That the accused knew that wireless,
telegraph, or telephone message was
falsified by any of the persons specified
in the first paragraph of Art. 173
 That the accused used such falsified
dispatch
 That the use of the falsified dispatch
resulted in the prejudice of a third party,
or that the use thereof was with intent to
cause such prejudice.
 Private individual cannot be a principal by
direct participation in falsification of
telegraphic dispatches under Art. 173 but he
can be held criminally liable as principal by
inducement.
Act. No. 1851, Sec. 4:
“Any person who willfully forges or
substantially alters a telegram or who utters a
telegram knowing the same to be forged, or
who utters as a telegram any message or
communication which he knows to be not a
telegram, is punished by a fine not exceeding
100 pesos.”
ART. 174: False medical certificates, false certificates
of merit or service etc.
Persons Liable for Falsification of Certificates:
1) Physician or surgeon who, in connection
with the practice of his profession, issued a
false certificate. (It must refer to the illness or
injury of a person); The crime is False
Medical Certificate by a physician.
2) Public Officer who issued a false certificate
of merit or service, good conduct or similar
circumstances. The crime is false Certificate
of Merit or Services by a public officer.
3) Private individual who falsified a certificate
falling in the classes mentioned in Nos. 1 and
2; The crime committed is False Medical
Certificate/false Certificate of Merit or
Service by a private individual
ART. 175: Using false certificates.
Elements:
1) That a physician or surgeon had issued a false
medical certificate, or a public officer had
issued a false certificate of merit or service,
food conduct, or similar circumstances, or a
private person falsified any of said
certificates.
2) That the offender knew that he certificate was
false
3) That he used the same.
When any of the false certificates mentioned in
Art. 174 is used in the judicial proceeding, Art.
172 does not apply, because the use of false
document in judicial proceeding under Art. 172 is
WILSON, ANGELINE V. CRIMINAL LAW 2 REYES
limited to those false document embraced in Arts.
171 and 172.
ART. 176: Manufacturing, importing, and possession
of instruments or implements intended for the
commission of falsification.
Acts punished under Art. 176:
1) Making or introducing into the Philippines
any stamps, dies, marks, or other instruments
or implements for counterfeiting or
falsification.
2) Possessing with intent to use the instruments
or implements for counterfeiting or
falsification made in or introduced into the
Philippines by another person.
In order to secure a conviction under the 2 nd par.
of Art. 176, it is not necessary that the implements
confiscated form a complete set for
counterfeiting, it being enough that they may be
employed by themselves or together with other
implements to commit the crime of counterfeiting
or falsification.
The possession prohibited in Arts. 165 and 176 of
RPC is possession in general, that is, not only
actual, physical possession, nut also constructive
possession or the subjection of the thing to one’s
control.
CHAPTER TWO- OTHER FALSITIES
ART. 177: Usurpation of authority or official
functions.
Two offenses contemplated in Art. 177:
1) Usurpation of authority; By knowingly
and falsely representing oneself to be an
officer, agent or representative of any
department or agency of the Philippine
Government or any foreign government.
 In this, the mere act of knowingly and
falsely representing oneself to be an
officer, etc. is sufficient. It is not
necessary that he performs an act
pertaining to a public officer.
2) Usurpation of official functions; By
performing any act pertaining to any
person in authority or public officer of
the Philippine Government or of a
foreign government or any agency
 thereof, under pretense of official
position, and without being lawfully
entitled to do so.
 In this, it is essential that the offender
should have performed an act pertaining
to a person in authority or public officer,
in addition to other requirements.
There must be positive, express and explicit
representation. The crime is not committed if
the accused merely did not deny that he was
an agent of the Philippine Government when
introduced as such by public officials.
Art. 177 punishes the usurper or one who acts
under false pretenses and not the occupant
under color of title.
A usurper is one who introduces himself into
an office that is vacant, or who, without color
of title, ousts the incumbent and assumes to
act as an officer by exercising some of the
functions of the office.
Sec. 1 of R.A 75 punishes any person who
shall falsely assume and take upon himself to
act as a diplomatic, consular, or any other
official 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 Republic of the
Philippines.
Sec. 1 of R.A. 10. “Any person who with or
without pretense of official position, shall
perform any act pertaining to the
Government, or to any person in authority or
public officer, without being lawfully entitled
to do so, shall be punished with imprisonment
for not less than two years, nor more than ten
years.”
To be chargeable and punishable under Sec.
1 of RA 10, one must perform any act
pertaining:
o To the government
o To any person in authority
o To any public officer, without being
lawfully entitled to do so.
R.A 10 is applicable only to members of
seditious organization engaged in subversive
activities.
WILSON, ANGELINE V. CRIMINAL LAW 2 REYES
ART. 178. Using fictitious name and concealing true
name
Elements (using fictitious name):
1. That the offender uses name other than his
real name
2. That he uses that fictitious name publicly
3. That the purpose of the offender is
 To conceal a crime
 To evade the execution of a judgment
 To cause damage to public interest
A Fictitious Name is any other name which
a person publicly applies to himself without
authority of law.
If the purpose is for causing damage, it must
be damage to public interest. If it is damage
to private interest, the crime will be estafa
under Art. 315.
Elements (concealing true name):
1. That the offender conceals his true name and
all other personal circumstances
2. That the purpose is only to conceal his
identity
Distinction between use of fictitious name and
concealing true name:
1. In use of fictitious name, the element of
publicity must be present; the purpose is
either to conceal a crime, to evade the
execution of a judgment, or to cause damage
2. In concealing true name, element of publicity
is not necessary and its purpose is merely to
conceal identity.
C.A. 142: Anti-Alias Law
“Sec. 1. Except as pseudonym solely for literary,
cinema, television, radio or other entertainment
purposes and in athletic events where the use of
pseudonym is a normally accepted practice, no
person shall use any name different from the one
with which he was registered…”
“Sec. 2. Any person desiring to use an alias shall
apply for authority...”
“Sec. 3. No person… 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.”
ART. 179. Illegal use of uniforms or insignia.
Elements:
1. That the offender makes use of insignia,
uniform, or dress
2. That the insignia, uniform or dress pertains to
an office not held by the offender or to a class
of persons of which he is not a member
3. That said insignia, uniform, or dress is used
publicly and improperly.
Exact imitation of a uniform is unnecessary. A
colorable resemblance calculated to deceive the
common run of people- not those thoroughly
familiar with every detail or accessory thereof- is
sufficient.
Three Forms of False Testimony:
1. False Testimony in criminal cases
2. False Testimony in civil cases
3. False Testimony in other cases.
False Testimony is committed by a person who, being
under oath and required to testify as to the truth of a
certain matter at a hearing before a competent
authority, shall deny the truth or say something
contrary to it.
ART. 180. False testimony against a defendant.
Elements:
1. That there is a criminal proceeding
2. That the offender testifies falsely under oath
against the defendant therein
3. That the offender who gives false testimony
knows that it is false
4. That the defendant against whom the false
testimony is given either acquitted or
convicted in a final judgment.
The penalty for false testimony against the
defendant in a criminal case depends upon the
sentence imposed on the person against whom the
false testimony was given.
 Reclusion Temporal: if the defendant
shall have been sentenced to death
 Prision Mayor: if the defendant shall
have been sentenced to reclusion
temporal or perpetua
WILSON, ANGELINE V. CRIMINAL LAW 2 REYES
 Prision Correccional: if the defendant
shall have been sentenced to any other
afflictive penalty
 Arresto Mayor: if the defendant shall
have been sentenced to a correctional
penalty or a fine, or shall have been
acquitted.
ART. 181. False Testimony favorable to the
defendant.
False Testimony favorable to the defendant is equally
repugnant to the orderly administration of justice.
False testimony is punished not because of the effect it
actually produces, but because of its tendency to favor
or to prejudice the defendant.
The false testimony in favor of the defendant need not
benefit the defendant.
Rectification made spontaneously after realizing the
mistake is not false testimony.
ART. 182. False testimony in Civil Cases.
Elements:
1. That the testimony must be given in a civil
case
2. That the testimony must relate to the issues
presented in said case
3. That the testimony must be false
4. That the false testimony must be given by the
defendant knowing the same to be false
5. That the testimony must be malicious and
given with an intent to affect the issues
presented in said case.
Art. 182 is not applicable when the false
testimony is given in special proceedings.
ART. 183. False Testimony in other cases and perjury
in solemn affirmation.
Two ways of committing perjury:
1. By falsely testifying under oath (not in
judicial proceeding)
2. By making a false affidavit
Elements of Perjury:
1. That the accused made a statement under oath
or executed an affidavit upon a material
matter
 2. That the statement of affidavit was made
before a competent officer, authorized to
receive and administer oath
3. That in that statement or affidavit, the
accused made a willful and deliberate
assertion of a falsehood
4. That the sworn statement or affidavit
containing the falsity is required by law.
An 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 before an
authorized magistrate officer.
Material matter is the main fact which is the
subject 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.
The matter is material when it is directed to prove
a fact in issue.
It is relevant when it tends in any reasonable
degree to establish the probability or
improbability of a fact in issue.
It is pertinent when it concerns collateral matters
which make more or less probable the proposition
at issue.
There is no perjury if the sworn statement is not
material to the principal matter under
investigation.
Competent person authorized to administer
the oath means 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, hence, there is no perjury through
negligence or imprudence.
The fourth element may be read “that the sworn
statement containing the falsity is authorized by
law.” 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.
WILSON, ANGELINE V. CRIMINAL LAW 2 REYES
Perjury is an offense which covers false oaths
other than those taken in the course of judicial
proceedings.
Subordination of perjury is committed by a
person who knowingly and willfully procures
another to swear falsely and the witness suborned
does testify under circumstances rendering him
guilty of perjury.
This crime is treated as plain perjury, the one
inducing another as principal by inducement and
the latter as principal by direct participation.
ART. 184. Offering false testimony in evidence.
Elements:
1. That the offender offered in evidence a false
witness or false testimony
2. That he knew the same to be false
3. That the offer was made in judicial or official
proceeding.
Offer of evidence begins the moment a witness is
called to the witness stand and interrogated by
counsel. The witness must have to testify.
Art. 184 contemplates a case where a person,
without inducing another, but knowing him to be
a false witness, presented him, and the latter
testified in a judicial or official proceeding.
CHAPTER THREE- FRAUDS
Crimes classified as frauds:
1. Machinations in public auctions (Art.
185)
2. Monopolies and combinations in
restraint of trade (Art. 186)
3. Importation and disposition of falsely
marked articles or merchandise made of
gold, silver or other precious metals (Art.
187)
4. Substituting and altering trademarks and
tradenames or service marks (Art. 188)
5. Unfair competition, fraudulent
registration of tradename, trademark, or
service mark; fraudulent designation of
origin and false description.
ART. 185. Machinations in Public Auctions.
Acts punishable under Art. 185:
1. By soliciting any gift or promise as a
consideration for refraining from taking part
in any public auction
2. By attempting to cause bidders to stay away
from an auction by threats, gifts, promises or
any other artifice.
Elements of soliciting gift or promise:
1. That there be a public auction
2. That the accused solicited any gift or a
promise from any of the bidders
3. That such gift or promise was the
consideration for his refraining from taking
part in that public auction
4. That the accused had the intent to cause the
reduction of the price of the thing auctioned
It is not required that the person making the
proposal actually refrains from taking part in any
public auction, it is consummated by mere
solicitation of gift or promise as consideration for
not bidding.
Elements of attempting to cause bidders to stay
away:
1. That there be a public auction
2. That the accused attempted to cause the
bidders to stay away from that public auction
3. That it was done by threats, gifts, promises or
any other artifice
4. That the accused had the intent to cause the
reduction of the price of the thing auctioned.
An attempt to cause the prospective bidders to
stay away from an auction by means of threats,
gifts, promises or any other artifice with intent
that the thing auctioned should command a lesser
price, is sufficient to constitute the offense.
The threat need not be effective nor the offer or
gift accepted for the crime to rise.
Reason for the provision: Execution sales
should be opened to free and full competition in
order to secure the maximum benefit for the
debtors.
ART. 186. Monopolies and combinations in restraint
of trade.
WILSON, ANGELINE V. CRIMINAL LAW 2 REYES
Acts punishable under Art. 186:
1. Combination to prevent free competition in
the market
 By entering into any contract or
agreement or taking part in any
conspiracy or combination in the form of
a trust or otherwise, in restraint of trade
or commerce or to prevent by artificial
means free competition in the market.
2. Monopoly to restrain free competition in the
market
 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 in order to alter the prices
thereof by spreading false rumors or
making use of any other artifice to
restrain free competition in the market.
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.
 The person liable is the: manufacturer,
producer, processor, or importer of any
merchandise or object of commerce
 The crime is committed by combining,
conspiring or agreeing with any person
 The purpose is to make transactions
prejudicial to lawful commerce or to
increase the market price of any
merchandise or object of commerce
manufactured, produced, processed,
assembled or imported into the
Philippines.
Theory of law in penalizing monopolies
and combinations in restraint of trade:
“Competition, not combination, should be the
law of the trade.”
Any property possessed under any contract or
combination contemplated in this article shall
be forfeited to the Government.
The law intends to punish mere conspiracy or
combination at which it is aimed.
When offense is committed by a corporation
or association, the president and directors or
managers are liable. But they are liable only
 when they knowingly permitted or failed to
prevent the commission of such offenses.
ART. 187. Importation and disposition of falsely
marked articles or merchandise made of gold, silver,
or other precious metals or their alloys.
Merchandise involved: gold, silver, or other precious
metals or their alloys.
Elements:
1. That the offender imports, sells, or disposes
any of those articles or merchandise
2. That the stamps, brands, or marks of those
articles of merchandise fail to indicate the
actual fineness or quality of said metals or
alloys
3. That the offender knows that the stamps,
brands, or marks fail to indicate the actual
fineness or quality of the metals or alloys
It is not necessary that the merchandise be sol and
the public actually deceived. 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 etc.
The manufacturer who alters the quality or
fineness of anything pertaining to his art or
business is liable under Art. 315 for estafa.
NOTE: R.A. 8293, the Intellectual Property Code
of the Philippines, repealed. The provisions of
Arts. 188 and 189 of the RPC which are
inconsistent therewith.
ART. 188. Substituting and altering trademarks,
tradenames, or service marks.
Acts punished under Art. Art 188:
1. By substituting the tradename or
trademark of some other manufacturer or
dealer, or a colorable imitation thereof,
for the tradename or trademark of the
real manufacturer or dealer upon any
article of commerce and selling the same
2. By selling or by offering for sale such
articles of commerce, knowing that the
tradename or trademark has been
fraudulently used
3. By using or substituting the service mark
of some other person, or a colorable
WILSON, ANGELINE V. CRIMINAL LAW 2 REYES
imitation of such mark, in the sale or
advertising of his services
4. By printing, lithographing or
reproducing tradename, 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.
ART. 189. Unfair competition, fraudulent registration
of trade name, trademark, or service mark, fraudulent
designation of origin, and false description.
Acts punished under Art. 189:
1. By selling his goods, giving them the general
appearance of the goods of another
manufacturer or dealer. (Unfair competition)
2. By affixing his goods or using in connection
with his services a false designation of origin,
or any false description or representation, and
selling such goods or services. (Fraudulent
designation or origin; False description)
3. By procuring fraudulently from the patent
office the registration of the trade name,
trademark or service mark. (Fraudulent
registration)
R.A 8293: Intellectual Property Code of the Phils.
Infringement is committed by any person who shall,
without the consent of the owner of the registered
mark:
1. Use in commerce any reproduction,
counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation or a
registered mark…
Mark means any visible sign capable of
distinguishing the goods (trademark) or services
(service mark) of an enterprise and shall include a
stamped or marked container of goods.
The objects of the trademark are to point out
distinctly the origin of quality of the goods to which it
is affixed, to secure him, who has been instrumental in
bringing into the market, a superior article of
merchandise, the fruit of his industry and skill, and to
prevent fraud and imposition.
The mark infringed must be a registered mark.
The mark used by the offender need not be identical
with the infringed mark of the offended party. A
colorable imitation is sufficient.
The meat of the matter is the likelihood of confusion,
mistake or deception upon purchasers of the goods of
the junior user and the goods manufactured by the
previous user.
The trademark must not be merely generic or
descriptive.
The exclusive right to an originally valid trademark or
trade name is lost, if for any reason, it loses its
distinctiveness or has become publici juris.
Unfair competition consists in employing deception
or any other means contrary to good faith by which he
shall pass off the foods manufactured by him or in
which he deals, or his business or services for the one
having established goodwill, or committing any acts
calculated to produce said result.
Any person who shall employ deception or any other
means contrary to food faith by which he shall pass off
the goods manufactured by him or in which he deals,
or his business or services for the one having
established goodwill, or committing any acts
calculated to produce said result, shall be guilty of
unfair competition.
Reason for punishing unfair competition:
No one shall, by imitation or any unfair device, induce
the public to believe that the goods he offers for sale
are the goods of another, and thereby appropriate to
himself the value of the reputation which the other has
acquired for the products or merchandise
manufactured or sold by him.
True test of unfair competition:
Whether certain goods have been clothed with an
appearance which is likely to deceive the ordinary
purchaser exercising ordinary care, and not whether a
certain limited class of purchaser with special
knowledge not possessed by the ordinary purchaser
could avoid mistake by the exercise of this special
knowledge.
The master is criminally liable for the acts of his
servants and employees in violation of the penal
provisions of this act, if he causes the illegal act to be
done…
WILSON, ANGELINE V. CRIMINAL LAW 2 REYES
Infringement of trademark as distinguished from
unfair competition:
Unfair competition:
 Broader and more inclusive
 The offended party has identified in the
mind of the public the goods he
manufactures or deals in from those of
others, whether or not a mark or trade
name is employed, and has a property
right in the goodwill of the said goods.
 The offender gives his goods the general
appearance of the good of another
manufacturer or dealer and sells the same
Infringement of trademarks:
 Limited range
 Offended party has identified a peculiar
symbol or mark with his goods and
thereby has acquired a property right in
such symbol or mark
 Offender uses the trademark or
tradename of another manufacturer or
dealer and sells his goods on which the
trademark is affixed.
Sec. 2792 of the Rev. Admin. Code, as amended by
R.A. 455:
In order that a person may be deemed guilty of
Smuggling or Illegal Importation, these requisites
must concur:
1. That the merchandise must have been
fraudulently or knowingly imported contrary
to law
2. That the defendant, if he is not the importer
himself, must have received, concealed,
bought, sold, or in any manner facilitated the
transportation, concealment or sale of the
merchandise
3. That the defendant must be shown to have
knowledge that the merchandise had been
illegally imported.
If the defendant, however, is shown to have had
possession of the illegally imported merchandise
without satisfactory explanation, such possession shall
be deemed sufficient to authorize conviction.