People vs Galano

Facts:
 Restituto Villanueva, a patrolman, saw a crowd chasing a man in Manila. When he caught up, the crowd nabbed the
man, Benjamin Galano, who was bleeding.
 Villanueva was informed that Galano bought 4 balut eggs and paid a false prewar one peso bill which was given to
Villanueva. Galano was brought to the police for investigation. Said bill contained the word “Victory” and when the
balut vendor asked Galano, he ran away. He avers that he wrote Victory on the said bill and knew that the bill won’t
be honored by the vendor.
 Said bill was genuine and redeemable pursuant to RA No. 17 and 199. He was charged with violating RPC 166 and
convicted and sentenced of reclusion temporal with fine.
 Galano claims that he bought the eggs with a genuine note which was different from the evidence presented to
Villanueva and the police. He made such statement as the police were shouting at him and was afraid that he would
be harmed.
 The police countered that at least 9 people were chasing Galano and asserted that the bill found indicated “Victory”
contrary to Galano’s claim.

Issue: Whether Galano is guilty for violating RPC 169 (1) or RPC 169 (2) – RPC 169 (1)

Ruling:
 Galano’s escape was indicative of his guilt. His extrajudicial confession is untenable as the police had no ill-motive to
arrest him and mere shouting does not constitute as intimidation or violence.
 The forgery committed RPC 169 may be done in the following:
o 2. By erasing, substituting, counterfeiting, or altering by any means the figures, letters, or signs contained
therein.
 The SC did not come to a unanimous decision on the matter whether Galano should be punished under RPC 166 or
169. The bill is no longer legal tender. It can be presented to the Central Bank and may only exchange the bill with a
treasury certificates of the Victory series. Unless it is replaced with one of the current Victory notes, even the
Central Bank may not apply a note like that made by Galano in payment of his debts.
 Hence, the unauthorized addition of the word “Victory” was made for the purpose to make it appear that it was true
legal tender of the current Victory series to the end that it may not be refused. The forgery is akin to, or worse than,
affixing the seal to a genuine signature on a document which is invalid w/o a seal.
 Said offense does not constitute estafa as it involves falsification of a gov’t obligation. While the amount is only P1
and can be replaced by money of legal tender, the evil done and its consequences cannot be ignored.
 The alteration/destruction of the billi is harmless except to the holder and would not constitute a crime but for the
utterance of the bill so altered. There was intention to deceive the State in its duty to protect the public and the
paper bills legally issued.
 In this case, RPC 169 (2) is inapplicable as nothing was erased or altered of figures, letters, etc. Galano only added
the word Victory to make it appear genuine that it used to have before it outlived its usefulness. So Galano is liable
for RPC 169 (1)