Criminal Law 2: Title IV (Arts 170-189) Suggested Question and Answers

CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST

Art. 171 — Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister.

1. Elements. (2008 BAR)
    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; 
        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. 

2. Must there be a genuine document in falsification?
It depends. 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. (Reyes, 2017)

3. The accused simulated a warrant of arrest against his common-law wife 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. Is the accused guilty of falsification of a public document?
YES. The simulation of a public or official document, done in such a manner as to easily lead to error as to its authenticity, constitutes the crime of falsification. It is not essential that the falsification shall have been made in a real public or official document. (U.S. v. Corral, G.R. No. 5325, 03 Mar. 1910)

4. X and Y approached Mayor Z and requested him to solemnize their marriage. On the day of the ceremony, X and Y proceeded to Mayor Z's office but he was not there. Mayor Z's chief of staff, Mr. U, however, represented that he himself can solemnize their marriage and just have Mayor Z sign the marriage certificate when the latter comes back. Consequently, upon X and Y's assent, Mr. U solemnized the marriage, despite his lack of authority therefor. Assuming that Mayor Z signed the marriage certificate which stated that he solemnized the marriage of X and Y, what crime may Mayor Z be charged with under the RPC? Explain. (2019 BAR)
Mayor Z may be charged with Falsification under Art. 171, par. 2 of the RPC. Its elements are:
1. That the offender is a public officer;
2. That the takes advantage of his official position; and
3. That he falsifies a document by causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act of proceeding when they did not in fact so participate.
Here, all the elements of the crime are present. Mayor Z signed the marriage certificate which states that he solemnized the marriage of X and Y when in fact, he did not participate in its solemnization.

6. Atty. Constantino notarized the Joint Acknowledgement of the last will and testament of Severino. Dr. Asuncion was not present during the execution, but his name was not crossed out from the document. He only signed the document after it was notarized. With this, Atty. Constantino was charged of the crime of falsifying a public document under Art. 171(2) of the RPC for making it appear that Dr. Asuncion appeared before him and witnessed the execution of the Last Will and Testament. Is Atty. Constantino guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of falsifying a public document?
NO. In falsification of public documents under Art. 171(2) of the RPC, the prosecution must prove that these elements exist: (1) that the offender is a public officer, employee, notary public, or an ecclesiastical minister; (2) that he takes advantage of his official position; (3) that he falsifies a document by causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding; and (4) that such person or persons did not in fact so participate in the proceeding. 

Here, the first element has already been proven since petitioner is a notary public. The second element is presumed when the alleged falsity committed by the notary public pertains to the notarization. However, the third and fourth elements are lacking. Even if Atty. Costantino falsely certified that Dr. Asuncion was an instrumental witness to the execution of the will, one crucial detail remains: Dr. Asuncion signed the Joint Acknowledgement after it was notarized.

Since Dr. Asuncion did not sign the Joint Acknowledgement before it was notarized, he cannot be considered as having attested and subscribed to its due execution at the time of its notarization. It was not petitioner who made it appear that Dr. Asuncion participated in the execution of the Joint Acknowledgement, but Dr. Asuncion himself. Petitioner, therefore, must be acquitted. (Atty. Constantino v. People, G.R. No. 225696, 08 Apr. 2019)

7. Clemente, a security guard of the Bureau of Customs, has declared in his SALNs, for the years 2002 to 2014, only three (3) out of the seven (7) properties registered in his  name. Furthermore, a criminal information for robbery was filed against him which was eventually provisionally dismissed. However, he made an untruthful statement when answered in his 2014 Personal Data Sheet (PDS) "NO" to the question, "Have you ever been formally charged." A complaint against him was filed for violation of Sec. 7 of R.A. No. 3019, Sec. 8 of R.A. No. 6713, Art. 171 for Falsification by a Public Officer and FalseTestimony, and Art. 183 for Perjury under the RPC before the OMB. Did Clemente commit Falsification of Public Documents by making untruthful statements in a narration of facts under Art. 171?
NO. The third element of the crime, i.e., that the statements made are absolutely false, was wanting. Under the crime of Falsification of Public Documents, the following elements must be established: (1) the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public; (2) he takes advantage of his official position; and (3) he falsifies a document by committing any of the acts enumerated in Art. 171 of the RPC.

To warrant conviction for Falsification of Public Documents by making untruthful statements in a narration of facts under Art. 171, par. 4 of the RPC, the prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt the following elements: (1) the offender makes in a public document untruthful statements in a narration of facts; (2) he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him; and (3) the facts narrated by him are absolutely false.

In this case, the element of taking advantage of one's position is patently lacking. There is no showing that private respondent had the duty to make or prepare, or otherwise, to intervene in the preparation of the SALNs or he had the official custody of the same. (Department of Finance - Revenue Integrity Protection Service v. Office of the Ombudsman and Clemente Germar, G.R. No. 238660, 03 Feb. 2021)

8. X was charged with falsification because in her certificate of candidacy for the position of councilor, she had ‘willfully and unlawfully’ made the false statement that she was eligible to said office although she knew fully well that she was under 23 years old. Was the charge proper?

NO. When the accused certified she was eligible for the position, she practically wrote a conclusion of law. Hence, she may not be declared guilty of falsification because Art. 171 punishes untruthful statements in narration of facts. (People v. Yanza, G.R. No. L-12089, 29 Apr. 1960)

9. Augustina filed a criminal complaint against Bernante for falsification of public document because the latter allegedly falsified leave forms. It was alleged that Bernante made it appear in his leave application that he was on forced leave and on vacation leave on certain dates. In truth, Bernante was serving a 20-day prison term because of his conviction of the crime of slight physical injuries. Is Bernante liable for the crime of falsification of documents?
NO. Bernante may not be convicted of the crime of falsification of public document by making false statements in a narration of facts absent any legal obligation to disclose where he would spend his vacation leave and forced leave. (Enemecio v. Office of the Ombudsman [Visayas], G.R. No. 146731, 13 Jan. 2004)

10. In falsification of public documents, is it necessary that there be the idea of gain or intent to injure a third person?
NO.  In falsification of public or official documents, it is not necessary that there be present the idea of gain or the intent to injure a third person because in the falsification of a public document, what is punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed. (Galeos v. People, G.R. Nos. 174730-37, 09 Feb. 2011)

11. A counterfeited the signature of B but what he entered in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities of B are all true. Since there was no damage to the government, did he commit a crime?
YES. In falsification of a public document, it is immaterial whether or not the contents set forth therein were false. What is important is the fact that the signature of another was counterfeited. In a crime of falsification of a public document, the principal thing punished is the violation of public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed. Thus, intent to gain or injure is immaterial. Even more so, the gain or damage is not necessary. (Caubang v. People, G.R. No. L-62634, 26 June 1992)

11. Can falsification be committed by omission?
YES. Illustration: An assistant bookkeeper who, having bought several articles for  which he signed several chits, intentionally did not record in his personal account most of the said chits and destroyed them so that he could avoid paying the amount thereof is guilty of falsification by omission. (People v. Dizon, G.R. No. L-22560, 29 Jan. 1925)

12. Can a person be convicted of the felony of falsification of public document through reckless imprudence notwithstanding that the charge against him in the Information was for the intentional felony of falsification of public document under Art. 171(4) of the RPC?
YES. Sevilla’s claim that his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the  accusation against him was violated when the Sandiganbayan convicted him of reckless imprudence resulting to falsification of public documents, when the Information only charged the intentional felony of falsification of public documents, is untenable. To stress, reckless imprudence resulting to falsification of public documents is an offense that is necessarily included in the willful act of falsification of public documents, the latter being the greater offense. As such, he can be convicted of reckless imprudence resulting to falsification of public documents notwithstanding that the Information only charged the willful act of falsification of public documents. (Sevilla v. People, G.R. No. 194390, 13 Aug. 2014)

Art. 172 — Falsification by private individual and use of falsified documents.

1. Punishable Acts and Elements. (1991, 1992, 1993, 2000, 2009 BAR)

1. Falsification of a public, official, or commercial document by a private individual.

    a. Offender is a private individual or public officer or employee who did not take advantage of his official position;

    b. He committed any act of Falsification enumerated in Art. 171; and

    c. The falsification is committed in a Public, Official, or Commercial document.

2. Falsification of private document by any person.

    a. Offender committed any of the acts of Falsification except Art. 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;

    b. Falsification was committed in any Private Document; and

    c. Falsification caused Damage to a third party or at least the falsification was committed with intent to cause such damage.

3. Use of falsified document.

    a. In introducing in a judicial proceeding –

        i. Offender Knew that the document was falsified by another person;

        ii. The Falsified document is in Arts. 171 or 172 (1 or 2);

        iii. He introduced said document in evidence in a Judicial proceeding.

    b. In use in any other transaction –

        i. Offender Knew that a document was falsified by another person;

        ii. The False document is embraced in Arts. 171 or 172 (1 or 2);

        iii. He Used such document (not in judicial proceedings); and

        iv. The use caused Damage to another or at least used with intent to cause damage.

2. When is the user of the falsified document deemed the author of the falsification?(1997, 1999 BAR)

The user of the falsified document is deemed the author of the falsification if: 

    (1) the use was so closely connected in time with the falsification, and 

    (2) the user had the capacity of falsifying the document.

 

3. The appellant was charged with having sent to the Bureau of Labor at Manila the letter alleged to have been falsified by him in Makati, Rizal. Where should the action be filed?

Makati, Rizal. The intent to cause damage must have co-existed with the act of falsification itself. If that is so, then the offense, if at all committed, was consummated in Makati, Rizal, and the courts of which should assume jurisdiction to try the same. (People v. Morales, C.A. 58 O.G. 5667)

4. When is damage required under this Article?

    1. When a private document is falsified;

    2. When a falsified document is used in any proceeding other than judicial.

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

NONE. The fraudulent gain obtained through deceit in estafa, in the commission of which a private document was falsified is nothing more or less than the very damage caused by the falsification of such document.

The proper crime to be charged is estafa, if estafa can be committed without falsification, such as when a private document is falsified to conceal the misappropriation of money in possession of the offender, or when estafa was already consummated.

If estafa cannot be committed without falsification, then the crime is falsification such as when the private document is falsified to obtain the money which was later misappropriated.

6. Orient Commercial Banking Corporation (OCBC), a commercial bank was ordered closed by the BSP. PDIC was designated as the receiver of OCBC. Based on their investigation, it appears that fictitious loans in favor of two entities – Timmy’s, Inc. and Asia Textile Mills, Inc. were approved. After which, two manager’s checks representing the supposed proceeds of these loans were issued but made payable to two different entities without any documents issued by the supposed borrowers assigning the supposed loan proceeds to the two payees. Thereafter, these two manager’s checks were encashed, and then deposited in the OCBC Savings Account of Jose Go.

PDIC, as receiver, sent demand letters to the bank’s debtor-borrowers on record, including Timmy’s, Inc. and Asia Textile Mills, Inc. However, it was discovered that the signatures of the corporate officers were forgeries, and the purported loans were obtained through falsified loan documents. What crime did Go, et al. commit?

Go, et. al., are liable for the crime of Estafa thru Falsification of Commercial Documents. In a prosecution for estafa, demand is not necessary where there is evidence of misappropriation or conversion. The accused may be convicted of the felony under Art. 315, par. 1(b) of the RPC if the prosecution proved misappropriation or conversion by the accused of the money or property subject of the information. 

Moreover, the falsification of a public, official, or commercial document may be a means of committing estafa because before the falsified document is actually utilized to defraud another, the crime of falsification has already been consummated, damage or intent to cause damage not being an element of the crime of falsification of public, official or commercial document. Therefore, the falsification of the public, official or commercial document is only a necessary means to commit the estafa. (People v. Jose Go, et. al, G.R. No. 191015, 06 Aug. 2014)

Art. 172 — Falsification of wireless, cable, telegraph and telephone messages, and use of said falsified messages.

1. Can a private individual commit the crime of falsification of telegraphic dispatches?

It depends. A private individual cannot commit the crime of falsification of telegraphic dispatches by direct participation, unless he is an employee of a corporation engaged in the business of sending or receiving wireless telegraph or telephone messages. But a private individual can be held criminally liable as principal by inducement in the falsification of telegraph dispatches or telephone messages. If he knowingly uses falsified telegraph, wireless, or telephone messages to the prejudice of a third person, or with intent to cause such prejudice, it is not necessary that he be connected with such corporation.

CHAPTER 2: OTHER FALSITIES

Art. 177—Usurpation of authority or official functions.

1. X and Y approached Mayor Z and requested him to solemnize their marriage. On the day of the ceremony, X and Y proceeded to Mayor Z's office but he was not there. Mayor Z's chief of staff, Mr. U, however, represented that he himself can solemnize their marriage and just have Mayor Z sign the marriage certificate when the latter comes back. Consequently, upon X and Y's assent, Mr. U solemnized the marriage, despite his lack of authority therefor. What crime may Mr. U be charged with under the RPC? Explain. (2018 BAR)

Mr. U can be charged with the crime of Usurpation of Authority or Official Functions. Under Art. 177 of the RPC, Usurpation of Authority may be committed 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 the pretense of official position, and without being lawfully entitled to do so. Here, despite his lack of authority, Mr. U knowingly solemnized a marriage pertaining to Mayor Z.

2. A councilor refused to vacate the office of the mayor despite an official opinion that it is the vice mayor who should discharge the duties of the mayor during the latter’s temporary absence. He was charged with usurpation of authority and official functions but he contended that such crime may only be committed by private individuals. Is he correct?

NO. Violation of Art. 177 is not restricted to private individuals. Public officials may also commit this crime. (People v. Hilvano, G.R. No. L- 8583, 31 July 1956)

3. The National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council requested the release of P961,550,000 to the Negros Oriental province to finance the rehabilitation of various infrastructures damaged by Typhoon Sendong and a 6.9-magnitude earthquake. The Office of the President approved the request. The Department, through its Regional Office No. VII, issued a Special Allotment Release Order which covered the approved amount. In a letter-advice, Undersecretary Relampagos informed Negros Oriental Governor Degamo that the Department is withdrawing the Special Allotment Release Order because its release did not comply with the guidelines on large-scale fund releases for infrastructure projects. Is Relampagos guilty of Usurpation of

Authority or Official Functions?

NO.  Relampagos did not commit the crime of usurpation of authority or official functions. The crime of usurpation of official functions punishes any person who, under pretense of official position, performs any act pertaining to any person in authority or public officer of the Philippine Government or any foreign government, or any agency thereof, without being lawfully entitled to do so. In this case, there was no attempt to represent the President in the letter. It appears that Relampagos was acting on behalf of Secretary Abad, upon the instructions of the President. Under the doctrine of qualified political agency, department secretaries may act for and on behalf of the President on matters where the President is required to exercise authority in their respective departments. (Degamo v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 212416, 05 Dec. 2018)

Art. 181— False testimony favorable to the defendants.

1. Is conviction or acquittal of the defendant in the principal case necessary?

NO. The conviction or acquittal of a defendant in the principal case is not necessary. This is an important distinction between False Testimony Favorable to the Defendant v. False Testimony Against a Defendant.

2. Can a defendant who falsely testified in his own behalf in a criminal case be guilty of false testimony favorable to the defendant?

YES. The right of an accused to testify in his own behalf is secured to him to enable him to spread upon the record the truth as to any matter within his knowledge which will tend to establish his knowledge. Defendant is liable if he testifies in his favor by falsely imputing the crime to another person. (U.S. v. Soliman, G.R. No. L-11555, 06 Jan. 1917)

The ruling in Soliman would only apply if the defendant voluntarily goes upon the witness stand and falsely imputes to some other person the commission of a grave offense. If he merely denies the commission of the crime or his participation therein, he should not be prosecuted for false testimony.

Art. 183 — False testimony in other cases and perjury in solemn affirmation. 

Elements of Perjury. (2005 BAR)

    1. Accused made a statement under oath or executed an affidavit upon a material matter (2008 BAR);

    2. Statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer, authorized to receive and administer oath;

    3. In that statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood (1996 BAR); and

    4. Sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law. (1991 BAR)

The statement need not actually be required. It is sufficient that it was authorized by law to be

made. (People v. Angangco, G.R. No. L-47693, 12 Oct. 1943)