ARTICLE 160. Quasi-Recidivism Who? Nature? 4 REPEATITION OF CRIMES UNDER THE RPC: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Article 14, paragraph 9 on Recidivism; Article 14, paragraph 10 on Habituality or Reiteraccion; Article 62, paragraph 5 on habitual delinquency; and Article 160 on Quasi- Recidivism.

Both recidivism and reiteraccion are only generic aggravating circumstance which could be offset by any ordinary mitigating circumstance. Habitual delinquency is not an aggravating circumstance. It is only a special factor which, if present, the court will impose an additional penalty. It is not increasing the penalty in its maximum period. The penalty for the last conviction shall be imposed. But because of habitual delinquency, an additional penalty shall be imposed. Lastly, when the offender, when convicted is pronounced as a quasi-recidivist, then the penalty for that conviction shall be imposed in its maximum period. Therefore, quasirecidivism is a special aggravating circumstance. It means it could not be offset by any ordinary mitigating circumstance. That is what distinguishes a generic aggravating from a special aggravating. Who is a quasi-recidivist? He is one who has been convicted by final judgment of any crime whether punished by special law or by the RPC and then before serving sentence or while already serving sentence, he commits a new felony. If he is convicted of this new felony, then he becomes a quasi-recidivist and the penalty for that new felony shall be imposed in its maximum period even if he surrenders or voluntarily enters a plea of guilty. Take note that that new felony is a crime punishable by the RPC. To illustrate, X has committed the crime of robbery which is a felony and was convicted by final judgment. While serving sentence, he violates a special law. He was arrested while actually smoking marijuana which is a violation of a special law. He was convicted of this last crime. Is he a quasi-recidivist? The answer is no because Illegal Possession of Marijuana is not a felony. On the other hand, X was convicted of Illegal Possession of Unlicensed Firearm. He was convicted by final judgment and was made to serve the maximum period of six years (6) of prision correccional. While serving sentence, he commits the crime of Frustrated homicide. Frustrated homicide is a felony. If he is convicted of the crime, he will be sentenced in its maximum period because he becomes a quasi-recidivist having committed the felony while serving sentence. Now, the accused is convicted of homicide which is a felony embraced in title 8 of the RPC. While serving sentence, he commits frustrated homicide also a felony embraced in the same title 8 of the RPC. Which will apply? It is Recidivism or Quasi-

recidivism? The purpose of the penalty imposed for quasi-recidivism is to punish the perversity of the accused to commit crimes. So it is not recidivism that shall apply if the felony committed is during service of sentence. It is Quasi-recidivism not recidivism. The penalty shall be raised in its maximum period and could not be offset by any ordinary mitigating circumstance.

CRIMES UNDER TITLE FOUR (4) Crimes Against Public Interest. This is about forgery. ART 161. This pertains to counterfeiting the great seal of the Government of the Philippines, forging the signature or stamp of the Chief Executive. The falsification of the signature of the president is a special kind of falsification because the penalty is reclusion temporal. The same penalty imposed for the crime of homicide. Not all forging of the signature of the president is penalized by this kind of penalty. Usually, the penalty would be lower. That is why this is a special kind of falsification. It is the forging of the signature of the president on official papers or documents requiring the personal signature of the president in his official capacity. One that could not be signed by the executive secretary or any officer in the government representing the Republic of the Philippines. It is required in that document that only the signature of the president should be affixed. Examples are designation of ambassadors and appointment of justices of the supreme court. They should be signed by no less than the President himself. No other party can sign the appointment of ambassadors and justices of the supreme court or even the judges of the inferior courts. For example, Pres. Noynoy has several parcels of land covered by several transfer certificates of title entrusted to his assistant. This assistant forged the signature of the president making it appear that the president executed a deed of sale conveying one of the above-mentioned parcels of land to him. That act of falsification could not be covered by article 161 of the RPC because the falsification is with regard to a document which if it were genuine would only require the signature of the president in his personal capacity. The crime would only be punishable under Article 171 or 172 of the RPC. Suppose the offender forged the signature of the president making it appear that the president is appointing a judge of the MTC. In this case the crime committed is the special kind of falsification punishable under ART 161 of the RPC. To be become guilty of use of signature under ART 162, he should not be the forger of the document. It must be one that has come in his possession and he has knowledge that the signature of the person whose name appears in the document is forged. But he were the forger, there is only one crime and that is under Article 161 of the RPC. The use of it is already absorbed in the crime. Article 163-165 speaks of coins either mutilated coins or false coins. But the favorite source of bar exam question is Article No. 168 on Illegal possession and use of false treasury or bank notes and other instruments of credit. The offender must be in possession of counterfeit or false bank notes which includes American

dollars or Canadian dollars or other currencies of different states. The second element is that he is in possession of those counterfeit currencies of bank note or instruments of credit knowing them to be counterfeit. And the third element is that he has used it or utter it or intends to utter it. HELD: a collection of counterfeit bank notes displayed on the office table of a person covered by a transparent glass is not guilty under Article 168 of the RPC because although, he is in possession of the counterfeited bank notes, he has no intention of using them. However, in one case where the fake bank notes were found in the wallet of the accused together with the genuine bank notes, the accused posed the defense that he had no intention to use or utter the same. The SC refused to appreciate the defense of the accused. According to the SC, once a person is found to be in possession of several pieces of counterfeit bank notes mixed with genuine bills or notes in the same wallet, it is presumed that he has knowledge of the counterfeit bills and that he has the intentioned to use or utter it. Circumstantially, the evidence of the crime were proven. Now, there are four (4) ways of committing forgery as mentioned in Article 169.

ART 170. Falsification of Legislative Documents. There is only one way of committing falsification of legislative documents. What are these documents? These are bills, resolutions, or ordinance enacted whether by Congress or any of the two houses or those passed by the Sangguniang Panglungsod or the Sangguniang Panlalawigan or Sanguniang Pambayan (Municipal Council). There is no mention of the ordinances passed by barangay council. But it does not mean that if the offender falsified a resolution or ordinance enacted by the barangay council, it is not prosecuted under the RPC. The accused can still be prosecuted under for falsification of public document that will fall under article 171 or 172 of the RPC as the case may be. But not in Article 170. There is only one way and that is by making alteration in the Legislative document without authority and the alteration changes the meaning of the document. So even if there is an alteration which changes the meaning but it is with authority, it does not constitute violation under Article 170 of the RPC. Even if there is an alteration without authority but the alteration does not change the meaning of that legislative document, then there is no falsification under Article 170. We also have the other kinds of falsification under the RPC. Falsification of public documents, of official documents, of private documents and of commercial documents. What is a document for purposes of applying article 171 and 172? A document is any deed or instrument or writing which creates rights or extinguishes an obligation. An affidavit is not a

document for that purpose because an affidavit is merely a declaration in writing. Another definition of a document is any deed or writing by which an agreement is set forth or as evidence thereof. Any of these two definitions must always be found in your answer. What is a public document? A public document is that document where, in the preparation thereof, authorized officers or notary public enters in. What are official documents? Official documents are documents which by virtue of the position is issued in exigency of public service. And what is a commercial document? It is any document which facilitates trade or commerce which is regulated by our commercial law or other mercantile law. Finally, what is a private document? A private document is any deed, instrument or writing which creates rights or extinguishes and entered into between private individuals without the intervention of notary public or any public officer. How do you distinguish falsification of public documents from falsification of private documents. Falsification of public document is consummated whenever act of falsification is committed on it because what is punished here is the violation of public faith or the destruction of public truth which that public document solemnly proclaims. There falsification of private document is committed when a private document is falsified by any of the means mentioned in Article 171 and coupled with other elements of damage and intent. In falsification of public document, intent to cause damage is not an element of the crime because what is damaged in falsification of public document is public interest. In falsification of private document there must be damaged to a third person or intent to cause damage. The two elements of falsification and damage must always concur. Moreover, another distinction is that in falsification of public documents could be complexed with estafa but not with falsification of private document because of the application of the so-called Principle of COMMON ELEMENTS OF CRIMES. This principle states that when an element of a crime has been utilized to form out one crime, such element can no longer be used to form out another crime. Article 171 always carries the penalty of prission mayor which necessary falls within the jurisdiction of the RTC. But violation of Article 173 since the penalty is prission correccional, false within the jurisdiction of the MTC. Those offenses whose penalties do not exceed 6 years imprisonment generally fall within the jurisdiction of the MTC. But there are crimes where even if the penalties do not exceed 6 years, they fall within the jurisdiction of the RTC. An example of this is the crime of libel because of the express provision of the RPC. Who could be the offender in Article 171? There are three offenders mentioned in the caption thereof. These are public officers/employees who take advantage of their public position who are normally the custodian of the public documents and who are authorized to issue the same, notary public, or ecclesiastical minister only if the falsification affects the civil status of a fellow otherwise it would fall under Article. 172.