1.
statements in a narration of facts; (b) that he has a legal obligation
2. Siquian v. People
Facts:
Jesusa Carreon went to the office of Manuel Siquian, the
municipal mayor of Isabela, to apply for a job in the office of the
mayor. Siquian then appointed her as a clerk in the office of the
municipal secretary and even said that her salary would be
included in the budget. Accompanying her appointment is the
certification, among others, of the availability of funds through a
form issued by Siquian and addressed to the CSC, pursuant to the
requirements of the latter.
It should be noted that the Municipal council of Isabela,
failed to enact the annual budget for the municipality for the Fiscal
Year 1975-76. As such, the annual budget for the previous Fiscal
Year 1974-75, was deemed re-enacted. No such position existed
then.
Carreon worked for five months and was supposed to
receive her salary of P120. She approached the municipal treasurer
to ask for the money but the latter said that there was no money
yet. She then sued Siquian for falsification of a public document.
The RTC and CA ruled in favour of Carreon. Siquian
interposed the defense of a lack of criminal intent.
Issue:
Was Siquian guilty of falsification of public documents?
Ruling:
Yes.
He was found guilty under par 4 of art 171, making
untruthful statements in a narration of facts; the elements of
which are: (a) That the offender makes in a document untruthful
to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him; and (c) That the
facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false.
In this case, all the elements for falsification were met
especially when Siquian stated that funds were available for the
position to which Jesusa Carreon was appointed when he knew
that, in reality, the position itself did not even exist and no funds
had been appropriated. It is further bolstered by the fact that when
the budget was deemed re-enacted, there is no such position as
Clerk to the Municipal Secretary, the position to which Carreon was
appointed. And there is also no appropriation made in the Annual
Budget for the Fiscal Year 1974-75 for such position, thus rendering
Siquian's statement in his certification utterly false.
Siquian also had the legal obligation to disclose the truth of
such facts. Under the civil service rules and regulations, a
certification of the availability of funds for the position to be filled
up is required to be signed by the head of office or any officer who
has been delegated the authority to sign. As an officer authorized
by law to issue the certification, Siquian has a legal obligation to
disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him in said certification
which includes information as to the availability of the funds for the
position being filled up.
He also took advantage of his official position in falsifying
the document. Abuse of public office is considered present when
the offender falsifies a document in connection with the duties of
his office which consist of either making or preparing or otherwise
intervening in the preparation of a document. In this case, Siquian
was charged with the duty of issuing the certification necessary for
the appointment of Carreon.
Lastly, the existence of a wrongful intent to injure a third
person is not necessary when the falsified document is a public
document. The SC relied on the Go Tiok case in stating that
wrongful intent on the part of an accused to injure a third person is
not an essential element of the crime of falsification of public
document. This is because the principal thing punished in falsifying
public documents is the violation of the public faith and the
destruction of truth as therein solemnly proclaimed.
Siquian cannot raise the defense of good faith. He presides
at all meetings of the municipal council and signs all ordinances
and resolutions passed by the municipal council. He was also
aware that there was no budget and no such position (clerk of
municipal secretary) existed.
3. Samson v. CA - 103 Phil. 277
FACTS:
Lascano and his wife are entitled to some money because
their son was a soldier for the USAFFE during the 2 nd world war.
Amado Cruz was with 2 persons purporting to be the
Lascano spouses. Cruz asked the help of his friend Rufino Samson,
the appellant in this case, in order for the Lascano spouses to get
their checks. Samson verified the identity of the purported
Lascanos by examining their residence certificates. True enough,
Samson had a friend with the Finance Dept of the AFP, Lt. Valencia,
and they were able to get their checks that amounted to 12K.
The group then went to the Treasury Dept to cash the
checks. Samson also knew the teller and represented that the
Lascanos were the real Lascanos. Mrs. Lascano placed her
thumbprint on the back of the 2 checks while Mr. Lascano signed
his name. SAMSON, on the other hand, SIGNED ON THE BOTTOM
AS THE LAST INDORSER of the CHECK. The 12K was released. The
group went to Aristocrat with about 11 other persons. They had
their lunch and Samson was given P310 as gratitude money.
Thereafter, the purported Lascanos were never seen again.
Days later, Samson was informed that the Lascanos
were not the real Lascanos. Samson investigated and found that
real Mr. Lascano could barely walk and the real Mrs. Lascano was a
teacher who denied receiving any money.
Samson was charged together with Cruz, a Mr. Vergara and
two john does for estafa through falsification of a commercial
document.
RTC convicted all of them. On appeal to the CA, Samson
was only found guilty of Reckless Imprudence.
ISSUE:
1. Can falsification be committed through Negligence?
YES.
HELD:
Samson was definitely grossly negligent in assuring the
identity of the impersonators to Lt. Valencia and the Teller as a
result of which the govt lost 12K. Samson should not have relied
on the mere representations of his friend and the residence
certificates of the impersonators.
Samson cooperated in the commission of estafa through
falsification of a commercial document without which the estafa
would not have been accomplished. 1
Insofar as the falsification is concerned the act of endorsing
the check constituted a written representation that the true payees
were the ones who indorsed and cashed the checks, when in truth
and fact the true payees had no part in the endorsement.2
Falsification can be committed through negligence since
intent to cause damage is not an element of falsification because
what the law seeks to ensure that the public has confidence in
these documents.3
1
Note: J. Reyes dissented on this point such that, liability as a principal by
indispensable co-operation requires knowledge of the criminal act and since Samson
was ultimately made responsible for his reckless negligence, its fallacious to argue
that he cooperated to the falsification through his negligence.
2
Article 171 Paragraph 2 Causing it to appear that persons have participated in
any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate.
3
Please be careful with this statement because I think the SC made a mistake here
since in Reckless Imprudence what is punished is the negligence and the result merely
determines the penalty imposed. If intent to falsify was not an essential element of
falsification then it would be mala prohibita and we all know that falsification is mala in
se. Remember the case about tampering of Election Results, court said that its mala in
se, I think the same rule applies here. OR is intent to cause damage different from
intent to falsify? I dont know.
 SC affirmed the conviction for Reckless Imprudence
resulting in falsification under Art.365. 4 DOCTRINE FALSIFICATION
CAN BE COMMITTED BY NEGLIGENCE.
4. ANDAYA v PEOPLE
FACTS:
Armed Forces and Police Savings and Loan Association Inc.
(AFPSLAI) is a non-stock non-profit corporation rendering savings
and loan services to its members. Petitioner NoeAndaya was its
president.
NoeAndaya proposed to increase the capitalization of the
AFPSLAI to boost its lending capacity to its members. Pursuant to
this, the Board of Trustees passed a resolution creating the
Finders Fee Program which provided that any officer, member or
employee of AFPSLAI who can solicit at least 100,000 pesos
worth of investment is entitled to a Finders Fee equivalent to 1%
of the solicitation.
Thereafter, the Central Bank notified AFPSLAI that its financial
position was precarious because of mismanagement. The Board
ordered an investigation which resulted to the filing of criminal
information against Andaya for ESTAFA THROUGH
FALSIFICATION OF COMMERCIAL DOCUMENTS.
What happened was Ernesto Hernandez was able to solicit from
an outsider an investment worth 2.1M. Since Hernandez did not
want his Finders Fee worth 21,000 reflected in his Income Tax
Return, he asked Andaya if the latter could find someone who
can receive the cash in his behalf. Thus Andaya told Guilas (who
was a clerk of AFPSLAI) to receive the Fee and turn it over to him
(Andaya) so that the latter may give it to Hernandez. To this end,
Andaya allegedly substituted the name of Hernandez for Guilas
in the disbursement voucher.
4 of a notary by which some disposition or agreement is
Note: Strong Dissent was made by Justice Reyes that Samson cannot be convicted of
Reckless Imprudence resulting in Falsification because this is not necessarily included
in the intentional crime of Estafa through Falsification, the crime charged in the
information. In the words of Justice Reyes malice or intent cannot co-exist with
negligence
The Trial Court convicted Andaya saying that all the elements of
the crime are present. First, Andaya caused to it appear in the
disbursement voucher that Guilas, instead of Hernandez, was
entitled to the Fee and Second, that this was done with criminal
intent to cause damage to the government in the form of
evading taxes.
ISSUES:
Whether or not Andaya is guilty of the crime charged - NO
HELD:
Petitioner must be acquitted on reasonable doubt
Petitioner should not have been charged with estafa through
falsification of commercial document but only estafa through
falsification of private document whose elements are as follows:
(1) offender commits any of the acts of falsification
mentioned in 171 (2) falsification was committed on a
private document and (3) the falsification caused damage
or there was intent to cause damage to a third person.
1st element is satisfied. Prosecution was able to establish the
participation of Andaya in causing the voucher to be named after
Guilas rather than Hernandez. Although Andaya did not
personally cause the substitution, he is nevertheless a principal
by induction for having ordered so. In this case, the act of
falsification done by Andaya is under 171(2) or causing it to
appear that a person has participated in something but in fact
has not.
2nd element is satisfied. However, the prosecution wrongfully
classified a disbursement voucher as a commercial document. It
is not. it is a private document. A commercial document is an
instrument commonly used by merchants to facilitate trade and
credit transactions. They are regulated by the Code of
Commerce. On the other hand, a private document is an
instrument executed by a private person without the intervention
proved.Again, a voucher is not a commercial document.
3rd element was not satisfied. This is because irrespective of who
really has the right to claim the Fee Guilas or Hernandez the
 fact remains that AFPSLAI is indebted to the extent of 21,000.
AFPSLAI suffered no damage because in the first place it was
under obligation to make such payment. The ration of the Trial
Court that it was the Government which stands to suffer because
of tax evasion is untenable. Why? Because the information
alleged damaged to AFPLSAI and not damage to the
Government. If you sustain the finding of the TC you violate
Andayas right to be properly informed of the crime he is charged
with.
Note however that in the book theres no such thing daw as
estafa through falsification of private document. Pero the court
did not even mention this.
5. Lastrilla v Granda
Granda was the grandson of the lot owners (Rafael and Aurora).
The lot owners died in 1989 and 2000, respectively. Granada
claims that Lastrila, et al, falsified three deeds of sale covering
numerous parcels of land in favor of the latter and the latters
relatives. Because of the 3 deeds of sale, the parcels of land were
registered to Lastrilla and his relatives.
The first deed covered 2 parcels of land. The second deed covered
2 parcels of land. While the third deed covered 3 parcels of land.
Granda claims that
1) the signatures on the 3 deeds of sale were falsified and were not
of his grandparents,
2) the 3 deeds of sale were antedated (the deeds said that the
transactions took place on Dec 1985, but in fact they took place in
1999 or 2000)
3) the witness to the deed (Grandas sister Silvina) could not have
possibly signed the 3 deeds in 1985 because she was cloistered in
a convent at that time.
4) the subject deeds were only registered with the RD only on
2000, or 15 years after the purported sales
The City Prosecutor of Tacloban resolved that 3 informations of
falsification (under Art 172, Par 1 in relation to Art 171, Par 2) be
filed against Silvina and Camenforte (a lawyer who conspired with
Lastrilla). However, it did not find any probable cause to file
against Lastrilla. Granda appealed to the DOJ but the DOJ just
affirmed.
On appeal to the CA, the CA finally resolved that 3 informations of
falsification (under Art 172, Par 1 in relation to Art 171, Par 1, 2 and
5) be filed against Lastrilla. In essence, the CA said that Lastrilla
falsified the documents in three ways imitating the signature of
the grandparents, causing it to appear that persons have
participated when in fact they did not (since the grandparents were
dead), and altering true dates.
Lastrilla claimed that the CA committed error in finding probable
cause against him. Lastrilla also claimed that there was no damage
done because he allegedly paid P18m for the land, hence he cant
be held liable for falsification.
Issue: was there probable cause to engender the belief that
petitioner is one of the authors of the falsification?
Held: Yes, there was probable cause.
Lastrilla attested to the fact that the grandparents signed the
deeds in his presence in 1985. However, he also admitted that the
negotiations for the sales only started in 1998 (even when the
documents said 1985) so how could the negotiations happen only
after the deeds were executed? The PNP Crime Lab also reported
that the signatures of the grandparents did not match specimen
signatures of the spouses.
To his claim that no damage was done, the Court said that 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 for the reason that in these cases, the principal thing
punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of
the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed.

The case teaches us that there are as many counts of falsification
as to documents falsified, regardless of the parcels of land
contained in each deed. In this case, there were 3 deeds of sale
falsified thats why 3 counts of falsification were charged to
Lastrilla and his cohorts. Moreover, it also teaches us that even if
there are multiple modes of falsifying a single document, it will still
be considered as 1 crime thats why even if Lastrilla falsified each
document in three ways (1, 2 and 5), he was still charged of 1
count of falsification per document.
With regard to Art 171, Par 2, the case teaches us that the
provision applies even if those who were made to appear to
participate are already dead.
6. LAURINIO GOMA and NATALIO UMALE vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, and
SANGGUNIAN MEMBER MANUEL G. TORRALBA
ARTICLE 171 (2).
The Ombudsman filed an information for FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC
DOCUMENT under ARTICLE 171 (2) against Goma and Umale. It
was alleged that Brgy. Chairperson Goma and Secretary Umale
falsified a brgy. Resolution by allocating the amount of P18,000 as
disbursement for a seminar of 2 officials. In the said Resolution, it
was indicated that it was passed on motion of Kgwd. Dizon and
seconded by Kgwd. Dela Cruz when in truth and in fact no meeting
was held as there was no quorum. The said Resolution was even
signed by Goma and Umale and with the official seal of the brgy.
Goma and Umale denied the allegations, claiming that the said
Resolution was a mere draft and it is not sufficient to disburse
funds.
RTC: GUILTY. The Resolution have all the appearance of a complete
and "true and genuine document," sealed and signed by the
Sanggunian secretary.CA: affirmed.
ISSUE: WON the Resolution is a public document? WON petitioners
can be held liable?
RULING:
1. Resolution is a Public Document.
Revised Rules on Evidence, public documents include "[t]he written
official acts, or records of the official acts of the sovereign
authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whether
of the Philippines, or of a foreign country."
There can be no denying that the public money-disbursing and
seemingly genuine Resolution, in the preparation of which
petitioners, in their official capacity, had a hand, is, in context, a
public document in a criminal prosecution for falsification of public
document. And it bears to stress that in falsification under Art.
171(2) of the RPC, it is not necessary that there be a genuine
document; it is enough that the document fabricated or simulated
has the appearance of a true and genuine document or of apparent
legal efficacy.
2. GUILTY of Falsification (Causing it to appear that persons
have participated in any act or proceeding when they did
not in fact so participate).
The elements of the crime of falsification of public documents, as
above defined and penalized, are:
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 causing it to appear that
persons have participated in any act or proceeding.
4. That such person or persons did not in fact so participate
in the proceeding.
The first two elements clearly obtain, petitioners, during the period
material, being local government elected officials who, by reason
of their position, certified, as Umale did, as to the holding of a
barangay session and falsely attested, as Goma did, as to the
veracity of a resolution supposedly taken up therein. The other two
elements are likewise present. As correctly observed by the CA:
[Petitioners] made it appear in the Barangay resolution that all
members of the Sangguniang Barangay deliberated upon and
unanimously approved the questioned resolution, when in fact no
such deliberation and approval occurred. The non-participation of
the members of the Sangguniang Barangay in the passage of the
resolution was established by the 15 October 1995 resolution
issued by 7 of the 8 members of the Sangguniang Barangay
denying that the challenged resolution was passed upon and
approved by the council.
Indeed, the contents and appearance of the Resolution argue
against the very idea of its being merely a proposal or a draft
barangay enactment.
Falsification of a public document is consummated upon the
execution of the false document. And criminal intent is presumed
upon the execution of the criminal act. Erring public officers failure
to attain their objectives, if that really be the case, is not
determinative of their guilt or innocence. The simulation of a public
document, done in a manner so as to give it the appearance of a
true and genuine instrument, thus, leading others to errors as to its
authenticity, constitutes the crime of falsification.
In fine, the element of gain or benefit on the part of the offender or
prejudice to a third party as a result of the falsification, or
tarnishing of a documents integrity, is not essential to maintain a
charge for falsification of public documents. What is punished in
falsification of public document is principally the undermining of
the public faith and the destruction of truth as solemnly proclaimed
therein. In this particular crime, therefore, the controlling
consideration lies in the public character of a document; and the
existence of any prejudice caused to third persons or, at least, the
intent to cause such damage becomes immaterial.
7.
8. Leonila Batulanon vs. People
September 15, 2006
Ynares-Santiago, J.
Facts: Leonila was employed as a cashier/manager of Polomolok
Credit Cooperative Incorporated (PCCI). She was in charge of
receiving deposits from and releasing loans to the members of the
cooperative. During an audit in 1982 certain discrepancies were
discovered in relation to the release of loans. 4 informations for
estafa through falsification of commercial documents were filed
against Leonila. In summary, these informations stated that Leonila
falsified cash/check vouchers in the name of 4 different persons,
thereby making it appear that these persons were granted loans
when in fact they did not even apply for them, and moreover, they
did not sign any of the said vouchers.
The witnesses testified that 3 out of the 4 persons were not
even members of PCCI and that one of them [the non-members]
was the son of Leonila who was, at that time, only 3 years old.
Eventually, the TC found her guilty of estafa through falsification of
commercial documents. On appeal however, the CA affirmed with
modification, finding her guilty instead of falsification of private
documents (Art. 172, par2).
Issue: What crimes were committed?
Held/Ratio: 3 counts of falsification of private documents and one
estafa.
Elements of the crime:
1) Offender committed any of the acts of falsification
enumerated in Art. 171, except par7;
2) Falsification was committed in any private document; and
3) Falsification caused damage to a 3 rd party OR at least the
falsification was committed with intent to cause such
damage.
Re: first element
Leonilas act falls under par2 of Art. 171 causing it to appear that
persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did
not in fact so participate.
Re: third element
PCCI only grants loans to its bona fide members with no subsisting
loans. As mentioned earlier, 3 out of the 4 persons were not
members. The remaining one had actually settled the loan but only
for the purpose of avoiding legal prosecution, with the
understanding however that she will be reimbursed once the
money is collected from Leonila.
Re: second element
The vouchers were indeed private documents because they were
not documents used by merchants or businessmen to promote or
facilitate trade or credit transactions, nor are they defined and
regulated by the Code of Commerce or other commercial laws.
Rather they are private documents, which have been defined as
deeds or instruments executed by a private person without the
intervention of a public notary or of other persons legally
authorized, by which some disposition or agreement is proved,
evidenced, or set forth.
No complex crime of estafa through falsification of private
document!
If the falsification is done as a means to commit estafa, then the
crime would be falsification. On the other hand, if estafa could
have been committed without the necessity of falsifying the
document, the proper crime would be estafa.
NB: SC didnt say why but it cited Gregorio, citing Cuello Calon.
And according to J. Callejo (feeling ko ancestor niya si Cuello
Calon Cuello Calon = Callejo), both crimes share a similar
element damage or intent to cause damage.
So what crimes were committed?
As to the 3 persons falsification of private documents (3 counts)
As to Leonilas 3-year-old child estafa!
Why estafa???
Because Leonila did not falsify the signature of her son. In fact, it
appeared in the voucher that she wrote by: Batulanon, indicating
that she received the proceeds of the loan in behalf of her son.
Such act does not fall under any of the instances of falsification
enumerated in Art. 171. Nonetheless, such representation caused
damage to PCCI which makes her liable for estafa!
9. R.F. Navarro Co. and Heirs of R. Navarro vs. Vailoces and
Heirs of E. Rodriguez
FACTS: Petitioners (Laura Navarro5 and other heirs of R. Navarro)
instituted an action for annulment of documents, titles and/or
reconveyance against the heirs of E. Rodriguez and Luzon Surety
Co. Petitioners alleged that they are the owners of certain lots by
virtue of TCT 61619 registered under the name of Raymundo
Navarro (deceased) and R.F. Navarro Co 6. Raymundo entrusted said
property to E. Rodriguez, but it was discovered by petitioners that
after Raymundos death, E. Rodriguez was able to transfer the
property in his name. Petitioners claim that the transfer of property
in E. Rodriguez name was fraudulent as it was done without any
consideration and knowledge of the petitioners, and that the
signature of Raymundo on the Deeds was forged. Upon discovery
of such fraudulent transfers, petitioners demanded that from
private respondents to return the properties.
On the other hand, private respondents (heirs of E. Rodriguez and
Luzon Surety Co.) alleged that the transfer of the property was
done through a Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage
executed by Raymundo in favor of E. Rodriguez. Thus, TCT 61619
was cancelled and a new one (TCT 62411) was issued in the name
of E. Rodriguez.
The RTC found the transfer as fictitious, thus ruling in favor of
petitioners. On appeal, the CA reversed the RTC decision, ruling in
favor of private respondents
ISSUE: W/N the Deed of Sale is spurious since it was not
signed by Raymundo Navarro.
HELD/RATIO: NO.
5
Wife of the deceased Raymundo Navarro.
6
Raymundo Navarro was the President of R.F. Navarro Co.
Petitioners claim that the aforementioned deed of sale is spurious
as the same was not signed by Raymundo F. Navarro. Petitioners'
attempts to show that the Deeds of Sale with Assumption of
Mortgage executed by Navarro and Rodriguez are false do not
impress the SC. The bare assertions on the part of Laura Navarro,
wife of Raymundo, that the signature appearing on the Deeds of
Sale is not that of her husband is not enough. Forgery is not
presumed; it must be proven by clear, positive and
convincing evidence. Those who make the allegation of
forgery have the burden of proving it since a mere
allegation is not evidence. In the case at bar, where the alleged
forged signature was that of a President of a Corporation,
petitioners could have easily presented other documents bearing
the true signature of R.F. Navarro Sr., to substantiate their claim.
Not having done so, Lauras uncorroborated claim cannot be given
much weight. This is so especially in light of the fact that Laura
was one of the plaintiffs and stood to gain by having the deeds of
sale and the transfer certificate of title in the name of Luzon Surety
Company declared void.
In any case, assuming, ex gratia argumenti, that the Deeds of Sale
with Assumption of Mortgage were spurious, petitioners are
already barred by laches.
10 ) THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v PO GIOK TO
FACTS:
In the Court of First Instance of Cebu, the defendant appellee Po
Giok To was charged with the crime of falsification. He
misrepresented to the City Treasurer of Cebu that his name is
Antonio Perez, that his place of birth is Jaro, Leyte and that his
citizenship is Filipino. From such misrepresentation of facts the
City Treasurer issued him a residence certificate.
The accused filed a motion to quash on the ground that the
information does not allege sufficient facts to constitute the crime
of falsification. The City Fiscal opposed the motion to quash
claiming that the information alleges all the integral elements of
the offense charged as defined by the statute. The lower Court,
however, found the motion to quash meritorious and ordered the
amendment of the information.
Hence, this appeal by the Government.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the information in question should allege the
following facts in order to be sufficient to convict the defendant of
the crime of falsification:
1) That the accused had the obligation to disclose the
truth in the document allegedly falsified;
2) That the accused had the wrongful intent to injure a
third
HELD:
We agree with the Solicitor-General that the first element allegedly
lacking in the information, that is, the obligation on the part of the
accused to disclose the truth as to the facts that should appear in a
residence certificate, is inherent in the very nature and purpose of
said document.
Section 3 Commonwealth Act 465 provides:
"that the residence certificate for persons shall contain the
full name, place and date of birth, citizenship, civil status,
length of residence in the city or municipality where the
certificate is issued, occupation or calling.
Needless to say, this provision implies that the person to whom the
certificate is issued must state to the officer who issues the same,
the true facts, required to appear therein, the latter having merely
the ministerial function of recording thereon the facts as supplied
by this person. And to guarantee that the facts given correctly and
truly identify the holder of the certificate, he is also required by
Sec. 3 above to sign the document and affix his right hand thumb
mark thereon.
There is, therefore, no question that the accused had the
duty to disclose the true facts about his name, place of
birth, and citizenship to the officer or employee who issued
his residence certificate and such duty being inherent in
the transaction, there was no need for the criminal charge
to allege that the accused had such duty.
Anent the second element allegedly lacking in the information in
question, the law is clear that wrongful intent on the part of
the accused to injure a third person is not an essential
element of the crime of falsification of public document.
Article 172, par. 1, in connection with Art. 171, par. 4, of the
Revised Penal Code provides as follows:
ART. 171. Falsification by the public officer, employee or
notary or ecclesiastic minister. The penalty of prision
mayor and a fine not to exceed 5,000 pesos 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:
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts.
ART. 172. Falsification by private individuals and use of
falsified documents. The penalty of prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a
fine of not more than 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon:
1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the
falsifications enumerated in the next preceding article in
any other kind of commercial document.
On the other hand, Art. 172, par 2, defining the crime
falsification of private document, provides:
2. Any person who, to the damage of a third party, or with
intent to cause such damage, shall in any private
document commit any of the acts of falsification
enumerated in the next preceeding article.
The distinction made by the law between falsification by private
persons of PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AND PRIVATE DOCUMENTS IS
CLEAR.
The first (FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS BY PRIVATE
INDIVIDUALS) is committed by the mere performance of any of the
acts of falsification enumerated in Art. 171
While the second (FALSIFICATION OF PRIVATE DOCUMENTS BY
PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS) is committed not only by the performance of
any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Art. 171 but it must
likewise be shown that such act of falsification was committed to
the damage of a third party or with intent to cause such damage.
The reason for the distinction is given in a decision of the
Supreme Court of Spain in the case of People vs. Pacana that in
the falsification of public or official documents, whether by public
officials or by private persons, it is unnecessary that there be
present the idea of gain or the intent to injure a third person, for
the reason that, in contradiction to private documents, the
principal thing punished is the violation of the public faith and the
destruction of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed.
Moreover, the acts charged, if true, would result in confusion in the
government records, since the fingerprint of the accused would not
correspond to that of the person whose personal circumstances are
recited in the certificate. Such confusion in its records evidently
operates to the Government's prejudice. Being the natural and
direct result of the criminal act charged, the accused must be
presumed to have intended it.
Side issue: It is argued for the defendant that there being a special
law with respect to residence certificates expressly punishing their
falsification (Commonwealth Act No. 465), this special law, and not
the provisions of the Revised Penal Code, should apply in this case.
RPC can still apply since under Art. 10 of the RPC has
supplementary application to all special laws, unless the latter
should provide the contrary, and CA No. 465 makes no provision
that it exclusively applies to all falsifications of residence
certificates.
Thus the information was sufficient, and its dismissal for
insufficiency by the Court below was improper and erroneous.
11. DAVA v. PEOPLE (ponente: Fernan)
FACTS: Michael Dava bumped pedestrians Bernadette Roxas
Clamor and Dolores E. Roxas, causing death to former and physical
injuries to the latter. As a consequence, his driver's license was
confiscated and he was charged with homicide and serious
physical injuries.
One day, the brother of Bernadette and the father of Dolores, saw
Dava driving a Volkswagen. Knowing that Dava's driver's license
was used as an exhibit in court and that no traffic violation receipt
had been issued to Dava, they had Dava apprehended for driving
without a license.
When he was apprehended, he showed the police officers a non-
professional driver's license No. 2706887 with official receipt No.
0605870 issued by Agency Pampanga in the name of Michael T.
Dava. When asked about the source of his license, Dava informed
them that his officemate (Manalili) had secured it for him. He was
brought to the police station and charged w falsification of a public
document.
Prosecution witnesses: Caroline Vinluan of the Angeles City branch
of the Bureau of Land Transportation (BLT). He testified that the
license was earlier brought to him and he was asked whether it
was fake or genuine. He examined it and found that it was "fake or
illegally issued" because form No. 2706887 was one of the 50
forms which had been reported missing from their office sometime
in November, 1976 and that it was never issued to any applicant
for a license. He added that any license that was not included their
office index card was considered as "coming from illegal source'
and "not legally issued by any agency." Although the form used for
the license was genuine, the signature of the issuing official was
fake.
Defense witness: Manalili. He said he obtained the license by
paying fixers
ISSUE: WON Dava can be convicted of falsification? YES
RATIO: Elements of the crime of using a falsified document in
transaction (other than as evidence in a judicial proceed penalized
under the last paragraph of Article 172) are following:
(a) the offender knew that a document was falsified by another
person;
(b) the false document is embraced in Article 171 or in any of
subdivisions Nos. 1 and 2 of Article 172;
(c) he used such document (not in judicial proceedings), and
(d) the use of the false document caused damage to another or at
last it was used with intent to cause such damage. Except for last,
all of these elements have been proven beyond reason doubt in
this case.
a. Petitioner himself requested officemate Manalili to get him a
license. He misrepresented to Manalili that he has not at any time
been issued a driver's license. Through this misrepresentation
petitioner was ableto induce Manalili to deal with "fixers" in
securing the subject driver's license.
b. A driver's license is a public document. The blank form of the
drivers license becomes a public document the moment it is
accomplished. Thus, when driver's license No. 2706887 was filled
up with petitioner's personal data and the signature of the region
of the San Fernando LTC agency was affixed therein, even if the
same was simulated, the driver's license became a public
document.
c. When petitioner was apprehended he presented the license to
the officer. Because he was a detailman who did his job with the
use of a car, it is probable that hes been using the license.
d. The driver's license being a public document, proof of the fourth
element of damage caused to another person or at least an intent
to cause such damage has become immaterial. In falsification of
public or official documents, the principal thing being punished is
the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth
proclaimed therein.
People vs. Sendaydiego,
The rule is that if a person had in his possession a
falsified document and he made use of it (uttered
it), taking advantage of it and profiting thereby, the
presumption is that he is the material author of the
falsification In the absence of a satisfactory
explanation, one who is found in possession of a
forged document and who used or uttered it is
presumed to be the forger
We agree with the petitioner that the presumption enunciated in
the Sendaydiego case is not absolute as it is subject to the
exception that the accused should have a satisfactory
explanation why he is in possession of a false document. His
explanation, however, is unsatisfactory as it consists mainly in
passing the buck to his friend, Manalili.
12. RAFAEL T. FLORES, HERMINIO C. ELIZON, ARNULFO S.
SOLORIA, petitioners, vs. HON. LYDIA QUERUBIN LAYOSA, In
her capacity as Judge of RTC, Quezon City, Branch 217,
BENIGNO S. MONTERA and PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondents.
Facts:
On Dec 1991, private respondent Benigno Montera,
employee of the National Food Authority (NFA), filed a complaint in
the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) against the petitioners Flores,
Elizon and Soloria, and 2 others (Dansal and Vallada). OMB filed an
Information charging the petitioners with the offense of Estafa
through Falsification of Public Documents.
It was alleged that Dansal and Flores were dept manager
and asst manager respectively while Elizon, Soloria and Vallada
were security personnel of NFA.That the petitioners conspired in
falsifying the DAILY TIME RECORD of Vallada, making it appear that
the latter reported for work as a security guard at the NFA when in
fact, he never reported for work. And because of this, Vallada was
still able to collect his salary.
Prosecutors filed a motion to suspend the petitioners
pendent lite, which was granted by the court, suspending them for
90 days. Trial court applied Sec 13 of RA 3019 (Anti Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act) which mandates that a public officer charged
for an offense involving fraud upon govt or public funds or property
shall be suspended pending case in court. Petitioners filed an MR
which was denied. A certiorari to the Sandiganbayan, which only
affirmed the TCs issuance of order of suspension pendente lite
because it falls under Sec 13 of RA 3019.
While petitioners concede that the Information sufficiently
alleges the elements of the offense of falsification of public
document, they assert that it does not contain an averment of
fraud or deceit on their part. Hence, they claim that the
Information does not charge them with estafa but only falsification
of public document. And that they shouldnt be suspended. Also,
that it was private res Montera who filed for suspension, not
prosecutors.
Respondent People argue that the Information sufficiently
alleges the elements of estafa through falsification of public
document under Article 318 in relation to Article 171 of the
RPC. According to the People, this complex crime is an "offense
involving fraud upon government or public funds or property"
under Section 137, R.A. 3019. Thus, the suspension pendente lite of
petitioners is justified. Also, although Montera filed the motion to
suspend, it was with conformity of the public prosecutor.
Issue: W/N the offense charged is a complex crime of estafa
through falsification of public docs.
W/N offense charged falls within the coverage of Section 13 of R.A.
No. 3019. YES!
W/N suspension of petitioners pendente lite is proper. YES!
Held/Ratio:
The Information alleges that petitioners took advantage of
their positions and conspired and falsified the DTR of Valleda to
make it appear as if he reported for work that month but he in fact
didnt and in the processes appropriated Valladas salary to the
prejudice of NFA.
Still, any error in the Information, with regard to the
specification of the particular mode of estafa, allegedly committed
by petitioners will not result in its invalidation because the
7
Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019 provides:
Suspension and loss of benefits.Any incumbent public officer against
whom any criminal prosecution under a valid information under this Act or
under Title 7, Book II of the Revised Penal Code or for any offense
involving fraud upon government or public funds or
property whether as a simple or as a complex offense and in whatever
stage of execution and mode of participation, is pending in court, shall be
suspended from office. Should he be convicted by final judgment, he shall
lose all retirement or gratuity benefits under any law, but if he is acquitted,
he shall be entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries and benefits which
he failed to receive during suspension, unless in the meantime
administrative proceedings have been filed against him. (Emphasis
supplied)
allegations therein sufficiently inform petitioners that they are
being charged with estafa through falsification of public document.
Crimpro rules state that the Information should contain the
designation of the offense and the criminal acts/omissions
complained as constituting the offense. BUT the SC has clarified in
several cases that the designation of the offense is NOT controlling
because what actually determines that nature and characted of the
crime charged are the facts alleged in the information.
Thus, notwithstanding the discrepancy between the mode
of commission of the estafa as alleged in the Information (which
states that petitioners committed estafa under Article 315), or as
claimed by the People in their Comment (that petitioners
committed estafa under Article 318) and the absence of the words
"fraud" or "deceit" in the Information, the Court agrees with the
Sandiganbayan and the RTC that the factual allegations therein
sufficiently inform petitioners of the acts constituting their
purported offense and satisfactorily allege the elements of estafa
in general committed through the offense of falsification of public
document.
In the case at bar, although the word "deceit" or
"fraud" was not specifically alleged in the information,
nonetheless, the same alleges the manner by which deceit
or fraud was committed. It was committed by falsifying the
daily time record of accused Vallada; and that it was
committed by using said falsified daily time record to
collect the corresponding salary of Vallada to the damage
and prejudice of the National Food Authority. To our mind
these allegations are sufficient to maintain the validity of the
information.
It must be noted that the crime for which the accused are
charged is the complex crime of estafa through falsification of
public document wherein the falsification of the public document is
a necessary means to commit the estafa.
It bears stressing that the words "fraud" or "deceit" need
not be used in an information for the allegations therein to
sufficiently allege the offense of estafa. It is enough that acts
constituting abuse of confidence or deceit, which are indispensable
to estafa, are averred in the information.
The court determines whether the information charging a
public officer with an offense that falls under Sec 13 of R.A. No.
3019, such as to warrant suspension pendent lite. If it does, the
court is bound to issue an order of preventive suspension of the
accused public officer as a matter of course. The order of
suspension pendente lite, while mandatory in nature, is by no
means automatic or self-operative. Before such suspension is
imposed, a determination as to the validity of the information must
first be made in a pre-suspension hearing. Accused must be given
an opportunity to challenge the validity of the criminal proceedings
against him.
In this case, petitioners were afforded the opportunity to
challenge the validity of the charges against them, and whether it
falls under Sec 13 of RA 3019 when they filed a opposition to
Monteras motion.
13. Caubang v. People
Doctrine: possessor of falsified document is deemed as the forger/
immaterial if falsified document contains no false contents, so long
as signature has been forged!
Facts: Caubang is charged with falsification of public document, as
a private individiual, by forging the signature of treasurer
Pagaduan contained in the statement of assets and liabilities of
the BANGANGA consolidated arrastre stevedoring services
(BCASS), making it appear that said PAGADUAN participated in said
registration of the newly formed corporation.

Petitioner and Pagaduan's stevedoring companies were merged
after an agreement by both parties, which was called the
aformentioned BCASS. Caubang was designated as the
representative to register the merged company with the SEC,
although thereafter Pagaduan stated that said merger shall not
push through. Pagaduan was then surprised when said BCASS was
already registered with the SEC and wondered why his signature
was affixed in the STatement of assets and liabilities as treasurer
thereof.
Petitioner's defense is that he brought to the SEC only the AOI,
treasurer's affidavit, and the 2,5oo paid up capital, and denied
having presented the statement of assets and liabilities.
ISSUE: WON guilty of falsification of document by forging the
signature of Pagaduan, even though he denied having brought or
made such statement of assets and liabilities.
HELD: guilty.
RATIO: the arguments of petitioner are mere denials which, if
weighed agaonst documentary evidence and testimony of
witnesses, do not convince the court to reverse its decision.
Moreover, having been the one responsible for the filing of
registration papers, the accused must likewise be accountable
therefore. As the authorized rep, he is deemed to be the one in
custody and possession of the statement of assets and liabilities.
Hence, the court is convinced that the possessor and user of a
falsified document is presumed to be the forger thereof.
Also equally important, it is immaterial whether or not the contents
set forth in the forged statement were false, so long as the
signature of another was counterfeited. Lastly, in this crime of
falsification, the princal thing punished is the PUBLIC FAITH AND
DESTRUCTION OF TRUTH as therein proclaimed. The act of forging
Pagaduan's signature is the act punishable, and so INTENT TO
CAUSE DAMAGE OR GAIN IS IMMATERIAL, moreso actual damage.
( as opposed to private documents, wherein intent to cause
damage or gain is necessary).
14.
15.
16. Galeos v. People & Ong v. People / Feb. 9, 2011
FACTS:
Galeos and Ong were charged and found guilty by the
Sandiganbayan of falsification of public documents under Article
171, Paragraph 48 of the RPC; Galeos with 4 counts and Ong with 8
counts.
Ong was the Mayor of the Municipality of Naga, Cebu. Ong
extended permanent appointments to Galeos and Federico T.
Rivera for the positions of Construction and Maintenance Man and
Plumber I, respectively, in the Office of the Municipal Engineer. The
prosecution alleged that on several occasions, Galeos and Rivera
(River later died so the charges were dropped as to him) falsified
their individual Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth
(SALN). On 4 occasions, Galeos either answered No or left blank
the boxes pertaining to the question of whether he was related
within the 4th degree of consanguinity or of affinity to anyone
working in the government. The SALNs were filed by Galeos and
subscribed and sworn to before Ong. It was later found out that
Galeos and Ong were first degree cousins, as their mothers were
sisters.
Galeos claimed that he was not being untruthful when he
merely left the box blank (unanswered), while Ong argued that the
8
Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic
minister. The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed 5,000 pesos 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:
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
subject SALN do not contain any untruthful statements containing
a narration of facts and that there was no wrongful intent of
injuring a third person at the time of the execution of the
documents, and that he cannot be held liable for falsification for
merely administering the oath in a document since it is not among
the legal obligations of an officer administering the oath to certify
the truthfulness and/or veracity of the contents of the document.
Both accused claimed that they had no knowledge that they were
in fact related and there was no intent on their part to make the
untruthful statements.
ISSUE: Whether both accused were guilty of falsification YES.
HELD:
All the elements of falsification of public documents by
making untruthful statements have been established by the
prosecution.
The elements of falsification under Article 171, par. 4 are
as follows:
(a) the offender makes in a public document
untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
(b) he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of
the facts narrated by him; and
(c) the facts narrated by him are absolutely false.
It must also be proven that the public officer or employee
had taken advantage of his official position in making the
falsification. In falsification of public document, the offender is
considered to have taken advantage of his official position when
(1) he has the duty to make or prepare or otherwise to intervene in
the preparation of a document; or (2) he has the official custody of
the document which he falsifies. Likewise, 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.
The first element was proven. The question of whether or
not persons are related to each other by consanguinity or affinity
within the fourth degree is one of fact. Contrary to petitioners
assertion, statements concerning relationship may be proved as to
its truth or falsity, and thus do not amount to expression of
opinion. When a government employee is required to disclose his
relatives in the government service, such information elicited
therefore qualifies as a narration of facts contemplated under
Article 171 (4) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Further, it
bears to stress that the untruthful statements on relationship have
no relevance to the employees eligibility for the position but
pertains rather to prohibition or restriction imposed by law on the
appointing power.
The second element is likewise present. "Legal obligation"
means that there is a law requiring the disclosure of the truth of
the facts narrated. Permanent employees employed by local
government units are required to file the following: (a) sworn
statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN); (b) lists of
relatives within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity
in government service; (c) financial and business interests; and (d)
personal data sheets as required by law. A similar requirement is
imposed by Section 8 (B) of Republic Act No. 6713 otherwise
known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees,
The third element was also satisfied.
As to Ong:
As chief executive and the proper appointing authority,
Ong is deemed to have issued the certification recommending to
the CSC approval of Galeos appointment. Since Ong was duty
bound to observe the prohibition on nepotistic appointments, his
certification stating compliance with Section 79 of R.A. No. 7160
constitutes a solemn affirmation of the fact that the appointee is
not related to him within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or
affinity. Having executed the certification despite his knowledge
that he and Rivera were related to each other within the fourth
degree of affinity, as in fact Rivera was his cousin-in-law because
the mother of Riveras wife is the sister of Ongs mother, Ong was
guilty of falsification of public document by making untruthful
statement in a narration of facts. He also took advantage of his
official position as the appointing authority who, under the Civil
Service rules, is required to issue such certification.
As to Galeos
As to Galeos contention that leaving the boxes in blank cannot be
considered as untruthful, the Court held that one is guilty of
falsification in the accomplishment of his information and personal
data sheet if he withholds material facts which would have affected
the approval of his appointment and/or promotion to a government
position. By withholding information on his relative/s in the
government service as required in the SALN, Galeos was guilty of
falsification considering that the disclosure of such relationship
with then Municipal Mayor Ong would have resulted in the
disapproval of his permanent appointment pursuant to Article 168
(j) (Appointments), Rule XXII of the Rules and Regulations
Implementing the Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No. 7160).
17.
18. GARCIA VS CA
FACTS: GARCIA was charged with Falsification of a Private
Document by being altering a receipt for P5000 to make it appear
to be P55k. The receipt was the product of a verbal agreement
between QUIJADA and GARCIA for the sale of formers house. A
partial payment of P5k was made by GARCIA, and he prepared two
handwritten, one for each of them. The deal went sour and GARCIA
filed a complaint for estafa against QUIJADA for his failure to
execute a deed of sale and deliver the subject property. Among the
evidence she submitted was the copy of the receipt she prepared.
However, the receipt appeared to have been altered, by inserting
fifty before five and the number 5 was inserted before 5,000
(basically made it appear that P5k P55k) plus other changes.9
9
Inserted additional words 'Now covered by T.C.T. # 3998 R.D. Mandaluyong MM. the
parties agree to execute of [sic] valid deed of conveyance covering the same sale,
changed the date of the receipt and put P55k on top of the receipt
QUIJADA noticed the alterations and instituted criminal action
against GARCIA. GARCIA admitted the alteration, but countered
that it was done in the presence and at the request of QUIJADA (no
signature of QUIJADA coz he was in a hurry daw). GARCIA added
that this was retaliation to the estafa case filed against QUIJADA.
RTC: Against GARCIA. If she made changes in the receipt
while Alberto was counting the money it would not have taken
more than five (5) seconds to affix his signature thereon even if he
was in a hurry to leave. Elements of Article 172 (2) in relation to Art
171(6) proven BRD.
CA: Affirm conviction
ISSUE: W/N GARCIA falsified the receipt (a private document) in
violation of Art 172 in relation to Art 171. YES.
RATIO:
The elements of the crime of falsification under Article 171 (6) of
the Revised Penal Code are:
(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 changes made the document speak something false.
When these are committed by a private individual on a private
document the violation would fall under paragraph 2, Article 172 of
the same code, but there must be, in addition to the aforesaid
elements, independent evidence of damage or intention to cause
the same to a third person. Given the admissions of GARCIA that
she altered the receipt, and without convincing evidence that the
alteration was with the consent of private complainant, the Court
holds that all four (4) elements have been proven beyond
reasonable doubt. As to the requirement of damage, this is readily
apparent as it was made to appear that Alberto had
received P50,000 when in fact he did not. Hence, GARCIA's
conviction.

19. PANUNCIO v. PEOPLE
Facts:
Operatives of the LTO and the Special Mission Group Task Force
Lawin of the Presidential Anti-Crime Commission (PACC) led by PNP
Superintendent Panfilo Lascon and Senior Inspector Ouano, Jr.
raided the residence of Panuncio, who was a jeepney operator.
They were armed with a search warrant and confiscated LTO
documents, 17 pieces of private vehicle plates, a copy machine,
typewriters, etc. One of the LTO docs confiscated was MVRR No.
63231478 (Official Receipt ata) issued to Manlite Transport
Corporation. Panuncio was arrested and brought to the PACC.
The LTO filed a complaint against Panuncio and an Information was
filed against him for violating Art. 172 (1)10 in relation to Art. 17111
10
Art. 172. Falsification by private individuals and use of falsified documents. The
penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not
more than P5,000 shall be imposed upon:
1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the falsifications enumerated in
the next preceding article in any public or official document or letter of exchange or
any other kind of commercial document.
11
Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister .
- The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed 5,000 pesos 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 of 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.
of the RPC. It was alleged that the accused falsified the vital
information as appearing on the LTO Official Receipt.
Panuncio denied that she was the source of the falsified
documents. She alleged that Manlite, which she used to co-own
with her late husband, had already stopped operating and the new
business was under her name. She alleged that she was not home
when the raid took place and when she did get home, the
authorities had already emptied her shelves. She was forced to
sign the warrant, inventory receipt and certificate of orderly
search. She claimed that she was charged with falsification
because she refused the police authorities demand for money.
The RTC founder her guilty for the crime of falsification of a public
document under Arts. 171 and 172. The CA affirmed with
modification as to the sentence.
Issue: Whether the elements of falsification of a public document
under Art. 172 (1) in relation to Art. 171 of the RPC have been
established - YES
Ratio:
The elements of the crime of falsification of a public document
under these provisions are:
1) That the offender is a private individual or a public officer or
employee who did not take advantage of his official position;
2) That he committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated in
Art. 171; and
3) That the falsification was committed in a public, official or
commercial document.
In this case, Panuncio is a private individual. The MVRR is an
official document issued by the LTO. It is the owners copy of the
OR of the payment of the vehicles registration fee. Panuncio
falsified the owners copy by making it appear that it was issued to
a vehicle of Manlite with a plate number different from the vehicle
for which it was issued in the LTOs files. The alteration she made
changed the meaning of the document within the context of Art.
171 (6).

Panuncio argues that the MVRR was not found in her possession
and that it was not proved that she had participated in the criminal
act. The SC disagrees. The falsified copy was found during a valid
search conducted in her residence. It was issued in the name of
Manlite, which she admitted was owned by her and her late
husband. Thus, there is a presumption that she falsified it and she
was using it for her benefit. The falsified document could be used
for another vehicle operated by Manlite to make it appear that it
was validly registered with the LTO.