This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-06-27 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In the more recent (1992) Caubang v. People,[149] the accused - who claimed to have the authority to transact (in behalf of an entity) with a government agency in Manila - attempted to overthrow the presumption of authorship against him by alleging intervening circumstances from the time he arrived in Manila until the transaction with the government agency was made. The accused claimed the he did not carry the forged document when he arrived in Manila and that third persons (including a "fixer") actually transacted with the government. Allegedly, these claims disproved that he had any knowledge or inference in the making of the submitted forged document. Rejecting this claim, the Court ruled that: [U]tilizing a fixer as part of the scenario becomes a convenient ploy to divert the mind of the court from the more plausible inference that the accused-petitioner engineered the spurious [document]. | |||||
|
2009-04-16 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| 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.[54] 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. | |||||