Par. No.

2 — Causing it to a p p e a r that p e r s o n s participated in an act or a p r o c e e

d i n g . have The imitation of the signature of the offended party is not necessary in
falsification under paragraph 2 of Art. 171. (People vs. De la Llave, C.A., 40 O.G. 1908)
Requisites: 1. That the offender caused it to appear in a document that a person or persons
participated in an act or a proceeding; and 2. That such person or persons did not in fact so
participate in the act or proceeding.

Par. No. 2 — Causing it to a p p e a r that p e r s o n s participated in an act or a p r o c e

e d i n g . have The imitation of the signature of the offended party is not necessary in
falsification under paragraph 2 of Art. 171. (People vs. De la Llave, C.A., 40 O.G. 1908)
Requisites: 1. That the offender caused it to appear in a document that a person or
persons participated in an act or a proceeding; and 2. That such person or persons did not
in fact so participate in the act or proceeding. 220

FALSIFICATION BY PUBLIC ORDER, ETC. Art. 171 Example:

People vs. Villanueva (58 Phil. 671)

Facts: On December 7, 1931, there w a s sent from Hawaii a postal money order for the s
u m of P 2 0 0 in favor of Irene Sanchez. On January 14, 1932, there were likewise sent
from California five postal money orders, four of which were for the s u m of P 2 0 0
each and one for the sum of P100, in favor of Feliciano Isidro. The defendant postmaster
signed two documents (Exhibits B and D) wherein he admitted having received the
money orders, forged the signature of Irene Sanchez and Feliciano Isidro thereon,
collected and appropriated the respective a m o u n t s thereof.

Held: Even if the signatures of Irene Sanchez and Feliciano Isidro had not been imitated
on t h e money orders, the fact that they were signed thereon in order to m a k e it appear
that they intervened in the execution thereof in the s e n s e that they received the
corresponding amounts, when they did not in fact intervene or receive the amount in
question, is sufficient to constitute the crime of falsification of public documents.

When committed by private individual, Art. 172 should be applied. The act of
falsely impersonating the owner of a piece of land as vendor in the forged deed of
sale would constitute an act of falsification under paragraph 2 of Art. 171 (Emas vs.
De Zuzuarregui, et al., 53 Phil. 197), and may be punishable under Art. 172 of the
Code, the offender being a private individual. The placing by the accused of their
thumbmarks in the list of voters opposite the n a m e s of the electors who have not
actually voted, thereby making it appear that those electors cast their votes when they did
not in fact vote, is falsification under paragraph 2 of Art. 171, and the offenders who are
private individuals are liable under Art. 172. (People vs. Asa, et al., 3 C.A., Rep. 1216)

Par. No. 3 — Attributing to persons w h o have participated in any act or proceeding

statements other than those in fact m a d e by them. Requisites: 1. That a person or
persons participated in an act or a proceeding; 2. That such person or persons made
statements in that act or proceeding; and 221 Art. 171 3. FALSIFICATION BY PUBLIC
ORDER, ETC. That the offender, in making a document, attributed to such person or
persons statements other than those in fact made by such person or persons. Example:
U.S. vs. Capule (24 Phil. 13) Facts: Nicasio Capule, for the purpose of appropriating to
himself a tract of coconut land, without the knowledge or consent of the owners thereof,
by agreement and cooperation with the notary public who later died, prepared and drew
up a document setting forth the sale in his favor of the said land, pretending that it was
made and executed by the said owners of the tract, stating in the document that they had
made the declaration that they had sold said land for the sum of P 5 5 0 paid at the time of
the sale to the vendors; and Eulogio Ortega and Doroteo Guia as the signers of the deed
of sale, because the alleged vendors did not know how to do so. It appears, however, that
the. owners of the land did not sell it to Nicasio Capule or that they executed in his favor
any document of sale; that what they really did w a s that they conferred a power of
attorney upon him so that he might represent them in a suit they had w i t h Maximino
Reyes, because of the absolute confidence they had in t h e defendant; and that they never
were in the house of the notary Inocente Martinez to execute or ratify any document.
Held: The defendant executed upon said notarial document of an official character, acts
constituting falsification, by counterfeiting therein the intervention of the owners of the
land, to w h o m he ascribed s t a t e m e n t s different from what they had made to h i m
and by perverting the truth in the narration of facts, getting persons to sign in the n a m e
of the owners of the land, through deceit, after giving t h e m to understand that the
document contained a power of attorney, w h e n in fact it w a s a deed of sale of the land,
the legitimate owners whereof had never intended or consented to its alienation. Par. No.
4 — Making untruthful s t a t e m e n t s in a narration of facts. Requisites: 1 That the
offender makes in a document s t a t e m e n t s in a narration of facts;

2. How genuineness of handwriting proved. The handwriting of a person may be proved

by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has seen
the person write, or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness
has acted or been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such
person. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by a comparison, made
by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party
against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the
judge. (Emphases supplied)