ACJUCO CRIMINAL LAW TITLE IV 1
SERGIO DEL ROSARIO v. THE PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. L-16806
December 22, 1961
FACTS:
Accused of counterfeiting Philippine treasury
notes, Sergio del Rosario, Alfonso Araneta and
Benedicto del Pilar were convicted by the Court
of First Instance of Davao of illegal possession
of said forged treasury notes and sentenced to
an indeterminate penalty ranging from 8 years
and 1 day to 10 years and 1 day of prisión
mayor, and to pay a fine of P5,000, without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency,
as well as a proportionate part of the costs. On
appeal, the judgment was affirmed by the Court
of Appeals, except insofar as the maximum of
said indeterminate penalty which was increased
to 10 years, 8 months and 1 day of prisión
mayor. The case is before us on appeal by
certiorari taken by Sergio del Rosario.
Accused showed to complainant Apolinario del
Rosario Philippine one-peso bills and induced
him to believe that the same were counterfeit
paper money manufactured by them, although
in fact they were genuine treasury notes of the
Philippine Government one of the digits of each
of which had been altered and changed. The
aforementioned defendants had succeeded in
obtaining P1,700.00 from said complainant, in
the City of Davao, on June 23, 1955, for the
avowed purpose of financing the manufacture of
more counterfeit treasury notes of the
Philippines.
ISSUE:
Whether the possession of said treasury notes
constitutes a violation of Article 168 of the
Revised Penal Code?
HELD:
It is clear from these provisions that the
possession of genuine treasury notes of the
Philippines any of "the figures, letters, words or
signs contained" in which had been erased
and/or altered, with knowledge of such erasure
and alteration, and with the intent to use such
notes, as they were used by petitioner herein
and his co-defendants in the manner adverted
to above, is punishable under said Article 168,
in relations to Article 166, subdivision (1), of the
Revised Penal Code (U.S. v. Gardner, 3 Phil.,
398; U.S. v. Solito, 36 Phil., 785
PEOPLE V. GALANO
Date of Promulgation: December 2, 1967
Doctrine: Forgery is punished because such
documents are prejudicial to the interests of
society and state. Said offense produces lack
of confidence of the holders of genuine
documents and intends to destroy the public
credit. The forger usurps one of the supreme
attributes of government which is the
exclusive maker of currency..
Brief: Accused used a one-peso bill which is
no longer in circulation to pay off complainant.
The former wrote Victory at the back of the bill
to make it appear as legal tender which the
SC ruled as forgery under Par 1 of Art 166.
Facts:
· Patrolman Villanueva followed a bunch of
people chasing a man in Manila. By the time he
caught up with the pursuers, the latter already
nabbed Galano who was the person being
pursued.
· Villanueva was informed by Lilia Cruz, a
balut vendor, that Galano paid her a false pre-
war one-peso bill for 4 balut eggs. Both parties
were brought to the police station.
· Cruz stated that when Galano paid h
er, she discovered that the word "victory" at
the back of the money was only written in ink.
Accused then started running after Cruz tried to
get his attention.
· Villanueva turned them over to Patrolman
Torres who alleged that Galano admitted during
the investigation that he did write the word
"victory" in ink.
· The bill is a genuine treasury certificate
that was withdrawn from circulation which is
redeemable if presented to the Central Bank.
· After pleading not guilty in trial, he was
convicted. He appealed to the SC stating that

his admission to Torres was due to fear of
getting hurt after the latter intimidated him.
· Fourth division of SC convicted Galano
stating that the defense of Torres intimidating
him for his confession is flimsy. When Galano
ran, it clearly showed a guilty conscience. The
police officers also have no reason why they
would implicate Galano..
· However, there was a question of
whether or not Galano is guilty of estafa or
forgery? And if forgery, what specific provision
in Article 166 is applicable.
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
Issue: WON accused is liable for forgery under
Art 166 of the RPC
Held: YES
Ratio:
· Forgery may be committed by: (a) Giving
to a treasury or bank note or any instrument
payable to bearer or to order mentioned therein,
the appearance of a true and genuine
document; and (b) erasing, substituting,
counterfeiting, or altering by any means the
figures, letters, or signs contained therein.
· Majority of the special division of the SC
believes that Galano committed forgery falling
squarely under the first paragraph of Art 166. It
cannot come within the 2nd paragraph because
no figure or letter or word has been erased,
substituted, counterfeited, or altered. The
forgery only consisted of addition of a word in an
effort to give the bill the appearance of the true
and genuine certificate. Neither can it be
considered estafa since it involves falsification
of a government obligation.
· Majority also believes that the first
provision does not only contemplate situations
where a fake document is given the appearance
of a genuine document but also to genuine
documents which have been withdrawn.
Dispositive:
Accused is still guilty but considering the severe
penalty imposed, a copy of the decision will be
furnished to the President for the possible
chance of clemency.
DISSENTING by Castro, J.
Forgery is punished to maintain the integrity of
the currency, to secure the credit standing of the
ACJUCO CRIMINAL LAW TITLE IV 2
government, and to prevent the imposition on
the public and the government of worthless
notes or obligations of any kind purporting to be
genuine. For a conviction for forgery to be valid,
government must be defrauded or at the very
least, the culprit has intention to defraud the
government. In the case at bar, the questioned
bill is no longer of legal tender but it is a genuine
pre-war series one-peso bill. Its value is still at
one peso since it can be replaced by the Central
Bank as long as the holder requests so.
Therefore, in no way can the government be
defrauded by Galano’s action since the latter’s
intent was only to pass said bill as legal tender
to avoid spending time for replacement. What
the accused is guilty of is estafa. In passing the
questioned bill, the accused committed wrong
recognized by law as swindling or a form of
cheating under Art 318. He deceived the
complainant that the bill is of legal tender and at
the expense of the former’s time and money for
the replacement of such.
PEOPLE v. ROMUALDEZ and MABUNAY
(September 10, 1932)
G.R. No. 31012
Ponente: Vickers, J.
Action: Appeal from a judgment of the CFI of
Manila
Keywords (Topic): crimes against public
interest, falsification of public documents
SHORT STORY: Estela Romualdez altered the
grades of Luis Mabunay in two of his bar
examination booklets in order for him to pass
the Bar Exam. Court found Romualdez guilty as
principal of the crime of falsification on public
and official documents under Art. 300 of the
Penal Code (now Art. 171 of the RPC), while
Mabunay was found guilty as conspirator and
co-principal under Art. 301 of the Penal Code
(now Art. 172 of the RPC).
FACTS:
 Estela Romualdez was the secretary of
Supreme Court Justice Norberto
Romualdez (then the head of the Bar
Examination Committee), and by reason
 ACJUCO CRIMINAL LAW TITLE IV 3

of said duty, had under her care the ISSUES:

compositions and documents for the bar  WON Estela Romualdez is guilty of
examinations of August and September falsification of public documents.
1926. Luis Mabunay was one of the YES.
takers of the said bar exams.  WON the examination papers were
 During this time there were two separate public and official documents. (Stated
committees for the bar exam: the differently, WON the act of altering the
Committee of Bar Examiners, which was grades in the examination papers
in charge of preparing the test questions, constituted a crime). YES.
and the Committee of Correctors, which  WON Romualdez was authorized to
was in charge of reviewing and grading make the alterations. NO.
the test booklets.  WON Luis Mabunay was liable of the
 Romualdez, together with Mabunay, same crime as an accomplice. NO. He is
went through the archives of the liable as a conspirator/ co-principal.
Supreme Court, took the compositions of
Mabunay, and erased his grade of 58% RULES:
in Remedial Law and 63% in Civil Law,  Art. 171. Falsification by public officer,
and replaced them with 64% and 73%, employee or notary or ecclesiastical
respectively. The resulting general minister. The penalty of prision mayor
average of Mabunay became 75% and a fine not to exceed 5000 pesos shall
(originally 72.8%), thus enabling him to be imposed on any public officer,
pass the bar exam. (Passing grade was employee, or notary who, taking
75%). advantage of his official position shall
 A review of Mabunay’s booklets led to the falsify a document by committing any of
discovery of the alterations. Romualdez the following acts:
admitted that she was the one who o x x x (6) Making any alteraction or
changed the grades, arguing that she intercalation in a genuine
had the authority to revise the document which changes its
compositions already reviewed by the meaning x x x
other correctors and to change the  Art. 172. Falsification by private
grades already given, in her capacity as individuals and use of falsified
secretary of the head of the Bar Exam documents. The penalty of prision
Committee, as one of the correctors, and correccional in its medium and maximum
also as supervisor of the other correctors. periods and a fine of note more than
In addition, she claimed that she 5000 pesos shall be imposed upon:
corrected said composition without o (1) Any private individual who
knowing the identity of its owner, and that shall commit any of the
she had never met Luis Mabunay prior to falsifications enumerated in the
the first day of the trial of this case. next preceding article in any public
 Trial court found Romualdez guilty as or official document x x x
principal of the crime of falsification on
public and official documents, while The phrase “falsification of a document” has a
Mabunay was found guilty as an technical meaning and according to Art. 300 (of
accomplice. the Penal Code) may be committed in the
following ways1:

1 It has a technical meaning, and according to article 300 may be committed in the
following eight ways:
1. By counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature, or rubric.
2. By causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or
proceeding when they did not in fact so participate.
3. By attributing to persons who have participated in an act or
proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them.
4. By making untruthful statements in a narration of facts.
5. By altering true dates.
6. By making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document
which changes its meaning.
 ACJUCO CRIMINAL LAW TITLE IV 4

o (2) By causing it to appear that authority, she would no longer be allowed

persons have participated in any to make the alterations because she
act or proceeding when they did already knew that the booklets belonged
not in fact so participate to Mabunay.2 She gave no explanation
o (3) By attributing to persons who as to why she raised the grades of
have participated in an act or Mabunay other than that it was a “happy
proceeding statements other than coincidence”.
those in fact made by them  NO. He is liable as a co-principal and
o (6) By making any alteration or conspirator. Mabunay had already
intercalation in a genuine failed in two previous bar exams, making
document which changes its this his third failure. Evidence shows that
meaning. Mabunay withdrew Php600 from his bank
account and that a few days later,
ANALYSIS Romualdez deposited Php510 in her own
 YES. The acts of Romualdez are covered bank account. Both failed to present any
by paragraphs 2, 3, and 6 (see Rule). explanation for or proof of the purpose for
She made the alterations in such a way withdrawing or depositing the said
as to make it appear that the correctors amounts.3 The alterations were made
had participated therein, because she AFTER Mabunay had failed (the third
blotted out the grades of the correctors time), and he withdrew the money after
and wrote the new grades opposite their he had time to learn from Romualdez that
(the correctors’) initials. She in that way he had failed. Therefore, Romualdez and
attributed to the correctors’ statements Mabunay acted in common accord with
other than those in fact made by them. the crime.
 YES. The examination of candidates for
admission to the bar is a judicial function. CONCLUSION/
It cannot therefore be maintained that the
papers submitted by the candidates for Decision of trial court MODIFIED. Penalty of
the exam were not public and official Romualdez increased to eight years and one
documents, or that the alleged alteration day of prision mayor. Luis Mabunay is liable as
was not a crime. a conspirator and co-principal; penalty
 NO. The Chairman of the Bar increased to three years, six months, and
Examination Committee was presumed twenty-one days of prision correccional.
to have discharged his duties in
accordance with the law and it was
inconceivable that he would without any
warrant of law give or attempt to give
Romualdez the unlimited authority which
she claimed to have received, thereby
allowing her to alter the grades as she
pleases, without recording or reporting
the same. Even if she was given such

7. By issuing in authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy
of an original document when no such original exists, or by including
in such a copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the
genuine original.
8. By intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance
thereof in a protocol, registry or
official book.
2 Justice Romualdez testified that he believed that on a certain occasion, he gave
Romualdez the understanding that she could review the compositions already
graded by the other correctors, PROVIDED that she do so to prevent an injustice
and WITHOUT KNOWING the owner of the booklet. The Court held that this
statement of his was a mere expression of opinion and not admissible as evidence
that she was given the alleged authority.
3
When [the accused] fails to offer such proof [to rebut certain inferences against
him], the natural conclusion is that the proof, if produced, instead of rebutting,
would SUPPORT the inferences against him. (In other words, since Romualdez
and Mabunay both failed to produce evidence as to what the bank account
transactions were for, it can be assumed that the evidence is incriminating to them,
thus giving them reason to hide it, and thus giving the court reason to conclude
that these transactions were not for a legitimate purpose).

BERADIO VS CA
Facts: Beradio is a lady-lawyer appointed as an
election registrar stationed in Rosales,
Pangasinan as Chief of Office. With the
permission of COMELEC, she appeared as
counsel for her cousins and cousins-in-law in
the case before the Court of Agrarian Relations
which was just about two meters from her office.
Whenever she appeared as counsel, she would
stay in the court for only a short time, the longest
of which is 45 minutes. However, in her daily
time record, she stated that she worked from
8:00am to 12:00 nn, and from 1:00 pm to 5:00
pm.
Issue: Whether Beradio is guilty of falsification
of public documents.
Held: No. There are three categories of pubic
officers which are exempt from requirements of
keeping and submitting the daily time records.
These are: (1) Presidential appointees; (2)
chiefs and assistant chiefs of agencies; and (3)
officers in the three branches of the
government. Beradio as Chief of Office and
exercising supervision over four subordinate
employees would fall under the third category.
However, assuming Beradio is under legal
obligation to submit the daily time records, the
false entries did not constitute falsification for
having been made with no malice or deliberate
intent. The brief absences of Beradio could be
absorbed within the allowed coffee breaks.
Besides, her brief absences did not in any way
interfere with her official duties.
LUAGUE VS. CA
Certiorari to review a decision of the Court of
Appeals, which affirmed the decision of the
Court of First Instance of Samar, convicting the
petitioner of three counts of falsification of
commercial documents.
Facts: Iluminado Luague, died at G.B. Tan
Memorial Hospital on January 24, 1972 after he
was confined in said hospital since January 3,
1972. The Bureau of Public Schools sent the
ACJUCO CRIMINAL LAW TITLE IV 5
deceased’s salary warrants to the
Superintendent of schools who forward them to
the District Supervisor, Florencio Guillermo.
The paychecks were delivered; Florencio
Guillermo signed the payroll-warrant registers
certifying that on his official oath, each
employee whose name appeared on the rolls
had received the salary warrant indicated
opposite his name on February 7, 17, and 25,
1972. Pilar Luague, the petitioner, signed the
salary checks of her deceased husband.
Florencio Guillermo claimed that upon
discovering his mistake, he asked appellant to
return the treasury warrants issued in the name
of her husband Illuminado, further claiming that
appellant promised to do so, but actually did not.
Guillermo discovered that the treasury warrants
had been encashed by appellant. The appellant
used it to pay debts incurred for the illness and
death of her husband.
For signing the name of her husband as payee
on three treasury warrants for purpose of
endorsement, appellant stands charged with the
crime of Estafa thru Falsification of Commercial
Document. The appellant was charged with 3
counts of estafa thru falsification of document
but was convicted of falsification only.
The petitioner contends that she acted in good
faith or had no criminal intent when she cashed
her deceased husband’s paychecks.
Issue: WON the petitioner is guilty of estafa thru
falsification of commercial documents
Held: No. The petitioner was acquitted.
The Court of Appeals failed to take into account
the following facts: That the petitioner signed
her husband’s name to the checks because they
were delivered to her by no less than her
husband’s district supervisor long after the
husband’s death which was known to the
supervisor; that she used the proceeds of the
checks to pay for the expenses of her husband’s
last illness and his burial; and that she believed
that she was entitled to the money as an

advance payment for her husband’s vacation
and sick leave credits the money value of which
exceeded the value of the checks.
Also, there was no damage incurred against the
government as the deceased employee
deserved the salary his wife availed of. Even if
there was falsification when she signed for her
husband, this was done with the knowledge of
her deceased husband’s supervisor that the
husband was indeed dead.
CABIGAS VS. PEOPLE
FACTS:
1. Petitioner Dario Cabigas is the Securities
Custodian of the Securities Section of the
Land Bank of the Philippines in its Makati
branch. Assisting him in his work is
Benedicto Reynes, the securities
receiving clerk.
2. On March 9, 1982, the Fund
Management Department delivered to
the Securities Section, Makati Branch of
the Land Bank of the Philippines, for
safekeeping, 112 pieces of treasury
notes and treasury bills worth
P46,000,000.00 and for which a copy of
the Securities Delivery Receipt (SDR)
was issued to the Fund Management
Dept. while the original was kept by the
Securities Section. After receiving the
securities, the accused would prepare
the Daily Report on
Securities/Documents Under Custody
(DR SDUC) evidencing the securities
transactions and operations of the Makati
Branch of the Land Bank of the
Philippines.
3. On March 29, 1982, in the course of their
inventory of treasury notes and bills
deposited with them, Cabigas and
Reynes discovered the loss of six (6)
treasury bills.
4. Upon verification that Securities Delivery
Receipt (SDR) was the source document
of the missing securities which were
delivered to them for safekeeping,
accused Reynes crossed out with a red
ink in the said document the last two
ACJUCO CRIMINAL LAW TITLE IV 6
digits "82" and the addition after them of
the figure "76" on the serial numbers A-
000064 to A-000082 of the 19 treasury
bills of the 795th series with a total
maturity value of P9,500,000.00. Then at
the bottom of the SDR, Cabigas placed
the notation "For adjustment" and below
it the date "3/29/82." Cabigas suggested
Reynes to report the incident to their
branch manager, Aurora Pigram.
5. Instead of following the draft prepared by
Reynes, Cabigas prepared his own
report. At the bottom of DR SDUC,
Cabigas placed the notation "Adjustment
on Erroneous Entry (incoming) dated
March 9, 1982" as legend of the asterisk
(*) sign which appears after the figure
"1,533."
6. On May 20, 1982, a certain Rosie Chua
was found to be authenticating with the
Central Bank of the Philippines a treasury
bill of the 795th series with Serial No. A-
000082 in the amount of P500,000.00.
Upon investigation by NBI agents, it was
discovered that the Land Bank of the
Philippines Makati Branch Manager,
Aurora Pigram, was the one who
negotiated the said treasury bill with the
Gainsbo Commodities.
7. On May 24, 1982, Cabigas and Reynes
were investigated by NBI agents. After
the investigation, Cabigas and Reynes
were arrested for having allegedly
conspired together in falsifying the
Securities Delivery Receipt (SDR) dated
March 9, 1982
ISSUE: WON Article 171 of the Revised Penal
Code applies in the case at bar
HELD/RATIO: NO. "There is nothing to show
the DR SDUC dated March 30, 1982, Exh. G,
for the alleged falsification of which petitioner
was convicted in Criminal Case No. 6938 is a
form the submission of which was or is required
by law. In the petition for review, petitioner
points out that as testified by him the form was
not an official form of the Land Bank. The form
was his own initiative adopted 'for our own
convenience and also for reference purposes.'

Petitioner therefore, was not under legal
obligation to disclose or reveal the truth by said
DR SDUC. In the absence of such obligation
and of the alleged wrongful intent, defendant
cannot be legally convicted of the crime of
falsification of public document with which he is
charged. (People vs Quasha, 93 Phil. 333)."
PEOPLE VS SENDAYDIEGO
It is settled that if the falsification was resorted
to for the purpose of hiding the malversation,
the falsification and malversation are separate
offenses.
FACTS:
In these three cases of malversation through
falsification, the prosecution's theory is that in
1969 Licerio P. Sendaydiego, the provincial
treasurer of Pangasinan, in conspiracy with
Juan Samson y Galvan, an employee of a
lumber and hardware store in Dagupan City,
and with Anastacio Quirimit, the provincial
auditor, as an accomplice, used six (6) forged
provincial vouchers in order to embezzle from
the road and bridge fund for P57,048.23.
The provincial voucher in these cases has
several parts: upper part, to be signed by two
officials of the provincial engineer's office and by
the governor's representative; middle part;
Paragraph 1, by the creditor; Paragraph 2, by
the provincial engineer; Paragraph 3, by the
provincial treasurer; Paragraph 4, by the
auditor; Paragraph 5, by the provincial
treasurer. In the instant cases paragraph 1 was
not signed presumably because it is not relevant
to the purchase of materials for public works
projects. And following paragraph 5, is the
receipt of the signed by the creditor. According
to the prosecution, Samson also signed on the
left margin of the six vouchers below the
stamped words: "Presented to Prov. Treasurer.
By Juan Samson."
The lower court acquitted the auditor, Quirimit
and found Sendaydiego and Samson guilty of
malversation through falsification of public or
official documents. Thus, Sendaydiego and
Samson appealed to this Court. However,
Sendaydiego died; hence, his appeal as to his
ACJUCO CRIMINAL LAW TITLE IV 7
criminal liability was dismissed. The claim of
complainant Province of Pangasinan for the civil
liability survived Sendaydiego because his
death occurred after final judgment was
rendered by the CFI, which convicted him of
three complex crimes of malversation through
falsification and ordered him to indemnify the
Province in the total sum of P61,048.23 (should
be P57,048.23).
The civil action for the civil liability is deemed
impliedly instituted with the criminal action in the
absence of express waiver or its reservation in
a separate action (Sec. 1, Rule 111 of the Rules
of court). The civil action for the civil liability is
separate and distinct from the criminal action.
In view of the foregoing, notwithstanding the
dismissal of the appeal of the deceased
Sendaydiego insofar as his criminal liability is
concerned, the Court resolved to continue
exercising appellate jurisdiction over his
possible civil liability for the money claims of the
Province of Pangasinan arising from the alleged
criminal acts complained of, as if no criminal
case had been instituted against him, thus
making applicable, in determining his civil
liability, Article 30 of the Civil Code and, for that
purpose, his counsel is directed to inform this
Court within ten (10) days of the names and
addresses of the decedent's heirs or whether or
not his estate is under administration and has a
duly appointed judicial administrator. Said heirs
or administrator will be substituted for the
deceased insofar as the civil action for the civil
liability is concerned (Secs. 16 and 17, Rule 3,
Rules of Court).
ISSUE:
Whether or not several falsification and
malversation are separate offenses and thus
constitute six separate or distinct offenses.
HELD:
Penalties. —
The crimes committed in these three cases are
not complex. Separate crimes of falsification
and malversation were committed. These are
not cases where the execution of a single act
constitutes two grave or less grave felonies or

where the falsification was used as a means to
commit malversation.
In the six vouchers the falsification was used to
conceal the malversation. It is settled that if the
falsification was resorted to for the purpose of
hiding the malversation, the falsification and
malversation are separate offenses
In the instant cases, the provincial, as the
custodian than of the money forming part of the
road and bridge could have malversed or
misappropriated it without falsifiying any
voucher. The falsification was used as a device
to prevent detection of the malversation. The
falsifications cannot be regarded as constituting
one continuing offense impelled by a single
criminal impulse. The falsification of six
vouchers constitutes six separate or distinct
offenses.
And each misappropriation as evidenced by a
provincial voucher constitutes a separate crimes
of malversation were committed. Appellant
Samson is a co-principal in each of the said
twelve offenses. As already stated, he is
presumed to be the author of the falsification
because he was in possession of the forged
vouchers and he used them in order to receive
public monies from the provincial treasurer.
The trial court correctly ruled that a private
person conspiring with an accountable public
officer in committing malversation is also guilty
of malversation.
Sendaydiego's appeal; civil liability of his estate.
— The cashier, Napoleon Ulanday, would have
Several lances indicate that Sendaydiego
conspired with Samson. Donato N. Rosete, the
assistant provincial treasurer, testified that,
contrary to the usual procedure, he affixed his
initial to paragraph 3 of the vouchers after
Sendaydiego had signed it. Rosete adhered to
that unusual procedure because the interested
party, Samson who hand-carried the vouchers,
approached Rosete after he (Samson) had
conferred with the provincial treasurer and
Samson told Rosete to initial the voucher
because it was already settled since the
treasurer had already signed the voucher.
ACJUCO CRIMINAL LAW TITLE IV 8
Rosete's testimony and affidavit confute
appellant Sendaydiego's contention that the trial
court erred in finding that he signed the
questioned vouchers before Rosete had placed
his initial in them. After the treasurer had signed
the voucher, Rosete's duty to initial it was only
ministerial.
The bookkeeper in the treasurer's office testified
that he indicated in the vouchers that the
amounts covered thereby should be paid in
cash. The bookkeeper was instructed by
Samson to place that symbol Samson told him
that he (Samson) had an understanding with
Treausrer Sendaydiego that the payment
should be made in cash. There were instances
when the treasurer insisted on payment by
check to creditors other than Juan Samson.
The cash payments were made to Samson in
the inner office of the provincial treasurer where
the cashier was summoned to make the cash
payments. As noted by the trial court, it was
unusual that the payments should be made in
the treasurer's office when that was a ministerial
chore of the cashier.
The cash payments were made to Samson even
if Samson had no power of attorney from the
Carried Construction Supply Co. authorizing
him to receive the payments. The space in the
vouchers for the signature of the witness, who
should be present when the payments were
received, was blank. The trial court said that the
cash payments prove Sendaydiego's collusion
with Samson.
been the best witness on how and where the
payments were made. However, Ulanday died
before the preliminary investigation was started.
Nonetheless, the facts proven by the
prosecution show that Sendaydiego had a tie-
up with Samson and that he acted maliciously in
signing the six questioned vouchers.
The Court also held that evidence for the
prosecution against Sendaydiego is not the
same as that against the auditor. For that
reason the auditor was charged only as an
accomplice, whereas, the treasurer was
charged as a principal. The auditor based his

defense on the undeniable fact that the
treasurer had approved the six vouchers "for
pre-audit and payment" before they were
passed upon by the auditor. In short, the auditor
was misled by the treasurer's certification which
the auditor apparently assumed to have been
made in good faith when in truth it was made in
bad faith.
We are convinced after a minutiose examination
of the documentary and oral evidence and an
unprejudiced consideration of the arguments of
Sendaydiego's counsel that his criminal liability
was established beyond reasonable doubt and,
therefore, the civil liability for his estate for the
amounts malversed was duly substantial.
Samson's appeal. —
Our searching study of the record fails to sustain
Samson's insinuation that he was prejudiced by
the fact that Judge, who conducted the
preliminary investigation, was the one who tried
the case and convicted him. Judge Bello tried
the case fairly. His conduct of the trial does not
show that he had already prejudged their guilt.
Section 13, Rule 112, in allowing a CFI to
conduct a preliminary investigation, does not
disqualify it from trying the case after it had
found probable cause and after the fiscal, as
directed by the Court, had filed the
corresponding information. The rule assumes
that the Judge, who conducted the preliminary
investigation, could impartially try the case on
the merits.
We cannot assume that judges as a rule are
opinionated and narrow-minded insomuch that
they would invariably be iron-bound by their
findings at the preliminary investigation. The
inferior court after terminating the preliminary
investigation is not obligated (por delicadeza) to
remand the case to the Court of First Instance
for trial. The inferior court has the option to try
the case on the merits. The assumption is that
the inferior court can try the case without any
ingrained bias or undue prejudice.
The Court found that the expert is correct in
declaring that (as admitted by the trial court)
there are radical differences between the
ACJUCO CRIMINAL LAW TITLE IV 9
questioned and authentic signatures. But the
expert is in error in concluding that Samson did
not forge the questioned signatures or in
implying that Samson had no hand in the writing
thereof.
The truth is that Samson used two forms of
signature. His supposed genuine signatures
found in his residence certificates, income tax
returns and the genuine office receipt of the
Carried Construction Supply Co. are "in an
arcade form or rounded form of writing". The
surname Samson is encircled.
Samson was consistent in his fakeries. Knowing
that the six vouchers evidenced fictitious
transactions, he used therein his fake signature,
or the signature which is different from his
signature in genuine documents. He used his
forged signatures in the six fake official receipts
of the Carried Construction Supply Co., stating
that the amounts covered by the six vouchers
were received by him the expert admitted that a
person may have two forms of signature.
Sendaydiego himself testified that the
questioned signatures of Samson in the six
vouchers were Samson's signatures.
Fernandez, the handwriting expert, declared
that the questioned signatures of Samson in the
vouchers were written by only one person.
The evidence conclusively proves that Samson,
as the representative or collector of the
supposed creditor, Carried Construction Supply
Co., hand-carried the vouchers in question to
the offices of the provincial engineer, treasurer
and auditor and then back to the treasurer's
office for payment. He actually received the
cash payments. Under those circumstances,
Samson is presumed to be the forger of the
vouchers.
The rule is that if a person had in his possession
a falsified document and be made use of it
(uttered it), taking advantage of it and profiting
thereby, the presumption is that he is the
material author of the falsification. This is
especially true if the use or uttering of the forged
documents was so closely connected in time
with the forgery that the user or possessor may
be proven to have the capacity of committing the

forgery, or to have close connection with the
forgers, and therefore, had complicity in the
forgery.
In the absence of a satisfactory explanation, one
who is found in possession of a forged
document and who used or uttered it is
presumed to be the forger. Samson's use of one
form of signature for his crooked transactions
with the provincial government and another form
of signatures of his valid transactions or papers
shows the deviousness of the falsifications
perpetrated in these cases.
We have already noted that the trial court
explicitly stated that the circumstance that
Sendaydiego signed the six vouchers ahead of
his assistant shows that there was "malice or
fraud" on the part of Sendaydiego and that there
was conivance between Samson and
Sendaydiego when the proceeds of the
vouchers were paid to Samson in
Sendaydiego's inner office, instead of in the
cashier's office. The trial court said that the fact
that Sendaydiego allowed payment in cash
shows "his collission with Samson.”
SIQUIAN V. PEOPLE
Facts:
Jesusa Carreon went to the office of Manuel
Siquian, the municipal mayor of Isabela, to
apply for a job in the office of the mayor. Siquian
then appointed her as a clerk in the office of the
municipal secretary and even said that her
salary would be included in the budget.
Accompanying her appointment is the
certification, among others, of the availability of
funds through a form issued by Siquian and
addressed to the CSC, pursuant to the
requirements of the latter.
It should be noted that the Municipal council of
Isabela, failed to enact the annual budget for the
municipality for the Fiscal Year 1975-76. As
such, the annual budget for the previous Fiscal
Year 1974-75, was deemed re-enacted. No
such position existed then.
Carreon worked for five months and was
supposed to receive her salary of P120. She
approached the municipal treasurer to ask for
ACJUCO CRIMINAL LAW TITLE IV 10
the money but the latter said that there was no
money yet. She then sued Siquian for
falsification of a public document.
The RTC and CA ruled in favour of Carreon.
Siquian interposed the defense of a lack of
criminal intent.
Issue:
Was Siquian guilty of falsification of public
documents?
Ruling:
Yes. He was found guilty under par 4 of art 171,
“making untruthful statements in a narration of
facts”; the elements of which are: (a) That the
offender makes in a document untruthful
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.
In this case, all the elements for falsification
were met especially when Siquian stated that
funds were available for the position to which
Jesusa Carreon was appointed when he knew
that, in reality, the position itself did not even
exist and no funds had been appropriated. It is
further bolstered by the fact that when the
budget was deemed re-enacted, there is no
such position as Clerk to the Municipal
Secretary, the position to which Carreon was
appointed. And there is also no appropriation
made in the Annual Budget for the Fiscal Year
1974-75 for such position, thus rendering
Siquian's statement in his certification utterly
false.
Siquian also had the legal obligation to disclose
the truth of such facts. Under the civil service
rules and regulations, a certification of the
availability of funds for the position to be filled
up is required to be signed by the head of office
or any officer who has been delegated the
authority to sign. As an officer authorized by law
to issue the certification, Siquian has a legal
obligation to disclose the truth of the facts
narrated by him in said certification which
includes information as to the availability of the
funds for the position being filled up.

He also took advantage of his official position in
falsifying the document. Abuse of public office is
considered present when the offender falsifies a
document in connection with the duties of his
office which consist of either making or
preparing or otherwise intervening in the
preparation of a document. In this case, Siquian
was charged with the duty of issuing the
certification necessary for the appointment of
Carreon.
Lastly, the existence of a wrongful intent to
injure a third person is not necessary when the
falsified document is a public document. The SC
relied on the Go Tiok case in stating that
wrongful intent on the part of an accused to
injure a third person is not an essential element
of the crime of falsification of public document.
This is because the principal thing punished in
falsifying public documents is the violation of the
public faith and the destruction of truth as
therein solemnly proclaimed.
PEOPLE V. VILLALON
DATE: Dec. 21, 1991
SUMMARY: De Guzman was charged with
estafa thru falsification of public document on
March 29, 1974. As the attorney-in-fact of
Mariano Carrera (complainant), in 1964, De
Guzman forged his signature on the special
power of attorney (SPA) to use it to mortgage
Carrera’s parel of land and obtain a loan from
the mortgage bank. Both documents (Power of
Atty. and mortgage contract) were later
registered with the Registry of Deeds of
Pangasinan. The mortgage foreclosed, the land
was bought by someone else, and Carrera only
knew about it when an action for ejectment was
filed against him by the new owner in 1972. The
trial court dismissed the case against De
Guzman on the grounds that the said crime,
which was punishable by prision correcional,
already prescribed, pursuant to Art. 90 of the
RPC. The SC affirmed the challenged decision
of the trial court, ruling that the crime prescribed
upon the public registry of the power of attorney
which is considered a notice to the whole world.
ACJUCO CRIMINAL LAW TITLE IV 11
FACTS:
- Mariano and Severo Carrere were owners of
a parcel of land in Pangasinan.
- Feb. 5, 1964 – Carrera executed a SPA with
De Guzman, naming him as his attorney-in-fact
- Feb. 13, 1964 – De Guzman mortgaged
Carrera’s property with the People’s Bank and
Trust Co. using the SPA and got the P8,500
loan.
- The mortgage foreclosed and the land was
sold to Ramon Serafica and Vileta Quinto.
Carrera discovered that his land belonged to
someone else when the former filed an action
for his ejectment.
- A motion to dismiss was filed by the defendant,
stating that:
a) The crime charged would not lie because of
complainant’s partial testimony. Mariano
testified that it was his brother, Severo, who
asked him to sign the SPA to authorize De
Guzman to mortgage one half of their land.
b) Since the most serious crime in the complex
crime was estafa, the penalty of prision
correctional will be imposed but because it is a
correctional penalty, it has already prescribed.
More than 10 years had passed from the
commission of the crime, which became public
knowledge upon its registry, to the filing of
information.
- Prosecution’s counter:
a) Mariano’s testimony was intended to show
that the authority to mortgage only extended up
to the one half portion pertaining to his brother,
not Mariano’s share.
b) Information was not filed out of time since the
date to be considered is January 1972 when
Serafica filed the action for ejectment which was
when the crime was discovered. It was not
alleged because it was thought to be merely
evidentiary.
- Presiding Judge Castaneda of CFI of
Pangasinan dismissed the case. People’s
motion for recon denied by Villalon.

- Special civil action for certiorari raised to the
SC.
ISSUES:
1. W/n the charge of estafa thru falsification of a
public document has sufficient basis to exist in
law and in fact
COURT: YES. a) Falsification is only the means
necessary to commit the estafa because before
the falsified document is used to defraud
another, the crime of falsification was already
consummated. The damages were caused by
the commission of estafa.
b) The alleged authorization given to De
Guzman to get a loan from the Bank only
pertains to the half owned by Mariano’s brother.
In his testimony, Mariano only quoted his
brother.
2. W/n the crime has prescribed
COURT: YES. a) The start of the prescriptive
period was when the falsified SPA was registed
in the Registry of Deeds on Feb. 13, 1964. In a
crime of falsification of public document, the
prescriptive period commences from the time
the offended party had constructive notice of the
alleged forgery after the document was
registered with the Register of Deeds.
Citing People v. Reyes, the Court said that
registration in a public registry is a notice to the
whole world. The record is a constructive notice
of its contents as well as all interests, legal and
equitable, included therein. Also, in Armentia vs.
Patriarca, et al., 17 in interpreting the phrase
"from the discovery," it was held that the
discovery must be reckoned to have taken place
from the time the document was registered in
the Register of Deeds and that this rule applies
in criminal and civil cases.
VERDICT: Petition dismissed.
DAVA v. PEOPLE
FACTS: Michael Dava bumped pedestrians
Bernadette Roxas Clamor and Dolores E.
Roxas, causing death to former and physical
injuries to the latter. As a consequence, his
driver's license was confiscated and he was
ACJUCO CRIMINAL LAW TITLE IV 12
charged with homicide and serious physical
injuries.
One day, the brother of Bernadette and the
father of Dolores, saw Dava driving a
Volkswagen. Knowing that Dava's driver's
license was used as an exhibit in court and that
no traffic violation receipt had been issued to
Dava, they had Dava apprehended for driving
without a license.
When he was apprehended, he showed the
police officers a non-professional driver's
license No. 2706887 with official receipt No.
0605870 issued by Agency Pampanga in the
name of Michael T. Dava. When asked about
the source of his license, Dava informed them
that his officemate (Manalili) had secured it for
him. He was brought to the police station and
charged w falsification of a public document.
Prosecution witnesses: Caroline Vinluan of the
Angeles City branch of the Bureau of Land
Transportation (BLT). He testified that the
license was earlier brought to him and he was
asked whether it was fake or genuine. He
examined it and found that it was "fake or
illegally issued" because form No. 2706887 was
one of the 50 forms which had been reported
missing from their office sometime in November,
1976 and that it was never issued to any
applicant for a license. He added that any
license that was not included their office index
card was considered as "coming from illegal
source' and "not legally issued by any agency."
Although the form used for the license was
genuine, the signature of the issuing official was
fake.
Defense witness: Manalili. He said he obtained
the license by paying fixers
ISSUE: WON Dava can be convicted of
falsification? –YES
RATIO: Elements of the crime of using a
falsified document in transaction (other than as
evidence in a judicial proceed penalized under
the last paragraph of Article 172) are following:
(a) the offender knew that a document was
falsified by another person;
 ACJUCO CRIMINAL LAW TITLE IV 13

(b) the false document is embraced in Article thereby, the presumption is that he is the
171 or in any of subdivisions Nos. 1 and 2 of material author of the falsification… In the
Article 172; absence of a satisfactory explanation, one who
is found in possession of a forged document and
(c) he used such document (not in judicial who used or uttered it is presumed to be the
proceedings), and forger
(d) the use of the false document caused We agree with the petitioner that the
damage to another or at last it was used with presumption enunciated in the Sendaydiego
intent to cause such damage. Except for last, all case is not absolute as it is subject to the
of these elements have been proven beyond exception that the accused should have
reason doubt in this case. a satisfactory explanation why he is in
possession of a false document. His
explanation, however, is unsatisfactory as it
a. Petitioner himself requested officemate consists mainly in passing the buck to his friend,
Manalili to get him a license. He misrepresented Manalili.
to Manalili that he has not at any time been
issued a driver's license. Through this
misrepresentation petitioner was ableto induce
Manalili to deal with "fixers" in securing the
subject driver's license.
b. A driver's license is a public document. The
blank form of the drivers license becomes a
public document the moment it is
accomplished. Thus, when driver's license No.
2706887 was filled up with petitioner's personal
data and the signature of the region of the San
Fernando LTC agency was affixed therein, even
if the same was simulated, the driver's license
became a public document.
c. When petitioner was apprehended he
presented the license to the officer. Because he
was a detailman who did his job with the use of
a car, it is probable that he’s been using the
license.
d. The driver's license being a public document,
proof of the fourth element of damage caused to
another person or at least an intent to cause
such damage has become immaterial. In
falsification of public or official documents, the
principal thing being punished is the violation of
the public faith and the destruction of the truth
proclaimed therein.
People vs. Sendaydiego,
The rule is that if a person had in his possession
a falsified document and he made use of it
(uttered it), taking advantage of it and profiting