FALSIFICATION UNDER ARTICLE 171

 
Falsification of Documents: Meaning of Document
-          Any written instrument by which a right is established or an obligation is extinguished, or every deed of instrument
executed by a person by which some disposition or agreement is proved, evidenced or set forth.
 
Elements:
a)      The offender is a public officer or employee, notary public or ecclesiastical minister;
b)      He takes advantage of his official position (otherwise, the crime will fall under Art. 172); and
c)      He falsifies a document in any of the eight ways enumerated in the article.
 
Note:
-          Taking advantage of official position means that the public officer is the custodian of the document or that he takes
part or intervenes in the preparation of the document.
-          The legal presumption is that when a person makes use of a falsified document, he is deemed to be the falsifier.
-          Damage or intent to cause damage is NOT an element of falsification under Art(s) 171 and 172, no. 1. It is the
violation of the faith or trust of the public and the destruction of the truth as solemnly proclaimed in the document that is
penalized.
 
Kinds of Documents to be falsified:
1.      Public Document – any instrument notarized by a notary public or competent public official with the solemnities
required by law.
2.      Official Document – any instrument issued by the government or its agents or its officers having the authority to do
so and the offices, which in accordance with their creation, they are authorized to issue. The officers must issue the
documents in the performance of their duties.
3.      Private Document – every deed or instrument executed by a private person without the intervention of a notary public
or any other person legally authorized, by which document some disposition or agreement is proved, evidenced or set forth.
4.      Commercial Document – any instrument executed in accordance with the Code of Commerce or any mercantile law
containing disposition of commercial rights or obligations.
Note:  Invoices or issue vouchers or cash disbursement vouchers are NOT commercial documents since they are not defined
and regulated by the Code of Commerce.
 
Q: When may a private document become a public or official document?
A: When it becomes a part of the public or official record, it partakes the nature of a public or official document. So, if the
falsification is committed on such document, that is, when it is already a part of the public record, the crime is falsification
of a public or official document. But if the falsification is committed before such document became part of the public or
official record, the crime is falsification of private document. However, if such private document is intended to become a
part of the public record, even though falsified prior to, falsification of public document is committed. So, the civil service
examination paper before it becomes a part of the files of the Civil Service is a private document. If falsified then, the crime
committed is falsification of a public document.
 
Q: Is falsification committed if the document is simulated?
A: YES, falsification may be committed even if the public document is simulated or is not in the official form.
 
Acts Punished:
Eight (8) acts punished. Last two (2) can be committed by ecclesiastic ministers and notary public
1)      Counterfeiting or imitating any handwritten, signature or rubric;
- What is important is the fact that the signature of another was counterfeited.
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;
- The following requisites must concur:
a) That the offender makes in a document untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
b) That he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him;
c)  That the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false.
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 purported to be a copy of an original document when no such
document exists, or including in such copy a statement contrary to, or different from that of the genuine document; and
8)       Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol registry or official book.
 
FALSIFICATION UNDER ARTICLE 172
 
Acts Punished:
1)      Falsification of any public, official or commercial documents by a private individual;
2)      Falsification of private document by any person; and
3)      Use of falsified document in:
(a)   judicial proceeding; or
Elements:
1)      The offender knew that a document was falsified by another person;
2)      The false document is embraced in Article 171 or in any of acts punished (i.e., act no. 1 or 2) of Art. 172;
3)      He used such document (not in judicial proceedings); and
(b)   in any other proceedings.
Elements:
1)      The offender knew that a document was falsified by another person;
2)      The false document is embraced in Article 171 or in any of acts punished (i.e., act no. 1 or 2) of Art. 172;
3)      He used such document (not in judicial proceedings); and
4)      The use of the false document caused damage to another or at least it was used with intent to cause such damage.
 
Offenders:
1)      Private individual
2)      Public official (in his private capacity & does not take advantage of his public position)
 
Note:
-          If public, official or commercial document was falsified to commit estafa, a complex crime is committed, because in
falsification of public, official or commercial document, damage to the offended is NOT material for it not an element of the
crime.
-          In falsification of private document to commit estafa, there is no complex crime because the same element of
damage is present in both crimes and one and the same element cannot give rise to more than one crime.
-          Criminal liability is incurred even without damage or intent to cause damage when the document is used in judicial
proceedings. Damage or intent to cause damage is necessary only in any transaction other than judicial proceedings.
-          The falsification of private documents is committed in any of the ways specified in Art. 171 excepting pars. 7 and 8
thereof.
 
Q: Is there a complex crime of estafa through falsification of a private document? If none, what will be charged?
A: There is none. True, these two crimes have an element in common: intent to cause damage or the damage itself.
            As there is no complex crime of estafa through falsification of a private document, it is important to ascertain
whether the offender is to be charged with falsification of a private document or with estafa.
            It seems that if the falsification of a private document is committed as a means to commit estafa, the proper
crime to be charged is falsification. But if the estafa can be committed without the necessity of falsifying a document, the
proper crime to be charged is estafa.
 
Art 171 v. Art 172
 
a)      In 171, the offender is a public officer, notary public or ecclesiastical minister; in 172, the offender includes private
individuals.
b)      The documents falsified in 171 could be any document, while 172 specifies who should falsify the different kinds of
document.
c)      Damage is not an element in 171; in falsification of private document, damage/intent to cause damage is an element.
 
 
Art.173 - Falsification of Wireless, Cable, Telegraph and Telephone Messages
 
Acts Punished:
1)      Uttering fictitious messages;
2)      Falsifying messages;
3)      Issuing falsified messages; and
4)      Issuing falsified message to the prejudice of a third person or with intent to cause such damage.
 
Offender(s):
a)      Acts no. (1) and (2) can be committed either by an officer or employee of the government; or
b)      A private person who is an officer or employee of a private corporation engaged in the services of sending or
receiving wireless, cable or telephone messages
c)      Act no. 3 may be committed by any person, whether he is a public officer or an employee or a private person.
 
Note:
-          Where an employee of a telegraph office falsified a telegram even though not received, in order to frighten a third
person, although as a joke, he is liable under this article.
-          A private person who falsified a telegram to defraud another is guilty of estafa  only, since a private person is not
liable under par. 1 of this article for falsification of telegram.
-          The telegraph operator and public official who, with intent to gain, reduces the number of words written in a
telegram received by him for dispatch, by making an alterations  in its wording, when UNAUTHORIZED to do so by the
sender, and who transmit the message by wire in the form amended by him after suppressing several of the words therein
contained, commits the crime of falsification of telegram.
 
 
Art. 174 False medical certificates, false certificate of merit or service etc.
 
Acts Punished:
1)      Issuance of a false certificate by a physician or surgeon in connection with the practice of his profession;
2)      Issuance of a false certificate of merit or service, good conduct or similar circumstances by apublic officer; and
3)      Falsification by a private person of any certificate falling within said acts (1) and (2).
 
Note:
-          In act no. 2, intent to gain is IMMATERIAL. But if the public officer issued a false certificate in consideration of a
promise, reward or gift, he will also be liable for bribery (Art. 210).
-          The certificate need not refer to an illness or injury to exempt the person from performance of a public duty. The
crime is committed if the false certificate is issued to exempt a person from performing a private duty. However, it is
essential that the certificate is issued knowing it to be false.
 
 
Art. 175 Using false certificates
 
Elements:
1)      There must be a false certificate as defined in Art. 174;
2)      Knowledge that the certificate is false; and
3)      Offender uses the same.
 
Note:
-          False certificates must not be confused with falsified documents under Art. 171 and 172.
-          Use of the false certificates mentioned in Art. 174, whether in a judicial or any proceeding with knowledge of there
falsity, will subject the offender in prosecution under Art. 175.
-          Use of documents covered in Art. 171 and 172, will make the offender liable under par. 3 of Art. 172.
 
 
 
Art. 176 Manufacturing and possession of instruments or implements for falsification
 
Acts Punished:
1)      Making or introducing into the Philippines any stamps, dies, marks or any other instruments or implements intended
to be used for counterfeiting, and
2)      Possession with intent to use any of the instruments or implements mentioned.
 
Note:
-          In order to secure a conviction under the article, it is not necessary that the implement confiscated form a complete
set for counterfeiting a $10.00 U.S. military payment certificate, it being enough that they may be employed by themselves
or together with other implements to commit the crime of counterfeiting of falsification (People v. Santiago).
 
 
Art.177 Usurpation of authority or official functions.
 
Acts Punished:
1)      Knowingly and falsely, representing oneself to be an officer, agent or representative of any department or agency of
the Philippine Government or of any foreign government;
2)      Performing any act pertaining to any person in authority or public officer of the Philippine Government or any foreign
government or any agency thereof, under pretense of official position and without being lawfully entitled to do so.
 
Note:
-          Violation of Art. 177 is NOT restricted to private individuals. Public official may also commit this felony.
 
 
Art.178 -- Using Fictitious Names and Concealing True Name
 
Acts Punished:
1)      Using a fictitious name;
2)      Concealing true name.
 
Elements of using fictitious name:
1)      Offender used a name other than his real name and the fictitious name was used publicly in order:
a)      To conceal a crime;
b)      To evade a judgment; or
c)      To cause damage to public interest.
 
Note:
-          Signing of fictitious name in a passport application is a public use of fictitious name.
-          The Anti-Alias Law (Com. Act No. 142) is not violated if one uses a name with which he was christened or by which
known since childhood.
-          Under Com. Act No. 142, except as pseudonym for literary, cinema, television, radio or other entertainment
purposes and athletic events where the use of a pseudonym is a normally accepted practice, no person shall use any name
different from the one with which he was registered at birth in the office of the local civil registry, or with which he was
registered in the immigration office upon entry.
-          A substitute name or an alias may be used only as authorized by competent or judicial authority.
 
Element of concealing true name:
1)      Offender conceals his true name and other personal circumstances; and
2)      The purpose is in order to conceal his identity.
 
Note:
-          A person, who, upon being interrogated by authorities, gives a false name or conceals his true name in answer to a
question of a public officer, commits this felony of concealing true name. However, in our jurisdiction, the other personal
circumstances must also be concealed.
 
FALSE TESTIMONY – is a declaration under oath of a witness in a judicial proceeding which is contrary to what is true, or
to deny the same, or to alter essentially the truth.
Note:
-          It requires a criminal intent and cannot be committed through negligence. So, if it is due to error or good faith, it is
not felonious. It could be frustrated or attempted.
-          Reasons why false testimony is punished – Falsehood is ever reprehensible; but it is a particularly odious when
committed in a judicial proceeding, as it constitutes an imposition upon the court and seriously exposes it to a miscarriage
of justice. While false testimony in favor of an accused may be less obnoxious than false testimony against him, both forms
are equally repugnant to the orderly administration of justice and deserve to be rigorously depressed.
 
 
Forms of False Testimony:
 
Art. 180 & 181 -- False Testimony Against & Favorable to the Defendant
 
The law classifies the crime into of false testimony in favor or against the accused which is significant in determining when
the period for prescription of the crime begins to run, thus:
 
a)      In favor: the prescriptive period commences to run right after he testified falsely because the basis of the penalty on
the false witness is the gravity of the felony charged to the accused whether or not the trial has been terminated or the
accused was acquitted or convicted.
 
Note:
- Intent to favor the accused is essential in this kind of false testimony. However, it is not necessary that the false testimony
given should directly influence the decision of acquittal.
- The penalty provided by this article is less than that which is the preceding one because there is no danger to the life or
liberty of the defendant. Independent evidence of falsity is not required for conviction.
 
b)      Against: the period will begin to run only when the case has been decided with finality because the basis of the
penalty on the false witness is the sentence on the accused testified against. When the latter is acquitted, there is still a
penalty on the false witness for his false testimony.
 
Note:
- “Against the defendant” means a false testimony that tends to establish or aggravate the guilt of the accused and not the
result that said testimony may produce.
 
 
Art. 182 False Testimony in Civil Cases
 
Elements:
1)      The testimony must be given in a civil case;
2)      The testimony must relate to the issues presented in said case;
3)      The testimony must be false;
4)      The false testimony must be given by the defendant knowing the same to be false; and
5)      Such testimony must be malicious and given with an intent to affect the issues presented in said case.
 
Note:
-          The penalty is made to depend upon the amount involved.
 
 
Art. 183 False Testimony in other cases and Perjury in Solemn Affirmation
 
Perjury - is the willful and corrupt assertion of falsehood under oath or affirmation administered by authority of law on a
material matter.
 
Elements:
1)      Statement or affidavit upon material matter made under oath;
2)      Before a competent officer authorized to receive and administer such oath;
3)      Willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood by the offender; and
4)      The sworn statement containing the falsity is required by law.
 
Note:
-          “Material matter” means the main fact which is the subject of the inquiry, or any circumstances which tends to
prove the fact, or any fact or circumstances which tends to prove the fact, or any fact or circumstances which tends to
corroborate or strengthen the testimony relative to the subject of the inquiry, or which legitimately affects the credit of any
witness who testified. The word “material” also includes collateral questions.
-          Two contradictory sworn statements are not sufficient to convict for perjury because the prosecution must prove
which of the two statements if false, and must show that statement to be false by other evidence than the contradictory
statement.
 
Distinctions between false testimony and perjury
a)      While both are perversions of the truth, false testimony is given in the course of a judicial proceeding, whereas
perjury is any willful and corrupt assertion of falsehood on a material matter under oath and not given in judicial
proceedings.
b)      False testimony contemplates an actual trial where judgment of conviction or acquittal is rendered and not merely a
preliminary investigation, whereas perjury may be committed even during a preliminary investigation as well as in the
making of a false affidavit under oath on a material matter when required by law.
 
 
CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS
 
Q: Who are Public Officers?
A: Any person who, by direct provision of law, popular election or appointment by competent authority, shall take part in
the performance of public functions in the Government of the Philippines, or shall perform in said Government, or any of its
branches public duties as an employee, agent, or subordinate official, of any rank or class, shall be deemed public officer
(Art. 203). They also embrace every public servant from the highest to the lowest (Maniego v. People).
 
BRIBERY: Kinds
 
Art. 210 Direct Bribery
 
Person Liable: Public officers (includes assessors, arbitrators, appraisal and claim commissioners, experts, or any other
person performing public duties)
 
Acts Punished:
1)      Agreeing to perform or performing an act pertaining to the duties of the office which constitutes a crime;
2)      Accepting a gift in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime; or
3)      Abstaining from the performance of official duties.
 
Elements:
1)      Offender is a public officer as defined in Art. 203;
2)      He receives personally or through another, gifts or presents or accepted offers or promises;
3)      For the purpose of committing any of the acts mentioned in act no. 3; and
4)      Such act relates to the exercise of official duties.
Note:
-          The act need not be actually committed. Mere agreement to execute the act is sufficient. This refers to the first kind
of direct bribery, that the act agreed upon to be executed constituted a crime. As regard the second kind, mere agreement
to execute the act does not suffice.
-          A private person to whom the custody of a prisoner has been entrusted who allows him to escape because of a
bribe is guilty not only of infidelity in the custody of prisoners but also of bribery because he is discharging a public function.
Except as stated in the foregoing, bribery cannot be committed by a private person. If he offers to bribe a public officer, the
crime he committed is corruption of public officials.
 
Q: Is there attempted or frustrated bribery and attempted or frustrated corruption of public officials?
A: Bribery cannot be consummated without the corresponding crime of corruption of public officer. But when the public
officer refused to be corrupted, the corruptor is only liable for attempted corruption but there is no bribery.
            There is no frustrated corruption and frustrated bribery because these crimes involve the concurrence of the will
of the corruptor and the public officer. Hence, once their will concur, the crime is immediately consummated. If the public
officer refuses to be corrupted, the crime is merely attempted.
 
 
Art. 211 Indirect Bribery – is committed upon acceptance by the public officer of gifts offered to him by reason of his
office.
Note:
-          It is not necessary that the public officer should do any particular act or even promise to do an act as it is enough
that he accepts gifts offered to him by reason of his office.
-          The gift is made to anticipate a favor from the public officer in connection with his official duties or to reward past
favors in connection with official duties.
-          The act performed by the public officer is not unjust, so that even if there is an agreement between the public
officer and the giver regarding the performance thereof, indirect bribery is committed and not direct bribery under par. 2 of
Art. 210.
 
Direct Bribery v. Indirect bribery
a)      In direct bribery, the public officer must do something in consideration of the gift. In indirect bribery, there is no
such requirement.
b)      Mere agreement consummates the crime of direct bribery if the act agreed upon amounts to a crime.
In indirect bribery, the public officer must accept the gift to consummate the crime of indirect bribery.
 
 
Art. 211-A Qualified Bribery
 
Elements:
1)      Offender is a public officer charged with law enforcement;
2)      He refrains from arresting or prosecuting a person who has committed a crime;
3)      The crime committed is punishable with reclusion perpetua AND/OR death (i.e., reclusion perpetua; or death;
or reclusion perpetua  to death)
4)      Said officer refrained from prosecuting or arresting the offender because of the money or gift or promise in
consideration therefor.
 
Note:
-          The penalty on the officer is the same as that of the offender. If he were the one who asked or demanded for the
gift or consideration, the penalty shall likewise be reclusion perpetua because of R.A. 9346
-          The penalty must be reclusion perpetua or death or reclusion perpetua  to death. Otherwise, this crime is not
committed, but another crime, e.g., dereliction of duty under Art. 208. If he refrained from prosecuting the offenders for a
consideration, the crime is Direct Bribery under Art. 210, and dereliction of duty under Art. 208, because under 210, first
paragraph, the penalty for direct bribery is “in addition” to the penalty for the crime committed.
 
 
Art. 217 Malversation of Public Funds or Property
 
Elements:
1)      Offender is  a public officer;
2)      By reason of his duties he is accountable for public funds and property; and
3)      He appropriates, takes, or misappropriates, or through abandonment or negligence permits other persons to take
such public funds or property, or otherwise is guilty of misappropriation or malversation of public funds or property.
 
Acts Punished:
1)      Appropriating public funds or property;
2)      Taking or misappropriating the same;                                                                             dolo is present
3)      Misappropriating or malversation of such public finds or property; or
4)      Consenting, or through abandonment or negligence, permitting any person to take the same. (culpa is present)
 
Note:
-          A private person cannot commit malversation except:
a)      If such  private person takes a direct participation in the commission of the malversation of public funds or property
by a public officer or cooperates in the commission of the same, he is guilty as a co-principal;
b)      If such private person in any capacity whatever has charge of any insular, provincial, or municipal funds, revenues or
property (e.g., funds of Boys Scout, Girls Scout, Red Cross, Anti-TB); and
c)      If such private person becomes an accomplice or accessory to a public officer who committed malversation.
-          Demand raises a prima facie presumption that missing funds have been put to personal use. The demand itself is
not an element of, and not indispensable to constitute the malversation. Even without demand, malversation can still be
committed when enough facts are extent to prove it.
-          Direct evidence is not necessary to establish the presumption but unless the audit is complete, thorough, and
reliable, the foundation for the presumption will not been established. Presumption does not arise simply because there is a
shortage. It must be indubitably established that the fund exists, that he is accountable therefor and he cannot explain the
shortage.
-          An accountable officer may thus be convicted of malversation even if there is no direct evidence of misappropriation
and the only evidence is that there is a shortage in his accounts which he cannot give a reasonable excuse for the
disappearance of the same.
-          Malversation is committed either intentionally or by negligence. The dolo  or the culpa present in the offense is only
a modality in the perpetration of the felony. Even if the mode charged differs from the mode proved, the same offense of
malversation is involved and conviction thereof is proper.
-          Culpable malversation is necessarily included by intentional malversation. If the Information charged the latter, but
what is proved is culpable malversation, the conviction for culpable malversation is proper because unlike the other felonies
in the RPC wherein a lower penalty is imposed when the offense is committed through negligence, either because it is so
specified in the particular provision defining and punishing that felony or by force of Art. 365, in the crime of malversation
the penalty is the same whether the mode of commission is with intent or by negligence.
-          Payment, indemnification, or reimbursement of, or compromise as to the amounts or funds malversed affects ONLY
the civil liability of the offender but does not extinguish his criminal liability.
-          Restitution is in fact an implied admission of guilt. However, by analogy to voluntary plea of guilt, restitution may be
considered as a mitigating circumstance.
-          The defense of good faith is valid defense in malversation for it would negate criminal intent on the part of the
accused.
Art. 220 Illegal Use of Public Funds or Property
 
Elements:
1)      Offender is an accountable public officer;
2)      He applies public funds or property under his administration to some public use; and
3)      The public use for which the public funds or property were applied is different from the purpose for which they were
originally appropriated.
 
Note:
-          This felony is known as “technical malversation” and is a penal sanction to the constitutional provision that no
money shall be paid out of the treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law. (Art. VIII, sec. 18, CONST.)
-          Damage is not an essential element and the offender derives no benefit.
-          To constitute this crime, there must be law or ordinance appropriating public funds or property for a specific
purpose which the accused has violated.
 
Malversation of Public Funds v. Technical Malversation
a)      In both felonies, the offenders are accountable public officers.
b)      In technical malversation, the offender derives no personal gain or benefit from the commission of the act; in
malversation of public funds there is, generally, a personal benefit derived from the proceeds of the crime.
c)      In technical malversation, the object to which the fund or property is applied is also public but different from that
provided by law; in malversation the conversion is for the personal interest of the offender.
 
Malveration v. Estafa v. Qualified theft
a.      These crimes can be committed by public officers and against public funds. However, while estafa can be committed
against public funds, malversation cannot be committed against private property except for private property in custosia
legis  (Art. 222).
b.      In estafa and qualified theft, the offender can be a private person or a public officer who should not be accountable
for the fund or property taken; in malversation it is necessary that the offender is accountable over the funds or property
appropriated.
c.       The taking of public funds or property is malversation, if the public officer is accountable therefor; estafa, if the
offender who is not accountable therefor has acquired juridical possession and taken it with deceit; qualified theft, if the
offender who has mere physical or material possession took the property with abuse of confidence.