CrIM2 ART 170 ON

Question 1

Article 170. Falsification of legislative documents.

Answer 1

The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine not exceeding One million two hundred thousand pesos (P1,200,000)shall be imposed upon any person who, without proper authority therefor alters any bill, resolution, or ordinance enacted or approved or pending approval by either House of Congress or any provincial board or municipal council.

Question 2

Article 170. Falsification of legislative documents. ELEMENTS

Answer 2

Elements:
1. That there be 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. That the offender alters the same.
3. That he has no proper authority therefor.
4. That the alteration has changed the meaning of the document.
Note: The words “municipal council” should include the city council or
municipal board.

Question 3

Article 170. The bill, resolution or ordinance must be genuine.

Answer 3

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

Question 4

Article 170. The offender is ____________

Answer 4

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

Question 5

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

Answer 5

“Altering”
Art. 170 punishes “any person who, without proper authority therefor,
alters any bill,” etc. Hence, other acts of falsification, even in legislative
document, are punished either under Art. 171 or under Art. 172.
213

Republic Act No. 248 prohibits the reprinting, reproduction or republication
of government publications and official documents without previous
authority.

Question 6

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

Answer 6

The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed One million pesos (P1,000,000) shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts:

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. 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 a 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.

The same penalty shall be imposed upon any ecclesiastical minister who shall commit any of the offenses enumerated in the preceding paragraphs of this article, with respect to any record or document of such character that its falsification may affect the civil status of persons.

Question 7

Article 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastical minister. ELEMENTS

Answer 7

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:

a. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or
rubric.
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 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.
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, 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.

Question 8

Article 171. Second element. — The offender takes advantage of his official
position. The offender takes advantage of his official position in falsifying a
document when

Answer 8

(1) he has the duty to make or to prepare or otherwise
to intervene in the preparation of the document; or
(2) he has the official
custodyof the document which he falsifies. (See People vs. Santiago Uy, 53
O.G. 7236, and U.S. vs. Inosanto, 20 Phil. 376)

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

Thus, a court stenographer who deliberately and maliciously changed,
in making transcription of his notes, the statements of a witness taken by
him is guilty of falsification under this article; while any other officer, say
a chief of police, who happened to make the same changes or alterations
in the same document, is guilty of falsification of a public document by a
private person under Article 172, par. 1. (U.S. vs. Austero, 14 Phil. 377;
People vs. Teves, 44 Phil. 275)
A municipal president falsified an inscription in the register of births
kept by, and under the charge of, the municipal secretary who issued a
certified copy of such false inscription.
Is he guilty under Art. 171?
No, because, although he is a public officer, the falsification committed
by him was upon an act, certificate or instrument the issuance of which does
not pertain to his office and, therefore, it was without abuse of his office.
(U.S. vs. Inosanto, 20 Phil. 376)

Question 9

Article 171. Third element. — The offender falsifies a document.

Answer 9

Thus, if the payroll is merely a draft, because it has not been approved
by the proper authority, it can prove nothing and affirm nothing. (People vs.
Camacho, 44 Phil. 488)
The pamphlets cannot be said to evidence a fact, agreement or
disposition. They are rather merchandise as any other article usually sent
by C.O.D. mail. (People vs. Agnis, 47 Phil. 945)

The document must be complete or at least it must have the appearance
of a true and genuine document.
The document must be of apparent legal efficacy. Thus, making a
writing which is invalid on its face, as in the case of a will not signed by
the requisite number of witnesses, is not falsification. (Miller on Criminal
Law, 406)

Question 10

Article 171. Must there be a genuine document in falsification?

Answer 10

In falsification by (1) making alteration or intercalation, or (2) including
in a copy a different statement, there must be a genuine document that is
falsified. Thus, in paragraphs 6, 7, in its second part, and 8 of Art. 171, the
law requires that there be a genuine document where the intercalation or
alteration is made changing its meaning.
In the other paragraphs of Art. 171, falsification may be committed by
simulating or fabricating a document.

Question 11

Article 171. Documents may be simulated or fabricated.

Answer 11

Documents may be simulated or fabricated.
In falsification of a public document, the falsification need not be made
on an official form. It is sufficient that the document is given the appearance
of, or made to appear similar to, the official form. (People vs. Tupasi, CAG.
R. Nos. 290-292, March 22, 1937)
The simulation of public, official or mercantile document is also
contemplated in falsification of those documents. (People vs. David, CAG.
R. No. 44368, Nov. 27, 1936)

Question 12

Article 171. “Shall falsify a document.” meaning

Answer 12

It will be noted that Art. 171 does not specify the kind of document
falsified, the phrase “shall falsify a document” not mentioning whether it is
public, official, private or commercial document.
It is not necessary to specify in Art. 171 the document falsified, because
when the document is executed with the intervention of a public officer,
employee or notary public, such document must necessarily be a public or
official document. Even if the document is originally a private document, if
it is in the official custody of the public officer or employee or if it forms part
of the official record when it is falsified by the public officer or employee,
then the crime committed should be punished under Art. 171.

Question 13

Article 171. Different modes of falsifying a document.

Answer 13

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

Question 14

ARTICLE 171. Par. No. 1 — Counterfeiting or imitating (feigning) any
handwriting, signature or rubric.
There are two ways of committing falsification under paragraph 1 of
Art. 171. They are:

Answer 14

(1) counterfeiting, which is imitating any handwriting,
signature or rubric; and

(2) feigning, which is simulating a signature,
handwriting or rubric out of one which does not in fact exist.
Under paragraph 1 of Art. 171, the mere drawing up of a false
document is not sufficient to constitute the crime of falsification. The
signature, handwriting or mark of another person must be signed or made
by the offender, without authority to do so. (U.S. vs. Paraiso, 1 Phil. 66)

In counterfeiting, there is an original signature or handwriting which
is imitated. An imitation is necessary, but it need not be perfect.

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

Question 15

Article 171. Requisites of counterfeiting.

Answer 15

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

Question 16

Article 171. The forged and the genuine signatures or handwritings must bear
some resemblance to each other.

Answer 16

The resemblance must be such that it is likely to deceive an ordinary
person receiving or dealing with the document. (U.S. vs. Rampas, supra)
Thus, it has been held that the fact of imitating a person’s signature
on a check in such a way that the same, when presented for collection “might
have passed in the rush of business,” although the handwriting is a little bit
different, constitutes falsification. (U.S. vs. Litonjua, 4 Phil. 485)

Question 17

Article 171. When any of the requisites of counterfeiting is not present.

Answer 17

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

Question 18

Imitating (feigning).

Answer 18

The Spanish text of Art. 171 “fingiendo” (for imitation). In feigning,
there is no original signature, handwriting or rubric, but a forgery of a
signature, handwriting or rubric that does not exist.
To feign means to represent by a false appearance; to give a mental
existence to; to imagine.

Example:
Drawing up an open will purporting to have been executed in March,
1901, by one Petra Mariano and signed by Norberto Cajucom at her request
and by attesting witnesses, when as a matter of fact she died on July 28,
1900, is falsification by feigning. (U.S. vs. De los Angeles, et al., 4 Phil.

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

Question 19

Article 171. Par. No. 2 — Causing it to appear that persons have
participated in an act or a proceeding.
The imitation of the signature of the offended party is not necessary
in falsification under paragraph 2 of Art. 171. (People vs. De la Llave, C.A.,
40 O.G. 1908)
Requisites:

Answer 19

1. That the offender caused it to appear in a document that a person or
   persons participated in an act or a proceeding; and
2. That such person or persons did not in fact so participate in the act or
   proceeding.
   220

People vs. Villanueva
(58 Phil. 671)
Facts: On December 7, 1931, there was sent from Hawaii a postal
money order for the sum of P200 in favor of Irene Sanchez. On January 14,
1932, there were likewise sent from California five postal money orders,
four of which were for the sum of P200 each and one for the sum of P100, in
favor of Feliciano Isidro.
The defendant postmaster signed two documents (Exhibits B and D)
wherein he admitted having received the money orders, forged the signature
of Irene Sanchez and Feliciano Isidro thereon, collected and appropriated
the respective amounts thereof.
Held: Even if the signatures of Irene Sanchez and Feliciano Isidro
had not been imitated on the money orders, the fact that they were signed
thereon in order to make it appear that they intervened in the execution
thereof in the sense that they received the corresponding amounts, when
they did not in fact intervene or receive the amount in question, is sufficient
to constitute the crime of falsification of public documents.

When committed by private individual, Art. 172 should be applied.
The act of falsely impersonating the owner of a piece of land as vendor
in the forged deed of sale would constitute an act of falsification under
paragraph 2 of Art. 171 (Emas vs. De Zuzuarregui, et al., 53 Phil. 197), and
may be punishable under Art. 172 of the Code, the offender being a private
individual.
The placing by the accused of their thumbmarks in the list of voters
opposite the names of the electors who have not actually voted, thereby
making it appear that those electors cast their votes when they did not in
fact vote, is falsification under paragraph 2 of Art. 171, and the offenders
who are private individuals are liable under Art. 172. (People vs. Asa, et al.,
3 C.A., Rep. 1216)

Question 20

Article 171. Par. No. 3 — Attributing to persons who have participated
in any act or proceeding statements other than
those in fact made by them.Requisites:

Answer 20

1. That a person or persons participated in an act or a proceeding;
2. That such person or persons made statements in that act or proceeding;
   and
   221
3. 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.

Example:
U.S. vs. Capule
(24 Phil. 13)
Facts: Nicasio Capule, for the purpose of appropriating to himself
a tract of coconut land, without the knowledge or consent of the owners
thereof, by agreement and cooperation with the notary public who later
died, prepared and drew up a document setting forth the sale in his favor of
the said land, pretending that it was made and executed by the said owners
of the tract, stating in the document that they had made the declaration
that they had sold said land for the sum of P550 paid at the time of the sale
to the vendors; and Eulogio Ortega and Doroteo Guia as the signers of the
deed of sale, because the alleged vendors did not know how to do so.
It appears, however, that the. owners of the land did not sell it to
Nicasio Capule or that they executed in his favor any document of sale; that
what they really did was that they conferred a power of attorney upon him
so that he might represent them in a suit they had with Maximino Reyes,
because of the absolute confidence they had in the defendant; and that they
never were in the house of the notary Inocente Martinez to execute or ratify
any document.
Held: The defendant executed upon said notarial document of an
official character, acts constituting falsification, by counterfeiting therein
the intervention of the owners of the land, to whom he ascribed statements
different from what they had made to him and by perverting the truth in
the narration of facts, getting persons to sign in the name of the owners of
the land, through deceit, after giving them to understand that the document
contained a power of attorney, when in fact it was a deed of sale of the
land, the legitimate owners whereof had never intended or consented to its
alienation.

Question 21

Article 171. Par. No. 4 — Making untruthful statements in a narration
of facts. Requisites:

Answer 21

Requisites:
1 That the offender makes in a document statements in a narration of
facts;
2. That he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated
by him;
3. That the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false; and
4. That the perversion of truth in the narration of facts was made with
the wrongful intent of injuring a third person.