CAPÍTULO IV – SÍMBOLOS FUNCIONALES DIVERSOS
Sección 22 Ejemplos de diagramas de espectros de frecuencias
WIRELESS TELEGRAPH, AND TELEPHONE
MESSAGES
Q:What is a document?
A: It is any written instrument by which a right is established or an obligation is extinguished, or every deed or instrument executed by a person by which some disposition or agreement is proved, evidenced or set forth. Q: What are the kinds of documents? A: 1. Public document – any instrument notarized by a notary public or competent public official with the solemnities required by law.
Examples:
a. Civil service examination papers b. Official receipt required by the
government to be issued upon receipt of money for public purposes c. Residence certificate
d. Driver’s license
2. Official document – any instrument issued by the government or its agents or officers having authority to do so and the offices, which in accordance with their creation, they are authorized to issue.
Example: Register of attorneys officially kept by the Clerk of the Supreme Court in which it is inscribed the name of each attorney admitted to the practice of law.
Note: Public document is broader than the term
official document. Before a document may be considered official, it must first be public document. To become an official document, there must be a law which requires a public officer to issue or to render such document.
3. Private document – every deed or instrument by a private person without the intervention of the notary public or of any other person legally authorized, by which document some disposition or agreement is proved, evidenced or set forth.
4. Commercial document – any instrument executed in accordance with the Code of Commerce of any mercantile law containing disposition of commercial rights or obligations. Examples: a. Bills of exchange b. Letters of Credit c. Checks d. Quedans e. Drafts f. Bills of lading Q: What are the five classes of falsification? A: 1. Falsification of legislative documents 2. Falsification of a document by a public officer, employee or notary public 3. Falsification of public or official, or commercial documents by a private individual
4. Falsification of private document by any person
5. Falsification of wireless, telegraph and telephone messages
Q: How is document falsified?
A: A document is falsified by fabricating an inexistent document or by changing the contents of an existing one through any of the 8 ways enumerated under Art. 171. Falsification of Legislative Documents Art. 170 Q: What are the elements? A:
1. That there be a bill, resolution or ordinance enacted or approved or pending approval by either House of Legislature or any provincial board or municipal council.
2. That the offender alters the same. 3. That he has no proper authority therefor. 4. That the alteration has changed the meaning
of the document. Note: The act of falsification in legislative document is limited to altering it which changes its meaning. Q: Who may be the offender?
A: The offender is any person who has no proper authority to make the alteration. He may be a private individual or a public officer.
Note: The offender must not be a public official
entrusted with the custody or possession of such document, otherwise Art. 171 will apply.
Falsification by Public Officer, Employee or Notary or Ecclessiastical Minister
137
THE ACADEMICS COMMITTEE: CHAIRPERSON: KAREN FELIZ G. SUPNAD
VICE CHAIRPERSON FOR ACADEMICS: MA. IRENE I. SANTOS
U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S
F a c u l t a d d e D e r e c h o C i v i l
Art. 171
Q: What are the elements of falsification by public officer, employee or notary, or ecclesiastical minister? A: 1. That the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public. 2. That he takes advantage of his official position. a. He has the duty to make or prepare or to otherwise intervene in the preparation of the document; or
b. He has the official custody of the document which he falsifies.
3. That he falsifies a document by committing any of the following acts:
a. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature, or rubric.
Elements:
i. That there be an intent to imitate, or an attempt to imitate, and
ii. That the two signatures or handwritings, the genuine and the forged bear some resemblance to each other.
Note: The Spanish text of Art. 171 is
“fingiendo” or feigning (for imitation). In feigning, there is no original signature, handwriting or rubric, but a forgery of a signature, handwriting or rubric that does not exist
b. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate.
Elements:
i. That the offender caused it to appear in a document that a person or persons participated in an act or a proceeding; and
ii. That such person or persons did not in fact so participate in the act or proceeding.
c. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them.
Elements:
i. That a person or persons participated in an act or a proceeding;
ii. That such person or persons made statements n that act or proceeding; and
iii. That the offender, in making a document, attributed to such person or persons statements other than those in fact made by such person or persons.
d. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts.
Elements:
i. That the offender makes in a
document untruthful
statements in a narration of facts;
ii. That he has legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him;
iii. The facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false. iv. The untruthful narration must
be such as to affect the integrity of the document or to change the effects which it would otherwise produce.
e. Altering true dates.
Note: there is falsification under this
paragraph only when the date mentioned in the document is essential. The alteration of the date in a document must affect either the veracity of the document of the effects thereof.
f. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning.
Elements:
i. That there be an alteration (change) or intercalation (insertion) on a document; ii. That it was made on a genuine
document;
iii. That the alteration or intercalation had changed the meaning of the document; and iv. That the change made the
document speak something false.
Note: The alteration which makes a
document speak the truth does not constitute falsification.
138
ACRIMINALDVISER: JUDGE LAW RICO TEAM SEBASTIAN D. LIWANAG; SUBJECT HEAD: ALJON D. DE GUZMANASST. SUBJECT HEADS: JEFFREY D. ARZAGA, JEREMAE R. NADONGA; MEMBERS: EILYN E. MEDINA, VINCENT TITO B. ABUCEJO, PAULINE BREISSEE GAYLE D.
ALCARAZ, CONSTANZA B. BRILLANTES, ARWIN V. CABANTING, GIRLIE VENUS E. DE LEON, MARIA JAMYKA S. FAMA, ANNIEBEL D. GUYO, LAWRENCE P.
HOLANDAY, ANDRES JOSE, JR., BIENVENIDO L. MABULAC II, LARIA CARISA C. OLIVIA, IRISH ROSSANE M. PULLANTE, MARICHIE B. ALARAS
g. Issuing in authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original document when no such original exists, or including in such copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original.
Note: The acts of falsification mentioned in
this paragraph cannot be committed by a private individual or by a notary public or a public officer who does not take advantage of his official position.
h. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry or official book.
4. In case the offender is an ecclesiastical minister, the act of falsification is committed with respect to any record or document of such character that its falsification may affect the civil status of persons. Q: Who are the persons liable? A: 1. Public officer, employees, or notary public who takes advantages of official position 2. Ecclesiastical minister if the act of falsification may affect the civil status of persons
3. Private individual, if in conspiracy with public officer.
Q: X was charged with falsification because in her certificate of candidacy for the position of councilor she had ‘willfully and unlawfully’ made the false statement that she was eligible to said office although she knew fully well that she was under 23 years old. Was the charge proper?
A: No. When the accused certified she was eligible for the position, she practically wrote a conclusion
of law. Hence she may not be declared guilty of
falsification because Art. 171 punishes untruthful statements in narration of facts. (People v. Yanza,
G.R. No. L-12089, April 29, 1960)
Q: What is the difference between making untruthful statements and perjury? A: Making untruthful statements Perjury The document must not be subscribed and sworn. Ex: cedula; driver’s license
The document must be subscribed and sworn to.
Note: What is violated is
the solemnity of the
oath.
Q: Augustina filed a criminal complaint against Bernante for falsification of public document because the latter allegedly falsified leave forms. It was alleged that Bernante made it appear in his leave application that he was on forced leave and on vacation leave on certain dates. In truth, Bernante was serving a 20-day prison term because of his conviction of the crime of slight physical injuries. Is Bernante liable for the crime of falsification of documents?
A: No. Augustina failed to point to any law imposing upon Bernante the legal obligation to disclose where he was going to spend his leave of absence. “Legal obligation” means that there is a law requiring the disclosure of the truth of the facts narrated. Bernante may not be convicted of the crime of falsification of public document by making false statements in a narration of facts absent any legal obligation to disclose where he would spend his vacation leave and forced leave. (Enemecio v.
Office of the Ombudsman [Visayas] G.R. No. 146731, Jan. 13, 2004)
Q: In falsification of public documents, is it necessary that there be the idea of gain or intent to injure a third person?
A: No. In falsification of public or official documents, it is not necessary that there be present the idea of gain or the intent to injure a third person because in the falsification of a public document, what is punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed. (Galeos v. People,
G.R. Nos. 174730-37, February 9, 2011) Q: A counterfeited the signature of B but what he entered in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities of B are all true. Since there was no damage to the government did he commit a crime?
A: Yes. In falsification of a public document, it is immaterial whether or not the contents set forth therein were false. What is important is the fact that the signature of another was counterfeited. In a crime of falsification of a public document, the principal thing punished is the violation of public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed. Thus, intent to gain or injure is immaterial. Even more so, the gain or damage is not necessary (Caubang v. People, G.R. No. L-62634
139
THE ACADEMICS COMMITTEE: CHAIRPERSON: KAREN FELIZ G. SUPNAD
VICE CHAIRPERSON FOR ACADEMICS: MA. IRENE I. SANTOS
U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S
F a c u l t a d d e D e r e c h o C i v i l
Q: Can falsification be committed by omission? A: Yes. IllustrationAn assistant bookkeeper who, having bought several articles for which he signed several chits, intentionally did not record in his personal account most of the said chits and destroyed them so that he could avoid paying the amount thereof is guilty of falsification by omission (People v. Dizon, 47 Phil 350) Falsification by Private Individuals and Use of Falsified Documents Art. 172
Q: What are the punishable acts and their elements?
A:
1. Falsification of public official or commercial document by a private individual.
Elements:
a. Offender is a private individual or public officer or employee who did not take advantage of his official position
b. He committed any act of falsification c. The falsification is committed in a
public, official, or commercial document or letter of exchange
Note: Under this par., damage is not essential. It
is presumed.
2. Falsification of private document by any person
Elements:
a. Offender committed any of the acts of falsification except Art. 171 (7), that is, issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original document when no such original exists, or including in such a copy a statement contrary to, or different from that of the genuine original
b. Falsification was committed in any private document
c. Falsification caused damage to a third party or at least the falsification was committed with intent to cause such damage
Note: Mere falsification of private document is
not enough, two things are required:
a. He must have counterfeited the false document.
b. He must have performed an independent act which operates to the prejudice of a third person. 3. Use of falsified document. Elements:
a. In introducing in a judicial proceeding –
i. Offender knew that the document was falsified by another person
ii. The falsified document is in Articles 171 or 172 (1 or 2) iii. He introduced said document in
evidence in a judicial proceeding
Note: Damage is not necessary in the crime of introducing in judicial proceeding a false document. b. In use in any other transaction – i. Offender knew that a document was falsified by another person ii. The false document is embraced in Art. 171 or 172 (1 or 2) iii. He used such document iv. The use caused damaged to
another or at least used with intent to cause damage
Note: The user of the falsified document is deemed
the author of the falsification if: (1) the use was so closely connected in time with the falsification, and (2) the user had the capacity of falsifying the document.
Q: Is good faith a defense if a private individual falsified a public document?
A: Yes. There is no falsification of a public document if the acts of the accused are consistent with good faith. Misstatements or erroneous assertion in a public document will not give rise to falsification as long as he acted in good faith and no one was prejudiced by the alteration or error.
Q: Should the document be an authentic official paper?
A: No. It states that “causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact participate,” the document need not be an authentic official paper
140
ACRIMINALDVISER: JUDGE LAW RICO TEAM SEBASTIAN D. LIWANAG; SUBJECT HEAD: ALJON D. DE GUZMANASST. SUBJECT HEADS: JEFFREY D. ARZAGA, JEREMAE R. NADONGA; MEMBERS: EILYN E. MEDINA, VINCENT TITO B. ABUCEJO, PAULINE BREISSEE GAYLE D.
ALCARAZ, CONSTANZA B. BRILLANTES, ARWIN V. CABANTING, GIRLIE VENUS E. DE LEON, MARIA JAMYKA S. FAMA, ANNIEBEL D. GUYO, LAWRENCE P.
HOLANDAY, ANDRES JOSE, JR., BIENVENIDO L. MABULAC II, LARIA CARISA C. OLIVIA, IRISH ROSSANE M. PULLANTE, MARICHIE B. ALARAS
since its simulation is the essence of falsification. So, also, the signatures appearing thereon need not necessarily be forged. Q: When is damage required under this Article? A: 1. When a private document is falsified
2. When a falsified document is used in any proceeding other than judicial
Q: Is there a complex crime of estafa through falsification of a private document?
A: None. The fraudulent gain obtained through deceit in estafa, in the commission of which a private document was falsified is nothing more or less than the very damage caused by the falsification of such document. The proper crime to be charged is estafa, if estafa can be committed without falsification, such as when a private document is falsified to conceal the misappropriation of money in possession of the offender, or when estafa was already consummated. If estafa cannot be committed without falsification, then the crime is falsification such as when the private document is falsified to obtain the money which was later misappropriated. Q: What are the distinctions between falsification of public document and private document? A: Falsification of Public
Document Falsification of Private Document Mere falsification is
enough
Aside from falsification, prejudice to a third person or intent to cause it, is essential. Can be complexed with
other crimes if the act of falsification was the necessary means in the commission of such crimes, like estafa, theft, or malversation.
E.g. Malversation through falsification of a public document; Estafa through falsification of a public document.
There is no complex crime of estafa through falsification of a private document. Hence, when one makes use of a private document, which he falsified, to defraud another, there results only one crime: that of falsification of a private document.
Q: Is there a falsification of private document through reckless imprudence?
A: No, since in falsification of private document, there is at least intent to cause damage, there must
be malice, and falsification through imprudence implies lack of such intent or malice, there is no such crime as falsification of private document through negligence or reckless imprudence.
Q: Is there such crime as attempted/frustrated falsification?
A: Generally none. Falsification is consummated the moment the genuine document is altered of the moment the false document is executed. However, there may be a frustrated crime of falsification if the falsification is imperfect (Reyes, 2008 citing
Cuello Calon) Falsification of Wireless Telegraph and Telephone Messages Art. 173 Q: What are the punishable acts? A:
1. Uttering fictitious wireless, telegraph or telephone message.
2. Falsifying wireless, telegraph or telephone message.
Elements of paragraph 1 and 2:
a. That the offender is an officer or employee of the Government or an officer or employee of a private corporation, engaged in the service of sending or receiving wireless, cable or telephone message. b. That the offender commits any of
the following acts:
i. Uttering fictitious wireless, cable, telegraph or telephone message; or ii. Falsifying wireless, cable,
telegraph, or telephone message.
3. Using such falsified message.
Elements:
a. Offender knew that wireless, cable, telegraph, or telephone message was falsified by an officer or employee of a private corporation, engaged in the service of sending or receiving wireless, cable or telephone message
b. He used such falsified dispatch c. The use resulted in the prejudice of a
third party or at least there was intent to cause such prejudice
141
THE ACADEMICS COMMITTEE: CHAIRPERSON: KAREN FELIZ G. SUPNAD
VICE CHAIRPERSON FOR ACADEMICS: MA. IRENE I. SANTOS
U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S
F a c u l t a d d e D e r e c h o C i v i l
Q: Can a private individual commit the crime of falsification of telegraphic dispatches?
A: It depends. A private individual cannot commit the crime falsification of telegraphic dispatches by direct participation, unless he is an employee of a corporation engaged in the business of sending or receiving wireless telegraph or telephone messages. But a private individual can be held criminally liable as principal by inducement in the falsification of telegraph dispatches or telephone messages. But if he knowingly uses falsified telegraph, wireless or telephone messages to the prejudice of a third person, or with intent to cause such prejudice, it is not necessary that he be connected with such corporation. False Medical Certificates, False Certificates of Merit or Service Art. 174 Q: What are the punishable acts? A:
1. Issuance of false certificate by a physician or surgeon in connection with the practice of his profession
2. Issuance of a false certificate or merit or service, good conduct or similar circumstances by a public officer;
Note: Intent to gain is immaterial. But if the
public officer issued the false certificate in consideration of a promise, gift or reward, he will also be liable for bribery.
3. Falsification by a private person of any certificate falling within 1 and 2. Q: What is a certificate? A: A certificate is any writing by which testimony is given that a fact has or has not taken place. Note: The phrase “or similar circumstances” in Art. 174
does not seem to cover property, because the circumstance contemplated must be similar to “merit,” “service,” or “good conduct.” Q: Who are the persons liable under this Article? A: 1. Physician or surgeon 2. Public officer
3. Private individual who falsified a certificate falling in the classes mentioned in nos. 1 and 2. Using False Certificates Art. 175 Q: What are the elements of this crime? A:
1. A physician or surgeon had issued a false medical certificate, or public officer issued a false certificate of merit or service, good conduct, or similar circumstance, or a private