This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-03-18 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| (1) that the offender is a private individual or a public officer or employee who did not take advantage of his official position; (2) that he committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Article 171 of the RPC; and (3) that the falsification was committed in a public, official or commercial document.[26] | |||||
|
2014-04-23 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The elements of falsification of public documents are as follows: (1) the offender is a private individual or a public officer or employee who did not take advantage of his official position; (2) he committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Article 171 of the RPC; and (3) the falsification was committed in a public, official or commercial document.[33] | |||||
|
2012-01-25 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The Court cannot accord merit to this argument. It is well to note that appellants failed to raise the issue of the defective Information before the trial court through a motion for bill of particulars or a motion to quash the information. Their failure to object to the alleged defect before entering their pleas of not guilty amounted to a waiver of the defect in the Information. "Objections as to matters of form or substance in the [I]nformation cannot be made for the first time on appeal."[32] Records even show that the Information was accordingly amended during trial to rectify this alleged defect but appellants did not comment thereon, viz: FISCAL ROBERTO ALBULARIO: | |||||