E2015 Crim 2 (Prof.

Jimenez) Reviewer

Gina Tumlos

THE PEOPLE vs.EUGENIO V. ISLA Facts: - between the 17th and 19th of February, 1921 accused, with intent to prejudice and defraud the firm of Go Leco and odid then fe!onious!y fa!sify and mercanti!e document, to wit" a chec# $o. 1%1992-& drawn on the 'hi!ippine $ationa! &an# for the sum of '(%, 'hi!ippine currency, ma#in) it to appear that one *bdon +acon 'aradero was a party to said chec# whi!e in fact he was not, by for)in), simu!atin) and imitatin) the si)nature of said *bdon +acon 'aradero - accused #nowin) said chec# to be fa!se, did ma#e use of it by inducin) the firm of Go Leco and o. to accept, as said firm did accept it, in payment of the sum of '1(, 'hi!ippine currency, the price of two sac#s of rice bou)ht from said firm Issue: whether the appe!!ant is )ui!ty of the crime of ,estafa by means of fa!sification of a mercanti!e document or simp!e crime of estafa Held: estafa by means of fa!sification of a mercanti!e document Ratio: - basis of the contention of the appe!!ant is that, inasmuch as he did not attempt to imitate the si)nature of *bdon +acon 'aradero, when he si)ned said name to said chec#, he was not )ui!ty of estafa by means of the fa!sification of a commercia! document, but on!y of the simp!e crime of estafa. - there is undisputed proof that he did si)n, without permission or authority, the name of *bdon +acon 'aradero and did, means of said for)ed si)nature, obtain the money - defendant represented to the offended person a chec# e-ecuted and de!ivered by *bdon +acon 'aradero, and that by reason of that representation he induced the offended person to accept the chec# - representation made by the defendant to the offended person, that *bdon +acon 'aradero had participated in the e-ecution and de!ivery of said chec#, was a fa!se representation - person cannot be found )ui!ty of the crime of estafa by means of the fa!sification of a document by usin) the si)nature of another, un!ess in the e-ecution of that document he attempted to imitate or simu!ate the si)nature of the !atter

E2015 Crim 2 (Prof. Jimenez) Reviewer

Gina Tumlos

- .owevere, in the case of /nited 0tates vs. &ra)a, defendant was he!d )ui!ty of the fa!sification of a mercanti!e document, even thou)h there was no attempt to imitate or simu!ate the si)nature of the person - for the reason that in effectin) the transaction in those cases the defendant made it to appear fa!se!y that the a!!e)ed party to the document was a rea! party thereto - we are of the opinion and so decide that the appe!!ant is )ui!ty of the crime of estafa committed by means of the fa!sification of a private commercia! document PEOPLE vs. FRANCISCO HILVANO Facts: - 1ayor Fidencio Latorre of 2i!!area!, 0amar, departed for 1ani!a on officia! business ear!y in the mornin) of 0eptember 22, 1932, he desi)nated the herein Defendant Francisco .i!vano, counci!or, to dischar)e the duties of his office. - 2ice-1ayor 4uan Latorre went to the municipa! bui!din)erved written notices to the correspondin) municipa! officers, inc!udin) .i!vano, that he 54uan Latorre6 as 2ice-1ayor was assumin) the duties of the absent mayor - .i!vano refused to yie!d, ar)uin) that he had been desi)nated by the 1ayor - 21 as#ed opinion of 7-ecutive 0ecretary and Fisca!89 21 shou!d assume 1ayor:s duties 0hown this officia! pronouncement, .i!vano sti!! refused to surrender the position o he!d for about a month o appointed some po!icemen, so!emni;ed marria)es o co!!ected sa!ary for mayor - <= 89 )ui!ty of usurpation under <* $o. 1> Issue: ?@$ )ui!ty of usurpation of pub!ic authority under <epub!ic *ct $o. 1> Held: Gui!ty Ratio:

E2015 Crim 2 (Prof. Jimenez) Reviewer

Gina Tumlos

- <* A79 which amended *rt. 177" B/surpation of authority or officia! functions. C *ny person who sha!! #nowin)!y and fa!se!y represent himse!f to be an officer, a)ent or representative of any department or a)ency of the 'hi!ippine Government or of any forei)n )overnment, or who, under pretense of officia! position, sha!! perform any act pertainin) to any person in authority or pub!ic officer of the 'hi!ippine Government or of any forei)n )overnment, or any a)ency thereof, without bein) !awfu!!y entit!ed to do so, sha!! suffer the pena!ty of prision correcciona! in its minimum and medium periods.D - Et is contended however for the Appellant that he committed no usurpation of authority because he was a counci!or, an officia! of the Government, and that such crime may on!y be committed by private individua!s - *rtic!e 177 app!ies to Bany personD
-

En the be)innin) he mi)ht have p!eaded )ood faith, invo#in) the desi)nation by the 1ayor but after he had been shown the !etter of the 7-ecutive 0ecretary and the opinion of the provincia! fisca!, he had no ri)ht thereafter stubborn!y to stic# to the position.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8792 AN ACT PROVIDING AND USE OF ELECTRONIC COMMERCIAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS, PENALTIES FOR UNLAWFUL USE THEREOF, AND OTHER PURPOSES Sec 5 (c) "Information and Communications System" refers to a system for generating, sending, receiving, storing, or otherwise processing electronic documents and includes the computer system or other similar device by or in which data is recorded or stored and any procedures related to the recording or storage of electronic document. (e) "Electronic document" refers to information or the representation of information, data, figures, symbols or other modes of written e pression, described or however represented, by which a right is established or an obligation e tinguished, or by which a fact may be prove and affirmed, which is receive, recorded, transmitted, stored, processed, retrieved or produced electronically. (f) "Electronic !ey" refers to a secret code which secures and defends sensitive information that crossover public channels into a form decipherable only with a matching electronic !ey. R!"#$%c Ac& N'. 829( AN ACT PRESCRIBING THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERT) CODE AND ESTABLISHING THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERT) OFFICE, PROVIDING FOR ITS POWERS AND FUNCTIONS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Sec&%'* 2+7. Criminal Penalties. " #$%.$. &ny person infringing any right secured by provisions of 'art I( of this &ct or aiding or abetting such infringement shall be guilty of a crime punishable by) (a) Imprisonment of one ($) year to three (*) years plus a fine ranging from +ifty thousand pesos (',-,---) to .ne hundred fifty thousand pesos ('$,-,---) for the first offense.

E2015 Crim 2 (Prof. Jimenez) Reviewer

Gina Tumlos

(b) Imprisonment of three (*) years and one ($) day to si (/) years plus a fine ranging from .ne hundred fifty thousand pesos ('$,-,---) to +ive hundred thousand pesos (',--,---) for the second offense. (c) Imprisonment of si (/) years and one ($) day to nine (0) years plus a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos (',--,---) to .ne million five hundred thousand pesos ('$,,--,---) for the third and subse1uent offenses. (d) In all cases, subsidiary imprisonment in cases of insolvency. #$%.#. In determining the number of years of imprisonment and the amount of fine, the court shall consider the value of the infringing materials that the defendant has produced or manufactured and the damage that the copyright owner has suffered by reason of the infringement. #$%.*. &ny person who at the time when copyright subsists in a wor! has in his possession an article which he !nows, or ought to !now, to be an infringing copy of the wor! for the purpose of) (a) Selling, letting for hire, or by way of trade offering or e posing for sale, or hire, the article2 (b) 3istributing the article for purpose of trade, or for any other purpose to an e tent that will pre4udice the rights of the copyright owner in the wor!2 or (c) 5rade e hibit of the article in public, shall be guilty of an offense and shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment and fine as above mentioned. (Sec. #0, '.3. 6o. 70a)

TECSON vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS Facts: - =his case stemmed from a char)e of i!!e)a! possession and use of counterfeit /0 do!!ar notes, as defined and pena!i;ed under *rtic!e 1F( of the <evised 'ena! ode, a)ainst herein petitioner *!ejandro =ecson y F!orencio - on or about *pri! 2(, 199> accused did then have in his possession and under his custody and contro!, with intent to use and pass, as in fact he did use and pass ten 51>6 pieces of 1>>-/0 do!!ar notes to 'edro . Labita, a confidentia! assistant of the entra! &an# of the 'hi!ippines - tria! court finds and dec!ares accused *L74*$G<@ F. =7 0@$, G/EL=+ beyond reasonab!e doubt of the offense as defined in *rt. 1F( and pena!i;ed in *rt. 1FF para)raph 1 * affirms

E2015 Crim 2 (Prof. Jimenez) Reviewer

Gina Tumlos

- a civi!ian informer persona!!y informed the ash Gepartment of the entra! &an# of the 'hi!ippines that a certain 1an) *ndy was invo!ved in a syndicate en)a)in) in the business of counterfeit /0 do!!ar notes. - a test-buy operation was ordered by *tty. 'io han, 4r., hief of the Envesti)ation 0taff of the entra! &an#, which resu!ted in the purchase from 1an) *ndy of one 516 /0 do!!ar note for =wo .undred 'esos 5'2>>.>>6 that was found to be counterfeit onseHuent!y*tty. han formed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation

o the civi!ian informer arrived inside the restaurant and approached a man who was seated two 526 tab!es away from where Labita and 1arHueta were positioned. o =he informer introduced to 1an) *ndy the said 'edro Labita and 4ohnny 1arHueta as the persons interested in buyin) /0 do!!ar notes o =hey apprehended the man ca!!ed 1an) *ndy whom they !ater identified as the herein petitioner *!ejandro =ecson Issue: ?@$ Gui!ty of E!!e)a! possession and use of fa!se treasury or ban# notes and other instruments of credit. Held: Gui!ty of E!!e)a! possession and use of fa!se treasury or ban# notes and other instruments of credit. Ratio: - defense denied any !iabi!ity of the petitioner for the crime of i!!e)a! possession and use of counterfeit /0 do!!ar notes. 'etitioner testified that he was inside the 4o!!ibee restaurant in 0ta. ru;, 1ani!a on *pri! 2(, 199> to meet a certain $ora Gi;on, wife of his friend, <eyna!do de Gu;man, who previous!y sou)ht his assistance in securin) insurance payment bond. *fter $oras arriva! at the restaurant, she handed to him a sea!ed enve!ope which he accepted thin#in) that it contained the documents pertainin) to the insurance payment bond. /pon receipt of the sea!ed enve!ope, however, two 526 ma!e persons approached and immediate!y handcuffed him

- 'etitioner vehement!y denied havin) possession nor any #now!ed)e as to the source of the fa#e /0 do!!ar notes and c!aimed that the same were mere!y p!anted by the arrestin) officers

E2015 Crim 2 (Prof. Jimenez) Reviewer

Gina Tumlos

- petitioner c!aimed that no buy-bust operation too# p!ace inasmuch as there was no ha))!in) as to the price between him and the poseur buyers, and that no money chan)ed hands. - the petitioner c!aimed that the testimony of prosecution witness 'edro Labita to the effect that the civi!ian informer had to convince the petitioner ne)ated any a!!e)ed intent on his part to se!! counterfeit /0 do!!ar notes to the poseur buyer - =he respondents countered in their omment that the absence of ha))!in) amon) the parties to the buy-bust operation did not ne)ate petitioners actua! possession and use of the ten 51>6 counterfeit /0 I1>> do!!ar notes, which fact of possession is punishab!e by !aw. - &y way of rep!y,the petitioner, who is now 7> years of a)eontends that possession shou!d be coup!ed with intent to use the counterfeit /0 do!!ar bi!!s in order to ho!d him !iab!e under the provision of *rtic!e 1F( of the <evised 'ena! ode. - *rtic!e 1F( of the <evised 'ena! ode provides that"
*<=. 1F(. Illegal possession and use of false treasury or bank notes and other instruments of credit./n!ess the act be one of those comin) under the provisions of any of the precedin) artic!es, any person who sha!! #nowin)!y use or have in his possession, with intent to use any of the fa!se or fa!sified instruments referred to in this section, sha!! suffer the pena!ty ne-t !ower in de)ree than that prescribed in said artic!es.

- =he e!ements of the crime char)ed for vio!ation of *rtic!e 1F( of the <evised 'ena! ode, are" o 16 that any treasury or ban# note or certificate or other ob!i)ation and security payab!e to bearer, or any instrument payab!e to order or other document of credit not payab!e to bearer is for)ed or fa!sified by another personJ o 26 that the offender #nows that any of the said instruments is for)ed or fa!sifiedJ and o A6 that he either used orpossessed with intent to use any of such for)ed or fa!sified instruments.
-

.ence, possession of fa#e do!!ar notes must be coup!ed with the act of usin) or at !east with intent to use the same as shown by a c!ear and de!iberate overt act in order to constitute a crime, as was sufficient!y proven in the case at bar.

E2015 Crim 2 (Prof. Jimenez) Reviewer

Gina Tumlos

- ?e find no co)ent reason to overturn the decision of respondent *ppea!s

ourt of

- =he absence of ha))!in) as to the price of the subject fa#e /0 do!!ar notes between the petitioner and the poseur buyers did not ne)ate the fact of the buybust operation. - 1ere possession coup!ed with intent to use the counterfeit /0 do!!ar notes, as proven in the case at bar, is sufficient to constitute the crime under *rtic!e 1F( - .Et appears that prior to the buy-bust operation, the petitioner a!ready had the intention to se!! counterfeit /0 do!!ar notes as he, in fact, had an a)reement with the civi!ian informer to arran)e for a meetin) with interested buyers. - the civi!ian informer did not have to convince the petitioner to se!! fa#e /0 do!!ar notes

PEOPLE vs. WILLIA Facts:

H. !UASHA

- ?i!!iam .. Kuasha, a member of the 'hi!ippine bar, was char)edwith the crime of fa!sification of a pub!ic and commercia! document in that, havin) been entrusted with the preparation and re)istration of the artic!e of incorporation of the 'acific *irways orporation for the purpose of en)a)in) in business as a common carrier - he caused it to appear in said artic!e of incorporation that one *rsenio &ay!onhad subscribed to and was the owner of F>.>>3 per cent of the subscribed capita! stoc# of the corporation when in rea!itythe truth bein) that the owner of the portion of the capita! stoc# subscribed to by &ay!on and the money paid thereon were *merican citi;en whose name did not appear in the artic!e of incorporation, and that the purpose for ma#in) this fa!se statement was to circumvent the constitutiona! mandate that no corporation sha!! be authori;e to operate as a pub!ic uti!ity in the 'hi!ippines un!ess F> per cent of its capita! stoc# is owned by Fi!ipinos. - @n $ovember %,19%F, the 'acific *irways orporation re)istered its artic!es of incorporation with the 0ecurities and 7-chan)ed ommission. - =he artic!e were prepared and the re)istration was effected by the accused, who was in fact the or)ani;er of the corporation

E2015 Crim 2 (Prof. Jimenez) Reviewer

Gina Tumlos

- no Huestion that &ay!on actua!!y subscribed to F>.>>3 per cent of the subscribed capita! stoc# of the corporation. &ut money paid on his subscription did not be!on) to him but to the *mericans subscribers to the corporate stoc# - Gefendant is accused under artic!e 172 para)raph 1, in connection with artic!e 171, para)raph %, of the <evised 'ena! ode, which read"
*<=. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee, or notary or ecclesiastic minister . C =he pena!ty ofprision mayor and a fine not to e-ceed 3,>>> pesos sha!! be imposed upon any pub!ic officer, emp!oyee, or notary who, ta#in) advanta)e of his officia! position, sha!! fa!sify a document by committin) any of the fo!!owin) acts" -------

%. 1a#in) untruthfu! statements in a narration of facts. *<=. 172. Falsification by private individuals and use of falsified documents . C =he pena!ty of prision correccional in its medium and ma-imum period and a fine of not more than 3,>>> pesos sha!! be imposed upon"

---

---

---

1. *ny private individua! who sha!! commit any of the fa!sifications enumerated in the ne-t precedin) artic!e in any pub!ic or officia! document or !etter of e-chan)e or any other #ind of commercia! document.

- 4ustice *!bert observes, on the authority of U.S. vs. eyes, 51 'hi!., A%16, that the perversion of truth in the narration of facts must be made with the wron)fu! intent of injurin) a third person - the same author further maintains that even if such wron)fu! intent is proven, sti!! the untruthfu! statement wi!! not constitute the crime of fa!sification if there is no !e)a! ob!i)ation on the part of the narrator to disc!ose the truth. ?ro

Issue: ?@$ )ui!ty of Fa!sification by private individua!s and use of fa!sified documents Held: "ot #uilt$ Ratio: - the fa!sification imputed in the accused in the present case consists in not disc!osin) in the artic!es of incorporation that &ay!on was a mere trustee of his *merican co-incorporators, thus )ivin) the impression that &ay!on was the owner of the shares

E2015 Crim 2 (Prof. Jimenez) Reviewer

Gina Tumlos

- =his, in the opinion of the tria! court, is a ma!icious perversion of the truth made with the wron)fu! intent circumventin) section (, *rtic!e LE2 of the onstitution, which provides that , no franchise, certificate, or any other form of authori;ation for the operation of a pub!ic uti!ity sha!! be )ranted e-cept to citi;ens of the 'hi!ippines or to corporation or other entities or)ani;ed under the !aw of the 'hi!ippines, si-ty per centum of the capita! of which is owned by citi;ens of the 'hi!ippines . . . ., - this opinion !oses va!idity once it is noted that it is predicated on the erroneous assumption that the constitutiona! provision just Huoted was meant to prohibit the mere formation of a pub!ic uti!ity corporation without F> per cent of its capita! bein) owned by the Fi!ipinos, a mista#en be!ief which has induced the !ower court to that the accused was under ob!i)ation to disc!ose the who!e truth about the nationa!ity of the subscribed capita! stoc# of the corporation by revea!in) that &ay!on was a mere trustee or dummy, and that in not ma#in) such disc!osure defendantMs intention was to circumvent the onstitution to the detriment of the pub!ic interests. onstitution does not prohibit the mere formation of a pub!ic uti!ity corporation without the reHuired formation of Fi!ipino capita!. ?hat it does prohibit is the )rantin) of a franchise or other form of authori;ation for the operation of a pub!ic uti!ity to a corporation already in e!istence but without the reHuisite proportion of Fi!ipino capita!.

- Ef the onstitution does not prohibit the mere formation of a pub!ic uti!ity corporation with the a!ien capita!, then how can the accused be char)ed with havin) wron)fu!!y intended to circumvent that fundamenta! !aw by not revea!in) in the artic!es of incorporation that &ay!on was a mere trusteeN formation of the corporation such reve!ation was not essentia!, and the orporation Law does not reHuire it.

- Gefendant was, therefore, under no ob!i)ation to ma#e it. En the absence of such ob!i)ation and of the a!!e)e wron)fu! intent, defendant cannot be !e)a!!y convicted of the crime with which he is char)ed. - Et is ur)ed, however, that the formation of the corporation with F> per cent of its subscribed capita! stoc# appearin) in the name of &ay!on was an indispensab!e preparatory step to the subversion of the constitutiona! prohibition and the !aws imp!ementin) the po!icy e-pressed therein.

E2015 Crim 2 (Prof. Jimenez) Reviewer

Gina Tumlos

- =his view is not correct. For a corporation to be entit!ed to operate a pub!ic uti!ity it is not necessary that it be or)ani;ed with F> per cent of its capita! owned by Fi!ipinos from the start. - * corporation formed with capita! that is entire!y a!ien may subseHuent!y chan)e the nationa!ity of its capita! throu)h transfer of shares to Fi!ipino citi;ens. converse!y, a corporation ori)ina!!y formed with Fi!ipino capita! may subseHuent!y chan)e the nationa! status of said capita! throu)h transfer of shares to forei)ners. - =he moment for determinin) whether a corporation is entit!ed to operate as a pub!ic uti!ity is when it app!ies for a franchise, certificate, or any other form of authori;ation for that purpose. *nd that can be done after the corporation has a!ready come into bein) and not whi!e it is sti!! bein) formed. - *nd at that moment, the corporation must show that it has comp!ied not on!y with the reHuirement of the onstitution as to the nationa!ity of its capita!, but a!so with the reHuirements of the ivi! *viation Law - 7Hua!!y untenab!e is the su))estion that defendant shou!d at !east be he!d )ui!ty of an ,impossib!e crime, under artic!e 39 of the <evised 'ena! ode. - Et not bein) possib!e to suppose that defendant had intended to commit a crime for the simp!e reason that the a!!e)ed constitutiona! prohibition which he is char)ed for havin) tried to circumvent does not e-ist - fore)oin) consideration it can not but !ead to the conc!usion that the defendant can not be he!d )ui!ty of the crime char)ed. - =he majority of the court, however, are a!so of the opinion that, even supposin) that the act imputed to the defendant constituted fa!sification at the time it was perpetrated, the said act has ceased to be an offense within the meanin) of the !aw, so that defendant can no !on)er be he!d crimina!!y !iab!e therefor.
-