Title 4 - Public Interest

Title Four CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST Chapter One.
Forgeries Section One Forging the seal of the Government of the Philippine Islands, the signature or stamp of the Chief Executive Article 161. Counterfeiting the great seal of the Government of the Philippines Article 162. Using forged signature or counterfeiting seal or stamp Section Two Counterfeiting coins Article 163. Making and importing and uttering false coins Article 164. Mutilation of coins, importation and uttering of mutilated coins Article 165. Selling of false or mutilated coins, without connivance Section Three Forging treasury or bank notes, obligations and securities; importing and uttering false or forged notes, obligations and securities Article 166. Forging treasury or bank notes or other documents payable to bearer, importing and uttering of such false or forged notes and documents Article 167. Counterfeiting, importing and uttering instruments not payable to bearer Article 168. Illegal possession and use of forged treasury or bank notes and other instruments of credit Article 169. How Forgery is committed. Section Four Falsification of legislative, public, commercial and private documents, and wireless, telegraph and telephone messages Article 170. Falsification of legislative documents Article 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary Article 172. Falsification by private individuals and use of falsified documents Article 173. Falsification of wireless, cable, telegraph and telephone messages and use of said falsified messages Section Five Falsification of medical certificates, certificates of merit or service, and the like Article 174. False medical certificates, false certificates of merit or service Article 175. Using false certificates Section Six Manufacturing, importing and possession of instruments or implements intended for the commission of falsification Article 176. Manufacturing and possession of instruments or implements for falsification Chapter Two. Other Falsities Section One Usurpation of authority, rank, title and improper use of names, uniforms and
The crimes in this title are in the nature of fraud or falsity to the public. The essence of the crime under this title is that which defraud the public in general. There is deceit perpetrated upon the public. This is the act that is being punished under this title. Article 161. Counterfeiting the Great Seal of the Government of the Philippine Islands, Forging the Signature or Stamp of the Chief Executive Acts punished 1. 2. 3. Forging the great seal of the Government of the Philippines; Forging the signature of the President; Forging the stamp of the President.
When in a State document, the signature of the President is forged, the crime is not falsification of public document. It is forging the signature of the Chief executive. The Signature of the Chief executive must be forged. If Chief Executive left with his secretary a signature in blank and a document is written above it, the crime is not under Art. 161 but Falsification by public officer or private individual under Art. 171 or 172.
Article 162. Using Forged Signature or Counterfeit Seal or Stamp Elements 1. The great seal of the Republic was counterfeited or the signature or stamp of the Chief Executive was forged by another person; 2. Offender knew of the counterfeiting or forgery; 3. He used the counterfeit seal or forged signature or stamp. Offender under this article should not be the forger. Otherwise, it would fall under Art 161. Article 163. Making and Importing and Uttering False Coins Elements 1. There be false or counterfeited coins; 2. Offender either made, imported or uttered such coins;
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 31
3.
In case of uttering such false or counterfeited coins, he connived with the counterfeiters or importers.
Kinds of coins the counterfeiting of which is punished 1. 2. 3. Silver coins of the Philippines or coins of the Central Bank of the Philippines; Coins of the minor coinage of the Philippines or of the Central Bank of the Philippines; Coin of the currency of a foreign country.
Mutilation means to take off part of the metal either by filing it or substituting it for another metal of inferior quality. The coin must be of legal tender in mutilation. Coins of foreign country not included. Requisites of mutilation under the RPC (1) Coin mutilated is of legal tender; (2) Offender gains from the precious metal dust abstracted from the coin; and (3) It has to be a coin.
Presidential Decree No. 247 Prohibiting and Penalizing Defacement, Mutilation, Tearing, Burning or Destroying Central Bank Notes and Coins It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully deface, mutilate, tear, burn, or destroy in any manner whatsoever, currency notes and coins issued by the Central Bank. Any person who shall violate this Decree shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than twenty thousand pesos and/or by imprisonment of not more than five years.
When is a coin false or counterfeited? if it is forged if it is not authorized by government as legal tender if it is a spurious copy (imitation of the design of a genuine coin) Importation means bringing into port. Importation is complete before entry at the Customs House. Uttering is passing counterfeited coins. It includes their delivery or the act of giving them away. Former coins withdrawn from circulation may be counterfeited under this article.
People vs. Kong Leon Kong Leon, a goldsmith, was selling illegally fabricated US dollar coins which are already withdrawn from circulation. Several unfinished coins were found by the police in his shop and pockets. HELD: When RPC was enacted, the Spanish text was the one approved. Thus it controls the interpretation of provisions. Therefore, under Spanish Penal Code, fabrication of coin withdrawn from circulation is punishable because of (1) the harm it caused to the public when it goes into circulation again, (2) the danger of a counterfeiter staying within the country (he may counterfeit coins in actual circulation and (3) collectors will be defrauded.
Mutilation under the RPC is true only to coins. It cannot be a crime under the RPC to mutilate paper bills because the idea of mutilation under the code is collecting the precious metal dust. However, under PD 247, mutilation is not limited to coins. Article 165. Selling of False or Mutilated Coin, without Connivance Acts punished 1. Possession of coin, counterfeited or mutilated by another person, with intent to utter the same, knowing that it is false or mutilated; Elements Possession; With intent to utter; and Knowledge. 2. Actually uttering such false or mutilated coin, knowing the same to be false or mutilated. Elements Actually uttering; and Knowledge.
Article 164. Mutilation of Coins Acts punished 1. 2. Mutilating coins of the legal currency, with the further requirements that there be intent to damage or to defraud another; Importing or uttering such mutilated coins, with the further requirement that there must be connivances with the mutilator or importer in case of uttering.
Possession of or uttering false coin does not require that the counterfeited coin is legal tender. Possession, ether actual or constructive, of the counterfeiter or importer is not punished as a separate offense. Article 166. Forging Treasury or Bank Notes or Other Documents Payable to Bearer; Importing and Uttering Such False or Forged Notes and Documents Acts punished 1. 2. 3. Forging or falsification of treasury or bank notes or other documents payable to bearer; Importation of such false or forged obligations or notes; Uttering of such false or forged obligations or notes in connivance with the forgers or importers.
Article 167. Counterfeiting, Importing, and Uttering Instruments Not Payable to Bearer Elements There is an instrument payable to order or other documents of credit not payable to bearer; Offender either forged, imported or uttered such instrument; In case of uttering, he connived with the forger or importer. Application of Art 167 is limited to instruments payable to order. But it covers instruments or other documents of credit issued by a foreign government or bank. Connivance is not required in uttering if the utterer is the forger, Article 168. Illegal Possession and Use of False Treasury or Bank Notes and Other Instruments of Credit Elements 1. 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. Offender knows that any of those instruments is forged or falsified; 3. He either a. uses any of such forged or falsified instruments; or b. possesses with intent to use any of such forged or falsified instruments. Intent to possess is not intent to use. Mere possession alone is not a criminal offense. It must be with intent to use. The conduct of the accused is considered to establish knowledge of forgery. A person in possession of falsified document and who makes use of the same is presumed to be the material author of falsification. Accused has the burden to give satisfactory explanation of his possession of forged bills. When an act performed would have been a crime of illegal possession of false treasury note, it cannot be an impossible crime because forging or falsification of treasury notes is neither an offense against persons nor an offense against property under Art 4(2) but one case held otherwise. Article 169. How forgery is committed
Importation means to bring them into the Phils which presupposes that the obligations or notes are forged or falsified in a foreign country. Uttering meand offering obligations or notes knowing them to be false or forged WON such offer is accepted with a representation by words or action thats that they are genuine and with an intent to defraud. Uttering forged bills must be with connivance to constitute a violation of Art. 166. Notes and other obligations and securities that may be forged or falsified under Art 166 are: treasury or bank notes certificates, and other obligations and securities payable to bearer Penalties depend on the kind of forged treasury or bank notes or other documents obligation/security issued by RP circulating note issued by any banking institution duly authorized by law to issue the same document issued by foreign govt circulating note or bill issued a foreign bank duly authorized to issue the same. PNB checks are commercial documents not covered by Art 166.
By giving to a treasury or bank note or any instrument payable to bearer or to order mentioned therein, the appearance of a true and genuine document; 2. By erasing, substituting, counterfeiting, or altering by any means the figures, letters, words, or sign contained therein. Forgery includes falsification and counterfeiting. Giving checks the appearance of true and genuine document is forgery. Mere change on a document does not amount to this crime. The essence of forgery is giving a document the appearance of a true and genuine document.
Del Rosario vs. People Del Rosario was shown by the accused a P1 bill and a P2 bill inducing him to believe that the bills were counterfeited when they were in fact genuine treasury notes. One of the digits of each bill was altered to make it appear counterfeited. Held: The possession of genuine treasury notes of the Phils, where any of the figures, letters, words or signs contained therein had been erased and/or altered, with knowledge of such erasure/alteration, and with intent to use such notes in enticing another to advance funds for the purpose of financing the manufacture of counterfeit notes is punishable by Art. 168 in relation to Art 169 (1). People vs. Galano Galano bought 4 balut eggs with a P1 bill with the word victory written on it. The P1 bill had been withdrawn from circulation. It is however redeemable at face its face value if presented to the Central Bank. Held: The forgery committed falls under Art 169(1) where the treasury note by the addition of the word victory was given the appearance of a true and genuine document. This provision also covers the situation where originally true and genuine documents have been withdrawn or demonetized were made to appear a true legal tender.
The words "municipal council" should include the city council or municipal board. The bill, resolution or ordinance must be genuine. The offender is any person, private individual or public officer, who has no authority to make the alteration. The act of falsification in legislative document is limited to altering it which changes its meaning. Distinction between falsification and forgery: Falsification is the commission of any of the eight acts mentioned in Article 171 on legislative (only the act of making alteration), public or official, commercial, or private documents, or wireless, or telegraph messages. The term forgery as used in Article 169 refers to the falsification and counterfeiting of treasury or bank notes or any instruments payable to bearer or to order. Note that forging and falsification are crimes under Forgeries. Article 171. Falsification by Public Officer, Employee or Notary or Ecclesiastical Minister Elements 1. Offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public; 2. He takes advantage of his official position; 3. He falsifies a document by committing any of the following acts: a. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric; b. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate; c. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them; d. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts; e. Altering true dates; f. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning; g. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original document when no such original exists, or including in such a copy a statement contrary
Article 170. Documents
Falsification of Legislative
Elements 1. There is a bill, resolution or ordinance enacted or approved or pending approval by either House of the Legislature or any provincial board or municipal council; 2. Offender alters the same; 3. He has no proper authority therefor; 4. The alteration has changed the meaning of the documents.
4.
to, or different from, that of the genuine original; or h. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official book. In case the offender is an ecclesiastical minister who shall commit any of the offenses enumerated, with respect to any record or document of such character that its falsification may affect the civil status of persons.
There is no falsification by one who acted in good faith. The fact that ones consent to a contract was obtained by means of violence does not make the facts narrated therein false. Legal obligation to disclose the truth is inherent in residence certificate. There can be a falsification by omission (P v Dizon). Altering True Dates Date must be essential. Altering dates in official receipts to prevent the discovery of malversation is falsification. Making alteration or intercalation Alteration which speaks the truth is not falsification. The alteration must affect the integrity or change the effects of the documents. Altering the grades in examination papers involves several acts of falsification. (see P v Romualdez)
Caubang vs. People 1992 Accused was organizing the merger of two stevedoring companies. Among the documents presented and filed with the SEC for the registration of the company was a Statement of Assets and Liabilities (SAL) of the company. This had the signature of the treasurer; but this signature was forged. HELD: Accused guilty of falsification of public documents. In the absence of contrary proof, the accused who filed all the documents with the SEC, is presumed to have also filed the forged SAL. And thus since his possession of the forged instrument is presumed, it is also presumed from this fact that he is the forger of the document. It is immaterial that the entries in the SAL were true, the important thing is that the signature of the treasurer was forged. What is punished in this crime is the violation of the faith in public documents and the destruction of the truth in making it appear that a person did something when in fact he did not; damage is not essential. People vs. Romualdez Romualdez, the secretary of Justice Romualdez, changed the grade of bar examinee, Mabunay, to enable him to reach the required average to pass the bar. She claimed she had been given the authority to do so. HELD: The acts of falsification are: (1) making alterations on genuine documents (2) making it appear that the correctors had participated in blotting out the grades and writing out new and increased grades opposite their initials and (3) attributing to the correctors statements other than those in fact made by them. Beradio vs. CA
Even if the offender is a public officer but the falsification committed by him is upon a document which does not pertain to his office, it was committed without abuse of his office. Thus it will not fall under Art 171 but Art 172. A private person who cooperates with a public officer in the falsification of public documents is guilty under Art 171 and incurs the same liability and penalty as the public officer as there is conspiracy. Must a genuine document in falsification? In Par. 6, 7 in its 2nd part and 8 of Art 171, the law requires that there be a genuine document where the intercalation or alteration is made changing its meaning. in other paragraphs, of Art 171, falsification may be committed by simulating or fabrication a document. Counterfeiting and Feigning In Counterfeiting, there must be (1) an intent or attempt to imitate and (2) that the two signatures/handwritings, the genuine and the forged, bear some resemblance to each other. In feigning, there is no original signature, handwriting, or rubric but a forgery of a signature, handwriting or rubric that does not exist. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts There must be a narration of facts not of conclusion of law and there must be a legal obligation on the part of the accused to disclose the truth of the facts narrated. The narration of facts must be absolutely false and the person making such narration must be aware of the falsity of the facts narrated by him. The perversion of truth in the narration of facts must be made with the wrongful intent of injuring a third person. If the document falsified is a public document, wrongful intent is not essential. there be
Beradio is the lawyer and election registrar accused of falsifying her daily time record, a public document. Her daily time record shows she was at the office 8am-5pm when in fact she went to court. HELD: Beradio belongs to a class of officers who are exempt from keeping and submitting daily time records. No criminal intent to commit falsification can be imputed to her when she submits her time record not as a legal obligation but as a matter of practice. The entries she made contain a color of truth and no damage was caused to the govt or a third party. Luague vs. CA
position was available. However, no such position and funds were in existence. The mayor knew that the Municipal Council failed to enact a new budget and has adopted the previous years budget. HELD: SC held Mayor liable under Art 171(4), when he made an untruthful statement in a narration of facts contained in the certification which he issued in connection with the appointment of the clerk. The existence of a wrongful intent to injure a third person is not necessary when the falsified document is a public document. It is because the principal thing punished is the violation of public faith and the destruction of truth proclaimed therein. People vs. Villalon
Luague, a widow, signed her husbands name on the salary checks with the knowledge of her deceased husbands supervisor. She encashed the same and use it to pay debts incurred for the illness and death of her husband. HELD: There was no estafa thru falsification of a commercial document. No damage was incurred against the government as the deceased employee deserved the salary his wife availed of. Even if there was falsification when she signed for her husband, this was done with the knowledge of her deceased husbands supervisor that the husband was indeed dead. (Reezas dad in the RTC ruled otherwise ) Cabigas vs. People Cabigas, a securities custodian of Landbank, was convicted of falsification when he changed the entry of the figure of treasury bills from 1539 to 1533 pieces in the Daily Report of Securities/Documents under Custody (DR SDUC) for the purpose of hiding the loss of 6 treasury bills in his custody. HELD: SC acquitted him since the elements of Art 171(4) were not present. The correction of the figure from 1539 to 1533 pieces to conform to the actual pieces of treasury notes in custody is not falsification since it was made to speak the truth. Also, the DR/SDUC is a form purely devised and adopted by Cabigas and was never required thus he was not legally obligated to disclose or reveal the truth in that document. In the absence of legal obligation, there can be no falsification. People vs. Sendaydiego Sendaydiego, a provincial treasurer, used 6 forged provincial vouchers to embezzle from the road and bridge fund. TC convicted them of malversation thru falsification of public document. HELD: SC held that the crimes committed are separate crimes of malversation and falsification because in the 6 vouchers, the falsification was used to conceal the malversation. Each falsification and malversation constituted independent offenses which must be punished separately. Siquian vs. People Siquian, a municipal mayor, appointed a clerk and signed the latters appointment papers which stated that there was such a position available and that funds for this
Carrera brothers were co-owners of a parcel of land. A power of attorney was executed authorizing de Guzman to mortgage one brothers half. De Guzman used the power of attorney to obtain a loan from the mortgagee bank. Loan was unpaid, bank foreclosed the mortgage and sold land to Serafia who filed ejectment suit against the brothers. HELD: The crime committed was estafa thru falsification of public document. The falsification of public document may be a means to commit estafa because before the falsified document is actually used to defraud another, the crime of falsification is already consummated and damage or intent to cause damage is not an element of falsification. The damage to another is caused by the commission of estafa. Santos v. Sandiganbayan (2000) Valentino occupies a public position as bookkeeper at the Clearing Office of the Central Bank. He intercepted and pilfered BPI-Laoag checks with the assistance of petitioner Estacio, a janitor-messenger at the Central Bank. In the comfort room of the bank, Valentino and/or one Villasanta tampered with the clearing statements and clearing manifests. Valentino then brought the altered clearing statements back to the clearing center and prepared a Clearing Bank Manifests where he changed the figure in the original copy to tally with those in the altered clearing statement. The tampered documents, along with the pilfered demand envelopes, were then sent to the Central Bank Regional Clearing Center in Laoag. In utilizing this scheme from October to December of 1981, the syndicate netted P9 Million.
Lumancas v. Intas (2000) Lumancas and Uriarte were regular employees of the Philippine Postal Corporation in Tandag, Surigao del Sur. They made false entries in their respective Personal Data Sheets (PDS, [CSC Form 212]) regarding their educational attainment, resulting in their promotion to higher positions. Uriarte asserted that he finished his Bachelor of Science in Commerce, Major in Management, at the IHU in 1968. In fllling up her PDS, Lumancas on the other hand indicated that she is a graduate of Bachelor of Science in Commerce Major in Management at the IHU. She also claimed that she is a graduate of Pharmacy from the CEU. Both are not college gradutes. HELD: 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; and, (d) That the perversion of truth in the narration of facts was made with the wrongful intent of injuring a third person. 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." Hence, the last requisite need not be present. 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. Nonetheless, they argue that they have no legal obligation to disclose the truth in their PDS since these are not official documents. The Court disagrees and cited the case of Inting v. Tanodbayan, where it was 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. 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.
(3) (4)
Commercial document or any document recognized by the Code of Commerce or any commercial law; and Private document in the execution of which only private individuals take part.
NOTE: Private document may acquire the character of a public document when it becomes part of an official record and is certified by a public officer duly authorized by law. Public document is broader than the term official document. Before a document may be considered official, it must first be a public document. But not all public documents are official documents. To become an official document, there must be a law which requires a public officer to issue or to render such document. Example: A cashier is required to issue an official receipt for the amount he receives. The official receipt is a public document which is an official document. Cash disbursement vouchers are not commercial documents. Mere blank forms of an official document is not itself a document. It is necessary that the blank spaces be filled and the signature of the party authorized to issue it be written by another in the counterfeited instrument. The possessor of a falsified document is presumed to be the author of the falsification. But this presumption is not applied where the evidence is extremely doubtful. Damage or intent to cause damage is not necessary as the principal thing punished is the violation of public faith and destruction of truth.
Article 172. Falsification by Private Individual and Use of Falsified Documents Acts punished 1. 2. 3. Falsification of public, official or commercial document by a private individual; Falsification of private document by any person; Use of falsified document.
Lack of malice or criminal intent is a defense

in falsification of public document. Elements under paragraph 2 Offender committed any of the acts of falsification except Article 171(7), that is, issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original document when no such original exists, or including in such a copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original; Falsification was committed in any private document; Falsification causes damage to a third party or at least the falsification was committed with intent to cause such damage.
Elements under paragraph 1 1. Offender is a private individual or public officer or employee who did not take advantage of his official position; He committed any act of falsification under Art 171; 3. The falsification was committed in a public, official, or commercial document or letter of exchange. There are four kinds of documents: (1) Public document in the execution of which, a person in authority or notary public has taken part; (2) Official document in the execution of which a public official takes part;
Mere falsification of public document is not enough as it is necessary that it must cause damage to a third person or must be committed with intent to cause such damage. It is also not necessary that the offender profited or hoped to profit by the falsification. When the falsification is a necessary means to commit another crime, the two crimes form a complex crime under Art. 48. Note that the document falsified as a necessary means must be public, official or commercial. a. Malversation through falsification of public documents b. Estafa through falsification of a public document. c. Estafa through falsification of a commercial document by reckless imprudence d. Theft through falsification of official document. e. Attempted estafa through falsification of public or official documents. There is no complex crime of estafa through falsification of a private document because the immediate effect of falsification of a private document is the same as that of estafa. If a private document is falsified to obtain from the offended party the money or other personal property which the offender later misappropriated, the crime committed is falsification of private document only. If a private document is falsified to conceal the misappropriation of the money or other personal property which has been in the possession of the offender, the crime committed is estafa with abuse of confidence only. If estafa was already consummated at the time of the falsification of a private document or if the falsification was committed to for the purpose of concealing estafa, the falsification is not punishable as because as regards the falsification, there was no damage or intent to cause damage. There is no falsification through reckless imprudence if the document is private and no actual damage is caused. The crime is falsification of a public document, even if the falsification took place before the private document becomes part of the public records, if the document is intended by law ro be part of the public or official record. Generally, falsification has no attempted or frustrated stage. But there may be a
frustrated falsification if the falsification is imperfect. (Reyes)

Falsification of a Public document Mere falsification is enough Committed by any of the 8 means under Art 171 Principal thing punished is violation of public faith and destruction of truth as therein solemnly proclaimed Falsification of a Private document Prejudice to 3rd person or intent to cause it is enough Cannot be committed by the ways in par 7 & 8 of Art 171
Elements under the last paragraph In introducing in a judicial proceeding 1 Offender knew that the document was falsified by another person; 2 The false document is in Articles 171 or 172 (1 or 2); He introduced said document in evidence in any judicial proceeding. In use in any other transaction 1 Offender knew that a document was falsified by another person; 2 The false document is embraced in Articles 171 or 172 (1 or 2); 3 He used such document; The use caused damage to another or at least used with intent to cause damage. Damage is not necessary in the crime of introducing in judicial proceeding a false document. Use of falsified document in a proceeding which is not judicial is requires at least intent to cause damage. If the one who used the falsified document is the same person who falsified it, the crime is only falsification and the use of the same is not a separate crime. Use of false document is not necessarily included in the crime of falsification. The user of the falsified document is deemed the author of the falsification if o the use was so closely connected in time with the falsification, and o the user had the capacity of falsifying the document. Batulanon v. People (2006) Cash vouchers are private documents and not commercial documents because they are not documents used by merchants or businessmen to promote or facilitate trade or credit transactions nor C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 38
are they defined and regulated by the Code of Commerce or other commercial law. Rather, they are private documents, which have been defined as deeds or instruments executed by a private person without the intervention of a public notary or of other person legally authorized, by which some disposition or agreement is proved, evidenced or set forth.
The
Article 173. Falsification of Wireless, Cable, Telegraph and Telephone Messages, and Use of Said Falsified Messages Acts punished 1. Uttering fictitious wireless, telegraph or telephone message; Elements 1. Offender is an officer or employee of the government or an officer or employee of a private corporation, engaged in the service of sending or receiving wireless, cable or telephone message; 2. He utters fictitious wireless, cable, telegraph or telephone message. 2. Falsifying wireless, telegraph or telephone message; Elements 1. Offender is an officer or employee of the government or an officer or employee of a private corporation, engaged in the service of sending or receiving wireless, cable or telephone message; 2. He falsifies wireless, cable, telegraph or telephone message. 3. Using such falsified message. Elements 1. Offender knew that wireless, cable, telegraph, or telephone message was falsified by an officer or employee of the government or an officer or employee of a private corporation, engaged in the service of sending or receiving wireless, cable or telephone message; 2. 3. He used such falsified dispatch; The use resulted in the prejudice of a third party or at least there was intent to cause such prejudice.
public officer, to be liable, must be engaged in the service of sending or receiving wireless, cable or telephone message. Private individual cannot be a principal by direct participation in falsification of telegraphic dispatches under Art. 173 unless he is an employee of a corporation engaged in the business of sending or receiving wireless, telegraph or telephone message. Private individual can be criminally liable as principal by inducement in falsification of telegraphic dispatches. Act. No. 1851, Sec $, punishes private individuals who forge or alter telegram by an fine of not more than P100. Article 174. False Medical Certificates, False Certificates of Merit or Service, Etc. Persons liable 1 Physician or surgeon who, in connection with the practice of his profession, issues a false certificate (it must refer to the illness or injury of a person); [The crime here is false medical certificate by a physician.]
Public officer who issues a false certificate of merit of service, good conduct or similar circumstances; [The crime here is false certificate of merit or service by a public officer.]
Private person who falsifies a certificate falling within the classes mentioned in the two preceding subdivisions. [The crime is false medical certificate by private person or false certificate of merit or service by a private person]
The falsification of the certificate of large cattle is not covered by Art 174 but by Art 171 or 172. Certificate of residence for voting purposes is certificate of similar circumstances. Article 175. Using False Certificates Elements 1. The following issues a false certificate: a. Physician or surgeon, in connection with the practice of his profession, issues a false certificate;
b. c.
Public officer issues a false certificate of merit of service, good conduct or similar circumstances; Private person falsifies a certificate falling within the classes mentioned in the two preceding subdivisions.
government or government. 2.
of
any
foreign
Usurpation of official functions. Elements 1. Offender performs any act; 2. Pertaining to any person in authority or public officer of the Philippine government or any foreign government, or any agency thereof; 3. Under pretense of official position; 4. Without being lawfully entitled to do so.
2.
Offender knows that the certificate was false;
He uses the same. When any of the false certificates mentioned in Art. 174 is used in the judicial proceedings, Art 172 does not apply because the use of false document in judicial proceeding under Art 172 is limited to those false documents embraced in Arts 171 and 172. Article 176. Manufacturing and Possession of Instruments or Implements for Falsification Acts punished 1. Making or introducing into the Philippines any stamps, dies, marks, or other instruments or implements for counterfeiting or falsification; Possessing with intent to use the instruments or implements for counterfeiting or falsification made in or introduced into the Philippines by another person.
In usurpation of authority, it is not necessary that he performs an act pertaining to public office. However in usurpation of official functions, it is essential that the offender should have performed an act pertaining to a person authority or public officer. There must be positive, express and explicit representation. Such false representation may be shown by acts. This article applies to any person and thus covers even a public officer. (ex. Councilor usurping mayors office) This article does not apply to occupant under color of title. This article also punishes usurpation of authority or official functions of any officer of any foreign government.
2.
RA
It is not necessary that the implements confiscated form a complete set for counterfeiting. It is enough that they may be employed by themselves or together with other implements to commit the crime of counterfeiting or falsification. Possession punished here may be actual or constructive possession. Article 177. Usurpation of Authority or Official Functions Acts punished 1. Usurpation of authority; Elements 1. Offender knowingly and falsely represents himself; 2. As an officer, agent or representative of any department or agency of the Philippine
75 provides additional penalties for usurping the authority of diplomatic or consular or any other official of foreign government if offender has intent to defraud. RA 10 applies only to members of seditious organization engaged in subversive activities who performed any act pertaining to the government, to any person in authority or to any public officer.
People vs. Cortez Accused introduced himself to a proprietress of a meatshop presenting an id card bearing another name. He claimed to be authorized to waive inspection of books for P400. Upon learning that the accused was not a real BIR agent, the owner and authorities set up a string operation. Accused was apprehended after taking the money. HELD: Crime committed was usurpation of authority thru falsification of a public document by a private individual. It is not robbery because there was no force or intimidation. Gigantoni v People
Gigantoni, working on an investigation for another company, represented himself to PAL legal officer as a PCCIS agent. He requested that he be shown the PAL records which was granted and he xeroxed them. HELD: He cannot be held liable for usurpation of authority because he did not knowingly represented himself to be an agent. AT the time he went to PAL office, he was still an agent though he knew he was suspended. The conveyance to him of the notice of dismissal was not proven. He should have been charged with usurpation of official functions where dismissal or suspension would make no difference because both imply the absence of the power to represent himself as vested with authority to perform acts pertaining to an office which he knowingly was deprived of.
crime, to evade the execution of a judgment or to cause damage
conceal identity
Legamia v IAC Corazon Legamia lived with Emilio Reyes for 19 years and gave him a son. She was known and introduced to others as Mrs. Reyes. Upon Emilios death, Corazon filed for death benefits on behalf of their son. The real Mrs. Reyes, Felicisima, filed a complaint against Corazon for using fictitious name. HELD: Corazon was acquitted. It is not uncommon for a woman to represent herself as the wife of the person she is living with. Corazon assumed the role of a wife not for any personal material gain but for her son. Ours is a tolerant and understanding society
Article 178. Using Fictitious Name and Concealing True Name Acts punished 1. Using fictitious name Elements 1. Offender uses a name other than his real name; 2. He uses the fictitious name publicly; 3. Purpose of use is to conceal a crime, to evade the execution of a judgment or to cause damage [to public interest - Reyes]. 2. Concealing true name Elements 1. Offender conceals his true name and other personal circumstances; 2. Purpose is only to conceal his identity. A fictitious name is any other name which a person publicly applies to himself without authority of law. Causing damage must be to public interest. If it is damage to private interest, the crime will be estafa under Art 315,subdivision 2 paragraph (a). Signing fictitious name in an application for passport is publicly using such fictitious name. Where a person takes the place of another who has been convicted by final judgment, he is guilty of using a fictitious name under Art 178 and not evasion of service of sentence because the real convict alone is guilty thereof.
Use of Fictitious name Element of publicity must be present Purpose is to conceal a Concealing true name Element of publicity is not necessary Purpose is merely to
Use of unregistered aliases

R.A. 6085 AN ACT AMENDING COMMONWEALTH ACT NUMBERED ONE HUNDRED FORTY-TWO REGULATING THE USE OF ALIASES What is prohibited? 1. 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 registered in the bureau of immigration upon entry; or such substitute name as may have been authorized by a competent court. Exception: Pseudonym solely for literary, cinema, television, radio, or other entertainment and in athletic events where the use of pseudonym is a normally accepted practice. (Sec. 1) 2. No person having been baptized with a name different from that with which he was registered at birth in the local civil registry, or in case of an alien, registered in the bureau of immigration upon entry, or any person who obtained judicial authority to use an alias, or who uses a pseudonym, shall represent himself in any public or private transaction or shall sign or execute any public or private document without stating or affixing his real or original name and all names or aliases or pseudonym he is or may have been authorized to use. (Sec. 3) What is the process? Any person desiring to use an alias shall apply for authority therefor in proceedings like those legally provided to obtain judicial authority for a change of name, and no person shall be allowed to secure such judicial authority for more than one alias. The petition for an alias shall set forth the person's baptismal and family name and the name recorded in the civil registry, if different, his immigrant's name, if an alien, and his pseudonym, if he has such names other than his original or real name, specifying the reason or reasons for the use of the desired alias. The judicial authority for the use of
alias the christian name and the alien immigrant's name shall be recorded in the proper local civil registry, and no person shall use any name or names other, than his original or real name unless the same is or are duly recorded in the proper local civil registry. (Sec. 2) Penalties imposed Any violation of this Act shall be punished with imprisonment of from one year to five years and a fine of P5,000 to P10,000. (Sec. 5)
thereof, any money, paper, document, or other thing of value; 3. Any person, other than a diplomatic or consular officer or attache, who shall act in the Republic of the Philippines as an agent of a foreign government without prior notification to, and registration with, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs; 4. Any person who, with intent to deceive or mislead, within the jurisdiction of the Republic, shall wear any naval, military, police, or other official uniform, decoration, or regalia of any foreign State, nation or government with which the Republic of the Philippines is at peace, or any uniform, decoration or regalia so nearly resembling the same as to be calculated to deceive, UNLESS such wearing thereof be authorized by such State, nation, or government; 5. Any person by whom any writ or process is obtained, whereby the person of any ambassador or public minister of any foreign State, authorized and received as such by the President, or any domestic or domestic servant of any such ambassador or minister is arrested or imprisoned, or his goods or chattels are distrained, seized, or attached, whether as party or as attorney; 6. Every officer concerned in executing the writs or process in (5) above. (5) and (6) above are NOT APPLICABLE where: the person against whom the process is issued is a (1) citizen or inhabitant of the Republic of the Philippines, (2) in the service of an ambassador or a public minister, and (3) the process is founded upon a debt contracted before he entered upon such service; or the person against whom the process is issued is a domestic servant of an ambassador or a public minister, UNLESS the name of the servant has, before the issuing thereof, been registered in the Department of Foreign Affairs, and transmitted by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs to the Chief of Police of the City of Manila, who shall upon receipt thereof post the same in some public place in his office. 7. Any person who assaults, strikes, wounds, imprisons or in any other manner offers violence to the person of an ambassador or a public minister, in violation of the law of nations. Penalties The penalties provided in the act shall be imposed in addition to the penalties that may be imposed under the Revised Penal Code
Article 179. Insignia
Illegal Use of Uniforms or
Elements 1 Offender makes use of insignia, uniforms or dress; 2 The insignia, uniforms or dress pertains to an office not held by such person or a class of persons of which he is not a member; 3. Said insignia, uniform or dress is used publicly and improperly. Wearing the uniform of an imaginary office is not punishable. An exact imitation of a uniform or dress is unnecessary; a colorable resemblance calculated to deceive the common run of people is sufficient.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 75 (Immunity of Diplomats and Consuls) An Act to Penalize Acts which would Impair the Proper Observance by the Republic and Inhabitants of the Philippines of the Immunities, Rights, And Privileges Of Duly Accredited Foreign Diplomatic And Consular Agents In The Philippines When applicable The provisions of the Act are applicable only in cases where the country of the diplomatic or consular representative adversely affected has provided for similar protection to duly accredited diplomatic or consular representatives of the Republic of the Philippines by prescribing like or similar penalties for like or similar offenses herein contained. Who are punishable? 1. Any person who shall falsely assume and take upon himself to act as a diplomatic, consular, or any other official of a foreign government duly accredited as such to the Government of the Republic of the Philippines with intent to defraud such foreign government or the Government of the Philippines; 2. Any person who, in such pretended character shall demand or obtain, or attempt to obtain from any person or from said foreign government or the Government of the Philippines, or from any officer
RA 493 An Act to Prohibit the Use or Conferring of Military or Naval Grades or Titles By or Upon Persons Not in the Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or the Philippine Constabulary, to Regulate the Wearing, Use, Manufacture and Sale of Insignias, Decorations and Medals, Badges, Patches and Identification Cards Prescribed for the Said Armed Forces or Constabulary, and for Other Purposes Sec. 1. It shall be unlawful for any person NOT in the service of the AFP or the PNP to use, or confer upon himself or another who is not in the service, any military or naval grade or title. Exceptions: (a) All veterans of any war when recognized by the Philippine and only for the ranks for which they are recognized; (b) Commissioned officers and personnel, retired or in active duty, of the Bureau of Coast and Geodetic Survey, of the quarantine service, and of the customs service; (c) Commissioned and enlisted reservists including recognized guerrilla officers on inactive status when using their authorized grades for a purely military purposes; (d) Trainees in the Armed Forces while undergoing any period of trainee instruction pursuant to law. Sec. 2. It shall be unlawful for any person not in the service (EXCEPT those excluded from the prohibition in Section 1), to use or wear the duly prescribed insignia, badge or emblem or rank or any colorable imitation thereof, of the members of the AFP or PNP, Exception: use or the wearing of any insignia, badge or emblem of rank: a. in any play-house or theater or b. in moving-picture films while actually engaged in representing therein a military or naval character not tending to bring discredit or reproach upon the AFP and PNP Sec. 3. The use, wearing, manufacture and sale of any medal or decoration, badge, insignia, patch, or identification card, authorized by Congress or prescribed or awarded by the President of the Philippines or the Secretary of National Defense for the members of the AFP, or any colorable imitation thereof, is prohibited Exception: when so authorized by the Secretary of National Defense.
False testimony is committed by a person who, being under oath and required to testify as to the truth of a certain matter at a hearing before a competent authority shall deny the truth or say something contrary to it.
Three forms of false testimony 1. 2. 3. False testimony in criminal cases (Arts 180, 181) False testimony in civil case (Art 182) False testimony in other cases (Art 183) False Testimony against A
Article 180. Defendant
Elements 1. There is a criminal proceeding; 2. Offender testifies falsely under oath against the defendant therein; 3. Offender who gives false testimony knows that it is false. 4. Defendant against whom the false testimony is given is either acquitted or convicted in a final judgment. Penalty for false testimony depends upon the sentence of the defendant against whom false testimony was given. The defendant in the principal case must be sentenced at least a correctional penalty, a fine or shall have been acquitted in order that the witness who falsely testified can be held liable. The witness who gave false testimony is liable even if his testimony was not considered by the court as the law intends to punish the mere giving of false testimony. Article 181. False Testimony Favorable to the Defendant Elements 1. A person gives false testimony; 2. In favor of the defendant; 3. In a criminal case.
Conviction
FALSE TESTIMONY
or acquittal of defendant in principal case, not necessary as it is sufficient that the defendant is prosecuted for a felony punishable by afflictive penalty or by other penalty. False testimony favorable to the defendant is equally repugnant to the orderly administration of justice.
False testimony is punished because of its tendency to favor or to prejudice the defendant. False testimony by negative statement is in favor of defendant. False testimony in favor of defendant need not directly influence the decision of acquittal nor benefit the defendant as it is sufficient that it was given to favor the accused. A statement by a witness that he is an expert in handwriting is a statement of mere opinion, the falsity of which is not sufficient to convict him.
2. 3. 4.
The statement or affidavit is made before a competent officer, authorized to receive and administer oaths; Offender makes a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood in the statement or affidavit; The sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law, that is, it is made for a legal purpose.
Oath is any form of attestation by which a person signifies that he is bound in conscience to perform an act faithfully and truthfully.
The
defendant who falsely testified in his own behalf in a criminal case is guilty of false testimony favorable to the defendant. The right to testify in his own behalf is secured to him, not that he may be enabled to introduced false testimony into the record, but to enable him to spread upon the record the truth as to any matter within his knowledge (US v Soliman) Rectification made spontaneously after realizing the mistake is not false testimony. Article 182. False Testimony in Civil Cases Elements 1. Testimony given in a civil case; 2. Testimony relates to the issues presented in said case; 3. Testimony is false; 4. Offender knows that testimony is false; 5. Testimony is malicious and given with an intent to affect the issues presented in said case. The testimony given in the civil case must be false. Art. 182 is not applicable when the false testimony is given in special proceeding as it applies only to ordinary civil cases. Penalty depends on the amount of the controversy. Article 183. False Testimony in Other Cases and Perjury in Solemn Affirmation Acts punished 1. 2. By falsely testifying under oath; By making a false affidavit.
An affidavit is a sworn statement in writing; a
declaration in writing made upon oath or before an authorized magistrate or officer. Perjury is an offense which covers false oaths other than those taken in the course of judicial proceedings. A false affidavit to a criminal complaint may give rise to perjury. Material matter is the main fact which is the subject matter of the inquiry or any circumstance which tends to prove that fact, or any fact or circumstance which tends to corroborate or strengthen the testimony relative to the subject of inquiry or which legitimately affects the credit of any witness who testifies.
There
Elements of perjury 1. Offender makes a statement under oath or executes an affidavit upon a material matter;
must be competent proof of materiality. The matter is material when it is directed to prove a fact in issue. There is no perjury if sworn statement is not material to the principal matter under investigation. There is no perjury if defendant subscribed and swore before a clerk in treasurers office as a competent person authorized to administer oath is a person who has a right to inquire into the questions presented to him upon matters under his jurisdiction. The assertion of falsehood must be willful and deliberate. Good faith or lack of malice is a defense in perjury. The phrase when the law so requires does not mean that the sworn statement or affidavit must be required by law. It has been interpreted to mean in cases in which the law so authorizes. Hence, even if there is no law requiring the statement to be made under oath, as long as it is made for a legal purpose, it is sufficient (P v Angcangco) Two contradictory sworn statements are not sufficient to convict for perjury because the prosecution must prove which of the two statements is false by other evidence than the contradictory statement. The direct induction of a person by another to commit perjury is treated as plain perjury. C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 44
The one inducing another is principal by induction and the latter as principal by direct participation.
False testimony Perjury Perversions of truth Given in the course of Not given in judicial judicial proceeding proceeding Contemplates an actual May be committed trial during preliminary investigation and in making false affidavits
Diaz vs. People Diaz was charged with falsification of official document. He allegedly executed and filed in CSC a personal data sheet, an official document, where he stated he was a 4th yr AB student at Cosmopolitan and Harvardian Colleges w/c led to his reappointment. The accused was never enrolled in said schools. He presented a transcript of record with no imprint of college seal nor signature of school president. HELD: The crime committed was perjury. This offense is the willful and corrupt assertion of a falsehood under oath or affirmation administered by authority of law on a material matter. Acuna v. Deputy Ombudsman (2005) FACTS: Petitioner Acua is a former teacher of the Angeles City National Trade School ("ACNTS") in Pampanga. Pascua was ACNTS' Officer-In-Charge while Turla was a member of the faculty. Yabut, another ACNTS teacher, together with other school personnel, requested a dialogue with Pascua on some unspecified matter. Turla attended the meeting upon Pascua's directive. Acua, upon Yabuts invitation also attended the meeting. As an offshoot to an incident during the meeting which was held on July 16, 1998, Acua charged Pascua with misconduct ("OMB-ADM-199-0387") and with violation of Article 131 of the RPC ("OMB 1-99-903") before the Office of the Ombudsman. In his sworn counter-affidavit in OMB-ADM-1-99-0387, Pascua alleged, among others, that: (1) OMB-ADM-1-99-0387 is a "rehash and a duplication with a slight deviation of fact" of an administrative case pending with DECS which Acua and Yabut earlier filed against him and (2) Yabut had no authority to invite in the meeting a non-employee of ACNTS like Acua considering that Pascua was the one who called the meeting. Pascua also submitted a sworn statement of Turla confirming that respondent Pascua and not Yabut called the said meeting. The Ombudsman dismissed OMBADM-1-99-0387 and OMB 1-99-0903. Contending that Pacua and Turla perjured themselves in their sworn statements in OMB-ADM-1-99-0387, petitioner charged the former with perjury before the office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon. Acua alleged that Pascua and Turla were liable for perjury because: (1) the complaint she and Yabut filed against Pascua before the CSC, later endorsed to the DECS, was not "the same" as her complaint in OMB-ADM-1-99-0387 and (2) it was Yabut and not respondent Pascua who called the meeting. The Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon dismissed the complaint. HELD: In prosecutions for perjury, a matter is material if it is the "main fact which was the subject of the
inquiry, or any circumstance which tends to prove that fact . . ." 24 To hold private respondents liable, there must be evidence that their assailed statements in OMB-ADM-1-990387 were the subject of inquiry in that case. Petitioner has presented no such evidence. The records are hardly helpful, as petitioner did not furnish the Court a copy of her complaint in OMB-ADM-1-99-0387. What is before the Court is a portion of Pascua's counter-affidavit in that case as quoted by public respondent in his 4 April 2000 Resolution. Admittedly, some inference is possible from this quoted material, namely, that the basis of petitioner's complaint in OMB-ADM-1-990387 is that Pascua prevented her from taking part in the July 1998 meeting. However, it would be improper for the Court to rely on such inference because the element of materiality must be established by evidence and not left to inference. At any rate, petitioner's complaint for perjury will still not prosper because Pascua's statement that OMB-ADM-1-990387 is significantly the same as petitioner's and Yabut's administrative complaint against respondent Pascua before the DECS is immaterial to the inferred issue. The third element of perjury requires that the accused willfully and deliberately assert a falsehood. Good faith or lack of malice is a valid defense. Here, the Court finds that respondent Pascua's statement in his counter-affidavit in OMB-ADM-1-99-0387 that he called the 16 July 1998 meeting does not constitute a deliberate assertion of falsehood. While it was Yabut and some unidentified ACNTS personnel who requested a dialogue with respondent Pascua, it was Pascua's consent to their request which led to the holding of the meeting. Thus, Pascua's statement in question is not false much less malicious. It is a good faith interpretation of events leading to the holding of the meeting. Regarding Pascua's allegation in his counter-affidavit in OMB-ADM-1-99-0387 that petitioners complaint was a mere "rehash and duplication with a slight deviation of fact" of the DECS administrative case petitioner and Yabut filed against Pascua, it was not shown by petitioner why this is false. Petitioner again did not furnish the Court a copy of her and Yabut's complaint with the DECS. Turla's statement in OMB-ADM-1-99-0387 that respondent Pascua called the 16 July 1998 meeting was a mere reiteration of what respondent Pascua told him. Consequently, it was correct for the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon to hold that since respondent Turla merely repeated what he heard from respondent Pascua, he could not be held liable for making a false and malicious statement. The dismissal is affirmed. People v. Choa (2003) FACTS: Alfonso Chan Choa, petitioner, a Chinese national, filed with the RTC a verified petition for naturalization. During the initial hearing of the case, Choa testified on direct examination but he was not able to finish the same. He subsequently filed a motion to withdraw his petition for naturalization for which the trial court granted. Meanwhile, State Prosecutor Delfin, acting upon the complaint of petitioner's wife, Leni, filed an Information with the MTCC, charging petitioner with perjury under Article 183 of the RPC with respect to alleged false statements he made in his Petition for Naturalization. Petitioner alleged that there is no basis to convict him of perjury because almost 2 years prior to the filing of the Information, his motion to withdraw the petition for naturalization containing the alleged false statements was granted, hence, the alleged
false statements were no longer existing or had become functus officio. The lower courts found Choas allegation devoid of merit and convicted him guilty of perjury. In his petition, Choa and the Solicitor General contend that (a) not all the elements of the crime of perjury are present; and (b) the withdawal of the petition for naturalization which contains the alleged untruthful statements bars the prosecution of petitioner for perjury. HELD: Fully cognizant of the truth surrounding his moral character and residence, petitioner instead declared falsely in his verified petition for naturalization that "he has all the qualifications and none of the disqualification under C.A. No. 473." Clearly, he willfully asserted falsehood under oath on material matters required by law. It is not necessary that the proceeding in which the perjury is alleged to have been committed be first terminated before a prosecution for the said crime is commenced. At the time he filed his petition for naturalization, he had committed perjury. All the elements of the crime were already present then. He knew all along that he wilfully stated material falsities in his verified petition. Surprisingly, he withdrew his petition without even stating any reason therefor. But such withdrawal only terminated the proceedings for naturalization. It did not extinguish his culpability for perjury he already committed. Indeed, the fact of withdrawal alone cannot bar the State from prosecuting petitioner, an alien, who made a mockery not only of the Philippine naturalization law but the judicial proceedings as well. And the petition for naturalization tainted with material falsities can be used as evidence of his unlawful act. Petitioner then claims that since the petition for naturalization is a pleading, the allegations therein are absolutely privileged and cannot be used for any criminal prosecution against him, citing Sison vs. David, People vs. Aquino and Flordelis vs. Himalaloan. The argument is unavailing. Sison and Aquino both involve libel cases. In Sison, this Court categorically stressed that the term "absolute privilege" (or "qualified privilege") has an "established technical meaning, in connection with civil actions for libel and slander." The purpose of the privilege is to ensure that "members of the legislature, judges of courts, jurors, lawyers, and witnesses may speak their minds freely and exercise their respective functions without incurring the risk of a criminal prosecution or an action for the recovery of damages. It is granted in aid and for the advantage of the administration of justice." Certainly, in the present case, petitioner cannot seek refuge under the absolutely privileged communication rule since the false statements he made in his petition for naturalization has instead made a mockery of the administration of justice. The Flordelis case is likewise not in point. There, Flordelis was charged with perjury for having alleged false statements in his verified answer. This Court held that no perjury could be committed by Flordelis because "an answer to a complaint in an ordinary civil action need not be under oath," thus, "it is at once apparent that one element of the crime of perjury is absent . . ., namely, that the sworn statement complained of must be required by law. d
Elements 1. 2 3. Offender offers in evidence a false witness or testimony; He knows that the witness or the testimony was false; The offer is made in any judicial or official proceeding.
To consummate the offense, the witness or testimony must be offered in evidence. Offer of evidence begins the moment the witness is called to the witness stand and interrogated by counsel. Art. 184 applies when the offender without inducing another, but knowing him to be a false witness, presented him as a witness and he testified falsely. The penalty shall be that for false testimony if committed in a judicial proceeding or that for perjury if committed in another proceeding.
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE (PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO.1829)

Prohibited Acts
Preventing witnesses from testifying in any criminal proceeding or from reporting the commission of any offense or the identity of any offender/s by means of bribery, misrepresentation, deceit, intimidation, force or threats;
Faltering, destroying, suppressing or concealing any paper, record, document, or object, with intent to impair its verity, authenticity, legibility, availability, or admissibility as evidence in any investigation of or official proceedings in, criminal cases, or to be used in the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases;
Publicly using a fictitious name for the purpose of concealing a crime, evading prosecution or the execution of a judgment, or concealing his true name and other personal circumstances for the same purpose or purposes;
Article 184. Offering False Testimony in Evidence
Delaying the prosecution of criminal cases by obstructing the service of process or court orders or disturbing proceedings in the C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 46
fiscal's offices, in Ombudsman, or in the courts;
Making, presenting or using any record, document, paper or object with knowledge of its falsity and with intent to affect the course or outcome of the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases;
Soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to accept any benefit in consideration of abstaining from, discounting, or impeding the prosecution of a criminal offender;
Elements 1. There is a public auction; 2. Offender solicits any gift or a promise from any of the bidders; 3. Such gift or promise is the consideration for his refraining from taking part in that public auction; 4. Offender has the intent to cause the reduction of the price of the thing auctioned. 2. Attempting to cause bidders to stay away from an auction by threats, gifts, promises or any other artifice. Elements 1. There is a public auction; 2. Offender attempts to cause the bidders to stay away from that public auction; 3. It is done by threats, gifts, promises or any other artifice; 4. Offender has the intent to cause the reduction of the price of the thing auctioned. This crime is consummated by mere solicitation of gift or promise as a consideration for not bidding. Likewise, mere attempt to cause prospective bidders to stay away from an auction by means of threats, gifts, promises or any other artifice consummates the crime. Reason: so execution should be opened to free and full competition to secure the maximum benefit for the debtor.
People vs. Ouano Echavez and Ouano had an oral agreement that only the former would make a bid for a parcel of land in a public bidding, and if accepted, they would divide the property in proportion to their adjoining properties. To ensure the success of their plans, they induced the only other party interested by paying her P2000 to desist from bidding. HELD: The acts constituted a crime under Art 185. They caused another bidder to stay away from the auction in order to cause the reduction of the price of the property auctioned. The parties have no cause of action against each other to and are both liable for the crime.
Threatening directly or indirectly another with the infliction of any wrong upon his person, honor or property or that of any immediate member or members of his family in order to prevent such person from appearing in the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases, or imposing a condition, whether lawful or unlawful, in order to prevent a person from appearing in the investigation of or in official proceedings in, criminal cases;
Giving of false or fabricated information to mislead or prevent the law enforcement agencies from apprehending the offender or from protecting the life or property of the victim; or
Fabricating information from the data gathered in confidence by investigating authorities for purposes of background information and not for publication and publishing or disseminating the same to mislead the investigator or the court.
Article 185. Auctions Acts punished 1.
Machinations
in
Public Article 186. Monopolies Combinations in Restraint of Trade Acts punished 1. Combination to prevent free competition in the market; C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 47 and
Soliciting any gift or promise as a consideration for refraining from taking part in any public auction;
Elements 1. Entering into any contract or agreement or taking part in any conspiracy or combination in the form of a trust or otherwise; 2. In restraint of trade or commerce or to prevent by artificial means free competition in the market. 2. Monopoly to restrain free competition in the market; Elements 1. By monopolizing any merchandise or object of trade or commerce, or by combining with any other person or persons to monopolize said merchandise or object; 2. In order to alter the prices thereof by spreading false rumors or making use of any other artifice; 3. To restrain free competition in the market 3. Manufacturer, producer, or processor or importer combining, conspiring or agreeing with any person to make transactions prejudicial to lawful commerce or to increase the market price of merchandise. Elements 1. Manufacturer, producer, processor or importer of any merchandise or object of commerce; 2. Combines, conspires or agrees with any person; 3. Purpose is to make transactions prejudicial to lawful commerce or to increase the market price of any merchandize or object of commerce manufactured, produced, processed, assembled or imported into the Philippines. Mere conspiracy or combination is punished. If the offense affects any food substance or other article of prime necessity, it is sufficient that initial steps are taken toward carrying out the purposes of combination. When offense is committed by a corporation or association, the president and directors or managers are liable. But they are liable only when they (1) knowingly permitted or (2) failed to prevent the commission of such offense. Article 187. Importation and Disposition of Falsely Marked Articles or Merchandise
Made of Gold, Silver, or Other Precious Metals of Their Alloys Elements 1. Offender imports, sells or disposes articles made of gold, silver, or other precious metals or their alloys; 2. The stamps, brands, or marks of those articles of merchandise fail to indicate the actual fineness or quality of said metals or alloys; 3. Offender knows that the stamps, brands, or marks fail to indicate the actual fineness or quality of the metals or alloys. Articles involved are those made of gold, silver, other precious metals or their alloys. Selling the misbranded articles is not necessary but there must be evidence showing that the articles were imported. Art 187 does not apply to manufacturer of misbranded articles made of gold, silver, other precious metals or their alloys. Article 188. Trademarks, Marks Acts punished 1. Substituting the trade name or trademark of some other manufacturer or dealer, or a colorable imitation thereof for the trade name or trademark of the real manufacturer or dealer upon any article of commerce and selling the same; Selling or offering for sale such articles of commerce knowing that the trade name or trademark has been fraudulently used; Using or substituting the service mark of some other person, or a colorable imitation of such mark n the sale or advertising of his services; Printing, lithographing or reproducing trade name, trademark, or service mark of one person or a colorable imitation thereof to enable another person to fraudulently use the same knowing the fraudulent purpose for which it is to be used. Substituting and Altering Trade names, or Service
2. 3.
4.
The tradename, trademark or service mark used by the offender need not be identical with the infringed tradename, trademark or service mark. A colorable imitation is sufficient. But there must not be differences which are glaring and striking to the eye.
They
function of a trademark is to indicate the origin or ownership of the goods to which it is fixed.
It is not necessary that the goods of the prior user and the late user of the trademark are of the same categories. The trademark or tradename must be registered. It must not be merely descriptive or generic.
The
exclusive right to an originally valid trademark or tradename is lost, if for any reason it loses its distinctiveness or has become publici juris.
Article 189. Unfair Competition, Fraudulent Registration of Trade Name, Trademark, or Service Mark, Fraudulent Designation of Origin, and False Description Acts punished 1. Unfair competition; Elements 1. By selling his goods; 2. Giving them the general appearance of the goods of another manufacturer or dealer; 3. The general appearance is shown in the goods themselves, or in the wrapping of their packages, or in the device or words therein, or in any feature of their appearance; 4. There is actual intent to deceive the public or defraud a competitor. 2. Fraudulent designation of origin; false description: Elements 1. By affixing to his goods or using in connection with his services a false designation of origin, or any false description or representation; and 2. Selling such goods or services. Fraudulent registration Elements 1. By procuring fraudulently from the patent office; 2. The registration of trade name, trademark or service mark
Mere offer for sale completes the commission of the crime. Evidence of actual fraudulent intent is not necessary. The true test of unfair competition is WON certain goods have been clothed with an appearance which is likely to deceive the ordinary purchaser exercising ordinary. The master is criminally responsible for acts of his servants and employees in violation of the penal provisions touching trademarks, tradenames; and unfair competition if he causes the illegal act to be done, or requests, command or permits it or in any manner authorizes it, or aids or abets the servant in its commission of , whether he is present at the time the unlawful act is committed or not.
La Chemise Lacoste v Fernandez In 1975, Hemandas & Co., a domestic firm was issued registration for the trademark "CHEMISE LACOSTE & CROCODILE DEVICE" by the Philippine Patent Office for use on T-shirts, sportswear and other garment products of the company. La Chemise Lacoste, S.A.,the actual owner of the TMs "LACOSTE", "CHEMISE LACOSTE", "CROCODILE DEVICE" used on clothings and sporting apparels sold worldwide filed a Petition for Cancellation of Hamandas registration as it is claiming prior registration of the TMs. HELD: The records show that the goodwill and reputation of La Chemise products bearing the TM LACOSTE date back even before 1964 when LACOSTE clothing apparels were first marketed in the Philippines. To allow Hemandas to continue using the trademark Lacoste for the simple reason that he was the first registrant of a trademark used in international commerce and not belonging to him is to render nugatory the very essence of the law on trademarks and tradenames. The purpose of the law is to point out distinctly the origin or ownership of the article to which it is affixed, to secure to him, who has been instrumental in bringing into a market a superior article of merchandise, the fruit of his industry and skill, and to prevent fraud and imposition. It is based on the principle of business integrity and common justice. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8293 The Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines TRADEMARKS, TRADENAMES, SERVICEMARKS What acts are punishable? 1. Infringement Elements: 1. Registration of TN, TM or SM 2. Use in commerce by another (inc. reproduction and application of reproduction) 3. Use is without owners consent 4. Use is likely to cause confusion, cause mistake or
3.
Unfair competition consists in employing deception or any other means contrary to good faith by which any person shall pass off the goods manufactured by him or in which he deals, or his business, or his services for those of the one having established goodwill, or committing any acts calculated to produce such result.
deceive regardless of whether or not there is actual sale 2. Unfair Competition Elements: 1. Person has established goodwill (has identified in the mind of the public his goods, business or services), whether or not a registered mark is employed 2. Another person passes of the goods he deals in for those of the person who has established goodwill 3. By means contrary to good faith (malice and intent to deceive essential)l The ff. are DEEMED to have committed unfair competition: (a) gives goods the general appearance of goods of another or such appearance as is likely to deceive the public or defraud another of his legitimate trade + to influence purchasers to believe that the goods offered are those of another + sells the goods (includes subsequent vendor and agent of any vendor) (b) induces the false belief that he is offering the services of another who has established goodwill + by any artifice or device (c) makes any false statement in the course of trade or any other act contrary to good faith + act or statement calculated to discredit the business of another 3. False Designation Description of Fact of Origin / False
obtained directly or indirectly from a patented process, or the use of a patented process (2) without authorization of the patentee. Prescription: The criminal action for repetition of infringement of patent prescribes in three (3) years from date of the commission of the crime. COPYRIGHT Who are punishable? 1. Any person infringing any right secured by the provisions of the law on copyright (like copy or economic rights, moral rights etc.) or of aiding or abetting such infringement; 2. Any person who at the time when copyright subsists in a work has in his possession an article which he knows, or ought to know, to be an infringing copy of the work for the purpose of: (a) Selling, letting for hire, or by way of trade, offering or exposing for sale, or hire, the article; (b) Distributing the article for purposes of trade, or for any other purpose to an extent that will prejudice the rights of the copyright owner in the work; or (c) Trade (?) exhibit of the articles in public.
RA 8792 E-Commerce Act SECTION 25. Actions Related to Contracts of Carriage of Goods. Without derogating from the provisions of Part Two of this Act, this Chapter applies to any action in connection with, or in pursuance of, a contract of carriage of goods, including but not limited to: (a) (i) furnishing the marks, number, quantity or weight of goods; (ii) stating or declaring the nature or value of goods; (iii) issuing a receipt for goods; (iv) confirming that goods have been loaded; (b) (i) notifying a person of terms and conditions of the contract; (ii) giving instructions to a carrier; (i) claiming delivery of goods; (ii) authorizing release of goods; (iii) giving notice of loss of, or damage to goods;
Elements: 1. Uses in commerce any false designation of origin, false description or representation of fact which: is likely to deceive as to sponsorship or approval of goods by another person misrepresents nature, characteristics, qualities and geographic origin of goods in commercial advertising or promotion PATENTS What act are punishable? Repetition of Infringement Elements:
1.
2.
Existence of a final judgment against the offender in a civil action for infringement of patent Infringer or anyone in connivance with him repeats the infringement after the finality of the judgment
(c)
By the way, what is infringement with respect to patents? It is the making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing of a (1) patented product or a product
(d) giving any other notice or statement in connection with the performance of the contract; (e) undertaking to deliver goods to a named person or a person authorized to claim delivery; (f) granting, acquiring, renouncing,
surrendering, transferring or negotiating rights in goods; (g) acquiring or transferring rights and obligations under the contract. SECTION 26. Transport Documents. (1) Subject to paragraph (3), where the law requires that any action referred to in Section 25 be carried out in writing or by using a paper document, that requirement is met if the action is carried out by using one or more electronic data messages or electronic documents. (2) Paragraph (1) applies whether the requirement therein is in the form of an obligation or whether the law simply provides consequences for failing either to carry out the action in writing or to use a paper document. (3) If a right is to be granted to, or an obligation is to be acquired by, one person and no other person, and if the law requires that, in order to effect this, the right or obligation must be conveyed to that person by the transfer, or use of, a paper document, that requirement is met if the right or obligation is conveyed by using one or more electronic data messages or electronic documents: Provided, That a reliable method is used to render such electronic data messages or electronic documents unique. (4) For the purposes of paragraph (3), the standard of reliability required shall be assessed in the light of the purpose for which the right or obligation was conveyed and in the light of all the circumstances, including any relevant agreement. (5) Where one or more electronic data messages or electronic documents are used to effect any action in subparagraphs (f) and (g) of Section 25, no paper document used to effect any such action is valid unless the use of electronic data message or electronic document has been terminated and replaced by the use of paper documents. A paper document issued in these circumstances shall contain a statement of such termination. The replacement of electronic data messages or electronic documents by paper documents shall not affect the rights or obligations of the parties involved. (6) If a rule of law is compulsorily applicable to a contract of carriage of goods which is in, or is evidenced by, a paper document, that rule shall not be inapplicable to such a contract of carriage of goods which is evidenced by one or more electronic data messages or electronic documents by reason of the fact that the contract is evidenced by such electronic data message or electronic documents instead of by a paper document. SECTION 30. Extent of Liability of a Service Provider. Except as otherwise provided in this Section, no person or party shall be subject to any civil or criminal liability in respect of the electronic data message or electronic document for which the person or party acting as a service provider as defined in Section 5, merely provides access if such liability is founded on a.) The obligations and liabilities of the parties under the electronic data message or electronic document; b.) The making, publication, dissemination or distribution of such material or any statement made
in such material, including possible infringement of any right subsisting in or in relation to such material: Provided, That i.The service provider does not have actual knowledge, or is not aware of the facts or circumstances from which it is apparent, that the making, publication, dissemination or distribution of such material is unlawful or infringes any rights subsisting in or in relation to such material; ii.The service provider does not knowingly receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the unlawful or infringing activity; and iii.The service provider does not directly commit any infringement or other unlawful act and does not induce or cause another person or party to commit any infringement or other unlawful act and/or does not benefit financially from the infringing activity or unlawful act of another person or party: Provided, further, That nothing in this Section shall affect a)Any obligation founded on contract; b)The obligation of a service provider as such under a licensing or other regulatory regime established under written law; or c)Any obligation imposed under any written law; d)The civil liability of any party to the extent that such liability forms the basis for injunctive relief issued by a court under any law requiring that the service provider take or refrain from actions necessary to remove, block or deny access to any material, or to preserve evidence of a violation of law. SECTION 31. Lawful Access. Access to an electronic file, or an electronic signature of an electronic data message or electronic document shall only be authorized and enforced in favor of the individual or entity having a legal right to the possession or the use of the plaintext, electronic signature or file and solely for the authorized purposes. The electronic key for identity or integrity shall not be made available to any person or party without the consent of the individual or entity in lawful possession of that electronic key. SECTION 32. Obligation of Confidentiality. Except for the purposes authorized under this Act, any person who obtained access to any electronic key, electronic data message or electronic document, book, register, correspondence, information, or other material pursuant to any powers conferred under this Act, shall not convey to or share the same with any other person. SECTION 33. Penalties. The following Acts shall be penalized by fine and/or imprisonment, as follows: a) Hacking or cracking which refers to unauthorized access into or interference in a computer system/server or information and communication system; or any access in order to corrupt, alter, steal, or destroy using a computer or other similar information and communication devices, without the knowledge and consent of the owner of the computer or information and communication system, including the
introduction of computer viruses and the like, resulting in the corruption, destruction, alteration, theft or loss of electronic data messages or electronic documents shall be punished by a minimum fine of One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) and a maximum commensurate to the damage incurred and a mandatory imprisonment of six (6) months to three (3) years;
b)
c)
d)
Piracy or the unauthorized copying, reproduction, dissemination, distribution, importation, use, removal, alteration, substitution, modification, storage, uploading, downloading, communication, making available to the public, or broadcasting of protected material, electronic signature or copyrighted works including legally protected sound recordings or phonograms or information material on protected works, through the use of telecommunication networks, such as, but not limited to, the internet, in a manner that infringes intellectual property rights shall be punished by a minimum fine of One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) and a maximum commensurate to the damage incurred and a mandatory imprisonment of six (6) months to three (3) years; Violations of the Consumer Act or Republic Act No. 7394 and other relevant or pertinent laws through transactions covered by or using electronic data messages or electronic documents, shall be penalized with the same penalties as provided in those laws; Other violations of the provisions of this Act, shall be penalized with a maximum penalty of One million pesos (P1,000,000.00) or six (6) years imprisonment.
(2) insurance companies and all other institutions supervised or regulated by the Insurance Commission; and (3) (i) securities dealers, brokers, salesmen, investment houses and other similar entities managing securities or rendering services as investment agent, advisor, or consultant, (ii) mutual funds, close-end investment companies, common trust funds, pre-need companies and other similar entities, (iii) foreign exchange corporations, money changers, money payment, remittance, and transfer companies and other similar entities, and (iv) other entities administering or otherwise dealing in currency, commodities or financial derivatives based thereon, valuable objects, cash substitutes and other similar monetary instruments or property supervised or regulated by Securities and Exchange Commission. (b) Covered transaction is a transaction in cash or other equivalent monetary instrument involving a total amount in excess of Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) within one (1) banking day. (as amended by RA 9194) (b-1) Suspicious transactions are transactions with covered institutions, regardless of the amounts involved, where any of the following circumstances exist: (1) there is no underlying legal or trade obligation, purpose or economic justification; (2) the client is not properly identified; (3) the amount involved is not commensurate with the business or financial capacity of the client; (4) taking into account all known circumstances, it may be perceived that the client's transaction is structured in order to avoid being the subject of reporting requirements under the Act; (5) any circumstance relating to the transaction which is observed to deviate from the profile of the client and/or the client's past transactions with the covered institution; (6) the transaction is in any way related to an unlawful activity or offense under this Act that is about to be, is being or has been committed; or (7) any transaction that is similar or analogous to any of the foregoing. (c) Monetary instrument refers to: (1) coins or currency of legal tender of the Philippines, or of any other country; (2) drafts. checks and notes; (3) securities or negotiable instruments, bonds, commercial papers, deposit certificates, trust certificates,
RA 9160 ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT OF 2001, AS AMENDED BY RA 9194 SECTION 3. Definitions. For purposes of this Act, the following terms are hereby defined as follows: (a) Covered Institution refers to: (1) banks, non-banks, quasi-banks, trust entities, and all other institutions and their subsidiaries and affiliates supervised or regulated by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP);
custodial receipts or deposit substitute instruments, trading orders, transaction tickets and confirmations of sale or investments and money marked instruments; and (4) other similar instruments where title thereto passes to another by endorsement, assignment or delivery. (d) "Offender" refers to any commits a money laundering offense. person who
(14) Felonies or offenses of a similar nature that are punishable under the penal laws of other countries. SECTION 4. Money Laundering Offense. Money laundering is a crime whereby the proceeds of an unlawful activity as herein defined are transacted, thereby making them appear to have originated from legitimate sources. It is committed by the following: (a) Any person knowing that any monetary instrument or property represents, involves, or relates to, the proceeds of any unlawful activity, transacts or attempts to transact said monetary instrument or property. (b) Any person knowing that any monetary instrument or property involves the proceeds of any unlawful activity, performs or fails to perform any act as a result of which he facilitates the offense of money laundering referred to in paragraph (a) above. (c) Any person knowing that any monetary instrument or property is required under this Act to be disclosed and filed with the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), fails to do so. SECTION 9. (c) Reporting of Covered and Suspicious Transactions. Covered institutions shall report to the AMLC all covered transactions and suspicious transactions within 5 working days from occurrence thereof, unless the Supervising Authority prescribes a longer period not exceeding 10 working days. Should a transaction be determined to be both a covered transaction and a suspicious transaction, the covered institution shall be required to report the same as a suspicious transaction. When reporting covered or suspicious transactions to the AMLC, covered institutions and their officers and employees shall not be deemed to have violated RA 1405, as amended; RA 6426, as amended, RA 8791 and other similar laws, but are prohibited from communicating, directly or indirectly, in any manner or by any means, to any person, the fact that a covered or suspicious transaction report was made, the contents thereof, or any other information in relation thereto. In case of violation thereof, the concerned officer and employee of the covered institution shall be criminally liable. However, no administrative, criminal or civil proceedings, shall lie against any person for having made a covered or suspicious transaction report in the regular performance of his duties in good faith, whether or not such reporting results in any criminal prosecution under this Act or any other law. When reporting covered or suspicious transactions to the AMLC, covered institutions and their officers and employees are prohibited from communicating directly or indirectly, in any manner or by any means, to any person or entity, the media, the fact that a covered or suspicious transaction report was made, the contents thereof, or any other information in relation thereto. Neither may such reporting be published or aired in any manner or form by the mass media, electronic mail, or other similar devices. In case of violation thereof, the concerned officer and
(e) "Person" refers to any natural or juridical person. (f) "Proceeds" refers to an amount derived or realized from an unlawful activity. (g) Supervising Authority refers to the appropriate supervisory or regulatory agency, department or office supervising or regulating the covered institutions enumerated in Section 3(a). (h) Transaction refers to any act establishing any right or obligation or giving rise to any contractual or legal relationship between the parties thereto. It also includes any movement of funds by any means with a covered institution. (i) Unlawful activity refers to any act or omission or series or combination thereof involving or having direct relation to the following: (1) Kidnapping for ransom under Art. 267 of Act 3815, otherwise known as the RPC, as amended; (2) Sections 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 of RA 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002; (3) Sect. 3 pars. B, C, E, G, H and I of RA 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; (4) Plunder under RA 7080, as amended; (5) Robbery and extortion under Arts. 294, 295, 296, 299, 300, 301 and 302 of the RPC, as amended; (6) Jueteng and Masiao punished as illegal gambling under PD 1602; (7) Piracy on the high seas under the RPC, as amended, and PD 532; (8) Qualified theft under Art 310 of the RPC, as amended; (9) Swindling under Art 315 of the RPC, as amended; (10) Smuggling under RAs 455 and 1937; (11) Violations under RA 8792, otherwise known as the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000; (12) Hijacking and other violations under RA 6235; destructive arson and murder, as defined under the RPC, as amended, including those perpetrated by terrorists against non-combatant persons and similar targets; (13) Fraudulent practices and other violations under RA 8799, otherwise known as the Securities Regulation Code of 2000;
employee of the covered institution and media shall be held criminally liable. SECTION 14. Penal Provisions. (a) Penalties for the Crime of Money Laundering. The penalty of imprisonment ranging from 7 to 14 years and a fine of not less than P3,000,000 but not more than twice the value of the monetary instrument or property involved in the offense, shall be imposed upon a person convicted under Section 4(a) of this Act. The penalty of imprisonment from 4 to 7 years and a fine of not less than P1,500,000 but not more than P3,000,000, shall be imposed upon a person convicted under Section 4(b) of this Act. The penalty of imprisonment from 6 months to 4 years or a fine of not less than P100,000 but not more than P500,000, or both, shall be imposed on a person convicted under Section 4(c) of this Act. (b) Penalties for Failure to Keep Records. The penalty of imprisonment from 6 months to one 1 year or a fine of not less than P100,000 but not more than P500,000, or both, shall be imposed on a person convicted under Section 9(b) of this Act. (c) Malicious Reporting. Any person who, with malice, or in bad faith, reports or files a completely unwarranted or false information relative to money laundering transaction against any person shall be subject to a penalty of 6 months to 4 years imprisonment and a fine of not less than P100,000 but not more than P500,000, at the discretion of the court: Provided, That the offender is not entitled to avail the benefits of the Probation Law. If the offender is a corporation, association, partnership or any juridical person, the penalty shall be imposed upon the responsible officers, as the case may be, who participated in, or allowed by their gross negligence, the commission of the crime. If the offender is a juridical person, the court may suspend or revoke its license. If the offender is an alien, he shall, in addition to the penalties herein prescribed, be deported without further proceedings after serving the penalties herein prescribed. If the offender is a public official or employee, he shall, in addition to the penalties prescribed herein, suffer perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification from office, as the case may be. Any public official or employee who is called upon to testify and refuses to do the same or purposely fails to testify shall suffer the same penalties prescribed herein. (d) Breach of Confidentiality. The punishment of imprisonment ranging from 3 to 8 years and a fine of not less than P500,000 but not more than P1,000,000 shall be imposed on a person convicted for a violation under Section 9(c). In the case of a breach of confidentiality that is published or reported by media, the responsible
reporter, writer, president, publisher, manager and editor-in-chief shall be liable under this Act.
R.A. 8203 Special Law on Counterfeit Drugs

What are counterfeit drugs? Counterfeit drug/medicine refers to medicinal products: with the correct ingredients but not in the amounts as provided hereunder, wrong ingredients, without active ingredients, with insufficient quantity of active ingredient, which results in the reduction of the drug's safety, efficacy, quality, strength or purity. It is a drug which is deliberately and fraudulently mislabeled with respect to identity and/or source or with fake packaging, and can apply to both branded and generic products. It shall also refer to: the drug itself, or the container or labeling thereof or any part of such drug, container or labeling bearing without authorization the trademark, trade name or other identification mark or imprint or any likeness to that which is owned or registered in the Bureau of Patent, Trademark and Technology Transfer (BPTTT) in the name of another natural or juridical person; a drug product refilled in containers by unauthorized persons if the legitimate labels or marks are used; an unregistered imported drug product, except drugs brought in the country for personal use as confirmed and justified by accompanying medical records; and a drug which contains no amount of, or a different active ingredient, or less than eighty percent (80%) of the active ingredient it purports to possess, as distinguished from an adulterated drug including reduction or loss of efficacy due to expiration. What are the prohibited acts under the law?
1.
The manufacture, sale, offering for sale, donation, distribution, trafficking, brokering, exportation, or importation or possession of counterfeit drugs. The presence or availability of such counterfeit drugs within the premises of any entity engaged in the sale, manufacture or distribution of drugs and/or pharmaceutical products or in a private residence, or in public or private vehicle, or in the premises not covered by a valid license to
operate from the Bureau, shall constitute a prima facie evidence of violation of this Act. This presumption shall not apply to the legitimate owners of trademarks, trade names or other identifying marks, or the legitimate or authorized representatives or agents of such owners, who have in their possession counterfeit drugs which bear the trademarks, trade names or marks if they can show the sales invoices or official receipts evidencing their purchase from a drugstore, manufacturer or distributor suspected by them of dealing in counterfeit drugs involving the trademarks, trade names and other similar identifying marks registered in their names. Such counterfeit products shall be reported and immediately turned over to the Bureau. Compliance with the preceding proviso shall be made within a reasonable period from the date of purchase of such counterfeit drugs as indicated in the sales invoice, official receipt, or other similar documents abovementioned to the time the counterfeit drugs are reported and turned over to the Bureau.
authority, using any mark, stamp, tag, label or other identification mark or device authorized or required by Republic Act No. 3720, as amended, and/or the regulations promulgated under this Act.
4.
Photocopying, duplicating, altering, printing, transferring, obliterating or removing the approved label or any part thereof, lawfully belonging to another person, for the purpose of using such label or a part thereof on any counterfeit drug. That if the person who committed any of the acts enumerated in this paragraph and the person who used the labels produced thereby are not one and the same person and the former had knowledge of the purpose for which the labels are intended, the former shall also be liable under this Act notwithstanding the failure of the latter to achieve the intended purpose; and
5.
2.
Possession of any such counterfeit drugs. However, any person found in possession of counterfeit drugs in violation of this subsection, shall be excepted from liability under the provisions of this Act after: presentation of sales invoices, official receipts, or other legally acceptable documents evidencing his purchase thereof from a drugstore, distributor, manufacture, hospital pharmacy or dispensary, or any other person or place duly licensed to sell and/or dispense drugs or medicines, and indicating therein the batch and lot numbers, as well as the expiry dates such drugs; or presentation of certificates and other documents evidencing the importation or exportation of the counterfeit drugs found in his possession as required by existing laws including those documents required in the preceding paragraph covering the commercial transactions involving counterfeit drugs. In both cases, the subject counterfeit must not on their face, appear to be as such, or do not bear any marking or any patently unusual characteristic sufficient to arouse the suspicion of a reasonable and prudent person that such drugs are counterfeit. Furthermore, the amount or volume of counterfeit drugs held is such that it does not negate or is inconsistent with the averment that the same are for personal use, notwithstanding the presentation by the possession of medical records and other similar documents accompanying and justifying the use of such drugs.
Making, selling, or concealing any punch, dye, plate or any other equipment or instrument designed to print, imprint or reproduce the trademark, trade name or other identifying mark of another registered producer or any likeness thereof, upon any drug product or device or its container or label without authority from the legitimate owners of the trademark or trade name.
Who are liable? a) the manufacturer, exporter or importer of the counterfeit drugs and their agents. The agents shall be liable only upon proof of actual or constructive knowledge that the drugs are counterfeit; the seller, distributor, trafficker, broker or donor and their agents, upon proof of actual or constructive knowledge that the drugs sold, distributed, offered or donated are counterfeit drugs; the possessor of counterfeit drugs as provided in Section 4 (b) hereof; the manager, operator or lessee of the laboratory facilities used in the manufacture of counterfeit drugs; the owner, proprietor, administrator or manager of the drugstore, hospital pharmacy or dispensary, laboratory or other outlets or premises where the counterfeit drug is found who induces, causes or allows the commission of any act herein prohibited; the registered pharmacist of the outlet where the counterfeit drug is sold or found who, sells or dispenses such drug to a third party and who has actual or constructive knowledge that said drug is counterfeit; and should the offense be committed by a juridical person, the president, general manager, the managing partner, chief operating officer or the person who directly induces, causes or knowingly allows the commission of the offense
b)
c) d) e)
f)
g)
3.
Forging, counterfeiting, simulating or falsely representing, or without proper
shall be penalized.

Title 4 - Public Interest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Title 4 - Public Interest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Title Four CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST Chapter One.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 31

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 32

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 33

Article 170. Documents

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 34

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 35

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 36

Lack of malice or criminal intent is a defense

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 37

frustrated falsification if the falsification is imperfect. (Reyes)

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 39

Offender knows that the certificate was false;

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 40

crime, to evade the execution of a judgment or to cause damage

Use of unregistered aliases

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 41

Article 179. Insignia

Illegal Use of Uniforms or

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 42

Article 180. Defendant

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 43

An affidavit is a sworn statement in writing; a

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 45

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE (PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO.1829)

Article 184. Offering False Testimony in Evidence

fiscal's offices, in Ombudsman, or in the courts;

Article 185. Auctions Acts punished 1.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 48

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 49

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 50

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 51

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 52

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 53

R.A. 8203 Special Law on Counterfeit Drugs

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 54

Forging, counterfeiting, simulating or falsely representing, or without proper

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 55

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 56

You might also like