Forgeries Upon Documents
A. The proper term is Falsification
B. Document is : (1) any writing, whether paper based or in any solid surface, which is complete, creating rights or extinguishing obligations, or defining the relations between persons. Examples: deeds and contracts, receipts, promissory notes, checks (2) a writing used as evidence of the facts contained in the document such as death/birth certificates; clearances, medical records, x-rays; driver’s license
C. General Classification: (In falsification, it is essential to specify the document falsified)
1. Falsification of Legislative Document punished under Art. 170- bills, resolutions, ordinances whether approved or pending approval, by any legislative body
a). the act of falsification is limited to alterations of a genuine legislative document
b). if by any other means, such as simulating a legislative document, the offense is ordinary falsification.
2. Falsification of a Non-Legislative Document
a). Document proper under Article 171 and 172
b). Wireless, Telegram, cablegram, telephone Messages under Article 173
c). Certificates under Article 174
D. Kinds of Documents Proper
1. Public Documents: they consists of the following
a). Those which embody the official acts of a public officer such as Decisions/Resolutions; Administrative Orders; Marriage Contract; Oaths of Office
b). Those issued by a public officer or in which he participates, virtute officii ( by virtue of his office) such as clearances; certificates of appearance, designation of personnel; receipts. These are the so called “Official Documents”.
Thus all official documents are public documents but not all public documents are official documents
c). Those acknowledged before a Notary Public such as deeds and conveyances
d). Private documents :
(i). which already formed part of the public records ( Public by Incorporation) such as private deeds submitted to the office of the Register of Deeds; acknowledgment letter sent to the Local \Civil Registrar; Protest letters to the Assessor’s Office; libelous letters offered as exhibits in a trial; letters formally seeking opinions
(ii). those which are intended to form part of the public record ( Public by Intention)
Per Monteverde vs. PP ( Aug. 12, 2000) involving falsification of sales invoices required by the BIR, it was held: : “ If the document is intended by law to be part of the public or official record, the preparation of which being in accordance with rules and regulations issued by the government, the falsification of that document, although it was a private document at the time of the falsification ton, is regarded as falsification of public or official documents”
Examples: Falsification of Civil Service or Bar Exam Booklets; Application letters and personal data sheets sent to personnel officers.
Query: What about attendance sheets during seminars or conferences?
Note: In case of falsification of Travel Documents ( Visa, Passport, and any document submitted in connection therewith) the law applicable is R.A. 8239 or the Philippine Passport Act.
2.Commercial Documents: (a). those used by merchants or business people to promote trade or credit transactions or commercial dealings and (b) those defined and regulated by the Code of Commerce or other commercial laws.. Examples: commercial checks; sales receipts and invoices; trust receipts; deposit and withdrawal slips and bank passbooks; tickets issued to passengers; enrollment forms; grades.
3. Private Documents: any other document, deed or instruments executed by private persons without the intervention of a notary public or of other persons legally authorized, by which some disposition or agreement is proved, evidenced or set forth. Examples: unnotarized deeds, letters, private receipts, class cards, timre records in private employment. Vouchers of business people are private, not commercial, documents ( Batulanon vs. PP, 502 SCRA 35)
E. Importance of distinguishing Falsification of Public from Falsification of Private Documents
1. As to penalty: a higher penalty is imposed for falsification of public documents
2. As to modes of commission: there are 8 ways of falsifying a public documents as against 7 as to private documents
3. As to complexing with Estafa: Estafa cannot be complexed with Falsification of Private document. The reason is because both have a common element which is damage
a). The crime is falsification if the deception cannot be committed without falsification, i.e. the falsification is committed as a means to commit estafa.
b). It is estafa if the estafa can be committed without the necessity of falsifying a document
4. As to requirement of damage: In falsification of a private document the act of falsification must be coupled with either (a) actual damage even if there was no intent to cause damage or (b) an intent to cause damage even if no actual damage resulted. In falsification of public document, the gravamen of the offense is the perversion of truth; the loss of faith and confidence by the public in the document even if there is no actual damage t the public
F. Principles Involving Falsification:
1. The Falsification maybe complexed with the crimes of Estafa ( save private documents) malversation or theft
2. Maybe committed intentionally or through negligence
a). Examples through negligence: (i) The Register of Deeds who issued a duplicate title without noting on its back a notice of the encumbrances (ii) A Clerk who issues a certified true copy of a birth certificate but inadvertently copied the wrong entries (iii) a person who signs a check to accommodate a payee without verifying the payee’s identification
b). Thus the accused who is charged with intentional falsification may be convicted for falsification thru negligence without amending the Information because the former includes the latter ( see PP vs Uy 475 SCRA 248)
3. As to the liability of Heads of Offices as final approving authority if it turns out the document to which they affixed their signatures contains falsities:
a). The Arias Principle ( Arias vs. Sandiganbayan, 180 SCRA 315) as reiterated in Magsuce vs. Sandiganbayan ( Jan. 3, 1995) holds: “ All heads of offices have a right to rely to a reasonable extent on their subordinate and on the good faith of those who prepared the documents, and are not liable for the falsification”
b). Exceptions: (i). Where there is a clear evidence of conspiracy with the authors (ii) if through their negligence, they brought about the commission of the crime. Thus in PP. vs. Rodis the Head of Office was held liable where the document signed by him contained anomalies which were glaring in the document
4. The following are accepted as defenses
a). Good faith and lack of intent to pervert the truth. As in the case of a co-employee who signed for another in the payroll because the latter was sick
b). Alterations which are in the nature of corrections such as changing the civil status from single to married in a Community Tax Certificate
d). Alterations which do not affect the integrity or veracity of the document. Example: The Certification by the treasurer that he paid the salary on July 10 when in truth it was on July 12
e) Minor inaccuracies as in a deed of sale which declared the consideration was paid in cash when it was paid in two installments
5. Presumption of Authorship of the Falsification: In the absence of satisfactory explanation, one found in possession of and who used a forged document is the forger of said document. If a person had in his possession a falsified document and he made sue of it, taking advantage of it and profiting thereby, the clear presumption is that he is the material author of the falsification. ( Nierva vs. PP. 503 SCRA 114).
6. There is a ruling that generally, falsification of public/commercial documents have no attempted or frustrated stages unless the falsification is so imperfect that it may be considered as frustrated. (Personal Opinion: the crime should be consumated since what was frustrated was not the act but the purpose of the offender)
7. There are as many falsifications as there are documents falsified; or as there are separate acts of falsification committed by one person within the same period of time
a). The falsification of several signatures in one payroll is only one falsification
b). Several checks falsified at the same time gives rise to several separate crimes
8. Falsification is not a continuing crime
V. Proof of Falsification.
A. An allegation of forgery and a perfunctory comparison of the signature/handwritings by themselves cannot support a claim of forgery, as forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence and the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery.
B. Criteria to determine forgery or falsification: per Ladignon vs. CA ( 390 Phil. 1161 as reiterated in Rivera vs. Turiano ( March 7, 2007)
The process of identification must include not only the material differences between or among the signatures/handwritings but a showing of the following:
(i) the determination of the extent, kind and significance of the resemblance and variation ( of the handwriting or signature)
(ii) that the variation is due to the operation of a different personality and not merely an expected and inevitable variation found in the genuine writing of the same writer
(iii) that the resemblance is a result more or less of a skillful imitation and not merely a habitual and characteristic resemblance which normally appears in genuine handwriting
ART. 171. FALSIFICATION BY PUBLIC OFFICER, EMPLOYEE, OR NOTARY
OR ECCLESIASTIC MINISTER
I. Coverage: this article provides: (1) the penalty of falsification if committed by a public officer or employee or a notary or an ecclesiastical minister. The penalty is higher than if committed by a private person. The document may be any document. (2) And the eight acts of falsification.
A. The public officer must take advantage of his official position or that there was abuse of office. By this is meant that his functions include participating in the preparation, recording, keeping, publishing or sending out to the public of the falsified document otherwise he will be punished as a private person. As for instance: secretaries, the Clerk of Court; the record officers; those who issue receipts or licenses; the Register of Deeds; Local Civil Registrar.
B. As for an ecclesiastic, the document he falsified must affect the civil status of a person, else he will be considered as a private person. The usual document involved is a marriage contract
II. The acts of falsification:
A. By counterfeiting, imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric. To counterfeit a handwriting or signature is to create one that is so similar to the genuine as to make it difficult to distinguish and thus easily fool the public. This act includes creating or simulating a fictitious handwriting or signature
B. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate
1). There is no need to imitate the signature or handwriting
2). This includes simulating a public document like a Warrant of Arrest as having been issued by a judge
3) Examples: impersonating a person in a document; voting in place of a registered voter, posing as payee if a negotiable instrument in order to encash the same
C. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them proceeding when they did not in fact so participate.
1). This is twisting the statements or putting words into the mouth of another
2). Substituting a forged will where the accused is now named as an heir in lieu of the original where he was not so named
3). Where the accused was instructed to prepare a Special Power of Attorney over a parcel of land, with himself as the agent but he instead prepared a deed of sale with himself as the vendee
D. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts
1). This require that (i) the accused knows that what he imputes is false (ii) the falsity involves a material fact (iii) there is a legal obligation for him to disclose the truth and (iv) such untruthful statements are not contained in an affidavit or a statement required by law to be sworn to.
2). by legal obligation is meant that the law requires a full disclosure of facts such as in a public official’s Statements of Assets and Liabilities; the Personal Data Sheet submitted to the NBI; the contents of an Application for Marriage; the Community Tax Certificate
3). Narration of facts means an assertion of a fact and does not include statements of opinion or conclusions of law. Thus when the accused placed himself as “eligible” in his statement of candidacy when in truth he is disqualified, this is not a narration of fact but a conclusion of law. Similarly, the accused as claimant to a land stated in his application that he entitled to the ownership when under the law he is disqualified, is not liable
4). There is no falsification if there is some colorable truth in the statement of facts by the accused
5). False statements in an application form of the Civil Service, which was under oath, for police examination is perjury not falsification
6). But when a third person, not the Affiant, alters a prepared Affidavit, the crime committed by him is falsification under mode number 6
E. Altering true dates. This requires that the date must be material as in the date of birth or marriage; date of arrest; date when a search warrant was issued; date of taking the oath of office
F. Making alterations or intercalations in a genuine document which changes its meaning. The change must affect the integrity of the document. It must make the document speak something false so that alterations to make it speak the truth cannot be falsification.
1. Changing the grades in one’s Transcript of Records
2. Changing one’s time of arrival in the DTR
3. Changing the stated consideration a deed of sale
4. Deleting a condition in a contract of lease
G. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be an original when no such original exist, or including in such copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original.
1. This can only be committed by the Official Custodian of documents
2. Example: Issuing a Certified True Copy of a birth certificate of a person when no such certificate exists or
3. Issuing a true copy of a title and indicating therein the land is mortgaged when no such encumbrance exist on the original on file with the office
H. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry or official book
1. Example: Inserting a Birth Certificate in the recorded of the Civil Registrar to make it appear the birth was recorded
ART. 172. FALSIFICATION BY A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL AND
USE OF FALSIFIED DOCUMENTS
I. Punishes these acts: (1) If the falsification is by a private person and the document falsified is a public or commercial document (2) Falsification by any person of a private document and (3) Introducing in any judicial proceeding a falsified document or (4) Using a falsified document in any transaction
II. There are only seven acts of falsification of a private person. In the falsification of a private document the damage includes damage to honor.
III. In introducing a falsified document in a judicial proceeding, damage is not required. Example: The act of the defendant in introducing a falsified receipt to show that the debt was paid.
IV. In the crime use of a falsified document, the user is not the falsifier but a third person, who must know the falsity of the document.
ART. 173. FALSIFICATION OF WIRELESS, CABLE, TELEGRAM
AND TELEPHONE MESSAGES
I. Acts punished: (1) The act of falsifying said messages (2) Uttering of said falsified messages and (3) Using such falsified damages with intent to cause damage or to the damage of third persons
II. The acts of falsifying and uttering:
1). The offender must be officers or employees of the government or of a private entity engaged in the business of sending or receiving such messages
2) Examples: making up a false “break-up” telegram or decreasing the number of the words in a message even if the contents are not changed
III. The crime of using may be committed by any person
CRIMES AFFECTING MEDICAL CERTIFICATE, CERTIFICATES
OF MERIT AND THE LIKE
A. Acts punished:
1. Issuing a false medical certificate by a physician or surgeon
a). The contents are not true in that the person was never examined; or that he actually had no illness; or that the illness is not as serious as stated in the certificate; or that the period of confinement or rest is not as stated therein.
2. Issuing a false certificate of merit or service, good conduct or similar circumstances by a public officer
a). as in the case of a barangay captain who issues a Certificate of Good Moral Character to a bully , or a head of office who issues a Certificate of Exemplary Conduct to an employee with several disciplinary penalties
3). The act of falsifying by a private person of medical certificate or certificate of merit
a). The name of the crime is Falsification of a Medical Certificate or Certificate of Merit to distinguish it from ordinary falsification
b). Example: the patient who altered the period of days of confinement
4. The act of knowingly using said false certificates
By: BATASnatin
1. Falsification of Legislative Document punished under Art. 170- bills, resolutions, ordinances whether approved or pending approval, by any legislative body
a). the act of falsification is limited to alterations of a genuine legislative document
b). if by any other means, such as simulating a legislative document, the offense is ordinary falsification.
2. Falsification of a Non-Legislative Document
a). Document proper under Article 171 and 172
b). Wireless, Telegram, cablegram, telephone Messages under Article 173
c). Certificates under Article 174
D. Kinds of Documents Proper
1. Public Documents: they consists of the following
a). Those which embody the official acts of a public officer such as Decisions/Resolutions; Administrative Orders; Marriage Contract; Oaths of Office
b). Those issued by a public officer or in which he participates, virtute officii ( by virtue of his office) such as clearances; certificates of appearance, designation of personnel; receipts. These are the so called “Official Documents”.
Thus all official documents are public documents but not all public documents are official documents
c). Those acknowledged before a Notary Public such as deeds and conveyances
d). Private documents :
(i). which already formed part of the public records ( Public by Incorporation) such as private deeds submitted to the office of the Register of Deeds; acknowledgment letter sent to the Local \Civil Registrar; Protest letters to the Assessor’s Office; libelous letters offered as exhibits in a trial; letters formally seeking opinions
(ii). those which are intended to form part of the public record ( Public by Intention)
Per Monteverde vs. PP ( Aug. 12, 2000) involving falsification of sales invoices required by the BIR, it was held: : “ If the document is intended by law to be part of the public or official record, the preparation of which being in accordance with rules and regulations issued by the government, the falsification of that document, although it was a private document at the time of the falsification ton, is regarded as falsification of public or official documents”
Examples: Falsification of Civil Service or Bar Exam Booklets; Application letters and personal data sheets sent to personnel officers.
Query: What about attendance sheets during seminars or conferences?
Note: In case of falsification of Travel Documents ( Visa, Passport, and any document submitted in connection therewith) the law applicable is R.A. 8239 or the Philippine Passport Act.
2.Commercial Documents: (a). those used by merchants or business people to promote trade or credit transactions or commercial dealings and (b) those defined and regulated by the Code of Commerce or other commercial laws.. Examples: commercial checks; sales receipts and invoices; trust receipts; deposit and withdrawal slips and bank passbooks; tickets issued to passengers; enrollment forms; grades.
3. Private Documents: any other document, deed or instruments executed by private persons without the intervention of a notary public or of other persons legally authorized, by which some disposition or agreement is proved, evidenced or set forth. Examples: unnotarized deeds, letters, private receipts, class cards, timre records in private employment. Vouchers of business people are private, not commercial, documents ( Batulanon vs. PP, 502 SCRA 35)
E. Importance of distinguishing Falsification of Public from Falsification of Private Documents
1. As to penalty: a higher penalty is imposed for falsification of public documents
2. As to modes of commission: there are 8 ways of falsifying a public documents as against 7 as to private documents
3. As to complexing with Estafa: Estafa cannot be complexed with Falsification of Private document. The reason is because both have a common element which is damage
a). The crime is falsification if the deception cannot be committed without falsification, i.e. the falsification is committed as a means to commit estafa.
b). It is estafa if the estafa can be committed without the necessity of falsifying a document
4. As to requirement of damage: In falsification of a private document the act of falsification must be coupled with either (a) actual damage even if there was no intent to cause damage or (b) an intent to cause damage even if no actual damage resulted. In falsification of public document, the gravamen of the offense is the perversion of truth; the loss of faith and confidence by the public in the document even if there is no actual damage t the public
F. Principles Involving Falsification:
1. The Falsification maybe complexed with the crimes of Estafa ( save private documents) malversation or theft
2. Maybe committed intentionally or through negligence
a). Examples through negligence: (i) The Register of Deeds who issued a duplicate title without noting on its back a notice of the encumbrances (ii) A Clerk who issues a certified true copy of a birth certificate but inadvertently copied the wrong entries (iii) a person who signs a check to accommodate a payee without verifying the payee’s identification
b). Thus the accused who is charged with intentional falsification may be convicted for falsification thru negligence without amending the Information because the former includes the latter ( see PP vs Uy 475 SCRA 248)
3. As to the liability of Heads of Offices as final approving authority if it turns out the document to which they affixed their signatures contains falsities:
a). The Arias Principle ( Arias vs. Sandiganbayan, 180 SCRA 315) as reiterated in Magsuce vs. Sandiganbayan ( Jan. 3, 1995) holds: “ All heads of offices have a right to rely to a reasonable extent on their subordinate and on the good faith of those who prepared the documents, and are not liable for the falsification”
b). Exceptions: (i). Where there is a clear evidence of conspiracy with the authors (ii) if through their negligence, they brought about the commission of the crime. Thus in PP. vs. Rodis the Head of Office was held liable where the document signed by him contained anomalies which were glaring in the document
4. The following are accepted as defenses
a). Good faith and lack of intent to pervert the truth. As in the case of a co-employee who signed for another in the payroll because the latter was sick
b). Alterations which are in the nature of corrections such as changing the civil status from single to married in a Community Tax Certificate
d). Alterations which do not affect the integrity or veracity of the document. Example: The Certification by the treasurer that he paid the salary on July 10 when in truth it was on July 12
e) Minor inaccuracies as in a deed of sale which declared the consideration was paid in cash when it was paid in two installments
5. Presumption of Authorship of the Falsification: In the absence of satisfactory explanation, one found in possession of and who used a forged document is the forger of said document. If a person had in his possession a falsified document and he made sue of it, taking advantage of it and profiting thereby, the clear presumption is that he is the material author of the falsification. ( Nierva vs. PP. 503 SCRA 114).
6. There is a ruling that generally, falsification of public/commercial documents have no attempted or frustrated stages unless the falsification is so imperfect that it may be considered as frustrated. (Personal Opinion: the crime should be consumated since what was frustrated was not the act but the purpose of the offender)
7. There are as many falsifications as there are documents falsified; or as there are separate acts of falsification committed by one person within the same period of time
a). The falsification of several signatures in one payroll is only one falsification
b). Several checks falsified at the same time gives rise to several separate crimes
8. Falsification is not a continuing crime
V. Proof of Falsification.
A. An allegation of forgery and a perfunctory comparison of the signature/handwritings by themselves cannot support a claim of forgery, as forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence and the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery.
B. Criteria to determine forgery or falsification: per Ladignon vs. CA ( 390 Phil. 1161 as reiterated in Rivera vs. Turiano ( March 7, 2007)
The process of identification must include not only the material differences between or among the signatures/handwritings but a showing of the following:
(i) the determination of the extent, kind and significance of the resemblance and variation ( of the handwriting or signature)
(ii) that the variation is due to the operation of a different personality and not merely an expected and inevitable variation found in the genuine writing of the same writer
(iii) that the resemblance is a result more or less of a skillful imitation and not merely a habitual and characteristic resemblance which normally appears in genuine handwriting
ART. 171. FALSIFICATION BY PUBLIC OFFICER, EMPLOYEE, OR NOTARY
OR ECCLESIASTIC MINISTER
I. Coverage: this article provides: (1) the penalty of falsification if committed by a public officer or employee or a notary or an ecclesiastical minister. The penalty is higher than if committed by a private person. The document may be any document. (2) And the eight acts of falsification.
A. The public officer must take advantage of his official position or that there was abuse of office. By this is meant that his functions include participating in the preparation, recording, keeping, publishing or sending out to the public of the falsified document otherwise he will be punished as a private person. As for instance: secretaries, the Clerk of Court; the record officers; those who issue receipts or licenses; the Register of Deeds; Local Civil Registrar.
B. As for an ecclesiastic, the document he falsified must affect the civil status of a person, else he will be considered as a private person. The usual document involved is a marriage contract
II. The acts of falsification:
A. By counterfeiting, imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric. To counterfeit a handwriting or signature is to create one that is so similar to the genuine as to make it difficult to distinguish and thus easily fool the public. This act includes creating or simulating a fictitious handwriting or signature
B. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate
1). There is no need to imitate the signature or handwriting
2). This includes simulating a public document like a Warrant of Arrest as having been issued by a judge
3) Examples: impersonating a person in a document; voting in place of a registered voter, posing as payee if a negotiable instrument in order to encash the same
C. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them proceeding when they did not in fact so participate.
1). This is twisting the statements or putting words into the mouth of another
2). Substituting a forged will where the accused is now named as an heir in lieu of the original where he was not so named
3). Where the accused was instructed to prepare a Special Power of Attorney over a parcel of land, with himself as the agent but he instead prepared a deed of sale with himself as the vendee
D. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts
1). This require that (i) the accused knows that what he imputes is false (ii) the falsity involves a material fact (iii) there is a legal obligation for him to disclose the truth and (iv) such untruthful statements are not contained in an affidavit or a statement required by law to be sworn to.
2). by legal obligation is meant that the law requires a full disclosure of facts such as in a public official’s Statements of Assets and Liabilities; the Personal Data Sheet submitted to the NBI; the contents of an Application for Marriage; the Community Tax Certificate
3). Narration of facts means an assertion of a fact and does not include statements of opinion or conclusions of law. Thus when the accused placed himself as “eligible” in his statement of candidacy when in truth he is disqualified, this is not a narration of fact but a conclusion of law. Similarly, the accused as claimant to a land stated in his application that he entitled to the ownership when under the law he is disqualified, is not liable
4). There is no falsification if there is some colorable truth in the statement of facts by the accused
5). False statements in an application form of the Civil Service, which was under oath, for police examination is perjury not falsification
6). But when a third person, not the Affiant, alters a prepared Affidavit, the crime committed by him is falsification under mode number 6
E. Altering true dates. This requires that the date must be material as in the date of birth or marriage; date of arrest; date when a search warrant was issued; date of taking the oath of office
F. Making alterations or intercalations in a genuine document which changes its meaning. The change must affect the integrity of the document. It must make the document speak something false so that alterations to make it speak the truth cannot be falsification.
1. Changing the grades in one’s Transcript of Records
2. Changing one’s time of arrival in the DTR
3. Changing the stated consideration a deed of sale
4. Deleting a condition in a contract of lease
G. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be an original when no such original exist, or including in such copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original.
1. This can only be committed by the Official Custodian of documents
2. Example: Issuing a Certified True Copy of a birth certificate of a person when no such certificate exists or
3. Issuing a true copy of a title and indicating therein the land is mortgaged when no such encumbrance exist on the original on file with the office
H. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry or official book
1. Example: Inserting a Birth Certificate in the recorded of the Civil Registrar to make it appear the birth was recorded
ART. 172. FALSIFICATION BY A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL AND
USE OF FALSIFIED DOCUMENTS
I. Punishes these acts: (1) If the falsification is by a private person and the document falsified is a public or commercial document (2) Falsification by any person of a private document and (3) Introducing in any judicial proceeding a falsified document or (4) Using a falsified document in any transaction
II. There are only seven acts of falsification of a private person. In the falsification of a private document the damage includes damage to honor.
III. In introducing a falsified document in a judicial proceeding, damage is not required. Example: The act of the defendant in introducing a falsified receipt to show that the debt was paid.
IV. In the crime use of a falsified document, the user is not the falsifier but a third person, who must know the falsity of the document.
ART. 173. FALSIFICATION OF WIRELESS, CABLE, TELEGRAM
AND TELEPHONE MESSAGES
I. Acts punished: (1) The act of falsifying said messages (2) Uttering of said falsified messages and (3) Using such falsified damages with intent to cause damage or to the damage of third persons
II. The acts of falsifying and uttering:
1). The offender must be officers or employees of the government or of a private entity engaged in the business of sending or receiving such messages
2) Examples: making up a false “break-up” telegram or decreasing the number of the words in a message even if the contents are not changed
III. The crime of using may be committed by any person
CRIMES AFFECTING MEDICAL CERTIFICATE, CERTIFICATES
OF MERIT AND THE LIKE
A. Acts punished:
1. Issuing a false medical certificate by a physician or surgeon
a). The contents are not true in that the person was never examined; or that he actually had no illness; or that the illness is not as serious as stated in the certificate; or that the period of confinement or rest is not as stated therein.
2. Issuing a false certificate of merit or service, good conduct or similar circumstances by a public officer
a). as in the case of a barangay captain who issues a Certificate of Good Moral Character to a bully , or a head of office who issues a Certificate of Exemplary Conduct to an employee with several disciplinary penalties
3). The act of falsifying by a private person of medical certificate or certificate of merit
a). The name of the crime is Falsification of a Medical Certificate or Certificate of Merit to distinguish it from ordinary falsification
b). Example: the patient who altered the period of days of confinement
4. The act of knowingly using said false certificates
By: BATASnatin
No comments:
Post a Comment