People v.
Romualdez (Sept 10 1932 Vickers)
FACTS:
 Estrela Romualdez was appointed by Justice Norberto Romualdez as his
secretary. Luis Mabunay was a bar passer. Vicente Albert was the SC Clerk of
Court.
 Justice Romuladez was appointed as chairman of the bar exam committee and
appointed members and correctors upon the recommendation of Albert. All the
correctors were designated by Albert with the approval of Justice.
 Mabunay’s general average on the bar exam was 75%.
o However, a later revision of his composition showed that some lower
grades in Civil Law and Remedial Law were struck out and higher
grades were written on the front page of the compositions.
 Estrela admitted that the grades were in her handwriting. Justice contends that
the change in the grades were made within the powers of Estrela as supervisor
of the correctors.
 Check digest!
Delos Reyes v. People (Mar 21 2012 Reyes)
FACTS:
 Complainant Corazon was the daughter of Rafael and Daisy. Daisy died and
Rafael married accused Norma with whom he had 5 children.
 Rafael died. Corazon and Norma executed a Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition of
Estate of Rafael.
o Corazon was to get a 3000 sqm portion of the land. However, she later
discovered that her right of the the land was never registered by Norma.
Norma instead executed a Deed of Succession wherein she and her
biological children partitioned unto themselves the property.
 Corazon filed a criminal complaint against petitioners. Norma claimed that
Corazon was not Rafael’s daughter, but his niece.
 Petitioners contend that they cannot be charged with falsification for having
excluded Corazon as Rafael’s heir because they presented documents to the
lower court which indicated Corazon as an heir of Rafael.
ISSUE: W/N the petitioners are guilty of falsification.
HELD: YES.
 There can be no good faith on the part of the petitioners since they knew of the
untruthful character of statements contained in their deed of succession.
o The wrongful intent to injure Corazon is clear from their execution of the
deed, showing a desire to appropriate only unto themselves the subject
parcel of land. Corazon was unduly deprived of what was due her.
 Elements of Falsification (Art. 171)
1. The offender makes in a public document untruthful statements in a
narration of facts;
2. The offender has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated
by him; and
3. The facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false.
 The document claimed to be falsified is the Deed of Succession.
o The first and third elements were committed by the inclusion in the
subject deed of the clause that states, “(w)hereas, the parties hereto are
the only heirs of the decedent, the first name, is the surviving spouse
and the rest are the children of the decedent.”
o The document was a legal one to cancel the original certificate of title
and to issue new titles. The false statement prejudiced a third person
who would rely on the titles.
Galeos v. People (Feb 9 2011 Villarama Jr.)
FACTS:
 Paulino Ong was the OIC Mayor of Naga, Cebu. He was then elected Mayor.
 Ong extended permanent appointments to Galeos and Rivera for the positions
of Construction and Maintenance Man and Plumber I in the Office of the
Municipal Engineer.
o In Galeos’ SALN, he answered “No” to 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?", while Rivera “n/a’ on
the space for the list of the names of relatives.
o They continued to deny having relatives in the government in their
SALN for the following years.
 The members of the SB of Naga filed a complaint against Ong, Galeos, and
Rivers for falsification of public documents, among others.
o Galeos is related to Ong, Galeos is the sister of Ong’s mother.
o Rivera’s wife is the sister of Ong’s mother.
 Galeos and Rivera contend that they only provided the entries in their SALN but
did not personally fill them up because “people in the municipal hall” filled them
up.
 The Sandiganbayan convicted the accused for falsification.
ISSUE: W/N the accused are guilty of falsification.
HELD: YES.
 In Art. 171, it must be proven that the public officer took advantage of his official
position to make the falsification.
o 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.
o 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.
 All elements have been established.
o 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.
o The required disclosure of relatives involves merely a description of
such relationship; it does not call for an application of law in a particular
set of facts.
o 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. When a government employee is required to
disclose his relatives in the government service, such information
elicited therefore qualifies as a narration of facts contemplated
under Article 171.

Goma v. CA (Jan 8 2009 Velasco Jr.)
FACTS:
 Three barangay councilors filed a complaint alleging Goma and Umale, as
barangay chairperson and secretary, respectively, falsified a barangay resolution
dated September 24, 1995, allocating amount of PhP18, 000 as disbursement for
a seminar for the two officials when in truth and in fact no meeting was held as no
quorum was mustered on the said date.
o On the face of the resolution appears the signatures of the petitioners in
their respective official capacities and it also bore the official seal of the
barangay.
o The petitioners contend that said resolution was nothing more than a
mere proposal or a draft.
 After being convicted by the RTC, the petitioners appealed to the CA alleging that
the questioned resolution is not a public document, that they did not violate Art.
171(2) of the RPC and that the penalty imposed is not proper.
 The same issues were raised in the Supreme Court.
o However, they urge their acquittal on the theory that they did not benefit
from, or that the public was not prejudiced by, the said resolution
ISSUE: W/N the accused are guilty of falsification.
HELD: YES.
 Elements of Art. 171(2)
1. That the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public.
2. That he takes advantage of his official position.
3. That he falsifies a document by causing it to appear that persons have
participated in any act or proceeding.
4. That such person or persons did not in fact so participate in the proceeding.
 Thus, erring public officers’ failure to attain their objectives is not determinative of
their guilt or innocence.
 The resolution was not a draft.
o A draft resolution would not be numbered or be carrying certificatory and
attestative signatures, let alone impressed with the dry seal of the
barangay.
 What is punished in falsification of public document is principally the undermining
of the public faith and the destruction of truth as solemnly proclaimed therein.
o Hence, the element of gain or benefit on the part of the offender or
prejudice to a third party as a result of the falsification, is not essential to
maintain a charge for falsification of public documents.
Adaza v. Sandiganbayan (Jul 28 2005 Carpio-Morales)
Lumancas v. Intas (Dec 5 2000 Bellosillo)
FACTS:
 Lumancas and Uriarte were employees of the PH Postal Corporation. They
were charged by their co-employee Intas for making false entries in their PDS
regarding their educational attainment, resulting in their promotion to higher
positions to the prejudice of other postal employees who had been in the service
for a longer period.
 Lumancas appointment as a mail sorter with the Bureau of Posts showed that her
highest educational attainment was 4th yr. Pharmacy.
o Her TOR from the International Harvardian Univ. showed that she took
up BS Commerce. However, 3 of her other PDS were inconsistent.
o 1989: BS Pharmacy in CEU, 1991: BS Pharm and post grad at IHU
 IHU submitted records and it was found that Lumancas was not in the enrollment
list filed with her office.
 Uriarte also acquired falsified TROs from the IHU.
 Lumancas and Uriarte had since been promoted 1 rank higher on the bases of
their credentials.
ISSUE: W/N the accused are guilty of falsification.
HELD: YES.
o All the elements of falsification through the making of untruthful statements in a
narration of facts are present: (a) That the offender makes in a document
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;
o In People v. Po Giok To the Court held that "in the falsification of public or official
documents, whether by public officials or by private persons, it is unnecessary
that there be present the idea of gain or the intent to injure a third person, for the
reason that, in contradistinction to private documents, the principal thing
punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth as
therein solemnly proclaimed."
o Also, petitioners themselves have affirmed in their petition that their Personal
Data Sheets were not sworn to before any administering officer thereby taking
their case away from the confines of perjury.
o Nonetheless, they argue that they have no legal obligation to disclose the truth in
their PDS since these are not official documents.
o NO.
o In Inting v. Tanodbayan the Court held that "the accomplishment of the
Personal Data Sheet being a requirement under the Civil Service Rules
and Regulations in connection with employment in the government, the
making of an untruthful statement therein was, therefore, intimately
connected with such employment x x x x"
o The filing of a Personal Data Sheet is required in connection with the
promotion to a higher position and contenders for promotion have the
legal obligation to disclose the truth. Otherwise, enhancing their
qualifications by means of false statements will prejudice other qualified
aspirants to the same position.
Beradio v. CA (Mar 30 1981 De Castro)
FACTS:
 Salud Beradio, an election registrar of the COMELEC, was convicted of
falsification of public documents for allegedly making false entries in her daily
time records.
 Beradio made it appear in her DTR that she was in her office and performed
work, but she was in fact elsewhere attending court sessions.
 Beradio was a lawyer and held office from 8 am to 12 pm and 1 pm to 5 pm.
o COMELEC granted her request to appear as counsel for her cousins’
and counsin-in-law’s case before the Court of Agrarian Relations.
o Raymundo Valdez filed against her a complaint for unauthorized
practice of law. Beradio resigned from COMELEC.
 o Valdez made an inquiry with the COMELEC about the status of his
complaint and upon being informed of her resignation, he filed a criminal
charge against her for falsification of her DTR.
 The informations alleged that Beradio was absent the whole day in several days
mentioned, but to the damage of the National Government she made it appear
that she was not absent.
ISSUE: W/N Beradio is guilty of falsification.
HELD:
 ELEMENTS: 1) the offender makes in a document false statements in a narration
of facts; 2) he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by
him; 3) the facts narrated by him are absolutely false
 Beradio contends that she is not under strict obligation to keep and submit a
DTR.
Luague v. CA (Feb 22 1982 Abad Santos)
FACTS:
 Illuminado Luague was a teacher clerk in Northern Samar. He died in 1972.
 The Bureau of Public Schools sent his salary warrants to the Superintendent of
Schools who forwarded them to the District Supervisor Florencio Guillermo.
 Guillermo signed the payroll-warrant registers which certified that the employees
therein received their salaries.
 Illuminado’s salary warrants was received by Pilar Luague (wife) and Glen
Luague. Another was received by Edmindo Echano, Illuminado’s relative who
claimed to be employed in the Office of the District Supervisor.
 Guillermo claimed that upon realizing his mistake, he asked Pilar to return the
warrants. She promised to do so but didn’t.
o Guillermo also discovered that the warrants were encashed by Glen.
 Pilar was charged with Estafa thru Falsification of Commercial Document.
 Pilar claims that she encashed the warrants in good faith, and that Illuminado
instructed her to do so.
 The CA convicted her for falsification.
ISSUE: W/N Pilar is guilty.
HELD: NO.
 The CA literraly applied the letter of the law in convicting Pilar.
o They concluded that there was falsification because she "signed her
husband's name in indorsing the treasury warrants in question."
 Pilar only signed because they were delivered to her by Illuminado’s district
supervisor and used the proceeds to pay for her the expenses of her husband’s
illness and burial.
o She believed she was entitled to the money as an advance payment for
her husband’s vacation and sick leave.
o She acted in good faith.
 The government did not sustain any financial loss due to the encashment of the
checks because the petitioner's husband had accumulated vacation and sick
leaves the money value of which exceeded the value of the three paychecks and
the value of the checks was simply deducted from the money value of the leaves.
o This explains why the petitioner was not convicted of estafa but of
falsification only.
o The absence of damage is an element to be considered to determine
whether or not there is criminal intent. However, it does not mean that
no damage no falsification.
USE OF FALSIFIED DOCUMENTS
Dava v. People (Sept 30 1991 Fernan CJ)
FACTS:
 Michael Dava, then holder of a non-professional driver’s license, hit Bernadette
Clamor and Dolores Roxas, causing Clamor’s death and Roxas’ physical injuries.
 Dava’s license was confiscated by Cpl. Daniel Severino and was submitted to the
fiscal’s office.
 Bernadette’s brother Antonio and Dolores’ father then saw Dava driving a
maroon Volkswagen beetle.
o Knowing that Dava’s license was confiscated, Roxas sought the help of
then Minister of Defense Juan Ponce Entrile in apprehending Dava.
 Dava’s beetle was spotted parked outside of a Uniwide Dept. Store. The police
asked for his license and he gave them one with its receipt.
o When asked about the source of his license, Dava informed them that
his officemate had secured it for him.
o It was revealed that his driver’s license was fake because when
compared to a Xerox copy of his license attached to the record of the
criminal case against him, the signatures and DOB didn’t match.
 Dava was charged with falsification of a public document. It was also found out
by Dava’s lawyer that the license was fake because “form No. 2706887 was one
of the fifty (50) forms which had been reported missing from their office (Bureau
of Land Transport) sometime in November, 1976 and that it was never issued to
any applicant for a license.”
 Felizardo Manalili, Dava’s friend, testified that Dava asked him to get a license
for him.
o Manalili went to the Land Transporation Commission and was
approached by fixers who charged him 70php for the license. They
gave him the license which looked genuine. He gave it to Dava to sign.
ISSUE: W/N Dava is guilty.
HELD: YES.
 While the license is indeed fake, the petitioner is not the actual falsifier.
However, there are evidence that proves he caused the falsification and
knowingly made use of the fake license.
 ELEMENTS OF USING A FALSIFIED DOCUMENT IN TRANSACTION
(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.
 Dava was ables in a very subtle manner to induce Manalili to deal with fixers in
securing the license.
o Manalili, who appeared to have been motivated by a sincere desire to
help a friend, did not hesitate to deal with the fixers.
o Dava left Manalili with no choice but to deal with fixers.
o 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.
 Having already obtained a driver's license, Dava knew that it was not legally
possible for him to secure another one. Otherwise, there would have been no
need for him to misrepresent to his friend Manalili that he was not then a holder
of a driver's license.
 A driver's license is a public document within the purview of Articles 171 and 172.
The blank form of the driver’s license becomes a public document the moment it
is accomplished
 The driver's license being a public document, proof of the fourth element of
damage caused to another person or at least an intent to cause such
damage has become immaterial. In falsification of public or official documents,
the principal thing being punished is the violation of the public faith and the
destruction of the truth proclaimed therein.
USE OF FICTITIOUS NAME
Legamia v. IAC (Aug 28 1984 Abad Santos)
FACTS:
 Corazon Legamia was accused of using the alias Corazon L. Reyes.
 Corazon lived with Emilio Reyes for 19 years until Emilio died. They had a son
called Michael.
 From the time Corazon and Emilio lived together, she was known as Corazon L.
Reyes.
 Emilio was Branch Claim Manager Naga Branch, of the Agricultural Credit
Administration when he died.
o Corazon filed a letter on behalf of Michael with the ACA fo death
benefits. She signed it in her alias.
o Felicisima Reyes, who was married to Emilio filed a complaint against
Corazon.
ISSUE: W/N Corazon is guilty.
HELD: NO.
 CA 142: no person shall use any name different from the one with which he was
registered at birth in the office of the local civil registry, or with which he was
baptized for the first time, or in case of an alien, with which he was registered in
the Bureau of Immigration upon entry; or such substitute name as may have
been authorized by a competent court…
 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.
 Corazon had been living with Emilio for almost 20 years. He introduced her to the
public as his wife and she assumed that role and his name without any sinister
purpose or personal material gain in mind. She applied for benefits upon his
death not for herself but for Michael who as a boy of tender years was under her
guardianship. Surely, the lawmakers could not have meant to criminalize what
Corazon had done.
ART. 177: Usurpation
US v. Hernandez (Dec 24 1914 Arellano CJ)
FACTS:
 Adel Hernandez and Juan Bautista concocted a plan in which to enjoy a 15-
year old girl named Elena Santos, Adel would propose marriage to her.
 Elena agreed and was told to come to a house.
o Juan, under the name Aniceto de Castro, made out that he was a
protestant minister and before 2 women who pretended to be witnesses
simulated a marriage between Adel and Elena.
o Juan also issued a document certifying the Adel and Elena were
married. In it, Elena’s age was set as 20 instead of 15. He also signed it
as a Protestant minister.
 After the ceremony, Elena lived with her parents for several months. Adel visited
her pretending to be a teacher.
o However, one afternoon Elena’s mother caught them in dalliance and
Elena was compelled to show her that they were married.
o Elena’s mother was convinced and let Adel live with Elena.
 Adel eventually told Elena that he will go to college. She went to visit him twice
but for the second time he had gone to the provinces.
 When Adel returned, Elena and her mother talked to him and they made an
agreement of separation before a lawyer.
o But when the lawyer saw the marriage document, he learned that it
was not genuine but a simulated marriage.
 Adel and Juan were charged. Adel was convicted of seduction and Juan as an
accomplice.
ISSUE: W/N Juan is merely an accomplice.
HELD: NO.
 Adel is clearly guilty of seduction.
 However, Juan is a principal since he supplied to essential element of deception
without which there would not have been seduction.
 Juan also committed another crime of fraud by means of the falsification of
a document.
o Without legal right Juan Bautista performed an act properly pertaining to
a person in authority, assuming the official character of a minister of a
religious sect in order to legalize a marriage, and issuing a certificate,
signed moreover, with a false name under the predication, in an
additional signature, of being a Protestant minister. The crime charged
in the information is, therefore, the complex one of seduction by
means of usurpation of functions.
Ruzol v. SB (Apr 17 2013 Velasco Jr.)
Gigantoni v. People (Jun 16 1988 Yap CJ)
FACTS:
 Melencio Gigatoni was charged with usurpation of authority (Art. 177).
 He was an employee of Black Mountain Mining Inc. and Tetra Management
Corp.
 He went to the office of PAL to verify some travels made by Black Mountain’s
officials.
o He falsely represented himself as a PC-CIS agent investigating a
kidnapping case, and requested that he be shown the PAL records
particularly the passenger manifests for Manila-Baguio-Manila flights
covering the period February 1 to 3 1981.
o To further convince the PAL officials of his supposed mission, Gigantoni
exhibited his Identification card purporting to show that he was a PC-
CIS agent.
 o Gigantoni then secured xerox copies of the requested manifest and the
used PAL tickets of one Cesar (Philippe) Wong, an SGV auditor, and
that of a certain Daisy Britanico, an employee of Black Mountain.
 It was then revealed that Gigatoni was no longer a CIS agent, being dimissed for
gross misconduct because of extortion charges against him. PAL reported the
matter to the NBI.
 When Gigatoni returned to the PAL office, he was confronted about his real
identity. He admitted that he was no longer an agent. When the NBI agents
arrived, he was arrested.
ISSUE: W/N accused is guilty of usurpation.
HELD: NO.
 Art. 177 punishes a person who:
a) who knowingly and falsely represents himself to be an officer, agent or
representative of any department or agency of the Philippine Government or
of any foreign government (usurpation of authority) crime charged
b) who, under pretense of official position, performs any act pertaining to any
person in authority or public officer of the Philippine Government or any
foreign government or any agency thereof, without being lawfully entitled to
do so (usurpation of official functions)
 Gigatoni admits having received a notice of suspension from the CIS, but denies
having been informed of his dismissal.
o The record is bereft of any evidence or proof adduced by the
prosecution showing that the dismissal was actually conveyed to
petitioner.
 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.
o It is essential to present proof that he actually knew at the time of the
alleged commission of the offense that he was already dismissed from
the service.
 If charged with usurpation of official function, 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.”
o This is not the case. It has not been shown that the information given by
PAL to the accused was confidential and was given to him only because
he was entitled to it as part of the exercise of his official function. He
was not charged in the information for such an offense.
o However, in reality he did not reach the 4th year of a BA degree. He was
appointed by the CSC because of said untruthful facts.
ISSUE: W/N Diaz is guilty of falsification.
HELD: NO. Guilty of PERJURY.
 Diaz did not take the witness stand. He merely presented an alleged TOR
purporting to show that he went to college at the PH Harvardian University signed
by Virginia Yap on behalf of the President of the school.
o However, Yap disowned the signature. No other corroborating piece of
evidence was presented by petitioner.
o The transcript presented lacks the authenticating marks-the imprint of
the college seal and the signature of the President of the college.
 Diaz was not even on the list of enrollees.
 The crime committed was perjury.
o It is the willful and corrupt assertion of a falsehood under oath or
affirmation administered by authority of law on a material matter.
 ELEMENTS OF PERJURY
(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.
(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.

ART. 183: Perjury

Diaz v. People (Oct 31 1990 Paras J)

FACTS:
 Reolandi Diaz was charged with falsification of official document.
 He was then a Senior Clerk at the Jose Abad Santos HS and was a public
employee.
o He executed and filed with the CSC and PDS stating that he was a 4th
year BA student at the Cosmopolitan and Harvardian Colleges.
o The PDS was needed for him to be reappointed as School
Administrative Assistant I.