Janrey Capangpangan Salo BS-

Criminology 2-2

CRIMINAL LAW BOOK TWO

Art. 165. Selling of false or mutilated coin, without

Connivance. — any person who knowingly, although without
The connivance mentioned in the preceding articles, shall
Possess false or mutilated coin with intent to utter the same,
Or shall actually utter such coin, shall suffer a penalty lower
By one degree than that prescribed in said article.

Acts punished under art. 165:

1. Possession of coin, counterfeited or mutilated by another person, with
Intent to utter the same, knowing that it is false or mutilated.
Elements:
A. Possession,
B. With intent to utter, and
C. Knowledge.
2. Actually uttering such false or mutilated coin, knowing the same to be
False or mutilated.
Elements:
A. Actually uttering, and
B. Knowledge.
Possession of or uttering false coin does not require that the
Counterfeited coin is legal tender.
Thus, a person in possession of, with intention to put into circulation,
A false five-dollar gold coin, an imitation of the genuine five-dollar gold coin
Of the united states, is liable under article 165, even if such gold coin is no
Longer legal tender in the united states, and much less in the philippines.
Art. 165 does not require that the coin be of legal tender. We should not add
A condition not provided by the law. (people vs. Tin ching ting, g.r. No.
L-4620, jan. 30, 1952, unreported, 90 phil. 870)
But if the coin being uttered or possessed with intent to utter is a
Mutilated coin, it must be legal tender coin, because of article 164 to which
Article 165 is related.
Constructive possession included.
The possession prohibited in article 165 of the revised penal code is
Possession in general, that is, not only actual, physical possession, but also
Constructive possession or the subjection of the thing to one's control (in pari
Materia: people vs. Umali, [ca] 46 o.g. 2648; people vs. Misa, ca-g.r. No.
00800-cr, oct. 16,1963; people vs. Conosa, ca-g.r. No. 1074, feb. 28,1948;
People vs. Lera, ca-g.r. No. 16990-r, feb. 28, 1957), otherwise offenders
Could easily evade the law by the mere expedient of placing other persons
In actual, physical possession of the thing although retaining constructive
Possession or actual control thereof. (people vs. Andrada, 11 c.a. Rep. 147)

Possession of counterfeiter or importer not punished as separate

Offense.
If the false or mutilated coins are found in the possession of the
Counterfeiters, or mutilators, or importers, such possession does not
Constitute a separate offense, but is identified with the counterfeiting or
Mutilation or importation. (dec. Sup. Court of spain, june 28, 1877)
The offense punished under this article is the mere holding of the false
Or mutilated coin with intent to utter.
"although without the connivance mentioned in the preceding
Articles."
Actually uttering false or mutilated coin, knowing it to be false
Or mutilated, is a crime under art. 165, even if the offender was not in
Connivance with the counterfeiter or mutilator.
The accused must have knowledge of the fact that the coin is
False.
A chinese merchant was paid by purchaser of goods in the former's
Store a false 50-centavo coin. He placed it in his drawer. During a search by
Some constabulary officers, the false coin was found in the drawer.
May the chinaman be convicted of illegal possession of a false coin?
No, because art. 165 requires three things as regards possession of
False coins, namely: (1) possession; (2) intent to utter; and (3) knowledge
That the coin is false.
The fact that the chinaman received it in payment of his good and
Placed it in his drawer shows that he did not know that such coin was false.
(people vs. Go po, g.r. No. 42697, v l. J. 393, august, 1985)
Section three. — forging treasury or bank notes, obligations
And securities; importing and uttering false
Or forged notes, obligations and securities
Art. 166. Forging treasury or bank notes or other documents
Payable to bearer; importing, and uttering such false
Or forged notes and documents. — the forging or falsification
Of treasury or bank notes or certificates or other obligations
And securities payable to bearer and the importation and
Uttering in connivance with forgers or importers of such

Art. 166 forging treasury or bank notes

Or other documents
False or forged obligations or notes, shall be punished as
Follows:

1. By reclusion temporal in its minimum period and

A fine not to exceed 10,000 pesos, if the document which has
Been falsified, counterfeited, or altered is an obligation or
Security of the (united states or of the) philippine islands.
The words "obligation or security of the (united states
Or of the) philippine islands" shall be held to mean all bonds,
Certificates of indebtedness, national bank notes, coupons,
(united states or) philippine islands notes, treasury notes,
Fractional notes, certificates of deposit, bills, checks, or
Drafts for money, drawn by or upon authorized officers of
The (united states or of the) Philippine islands, and other
Representatives of value, of whatever denomination, which
Have been or may be issued under any act of the congress of
The (united states or the) Philippine legislature.
2. By prision mayor in its maximum period8
And a fine
Not to exceed 5,000 pesos, if the falsified or altered document
Is a circulating note issued by any banking association duly
Authorized by law to issue the same.
3. By prision mayor in its medium period9
And a fine
Not to exceed 5,000 pesos, if the falsified or counterfeited
Document was issued by a foreign government.
4. By prision mayor in its minimum period1 0
And a
Fine not to exceed 2,000 pesos, when the forged or altered
Document is a circulating note or bill issued by a foreign
Bank duly authorized therefor.
Three acts penalized under art. 166:
1. Forging or falsification of treasury or bank notes or other documents
Payable to bearer.
2. Importation of such false or forged obligations or notes.
3. Uttering of such false or forged obligations or notes in connivance
With the forgers or importers.
How are "forging" and "falsification" committed.
Forging is committed by giving to a treasury or bank note or any
Instrument payable to bearer or to order the appearance of a true and
Genuine document; and falsification is committed by erasing, substituting,
Counterfeiting, or altering by any means, the figures, letters, words, or signs
Contained therein. (art. 169)
To forge an instrument is to make false instrument intended to be
Passed for the genuine one.
Example of falsifying, counterfeiting or altering an obligation or
Security of the Philippines, (par. 1 of art. 166)
The accused erased and changed the last digit 9 of serial no. F-
79692619 of a genuine treasury note so as to read 0. (del Rosario vs. People,
113 phil. 626)
Meaning of importation of false or forged obligations or notes.
Importation of false or forged obligations or notes means to bring
Them into the Philippines, which presupposes that the obligations or notes
Are forged or falsified in a foreign country.
Meaning of uttering false or forged obligations or notes.
It means offering obligations or notes knowing them to be false or
Forged, whether such offer is accepted or not, with a representation, by
Words or actions, that they are genuine and with an intent to defraud. (see
26 c.j. 924)
Uttering forged bill must be with connivance to constitute a
Violation of art. 166.
By pleading guilty to the charge of having passed a p10 counterfeit
Bill in a store in violation of art. 166, the accused admitted all the material
Allegations of the information, including that of connivance with the authors
Of the forgery, which characterizes the crime defined by art. 166 of the
Revised penal code. (people vs. Valencia, et al., 59 phil. 42)
Notes and other obligations and securities that may be forged or
Falsified under art. 166.
They are:
1. Treasury or bank notes,
2. Certificates, and
3. Other obligations and securities, payable to bearer.
A bank note, certificate or obligation and security is payable to
Bearer when it can be negotiated by mere delivery.
A five-peso bill, etc., or a winning sweepstakes ticket is payable to
Bearer, because its ownership is transferred to another by mere delivery to
Him of such bill or ticket.
The instrument is payable to bearer —
(a) when it is expressed to be so payable; or
(b) when it is payable to a person named therein or bearer; or
(c) when it is payable to the order of a fictitious or non-existing
Person, and such fact was known to the person making it so
Payable; or
(d) when the name of the payee does not purport to be the name of
Any person; or
(e) when the only or last indorsement is an indorsement in blank.
(negotiable instruments law, sec. 9)
Penalties depend on the kind of forged treasury or bank notes or
Other documents.
There are four penalties prescribed in art. 166, and those penalties
Are respectively imposed if the document falsified, altered or counterfeited
Is any of the following:
A. Obligation or security issued by the government of the
Philippines.
B. Circulating note issued by any banking association duly
Authorized by law to issue the same.
C. Document issued by a foreign government.
D. Circulating note or bill issued by a foreign bank duly authorized
To issue the same.
The code punishes forging or falsification of bank notes and of
Documents of credit payable to bearer and issued by the state
More severely than it does the counterfeiting of coins.
The reason for this is that the first tends to bring such documents
Into discredit and the offense produces a lack of confidence on the part of
The holders of said documents to the prejudice of the interests of society
And of the state. Moreover, it is easier to forge or falsify such certificates,
Notes and documents of credit than to make counterfeit coins, and the profit
Which is derived therefrom by the forger of such documents is greater and
The incentive for the commission of such a crime more powerful. (u.s. Vs.
Gardner, 3 phil. 403)
Example of forging obligation or security.
The accused-appellant was charged with having falsified a genuine
1/8 unit of the philippine charity sweepstakes ticket for the june, 1947
Draw by tearing off at its bottom in a crosswise direction, a portion, thereby
Removing the true and unidentified number of said ticket and substituting
In writing in ink at the bottom on the left side the number 074000, thus
Making said ticket bear a prize-winning number. He was convicted of
Attempted estafa thru falsification of an obligation or security and sentenced
To an indeterminate penalty of from 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor to
12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal, and to pay a fine of p100 plus the
Costs. (people vs. Balmores, 85 phil. 497)
Note: the accused was convicted of the complex crime of attempted
Estafa through falsification of an obligation or security of the philippines,
Because he attempted to cash the ticket so altered as one with a prizewinning
Number.
"obligation or security of the united states."
Now that the philippines is independent of the united states, is the
Forging of the obligation or security of the united states punishable under
Paragraph no. 1 of article 166?
The provisions of art. 166 relative to u.s. Obligations were repealed
Upon the grant of independence to the philippines. (people vs. Loteyro, c.a.,
50 o.g. 632)
In the case of people vs. Santiago, et al., c.a, 48 o.g. 4401, it was
Held that script money (u.s. Payment military certificate used as legal
Tender payable to bearer in place of the dollar currency within u.s. Military
Installations in the philippines) is expressly covered in the definition of
"obligation or security of the united states" given in the second paragraph,
No. 1 of article 166 of the code.
Art. 166 forging treasury or bank notes
Or other documents
Note: with due respect to the ruling of the court of appeals, it is
Believed that the words "united states" in article 166 were written there,
Because when the revised penal code was enacted, the philippines was yet
A colony of the united states.
It would seem that the script money should be considered a document
Issued by a foreign government under paragraph no. 3 of article 166. (see
People vs. Esteban, ca-g.r. No. 11621-r, aug. 22, 1955).
Meaning of "obligation or security" of the philippines.
The words "obligation or security x x x of the philippine islands" shall
Be held to mean all —
(a) bonds,
(b) certificates of indebtedness,
(c) national bank notes,
(d) coupons,
(e) treasury notes,
(f) fractional notes,
(g) certificates of deposits,
(h) bills,
(i) checks,
0) drafts for money,
(k) and other representatives of value issued under any act of
Congress.
Money bills issued by the central bank are national bank notes.
The p5-bills, plo-bills, p20-bills etc., issued by the central bank of
The philippines are national bank notes.
Philippine national bank checks are commercial documents, not
Covered by art. 166.
The falsification of philippine national bank checks is not forgery
Under art. 166 of the revised penal code, but falsification of commercial
Documents under art. 172 in connection with art. 171 of the code. (people
Vs. Samson, ca-g.r. Nos. 12011-12-r, oct. 13, 1955; people vs. Cruz, cag.r.
Nos. 12898-99-r, oct. 13, 1955)
The falsification of a u.s. Depository war damage check for the purpose
Of cashing the same constitutes estafa through falsification of an official and
Commercial document. (arts. 315 and 172) (see furia vs. Court of appeals
101 phil. 623).
Art. 167. Counterfeiting, importing, and uttering
Instruments not payable to bearer. — any person who shall
Forge, import, or utter, in connivance with the forgers
Or importers, any instrument payable to order or other
Document of credit not payable to bearer, shall suffer the
Penalties of prision correccional in its medium and maximum
Periods 1 1
And a fine not exceeding 6,000 pesos.
Elements:
1. That there be an instrument payable to order or other document of
Credit not payable to bearer.
2. That the offender either forged, imported or uttered such instrument.
3. That in case of uttering, he connived with the forger or importer.
Application of art. 167 is limited to instruments payable to order.
The counterfeiting under art. 167 must involve an instrument payable
To order or other document of credit not payable to bearer.
The instrument is payable to order where it is drawn payable to the
Order of a specified person or to him or his order. (negotiable instruments
Law, sec. 8) it is negotiated by indorsement and delivery.
Does this article cover instruments or other documents of credit
Issued by a foreign government or bank?
It is believed that it includes such instruments or documents of credit,
Because the act punished includes that of importing, without specifying the
Country or government issuing them.
If the document is payable to bearer, there is no doubt that it may be
Issued by a foreign government or bank. Art. 166, pars. 3 and 4, cover such
Documents.

Falsification of u.s. Treasury warrants.

The falsification of u.s. Treasury warrants not payable to bearer is
Punished under art. 172, not under art. 167. (people vs. Loteyro, c.a., 50
O.g. 632)
But in the case of people vs. Esteban, et al., c.a., 55 o.g. 3510, the
Prosecution for uttering forged u.s. Treasury warrants was made under art.
166.
Reason for punishing forgery.
Forgery of currency is punished so as to maintain the integrity of
The currency and thus insure the credit standing of the government and
Prevent the imposition on the public and the government of worthless notes
Or obligations. (people vs. Galano, c.a, 54 o.g. 5897)
Connivance is not required in uttering if the utterer is the forger.
The utterer should not be the forger. If the utterer was the one who
Forged the instrument payable to order, obviously connivance is not required,
For he can be held liable as a forger of the instrument. (people vs. Orqueza,
14 c.a. Rep. 730)
Art. 168. Illegal possession and use of false treasury or
Bank notes and other instruments of credit. — unless the act
Be one of those coming under the provisions of any of the
Preceding articles, any person who shall knowingly us e or
Have in his possession, with intent to us e any of the false or
Falsified instruments referred to in this section, shall suffer
The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed in said
Articles.
Elements:
1. That any treasury or bank note or certificate or other obligation and
Security payable to bearer, or any instrument payable to order or
Other document of credit not payable to bearer is forged or falsified by
Another person.
2. That the offender knows that any of those instruments is forged or
Falsified.
3. That he performs any of these acts —
A. Using any of such forged or falsified instruments; or
B. Possessing with intent to use any of such forged or falsified
Instruments.
Intent to possess is not intent to use.
Possession of false treasury or bank notes alone is not a criminal
Offense. For it to constitute an offense under article 168 of the penal code,
The possession must be with intent to use said false treasury or bank notes.
Hence, it follows that an information alleging possession of false treasury
And bank notes without alleging intent to use the same but only "intent to
Possess" them, charges no offense. (people vs. Digoro, g.r. No. L-22032,
March 4, 1966)
How to prove that a bank note is forged.
Evidence must be presented that the number which the questioned
Bank note bears does not check with the genuine one issued with the same
Number. (people vs. Barraquia, 76 phil. 490)
The accused must have knowledge of the forged character of the
Note.
Thus, where the accused in aiding his brother to utter a counterfeit
Bank note was not aware of its counterfeit character, he was not guilty of
Illegal possession and use of false bank note. (u.s. Vs. De leon, et al., 4 phil.
496)
Conduct of the accused considered to establish knowledge of
Forgery.
1. Buying eggs worth p0.30 at one instance, and making a purchase of
P0.50 at another instance, paying in each instance a false ten-peso
Bill, receiving on both occasions the proper amount of change in lawful
Money, and when arrested and asked by a policeman to explain the
Possession of the same, the offender refused to make any explanation,
Stating he would know what to say in court. In court, he failed to
Explain his possession of the forged bank bills. (people vs. Co pao, 58
Phil. 545)
2. When somebody discovered that the p20-bill to be changed was forged,
The owner snatched it from the one who was examining it and tore it
To pieces. (people vs. Quinto, 60 phil. 351)
3. The accused at first denied to the policeman who was conducting the
Search that he had counterfeit five-peso bills in his possession and
Although he knew that the policeman was after the forged bills as
Mentioned in the search warrant, he said he had only a revolver
Without license to mislead the policeman. When the policeman insisted
In the further search, he delivered to him the package of counterfeit
Bills concealed in a straw hat. (people vs. Vacani, 61 phil. 796)
Possession of counterfeit u.s. $20 bills is punished under art. 168.
Possession of counterfeit u.s. $20 bills is punished under art. 168,
Because the counterfeit dollar bills are comprehended in the words, "any of
The false or falsified instruments referred to in this section," of art. 168. It
Is incumbent upon the person in possession thereof to satisfactorily explain
His innocence for said possession, it being a fact relied upon by him as a
Justification or excuse and which lies peculiarly within his knowledge.
(people vs. Perez, ca-g.r. No. 12581-r, jan. 31, 1955)
A person in possession of falsified document and who makes use
Of the same is presumed to be material author of falsification.
The evidence conclusively proves that samson, as the representative
Or collector of the supposed creditor, carried construction supply co.,
Handcarried the vouchers in question to the offices of the provincial engineer,
Treasurer and auditor and the back to the treasurer's office for payment. He
Actually received the cash payments. Under those circumstances, samson
Is presumed to be the forger of the vouchers. 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 specially 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. (people vs. Sendaydiego, 82 scra
120)
Intent to use is sufficient to consummate the crime when the offender
Is in possession of false or falsified obligations or notes.
Although the bogus ploo-bill was not accepted by the person to whom
It was handed in the course of a transaction (it was offered in payment of
10 chickens), the crime is consummated. (people vs. Santos, c.a., 47 o.g.
3587)
But in a case where the accused, instead of carrying out his intention,
Threw away the forged note, it was held that he was not liable whatever
Might be his motive in getting rid of it, for the law will not close the door of
Repentance on him, who, having set foot on the path of crime, retraces his
Steps before it is too late. (people vs. Padilla, c.a., 36 o.g. 2404)
Mere possession of false money bill, without intent to use it to the
Damage of another, is not a crime.
Thus, a person who had a counterfeited p50-bill under the glass of his
Table among other objects as decoration, is not liable for illegal possession of
False bank note, there being no intent to use it to the damage of another.
Accused has the burden to give satisfactory explanation of his
Possession of forged bills.
The failure of the accused to explain satisfactorily his possession of
The counterfeit bills means either (1) that he forged them himself, or (2) that
He knows who falsified them, but he does not want to divulge him. (people
Vs. De la roca, c.a., 40 o.g. Supp. 4, 328)
The possession of 100 falsified p20-bills can not indicate anything
Except, first, the knowledge which the appellant had of the falsity of said
Bills and, second, the intention of the appellant to utter said bills. (people
Vs. Luis sane, c.a., 40 o.g., supp. 5, 113)
Is it an impossible crime when the act performed would have been
A crime of illegal possession of false treasury notes?
Certain one-peso, ten-peso, and twenty-peso treasury notes were so
Made by pressing a genuine treasury note against a coupon bond, saturated
With chemicals. All the printed matter in the treasury note is inversely
Reproduced in the coupon bond. Their appearance carries an inherent
Impossibility for anyone to accept them as genuine money. Held: this case
Falls within the purview of paragraph 2, article 4, in relation to article 59
Of the revised penal code. (people vs. Casals, et al, ca-g.r. No. 12455-r,
May 17, 1955)
Note: in impossible crimes under paragraph 2 of article 4 of the code,
The act performed would have been an offense against persons or property.
Forging or falsification of treasury notes is neither an offense against
Persons nor an offense against property.