CRIMINAL LAW

CASE DIGEST TITLE IV CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST Counterfeiting People of the Philippines v. Kong Leon G.R. No. December 22, 1961 Facts: Issue: Held: Forgery Del Rosario v. People of the Philippines G.R. No. L-16806 December 22, 1961 Facts: Accused showed complainant Philippine one-peso bills and induced complainant 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. By virtue of the inducement, the accused succeeded in obtaining from complainant P1,700.00 for the avowed purpose of financing the manufacture of more counterfeit treasury notes of the Philippines. Issue: Whether possession of the altered one-peso bills constitute a violation of Article 168. Held: Yes. 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 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 relation to Article 166, subdivision (1), of the Revised Penal Code. People of the Philippines v. Galano G.R. No. December 22, 1961 Facts: Issue: Held: Falsification People of the Philippines v. Romualdez

CRIMINAL LAW
G.R. No. 31012 CASE DIGEST September 10, 1932

Facts: Accused Estela Romualdez was appointed as corrector for Political Law for the 1926 Bar. As such corrector, the accused is required to put her signature or initials on the booklets she checked and graded or whenever she will make an alteration. Luis Mabunay was a bar examinee who failed because he only got an average of 72.8% and in one subject he got a grade below 60%. After the Supreme Court denied the recommendation to lower the passing grade from 75% to 70%, Romualdez altered the grade of Mabunay in Civil Law from 63% to 73%, and in Remedial Law from 58% to 63% by striking out the first grades written, without however affixing her initials under the alterations. Issue: Whether accused committed falsification. Held: Yes. The accused here made several acts of falsification. She made the alterations in the grades in such a way as to make it appear that the correctors had participated therein, because she blotted out the grades of the correctors and wrote new and increased grades opposite their initials, without indicating by her own initials that she made the alterations. She in that way attributed to the correctors statements other than those in fact made by them. Beradio v. Court of Appeals G.R. Nos. L-49483-86 March 30, 1981 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 8:00 am 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 v. Court of Appeals G.R. Nos. L-55683 & 55903-04 February 22, 1982 Facts: Illuminado Luague, a teacher, was on leave due to sickness. When the principal visited Illuminado, he handed to Illuminado a check representing his differentials. Illuminado handed the check to his wife, the accused Pilar Luague. The principal also informed them that another

CRIMINAL LAW
CASE DIGEST paycheck had arrived and get it from one Florencio Guillermo. Pilar went to Guillermo to get the check. Guillermo asked her to sign the name of her husband on the payroll warrant register and counter-sign her initials. The following day, Illuminado died. Issue: Whether Pilar Luague is guilty of falsification. Held: No. Pilar 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. In the light of these circumstances, criminal intent cannot be ascribed to Luague. She acted in good faith. Cabigas v. People of the Philippines G.R. No. L-67472 July 3, 1987 Facts: Cabigas is the Securities Custodian of the Securities Section of the Land Bank of the Philippines in its Makati Branch. 112 pieces of treasury notes and treasury bills were delivered to the Makati Branch for safekeeping. Included in these are 19 pieces of treasury bills with Serial Nos. A-000064 to A-000082, 795th series. Later, in the course of their inventory, Cabigas discovered the loss of 6 bills in the 795th series. Accused Reynes crossed out the figure 76 in the source document and then at the bottom, Cabigas placed the notation for adjustment. In a report the two prepared, Cabigas placed the notation Adjustment on Erroneous Entry (incoming) dated March 9, 1982. Reynes and Cabigas were charge d with the crime of falsification. Issue: Whether Cabigas is guilty of falsification. Held: No. It is settled doctrine that in falsification by an employee under par. 4 of Article 171, which reads by making untruthful statements in a narration of facts the following elements must concur: (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; (c) that the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false; and (d) that the perversion of truth in the narration of facts was made with the wrongful intent of injuring a third person. People of the Philippines v. Sendaydiego G.R. Nos. L-33254 & L-33253 January 20, 1978 Facts: In three criminal cases for malversation through falsification, it was alleged that accused Sendaydiego, provincial treasurer of Pangasinan, and Juan Samson, an employee of a lumber and hardware store, used six forged provincial vouchers in order to embezzle from the road and bridge fund. Pieces of evidence presented conclusively proved that Samson, as the representative or collector of the supposed creditor, Carried Construction Supply, hand-carried the vouchers to the offices of the provincial engineer, treasurer, and auditor and then to the treasurer again for payment. He actually received cash payments. Samson however argued that the signatures in the forged vouchers are not his as testified by a handwriting expert.

CRIMINAL LAW
CASE DIGEST Issue: Whether Samson falsified the voucher. Held: Yes. The rule if a person had in his possession a falsified document and 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 capacity of committing the forgery, or to have close connection with the forgers, and therefore, had complicity in the forgery. Siquian v. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 82197 March 13, 1989 Facts: Complainant went to accused, then Mayor, to apply for employment in the Office of the Mayor. The Mayor agreed to employ her. Later, she was appointed clerk to the Municipal Secretary by the accused. Accompanying her appointment is the certification of the availability of funds issued by the accused. It turned out however that no such fund is available and that the position of Clerk to the Municipal Secretary is not available. Because of this, complainant did not receive any salary. She instituted a complaint for falsification. Accused however alleged that the statements he made in the certification are conclusions of law and not narration of facts. Moreover, he had no intent to injure any person and as such, he cannot be held criminally liable. Issue: Whether accused committed falsification. Held: Yes. The defences of the accused are untenable. Conclusion of law is defined as a proposition not arrived at by any process of natural reasoning from a fact or combination of facts stated but by the application of the artificial rules of law to the facts pleaded. However, the certification by the accused that funds for the position are available does not require the application of the artificial rules of law. To certify that funds are available for the position what one should do is to refer to the budget and plantilla personnel of the applicable fiscal year and ascertain if such item exists and funds are allocated therefor. As to the second contention, the existence of a wrongful intent to injure a third person is not necessary when the falsified document is a public document. People of the Philippines v. Villalon G.R. No. 43659 December 21, 1990 Facts: Accused was able to procure a loan from a bank. In order to get the loan, accused mortgage a property owned in equal shares by the complainant and his brother by virtue of a notarized special power of attorney allegedly executed in February 5, 1964. Both the power of attorney and the mortgage contract were registered in the Register of Deeds on February 13, 1964. The property was foreclosed by the bank and was later sold to another. Complainant only learned that his property is already registered in the name of another when an ejectment suit was filed against him in January 1972. Because of this, complainant instituted a criminal complaint for estafa thru falsification of public document against the accused on March 29, 1974. He alleged that the accused made it appear that complainant signed and affixed his

CRIMINAL LAW
CASE DIGEST signature in the said power of attorney when as a matter of fact, he did not so participate therein. Issue: Whether the accused should be convicted in this case. Held: No. While it is true that the charged was sufficient in that estafa may be committed thru falsification of a public document because before the falsified document is actually utilized to defraud another, the crime of falsification has already been consummated, damage or intent to cause damage not being an element of the crime of falsification of public document, and hence, the falsification is only a necessary means to commit estafa, and that it was proved that indeed the accused was not authorized to mortgage the property belonging to the complainant, the accused can no longer be prosecuted because of prescription. In this case, the crime was discovered when the power of attorney was registered because registration in a public registry is a notice to the whole world. Enemecio v. Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) G.R. No. 146731 January 13, 2004 Facts: Bernante, an assistant professor in a college, was convicted of the crime of slight physical injuries. Because of this, he served a 20-day prison term from May 14, 1996 to June 2, 1996. However, in his leave application, he stated that he was on forced leave from May 15, 1996 to May 21, 1996, and on vacation leave from May 22, 1996 to May 31, 1996. Because of this, Bernante was able to receive his salary because his leave applications were approved. Because of this, Enemecio, a utility worker in the same college, filed a criminal complaint for falsification before the Ombudsman against Bernante. The complaint however was denied. Hence, Enemecio filed a petition for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion. Issue: Whether there is grave abuse of discretion in this case. Held: None. Under Article 171, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, the elements of falsification of public documents through an untruthful narration of facts are: (a) the offender makes in a document untruthful statements in a narration of facts; (b) the offender has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated; (c) the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false; and (d) the perversion of truth in the narration of facts was made with the wrongful intent to injure a third person. As the Ombudsman correctly pointed out, Enemecio 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. Batulanon v. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 139857 September 15, 2006 Facts: Batulanon was charged with the crime of estafa through falsification of private document. It was alleged that the accused committed the said complex crime when she caused

CRIMINAL LAW
CASE DIGEST the preparation of cash vouchers in the name of persons not member of the cooperative in order that they may be qualified for a loan from the cooperative. Issue: Whether accused should be held guilty of the crime of estafa thru falsification. Held: No. There is no complex crime of estafa through falsification of private document. Hence, it is important to ascertain whether the offender is to be charged with falsification of a private document or with estafa. If the falsification of a private document is committed as a means to commit estafa, the proper crime to be charged is falsification. If the estafa can be committed without the necessity of falsifying a document, the proper crime to be charged is estafa. In this case, since the crime of falsification was committed first, falsification of private document should be the proper charge. Nizurtado v. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 107383 December 7, 1994 Facts: Accused, as Barangay Captain of Barangay Panghulo, received a check for P10,000.00 from the Ministry of Human Settlements for the barangay. However, before it can be encashed, the barangay must submit a resolution approved by the Barangay Council identifying a livelihood project for the barangay. Subsequently, several council meetings were held but the council was not able to agree on a project. Later, accused asked the barangay treasurer, and later another councilman, to sign an unaccomplished resolution in mimeograph form stating that the project would be barangay service center. Later, accused submitted the resolution to the Ministry which identified T-Shirt Manufacturing as the project. However, it turned out that no meeting where T-Shirt Manufacturing was identified as the project was held by the Barangay Council. In addition, the P10,000.00 which was received by the accused was not invested to the identified project but instead distributed as loans to the accused and some other councilmen. Accused was charged with the crime of malversation thru falsification of public document under Article 171, par. 2. Issue: Whether the accused is guilty as charged. Held: Yes. It is undisputed that the malversation was committed since the accused used the fund for purposes other than to which it was allocated. This crime was indeed committed thru falsification. In falsification under Article 171, par. 2, the document need not be an authentic official paper since its simulation, in fact, is the essence of falsification. So, also, the signatures appearing thereon need not necessarily be forged. Galeos v. People of the Philippines G.R. Nos. 174730-37 February 9, 2011 Facts: Ong was the Mayor of the Municipality of Naga, Cebu from 1986 to 1998. On June 1994, he extended permanent appointments to Rosalio Galeos for the position of Construction and Maintenance Man in the Office of the Municipal Engineer. In his 1993 SALN, Galeos answered Noto the question: To the best of your knowledge, are you related within the fourth degree of consanguinity or of affinity to anyone working in the government?. In Galeos 1994 and 1995 SALNs, the boxes for Yes and No to the same query were left in blank. In all these

CRIMINAL LAW
CASE DIGEST documents, Ongs signature appears as the person who administered the oath of Galeos. It turned out however that Ong and Galeos are related since their mothers are sisters. Because of this, Ong and Galeos were charged with falsification of public documents under Article 171, par. 4. Petitioners argue that the statements "they are not related within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity" and "that Section 79 of the Local Government Code has been complied with in the issuance of the appointments" are not a narration of facts but a conclusion of law, as both require the application of the rules on relationship under the law of succession. Galeos argues that he did not make untruthful or false statements in his SALN since a "statement" requires a positive averment and thus silence or non-disclosure cannot be considered one. Issue: Whether the accused are guilty as charged. Held: Yes. The elements of falsification of public documents by making untruthful statements in a narration of facts are the following: (a) the offender makes in a public document untruthful statements in a narration of facts; (b) he has legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him; and (c) the facts narrated by him are absolutely false. In addition to the aforecited elements, it must also be proven that the public officer or employee had taken advantage of his official position in making the falsification. In falsification of public document, the offender is considered to have taken advantage of his official position when (1) he has the duty to make or prepare or otherwise to intervene in the preparation of a document; or (2) he has the official custody of the document which he falsifies. A conclusion of law is a determination by a judge or ruling authority regarding the law that applies in a particular case. It is opposed to a finding of fact, which interprets the factual circumstances to which the law is to be applied. A narration of facts is merely an account or description of the particulars of an event or occurrence. In this case, the required disclosure or identification of relatives "within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity" in the SALN involves merely a description of such relationship; it does not call for an application of law in a particular set of facts. On the other hand, Articles 963 to 967 of the Civil Code simply explain the concept of proximity of relationship and what constitute direct and collateral lines in relation to the rules on succession. The question of whether or not persons are related to each other by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth degree is one of fact. Contrary to petitioners assertion, statements concerning relationship may be proved as to its truth or falsity, and thus do not amount to expression of opinion. As to the boxes left in blank, In Dela Cruz v. Mudlong, it was held that one is guilty of falsification in the accomplishment of his information and personal data sheet if he withholds material facts which would have affected the approval of his appointment and/or promotion to a government position. By withholding information on his relative/s in the government service as required in the SALN, Galeos was guilty of falsification considering that the disclosure of such relationship with then Municipal Mayor Ong would have resulted in the disapproval of his permanent appointment pursuant to Article 168 (j) (Appointments), Rule XXII of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code of 1991. Moreover, while it is true that as a general rule, it is not the duty of the administering officer to ascertain the truth of the statements found in a document. The reason for this is that the administering officer has no way of knowing if the facts stated therein are indeed truthful. However, when the facts laid out in the document directly involves the administering officer, then he has an opportunity to know of their truth or falsity. When an administering officer nevertheless administers the oath despite the false contents of the document, which are known to him to be false, he is liable, not because 7

CRIMINAL LAW
CASE DIGEST he violated his duty as an administering officer, but because he participated in the falsification of a document. Use of Falsified Documents Dava v. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 73905 September 30, 1991 Facts: Because of a vehicular incident, the drivers license of the accused was confiscated. Because of this, accused asked his friend, Manalili, to procure a license for him stating that he has not, at any time, applied for a license. Manalili acceded. When he went to the office of the Land Transportation, he was approached by a fixer who offered Manalili an easier way of procuring a license. Wanting to help, Manalili accepted the offer and was able to procure the license. Later, accused was invited to the police precinct to be investigated for driving while his license was confiscated. There, the police officers found that the license is a fake. Dava was charged with falsification and use of falsified document. Issue: Whether accused is guilty as charged. Held: Yes. The 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; (b) the false document is embraced in Article 171 or in any of subdivisions Nos. 1 and 2 of Article 172; (c) he used such document (not in judicial proceedings), and (d) the use of the false document caused damage to another or at last it was used with intent to cause such damage. However, since the document falsified in this case is a public document, the last element is not necessary. A driver's license is a public document within the purview of Articles 171 and 172. 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. In this case, it is not disputed that it was petitioner himself who requested Manalili to get him a license. He misrepresented to Manalili that he has not at any time been issued a driver's license. Through this misrepresentation and capitalizing on Manalili awareness of the dire necessity of obtaining a driver's license the shortest time possible to enable petitioner to perform duties as detailman, petitioner was able, in a very subtle clever manner, to induce Manalili to deal with "fixers" in securing the subject driver's license. For indeed, there was no way Manalili could obtain a drivers license in so short a without having to deal with "fixers." Thus, as petitioner calculated, Manalili, who appeared to have been motivated by a sincere desire to help a friend, did not hesitate to deal with three fixers whom he knew were not employees of the LTC to whom he paid P70.00 for the license even if the legal fee then was only P15.00. As it was in truth petitioner who induced and left Manalili with no choice but to seek the aid of fixers, the fact that it was Manalili and not petitioner who dealt directly with said fixers cannot exculpate petitioner from the charge of falsification. He is, beyond reasonable doubt, a principal by inducement in the commission of said crime Illegal Possession and Use of False Bank Notes

CRIMINAL LAW
CASE DIGEST Clemente v. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 194367 June 15, 2011 Facts: Accused was a detainee of the Manila City Jail. Allegedly, he gave one Francis dela Cruz a fake 500 peso bill to buy softdrinks. However, the store attendant recognized the bill as fake. Dela Cruz told the jail officers about this. They agreed that to conduct a surprise inspection on the accused. In the surprise inspection, the jail officers recovered 23 fake 500-peso bills from the accused. Accused was charged with violation of Article 168 of the RPC. During trial however, Francis dela Cruz was not presented as a witness. Issue: Whether accused should be convicted for the crime as charged. Held: No. The elements of the crime charged for violation of said law are: (1) that any treasury or bank note or certificate or other obligation and security payable to bearer, or any instrument payable to order or other document of credit not payable to bearer is forged or falsified by another person; (2) that the offender knows that any of the said instruments is forged or falsified; and (3) that he either used orpossessed with intent to use any of such forged or falsified instruments. Hence, possession of false treasury or bank notes alone, without anything more, is not a criminal offense. For it to constitute an offense under Article 168 of the RPC, the possession must be with intent to use said false treasury or bank notes. In this case, since Francis dela Cruz was not presented as witness, the element of intent to use was not established. The jail officers did not have personal knowledge that petitioner asked Francis dela Cruz to use the P500.00 bill. Their account, however, is hearsay and not based on the personal knowledge. Usurpation People of the Philippines v. Cortez G.R. No. September 30, 1991 Facts: Issue: Held: Gigantoni v. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 74727 June 16, 1988 Facts: Accused was a PC-CIS agent. He was suspended and also terminated on June 20, 1980. However, he received only the notice of suspension and hence, he had no knowledge of his termination from service. On May 1981, he went to the PAL office and inquired about something. He represented himself as a PC-CIS agent and exhibited an identification card supposedly establishing his identity as such agent for the purpose of examining PAL records. Later, PAL inquired to the PC-CIS whether accused was indeed an agent. PC-CIS confirmed that accused was no longer connected with PC-CIS. Accused was charged with the crime of usurpation of authority under Article 177.

CRIMINAL LAW
CASE DIGEST Issue: Whether the accused is guilty as charged. Held: No. The failure of the prosecution to prove that petitioner was duly notified of his dismissal from the service negatives the charge that he "knowingly and falsely" represented himself to be a CIS agent. The constitutional presumption of innocence can only be overturned by competent and credible proof and never by mere disputable presumptions, as what the lower and appellate courts did when they presumed that petitioner was duly notified of his dismissal by applying the disputable presumption "that official duty has been regularly performed. The Solicitor General has argued in his memorandum, that it makes no difference whether the accused was suspended or dismissed from the service, "for both imply the absence of power to represent oneself as vested with authority to perform acts pertaining to an office to which he knowingly was deprived of " (Emphasis supplied). The observation of the Solicitor General is correct if the accused were charged with usurpation of official function (second part of Article 177), but not if he is charged merely with usurpation of authority (first part of Article 177). The information charges the accused with the crime of usurpation of authority for "knowingly and falsely representing himself to be an officer, agent or representative of any department or agency of the Philippine Government. Use of Fictitious Name Legamia v. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. L-63187 August 28, 1984 Facts: Corazon Legamia lived with Emilio N. Reyes for 19 years from November 8, 1955 to September 26, 1974, when Emilio died. During their live-in arrangement they produced a boy. From the time Corazon and Emilio lived together until the latter's death, Corazon was known as Corazon L. Reyes; she styled herself as Mrs. Reyes; and Emilio introduced her to friends as Mrs. Reyes. shortly after Emilio's death, Corazon filed a letter in behalf of Michael with the Agricultural Credit Administration for death benefits. The letter was signed "Corazon L. Reyes. For using the name Reyes although she was not married to Emilio, Felicisima Reyes who was married to Emilio filed a complaint against Corazon for violation of Commonwealth Act No. 142. Issue: Whether Corazon committed the crime as charged. Held: No. It is not uncommon in Philippine society for a woman to represent herself as the wife and use the name of the man she is living with despite the fact that the man is married to another woman. The practice, to be sure, is not encouraged but neither is it unduly frowned upon. A number of women can be Identified who are living with men prominent in political, business and social circles. The woman publicly holds herself out as the man's wife and uses his family name blithely ignoring the fact that he is not her husband. And yet none of the women has been charged of violating the C.A. No. 142 because ours is not a bigoted but a tolerant and understanding society. It is in the light of our cultural environment that the law must be construed. Surely, the lawmakers could not have meant to criminalize what Corazon had done especially because some of them probably had their own Corazons. Perjury

10

CRIMINAL LAW
CASE DIGEST Diaz v. People of the Philippines G.R. No. L-65006 October 31, 1990 Facts: Diaz, a senior clerk at the Jose Abad Santos High School, sought appointment as School Administrative Assistant I of the same school. As one of the requirements to said position, he filled up the prescribed personal information sheet, Civil Service Form 212, and swore to the truth and veracity of the data therein furnished by him before the proper administering officer. As one of the required information, he indicated that his highest educational attainment was Fourth Year A.B. (Liberal Arts) allegedly obtained at the Cosmopolitan and Harvardian Colleges. However, this assertion was found to be false as it was found out that he was never enrolled in said school. Because of this, Diaz was charged with the crime of falsification of official documents. Issue: Whether the crime committed by Diaz is falsification of official documents.
Held: No. Following the doctrine laid down, however, in the case of People v. Rufo B. Cruz, No.

L-15132, May 25,1960,108 Phil. 255 and the earlier case of United States v. Tupasi Molina, 29 Phil. 119, the crime committed under the foregoing facts, is perjury. This offense, as defined in Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code is the willful and corrupt assertion of a falsehood under oath or affirmation administered by authority of law on a material matter. The elements of the crime of perjury are (a) That the accused made a statement under oath or executed an affidavit upon a material matter; (b) That the statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer, authorized to receive and administer oath; (c) That in that statement or affidavit, the accused made a and deliberate assertion of a falsehood; and (d) That the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law or made for a legal purpose. All the foregoing elements are present in the case at bar. Saavedra, Jr. v. Department of Justice G.R. No. 93173 September 15, 1993 Facts: Pine Philippines, Inc. (PPI), including Ramos, sold their shares of stock to Saavedra for PhP 1.2 million on instalment basis with automatic rescission clause in case of non-payment of any of the instalments. Saavedra was able to pay P936,380.00 but he withheld payment of the balance alleging the failure of the seller to comply with their warranties. Nevertheless, the balance was deposited in escrow subject to a condition. Later, Saavedra filed in behalf of PPI a verified complaint for damages against Ramos. Saavedra alleged that he (Saavedra) is the President of PPI. Ramos and his group however filed before the SEC a petition for the declaration of the rescission. In addition, Ramos instituted a complaint for perjury against Saavedra alleging that Saavedra perjured himself when he declared in the verification of the complaint in the civil case that he was the President of PPI. Issue: Whether Saavedra committed perjury. Held: No. Mere assertion of a falsehood is not enough to amount to perjury. The assertion must be deliberate and willful. While there may have been a falsehood asserted, no evidence exists to show that the same was done deliberately and wilfully. On the contrary, the records tend to

11

CRIMINAL LAW
CASE DIGEST show that the assertion was done in good faith, in the belief that the non-payment of the last instalment price was justified by the sellers' non-compliance with their warranties. Besides, petitioner alleges that he has deposited the balance in escrow, which is not disputed. Consequently, a finding of probable cause does not follow as a matter of course even if SEC decides adversely against petitioner, for an essential element of the crime appears to be wanting in the case before us, i.e., that the falsehood is willful and deliberate. Moreover, as a rule, pleadings need not be verified unless otherwise required by the Rules of Court, and no rule requires complaints for damages, as in the case before us, to be under oath. Since the complaint filed by petitioner against private respondent is not required to be verified, another essential element of the crime of perjury is absent, i.e., that the sworn statement containing the falsity is required by law. Consequently, petitioner cannot be prosecuted on the basis of an alleged falsehood made in a verified pleading which is not mandated by law to be verified. Union Bank of the Philippines v. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 192565 February 28, 2012 Facts: Union Bank filed two complaints for sum of money against spouses Tamondong and a John Doe. The first complaint was filed in RTC, Branch 109, Pasay City while the second, to the MeTC, Branch 47, Pasay City. Both complaints showed that the accused Desi Tomas executed and signed the Certification against Forum Shopping. The Certificate against Forum Shopping was subscribed in Makati City. Because of this, an Information was filed charging Tomas before the MeTC Makati. Tomas filed a Motion to Quash the Information alleging that venue was improperly laid since it is the Pasay City court (where the Certificate against Forum Shopping was submitted and used) and not the MeTC-Makati City (where the Certificate against Forum Shopping was subscribed) that has jurisdiction over the perjury case. Issue: Whether venue was improperly laid. Held: No. In relation to the crime of perjury, the material matter in a Certificate against Forum Shopping is the truth of the required declarations which is designed to guard against litigants pursuing simultaneous remedies in different fora. Article 183 refers to either of two punishable acts (1) falsely testifying under oath in a proceeding other than a criminal or civil case; and (2) making a false affidavit before a person authorized to administer an oath on any material matter where the law requires an oath. Under the circumstances, Article 183 of the RPC is indeed the applicable provision; thus, jurisdiction and venue should be determined on the basis of this article which penalizes one who "make[s] an affidavit, upon any material matter before a competent person authorized to administer an oath in cases in which the law so requires." The constitutive act of the offense is the making of an affidavit; thus, the criminal act is consummated when the statement containing a falsity is subscribed and sworn before a duly authorized person. Machination in Public Auctions Ouano v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 93173 September 15, 1993 Facts:

12

CRIMINAL LAW
CASE DIGEST Issue: Held:

13