7023037,2 bumped pedestrians Bernadette Roxas Clamor and

1. Dava v. People, G.R. No. 73905, September 30, 1991 Dolores E. Roxas, causing death to former and physical injuries to
Criminal Law; Falsification; Elements of the crime of using a falsified the latter. As a consequence of said incident, Dava was brought to
document in any transaction (other than as evidence in a judicial Mandaluyong Police headquarters where his driver's license was
proceeding) penalized under the last paragraph of Article 172.—The confiscated by Cpl. Daniel Severino who later submitted Dava's
elements of the crime of using a falsified document in any driver's license to the fiscal's office in Pasig, Rizal. license was
transaction (other than as evidence in a judicial proceeding) thereafter presented as prosecution evidence in criminal case for
penalized under the last paragraph of Article 172 are the following: homicide and serious physical injuries reckless imprudence filed
(a) the offender knew that a document was falsified by another against Dava in the then Court First Instance of Rizal in Pasig. On
person; (b) the false document is embraced in Article 171 or in any of April 12, 1978, Antonio Roxas, the brother of Bernadette and the
subdivisions Nos. 1 and 2 of Article 172; (c) he used such document father of Dolores, saw Dava driving a maroon Volkswagen (beetle-
(not in judicial proceedings), and (d) the use of the false document type) car with plate No. AD-902 B. Knowing that Dava's driver's
caused damage to another or at least it was used with intent to license was used as an exhibit in court and that no traffic violation
cause such damage. receipt had been issued to Dava, Roxas sought the help of then
Same; Same; A driver's license is a public document within the Minister of Defense Juan Ponce Enrile in apprehending Dava for
purview of Articles 171 and 172.—A driver's license is a public driving without a license.4 The Ministry of Defense later indorsed
document within the purview of Articles 171 and 172. The blank form Roxas' request for assistance to the Constabulary Highway Patrol
of the driver's license becomes a public document the moment it is Group (CHPG).
accomplished. Thus, when driver's license No. 2706887 was filled up
with petitioner's personal data and the signature of the registrar of
the San Fernando LTC agency was affixed therein, even if the same At around 7:30 in the evening of July 21, 1978, M/Sgt. Domingo
Lising and S/Sgt. Arturo Viduya of the CHPG saw the maroon
was simulated, the driver's license became a public document.
Same; Same; Same; The driver's license being a public Volkswagen car described by Roxas parked in front of the Uniwide
document, proof of the fourth element of damage caused to another Department Store near the then Nation theater in Cubao, Quezon
person or at least an intent to cause such damage has become City. When the driver and his companion arrived, Lising and Viduya
immaterial.—The driver's license being a public document, proof of confronted them and asked the driver for his license. They were
shown non-professional driver's license No. 2706887 5 with official
the fourth element of damage caused to another person or at least
receipt No. 06058706 issued by Agency 2L Pampanga in the name
an intent to cause such damage has become immaterial. In
of Michael T. Dava. When asked about the source of his license,
falsification of public or official documents, the principal thing being
Dava informed them that his officemate had secured it for him.
punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the
truth proclaimed therein.
Issue: WON the petitioner is guilty of falsification of public document.
Facts:

Held: The elements of the crime of using a falsified document in

On October 19, 1975, while driving a car along Shaw Boulevard,
Mandaluyong, Rizal, petitioner Michael T. Dava, then holder of non- transaction (other than as evidence in a judicial proceed penalized
professional driver's license No. 14744271 with official receipt No. 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 The third element of use of the falsified document is proven by the
and 2 of Article 172; (c he used such document (not in judicial fact that when petitioner was apprehended by Lising on April 12,
proceedings), and (d) the use of the false document caused damage 1978 it was in his possession and it was what he presented Lising to
to another or at last it was used with intent to cause such show that he had a license. Because he was a detailman who did his
damage.55 Except for last, all of these elements have been proven job with the use of a car, it is probable that from November 4, 1976
beyond reason doubt in this case. (its date of issuance) until April 12, 1978, petitioner used driver's
license No. 2706887.
It is not disputed that it was petitioner himself who requested Manalili
to get him a license. He misrepresented to Manalili that he has not at The driver's license being a public document, proof of the fourth
any time been issued a driver's license. 56 Through this element of damage caused to another person or at least an intent to
misrepresentation and capitalizing on Manalili awareness of the dire cause such damage has become immaterial. In falsification of public
necessity of obtaining a driver's license the shortest time possible to or official documents, the principal thing being punished is the
enable petitioner to perform duties as detailman, petitioner was able, violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth proclaimed
in a very subtle clever manner, to induce Manalili to deal with "fixers" therein.
in securing the subject driver's license. For indeed, there was no way
Manalili could obtain a drivers license in so short a without having to 2. Layno v. People, G.R. No. 93842, September 7, 1992
deal with "fixers." Thus, as petitioner calculated, Manalili, who
appeared to have been motivated by a sincere desire to help a Criminal Law; Falsification of public
friend, did not hesitate to deal with three fixers whom he knew were document; Evidence; Handwriting, how proved.—xxx Under Sec. 22,
not employees of the LTC to whom he paid P70.00 for the license Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, the handwriting of a
even if the legal fee then was only P15.00.57 As it was in truth person may be proved by any witness who “has seen writing
petitioner who induced and left Manalili with no choice but to seek purporting to be his upon which the witness acted or been charged,
the aid of fixers, the fact that it was Manalili and not petitioner who and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person.”
dealt directly with said fixers cannot exculpate petitioner from the Otherwise stated, any witness may be called who has, by sufficient
charge of falsification. He is, beyond reasonable doubt, a principal by means, acquired knowledge of the general character of the
inducement in the commission of said crime. handwriting of the party whose signature is in question. Prosecution
witness Amando R. Pandi, Jr. was competent to testify on the
A driver's license is a public document within the purview of Articles signature of petitioner on the certification, Exhibit “B” because in the
171 and 172. The blank form of the drivers license becomes a public course of his employment as municipal secretary and designated
document the moment it is accomplished.61 Thus, when driver's personnel officer in the municipal government of Lianga, Surigao del
license No. 2706887 was filled up with petitioner's personal data and Sur, he had seen records under his charge bearing the long and
the signature of the region of the San Fernando LTC agency was short signatures of the petitioner, and, as such, he had acquired
affixed therein, even if the same was simulated, the driver's license knowledge of the general character of the handwriting of the
became a public document. petitioner, xxx Moreover, the Sandiganbayan’s conclusion that the
signature on the certification in question is the signature of the
petitioner was not only based on the testimony of Amando R. Pandi,
Jr. Section 22, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence further
provides that “(e)vidence respecting the handwriting may also be
given by a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with On the same day, i.e., 16 March 1980, Fernando Y. Layno took his
writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom oath of office with the petitioner as the administering officer.
the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of
the judge.” Pursuant thereto, the Sandiganbayan compared the Thereafter, the appointment paper, together with the required
signature on the certification with the signatures of the petitioner on supporting documents, was forwarded to the Davao Regional Office
documents filed with the court, and which were proved to be of the Civil Service Commission and was received by the said office
genuine. on 17 May 1980. On 20 May 1980, the OIC, Jorge Mindanao, acting
by authority of the Commission, approved the appointment of
Facts: Fernando Y. Layno. Three (3) days later, the approved appointment
The petitioner was the incumbent municipal mayor of Lianga, was returned to the office of the petitioner.chanrobles virtualawlibrary
Surigao del Sur, on 16 March 1980, having been elected to that chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph
position in the elections held in that year. As chief executive of the
municipality, he had the authority to appoint employees in the The appointee, however, neither assumed the position to which he
municipal government of Lianga.chanrobles.com : virtual law library was appointed nor collected the salary corresponding to it. 1

On 16 March 1980, the petitioner appointed Fernando Y. Layno, his On 28 September 1988, petitioner was charged before the
legitimate son, meat inspector in the office of the municipal treasurer Sandiganbayan with the crime of falsification of public document
of Lianga. He signed the appointment document — Civil Service defined in Article 171, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, in an
Form No. 35 — twice, first as the appointing authority and second, Information reading as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
as the personnel officer, certifying" (t)hat all the required supporting
papers pursuant to MC 5, s. 1974, as amended. have been complied "That on or about March 16, 1980, in the Municipality of Lianga,
with, reviewed and found to be in order."cralaw virtua1aw library Province of Surigao del Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court. the above-named accused, a public officer,
Among the supporting papers required for the appointment is the being then the incumbent Municipal Mayor of Lianga, Surigao del
Certification (Exh. "B") signed by the petitioner, reading as Sur, taking advantage of his official position and committing the
follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph offense in relation to his duties, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully
and feloniously prepare and falsify a document or certification,
"In connection with the appointment of MR. FERNANDO Y. LAYNO, wherein said accused is legally bound to disclose the truth, by stating
Lianga, Surigao del Sur, in the Office of Municipal Treasurer, Lianga, that a certain Fernando Y. Layno of Lianga. Surigao del Sur is not
Surigao del Sur at the rate of FOUR THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED related to him within the third degree of either consanguinity or
THIRTY TWO PESOS ONLY per annum (P4,632.00), effective affinity, when in truth and in fact, as the said accused well knew, said
March 16, 1980. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph Fernando Y. Layno is his son, thus, making untruthful statements in
a narration of facts, to the damage of the public interests.
"1. He is not related to me to (sic) any person exercising immediate
supervision over him within the third degree of either consanguinity Issue: WON the petitioner is guilty of falsification of public document.
or affinity.
Held: The offense of falsification by a public officer under Article 171 did not commit any reversible error in finding the petitioner guilty
of the Revised Penal Code is committed by ‘any public officer, beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of falsification by a public
employee or notary who, taking advantage of his official position, officer under Article 171, par. 4, of the Revised Penal Code.
shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts: . . .
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of fact; . . .’ It is settled 3. Batulanon v. People, G.R. No. 139857, September 15, 2006
that in this fourth kind of falsification, the following requisites must Criminal Law; Falsification; Estafa; Pleadings and
concur:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library Practice;Although the offense charged in the information is estafa
through falsification of commercial document, the accused could be
(a) That the offender makes in a document untruthful statements in a convicted of falsification of private document under the well-settled
narration of facts; rule that it is the allegations in the information that determines the
nature of the offense and not the technical name given in the
(b) That he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts preamble of the information.—Although the offense charged in the
narrated by him; and information is estafa through falsification of commercial document,
appellant could be convicted of falsification of private document
(c) That the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false under the well-settled rule that it is the allegations in the information
(Cabigas v. People, G.R. No. 67472, July 3, 1987, 152 SCRA 18.)" that determines the nature of the offense and not the technical name
given in the preamble of the information. In Andaya v. People, 493
After a thorough review of the records, the Court finds that all the SCRA 539 (2006), we held: From a legal point of view, and in a very
elements of the crime of falsification of public document under Article real sense, it is of no concern to the accused what is the technical
171, par. 4, of the Revised Penal Code are present in the case at name of the crime of which he stands charged. It in no way aids him
bar.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary in a defense on the merits. x x x That to which his attention should
be directed, and in which he, above all things else, should be most
The petitioner was a public officer 20 being then the incumbent interested, are the facts alleged. The real question is not did he
mayor of the Municipality of Lianga, Surigao del Sur, when he issued commit a crime given in the law some technical and specific name,
on 16 March 1980 the appointment in favor of Fernando Y. Layno as but did he perform the acts alleged in the body of the information in
a meat inspector in the office of the municipal treasurer of Lianga. In the manner therein set forth. x x x The real and important question to
connection with the said appointment, the petitioner taking him is, “Did you perform the acts alleged in the manner alleged?”
advantage of his official position, 21 issued the certification (Exh. B) not, “Did you commit a crime named murder?” If he performed the
22 — a public document — stating therein that he is not related to acts alleged, in the manner stated, the law determines what the
the appointee within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity; but, name of the crime is and fixes the penalty therefor. x x x If the
as previously discussed, he had the legal obligation to disclose his accused performed the acts alleged in the manner alleged, then he
true relationship with the appointee. The facts narrated by the ought to be punished and punished adequately, whatever may be
petitioner in the said certification are absolutely false because the the name of the crime which those acts constitute.
bare fact and naked truth is that the appointee Fernando Y. Layno is Same; Same; Elements of Falsification of Private
his legitimate son. Documents.—The elements of falsification of private document
under Article 172, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code are: (1)
Contrary, therefore, to the petitioner’s pretense, the Sandiganbayan that the offender committed any of the acts of falsification, except
those in paragraph 7, Article 171; (2) that the falsification was never received a grant, never received the checks, and never signed
committed in any private document; and (3) that the the check vouchers issued in their names. In furtherance, Batulanon
falsification caused damage to a third party or at least the falsification released to herself the checks and received the loans and thereafter
was committed with intent to cause such damage. misappropriated and converted it to her own use and benefit.
Same; Same; Handwriting; The handwriting of a person may be
proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such Thereafter, four Informations for Estafa through Falsification of
person because he has seen the person write, or has seen writing Commercial Documents were filed against Batulanon. The
purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been prosecution presented Medallo, Gopio, Jr. and Jayoma as witnesses.
charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of Medallo, the posting clerk whose job was to assist Batulanon in the
such person.—Medallo categorically declared that she saw preparation of cash vouchers testified that Batulanon forged the
Batulanon forge the signatures of Oracion and Arroyo in the signatures of Omadlao, Oracion and Arroyo. Gopio, Jr. stated that
vouchers and made it appear that the amounts stated therein were Oracion is Batulanon’ sister-in-law and Dennis Batulanon is her son
actually received by these persons. As to the signature of Arroyo, who was only 3 years old in 1982. He averred that membership in
Medallo’s credible testimony and her familiarity with the handwriting the cooperative is not open to minors.
of Batulanon proved that it was indeed the latter who signed the
name of Arroyo. Contrary to Batulanon’s contention, the prosecution On April 15, 1993, the trial court rendered a Decision convicting
is not duty-bound to present the persons whose signatures were Batulanon of Estafa through Falsification of Commercial Documents.
forged as Medallo’s eyewitness account of the incident was The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court, hence
sufficient. Moreover, under Section 22, Rule 132 of the Rules of this petition.
Court, the handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness
who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has ISSUE: Whether the crime committed by Batulanon was Falsification
seen the person write, or has seen writing purporting to be his upon of Private Documents.
which the witness has acted or been charged, and has thus acquired
knowledge of the handwriting of such person. HELD: Yes. Although the offense charged in the Information is
Estafa through Falsification of Commercial Documents, Batulanon
FACTS: Polomok Credit Cooperative Incorporated (PCCI) employed could be convicted of Falsification of Private Documents under the
Leonila Batulanon as its Cashier/Manager from May 1980 up to well-settled rule that it is the allegation in the information that
December 22, 1982. She was in charge of receiving deposits from determines the nature of the offense and not the technical name
and releasing loans to the member of the cooperative. given in the preamble of the information.

During an audit conducted in December 1982, certain irregularities As there is no complex crime of Estafa through Falsification of
concerning the release of loans were discovered. It was found that Private Documents, it is important to ascertain whether the offender
Batulanon falsified four commercial documents, all checks/cash is to be charged with Falsification of a Private Document or with
vouchers representing granted loans to different persons namely: Estafa. If the falsification of a private document is committed as a
Omadlao, Oracion, Arroyo and Dennis Batulanon, making it appear means to commit estafa, the proper crime to be charged is
that said names were granted a loan and received the amount of the falsification. If the Estafa can be committed without the necessity of
checks/cash vouchers when in truth and in fact the said persons falsifying a document, the proper crime is Estafa. We find that the
Court of Appeals correctly held Batulanon guilty beyond reasonable Facts: In 1977, petitioner was employed as a telegraph operator at
doubt of Falsification of Private Documents in the cases of Omadlao, the Bureau of Telecommunications Office in Iriga City (BTO, Iriga
Oracion and Arroyo. City). In 1982, he became the Acting Chief Operator of the same
office until 1994.6
In the case of Dennis Batulanon, records show that Batulanon did
not falsify the signature of Dennis. What she did was to sign: “by: A Personal Data Sheet (PDS) [Civil Service Form 212] dated 8
Ibatulanon” to indicate that she received the proceeds of the loan in January 1988, purportedly accomplished and signed by petitioner,
behalf of Dennis. Said act does not fall under any of the modes of states that he passed the Civil Engineering Board Examination given
Falsification under Article 171 because there is nothing untruthful on 30-31 May 1985 in Manila with a rating of 75.8%.7 It appears that
about the fact that she used the name of Dennis and that as he submitted the PDS to the Bureau of Telecommunications
representative of the latter, obtained the proceeds of the loan from Regional Office, Legazpi City (BTO, Legazpi City).8
PCCI. The essence of falsification is the act of making untruthful or
false statements, which is not attendant in this case. As to whether,
A letter dated 7 March 1988 and signed by petitioner shows that he
such representation involves fraud which caused damage to PCCI is applied for the position of either a Junior Telecommunications
a different matter which will make her liable for estafa, but not for Engineer or Telecommunications Traffic Supervisor with the
falsification. Hence, it was an error for the courts below to hold that
Regional Director of the Civil Service Commission (CSC), Region 5,
Batulanon is also guilty of Falsification of Private Document with
Legazpi City.9
respect to the case involving the cash voucher of Dennis Batulanon.

4. Fullero v. People, G.R. No. 170583, September 12, 2007 Upon inquiry made by Florenda B. Magistrado (Magistrado), a
Same; Falsification of Public Documents; Elements; In addition to the subordinate of petitioner in the BTO, Iriga City, with the Professional
elements of the crime of falsification of public documents, it must Regulation Commission (PRC), it was verified that petitioner never
also be proven that the public officer or employee had taken passed the board examination for civil engineering and that
advantage of his official position in making the falsification.—The petitioner’s name does not appear in the book of registration for civil
elements of falsification in the above provision are as follows: a) the engineers.10
offender makes in a public document untruthful statements in a
narration of facts; b) he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of Petitioner denied executing and submitting the subject PDS
the facts narrated by him; and c) the facts narrated by him are containing the statement that he passed the 30-31 May 1985 board
absolutely false. In addition to the aforecited elements, it must also examination for civil engineering. He likewise disowned the signature
be proven that the public officer or employee had taken advantage of and thumbmark appearing therein. He claimed that the stroke of the
his official position in making the falsification. In falsification of public signature appearing in the PDS differs from the stroke of his genuine
document, the offender is considered to have taken advantage of his signature.11He added that the letters contained in the PDS he
official position when (1) he has the duty to make or prepare or accomplished and submitted were typewritten in capital letters since
otherwise to intervene in the preparation of a document; or (2) he his typewriter does not have small letters. As such, the subject PDS
has the official custody of the document which he falsifies. could not be his because it had both small and capital typewritten
letters.
Moreover, petitioner claimed that Magistrado had an ill motive in In addition to the aforecited elements, it must also be proven that the
filing the instant case against him because he issued a public officer or employee had taken advantage of his official position
memorandum against her for misbehavior in the BTO, Iriga in making the falsification. In falsification of public document, the
City.12 He further argued that the RTC had no jurisdiction to try him offender is considered to have taken advantage of his official position
there being no evidence that the alleged falsification took place in when (1) he has the duty to make or prepare or otherwise to
Legazpi City.13 intervene in the preparation of a document; or (2) he has the official
custody of the document which he falsifies.45
Issue: WON petitioner is guilty of falsification of public document
(Personal Data Sheet) All of the foregoing elements of falsification of public documents
under paragraph 4, Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, have
Held: The subsequent matter to be determined is whether the been sufficiently established.
elements of falsification for which petitioner is charged were proven
beyond reasonable doubt. First, petitioner was a public officer, being then the Acting Chief
Operator of the BTO, Iriga City, when he accomplished and
Article 171, paragraph (4) of the Revised Penal Code, provides: submitted his PDS on 4 January 1988 at the BTO, Legazpi City. It is
settled that a PDS is a public document.46 He stated under Item
No. 18 of his PDS that he passed the civil engineering board
ART. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or
ecclesiastic minister. – The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not examination given on 30-31 May 1985 in Manila with a rating of
to exceed 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer, 75.8%. Thereafter, petitioner submitted his PDS to the BTO, Legazpi
City.
employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official position,
shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts:
Second, in Inting v. Tanodbayan,47 we ruled that the
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts. accomplishment of the PDS being a requirement under the Civil
Service Rules and Regulations in connection with employment in the
government, the making of an untruthful statement therein was,
The elements of falsification in the above provision are as follows: therefore, intimately connected with such employment. Hence, the
filing of a PDS is required in connection with promotion to a higher
a) the offender makes in a public document untruthful statements in position and contenders for promotion have the legal obligation
a narration of facts; to disclose the truth. Otherwise, enhancing their qualifications by
means of false statements will prejudice other qualified aspirants to
b) he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated the same position.48
by him; and
Petitioner was legally obliged to disclose in the PDS that he is not a
c) the facts narrated by him are absolutely false. 44 licensed civil engineer since, as evidenced by his application letter,
he was applying for positions to be occupied only by licensed civil
engineers. Further, petitioner was also legally obliged to make
truthful statements in his PDS since he affirmed therein "under the officers or private persons, it is not necessary that there be present
penalty of perjury" that his answers to the queries are "true and the idea of gain or the intent to injure a third person for the reason
correct to the best of [his] knowledge and belief."49 that, in contradistinction to private documents, the principal thing
punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of
Third, petitioner’s statement in the PDS that he passed the civil truth as therein solemnly proclaimed.54 In falsification of public
engineering board examination given on 30-31 May 1985 in Manila documents, therefore, the controlling consideration is the public
with a rating of 75.8% is absolutely false. As Officer-in-Charge of the character of a document; and the existence of any prejudice caused
Records Section of the PRC, Manila, Francisco declared that to third persons or, at least, the intent to cause such damage
petitioner was included in the master list of examinees in the May becomes immaterial.55
1984 civil engineering licensure examination wherein petitioner
obtained a failing grade. She affirmed that petitioner’s name also The fact that the petitioner’s false statement in the PDS did not
appears in the list of examinees for the May 1985 and May 1990 civil redound to his benefit, and that the government or any private
engineering licensure examinations where petitioner also got failing individual was not thereby prejudiced, is inconsequential. What is
marks. She also submitted certifications and authentic documents in clear and decisive in this case is that petitioner made an entry in his
support of her statements. Further, petitioner admitted that he never PDS that he passed the 30-31 May 1985 board examination for civil
passed the board examination for civil engineering.50 engineering despite his full awareness that such is not true. with
falsification of public document under paragraph 4, Article 171 of the
Finally, as a public officer, petitioner is duty-bound to prepare, Revised Penal Code, for making false statements in his Personal
accomplish and submit his PDS pursuant to the Civil Service Rules Information Sheet. We ruled therein: "[T]hat the defendant
and Regulations.51 Were it not for his position and employment in the (Santiago Uy) took advantage of his position may be gathered
government, he could not have accomplished the PDS. In People v. from the fact that he himself filled the information sheet which
Uy,52 Santiago Uy, a field agent of the National Bureau of obviously was to be submitted by each and every officer or
Investigation, was chargedAnent the second issue, petitioner posited employee of the NBI." In the same vein, petitioner also had the
that being a licensed civil engineer is not a qualification for him to responsibility to prepare, accomplish and submit his PDS at the time
hold office and such is not a requirement for his promotion; that the he made a false statement therein that he is a licensed civil
false statement caused no prejudice to any private person as he did engineer. Hence, it is clear that petitioner took advantage of his
not have any competitor in his position nor was the government position as Acting Chief Operator of BTO, Iriga City when he falsified
damaged by such false statement; that the false statement would not his PDS.
in any way redound to his benefit and, as such, no criminal intent
could have impelled him to make such false claim; and that no 5. Spouses Villamar v. People, G.R. No. 178652, December 8,
evidence was produced showing that he had intent to cause injury. 2010

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 Facts: On 20 April 1967, Elena Manantan (Elena) sold a parcel of
falsification of public document.53 It is jurisprudentially settled that in land to her nine children: Cornelia Penuliar (Cornelia), Simplicio
the falsification of public or official documents, whether by public
Penuliar (Simplicio), Modesta Flores (Modesta), Eulalia Penuliar
(Eulalia), Hermogenes Penuliar (Hermogenes), Lucia Penuliar In its 8 February 2005 Decision, the MTCC found Corazon and
(Lucia), Pedro Penuliar (Pedro), Felipe Penuliar (Felipe), and Jose Revelo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of falsification of public
Penuliar (Jose). On 6 June 1983, Cornelia Eulalia, Hermogenes, document.
Lucia, Pedro, and Jose sold their share to Simplicio. Modesta and
Issue: WON petitioners were guilty of falsification of public
Felipe did not sell their share. document.

Held: Art. 172 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

On 7 September 1989, Simplicio sold his total share to his daughter,
petitioner Corazon Penuliar-Villamar (Corazon). Corazon is married Art. 172. Falsification by private individuals and use of
falsified documents. The penalty of prision correccional in its
to petitioner Revelo Villamar (Revelo). Corazon and Revelo medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than
5,000 shall be imposed upon:
possessed and registered with the Office of the Provincial Assessor
of Lingayen, Pangasinan, a signed and notarized deed of sale dated 1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the
falsifications enumerated in the next preceding article in any
23 November 1989. Notary Public Quirico Bachar notarized the public or official document or letter of exchange or any other
deed. In the deed, it was made to appear that all of Elenas children, kind of commercial document; and On the other hand, Article
171 of the same Code provides:
including Modesta and Felipe, sold the property to the spouses. The
signatures of Modesta, Hermogenes, and Lucia were Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee; or notary
or ecclesiastical minister. The penalty of prision mayor and a
forged. Corazon and Revelo alleged that employees of the fine not to exceed 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any
public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of
Assessors Office committed the falsification.
his official position, shall falsify a document by committing
any of the following acts:
In 1999, Modesta discovered the 23 November 1989 deed of sale. In 1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature, or
an information[5] dated 7 September 2000, Second Assistant City rubric;
From the foregoing, the elements of the crime of falsification
Prosecutor Regulus V. Reyes charged Corazon and Revelo with under paragraph 1 of Article 172 are: (i) that the offender is a
falsification of public document. private individual; (ii) that he committed any of the acts of
falsification enumerated in Art. 171; and (iii) that the
falsification was committed in a public or official or
commercial document. All these elements are present in the
instant case. In the first place, a comparison of the September 7, 1989
Deed of Sale allegedly submitted by petitioners to the
It is not disputed that Modestas signature in the questioned Assessors Office and the falsified November 23, 1989 Deed
Deed of Sale was forged. Indeed, petitioner-spouses of Sale returned to them by the said Office reveals that the
admitted that Modesta and Felipe never participated in the two documents are totally different from each other, both in
sale of the property subject of the Deed of Sale in their the print or font of the contents and the location of the names
favor. They argue, however, that they were not the authors of the signatories. We cannot, therefore, see how the
of the falsification, claiming that the employees of the employees could have inserted the names of Modesta and
Assessors Office of Lingayen, Pangasinan were the ones Felipe in the questioned document, much less falsified their
who falsified the document. They maintain that the deed of signatures, without anyone noticing it. What is taxing to the
sale they submitted to the Assessors Office did not include mind is: Why would the employees include the names of
Modesta as one of the vendors but when they returned to Modesta and Felipe and falsify their signatures, and what
said Office after one month, the employees therein gave could they gain therefrom?
them the questioned document which included Modesta as
one of the vendors. We are not convinced. 6. Tan v. Matsuura and Anjutco, G.R. No. 179003 and G.R. No.
195816, January 9, 2013
That petitioners were the authors and/or masterminds of the
falsification is presumed from the fact that they actually Criminal Law; Falsification by Public Officers; Elements of.—
benefited from it. In Maliwat vs. Court of Appeals, the In Garcia v. Court of Appeals, 477 SCRA 427 (2005) we identified
Supreme Court held that in the absence of satisfactory the elements of falsification under Article 171 (6) of the RPC, to wit:
explanation, one found in possession of and who used a
(1) that there be an alteration (change) or intercalation (insertion) on
forged document is the forger and therefore guilty of
a document; (2) that it was made on a genuine document; (3) that
falsification. If a person had in his possession a falsified
the alteration or intercalation has changed the meaning of the
document and he made use of it, taking advantage of it and document; and (4) that the changes made the document speak
profiting thereby, the clear presumption is that he is the something false. When these are committed by a private individual
material author of the falsification.
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
In the instant case, petitioners failed miserably to rebut the
aforesaid elements, independent evidence of damage or intention to
above presumption. Clearly, they were the ones who
cause the same to a third person.
benefited from the falsified document, the same having been Same; Same; A violation of Article 172 (2), in relation to Article
executed in their favor. To emphasize, they were the ones 171 (6), of the Revised Penal Code requires, as one of its elements,
who caused the registration of the deed of sale and were the that “the alteration or intercalation has changed the meaning of the
ones who received the falsified document from the document.—It is then the Court’s view that the petitioner had
Assessors Office.Their bare-faced assertion that the
voluntarily executed the subject Deed of Trust, with the intention of
employees of the Assessors Office committed the
giving effect thereto. Even granting that there were insertions in the
falsification is flimsy and unsupported by evidence. deed after it was signed by the petitioner, no sufficient allegation
indicates that the alleged insertions had changed the meaning of the 4. Sometime on 19 June 1997, the said Deed of Trust, was made to
document, or that their details differed from those intended by the be notarized by JULIE O. CUA, a Notary Public for and in the City of
petitioner at the time that he signed it. The petitioner’s bare Makati, and entered in her Notarial Register as Doc[.] No. 2; Page
allegation that “the change was without [his] consent and authority” No. 1; Book No. 1 and Series of 1997, WHEN IN TRUTH AND IN
does not equate with the necessary allegation that the insertions FACT I HAVE NEVER APPEARED, SIGNED OR TOOK [sic] MY
were false or had changed the intended meaning of the document. OATH BEFORE THE SAID NOTARY PUBLIC AND ON THE SAID
Again, a violation of Article 172 (2), in relation to Article 171 (6), of DATE OF NOTARIZATION because the document (Deed of Trust)
the RPC requires, as one of its elements, that “the alteration or was stolen as earlier stated, and the relation between us (Mr. and
intercalation has changed the meaning of the document. Ms. Matsuura, or Mr. Jacinto, and the undersigned) had become
hostile and irreconcilable. A copy of the notarized Deed of Trust is
attached as Annex "B" and made part hereof.
Facts: On March 31, 1998, Tan filed with the Office of the City
Prosecutor (OCP) of Makati City a Complaint-Affidavit5charging the 5. Both documents (Annexes "A" and "B") were/are in the
respondents Yoshitsugu Matsuura (Matsuura), Atty. Carolina possessions of Mr. Matsuura and/or his lawyer, CAROLINA
Tanjutco (Tanjutco) and Atty. Julie Cua (Cua) of the crime of TANJUTCO, who used these false documents in the cases involving
falsification under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), allegedly us;
committed as follows:
6. Without prejudice to the filing of other charges in the proper
2. On or about the period from 21 December 1996 to 09 January venues, I am executing this affidavit for the purpose of charging Mr.
1997, Mr. YOSHITSUGU MATSUURA, Ms. HIROKO MATSUURA YOSHITSUGU MATSUURA and ATTY. CAROLINA TANJUTCO for
and Mr. RUBEN JACINTO have had stolen company’s properties violation of Art. 172 (2) in relation to Art. 171 (6) of the Revised Penal
and my personal belongings which were kept "under lock and key". Code with regard to Annex "A", and likewise charging MR.
Among those stolen was my pre-signed DEED OF TRUST, whose YOSHITSUGU MATSUURA and ATTYS. CAROLINA TANJUTCO
date and number of shares, and the item witness were all in BLANK. and JULIE O. CUA for violation of Art. 172 (1) in relation to Art. 171
As a result, Criminal Case No. 98-040 for Qualified Theft was filed (2) of the Revised Penal Code, when through their concerted actions
against Mr. & Ms. Matsuura and Mr. Jacinto, and now pending they FALSELY made it appeared [sic] that the undersigned had
before the Regional Trial Court (of Makati City) Branch 132; participated in notarization of the Deed of Trust (Annex "B") on 19
June 1997, and in both instances causing prejudice and damages to
3. In the said "blank" Deed of Trust, the entries as to the number of the undersigned.
shares and the date of the instrument were then inserted, that is,
28,500 as shares and 20th day of January, and the signatures of Issue: WON Petitioner is guilty of falsification of documents.
Hiroko Matsuura and Lani C. Camba appeared in the item
WITNESS, all without my participation whatsoever, or without my Held:
consent and authority. A copy of the "filled in" Deed of Trust is
attached as Annex "A" and made part hereof; The Secretary of Justice’s directive upon the prosecutor to file the
second information against Matsuura and Tanjutco also lacked
basis. It was premised on an alleged violation of Article 171(2) of the that there is grave abuse of discretion when an act is done contrary
RPC, by making it appear that Tan participated in an act or to the Constitution, the law or jurisprudence, or when executed
proceeding when as he claimed, he did not in fact so participate. The whimsically, capriciously or arbitrarily out of malice, ill will or personal
elements of this crime are as follows: bias

(1) that the offender is a public officer, employee or notary public; 7. Del Prado v. People, G.R. No. 186030, March 21, 2012

(2) that he takes advantage of his official position; Criminal Law; Estafa through Falsification of Public Documents;
Elements of Falsification of Public Documents.—Even granting that
(3) that he falsifies a document by causing it to appear that a person the present petition may be admitted, we find no cogent reason to
or persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did reverse the CA decision appealed from, considering that the
not in fact so participate.50 elements of the crime of falsification under Art. 171, par. 4 of the
Revised Penal Code, in relation to Art. 172 thereof, were duly proved
during the proceedings below. Said elements are as follows: (a) The
Since Matsuura and Tanjutco are both private individuals, they can
offender makes in a public document untruthful statements in a
be indicted for the offense only if it is shown that they conspired with
narration of facts; (b) The offender has a legal obligation to disclose
Cua, as a notary public, in the commission thereof.
the truth of the facts narrated by him; and (c) The facts narrated by
the offender are absolutely false. These elements are based on the
Contrary to this requirement, however, the Secretary of Justice provisions of Art. 172, in relation to Art. 171, par. 4, of the Revised
ordered in its Resolution dated April 4, 2005 the filing of the second Penal Code, which reads: Art. 171. Falsification by public officer,
information against Matsuura and Tanjutco, notwithstanding the employee or notary or ecclesiastical minister.—The penalty of prision
order in the same resolution to exclude Cua in the case. Such ruling mayorand a fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon
evidently amounts to a grave abuse of discretion because as any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his
correctly held by the CA: official position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the
following acts: x x x 4. Making untruthful statements in narration of
Article 171, RPC refers to falsification committed by a public officer, facts; x x x Art. 172. Falsification by private individual and use of
employee, notary or ecclesiastical minister who, taking advantage of falsified documents.—The penalty of prision correccional in its
his official position, shall falsify a document, in this case, by causing medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than P5,000
it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding pesos shall be imposed upon: 1. Any private individual who shall
when they did not in fact so participate. Herein petitioners herein commit any of the falsifications enumerated in the next preceding
respondents Matsuura and Tanjutco, not being included in said article in any public or official document or letter of exchange or any
enumeration cannot, on their own, be held liable for aforesaid other kind of commercial document; and 2. Any person who, to the
violation. They can be held liable therefor only in conspiracy with one damage of a third party, or with the intent to cause such damage,
who is a public officer, employee, notary or ecclesiastical minister shall in any private document commit any of the acts of falsification
who, taking advantage of his official position, falsified a document. enumerated in the next preceding article.
On account of the exclusion of Atty. Julie Cua from said charge,
herein petitioners cannot be held liable for the charge. It is settled Facts:
That on or about the 19th day of July, 1991, in the [M]unicipality of unto themselves the property covered by OCT No. P-22848, to the
Lingayen, [P]rovince of Pangasinan, Philippines, and within the exclusion of Corazon. The deed was notarized by Loreto L.
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, Fernando (Loreto). By virtue of the said Deed of Succession, OCT
conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, did then No. P-22848 was cancelled and several new titles were issued under
and there wil[l]fully, unlawfully and feloniously falsified, execute[d] the names of Corazon’s co-heirs. When Corazon discovered this,
and cause[d] the preparation of the DEED OF SUCCESSION, by she filed a criminal complaint against now petitioners Norma,
stating and making it appear in said document that they were the Eulogia, Normita and Rodelia. Antonio and Rafael, Jr. had both died
only heirs of the late Rafael del Prado, when in truth and in fact, all before the filing of said complaint. Among the witnesses presented
the accused well knew, that Ma. Corazon Del Prado-Lim is also an during the trial was Loreto, who confirmed that upon the request of
heir who is entitled to inherit from the late Rafael Del Prado, and all Norma and Antonio, he prepared and notarized the deed of
the accused deliberately used the DEED OF SUCCESSION to claim succession. He claimed that the petitioners appeared and signed the
ownership and possession of the land mentioned in the DEED OF document before him.
SUCCESSION to the exclusion of the complainant Ma. Corazon Del
Prado-Lim to her damage and prejudice.The prosecution claimed For their defense, the petitioners denied having signed the Deed of
that Ma. Corazon Del Prado-Lim (Corazon), private complainant in Succession, or having appeared before notary public Loreto. They
the criminal case, was the daughter of the late Rafael Del Prado also claimed that Corazon was not a daughter, but a niece, of the
(Rafael) by his marriage to Daisy Cragin (Daisy). After Daisy died in late Rafael. Norma claimed that she only later knew that a deed of
1956, the late Rafael married Norma with whom he had five children, succession was prepared by her son Antonio, although she admitted
namely: Rafael, Jr., Antonio, Eulogia, Normita and Rodelia. having executed a deed of real estate mortgage in favor of
mortgagee Prudential Bank over portions of the subject parcel of
The late Rafael died on July 12, 1978. On October 29, 1979, land already covered by the new titles.
Corazon, as a daughter of the late Rafael, and Norma, as the late
Rafael’s surviving spouse and representative of their five minor Issue: WON the petitioner is guilty of falsification of public document.
children, executed a "Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition of the Estate of
Rafael Del Prado" to cover the distribution of several properties Held: Art. 171, par. 4 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Art.
owned by the late Rafael, including the parcel of land covered by
172 thereof, were duly proved during the proceedings below. Said
Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-22848, measuring 17,624
elements are as follows:
square meters, more or less, and situated at Libsong, Lingayen,
Pangasinan. Per agreement of the heirs, Corazon was to get a
3,000-square meter portion of the land covered by OCT No. P- (a) The offender makes in a public document untruthful statements in
22848. This right of Corazon was also affirmed in the Deed of a narration of facts;
Exchange dated October 15, 1982 and Confirmation of Subdivision
which she executed with Norma.Corazon, however, later discovered (b) The offender has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the
that her right over the subject parcel of land was never registered by facts narrated by him; and
Norma, contrary to the latter’s undertaking. The petitioners instead
executed on July 19, 1991 a Deed of Succession wherein they, (c) The facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false.21
together with Rafael, Jr. and Antonio, partitioned and adjudicated
These elements are based on the provisions of Art. 172, in relation to partition dated October 29, 1979, the parties’ confirmation of
Art. 171, par. 4, of the Revised Penal Code, which reads: subdivision, deed of exchange and Norma’s petition for guardianship
of her then minor children. Specifically mentioned in these
Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or documents is the fact that Corazon is also a daughter, thus an heir,
ecclesiastical minister. – The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not of the late Rafael.
to exceed ₱5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer,
employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official position, The obligation of the petitioners to speak only the truth in their deed
shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts: of succession is clear, taking into account the very nature of the
document falsified. The deed, which was transformed into a public
4. Making untruthful statements in narration of facts; document upon acknowledgement before a notary public, required
only truthful statements from the petitioners. It was a legal
requirement to effect the cancellation of the original certificate of title
Art. 172. Falsification by private individual and use of falsified
documents. – The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and and the issuance of new titles by the Register of Deeds. The false
maximum periods and a fine of not more than ₱5,000 pesos shall be statement made in the deed greatly affected the indefeasibility
normally accorded to titles over properties brought under the
imposed upon:
coverage of land registration, to the injury of Corazon who was
deprived of her right as a landowner, and the clear prejudice of third
1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the falsifications persons who would rely on the land titles issued on the basis of the
enumerated in the next preceding article in any public or official deed.
document or letter of exchange or any other kind of commercial
document; and
We cannot subscribe to the petitioners’ claim of good faith because
several documents prove that they knew of the untruthful character
2. Any person who, to the damage of a third party, or with the intent of their statement in the deed of succession. The petitioners’ alleged
to cause such damage, shall in any private document commit any of good faith is disputed by their prior confirmation and recognition of
the acts of falsification enumerated in the next preceding article. Corazon’s right as an heir, because despite knowledge of said fact,
they included in the deed a statement to the contrary. The wrongful
The material document claimed to be falsified in this case is the intent to injure Corazon is clear from their execution of the deed,
Deed of Succession dated July 19, 1991, the presentation of which showing a desire to appropriate only unto themselves the subject
before the Register of Deeds and other government agencies parcel of land. Corazon was unduly deprived of what was due her
allowed the cancellation of OCT No. P-22848, and the issuance of not only under the provisions of the law on succession, but also
several new titles in its stead. The first and third elements were under contracts that she had previously executed with the
committed by the inclusion in the subject deed of the clause that petitioners.
states, "(w)hereas, the parties hereto are the only heirs of the
decedent, the first name, is the surviving spouse and the rest are the
children of the decedent."22 The untruthfulness of said statement is
clear from the several other documents upon which, ironically, the
petitioners anchor their defense, such as the deed of extrajudicial
8.Layug v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 121047-57, August 16, and History in the high school level, and Education, Philosophy,
2000 Psychology, Zoology, Botany, Statistics and Health in the college
level.
Criminal Law; Falsification of Public Document; Criminal At the Davao del Sur National High School (DSNHS), petitioner
Procedure; In all criminal prosecutions for offenses under the taught English, Literature and Social Studies. In school year 1986-
Revised Penal Code, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable 1987, he was assigned to teach two loads of English IV and four
doubt that the accused had criminal intent to commit the offense loads of Science IV (Physics). Ramon Presto, the principal of
charged.—At the outset, it must be stressed that in all criminal DSNHS, authorized the head of the Science Department to assign
prosecutions for offenses under the Revised Penal Code, the any science course to petitioner.[8] Thus, on June 17, 1986, Lourdes
prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused E. Magbanua of the Science Department, issued a memorandum
had criminal intent to commit the offense charged. addressed to petitioner detailing his schedule for Science IV
Same; Same; Same; In falsification of public document, the classes.[9] Jovencio Tablang, the assistant principal in charge of
principal thing punished is the violation of the public faith and the academic affairs, noted the memorandum. However, because
destruction of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed.—There is petitioner refused to receive the memorandum,[10] on June 23, 1986,
authority to the effect that a fourth requisite, i.e., that the act of Magbanua informed Presto through a letter that petitioner refused to
falsification was committed to the damage of a third party or with teach three (3) Science IV classes assigned to him for the reason
intent to cause such damage, may be dispensed with as regards that he was "inexperienced and incompetent to teach the
falsification of public or official document. The reason for this is that subject."[11] Magbanua mentioned in that letter that petitioner's
in falsification of public document, the principal thing punished is the science load had been unattended to for one week already and thus
violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein she referred the matter to Jovencio Tablang. Nevertheless,
solemnly proclaimed. However, the daily time record that a public Magbanua would see petitioner in campus, talking with friends or
official or employee must fill up is a public document which has with the security guards in the guardhouse.[12]
characteristics distinct from other public documents. It should contain
a “true and correct report of hours of work performed, record of In the month of June 1986, petitioner filed a daily time record
which was made daily at the time of arrival at and departure from showing that he reported for work within his daily official working
office.” hours of 8:30 to 11:30 a.m. and 1:30 to 4:30 p.m. from June 16 to
June 30, 1986.[13] Petitioner signed the June 1986 daily time record
but the principal did not sign it. Petitioner submitted similarly filled up
Facts: On June 7, 1971, petitioner applied with the Division daily time records from July 1986 to April 1987.[14]Notably, the daily
Office of Davao del Sur for a permanent teaching position in the time records for those months showed that, except for reasons of
Digos Provincial High School. He stated in his application letter[7] that court appearances in certain mornings and afternoons, petitioner
he obtained the degrees of Associate in Arts and Bachelor of Arts in regularly reported for work within his official time of 8:30 to 11:30
Psychology from the University of Sto. Tomas, in 1960, and the a.m. and 1:30 to 4:30 p.m.
academic aspect of the course in Master of Arts in Psychology from
the Lyceum of the Philippines. A civil service eligible for secondary
teachers, petitioner claimed having taught for seven (7) years Held: Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
English, Mathematics, Social Sciences, Biology, General Science
To convict an accused of the crime of falsification of public or official As such, in the prosecution of cases involving falsification of daily
document under that provision of law, the following requisites must time records, it is imperative that there be proof of damage to the
be established: (1) the offender makes in a document untruthful government. Such damage may take the form of salary paid to the
statements in a narration of facts; (2) he has a legal obligation to accused for services not rendered.[42]
disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him; and (3) the facts
narrated by him are absolutely false.[38] There is no proof that petitioner unduly benefited from his daily
time record. On the contrary, what appears on record is the fact that
There is authority to the effect that a fourth requisite, i.e., that petitioner was deprived of his salary from June 1986 to April 1987,
the act of falsification was committed to the damage of a third party the period of time material in these cases. In fact, petitioner had to
or with intent to cause such damage, may be dispensed with as resort to our courts before he could get the salary that was due him
regards falsification of public or official document. The reason for this in proportion to the time he actually rendered services to the
is that in falsification of public document, the principal thing punished government.
is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth as
therein solemnly proclaimed.[39] However, the daily time record that a The court allowed petitioner to receive the amount of P6,000.00
public official or employee must fill up is a public document which for services he actually rendered. It sufficiently proves that his daily
has characteristics distinct from other public documents. It should time record was not absolutely false. In other words, there was a
contain a "true and correct report of hours of work performed, record color of truth in the entries in petitioner's daily time record as
of which was made daily at the of arrival at and departure from he did report for work at the DSNHS. The truth that he taught within
office."[40] As to its nature and purpose, this Court has said: his official time of work is even buttressed by the prosecution
evidence that two teachers, Hipe and Badilles, had to take over the
English subjects assigned to him.
The evident purpose of requiring government employees to keep a
time record is to show their attendance in office to work and to be 9. Llamas v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 149588, August 16,
paid accordingly. Closely adhering to the policy of no work no pay, a 2010
daily time record is primarily, if not solely, intended to prevent
damage or loss to the government as would result in instances Facts: That on or about the 20th day of November, 1978, in the
where it pays an employee for no work done. The integrity of the Municipality of Paraaque, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the
daily time record as an official document, however, remains jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
untarnished if the damage sought to be prevented has not been conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping and
produced. (w)hile it is true that a time record is an official document, aiding one another, well knowing that their parcel of land known as
it is not criminally falsified if it does not pervert its avowed purpose as Lot No. 11, Block No. 6 of the Subdivision Plan (LRC) Psd 67036,
when it does not cause damage to the government. It may be Cadastral Survey of Paraaque, LRC Record No. N-26926, Case No.
different in the case of a public document with continuing interest 4896, situated at Barrio San Dionisio, Municipality of Paraaque,
affecting the public welfare which is naturally damaged if that Metro Manila, was mortgaged to the Rural Bank of Imus, did then
document is falsified where the truth is necessary for the safeguard and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell said property to one
and protection of that general interest. x x x."[41] (Italics supplied.) Conrado P. Avila, falsely representing the same to be free from all
liens and encumbrances whatsoever, and said Conrado P. Avila
bought the aforementioned property for the sum of P12,895.00 which
was paid to the accused, to the damage and prejudice of said trial court nor the CA made any finding of any damage to the
Conrado P. Avila in the aforementioned amount of P12,895.00. offended party. Nowhere in the Decision of the RTC or that of the CA
is there any discussion that there was damage suffered by
complainant Avila, or any finding that his rights over the property
Held: Article 316 (2) of the Revised Penal Code states: were prejudiced.
ART. 316. Other forms of swindling. The penalty of arresto mayor in
On the contrary, complainant had possession and control of the land
its minimum and medium periods and a fine of not less than the
even as the cases were being heard. His possession and right to
value of the damage caused and not more than three times such
exercise dominion over the property was not disturbed. Admittedly,
value, shall be imposed upon:
there was delay in the delivery of the title. This, however, was the
2. Any person who, knowing that real property is
encumbered, shall dispose of the same, although subject of a separate case, which was eventually decided in
such encumbrance be not recorded;
petitioners favor.[12]
In every criminal prosecution, the State must prove beyond
If no damage should result from the sale, no crime of estafa would
reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime charged and the
have been committed by the vendor, as the element of damage
complicity or participation of the accused.[10]
would then be lacking.[13] The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that
For petitioners to be convicted of the crime of swindling under Article
petitioners should be acquitted of the crime charged.
316 (2) of the Revised Penal Code, the prosecution had the burden
10. UnionBank v. People, G.R. No. 192565, February 28, 2012 -
to prove the confluence of the following essential elements of the
perjury
crime: Facts:
Union bank filed two complaints for sum of money with prayer for a
1. that the thing disposed of be real property; writ of replevin against spouses Eddie and Eliza Tamondong and a
2. that the offender knew that the real property was
John Doe. The first complaint was filed before the RTC, Branch 109,
encumbered,whether the encumbrance is recorded or not;
3. that there must be express representation by the offender Pasay City on April 13, 1998. The second complaint was filed on
that the real property is free from encumbrance; and March 15, 2000 and was raffled in the MeTC, Branch 47, Pasay City.
4. that the act of disposing of the real property be made to
the damage of another.[11]
In both cases, Desi Tomas executed and signed the Certification
One of the essential elements of swindling under Article 316, against Forum Shopping. Then, she was charged of deliberately
paragraph 2, is that the act of disposing the encumbered real violating Article 183 of the RPC (perjury) "by falsely declaring under
property is made to the damage of another. In this case, neither the
oath in the Certificate against Forum Shopping in the second conflict between the rulings in Illusorio v. Bildner and Sy Tiong Shiou
complaint that she did not commence any other action or proceeding v. Sy.
involving the same issue in another tribunal or agency". The
Certification was notarized in Makati City but was submitted and Issue: Where is the proper venue of perjury under Art. 183 of the
used in Pasay City, while the Information against Union Bank and RPC - the place, where the Certificate against Forum Shopping was
Tomas was filed in Makati. notarized or where the Certification was presented to the trial court?
Tomas filed a Motion to Quash on the grounds that the venue was
improperly laid and that the facts do not constitute an offense. On the Held: The place where the Certificate was notarized, the MeTC-
first ground, Tomas argued that since it is the Pasay City Court Makati City, is the proper venue for the criminal action.
where the Certificate was submitted and used, it should have the The criminal act charged was for the execution of an affidavit that
jurisdiction over the case against her. The MeTC-Makati City denied contained a falsity. Art. 183 of the RPC is the applicable provision for
the Motion to Quash, ruling that it has jurisdiction over the case since this case; and following so, the jurisdiction and venue should be
the Certificate was notarized there and the allegations in the determined on the basis of this article which penalizes one who
Information sufficiently charged Tomas with perjury. Her subsequent makes an affidavit upon any material matter before a competent
Motion for Reconsideration was denied. person authorized to administer an oath in cases in which the law so
When the case was elevated to the RTC-Makati City, the petitioners requires. The constitutive act of the offense is the making of an
prayed that the ruling of the MeTC-Makati City be annulled and set affidavit, so, the criminal act is consummated when the statement
aside on the ground of grave abuse of discretion. They also cited the containing a falsity is subscribed and sworn before a duly authorized
rulings in US vs. Canet and Ilusorio v. Bildner which state that person.'
"venue and jurisdiction should be in the place where the false The SC finds the ruling in Sy Tiong as more in accord with Art. 183
document was presented". of the RPC. The Court ruled that the crime of perjury committed
through the making of a false affidavit under Art. 183 of the RPC is
The petition, however, was found to have no merit as a recent committed at the time the affiant subscribes and swears to his or her
jurisprudence, Sy Tiong Shiou v. Sy. In the Sy Tiong Shiou case, the affidavit since it is at that time that all the elements of the crime of
high court ruled that the criminal action shall be instituted and tried in perjury are executed. When the crime is committed through false
the court of the municipality where the perjury was committed, or testimony under oath in a proceeding that is neither criminal nor civil,
where any of its essential ingredients occured. The petitioners then venue is at the place where the testimony under oath is given.
filed this petition to the Supreme Court to address the seeming If in lieu of or as supplement to the actual testimony made in a
proceeding that is neither criminal nor civil, a written sown statement
is submitted, venue may either be at the place where the sworn
statement is submitted or where the oath was taken as the taking of
the oath and the submission are both material ingredients of the
crime committed. In all cases, the determination of venue shall be
based on the acts alleged in the Information to be constitutive of the
crime committed.

1âwphi1