G.R. No.

227069

HILARIO LAMSEN, Petitioner
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents

DECISION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

November 22, 2017

Here, Lamsen was charged of the crime of falsification of public document under Article 172 (1) of the RPC:

Article 172. Falsification by private individual and use of falsified documents. – x x x:

1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the falsifications enumerated in the next preceding article
in any public or official document or letter of exchange or any other kind of commercial document;

xxxx

The elements of the said crime are as follows: (a) the offender is a private individual; (b) the offender committed any
of the acts of falsification enumerated in Article 171; and (c) the falsification was committed in a public document.
44

G.R. No. 226590, April 23, 2018

SHIRLEY T. LIM, MARY T. LIMLEON AND JIMMY T. LIM, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

DECISION

G.R. No. 186329

DR. FRISCO M. MALABANAN, Petitioner,

vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondent

x-----------------------x

GR. Nos. 186584-86

ABUSAMA MANGUDADATU ALID, Petitioner,

vs.
THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN - 1st DIVISION, OFF'ICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, HON. SECRETARY
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Respondents.

x-----------------------x

G.R. No. 198598

ABUSAMA M. ALID, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

DECISION

SERENO, CJ.:

Guillergan v. People   declares that the falsification of documents committed by public officers who take advantage of
44

their official position under Article 171 necessarily includes the falsification of commercial documents by private
persons punished by paragraph 1 of Article 172. To reiterate, the elements of Article 171 are as follows:

1. The offender is a public officer, employee, or a notary public.

2. The offender takes advantage of his or her official position.

3. The offender falsifies a document by committing any of the acts of falsification under Article 171.

In turn, paragraph 1 of Article 172 contains these requisites:

1. That the offender is a private individual or a public officer or employee who did not take advantage of his
or her official position.

2. The falsification was committed in a public or official or commercial document.

3. The offender falsifies a document by committing any of the acts of falsification under Article 171.

This Court is well aware that falsification of documents under paragraph 1 of Article 172, like Article 171, does not
require the idea of gain or the intent to injure a third person as an element of conviction. But, as early as People v.
Pacana,  we have said:
57

Considering that even though 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 solemnly
proclaimed, it must, nevertheless, be borne in mind that the change in the public document must be such as to
affect the integrity of the same or to change the effects which it would otherwise produce; for unless that
happens, there could not exist the essential element of the intention to commit the crime which is required by article 1
[now Article 3] of the Penal Code. (Emphasis supplied) 58

G.R. No. 73905 September 30, 1991

MICHAEL T. DAVA, petitioner,
vs.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and the INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE
COURT, respondents.

KV. Faylona & Associates for petitioner.

The elements of the crime of using a falsified document in transaction (other than as evidence in a
judicial proceed penalized under the last paragraph of Article 172 are following: (a) the offender
knew that a document was falsified by another person; (b) the false document is embraced in Article
171 or in any of subdivisions Nos. 1 and 2 of Article 172; (c he used such document (not in judicial
proceedings), and (d) the use of the false document caused damage to another or at last it was used
with intent to cause such damage.  Except for last, all of these elements have been proven beyond
55

reason doubt in this case.

It is not disputed that it was petitioner himself who requested Manalili to get him a license. He
misrepresented to Manalili that he has not at any time been issued a driver's license.  Through this
56

misrepresentation and capitalizing on Manalili awareness of the dire necessity of obtaining a driver's
license the shortest time possible to enable petitioner to perform duties as detailman, petitioner was
able, in a very subtle clever manner, to induce Manalili to deal with "fixers" in securing the subject
driver's license. For indeed, there was no way Manalili could obtain a drivers license in so short a
without having to deal with "fixers." Thus, as petitioner calculated, Manalili, who appeared to have
been motivated by a sincere desire to help a friend, did not hesitate to deal with three fixers whom
he knew were not employees of the LTC to whom he paid P70.00 for the license even if the legal fee
then was only P15.00.  As it was in truth petitioner who induced and left Manalili with no choice but
57

to seek the aid of fixers, the fact that it was Manalili and not petitioner who dealt directly with said
fixers cannot exculpate petitioner from the charge of falsification. He is, beyond reasonable doubt, a
principal by inducement in the commission of said crime.

Petitioner cannot feign ignorance of the spurious character of his second driver's license No.
2706887. Having already obtained a driver's license, he knew that it was not legally possible for him
to secure another one. Otherwise, there would have been no need for him to misrepresent to his
friend Manalili that he was not then a holder of a driver's license. But even with this
misrepresentation, petitioner cannot even begin to believe that Manalili would be able to secure a
driver's license through legal means in about an hour's time.  The patent irregularity in obtaining
58

driver's license No. 2706887 was more than sufficient to arouse the suspicion of an ordinary
cautious and prudent man as to its genuineness and authenticity. In fact, Manalili testified that he
himself was surprised when the fixer handed to him the plastic jacket of the driver's license of
Michael Dava on November 4, 1976, a few hours after he had sought the fixer's assistance.  In 59

those days, all plastic jackets emanated from the LTC Central Office, which accounted for the delay
in the release of the license applied for. Under these circumstances, no "reasonable and fairminded
man" would say that petitioner did not know that his license was a fake. 60

A driver's license is a public document within the purview of Articles 171 and 172. The blank form of
the drivers license becomes a public document the moment it is accomplished.  Thus, when driver's
61

license No. 2706887 was filled up with petitioner's personal data and the signature of the region of
the San Fernando LTC agency was affixed therein, even if the same was simulated, the driver's
license became a public document.

The third element of use of the falsified document is proven by the fact that when petitioner was
apprehended by Lising on April 12, 1978 it was in his possession and it was what he presented
Lising to show that he had a license. Because he was a detailman who did his job with the use of a
car, it is probable that from November 4, 1976 (its date of issuance) until April 12, 1978, petitioner
used driver's license No. 2706887.

The driver's license being a public document, proof of the fourth element of damage caused to
another person or at least an intent to cause such damage has become immaterial. In falsification of
public or official documents, the principal thing being punished is the violation of the public faith and
the destruction of the truth proclaimed therein.62

In his attempt at exculpation, petitioner asserts that the following ruling in People vs.
Sendaydiego,  should be applied in his favor:
63

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. This is especially true if the use or uttering of the forged
documents was so closely connected in time with the forgery that the user or possessor may
be proven to have the capacity of committing the forgery, or to have close connection with
the forgers, and therefore, had complicity in the forgery (U.S. vs. Castillo, 6 Phil. 453; People
vs. De Lara, 45 PMI. 754; People vs. Domingo, 49 Phil. 28: People vs. Astudillo, 60 Phil.
338; People vs. Manansala, 105 Phil. 1253). In the absence of a satisfactory explanation,
one who is found in possession of a forged document and who used or uttered it is
presumed to be the forger (Alarcon vs. Court of Appeals, L-21846, March 31, 1967, 19
SCRA 688; People vs. Caragao,
L-28258, December 27, 1969, 30 SCRA 993). (Emphasis supplied.)

We agree with the petitioner that the presumption enunciated in the Sendaydiego case is not
absolute as it is subject to the exception that the accused should have a satisfactory
explanation why he is in possession of a false document.  His explanation, however, is
64

unsatisfactory as it consists mainly in passing the buck to his friend, Manalili. As stated above,
Manalili himself could not have acted on his own accord without the prodding of petitioner.

We cannot help but comment on petitioner's allegations on the role of fixers in government agencies.
To him, a fixer is a "necessary evil" who could do things fast for the right amount. He is "not
necessarily involved in the commission of forgery or falsification of official documents" and he shares
his fees with "insiders."
65

Fixers indeed appear as undetachable fixtures in government licensing agencies. Why they
proliferate is a sad commentary not only on our bureaucracy but also on our own people. While not
all fixers are engaged in illegal activities for some simple serve as "facilitators," they nonetheless
provide sources for exploitation of the unknowing common people who transact business with the
government and for corruption of the gullible government employees. Their unwanted presence must
be dealt with accordingly and the soonest this is undertaken by our government agencies the better
for all of us.