Professional Documents
Culture Documents
3019
xxx
xxx
Consigna v. PP2
Article 171(4)
Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or
ecclesiastic minister. The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to
exceed P5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer,
employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall
falsify a document by committing any of the following acts:
xxx
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts.
xxx
Fullero v. People6
The elements of falsification in the above provision are as
follows:
(a) the offender makes in a public document
untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
(b) he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of
the facts narrated by him; and
(c) the facts narrated by him are absolutely false.
A conclusion of law is a determination by a judge or ruling
authority regarding the law that applies in a particular case. It is
opposed to a finding of fact, which interprets the factual circumstances
to which the law is to be applied. A narration of facts is merely an
account or description of the particulars of an event or
occurrence.
In this case, the required disclosure or identification of relatives
within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity in the SALN
involves merely a description of such relationship; it does not call for
an application of law in a particular set of facts. Contrary to
petitioners assertion, statements concerning relationship may be
proved as to its truth or falsity, and thus do not amount to
expression of opinion. When a government employee is required to
disclose his relatives in the government service, such information
elicited therefore qualifies as a narration of facts contemplated under
Article 171 (4) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Further, it
bears to stress that the untruthful statements on relationship have no
relevance to the employees eligibility for the position but pertains
Article 315(2)
Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). Any person who shall defraud another
by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:
xxx
2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent
acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of
the fraud:
(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to
possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit,
agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means
of other similar deceits.
(b) By altering the quality, fineness or weight of
anything pertaining to his art or business.
(c) By pretending to have bribed any Government
employee, without prejudice to the action for calumny
which the offended party may deem proper to bring
against the offender. In this case, the offender shall be
punished by the maximum period of the penalty.
(d) [By post-dating a check, or issuing a check in
payment of an obligation when the offender therein were
not sufficient to cover the amount of the check. The
failure of the drawer of the check to deposit the amount
necessary to cover his check within three (3) days from
receipt of notice from the bank and/or the payee or holder
that said check has been dishonored for lack of
insufficiency of funds shall be prima facie evidence of
deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act. (As
amended by R.A. 4885, approved June 17, 1967.)]
Consigna v. PP7
Contrary to the submission of petitioner, false pretense and
fraudulent acts attended her transaction with Moleta. The law explicitly
provides that in the prosecution for Estafa under par. (2)(a), Art.
315 of the RPC, it is indispensable that the element of deceit,
consisting in the false statement or fraudulent representation of
the accused, be made prior to, or at least simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud, it being essential that such false