ARTICLE 159: OTHER CASES OF EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE

Sales v. Director of Prisons

We are of the opinion that article 159 of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes violation of a
conditional pardon as an offense, and the power vested in the President by section 64 (i) of the
Revised Administrative Code to authorize the recommitment to prison of a violator of a conditional
pardon to serve the unexpired portion of his original sentence, can stand together and that the
proceeding under one provision does not necessarily preclude action under the other. In other
words, one who violates the condition of his pardon may be prosecuted and sentenced to suffer
prision correccional in its minimum period without prejudice to the authority conferred upon the
President by section 64 (i) of the Revised Administrative Code to recommit him to serve the
unexpired portion of his original sentence, unless such unexpired portion exceeds 6 years, in
which case the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period provided by article 159 of the
Revised Penal Code shall no longer be imposed.
Culanag v. Director of Prisons
Appellant's stand is that a person released on parole cannot be re-arrested and made to serve
the remaining unexpired portion of his sentence under Sec. 64 (i) of the Revised Administrative
Code, if the State prosecutes and has him convicted for violation of conditional pardon under Art.
159, Revised Penal Code. And since he has been convicted and has served sentence for
violation of conditional pardon under Art. 159 (Crim. Case No. 789), Revised Penal Code, he now
argues that he can no longer be made to serve the rest of his sentence in Crim. Case No. 671
from which he was paroled. 1wph1.t

The power of the Chief Executive under Section 64(i) of the Rev. Administrative Code to arrest
and re-incarcerate any person who violates his parole condition, stands even in the face of
prosecution, conviction and service of sentence for violation of conditional pardon under Art. 159,
Rev. Penal Code (Sales v. Director of Prisons, 87 Phil. 492). There is no double jeopardy,
because the sentences refer to different offenses; in this case, to falsification (Crim. Case 671)
and to violation of conditional pardon (Crim. Case 789).
ARTICLE 160: COMMISSION OF ANOTHER CRIME DURING SERVICE OF PENALTY IMPOSED FOR ANOTHER OFFENSE
People v. Tiongson There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person,
employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and
specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the
 offended party might make.
The accused was then a detainee and hence is guilty only of the crime of Homicide in the
killing of PC Constable Canela and Pat. Gelera.
People v. Baldogo
Quasi-recidivism should not be appreciated. Quasi-recidivism as defined in Article 160
of the Revised Penal Code is alleged in both Informations. Accused-appellant is alleged to
have committed murder and kidnapping while serving sentence in the penal colony by final
judgment for the crime of homicide. Quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating
circumstance. The prosecution is burdened to prove the said circumstance by the same
quantum of evidence as the crime itself. In the present case, to prove quasi-recidivism, the
prosecution was burdened to adduce in evidence a certified copy of the judgment
convicting accused-appellant of homicide and to prove that the said judgment had
become final and executor. The raison detre is that:

x x x Since the accused-appellant entered a plea of not guilty to such information, there
was a joinder of issues not only as to his guilt or innocence, but also as to the presence or
absence of the modifying circumstances so alleged. The prosecution was thus burdened
to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the existence of the
modifying circumstances. It was then grave error for the trial court to appreciate against
the accused-appellant the aggravating circumstance of recidivism simply because of his
failure to object to the prosecutions omission as mentioned earlier.
The excerpt of the prison record of accused-appellant is not the best evidence under
Section 3, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court[64] to prove the judgment of the Regional
Trial Court of Baguio City and to prove that said judgment had become final and
executory. Said excerpt is merely secondary or substitutionary evidence which is
inadmissible absent proof that the original of the judgment had been lost or destroyed or
that the same cannot be produced without the fault of the prosecution. The barefaced fact
that accused-appellant was detained in the penal colony does prove the fact that final
judgment for homicide has been rendered against him.
ARTICLE 164: MUTILATION OF COINS; IMPORTATION AND UTTERANCE OF MUTILATED COINS
People v. Tin Ching Ting The contention that the defendant had not committed any infringement since the
 counterfeit currency was no longer legal tender, cannot be grounds for dismissal of the
case under Article 163, 164 and 169 of the RPC.
ARTICLE 168: ILLEGAL POSSESSION AND USE OF FALSE TREASURY OR BANK NOTES AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS OF
CREDIT
People v. Digoro Possession of false treasury or bank notes alone without anything more, is not a criminal
offense. For it to constitute an offense under Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code the
possession must be with intent to use said false treasury or bank notes

It follows that an information, as in this case, alleging possession of false treasury and
bank notes without alleging intent to use the same but only "intent to possess"
them, charges no offense. A plea of guilty to such an information, therefore, does not
warrant conviction of the accused. It is well recognized that a plea of guilty is an admission
only of the material allegations of the information but not that the facts thus alleged
constitute an offense. From the allegations in the information to which the accused
pleaded guilty, intent to use cannot be clearly inferred.
People v. Vacani The court a quo erred in holding that the accused Manuel Valdes Vacani had the 192
counterfeit bank notes, Exhibit C, in his possession and under his control, with animus
possidendi, and with intent of using and circulating them, knowing that said bills were
counterfeit, and in convicting him by virtue thereof of the crime defined in article 168 of the
Revised Penal Code, instead of acquitting him with costs de oficio.

The excuse given by the appellant to the policemen in the same afternoon of his arrest
that his state of mind on the night he received the packaged containing the revolver and
the counterfeit bills was such that he knew not what to do, for which reason he had to
leave things as they were until the following day, is childish.
Tecson v. Court of Appeals
The elements of the crime charged for violation of Article 168 of the Revised Penal
Code, are: 1) that any treasury or bank note or certificate or other obligation and security
payable to bearer, or any instrument payable to order or other document of credit not
payable to bearer is forged or falsified by another person; 2) that the offender knows that
any of the said instruments is forged or falsified; and 3) that he either used or possessed
with intent to use any of such forged or falsified instruments. [17] Hence, possession of fake

ARTICLE 169: HOW FORGERY IS COMMITTED
U.S. V. Solito
People v. Balmores
dollar notes must be coupled with the act of using or at least with intent to use the
same as shown by a clear and deliberate overt act in order to constitute a crime, [18] as was
sufficiently proven in the case at bar.
Petitioners natural reaction to the seeming interest of the poseur buyers to buy fake US
dollar notes constitutes an overt act which clearly showed his intention to use or sell the
counterfeit US dollar notes. In any event, what we have here is a case of entrapment
which is allowed, and not instigation. Petitioner cannot validly claim that he had no
intention of committing the crime by citing the testimony of Pedro Labita to the effect that
he (petitioner) was merely convinced by the civilian informer that Labita and Marqueta
were interested to buy fake US dollar notes.
that he saw the petitioner drew several pieces of fake US dollar notes from his wallet to
show to them after they were introduced by the civilian informer as the interested buyers
Changing the phrase "or order" to "bearer" is a material alteration. While the instrument
was payable to Alvah D. Riley, or order, it was negotiable by the indorsement of Alvah D.
Riley only. The change made it payable to "bearer" and it was thereafter negotiable and
transferable by delivery simply. In constructing the effect of the indorsement we must not
only look to said indorsement, but to the face of the document also, for the purpose of
ascertaining whether or not the indorsement operated to alter the terms or conditions of
the original contract.
It may be that appellant was either reckless or foolish in believing that a falsification as
patent as that which he admitted to have perpetrated would succeed; but the recklessness
and clumsiness of the falsification did not make the crime impossible within the purview of
paragraph 2, article 4, in relation to article 59, of the Revised Penal Code. Judging from
the appearance of the falsified ticket in question, we are not prepared to say that it would
have been impossible for the appellant to consummate the crime of estafa thru falsification
of said ticket if the clerk to whom it was presented for the payment had not exercised due
care.
ARTICLE 171: FALSIFICATION BY PUBLIC OFFICER, EMPLOYEE OR NOTARY OR ECCLESIASTICAL MINISTER
Batulanon v. People
Bermejo v. Barrios
Batulanon argues that in any falsification case, the best witness is the person whose
signature was allegedly forged.
Although the offense charged in the information is estafa through falsification of
commercial document, appellant could be convicted of falsification of private document
under the well-settled rule that it is the allegations in the information that determines the
nature of the offense and not the technical name given in the preamble of the information.
Section 27, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that in criminal cases, except those
involving quasi-offenses or criminal negligence or those allowed by law to be
compromised, an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an
implied admission of guilt.
The Court of Appeals40 correctly ruled that the subject 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 41 nor are they defined and
regulated by the Code of Commerce or other commercial law.42Rather, 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
As there is no complex crime of estafa through falsification of private document, it is
important to ascertain whether the offender is to be charged with falsification of a private
document or with estafa. If the falsification of a private document is committed as a
means to commit estafa, the proper crime to be charged is falsification. If the estafa can
be committed without the necessity of falsifying a document, the proper crime to be
charged is estafa.
Considering that the petition for habeas corpus (Special Proceedings No. V-2669) alleged
the illegal confinement, or deprivation of liberty, of one Soterania Carmorin, and that said
petition was duly subscribed and sworn to before Clerk of Court Leopoldo B. Dorado and
filed with the Court of First Instance of Capiz, forming, therefore, a part of the court
records in said proceedings, it cannot be disputed that said petition is a public or official
document as contemplated in Articles 171 and 172 of the Revised Penal Code.
People v. Camacho A document is a writing or instrument by which a fact may be proven and affirmed. The
writing here in question proves nothing and confirms nothing; it is not a document but
merely a draft of one. Until approved or certified to by one or more of the proper officials, it
would not be entitled to filing in any public office or archive and might be disapproved or
even destroyed by the official whose approval was necessary to give it effect, without
giving rise to criminal liability on his part.
Adaza v. Sandiganbayan For an offense to fall under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, the
following requisites must concur: (1) the offense committed is a violation of (a) R.A. 3019,
as amended (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), (b) R.A. 1379 (the law on ill-gotten
wealth), (c) Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code (the law on
bribery), (d) Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986 (sequestration
cases), or (e) other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes;
(2) the offender committing the offenses in items (a), (b), (c) and (e) is a public official or
employee[42] holding any of the positions enumerated in paragraph A of Section 4; and (3)
the offense committed is in relation to the office.
This Court held that for an offense to be committed in relation to the office, the relation
between the crime and the office must be direct and not accidental, such that the offense
cannot exist without the office.
In the instant case, there is no showing that the alleged falsification was committed by the
accused, if at all, as a consequence of, and while they were discharging, official
functions. The information does not allege that there was an intimate connection
between the discharge of official duties and the commission of the offense.
The offender takes advantage of his official position in falsifying a document when (1) he
has the duty to make or to prepare or otherwise intervene in the preparation of the
document; or (2) he has the official custody of the document which he falsifies
The element of taking advantage of ones position under the Revised Penal Code
becomes relevant only in the present case, not for the purpose of determining whether the
Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction, but for purposes of determining whether petitioner, if he is
held to be liable at all, would be legally responsible under Article 171 or Article 172
Galeos v. People 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.31
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.
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.
U.S. v. Corral The simulation of a public or official document, done in such a manner as to easily lead to
error as to its authenticity, constitutes the crime of falsification. It is not essential that the
falsification shall have been made in a real public or official document.
ARTICLE 171. 1. COUNTERFEITING OR IMITATING ANY HANDWRITING, SIGNATURE OR RUBRIC
Pacasum v. People The rule is that if a person had in his possession a falsified document and he made use of
it (uttered it), taking advantage of it and profiting thereby, the presumption is that he is the
material author of the falsification.
It is to be made clear that the "use" of a falsified document is separate and distinct from
the "falsification" of a public document. The act of "using" falsified documents is not
necessarily included in the "falsification" of a public document. Using falsified documents
is punished under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code. In the case at bar, the
falsification of the Employees Clearance was consummated the moment the signature of
Laura Pangilan was imitated.
In the falsification of a public document, it is immaterial whether or not the contents set
forth therein were false. What is important is the fact that the signature of another was
counterfeited.
It is a settled rule that in the falsification of public or official documents, it is not necessary
that there be present the idea of gain or the intent to injure a third person for the reason
that in the falsification of a public document, the principal thing punished is the violation of
the public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed.55 Thus,
 the purpose for which the falsification was made and whether the offender profited or
hoped to profit from such falsification are no longer material.
The lack of direct evidence showing that petitioner "actually" imitated the signature of
Laura Pangilan in her Employees Clearance will not exonerate her. We have ruled that it
is not strange to realize that in cases of forgery, the prosecution would not always have
the means for obtaining such direct evidence to confute acts contrived clandestinely.
Courts have to rely on circumstantial evidence consisting of pieces of facts, which if
woven together would produce a single network establishing the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt.
The effect of a presumption upon the burden of proof is to create the need of presenting
evidence to overcome the prima facie case created, which, if no contrary proof is offered,
will thereby prevail.62 A prima facie case of falsification having been established, petitioner
should have presented clear and convincing evidence to overcome such burden.
The Sandiganbayan correctly admitted in evidence the photocopy of the Employees
Clearance. Sec. 6. When original document is in adverse partys custody or control. If
the document is in the custody or control of the adverse party, he must have reasonable
notice to produce it. If after such notice and after satisfactory proof of its existence, he
fails to produce the document, secondary evidence may be presented as in the case of
loss.

Thus, the mere fact that the original is in the custody or control of the adverse party
against whom it is offered does not warrant the admission of secondary evidence. The
offeror must prove that he has done all in his power to secure the best evidence by giving
notice to the said party to produce the document which may be in the form of a motion for
the production of the original or made in open court in the presence of the adverse party
or via a subpoena duces tecum, provided that the party in custody of the original has
sufficient time to produce the same. When such party has the original of the writing and
does not voluntarily offer to produce it, or refuses to produce it, secondary evidence may
be admitted.

This Court decrees that even though the original of an alleged falsified document is not, or
may no longer be produced in court, a criminal case for falsification may still prosper if the

People v. Sendaydiego
ARTICLE 171. 2. Causing it to appear that persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other
than those in fact made by them
Domingo v. People
person wishing to establish the contents of said document via secondary evidence or
substitutionary evidence can adequately show that the best or primary evidence the
original of the document is not available for any of the causes mentioned in Section
3,66Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court.
The claim of complainant Province of Pangasinan for the civil liability survived
Sendaydiego because his death occurred after final judgment was rendered by the Court
of First Instance of Pangasinan, which convicted him of three complex crimes of
malversation through falsification and ordered him to indemnify the Province in the total
sum of P61,048.23. The implication is that, if the defendant dies after a money judgment
had been rendered against him by the Court of First Instance, the action survives him. It
may be continued on appeal.
The civil action for the civil liability is deemed impliedly instituted with the criminal action in
the absence of express waiver or its reservation in a separate action (Sec. 1, Rule 111 of
the Rules of court). The civil action for the civil liability is separate and distinct from the
criminal action
The crimes committed in these three cases are not complex. Separate crimes of
falsification and malversation were committed. These are not cases where the execution
of a single act constitutes two grave or less grave felonies or where the falsification was
used as a means to commit malversation.
It is settled that if the falsification was resorted to for the purpose of hiding the
malversation, the falsification and malversation are separate offenses.
The falsification was used as a device to prevent detection of the malversation. The
falsifications cannot be regarded as constituting one continuing offense impelled by a
single criminal impulse.
Moreover, it cannot be said that since none of the prosecution witnesses saw the
falsification actually done by petitioner, she cannot be held liable. The bank tellers who
processed the illegal transactions of petitioner involving the account of Remedios were
consistent in their testimonies that it was petitioner herself who presented the encashment

ARTICLE 171. 3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than those in facts
made by them
Mendoza-Arce v. Office of the
Ombudsman
ARTICLE 171. 4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts.
Mangagey v. Sandiganbayan
slips and received the proceeds of the slips. In such a situation, the applicable rule is that
if a person has in his possession a falsified document and he made use of it, taking
advantage of it and profiting from it, the presumption is that he is the material author of the
falsification
It has been ruled that damage or intent to cause damage is not an element in falsification
of a commercial document, because what the law seeks to repress is the prejudice to the
public confidence in such documents
It has been held that whenever a person carries out on a public, official, or commercial
document any of the acts enumerated in Art. 171 of the RPC as a necessary means to
perpetrate another crime, such as estafa or malversation, a complex crime is formed by
the two crimes
The falsification of a public, official, or commercial document may be a means of
committing estafa, because before the falsified document is actually utilized to defraud
another, the crime of falsification has already been consummated, damage or intent to
cause damage not being an element of the crime of falsification of public, official, or
commercial document. In other words, the crime of falsification has already existed.
Actually utilizing that falsified public, official, or commercial document to defraud another is
estafa. But the damage is caused by the commission of estafa, not by the falsification of
the document. Therefore, the falsification of the public, official, or commercial document is
only a necessary means to commit estafa.
Criminal intent must be shown in felonies committed by means of dolo, such as
falsification.[30] In this case, there is no reasonable ground to believe that the requisite
criminal intent or mens rea was present.
Similarly, we find that the charge of estafa through falsification of public documents under
Art. 315, par. 2(a) of the RPC was likewise proven. The first element, that the accused
made false pretenses or fraudulent representations, need not be discussed all over. We
have sufficiently gone over this matter. The same holds true with the requirement that
these falsifications were made during the commission of the crime. The falsified

ARTICLE 171. 5. Altering true dates
People v. Pantaleon
certificates of inspection and acceptance resulted in the government paying for the
unfinished project to the disadvantage and injury of the State. Altogether, the elements of
the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document are present.
Falsification under paragraph 2 is committed when (a) the offender causes it to appear in
a document that a person or persons participated in an act or a proceeding; and (b) that
such person or persons did not in fact so participate in the act or proceeding.