LOPEZ VS PARASFACTS:

In the month of February 1964, petitioners Roy P.Villasor, as administrator of

the intestate estate of thespouses Manuel M. Mejia and Gloria Lazatin
(SpecialProceedings No. 48181 of the Court of First Instance ofManila), together with
his co-petitioners Angelina MejiaLopez and Aurora Mejia Villasor and other heirs of
saidspouses, entered into a contract with respondent Trinidad T.Lazatin for the
development and subdivision of three parcelsof land belonging to said intestate
estate. SubsequentlyLazatin transferred his rights under the contract to the
TerraDevelopment Corporation. Months later, petitioners andother co-heirs filed an
action in the Court of First Instance ofQuezon City (Civil Case No. Q-8344) for the
rescission ofsaid contract for alleged gross and willful violation of itsterms.
Thereafter, Lazatin and the Terra DevelopmentCorporation, in turn, filed with the
Fiscal's Office of the Cityof Angeles a complaint against petitioners for an
allegedviolation of the provisions of Article 172 in relation to those ofArticle 171,
paragraph 4, of the Revised Penal Code. Afterconducting a preliminary examination
in connectiontherewith, the City Fiscal of Angeles filed with the Court ofsaid City an
information charging petitioners with the crimeof falsification of a private document
upon the allegation thatthey made it appear in the contract mentioned
heretoforethat Aurora M. Villasor was the "guardian" of the minorGeorge L. Mejia
and that Angelina M. Lopez was similarlythe "guardian" of the minor Alexander L.
Mejia, when in truthand in fact they knew that they were not the guardians ofsaid
minors on the date of the execution of the document(Criminal Case No. C-2268).

ISSUE: whether or not there is a commission of art.172? andwhen and where

is the offense of falsification of a privatedocument deemed consummated or
committed?

RULING: YES but the court of Angeles has no jurisdiction over the criminal
act, but the importance of this case is when and where a falsification of document
comes in. In the present case, it is the claim of petitioners a claim supported by
the record that Angelina M. Lopez and Aurora M. Villasor signed the private
document wherein they are alleged to have made a false statement of fact, the first
within the territorial jurisdiction of Makati, and the second within the territorial
jurisdiction of Quezon City, both within the province of Rizal. We now come to
consider the question of when and where is the offense of falsification of a private
document deemed consummated or committed. Upon this point, We have ruled
clearly and definitely in U.S. vs. Infante, 36 Phil. 146, that the crime of falsification
of a private document defined and penalized by Article 304 of the Penal Code (now
paragraph2, Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code) is consummated when such
document is actually falsified with the intent to prejudice a third person, whether
such falsified document is or is not thereafter put to the illegal use for which it was
intended