TITLE FOUR 16. Usurpation of authority or official functions (Art.

177);
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST
17. Using fictitious name and concealing true name (Art. 178);
Crimes against public interest
18. Illegal use of uniforms or insignia (Art. 179);
1. Counterfeiting the great seal of the Government of the Philippines (Art. 161);
19. False testimony against a defendant (Art. 180);
2. Using forged signature or counterfeiting seal or stamp (Art. 162);
20. False testimony favorable to the defendant (Art. 181);
3. Making and importing and uttering false coins (Art. 163);
21. False testimony in civil cases (Art. 182);
4. Mutilation of coins, importation and uttering of mutilated coins (Art. 164);
22. False testimony in other cases and perjury (Art. 183);
5. Selling of false or mutilated coins, without connivance (Art. 165);
23. Offering false testimony in evidence (Art. 184);
6. Forging treasury or bank notes or other documents payable to bearer, importing
and uttering of such false or forged notes and documents (Art. 166); 24. Machinations in public auction (Art. 185);

7. Counterfeiting, importing and uttering instruments not payable to bearer (Art. 25. Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade (Art. 186);
167); 26. Importation and disposition of falsely marked articles or merchandise made of
8. Illegal possession and use of forged treasury or bank notes and other instruments gold, silver, or other precious metals or their alloys (Art. 187);
of credit (Art. 168);
27. Substituting and altering trade marks and trade names or service marks (Art. 188);
9. Falsification of legislative documents (Art. 170);
28. Unfair competition and fraudulent registration of trade mark or trade name, or
10. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary (Art. 171); service mark; fraudulent designation of origin, and false description (Art. 189).

11. Falsification by private individuals and use of falsified documents (Art. 172);
The crimes in this title are in the nature of fraud or falsity to the public. The essence of the
12. Falsification of wireless, cable, telegraph and telephone messages and use of said crime under this title is that which defraud the public in general. There is deceit perpetrated
falsified messages (Art. 173); upon the public. This is the act that is being punished under this title.

13. False medical certificates, false certificates of merit or service (Art. 174);
14. Using false certificates (Art. 175);
15. Manufacturing and possession of instruments or implements for falsification (Art.
176);
Article 161
COUNTERFEITING GREAT SEAL OF GOVERNMENT
TYPES:
a. Forging the great seal of the Government
b. Forging the signature of the President
c. Forging the stamp of the President
When the signature of the President is forged, it is not falsification but forging of
signature under this article
Signature must be forged, others signed it not the President. 3.
Article 162
USING FORGED SIGNATURE OR COUNTERFEIT SEAL OR STAMP
ELEMENTS:
a. That the great seal of the republic was counterfeited or the signature or
stamp of the chief executive was forged by another person.
b. That the offender knew of the counterfeiting or forgery.
c. That he used the counterfeit seal or forged signature or stamp.
Offender is NOT the forger/not the cause of the counterfeiting
Article 163
MAKING AND IMPORTING AND UTTERING FALSE COINS
ELEMENTS :
a. That there be false or counterfeited coins (need not be legal tender).
b. That the offender either made, imported or uttered such coins.
c. That in case of uttering such false or counterfeited coins, he connives with
counterfeiters or importers.
Coin is counterfeit if it is forged, or if it is not an article of the government as legal
tender, regardless if it is of no value
Kinds of coins the counterfeiting of which is punished
1. Silver coins of the Philippines or coins of the Central Bank of the Philippines;
2. Coins of the minor coinage of the Philippines or of the Central Bank of the
Philippines;
Coin of the currency of a foreign country.
Counterfeiting imitation of legal or genuine coin (may contain more silver, different
design) such as to deceive an ordinary person in believing it to be genuine
Utter to pass counterfeited coins, deliver or give away
Import to bring to port the same
Both Philippine and foreign state coins
Applies also to coins withdrawn from circulation
Essence of article: making of coins without authority
Acts punished
1. Mutilating coins of the legal currency, with the further requirements that there be
intent to damage or to defraud another;
2. Importing or uttering such mutilated coins, with the further requirement that there
must be connivances with the mutilator or importer in case of uttering.
The first acts of falsification or falsity are
(1) Counterfeiting refers to money or currency;
(2) Forgery refers to instruments of credit and obligations and securities issued by the coin, the crime of mutilation is committed.
the Philippine government or any banking institution authorized by the Philippine
government to issue the same; The offender must deliberately reduce the precious metal in the coin. Deliberate intent
arises only when the offender collects the precious metal dust from the mutilated coin. If
(3) Falsification can only be committed in respect of documents. the offender does not collect such dust, intent to mutilate is absent, but Presidential Decree
No. 247 will apply.
In so far as coins in circulation are concerned, there are two crimes that may be
committed: Article 164
MULTILATION OF COINS IMPORTATION AND UTTERANCE:
(1) Counterfeiting coins -- This is the crime of remaking or manufacturing without
any authority to do so. This has been repealed by PD 247. (Defacement, Mutilation, Tearing, Burning or
Destroying Central Bank Notes and Coins)
In the crime of counterfeiting, the law is not concerned with the fraud upon the public such
that even though the coin is no longer legal tender, the act of imitating or manufacturing Under this PD, the acts punishable are:
the coin of the government is penalized. In punishing the crime of counterfeiting, the law a. willful defacement
wants to prevent people from trying their ingenuity in their imitation of the manufacture of b. mutilation
money. c. tearing
d. burning
(2) Mutilation of coins -- This refers to the deliberate act of diminishing the proper e. destruction of Central Bank notes
metal contents of the coin either by scraping, scratching or filling the edges of the and coins
coin and the offender gathers the metal dust that has been scraped from the coin.
Mutilation to take off part of the metal either by filling it or substituting it for another
Requisites of mutilation under the Revised Penal Code metal of inferior quality, to diminish by inferior means (to diminish metal contents).

(1) Coin mutilated is of legal tender; Foreign notes and coins not included. Must be legal tender.

(2) Offender gains from the precious metal dust abstracted from the coin; and Must be intention to mutilate.

(3) It has to be a coin. Mutilation under the Revised Penal Code is true only to coins. It cannot be a crime under
the Revised Penal Code to mutilate paper bills because the idea of mutilation under the
a There is no expertise involved here. In mutilation of coins under the Revised Penal code is collecting the precious metal dust. However, under Presidential Decree No. 247,
Code, the offender does nothing but to scrape, pile or cut the coin and collect the dust mutilation is not limited to coins.
and, thus, diminishing the intrinsic value of the coin.
Mutilation of coins is a crime only if the coin mutilated is legal tender. If it is not legal
tender anymore, no one will accept it, so nobody will be defrauded. But if the coin is of
legal tender, and the offender minimizes or decreases the precious metal dust content of
 Questions & Answers

1. The people playing cara y cruz, before they throw the coin in the air would rub
the money to the sidewalk thereby diminishing the intrinsic value of the coin. Is the crime
of mutilation committed?
Mutilation, under the Revised Penal Code, is not committed because they do not
collect the precious metal content that is being scraped from the coin. However, this will
amount to violation of Presidential Decree No. 247.
2. When the image of Jose Rizal on a five-peso bill is transformed into that of
Randy Santiago, is there a violation of Presidential Decree No. 247?
Yes. Presidential Decree No. 247 is violated by such act.
4. An old woman who was a cigarette vendor in Quiapo refused to accept one-
centavo coins for payment of the vendee of cigarettes he purchased. Then came the police
who advised her that she has no right to refuse since the coins are of legal tender. On this,
the old woman accepted in her hands the one-centavo coins and then threw it to the face of
the vendee and the police. Was the old woman guilty of violating Presidential Decree No.
247?

She was guilty of violating Presidential Decree No. 247 because if no one ever
picks up the coins, her act would result in the diminution of the coin in circulation.
5. A certain customer in a restaurant wanted to show off and used a P 20.00 bill to
light his cigarette. Was he guilty of violating Presidential Decree No. 247?
He was guilty of arrested for violating of Presidential Decree No. 247. Anyone
who is in possession of defaced money is the one who is the violator of Presidential Decree
No. 247. The intention of Presidential Decree No. 247 is not to punish the act of defrauding
the public but what is being punished is the act of destruction of money issued by the
Central Bank of the Philippines.
Note that persons making bracelets out of some coins violate Presidential Decree No.
247. On counterfeiting coins, it is immaterial whether the coin is legal tender or not because the
intention of the law is to put an end to the practice of imitating money and to discourage
The primary purpose of Presidential Decree No. 247 at the time it was ordained was to anyone who might entertain the idea of imitating money (People vs. Kong Leon).
stop the practice of people writing at the back or on the edges of the paper bills, such as
"wanted: pen pal". Article 166
FORGING TREASURY OR BANK NOTES IMPORTING AND UTTERING
So, if the act of mutilating coins does not involve gathering dust like playing cara y cruz,
that is not mutilation under the Revised Penal Code because the offender does not collect Acts punishable:
the metal dust. But by rubbing the coins on the sidewalk, he also defaces and destroys the a. Forging or falsity of treasury/bank notes or documents payable to bearer
coin and that is punishable under Presidential Decree No. 247.
b. Importing of such notes
Article 165 c. Uttering of such false or forged obligations and notes in connivance with
SELLING OF FALSE OR MUTILATED COIN, WITHOUT CONNIVANCE forgers and importers
7. 2 Types Forging by giving a treasury or bank note or document payable to bearer/order an
i Possession of coin, counterfeited or mutilated by another person, with intent appearance of a true and genuine document
to utter the same, knowing that it is false or mutilated.
Falsification by erasing, substituting, counterfeiting or altering by any means the
ELEMENTS: figures and letters, words, signs contained therein
possession
E.g. falsifying lotto or sweepstakes ticket. Attempted estafa through falsification of
with intent to utter, and an obligation or security of the Phil
knowledge PNB checks not included here its falsification of commercial document under
Article 172
ii Actually uttering such false or mutilated coin, knowing the same to be false
or mutilated. Obligation or security includes: bonds, certificate of indebtedness, bills, national bank
notes, coupons, treasury notes, certificate of deposits, checks, drafts for money,
ELEMENTS: sweepstakes money
actually uttering, and
If the falsification is done on a document that is classified as a government security, then
knowledge. the crime is punished under Article 166. On the other hand, if it is not a government
security, then the offender may either have violated Article 171 or 172.
8. Possession does not require legal tender in foreign coins

9. Includes constructive possession

Article 167
COUNTERFEITING, IMPORTING, AND UTTERING INSTRUMENTS NOT
PAYABLE TO BEARER
ELEMENTS :
a. That there be an instrument payable to order or other document of credit not
payable to bearer.
b. That the offender either forged, imported or uttered such instruments.
c. That in case of uttering, he connived with the forger or importer
Article 168
ILLEGAL POSSESSION AND USE OF FALSE TREASURY OR BANK NOTES
AND OTHER INSTRUMENT OF CREDIT
ELEMENTS:
a. 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.
b. That the offender knows that any of those instruments is forged or falsified.
c. That he performs any of these acts
1. using any of such forged or falsified instrument, or
2. possessing with intent to use any of such forged or falsified
instrument.
Act sought to be punished: Knowingly possessing with intent to use any of such forged
treasury or bank notes
Article 169
FORGERY
How forgery is committed:
a. 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
b. by erasing, substituting, counterfeiting, altering by any means the figures, letters
or words, or signs contained therein.
if all acts done but genuine appearance is not given, the crime is frustrated
Forgery under the Revised Penal Code applies to papers, which are in the form of
obligations and securities issued by the Philippine government as its own obligations,
which is given the same status as legal tender. Generally, the word counterfeiting is not
used when it comes to notes; what is used is forgery. Counterfeiting refers to money,
whether coins or bills.
Notice that mere change on a document does not amount to this crime. The essence of
forgery is giving a document the appearance of a true and genuine document. Not any
alteration of a letter, number, figure or design would amount to forgery. At most, it would
only be frustrated forgery.
When what is being counterfeited is obligation or securities, which under the Revised Penal
Code is given a status of money or legal tender, the crime committed is forgery.
Questions & Answers
1. Instead of the peso sign (P), somebody replaced it with a dollar sign ($). Was
the crime of forgery committed?
No. Forgery was not committed. The forged instrument and currency note must be
given the appearance of a true and genuine document. The crime committed is a violation
of Presidential Decree No. 247. Where the currency note, obligation or security has been
changed to make it appear as one which it purports to be as genuine, the crime is forgery.
In checks or commercial documents, this crime is committed when the figures or words are
changed which materially alters the document. (1) Falsification of legislative documents;
(2) Falsification of a document by a public officer, employee or notary public;
2. An old man, in his desire to earn something, scraped a digit in a losing
sweepstakes ticket, cut out a digit from another ticket and pasted it there to match the series
(3) Falsification of a public or official, or commercial documents by a private
of digits corresponding to the winning sweepstakes ticket. He presented this ticket to the
individual;
Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office. But the alteration is so crude that even a child can
notice that the supposed digit is merely superimposed on the digit that was scraped. Was (4) Falsification of a private document by any person;
the old man guilty of forgery?
(5) Falsification of wireless, telegraph and telephone messages.
NO Because of the impossibility of deceiving whoever would be the person to
whom that ticket is presented, the Supreme Court ruled that what was committed was an The crime of falsification must involve a writing that is a document in the legal sense. The
impossible crime. Note, however, that the decision has been criticized. In a case like this, writing must be complete in itself and capable of extinguishing an obligation or creating
the Supreme Court of Spain ruled that the crime is frustrated. Where the alteration is such rights or capable of becoming evidence of the facts stated therein. Until and unless the
that nobody would be deceived, one could easily see that it is a forgery, the crime is writing has attained this quality, it will not be considered as document in the legal sense
frustrated because he has done all the acts of execution which would bring about the and, therefore, the crime of falsification cannot be committed in respect thereto.
felonious consequence but nevertheless did not result in a consummation for reasons
independent of his will. Distinction between falsification and forgery:

3. A person has a twenty-peso bill. He applied toothache drops on one side of the Falsification is the commission of any of the eight acts mentioned in Article 171 on
bill. He has a mimeograph paper similar in texture to that of the currency note and placed legislative (only the act of making alteration), public or official, commercial, or private
it on top of the twenty-peso bill and put some weight on top of the paper. After sometime, documents, or wireless, or telegraph messages.
he removed it and the printing on the twenty-peso bill was reproduced on the mimeo paper. The term forgery as used in Article 169 refers to the falsification and counterfeiting of
He took the reverse side of the P20 bill, applied toothache drops and reversed the mimeo
treasury or bank notes or any instruments payable to bearer or to order.
paper and pressed it to the paper. After sometime, he removed it and it was reproduced. He
cut it out, scraped it a little and went to a sari -sari store trying to buy a cigarette with that Note that forging and falsification are crimes under Forgeries.
bill. What he overlooked was that, when he placed the bill, the printing was inverted. He
was apprehended and was prosecuted and convicted of forgery. Was the crime of forgery
committed?
The Supreme Court ruled that it was only frustrated forgery because although the
offender has performed all the acts of execution, it is not possible because by simply
looking at the forged document, it could be seen that it is not genuine. It can only be a
consummated forgery if the document which purports to be genuine is given the
appearance of a true and genuine document. Otherwise, it is at most frustrated.
Five classes of falsification:
Article 170
FALSIFICATION OF LEGISLATIVE DOCUMENTS
ELEMENTS :
a. That these be a bill, resolution or ordinance enacted or approved or pending
approval by the national assembly or any provincial board or municipal council.
b. That the offender (any person) alters the same.
c. That he has no proper authority therefor.
d. That the alteration has changed the meaning of the document.
The words "municipal council" should include the city council or municipal board
Reyes.
Accused must not be a public official entrusted with the custody or possession of such
document otherwise Art 171 applies .
The falsification must be committed on a genuine, true and authentic legislative document.
If committed on a simulated, spurious or fabricated legislative document, the crime is not
punished under this article but under Article 171 or 172.
Article 171
FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS BY PUBLIC OFFICER, EMPLOYEE, OR
NOTARY OR ECCLESTASTICAL MINISTER
ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public.
b. That he takes advantage of his official position.
c. That he falsifies a document by committing any of
the following acts: 1. Counterfeiting or imitating
any handwriting, signature or rubric. Requisites:
i. That there be an intent to imitate, or an attempt to imitate
ii. That the two signatures or handwritings, the genuine and the forged,
bear some resemblance, to each other
(lack of similitude/imitation of a genuine signature will not be a
ground for conviction under par. 1 but such is not an impediment to
conviction under par. 2)
2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or
proceeding when they did not in fact so participate.
3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding
statements other than those in fact made by them.
Requisites:
i. That the offender caused it to appear in a document that a person/s
participated in an act or a proceeding; and
ii. That such person/s did not in fact so participate in the act or
proceeding
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
Requisites:
i. That the offender makes in a document statements in a narration
of facts
ii. That he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated
by him; (required by law to be done) and
iii. That the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false; and
iv. That the perversion or truth in the narration of facts was made with the
wrongful intent of injuring a third person
There must be a narration of facts, not a conclusion of law. Must be on a
material matter
For one to be held criminally liable for falsification under paragraph 4, the untruthful
statement must be such as to effect the integrity of the document or to change the effects
which it would otherwise produce.
Legal obligation means that there is a law requiring the disclosure
of the truth of the facts narrated. Ex. Residence certificates
The person making the narration of facts must be aware of the
falsity of the facts narrated by him. This kind of falsification may be
committed by omission
5. Altering true dates.
date must be essential
For falsification to take place under this paragraph, the date of the document must be
material to the right created or to the obligation that is extinguished.
6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which
changes its meaning.
Requisites:
i. That there be an alteration (change) or intercalation (insertion) on
a document
ii. That it was made on a genuine document
iii. That the alteration/intercalation has changed the meaning of the
document
iv. That the change made the document speak something false.
10. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of
an original document when no such original exists, or including in such
copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original;
(if no knowledge, falsification through negligence) or
The acts of falsification mentioned in this paragraph are committed by a public officer or
by a notary public who takes advantage of his official position as custodian of the
document. It can also refer to a public officer or notary who prepared and retained a copy
of the document. The falsification can be done in two ways. It can be a certification
purporting to show that the document issued is a copy of the original on record when no
such original exists. It can also be in the form of a certification to the effect that the
document on file contains statements or including in the copy issued, entries which are not
found on contrary to, or different from the original genuine document on file.
8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a
protocol, registry, or official book. (genuine document)
d. In case the offender is an ecclesiastical minister, the act of falsification is
committed with respect to any record or document of such character that its
falsification may affect the civil status of persons.
There is no crime of attempted or frustrated falsification of public document
Alteration or changes to make the document speak the truth do not constitute
falsification. (US vs. Mateo, 25 Phil.
324)
Persons liable public officer, employee or notary public or ecclesiastical minister
Either he has duty to intervene in the preparation of the document or it may be a situation
wherein the public officer has official custody of the document.
So even if the offender is a public officer, if her causes the falsification of a document
which is not in his official custody or if the falsification committed by him is not related
whatsoever to the performance of his duties, he will still be liable for falsification but
definitely not under this Article but under Article 172. (falsification of documents by
a private person)
Document: Any written instrument which establishes a right or by which an obligation is
extinguished. A deed or agreement executed by a person setting forth any disposition or
condition wherein rights and obligations may arise.
Writing may be on anything as long as it is a product of the handwriting, it is
considered a document.
Not necessary that what is falsified is a genuine or real document, enough that it gives
 an appearance of a genuine article
As long as any of the acts of falsification is committed, whether the document is
genuine or not, the crime of falsification may be committed. Even totally false documents
may be falsified.
Counterfeiting imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric
Feigning simulating a signature, handwriting, or rubric out of one of which does not
in fact exist
It does not require that the writing be genuine. Even if the writing was through and
through false, if it appears to be genuine, the crime of falsification is nevertheless
committed.
There are four kinds of documents:
(1) Public document in the execution of which, a person in authority or notary public
has taken part;
(2) Official document in the execution of which a public official takes part;
(3) Commercial document or any document recognized by the Code of Commerce or
any commercial law; and
(4) Private document in the execution of which only private individuals take part.
Public document is broader than the term official document. Before a document may be
considered official, it must first be a public document. But not all public documents are
official documents. To become an official document, there must be a law which requires a
public officer to issue or to render such document. Example: A cashier is required to issue
an official receipt for the amount he receives. The official receipt is a public document
which is an official document.
Liability of a private individual in falsification by a public officer when there is
conspiracy.
Under Republic Act 7975, when a public officer who holds a position classified as Grade
27 or higher, commits a crime in relation to the performance of his official functions, the
case against him will fall under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. If a private person
is included in the accusation because of the existence of conspiracy in the commission of
the crime, the Sandiganbayan shall maintain jurisdiction over the person of the co-accused,
notwithstanding the fact that said co -accused is a private individual. If the public officer is
found guilty, the same liability and penalty shall be imposed on the private individual. (U.S.
vs. Ponce, 20 Phil. 379)
Article 172
FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC, OFFICIAL, OR COMMERCIAL DOCUMENT
BY A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL (par 1)
ELEMENTS
a. That the offender is a private individual or a public officer or employee who
did not take advantage of his official position.
b. That he committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated in ART. 171.
1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric.
2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or
proceeding when they did not in fact so participated.
3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding
statements other than those in fact made by them.
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
5. Altering true dates.
6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which
changes its meaning.
c. That the falsification was committed in any public or official or commercial
document.
Under this paragraph, damage is not essential, it is presumed
If the falsification of public, official or commercial documents, whether they be public
official or by private individuals, it is not necessary that there be present the idea of gain
or the intent to injure a third person. What is punished under the law is the violation of
public faith and the perversion of the truth as solemnly proclaimed by the nature of the
document. (Sarep vs. Sandiganbayan)
Defense: lack of malice or criminal intent
The following writings are public:
a. the written acts or records of acts of the sovereign authority of official bodies and
tribunals, and of the public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, whether of
the Philippines or of a foreign country.
b. Public records kept in the Philippines.
Examples of commercial documents warehouse receipts, airway bills, bank checks,
cash files, deposit slips and bank statements, journals, books, ledgers, drafts, letters of
credit and other negotiable instruments
There is a complex crime of estafa through falsification of public, official or commercial
document. In the crime of estafa, damage or intent to cause damage is not an element. It is
sufficient that the offender committed or performed the acts of falsification as defined and
punished under Article 171. The two offenses can co-exist as they have distinct elements
peculiar to their nature as a crime. When the falsification is committed because it is
necessary to commit estafa, what we have is a complex crime defined and punished under
Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code.
There is a complex crime of falsification of pubic documents through reckless
imprudence.
Cash disbursement vouchers or receipts evidencing payments are not commercial
documents
A mere blank form of an official document is not in itself a document
The possessor of falsified document is presumed to be the author of the falsification
FALSIFICATION UNDER PARAGRAPH 2 OF ART. 172. OF PRIVATE
DOCUMENT
ELEMENTS :
a. That the offender committed any of the acts of falsification, except those
in paragraph 7 and 8, enumerated in art. 171.
b. That the falsification was committed in any private document (must
affect the truth or integrity of the document)
c. That the falsification caused damage (essential element; hence, no crime
of estafa thru falsification of private document) to a third party or at least the
falsification was committed with intent to cause such damage.
Not necessary that the offender profited or hoped to profit from the falsification
Falsification of a private document is consummated when such document is actually
falsified with the intent to prejudice a third person whether such falsified document is or is
not thereafter put to illegal use for which it is intended. (Lopez vs. Paras, 36 Phil. 146)
What is emphasized at this point is the element of falsification of private document. There
must be intent to cause damage or damage is actually caused. The intention is therefore
must be malicious or there is deliberate intent to commit a wrong. Reckless imprudence is
incompatible with malicious intent.
Falsification is not a continuing offense
There is no falsification through reckless imprudence if the document is a private
document.
Falsification by omission
Mere falsification of a private document is not enough to commit crime under paragraph 2
of Article 172. Two acts must be done by the offender. 1) He must have performed in the
private document the falsification contemplated under Article 171. 2) He must have
performed an independent act which operates to cause damage or prejudice to a third
person. The third person mentioned herein may include the government. Damage is not
limited to money or pecuniary prejudice. Damage to ones honor, reputation or good name
is included.
A document falsified as a necessary means to commit another crime must be public,
official or commercial
There is no complex crime of estafa through falsification of a private document because
the immediate effect of the latter is the same as that of estafa
If a private document is falsified to cause damage to the offended party, the crime
committed is falsification of a private document. Remember that in estafa, damage or intent
to cause damage is an indispensable element of the crime. The same element is necessary
to commit the crime of falsification of private document. Since they have a common
element, such element cannot be divided into the two parts and considered as two separate
offenses.
There is no complex crime of estafa with falsification because deceit is a common element
of both. One and the same deceit or damage cannot give rise to more than one crime. It is
either estafa or falsification.
Criteria to determine whether the crime is estafa only or falsification only :
IF the falsification of the private document was essential in the commission of estafa
because the falsification, estafa cannot be committed, the crime is falsification; estafa
becomes the consequence of the crime.
IF the estafa can be committed even without resorting to falsification, the latter being
resorted only to facilitate estafa, the main crime is estafa; falsification is merely incidental,
since even without falsification, estafa can be committed.
If the estafa was already consummated at the time of the falsification of a private
document was committed for the purpose of concealing the estafa, the falsification is
not punishable, because as regards the falsification of the private document there was
no damage or intent to cause damage.
A private document which is falsified to obtain money from offended party is a
falsification of private document only.
A private document may acquire the character of a public document when it becomes
part of an official record and is certified by a public officer duly authorized by law
The crime is falsification of public documents even if falsification took place before
the private document becomes part of the public records
Examples:
An employee of a private company who punches the bundy clock on behalf on a co-
employee is guilty of falsification of a private document.
One who will take the civil service examination for another and makes it appear that he is
the examinee is guilty of falsification of a public document.
USE OF FALSIFIED DOCUMENT (par. 3, art. 172)
ELEMENTS:
a. Introducing in a judicial proceeding:
1. That the offender knew that a document was falsified by another
person.
2. That the false document is embraced in art. 171 or in any subdivisions
nos. 1 and 2 of art.
172.
3. That he introduced said document in evidence in any judicial
proceeding. (intent to cause damage not necessary)
b. Use in any other transaction:
1. That the offender knew that a document was falsified by another
person.
2. That the false document is embraced in art. 171 or in any of
subdivisions nos. 1 and 2 of art. 172
 3. That he used such documents (not in judicial proceedings). Article 173
FALSIFICATION OF WIRELESS, CABLE, TELEGRAPH, AND TELEPHONE
4. That the use of the documents caused damage to another or at least MESSAGES, AND USE OF SAID FALSIFIED MESSAGES
was used with intent to cause such damage.
Acts punishable:
The user of the falsified document is deemed the author of falsification, if: 1. Uttering fictitious, wireless, telegraph or
a. the use is so closely connected in time with the falsification telephone message Requisites:
a. That the offender is an officer or employee of the government
b. the user had the capacity of falsifying the document
or an officer or employee of a private corporation, engaged in the service
Falsification of Private of sending or receiving wireless, cable or telephone message.
Documents Falsification of Public/Official Documents
Prejudice to third party is an element Prejudice to third persons is immaterial, what is b. That the accused commits any of the following acts:
of the punished is the
violation of public faith and perversion of truth - uttering fictitious wireless, cable, telegraph, or telephone
offense. which the message, or
document proclaims. - falsifying wireless, cable, telegraph, or telephone message

Rules to observe in the use of a falsified document. 2. Falsifying wireless, telegraph or telephone message
1. It is a crime when knowingly introduced in a judicial proceeding even if there is not Requisites:
intent to cause damage to another. Knowingly introducing a falsified document in a a. That the offender is an officer or employee of the government
judicial proceeding, the use alone is not a crime. The mere introduction of the forged or an officer or employee of a private corporation, engaged in the service
document is the crime itself. But when the falsified document is knowingly of sending or receiving wireless, cable or telephone message.
introduced in an administrative proceeding, the use alone is not a crime. There must b. That the accused commits any of the following acts:
be intent to cause damage or damage is actually inflicted.
- uttering fictitious wireless, cable, telegraph, or telephone
2. Falsification of document is a separate and distinct offense from that of the use of message, or
falsified documents. So if the falsification of document was done or performed - falsifying wireless, cable, telegraph, or telephone message
because it was necessary to the use of the same and in the commission of the crime,
3. Using such falsified message
then we may have a complex crime defined and punished under Article 48 of the
Requisites:
Revised Penal Code.
a. That the accused knew that wireless, cable, telegraph, or
3. Good faith is a defense in falsification of public document. telephone message was falsified by any of the person specified in the
first paragraph of art. 173.
b. That the accused used such falsified dispatch.
c. That the use of the falsified dispatch resulted in the prejudice of
 a third party, or that the use thereof was with intent to cause such authorized to receive and administer oath.
prejudice.
c. That in that statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful and
deliberate assertion of a falsehood, and
c. That the testimony must be false.
d. That the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required
d. That the false testimony must be given by the defendant knowing the by law.
same to be false.
2 ways of committing perjury:
e. That the testimony must be malicious and given with an intent to affect a. by falsely testifying under oath
the issues presented in the said case b. by making a false statement

Not applicable when testimony given in a special proceeding (in this case, the Subornation of perjury: procures another to swear falsely.
crime is perjury)
Solemn affirmation: refers to non-judicial proceedings and affidavits
Basis of penalty: amount involved in the civil case
A false affidavit to a criminal complaint may give rise to perjury
Distinctions between perjury and false testimony:
Two contradictory sworn statements are not sufficient to convict the affiant for the
PERJURY FALSE TESTIMONY
1 crime of perjury. There must be evidence to show which is false. The same must
. Non-judicial proceedings. 1. Given in a judicial proceeding. be established or proved from sources other than the two contradictory statements.
2 Statement or testimony is required by Testimony need not be required by (People vs. Capistrano, 40 Phil. 902)
. law. 2. law.
3 Amount involved in civil cases is
. Amount involved is not material. 3. material. A matter is material when it is directed to prove a fact in issue
4. immaterial whether statement or
testimony is 4. It is always material in criminal cases. The test of materiality is whether a false statement can influence the court (People
favorable or not to the accused. vs. Bnazil).

Article183 A competent person authorized to administer an oath means a person who

has a right to inquire into the questions presented to him upon matters under
FALSE TESTIMONY IN OTHER CASES AND PERJURY IN SOLEMN his jurisdiction
AFFIRMATION
There is no perjury if the accused signed and swore the statement before a person
ELEMENTS: not authorized to administer oath
a. That an accused made a statement under oath or made an affidavit (People vs. Bella David).
upon a material matter.
There is no perjury through negligence or imprudence since the assertion of
b. That the statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer, falsehood must be willful and deliberate
 Because of the nature of perjury, which is the willful and corrupt assertion of a
falsehood, there is no perjury committed through reckless imprudence or simple
negligence under Article 365. Since admittedly perjury can only be committed by
means of dolo, then good faith or lack of malice is a good defense when one is
indicted for the crime of perjury.
Even if there is no law requiring the statement to be made under oath, as long
as it is made for a legal purpose, it is sufficient
If there is no requirement of law to place the statement or testimony
under oath, there is no Perjury considering the phrases oath in cases in which
the law so requires in Article 183.
The affidavit or sworn statement must be required by law like affidavit of
adverse claim to protect ones interest on real property; or an affidavit of good
moral character to take the bar examination. So if the affidavit was made but the
same is not required by law, even if the allegations are false, the crime of
perjury is not committed. (Diaz vs.
People, 191 SCRA 86)
Perjury is an offense which covers false oaths other than those taken in the
course of judicial proceedings
The public officer, to be liable must be engaged in the service of sending or receiving
wireless, cable and telegraph or telephone message
Article 174
FALSIFICATION OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATES, CERTIFCATES OF MERIT
OR SERVICE AND THE LIKE:
Persons liable:
a. Physician or surgeon who, in connection with the practice of his
profession, issued a false certificate (note: such certificate must refer to the illness
or injury of a person)
b. Public officer who issued a false certificate of merit of service, good
conduct or similar circumstances
c. Private individual who falsified a certificate under (1) and (2)
Article 175
USING FALSE CERTIFICATES
ELEMENTS:
a. That a physician or surgeon has issued a false medical certificate, or a public
officer has issued a false certificate of merit or service, good conduct, or
similar circumstances, or a private person had falsified any of said
certificates.
b. That the offender knew that the certificate was false.
c. That he used the same.
Article 176
MANUFACTURING AND POSSESSION OF INTRUMENTS OR IMPLEMENTS
FOR FALSIFICATION:
Acts punishable:
a. Making or introducing into the Philippines any stamps, dies or marks or
other instruments or implements for counterfeiting or falsification
b. Possessing with intent to use the instruments or implements for
counterfeiting or falsification made in or introduced into the Philippines by
another person
The implement confiscated need not form a complete set
Constructive possession is also punished
 OTHER FALSITIES A public officer may also be an offender

Article 177
USURPATION OF AUTHORITY OR OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS:

2 ways of committing the crime: The act performed without being lawfully entitled to do so must pertain:
a. By knowingly and falsely representing oneself to be an officer, agent or a. to the govt
representative of any department or agency of the Philippine govt or any b. to any person in authority
c. to any public office
foreign govt.
Foreign government adverted to in this article refers to public officers duly authorized to
b. By performing an act pertaining to any person in authority or public officer
perform governmental duties in the Philippines. The law cannot refer to other foreign
of the Phil govt or foreign govt under the pretense of such official position,
governments as its application may bring us to legal problems which may infringe on
and without being lawfully entitled to do so.
constitutional boundaries.
In usurpation of authority: The mere act of knowingly and falsely representing If the offender commits the acts of usurpation as contemplated herein, and he does it
oneself is sufficient. Not necessary that he performs an act pertaining to a public
officer. because he is a rebel and pursuant to the crime of rebellion or insurrection or sedition, he
will not be liable under this article because what is attributed against him as a crime of
Elements usurpation is in fact one of the elements of committing rebellion.
1. Offender knowingly and falsely represents himself; The elements of false pretense is necessary to commit the crime of usurpation of official
function.
2. As an officer, agent or representative of any department or agency of the
Philippine government or of any foreign government. Article 178
USING FICTITIOUS NAME AND CONCEALING TRUE NAME
In usurpation of official functions: It is essential that the offender should have
performed an act pertaining to a person in authority ELEMENTS (using fictitious name) :
a. That the offender uses a name other than his real name.
Elements
b. That he uses that fictitious name publicly.
1. Offender performs any act;
c. That the purpose of the offender is
2. Pertaining to any person in authority or public officer of the Philippine
1. To conceal a crime,
government or any foreign government, or any agency thereof;
2. To evade the execution of a judgment, or
3. Under pretense of official position; 3. To cause damage to public interest. (ex. Signing fictitious name
for a passport)
4. Without being lawfully entitled to do so.
 competent court.

The name of a person is what appears in his birth certificate. The name of a person refers Exception: Pseudonym solely for literary, cinema, television, radio, or other
to his first name, surname, and maternal name. Any other name which a person publicly entertainment and in athletic events where the use of pseudonym is a normally accepted
applies to himself without authority of law is a fictitious name. practice.
Article 179
ELEMENTS ILLEGAL USE OF UNIFORM OR INSIGNIA
(concealing true
name): a. that the ELEMENTS:
offender conceals a. That the offender makes use of insignia, uniform or dress.

b. That the insignia, uniform or dress pertains to an office not held by the
1. his true name, and offender or to a class of persons of which he is not a member.
2. all other personal circumstances. c. That said insignia, uniform or dress is used publicly and improperly.

b. that the purpose is only to conceal his identity. The wearing of a uniform, or insignia of a non-existing office or establishment is not a
crime. It is necessary that the uniform or insignia represents an office which carries
What the offender does to violate or commit this act is for him to conceal his true name authority, respect, dignity, or influence which the public looks up to.
and other personal circumstances. His only motive in doing so is to conceal his identity.
In concealment of true name, the deception is done momentarily, just enough to conceal So also, an exact imitation of a uniform or dress is unnecessary; a colorable resemblance
the name of the offender. In the use of fictitious name, the offender presents himself before calculated to deceive the common run of people is sufficient.
the public with another name.
The wearing of insignia, badge or emblem of rank of the members of the armed forced of
A person under investigation by the police who gives a false name and false personal the Philippines or constabulary (now PNP) is punished by Republic Act No. 493.
circumstances, upon being interrogated, is guilty of this crime.
When the uniform or insignia is used to emphasize the pageantry of a play or
Concealing True Name
Use of Fictitious Name (178) (178) drama or in moving picture films, the crime is not committed.
Element of publicity must be present Publicity not necessary
Purpose is to conceal a crime, to evade the Three forms of false testimony
execution of a Purpose is to conceal identity
judgement, or to cause damage 1. False testimony in criminal cases under Article 180 and 181;
2. False testimony in civil case under Article 182;
Commonwealth Act No. 142 (Regulating the Use of Aliases) 3. False testimony in other cases under Article 183.
No person shall use any name different from the one with which he was registered at birth
in the office of the local civil registry, or with which he was registered in the bureau of
immigration upon entry; or such substitute name as may have been authorized by a
False testimony, defined
It is the declaration under oath of a witness in a judicial proceeding which
is contrary to what is true, or to deny the same, or to alter essentially the truth.
Nature of the crime of false testimony.
1. It cannot be committed through reckless imprudence because false testimony
requires criminal intent or intent to violate the law is an essential element of the
crime.
2. If the false testimony is due to honest mistake or error or there was good faith in
making the false testimony, no crime is committed.
Article 180
FALSE TESTIMONY AGAINST A DEFENDANT
ELEMENTS:
a. That there be a criminal proceeding.
b. That the offender testifies falsely under oath against the defendant
therein.
c. That the offender who gives false testimony knows that it is false.
d. That the defendant against whom the false testimony is given is either
acquitted or convicted in a final judgment (prescriptive period starts at
this point)
Requires criminal intent, cant be committed through negligence. Need not
impute guilt upon the accused
The defendant must at least be sentenced to a correctional penalty or a fine or
must have been acquitted
The witness who gave false testimony is liable even if the court did not consider
his testimony
The probative value of the testimonial evidence is subject to the rules of evidence.
It may not be considered at all by the judge. But whether the testimony is credible
or not or whether it is appreciated or not in the context that the false witness wanted
it to be, the crime of false testimony is still committed, since it is punished not
because of the effect it produces, but because of its tendency to favor the accused.
(People vs. Reyes)
Penalty is dependent upon sentence imposed on the defendant
Article 181
FALSE TESTIMONY IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT in a criminal case:
Elements:
1. A person gives false testimony;
2. In favor of the defendant;
3. In a criminal case.
False testimony by negative statement is in favor of the defendant
False testimony need not in fact benefit the defendant
A statement of a mere opinion is not punishable
Conviction or acquittal is not necessary (final judgement is not necessary). The
false testimony need not influence the acquittal
A defendant who voluntarily goes up on the witness stand and falsely imputes
the offense to another person the commission of the offense is liable under this
article. If he merely denies the commission of the offense, he is not liable.
Basis of penalty: gravity of the felony charged against the defendant
 Article 182
FALSE TESTIMONY IN CIVIL CASES
ELEMENTS:
a. That the testimony must be given in a civil case.
b. That the testimony must relate to the issues presented in said
case
False testimony before the justice of the peace during the P.I. may give rise to the crime
of perjury because false testimony in judicial proceedings contemplates an actual trial
where a judgment of conviction or acquittal is rendered
A person who knowingly and willfully procures another to swear falsely commits
subornation of perjury and the witness suborned does testify under circumstances
rendering him guilty of perjury.
The false testimony is not in a judicial proceeding
False testimony vs. Perjury
When one testifies falsely before the court, the crime committed is false testimony. If one
testifies falsely in a non-judicial proceeding, the crime committed is perjury. In false
testimony, it is not required that the offender asserts a falsehood on a material matter. It is
enough that he testifies falsely with deliberate intent. In perjury, the witness must testify
or assert a fact on a material matter with a full knowledge that the information given is
essentially contrary to the truth. Material matter means the main fact which is the subject
or object of the inquiry.
Article 184
OFFERING FALSE TESTIMONY IN EVIDENCE
ELEMENTS:
a That the offender offered in evidence a false witness or
false testimony. b That he knew the witness or the testimony
was false.
c That the offer was made in a judicial or official proceeding.
The false witness need not be convicted of false testimony. The mere offer is sufficient.
The offender in this article knows that the witness to be presented is a false witness or that
the witness will lie while testifying. The proceedings is either judicial or official. There is
a formal offer of testimonial evidence in the proceedings. The witness is able to testify and
the offender, knowing the testimony is given by the witness to be false, nevertheless offers
the same in evidence. In this case, the person offering the false testimony must have nothing
to do in the making of the false testimony. He knows that the witness is false and yet he
asks him to testify and thereafter offers the testimony in evidence. So if the offeror, aside
from being such, is also the person responsible in inducing or convincing the false witness
to lie, Article 184 will not apply. The applicable article will be Article 180, 181, 182, or
183 as the case may be. The offenders in this case will be charged with perjury; the inducer
as principal by inducement and the induced party as the principal by direct participation.
It is for this reason that subornation of perjury is no longer treated as a specific felony
with a separate article of its own. Nevertheless, it is a crime defined and punished under
the Revised Penal Code. The crime committed by one who induces another to testify falsely
and the person who agrees and in conspiracy with the inducer, testifies falsely, is perjury.
(People vs. Padol, 66 Phil. 365)
 FRAUDS Article 186
MONOPOLIES AND COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE:
Article 185
MACHINATIONS IN PUBLIC AUCTION Acts punished:
ELEMENTS: Combination to prevent free competition in the market
a That there be a public auction.
Elements
b That the accused solicited any gift or a promise from any of the bidders.
1. Entering into any contract or agreement or taking part in any conspiracy or
c That such gifts or promise was the consideration for his refraining from combination in the form of a trust or otherwise;
taking part in that public auction.
2. In restraint of trade or commerce or to prevent by artificial means free
d That the accused had the intent to cause the reduction of the price of the
competition in the market.
thing auctioned.
b. By entering into a contract or agreement or taking part in any conspiracy or
ELEMENTS OF ATTEMPTING TO CAUSE BIDDERS TO STAY AWAY combination in the form of a trust or otherwise, in restraint of trade or commerce
or prevent by artificial means free competition in the market (It is enough that
a That there be a public auction. initial steps are taken. It is not necessary that there be actual restraint of trade)

b That the accused attempted to cause the bidders to stay away from that c. Monopoly to restrain free competition in the market
public auction
Elements
c That it was done by threats, gifts, promises, or any other artifice.
1. By monopolizing any merchandise or object of trade or commerce, or by
d That the accused had the intent to cause the reduction of the price of the combining with any other person or persons to monopolize said
thing auctioned. merchandise or object;
2. In order to alter the prices thereof by spreading false rumors or making
use of any other artifice;
3. To restrain free competition in the market

d. Manufacturer, producer or processor or importer combining, conspiring or

agreeing with any person to make transactions prejudicial to lawful commerce
or to increase the market price of the merchandise.
 Elements a. to make transactions prejudicial to lawful commerce
b. to increase the market price of any merchandise or object of commerce
1. Manufacturer, producer, processor or importer of any merchandise or manufactured, produced, processed, assembled or imported into the Phil
object of commerce;
Also liable as principals:
2. Combines, conspires or agrees with any person; a. corporation/association
b. agent/representative
3. Purpose is to make transactions prejudicial to lawful commerce or to
c. director/manager who willingly permitted or failed to prevent commission of
increase the market price of any merchandise or object of commerce
above offense
manufactured, produced, processed, assembled or imported into the
Philippines. Aggravated if items are:
a. food substance
Person/s liable: b. motor fuel or lubricants
a. manufacturer c. goods of prime necessity
b. producer
c. processor Article 187
d. importer IMPORTATION AND DISPOSITION OF FALSELY MARKED ARTICLES OR
MERCHANDISE MADE OF GOLD, SILVER, OR OTHER PRECIOUS METALS
Crime is committed by:
OR THEIR ALLOYS
a. combining
b. conspiring ELEMENTS:
c. agreeing with another person That the offender imports, sells or disposes of any of those articles or
The purpose is:
a merchandise. What the law punishes herein is the selling of misbranded goods made of gold, silver
and other precious metals. Therefore, it must be shown that the seller knows that the
b That the stamps, brands, or marks or those articles or merchandise fails to merchandise is misbranded. Hence, dishonesty is an essential element of the crime.
indicate the actual fineness or quality of said metals or alloys.
c That the offender knows that the said stamp, brand, or mark fails to indicate
the actual fineness or quality of the metals or alloys.
To be criminally liable, it is important to establish that the offender knows the fact that the
imported merchandise fails to indicate the actual fineness or quality of the precious metal.
If the importer has no expertise on the matter such that he has no way of knowing how the
fraud was committed, the existence of such fact may be seriously considered as a defense.
Article 188
SUBSTITUTING ALTERING TRADE-MARK, TRADENAME, OR SERVICE
MARK
Acts punishable:
a By (a) substituting the trade name (t/n) or trademark (t/m) of some other
manufacturer or dealer or a colorable imitation thereof, for the t/n or t/m of the
real manufacturer or dealer upon any article of commerce and (b) selling the
same.
b By selling or by offering for sale such article of commerce, knowing that the t/n or
t/m has been fraudulently used
c By using or substituting the service mark of some other person, or a colorable
imitation of such marks, in the sale or advertising of services
d By printing, lithographing or reproducing t/n, t/m or service mark of one person,
or a colorable limitation thereof, to enable another person to fraudulently use
the same, knowing the fraudulent purpose for which it is to be used.
If a particular person is defrauded by the offender; as in the case of locally
manufactured goods, which the offender, by altering the label, are made to appear as
imported articles and sold to a particular person, the crime committed is undoubtedly
estafa as far as the particular person is concerned. But if the falsely mislabeled goods
are displayed in a store and offered for sale to the public in general, the crime
committed is punished under Article 188. So, if the deception is isolated and is confined
to a particular person or group of persons, estafa is committed. If the fraud is employed
against the public, Article 188 is violated.
Must not be another manufacturer otherwise unfair competition
Take note that after making the substitution the goods are displayed in the store or market
for sale, Article 188 is already committed even if no customer comes to buy any of the
goods on display. The mere offer for sale to the public consummates the crime.
The pendency of the administrative aspect of the case is not a prejudicial question in the
resolution of the criminal case.
Article 189
UNFAIR COMPETITION, FRAUDULENT REGISTRATION OF TRADENAME,
TRADEMARK SERVICE MARK, FRAUDULENT DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN,
AND FALSE DESCRIPTION
Acts punished:
a Unfair competition by selling his goods, giving them the general appearance of the
goods of another manufacturer or dealer
b Fraudulent designation of origin; false description by (a) affixing to his goods or
using in connection with his services a false designation of origin; or any false
description or representation, and (b) selling such goods or services
c Fraudulent registration by procuring fraudulently from the patent office the
registration of t/m, t/m or service mark.
ELEMENTS:
a That the offender gives his goods the general appearance of the goods of another
manufacturer or dealer
b That the general appearance is shown in the (a) goods themselves, or in the (b)
wrapping of their packages, or in the (c) device or words therein, or in (d) any
other feature of their appearance
c That the offender offers to sell or sells those goods or gives other persons a
chance or opportunity to do the same with a like purpose.
d That there is actual intent to deceive the public or defraud a competitor.
Under Republic Act No. 166, Section 29, paragraph 2, unfair competition is defined as
follows: It consists in employing deception or any other means contrary to good faith by
which any person shall pass off the goods manufactured by him or in which he deals, or
his business, or services for those of the one having established goodwill, or committing
any acts calculated to produce such result.
The true test of unfair competition is whether certain goods have been clothed with an
appearance which is likely to deceive the ordinary purchaser exercising ordinary care. (U.S.
vs. Manuel, 7 Phil. 221)
For unfair competition to take place, it must be the manufacturer of the goods who will
cloth or label his goods with the trade name or trademark of another manufacturer, who
has established a good name or good will in the mind of the public because of the quality
of the merchandise manufactured by him. The imitator is also a manufacturer of the same
kind of product but of inferior quality. By labeling his product with the trademark or trade
name of said manufacturer, he profits from the goodwill of another.
If the labeling or clothing of the goods is not done by another manufacturer, the crime
committed is not unfair competition but substitution of trademark or trade name under
Article 188.
When the honorable Supreme Court declared that unfair competition is broader and more
inclusive than infringement of trade name or trademark. In infringement of trade name or
trademark, the offended party has a peculiar symbol or mark on his goods which is
considered a property right which must therefore be protected. In unfair competition, the
offended party has identified in the mind of the public the goods he manufactures to
distinguish it from the goods of the other manufacturers. In infringement of trade name or
trademark, the offender uses the trade name or trademark of another in selling his goods,
while in unfair competition, the offender gives his goods the general appearance of the
goods of another manufacturer and sells the same to the public. (E. Spinner & Co. vs.
New Hesslein Corp., 54 Phil.
224)