SIQUIAN v PEOPLE ISSUES:
March 13, 1989 | Cortes, J. | Falsification of public documents 1. Was Siquian guilty of falsification of public documents? - YES
PETITIONER: Manuel L. Siquian
RESPONDENTS: The People of the Philippines, and The Court of Appeals
SUMMARY: Siquian appointed Jesusa Carreon as a clerk in the office of the
municipal secretary, saying that her salary would be included in the budget.
Upon her appointment, a certification of the availability of funds was issued by
Siquian and addressed to the CSC. However, it must be noted that the municipal
council of Isabela failed to enact the annual budget for the previous Fiscal Year
1975-1976. No position for clerk in the office of municipal secretary was
available. Carreon worked for 5 months but did not receive her salary of 120
pesos, even upon approaching the municipal treasurer. Siquian was found guilty
of falsification of public documents. 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.
DOCTRINE: The elements of falsification of public documents are: (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; and (c) that the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false.
FACTS:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. As such, the annual budget for the previous Fiscal Year 1974-75, was
deemed re-enacted. No such position existed then.
6. 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.
7. The RTC and CA ruled in favour of Carreon. Siquian interposed the defense
of a lack of criminal intent.
RULING: WHEREFORE, the appealed decision being in conformity with law and
settled jurisprudence, the same is AFFIRMED and the instant petition is hereby
DENIED.
RATIO:
1. 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 statements in a narration of facts; (b) that
he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him;
and (c) that the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. As an officer authorised 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. This is because the principal thing punished in falsifying public documents
is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of truth.
9. Siquian cannot use the defence of good faith. He was fully aware of the fact
 that there was no budget nor an open position for the clerk of the municipal
secretary.
Nizurtado v. Sandiganbayan
Dec 7, 1994 | VITUG, J. |
PETITIONER: Felix Nizurtado
RESPONDENTS: Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines
SUMMARY: Accused was a Barangay Captain was given P10,000 supposedly
used for the Barangay Livelihood Program which the KKK Secratariat would
approve, selected from the modules developed by KKK. Instead, he loaned the
money out to himself and other council members in the amount of P500 and
P1000. He induced the Barangay Treasurer to sign the unaccomplished
resolution indicating that the money was approved and was to be used for a T
Shirt Manufacturing project.
FACTS:
1. Information accused Felix Nizurtado of having committed COMPLEX CRIME
of malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents
2. When arraigned, he pleaded NOT guilty
3. Sandiganbayan factual findings:
a. Accused was barangay captain of Malabon from 1983-1988
b. Accused and Manuel Romero (Barangay Treasurer) attended a seminar
about the Barangay Livelihood Program of the Ministry of Human
Settlements (MHS), Metro Manila Commission (MMC) and Kilusang
Kabuhayan at Kaunlaran (KKK) where he could avail loans to finance
projects, which would be identified by the Barangay Councils from the
modules developed by KKK.
c. The accused received the check, which could only be encashed upon
submission to the Secretariat of a resolution approved by the Barangay
Council indentifying the project for which the loan would be used. He
entrusted the check to Romero.
d. The Barangay Council dicussed the project in which to invest the money
but the meeting ended without a decision.
e. Accused got the check from Romero, saying he would give it back since
they could not decide on the project and signed the receipt dated Aug 4,
1983 to be returned to the MMC
f. Few days later, accused told Romero to sign an unaccomplished
resolution saying that the MMC was hurrying up the matter. Another
ocuncilman was also asked to sign this unaccomplished letter which did
not indicated the project to be undertaken.
g. The resolution was later accomplished by indicating a T- SHIRT
MANUFACTURING project instead.
h. Accused then encashed the check and re-lent the cash proceeds to himself
and other members of the council at P1000 and P500
i. When accused was on leave he instructed the acting barangay captain to
collect from Romero and Gomez (who had not borrowed any amount
from the said funds) which prompted them to make inquiries.
j. Romero and Gomez learned that there was never a meeting that adopted
the T shirt manufacturing as the livelihood project, neither was the
accused authorized by the Council to submit such project.
k. Romero and Gomez filed a complaint with the Office of the Tanodbayan.
l. The members who borrowed money from the loan returned their
respective loans, and Nizurtado remitted the payments to the MMC.
4. The Sandiganbayan convicted Nizurtado for malversation of public funds
committed through falsification of public document with 2 mitigating
circumstances. No prounouncement to civil liability as there was restitution
to the amount malversed.
5. His MR was denied so he filed the instant petition for certiorari alleging that
the Sandiganbayan committed GADALEJ in finding him guilty.
ISSUES:
WoN Nizurtado is guilty of the crime of the complex crime of malversation of public
funds through falsification of public documents
RULING:
Decision of Sandiganbayan AFFIRMED
RATIO:
SolGen agrees with Sandiganbayan in all aspects except that he committed the
crime of falsification of a public document, however the court ruled that
UNLESS the findings of fact of the Sandiganbayan are bereft of substantial
evidence, the findings are BINDING on this court.
Elements of Malversation (art 217) (all elements were satisfied, hence, guilty!)
o Offender is a public officer
o Custody or control of funds by reason of his office
o Funds involved are public funds for which he is accountable
o He has misappropriated, or consented to, or through abandonment
or negligence permitted the taking by another person of such funds
There could be no justification in loaning the said funds to council members as
these were not among the modules in which the KKK Secretariat could select
With regard falsification of public document, the court ruled that the document
need NOT be an authentic official paper since its simulation is the essence of
falsification. So the signatures appearing thereon, need NOT be necessarily be
forged. Accused still falsified that there was a meeting that took place approving
such T-shirt manufacturing project.
Court also found another mitigating circumstance, praeter intentionem, apart
from voluntary surrender and restitution (total of 3)
 Fajelga v. Escareal
14 November 1988 | Padilla, J. | Art. 171 Falsification by public officer, employee or
notary or ecclesiastical minister; no abuse of public office
PETITIONER: Felipe Fajelga
RESPONDENTS: Hon. Romeo M. Escareal, Hon. Conrado M. Molina and
Hon. Ramon V. Jabson, Members, Second Division, Sandiganbayan
SUMMARY: Ablat signed and executed a Deed of Absolute Sale of a used
Kawasaki motorcycle in favor of provincial government of Batanes, represented
by Provincial Engr. Castillejos. The said motorcycle would be used by
Provincial Auditor Balisi. However, the motorcycle was still registered in
Petitioner Fajelgas name instead of Ablats. The sale of the motorcycle was not
consummated since Balisi resigned and Mrs. Alcantara, the new Provincial
Auditor, didnt need to use it. So Mrs. Alacantara gave all the documents related
to the sale to Petitioner Fajelga, who in turn, kept it in the cabinet in the
Provincial Auditors Office. Unfortunately, the said papers were burned when a
fire occurred in the office. So now, Prov. Castillejos, Ablat and Fajelga were
indicted for RA 3019 but they were acquitted. In separate cases, petitioner and
co-accused were convicted of Falsification of Public Document under Par 4, Art.
171 and Infidelity in the Custody of Public Documents under Part. 2, Art. 226 of
RPC. The SC acquitted petitioner. Fajelga was not making untruthful narration
of facts because Ablat was really the owner of the motorcycle. Aside from that,
malicious intent was absent. Most importantly, Fajelga could not abuse his
position as a driver in falsifying a document. Fajelga was also acquitted in the
other criminal case (Infidelity in the Custody of Public Documents)
DOCTRINE: "In the falsification of public or official document under Art. 171
of the Revised Penal Code, it is not enough that the falsification be committed
by a public officer; it is also necessary that it should be committed by a
public officer with abuse of his office
FACTS:
On 5 November 1979, Ablat signed and executed a Deed of Absolute Sale
of a used Kawasaki motorcycle for P8,500 in favor of provincial
government of Batanes represented by Provincial Engr. Castillejos
o Motorcycle would be used by Provincial Auditor Balisi
The motorcycle was still registered in the name of petitioner Fajelga, a
messenger-driver in the Office of Provincial Auditor, instead of seller Ablat
o Fajelga bought the motorcycle in 1978 for P5,900
Sale of the motorcycle was not consummated
o Balisi resigned and Alcantara, the new provincial auditor, deemed
it impractical for her own use
o Mrs. Alcantara gave the cancelled vouchers and other supporting
documents related to the sale to petitioner Fajelga
Fajelga placed the documents in a cabinet in Provincial
Auditors office, which was burned when a fire occurred
Petitioner, Provincial Engr. Castillejos and Ablat were indicted for violation
of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019)
o Reason: engaging in a transaction prejudicial to the government
o Ruling: They were acquitted because the graft charged was not
consummated
However, in separate criminal cases, they were convicted of Falsification
of Public Document under Par. 4, Art. 171 of RPC and Infidelity in the
Custody of Public Documents under Par. 2, Art. 226 of RPC
o Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the decisions
Sandiganbayan ruling
o Petitioner and his co-accused guilty of falsification of public
document through reckless imprudence as defined and penalized
under Article 171 (2) in relation to Art. 365 (1) of the Revised
Penal Code
Petitioners contention: he cannot be guilty of par (2) or (4) of Art. 171
o Not a party to the Deed of Absolute Sale
o He did not impersonate anyone for the furtherance of sale
o Motive and intent to falsify was baseless
There really was a contract of sale between him and Ablat
2 months prior the questioned sale between Ablat and
provincial government of Batanes
o Assuming there was falsification, no conviction can lie because no
material damage was caused to the government due to non-
consummation of sale
Solicitor General: there was an offense of falsification under par. 4 Art.
171
o Claim of the petitioner that Ablat was the owner of the motorcycle
is untruthful
o Petitioner was an active participant in the making of the
untruthful narration of facts
ISSUES:
1. W/N petitioner violated Par. 4, Art. 171 of the RPC NO
RULING: Petitioner is ACQUITTED of the 2 charges filed against him.
RATIO:
1. Petitioner is entitled to an acquittal from the charges against him.
Art.171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary ecclesiastic minister.The
penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P5,000 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:
xxx xxx xxx
2. Causing it to appear the persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did
not in fact so participate:
xxx xxx xxx
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;

In the case of People v. Quasha

Wrongful intent to injure a third person and obligation on the part

of the narrator to disclose the truth are thus essential to a
conviction for the crime of falsification under the above articles
of the Revised Penal Code
In the instant case, deed of absolute sale executed by Ablat was adjudged to
be falsified document because it conveyed that Ablat was the owner of the
motorcycle when in such, petitioner Fajelga was the true and registered
owner

So, Fajelga guilty of making an untruthful narration of facts

However, it was found that Ablat was really the owner of the motorcycle
before the aborted sale to the provincial government of Batanes

Motorcycle wasnt registered in Ablats name but he became the

owner after Petitioner Fajelga sold it to him prior the aborted sale
Aside from that, malicious intent was absent

No loss was incurred by the Government/3rd person

Most importantly, as Justice Albert says: "in the falsification of public or
official document under Art. 171 of the Revised Penal Code, it is not
enough that the falsification be committed by a public officer; it is also
necessary that it should be committed by a public officer with abuse of
his office, that is, in deeds, instrument, indentures, certificates, etc., in the
execution of which he participates by reason of his office

Here, petitioner and co-accused acted in their private or personal

capacity
Fajelga could not abuse his position as a driver in falsifying a
document
Also, petitioner could not be convicted infidelity in the custody of
documents under Par. 2, Art. 226 of RPC.
Pecho v. Sandiganbayan
14 November 1994| Davide, Jr. J | Falsification of official and
commercial documents
Petitioner/s: Odon Pecho
Respondent/s: Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines
Summary: Odon Pecho was a Customs Guard for the Bureau of
Customs and along with his co-accused, Catre, they represented
themselves as representatives of Eversun Commercial Trading, a
non-existent firm. They declared that their shipment was composed
of agricultural disc blades but what was actually in the shipment
were diesel engines. The Sandiganbayan first found Pecho guilty
of the violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
however since it was only at the attempted stage since there was no
undue injury caused to the govt due to the intervention of
Customs officer, he was not charged by the SC for this crime.
However, he was found guilty instead of the complex crime of
attempted estafa through falsification of official and commercial
documents.
Doctrine: One found in possession of and who used a forged
document is the forger and therefore guilty of falsification. It is,
however, essential that the use must be so closely connected in
time with the forging such that the utterer or user may be proved to
have the capacity of forging.
Facts:
1.) Odon Pecho, a public officer, being then the Customs Guard
of the Bureau of Customs assigned at the Miscellaneous
Bonded Warehouse Division and Jose Catre, whose position is
unknown whether public or private. The both of them helping
one another pretended to be agents or representatives of
Eversun Commerical Trading, which turned out to be not
registered in the Department of Trade and Industry nor in
the Securities and Exchange Commission or a non-existent
firm, in the importation of agricultural disc blades and
irrigation water pumps and solicited the services of
Constantino Calica, a CPA Customs Broker, engaged him for
an amount equal to 50% of the authorized brokerage fee for the
release of said shipment and preparation of the necessary
import with the following shipping documents: packing list,
commercial invoice, bill of lading and sworn import entry
declaration.
2.) Calica, the customs brokers, computed the tax and duties at
P53,164 and declaring the shipment as 5 containers STC
agricultural disc blades and irrigation water pumps. Calica,
then instructed his son also a customs broker to file the
documents with the Manila International Container Port
(MICP) and to proceed to process the delivery permits in K-
line shipping. In K-line shipping, the 2 accused approached
the son and introduced themselves as the client of his father
and went with him during the filing of the documents and
after, the son handed the import entry and internal revenue
declaration to the 2 accused.
3.) A Customs Senior Agent on March 1989 conducted a spot
check on the questioned shipment to verify the contents of the
container van and it was discovered to contain 300 units
diesel engines and the correct duties and taxes if P1,080,485
thus there was a discrepancy of P1,027,321. A hold order
and a warrant of seizure and detention were issued by the
District Collector of Customs
4.) Only Pecho surrendered to the Sandiganbayan and the
Sandiganbayan based on the evidence concluded that all the
elements of Sec 3 (e) of RA 3019 were present: (1) accused is a
 public officer or private person charged in conspiracy with him Issue: WoN the attempted or frustrated stage of the crime defined in
(2) said public officer commits the prohibited acts during the Section 3 (e) of RA No. 3019 is punishable? - NO
performance of his official duties or in relation to his public
position; (3) he causes undue injury to any party, whether the Ruling: The petition is denied however the judgment of the
government or private party; (4) such undue injury is caused by Sandiganbayan is modified whereby the petitioner is found guilty
giving unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to such beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of attempted estafa
parties; and (5) the public officer has acted with manifest through falsification of official and commercial documents
partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. Ratio:
5.) Sandiganbayan found the petitioner guilty as charged. Pecho
1.) The felonious plan of the 2 accused to defraud the govt was
acted in bad faith from the very start when he conspired with
exposed through the combined efforts of the Bureau of
his co-accused Catre in misleading the government on the
Customs employees wherein through a check conducted on
actual contents of the shipments belonging to Eversun
the shipment, it was discovered to contain automotive diesel
Commercial Trading and thereby evading the payment of
engines rather than agricultural disc blades and irrigation
correct taxes due to the government.
pumps.
6.) Pecho filed for a motion for reconsideration on the
2.) There is a deliberate intent on the part of the accused to do
following grounds: (1) Invalidity of the information as a
wrong or cause damage to the government. This may be
consequence of non-compliance with the mandatory provisions
inferred from the actuations of two accused. Their concerted
of Sec. 3 & 4, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court and Sec 6 & 7 of
actions show that they cooperated with each other towards the
the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman (2)
accomplishment of a common felonious purpose. Accused
Failure of prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the
Pecho assisted his co-accused Catre in his official capacity as a
presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, Pecho (3)
customs guard in processing the documents required to ensure
Failure of the prosecution to establish the concurring elements
that the goods consigned to Eversun Commercial Trading
of the crime charged (4) There is no such crime as attempted
be released without delay and without arousing suspicion
violation of Sec 3 (e) of RA 3019. The MR was denied.
from the government authorities. This is also tantamount to
7.) As to the 4th ground, the Sandiganbayan ruled that the an act of betrayal of the confidence reposed in him when he
provisions of the RPC on attempted or frustrated felonies do was employed as Customs Guard of the Bureau of Customs.
not apply to offenses penalized by special laws, such as the
3.) However, there was no actual injury or damage having been
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. However, the argument
caused to the government due to the timely 100%
of the accused that he did not realize his purpose of depriving
examination of the shipment and the subsequent issuance
the govt in the form of customs tax and duties cannot stand. It
of a hold order and a warrant of seizure and detention. The
is enough that the accused committed an act that would cause
petitioner must thus be acquitted of the violation of Section 3
undue injury to the govt to make him liable.
(e) of RA 3019 since it only reached the attempted stage
 since the perpetrators had commenced the commission of
the offense directly by overt acts but failed to perform all
the acts of execution which would have produced the felony
as a consequence by reason or some cause other than their
own spontaneous desistance which was the intervention of the
alert customs officials before the release of the cargos.
4.) The offense charged in the information includes the complex crime of
estafa through falsification of public documents. According to Art. 315,
swindling (estafa) means any person who shall defraud another such as by
means of using a fictitious name or falsely pretending to possess power,
influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary
transactions, or by means of other similar deceits.
however, essential that the use must be so closely connected in time
with the forging such that the utterer or user may be proved to
have the capacity of forging, or such close connection with the forger
that it becomes, when so accomplished, probable proof of complicity
in the forgery
7.) The petitioner and Catre were in possession of the falsified
documents and personally delivered them by Dennis Calica and
that they showed extraordinary personal interest in securing the
release of the cargoes for a fictitious importer, then the petitioner
and Catre are presumed to be the authors of the falsified
documents.

5.) The essential ingredients of estafa are present in the case wherein there
was (1) a false or fraudulent representation of co-accused Jose Catre that
he was the duly authorized representative of Eversun Commercial
Trading, the alleged importer of agricultural disc blades and irrigation water
pumps in the container van when, in truth and in fact, said importer is non-
existent or fictitious with an equally spurious Tax Account Number, and that
the cargoes imported were not as declared but 300 units of diesel engines,
which fraudulent acts were done with the use of falsified documents such as
import entry declaration, packing list, commercial invoice and bill of lading;
(2) the false pretenses or fraudulent acts were executed prior to the
commission of the fraud; and (3) the defraudation of the Government in
the amount of P1,027,321.00 in taxes representing the difference between
the correct taxes and duties due and that earlier computed on the basis
of the false declaration. These elements constitute the requisites of estafa
through falsification of official documents.

6.) The falsifications then of the aforesaid official and commercial

documents were the necessary means for the commission of
attempted estafa. The official and commercial documents include the
packing list, commercial invoice, bill of lading and sworn import entry
declaration. One found in possession of and who used a forged
document is the forger and therefore guilty of falsification. It is,
Cabuang vs. Sandiganbayan
26 June 1992 | Falsification of Public Documents
Petitioner/s: Adolfo Caubang
Respondent/s: People of the Philippines
Summary:
Petition filed by Caubang to review the CA decision which affirmed
his conviction of the crime of falsification of a public document
punished under Art.172, 1 of the RPC, in relation to Art.171, 2.
Caubang committed an act of falsification on a Statement of Assets
and Liabilities of the Baganga Consolidated Arrastre-Stevedoring
Services, Inc., by then and there forging and simulating, the
signature of the treasurer thereof, Baltazar Pagaduan, thus making it
appear that the said document was made, prepared and signed by the
said Pagaduan, thereby attributing to the latter participation and
intervention in the making and preparation of said document
Baltazar Pagaduan did not so participate, neither did he authorize the
herein accused or anybody else to prepare and sign the same.
Doctrine:
In the falsification of a public document, it is immaterial
whether or not the contents set forth therein were false. What
important is the fact that the signature of another was
counterfeited.
The principal thing punished is the "violation of the public
faith and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly
proclaimed." Thus, intent to gain or to injure is immaterial.
Even more so, the gain or damage is not necessary
Facts:
1954 - the accused, his brother, Melquiades Caubang, Florencio
Teves and Teodoro Diaz organized a stevedoring service in Davao
Oriental called the Banganga Mutual Association (BMA).
o This was operating without permit from the Bureau of Customs
since its establishment.
Solomon Baja also organized the East Coast Arrastre
Stevedoring Services, Inc. (ECASSI), also in Davao Oriental
o Baltazar Pagaduan was a member and its manager since 1967
Officials of both organizations entered into a merger agreement
and signed the Articles of Incorporation of a new merged
organization called the Baganga Consolidated Arrastre
Stevedoring Services, Inc. (BCASSI)
o Pagaduan was elected Treasurer
After the execution of the Articles of Incorporation and the
Treasurer's Affidavit, the accused brought to Manila these papers,
as well as the sum of P2,500.00 on the paid-up capital and P500.00
for filing fees, for the registration of the new corporation with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
o During the process of its registration, the accused
accomplished and signed an information sheet and an
undertaking to change the corporate name in the event that
another person, firm or entity has acquired a prior right to use
the same or one similar to it.
o He also wrote a promise to submit the TAN (Tax Account
 Number) of his brother, Melquiades (should be Clemente)
Caubang.
o The corporation was registered with the SEC which issued a
Certificate of Registration received by the accused who
brought and hand-carried the same to Davao Oriental.
Disputed is the authorship of the forgery of the signature of
Baltazar Pagaduan, found in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities
of the BCASSI, which was submitted to the SEC as a pre-requisite
to the registration of the new corporation.
For failure to receive P500.00 as initial payment of subscription
from each of the incorporators except Solomon Baja and himself,
Pagaduan claimed to have announced to Melquiades Caubang,
Clemente Caubang and Federico Teves, that the merger will not
push through.
o Pagaduan said that he left the signed Treasurer's Affidavit with
the accused and was surprised to learn later that the proposed
merger was already registered with the SEC.
o He also supposedly executed and signed a Statement of Assets
and Liabilities
Accused-appellant denies having been the one who personally
went to and handed over the documents before the SEC, but
instead claims it was his associate.
Pagaduan filed with the DoJ a complaint for forgery against
petitioner.
Solomon Baja also commenced complaints against petitioner, in
his efforts to unseat petitioner as mayor of Baganga, Davao
Oriental and to put out of business the company.
During this period, the President had declared that officials
with pending charges will be removed from office
RTC
Found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
falsification of a public document
CA
Affirmed the decision finding no grounds for its reversal.
Issue: WON the CA erred in affirming the judgment of conviction for
falsification of the official document in question where the entries
therein are not absolutely false and no damage was caused to the
government or third parties, and in the absence of criminal intent,
contrary to the ruling in Beradio v. Court of Appeals
Ruling: CA affirmed
Ratio:
We are satisfied that the court a quo and the respondent court did
not err in relying upon the presumption that the possessor and user
of a falsified document is presumed to be the forger thereof.
The evidence conclusively shows that the statement of assets and
liabilities was not among those brought by the petitioner to Manila.
The statement was not an authentic representation of the assets and
liabilities of the BCASSI. It was surreptitiously signed by someone
who imitated the signature of Baltazar Pagaduan.
Forgery could easily be consummated only by the forger alone or
in the confidence of persons in connivance with him.
 In the absence of a credible and satisfactory explanation of how the
document came into being and then filed with the SEC, accused is
presumed to be the forger of the signature of Pagaduan, and the
one who prepared doubtful information on the financial status of
the proposed corporation
The filing of the statement of assets and liabilities remained
unexplained.
for being worthless. Moreover, the submission of a time record
was not required but only for administrative procedural
convenience.
o The Court did not fail to distinguish a time record from other
public documents "with continuing interest affecting the public
welfare which is naturally damaged if that document is
falsified."

o This fact, together with other proofs presented by the The Court is of the view that mere falsification by forgoing the
prosecution, is strong evidence tending to show that the signature of Baltazar Pagaduan as to cause it to appear that
accused Adolfo Caubang either himself forged the statement or Pagaduan has participated in the execution when he did not in fact
caused it to be forged by someone else. so participate, makes the accused-petitioner criminally liable.

Petitioner contends that there were absolutely no false entries in o In a crime of falsification of a public or official document, the
the statement of assets and liabilities as to make its execution principal thing punished is the "violation of the public faith and
injurious or damaging to the government or third parties. The the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed."
claim is without merit.
o Thus, intent to gain or to injure is immaterial. Even more so,
o In the falsification of a public document, it is immaterial the gain or damage is not necessary.
whether or not the contents set forth therein were false. What
important is the fact that the signature of another was
counterfeited.

Beradio v. Court of Appeals, alleged by petitioner, is not binding in

the instant case.

o In Beradio, the official document involved was a time record,

the accomplishment of which was for the purpose of proving
rendition of service in the interest of the public.

o Court ruled that there was no damage to the government

because under the facts proven, the time record had already
served its purpose. The time record could thereafter be set aside
 Dava v. People
30 September 1991 | Fernan, C.J. |
Petitioner/s: Michael Dava
Respondent/s: People of the Philippines, Intermediate Appellate
Court
Facts:
1. Dava (holder of non-professional license) was driving along
Shaw Boulevard and he hit Bernadette Roxas Clamor (died)
and Dolores E. Roxas (sustained physical injuries).
2. Dava was brought to the Mandaluyong Police headquarters
and his license was confiscated. It was presented as
prosecution evidence in the reckless impudence case filed
against him.
3. A few months after, Antonio Roxas (brother of Bernadette and
dad of Dolores) saw Dava driving a maroon Volkswagen
beetle (so cute). Since he knew that Davas drivers license
was presented as evidence in court (therefore not with him at
that moment), he sought the help of then Defense Minister
Juan Ponce Enrile to apprehend Dava for driving without a
license.
4. When the Constabulary Highway Patrol Group confronted
him, he presented a non-professional license issued in
Pampanga. When asked about his source, he just said it was
from his officemate. They find out its fake different
signatures and birhtdays!
5. Vinluan (the registrar of the Angeles branch of Bureau of Land
Transportation) testified that the signature of the issuing
official was fake. On its face, it appears that the license was
issued in San Fernando, not Angeles.
6. Dava was convicted of the crime charged (falsification of
public document), and he appealed to the CA, which affirmed
the lower courts decision. (note: the RTC is in Quezon City)
7. Daya filed motion for reconsideration and it was granted,
refiled in San Fernando, Pampanga this time.
8. RTC in San Fernando sustained his conviction and took note
of the following facts:
a. Dava was in dire need of a license because of his job as
a detailman
b. he received his real license from the court only in 1982
but he was caught driving with a fake license in 1978
c. since Dava was the possessor or user of the fake
license, he himself was the forger.
9. Dava appealed to IAC and it affirmed in toto the decision of
the RTC, so he appeals to SC.
Issue/s and Ruling:
a. Is there enough evidence to warrant the
conviction of the crime charged? YES
Ratio:
a. Information charged him with having made it appear in his
license that officials of Pampanga LTC participated in its
preparation and with having used the said license knowing it
was falsified. The charges are founded on provisions of Art.
172 (1) of the RPC, and knowlingly using a fake license under
the last paragraph of the said provision.
b. Circumstances of the case seem to point to sufficient evidence
to sustain conviction

a. the offender knew that a document was falsified by

another person (he knew his real license was in court
being kept as evidence so he asked his friend manalili
to get hima fake one)

b. the document is embraced in art. 171 or in any of the

subdivisions of nos. 1 and 2 of art. 172 (a drivers
license is a public document)

c. he used such document (not in judicial proceedings)

(he used it to drive)

d. the use of false document caused damage to another or

at least it was used with intent to cause such damage.
(being a public document, damage to another person is
immaterial)

c. In the case at bar, all three elements have been proven beyond
reasonable doubt, the fourth being immaterial because it is a
public document.
 Sarep v. Sandiganbayn
September 13, 1989 | Padilla | Falsification of Public or Official Documents
PETITIONER: Meturogan Sarep
RESPONDENTS: Honorable Sandiganbayan
SUMMARY: Director Pahm appointed Sarep as Soil Technologist in 1976 and
renewed his position for another term in 1977. However, in 1978, Director Pahm
decided to no longer renew Sarep. Director Pahm then received a Xerox copy of
the discarded appointment paper from 1976, with corrections and erasures.
Sandiganbayan held that Sarep is guilty of Falsification through Reckless
Imprudence.
DOCTRINE: It is falsification, not correction, which the law punishes. In the
falsification of public of official documents, whether by public officials or by
private persons, it is not necessary that there be present the idea of gain or the
intent to injure a 3rd person, for the reason that, in contradiction to private
documents, the principal thing punished is the violation of public faith and the
destruction of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed.
FACTS:
1. Director Kundo Pahm of the Bureau of Soils, Region XII, extended an
appointment to Meturogen Sarep to the position of Soil Technologist II on
19 January 1976.
2. After signing the appointment paper, Pahm noticed an error in the entry
reading First Grade Unassembled instead of Unassembled
Examination, the appropriate eligibility for the position.
3. Usman Salic, acting personnel officer, was directed to prepare another
appointment paper which Pahm signed after noting the correction made.
Appointment was approved by Assistant Regional Director of the CSC as
temporary. Sareps appointment was renewed on 23 May 1977 and to
expire 1 April 1978, approved as temporary by the CSC Regional Office.
4. Director Pahm decided not to renew Sareps appointment on May 1978 for
his failure to perform the duties of his position. Petitioner was informed of
the directors decision.
5. Three days later, Pahm surprisingly received a Xerox copy of Sareps
appointment dated 30 December 1976 with erasures and superimpositions
thereon, which was approved by the Manila CSC Central Office as
permanent. Sarep was asked to produce the original copy of the
appointment paper but refused to show it. Pahm went to the CSC to verify,
recalling and cancelling Sareps appointment which he forwarded to Manila
CSC Central office.
6. An information for Falsification of Official Document was filed against
Sarep before the CFI of Cotabato. The case was transferred to the
Sandiganbayan that rendered Sarep guilty of Falsification of Public
Documents through Reckless Imprudence.
7. Petitioner brings the case to the SC, claiming that there is no evidence that
proves he caused the erasures and alterations. He points to the personnel
officer Usman Salic as responsible. Further, the appointment paper already
bore the erasures before Pahm signed it. He claims as well that he is not a
public officer in charge of preparing appointments of the employees and
that if he did do it, that there was no 3 rd party damaged. He also argues good
faith in that once he saw the erasures, he brought it to the Manila CSC.
ISSUES:
2. WoN the lower court erred in convicting petitioner for Falsification through
Reckless Imprudence. NO
RULING: Decision of the respondent Sandiganbayan is AFFIRMED except as
modified with respect to the penalty.
RATIO:
1. It is clear froom evidence that cancelled appointment paper that was
missing from 1976 was the same paper later found in the possession of
petitioner, already bearing erasures, alterations and superimpositions.
2. The Court rejects Sareps argument that theres no falsification for the
falsified document bears correct item number and appropriate eligibility. It
is falsification, not correction, which the law punishes. In the falsification of
public of official documents, whether by public officials or by private
persons, it is not necessary that there be present the idea of gain or the intent
to injure a 3rd person, for the reason that, in contradiction to private
documents, the principal thing punished is the violation of public faith and
the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed.
Petitioner is the only person who stood to benefit by the falsification of the
document. He failed to convince the Court that a person other than himself
made the erasures.
3. Court does not accept petitioners defense of good faith. He knew that if the
falsified document had been presented before the CSC Regional Office, it
would have been attested as merely temporary. He purprosely avoided filing
it there and chose instead to somehow get it stamped approved as
permanent in Manila CSC.
 Diaz vs. Kapunan
Dec. 8, 1923 | Malcolm, J. | Article 542 of RPC
PETITIONER: Vicente Diaz
RESPONDENTS: Ruperto Kapunan
SUMMARY: Petitioner and respondent, during the sale at auction of a property,
entered into the following agreement: "We, Vicente Diaz and Ruperto Kapunan,
both being the bidders at the auction held for the sale of the properties of
Secundino Mendezona, do hereby agree that Don Ruperto Kapunan should
withdraw his bid and refrain from bidding at the said auction as he does hereby
withdraw his bid, and in consideration thereof, the said Mr. Diaz offers him a
premium of one thousand pesos (P1,000) which, out of consideration to said Don
Vicente Diaz, Mr. Kapunan accepts and has, for this reason, refrained from
bidding in competition with said Mr. Diaz. Tacloban, Leyte, December 23, 1922.
(Sgd.) V. Diaz. (Sgd.) Ruperto Kapunan." Held: That respondent attorney has
been guilty of a violation of the provisions of article 542 of the Penal Code, but
certain mitigating circumstances which exert an influence in his favor, can be
taken into consideration.
DOCTRINE: Article 542 punishes "any person who shall solicit any gift or
promise as a consideration for agreeing to refrain from taking part in any public
auction." The crime is consummated by the mere act of soliciting a gift or
promise for the purpose of abstaining from taking part in the auction.
FACTS:
8. In 1917, Vicente Diaz and Secundino de Mendezona formed a partnership
and entered into extensive business transactions in the Province of Leyte,
with a capital of P380, 000. However, the business failed to prosper, and
had to liquidate and suffer a loss of P67, 000.
9. During liquidation, Mendezona recognized a debt in favor of Diaz in the
sum of P80,000 and an additional sum of P10,000 owing to Diaz, laid upon
the hacienda "Mapuyo," and to be paid within the term of one year.
10. The year had expired and Mendezona was not able to meet the payment.
The usual proceedings for foreclosue and sale followed, and the hacienda
was offered for sale at a public auction.
11. Respondent Kapunan was the attorney of Mendezona and represented him
during the auction. Kapunan was ready to bid on the property up to P16,000
in order to assist the Mendezona family which was in financial straits.
12. The offer of Kapunan was P12,000 while Diaz offered P12,500. The bids
stopped on account of Diaz and Kapunan entering into an agreement that
Kapunan would withdraw his bid and in consideration thereof, be given by
Mr. Diaz a preium of P1,000. Mr. Kapunan accepts.
13. Diaz gave Kapunan P500 of the P1,000, and took over the property of
Mendezona.
14. Diaz laid before this court charges against Atty. Kapunan for alleged
unprofessional conduct. Before the charges, Atty. Kapunan motioned in the
CFI to retain the P500 he received. After knowledge of the disbarment
proceedings, he asked the court to permit him to turn over the P500. He was
refused by Judge Cuasing, but nevertheless, CFI handed the P500 to Diaz.
15. From correspondence, the Mendezona family believed that the P500 would
be sent to them as pittance out of the business wreck in Leyte. Kapunan was
assumed to be bidding in representation of his client.
16. There were three charges filed against him. The third being more serious
and relevant, with Kapunan having intervened in the sale of the property of
his client Mendezona.
ISSUES:
3. WoN he violated Article 542 of the Penal Code - YES
RULING: Our judgment is that Attorney Ruperto Kapunan shall stand reprimanded
and that the complainant, Vicente Diaz, shall immediately return to the clerk of the
Court of First Instance of Leyte the P500 received by Diaz f rom the clerk and
receipted for by Diaz, and the clerk of court shall transmit the P500 to Secundino de
Mendezona or, in case of his absence, to Miss Carmen de Mendezona. Costs shall be
taxed in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. So ordered.
RATIO:
4. This article punishes "any person who shall solicit any gift or promise as a
consideration for agreeing to refrain from taking part in any public auction."
The crime is consummated by the mere act of soliciting a gift or promise for
the purpose of abstaining from taking part in the auction. The document in
question, wherein Kapunan, on the promise of Diaz to pay P1,000, refrained
 from further participation in the sale of the property of Mendezona, is
exactly the situation covered by article 542 of the Penal Code. Public policy
discountenances combinations or agreements on the part of bidders at
execution sales, the objects and effects of which are to stifle competition.
The courts will consider an agreement between a judgment creditor and one
claiming an interest in the thing about to be sold under an execution, that
neither shall bid against the other, as void, unless all parties concerned
know of the arrangement and consent thereto. Execution sales should be
open to free and f ull competition, in order to secure the maximum benefit
for the debtor. Article 542 of the Penal Code is, therefore, a wise provision
even though rarely invoked, and should be used to discourage the stifling of
bids at judicial sales.
5. However, as disclosed by the judicial records, no reported prosecution
under Art. 542 has been attempted. Spanish jurisprudence relies principally
on the decisions of the French Court of Cassation. Also, the complainant
Diaz is equally guilty with the respondent Kapunan. And lastly, Kapunan
appears to have been acting in good faith for his client, although adopting
an irregular procedure, and although attempting to make tardy restitution of
the money received by him.
People v. Digoro (Mayumi)
March 4, 1966 | Bengzon, J.P. | Intent to use
PETITIONER: People of the Philippines
RESPONDENTS: Camolo Digoro alias Panondiongan
SUMMARY: Digoro was charged with Counterfeiting of Treasury and Bank
notes under Art. 166 of the RPC for illegal possession of counterfeit treasury and
bank notes. The information filed against him expressly states that he was intent
to possess. However, according to the SC, intent to possess does not warrant a
violation of Art. 166 for what is needed is the intent to use. Intent to possess does
not equate to a violation under Art. 166.
DOCTRINE: Possession of false treasury or bank notes alone is not a criminal
offense. There must be intent to use said false treasure or bank notes. An
information alleging the possession of false treasure and bank notes with only an
intent to posses charges no offense.
FACTS:
1. An information charging Counterfeiting of Treasury and Bank Notes under
Article 166 of the RPC was filed in the CFI of Lanao against Camilo
Digoro, Haji Solaiman Digoro, and Macasasab Dalomangcob. Such
information was amended charging the same offense.
2. On March 20, the case was provisionally dismissed in regard to Haji and
Macasasab. However, an amended information was filed against Camolo
Digoro (alias Panondiongan) For: Illegal Possession of Counterfeit
Treasury and Bank Notes
3. The information stated did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, with intent to possess, have in his possession []
4. Digoro was convicted by the CFI.
5. On appeal, the CA certified to the SC this case for it involved questions
purely of law.
ISSUES:
1. WoN intent to possess warrants a violation of Article 168.
RULING: Wherefore the judgment is hereby set aside, and the case is remanded for
new prosecution under an appropriate and valid information.
RATIO:
6. Possession of false treasury or bank notes alone without anything more, is
not a criminal offense. For it to constitute an offense under Article 168 of
the RPC the possession must be with intent to use false treasury or bank
notes.
7. It follows that an information alleging possession of false treasury and bank
notes without alleging intent to use the same but only intent to possess
them, charges no offense.
8. From the allegations in the information, intent to use cannot be clearly
inferred.
a. It is true that it was stated that the accused possessed the false
treasury and bank notes unlawfully and feloniously xxx. Contrary
toad in violation of Article 168 of the ROC. Such statements are
not allegations of facts but mere conclusions that the facts alleged
constitute the offense sought to be charged.
b. The information alleged intent to possess instead of intent to use.
Such allegation precludes clear inference of intent to use, in the
absence of express allegation of the latter, since intent to use
entails intent to part with the possession.