Title 4 Forgeries (public Interest)

Question 1

What are the crimes against public interest?

Answer 1

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

2. . Using forged signature or counterfeit seal or stamp. (Art. 162)
3. Making and importing and uttering false coins. (Art. 163)
4. Mutilation of coins, importation and uttering of mutilated coins. (Art. 164)
   .
5. Selling of false or mutilated coins, without connivance. (Art. 165)
6. Forging treasury or bank notes or other documents payable to bearer, importing, and uttering of such false or forged notes and documents. (Art. 166)
7. Counterfeiting, importing and uttering instruments not payable to bearer. (Art. 167)
8. Illegal possession and use of forged treasury or bank notes and other instruments of credit. (Art. 168)
9. Falsification of legislative documents. (Art. 170)
10. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary. (Art. 171)
11. Falsification by private individuals and use of falsified documents. (Art. 172)
12. Falsification of wireless, cable, telegraph and telephone messages and use of said falsified messages. (Art. 173)
13. False medical certificates, false certificates of merit or service. (Art. 174)
14. Using false certificates. (Art. 175)
15. Manufacturing and possession of instruments or implements for falsification. (Art. 176)
16. Usurpation of authority or official functions. (Art. 177)
17. Using fictitious name and concealing true name. (Art. 178)
18. Illegal use of uniform or insignia. (Art. 179)
19. False testimony against a defendant. (Art. 180)
20. False testimony favorable to the defendant. (Art. 181) False testimony in civil cases. (Art. 182)
21. False testimony in other cases and perjury. (Art. 183)
22. Offering false testimony in evidence. (Art. 184)
23. Machinations in public auction. (Art. 185)
24. Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade. (Art. 186)
25. Importation and disposition of falsely marked articles or merchandise made of gold, silver, or other precious metals or their alloys. (Art. 187)
26. Substituting and altering trade marks and trade names or service marks. (Art. 188)
27. Unfair competition and fraudulent registration of trade mark or trade name, or service mark; fraudulent designation of origin, and false description. (Art. 189)

Question 2

What are the crimes called forgeries?

Answer 2

They are:
1. Forging the seal of the Government, signature or stamp of the Chief Executive. (Art. 161)
2. Counterfeiting coins. (Art. 163)
3. Mutilation of coins. (Art. 164)
4. Forging treasury or bank notes or other documents payable to bearer. (Art. 166)
5. Counterfeiting instruments not payable to bearer. (Art. 167)
6. Falsification of legislative documents. (Art. 170)
7. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastical minister. (Art. 171)
8. Falsification by private individuals. (Art. 172)
9. Falsification of wireless, cable, telegraph and telephone messages. (Art. 173)
10. Falsification of medical certificates, certificates of merit or service. (Art. 174)

Question 3

Acts punished under Article 161

Answer 3

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.

Question 4

Describe the great of seal Republic of the Philippines.

Answer 4

The Great Seal is circular in form, with arms consisting of paleways of two pieces, azure and gules; a chief argent studded with three golden stars equidistant from each other; in point of honor, ovoid argent over the sun rayonnant with eight minor and lesser rays; in sinister base gules, the Lion Rampant of Spain; in dexter base azure, the American eagle displayed proper; and surrounding the whole is a double marginal circle within which are the words “Republic of the Philippines.”

Question 5

Custody and use of the Great Seal.

Answer 5

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

Question 6

Elements of Using forged signature or counterfeit seal or stamp.

Answer 6

1. That the Great Seal of the Republic was counterfeited or the signature or stamp of the Chief Executive was forged by another person.
2. That the offender knew of the counterfeiting or forgery.
3. That he used the counterfeit seal or forged signature or stamp.

Question 7

What are the crimes under counterfeiting coins?

Answer 7

1. Making and importing and uttering false coins (Art. 163
2. Mutilation of coins — importation and utterance of mutilated coins (Art. 164); and
3. Selling of false or mutilated coin, without connivance. ‘Art. 165)

Question 8

Elements of Art. 163. Making and importing and uttering false coins

Answer 8

1. That there be false or counterfeited coins.
2. That the offender either made, imported or uttered such coins.
3. That in case of uttering such false or counterfeited coins, he connived with the counterfeiters or importers.

Question 9

Coin, defined.

Answer 9

Coin is a piece ofmetal stamped with certain marks and made current at a certain value.

Question 10

When is a coin false or counterfeited?

Answer 10

A coin is false or counterfeited, if it is forged or if it is not authorized by the Government as legal tender, regardless of its intrinsic value.

Question 11

What are the four kinds of documents contemplated under articles 171-172?

Answer 11

Public, official, commercial and private

Question 12

Elements of falsification of private document:

Answer 12

1. That the offender committed any of the acts of falsification, except
   those in paragraph 7, enumerated in Art. 171
2. That the falsification was committed in any private document.
3. That the falsification caused damage to a third party or at least the
   falsification was committed with intent to cause such damage.

Question 13

Is there complex crime of estafa through falsification of a private document.

Answer 13

There is no complex crime of estafa through falsification of a private document, because the immediate effect of falsification of private document is the same as that of estafa. The falsification of a private document cannot be said to be a means to commit estafa, because the fraudulent gain obtained through deceit in estafa, in the commission of which a private document was falsified, is nothing more nor less than the very damage caused by the falsification of such document.

Question 14

Difference between falsification of public or official documents and that of private documents.

Answer 14

The essential difference between falsification of private documents and that of public or official documents lies in the fact that while in the former, 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 the latter, that is, in the falsification of public or official documents, the principal thing punished is the violation of public faith and the perversion of truth which the document solemnly proclaims, and for this reason it is immaterial whether or not some prejudice has been caused to third persons. (See People vs. Pacana, 47 Phil. 48.)

Question 15

Is there a crime of attempted or frustrated falsification?

Answer 15

Falsification is consummated the moment the genuine document is altered or the moment the false document is executed. It is immaterial that the offender did not achieve his objectives.
There may be frustrated crime of falsification, if the falsification is imperfect.

Question 16

Elements of use of falsified document

Answer 16

Introducing in a judicial proceeding —
1. That the offender knew that a document was falsified by another person.
2. That the false document is embraced in Art. 171 or in any subdivisions No. lor 2 of Art. 172.
3. That he introduced said document in evidence in any judicial proceeding.
Use in any other transaction —
1. That the offender knew that a document was falsified by another person.
2. That the false document is embraced in Art. 171 or in any of subdivision No. 1 or 2 of Art. 172.
3. That he used such document (not injudicial proceedings).
4. That the use of the false document caused damage to another or at
least it was used with intent to cause such damage.

Question 17

Is damage necessary in the crime of introducing in judicial proceeding a false document?

Answer 17

In the crime of introducing a falsified document in a judicial proceeding, as defined and penalized under the last paragraph of Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code, the element of damage to another is not indispensable nor does it have to concur with the very act of introduction of the falsified document in the judicial proceeding. The element of damage to another is a requisite only when the falsified document is introduced in evidence in a proceeding other than judicial. (People vs. Prudente, 1 C.A. Rep. 759)

Question 18

When is the user of the falsified document presumed to be the author of the falsification

Answer 18

Thus, in a case where the blank form, wherein the falsified check was written, was stolen from a book of blank checks between 12 noon on December 1, 1903, and 11 a.m. of the following day, when the check was presented by the accused for payment, and the accused, who was a clerk in the office of the person by whom the check was purported to be drawn, was alone in the office on the evening of December 1, it was held that as the uttering of the check was so closely connected in time with the forging, the
accused should be considered the forger thereof. He was guilty offalsification of commercial document, not merely of using a falsified document. (U.S. vs. Castillo, 6 Phil. 453)

Question 19

acts are punishable under Art. 173
Falsification of wireless, cable, telegraph, and telephone messages, and use of said falsified messages.

Answer 19

1. Uttering fictitious wireless, telegraph or telephone message.
2. Falsifying wireless, telegraph or telephone message.
3. Using such falsified message.

Question 20

What is a certificate?

Answer 20

A certificate is any writing by which testimony is given that a fact has or has not taken place.

Question 21

Persons liable for falsification of certificates.

Answer 21

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)
Note: 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.
Note: The crime is False Certificate of Merit or Service by a public officer.
3. Private individual who falsified a certificate falling in the classes mentioned in Nos. 1 and 2.
Note: The crime is False Medical Certificate by a private individual or False Certificate of Merit or Service by a private individual..

Question 22

Elements of Art. 175. Using false certificates.

Answer 22

1. That a physician or surgeon had issued a false medical certificate, or a public officer had issued a false certificate of merit or service, good conduct, or similar circumstances, or a private person had falsified any of said certificates.
2. That the offender knew that the certificate was false.
3. That he used the same.

Question 23

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

Answer 23

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 24

A Chinese merchant was paid by purchaser of goods in the former’s store a false 50-centavo coin. He placed it in his drawer. During a search by some constabulary officers, the false coin was found in the drawer.
May the Chinaman be convicted of illegal possession of a false coin?

Answer 24

No, because Art. 165 requires three things as regards possession of false coins, namely: (1) possession; (2) intent to utter; and (3) knowledge that the coin is false.
The fact that the Chinaman received it in payment of his good and placed it in his drawer shows that he did not know that such coin was false. (People vs. Go Po, G.R. No. 42697, V L. J. 393, August, 1985)

Question 25

How are “forging” and “falsification” committed.

Answer 25

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

Question 26

When is the The instrument payable to bearer

Answer 26

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

Question 27

Elements Art. 167. Counterfeiting, importing, and uttering instruments not payable to bearer.

Answer 27

1. That there be an instrument payable to order or other document of credit not payable to bearer.
2. That the offender either forged, imported or uttered such instrument.
3. That in case of uttering, he connived with the forger or importer.

Question 28

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

Answer 28

It is believed that it includes such instruments or documents of credit, because the act punished includes that of importing, without specifying the country or government issuing them.
If the document is payable to bearer, there is no doubt that it may be issued by a foreign government or bank. Art. 166, pars. 3 and 4, cover such documents.

Question 29

Reason for punishing forgery.

Answer 29

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

Question 30

Elements of article 168. Illegal possession and use of false treasury or bank notes and other instruments ofcredit.

Answer 30

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

That he performs any of these acts —
a. using any of such forged or falsified instruments; or
Art. 168
b. possessing with intent to use any of such forged or falsified instruments.

Question 31

How to prove that a bank note is forged.

Answer 31

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

Question 32

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

Answer 32

Certain one-peso, ten-peso, and twenty-peso treasury notes were so made by pressing a genuine treasury note against a coupon bond, saturated with chemicals. All the printed matter in the treasury note is inversely reproduced in the coupon bond. Their appearance carries an inherent impossibility for anyone to accept them as genuine money. Held: This case falls within the purview of paragraph 2, Article 4, in relation to Article 59 of the Revised Penal Code. (People vs. Casals, et al, CA-G.R. No. 12455-R, May 17, 1955)
Note: In impossible crimes under paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Code, the act performed would have been an offense against persons or property. Forging or falsification of treasury notes is neither an offense against persons nor an offense against property.

Question 33

How forgery is committed.

Answer 33

1. By giving to a treasury or bank note or any instru- ment 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.

Question 34

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

Answer 34

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

Question 35

Elements of article 170. Falsification of legislative documents

Answer 35

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.

Question 36

Acts of falsification in article 171

Answer 36

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.

Question 37

elements of article 171 Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastical minister.

Answer 37

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 38

When does, an offender take advantage of his official position? -

Answer 38

The offender takes advantage of his official position in falsifying a document when (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 custody of the document which he falsifies.

Question 39

Must there be a genuine document in falsification?

Answer 39

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 ofArt. 171, falsification may be committed by simulating or fabricating a document.

Question 40

U.S. vs. Corral

Facts: To cause the arrest of his common-law wife who had left him and had gone to Corregidor, taking with her a trunk and a diamond ring, the accused simulated a warrant of arrest by making it appear that the same was signed and issued by the authority when in truth and in fact it was not. The accused sent it to the municipal president of Corregidor and, by virtue thereof, the woman was arrested. When prosecuted for falsification of a
public document, the accused contended that one can falsify only a genuine document and that what he falsified was no document at all.

Answer 40

It is not necessary that it be a real document, it is enough that it be given the appearance of a genuine document.

Question 41

Requisites of counterfeiting or imitating handwriting, signature or rubric

Answer 41

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 42

U.S. vs. Castro

Facts: The accused is charged with the falsification of a private document in that he signed the name of one Regino Sevilla, deceased, to a
)
certain bill of sale of a boat or barangay, said Sevilla.
the property of the estate of the
The accused attached the signature of Regino Sevilla to the document in question for the purpose of defrauding Sevilla’s heirs and depriving them of their property in the said boat. It does not appear, however, that any attempt was made to simulate the genuine signature, and there is evidence of record that Sevilla himself did not know how to write or even to sign his own name.

Answer 42

This court, adopting the doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court of Spain, has frequently held that upon a charge of falsification by attaching the signature of another to a written document, conviction cannot be had unless it appears that an attempt has been made to simulate the genuine signature of that person; and, therefore, the accused can not be convicted of the crime of falsification as charged in the information.
Note: The crime committed could not be falsification under paragraph 2 of Art. 171, because it could not be made to appear that the deceased participated in the execution of the document by signing it, since he did not know how to write.

Question 43

People vs. Villanueva

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.

Answer 43

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.

Question 44

U.S. vs. Capule

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.

Answer 44

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 45

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

Answer 45

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 ofthe 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.

Question 46

People vs. Quasha

Facts: The accused was a lawyer who drafted the articles of incorporation of a public utility corporation. In preparing it, the accused made it appear thereon that Baylon, his servant, was the owner of the shares which amounted to more than 60% of the subscribed capital stocks.
The falsification imputed to the accused consisted in not disclosing in the articles of incorporation that Baylon was a mere trustee (or dummy as the prosecution chose to call him) of his American co-incorporators, thus giving the impression that Baylon was the owner of the shares subscribed to by him which, as above stated, amounted to 60.005% of the subscribed capital stock.

Answer 46

Held: The Constitution does not prohibit the mere formation of a public utility corporation without the required proportion ofFilipino capital. What it does prohibit is the granting of a franchise or other form of authorization for the operation of a public utility to a corporation already in existence but without the requisite proportion of Filipino capital.
For the mere formation of the corporation, such revelation was not essential and the Corporation Law does not require it. Defendant was, therefore, under no obligation under the law to make it.

Question 47

People vs. Poserio

Facts: On June 1,1951, the defendant was appointed patrolman of the Manila Police Department.
On July 30, 1951, in compliance with one of the requirements of the Manila Police Department, he filled in an information sheet called “Personal Data.” On the blank space opposite question No. 10, therein, which asked if the applicant had previously been convicted of a criminal offense, the defendant placed the word “none.”
In an investigation later conducted, it was discovered that, contrary to the defendant’s answer to question No. 10, he had a previous conviction of the crime of theft.

Answer 47

Held: The prosecution has failed to point to any law or ordinance imposing upon the defendant the legal obligation to reveal his previous conviction in filling in the personal data sheet which members ofthe Manila Police Department are required to file.
The element, therefore, of “legal obligation” which is necessary in order that the defendant may be convicted of the crime of falsification of the public document under Article 171, paragraph 4, of the Revised Penal Code, is wanting.
The defendant was acquitted.

Question 48

Altering true dates prerequisite

Answer 48

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.

Question 49

Example of alteration of dates which are essential.

Answer 49

The chief of police, in conspiracy with the justice of the peace, altered the dates in the police blotter, book of records of arrest, bail bond, and the return of the warrant of arrest of S so as to make them show that S was arrested and gave bond on September 13, 1930. The falsifications were made to meet the administrative charges against the justice of the peace who had to dispose of the preliminary investigation of the case against S within 10 days, but failed to do so. (People vs. Montano and Cabagsang, 57 Phil. 599)
The date altered by the accused in those documents was essential, because the date, September 6, 1930, will show that there was a delay in the preliminary investigation of the case, in violation of the circular of the Court of First Instance.
The dates ofbirth, marriage and death are essential, because without them the documents “cannot produce any legal effect.” (Albert)

Question 50

Requisites of Par. No. 6 — Making alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning.

Answer 50

1. That there be an alteration (change) or intercalation (insertion) on a document;
2. That it was made on a genuine document;
3. That the alteration or intercalation has changed the meaning of the document; and
4. That the change made the document speak something false

Question 51

Example of falsification by making alteration.

Answer 51

The accused was arrested for having in his possession a falsified duplicate copy of Traffic Violation Report previously issued to him as temporary driver’s permit. The alterations were found to consist in erasing or obliterating the originally written figure “III” and the word “three” after the words “pending cases” and by writing and superimposing thereon number “I” and the word “one.” The accused made such alterations to hide his previously pending traffic violation cases and thereby avoid immediate
arrest should he be caught committing a fourth traffic violation.
Held: The accused is guilty of falsification of an official document, by making alterations on a genuine document which changed its meaning. (People vs. Manansala, 105 Phil. 1253)

Question 52

On the composition ofa bar candidate, the grades 73% in Civil Law and 64% in Remedial Law were written by an employee of the Supreme Court, after striking out the grade of 63% theretofore given to the composition in Civil Law and 58% theretofore given to the composition in Remedial Law.

Answer 52

Held: The acts of falsification are: (1) making alterations on genuine documents, (2) making it appear that the correctors had participated in blotting out the grades and writing new and increased grades opposite their initials, and (3) attributing to the correctors statements other than those in fact made by them. (People vs. Romualdez, et al., 57 Phil. 151)

Question 53

Who can be found guilty of par. Article. Of 171

Answer 53

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, since the authentication of a document can be made only by the custodian or the one who prepared and retained a copy ofthe original document.
1. Purporting to be a copy of an original when no such original exists. That a notary public made a supposed copy ofa deed ofsale which
was never executed and of which he had no copy, is an example.
2. Including in a copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of
the genuine original.
That a civil registrar stated in a certified copy of a record of birth that the person mentioned therein was legitimate when there was no such statement in the original, is an example.

Question 54

Liability of private individual in falsification by a public officer when there is conspiracy.

Answer 54

A private person who cooperates with a public officer in the falsification ofa public document is guilty ofthis crime and incurs the same liability and penalty as the public officer. (Viada, 2 Cod. Pen. 387; U.S. vs. Ponte, 20 Phil. 379)

Question 55

Is Intent to gain or prejudice necessary in Art171?

Answer 55

It will be noted that in Art. 171, it is the official character of the offender which is mainly taken into consideration.
The idea of gain or the intent to cause damage to a third person is not necessary, because it is the interest of the community which is intended to be guaranteed by the strictest faithfulness of the officials charged with the preparation and preservation of the acts in which they intervene.