5. Falsification through reckless imprudence can be committed, provided it is not a private document.

For
instance a director of a hospital who relied on the personnel report without checking them is liable for
falsification through reckless imprudence.

Again, there is no falsification of private document through negligence, because it requires damage as an
element. Negligence or imprudence implies lack of intent or malice. So there is no such crime as falsification of
private document through negligence or imprudence.

6.

a. He falsified a commercial document to commit theft. The crime is theft through falsification of
commercial document. It is going to be a complex crime.

b. Falsification should be complexed with malversation. If falsification and malversation, they are separate
crimes. One exception is People vs Barca. He falsified a duplicate copy of the land tax receipt to get the
money from the tax payer so he can malverse it (he made it appear that less amounts of taxes were
paid). This is a situation where falsification of document is a necessary means to commit malversation.
But the general rule is that they are separate crimes.

c. Money was received. Anytime, he (municipal treasurer) can misappropriate with or without falsifying. So
they are separate crimes. He is an accountable officer. So the crime committed is malversation and
falsfication of public document considering that payroll in the municipality is a public document.

d. It is a separate crime. Falsification is not anymore necessary to commit the crime of estafa through
misappropriation. Here, the amount were already embezzled, and the falsification was committed only
to conceal the embezzlement. So they are separate crimes. One is not necessary to commit the other.
That is a separate crime

8. Yes, because in false testimony in favor of the defendant, the false witness can be prosecuted for false
testimony after the giving of testimony. This is because under Art 181, the penalty for giving false
testimony in favor of a defendant is not dependent on the penalty imposed on the accused. Unlike in
giving false testimony against the defendant, here there is a fixed penalty imposed by law.

9. As a lawyer, I will raise prescription as a defense. Considering that 10 years have elapsed from the
decision acquitting the accused, my client cannot anymore be prosecuted. A felony which carries with it
a correctional penalty as in this case (Art 181) prescribes in 10 years from the date in which the cause of
action accrued, which is either the date of giving false testimony or the decision of the court acquitting
or convicting the accused. Here, my client cannot anymore be prosecuted because of prescription. His
criminal liability has been extinguished.