100%(6)6 out of 6 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 48 - 49 out of 148 pages.
by the Sangguniang Secretary, the latter made it appear that the two councilors made statements that they voted NO because the said ordinance is contrary to law. Is the said secretary liable for falsification? A:YES. He is a public officer. He is the one who prepared the minutes for the SangguniangPanglungsod and he made it appear that the 2 councilors stated that the said ordinance is contrary to law and in truth and fact, they did not made those statements. So the said secretary is liable for falsification. IV. MAKING UNTRUTHFUL STATEMENTS IN A NARRATION OF FACTS ¾The evidence of this act of falsification requires: i. That the offender makes in a document untruthful statement in a narration of facts; ii. That he has legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him iii. The facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false iv. The untruthful narration must be such as to effect the integrity of the document and that the offender does so with the intent to injure or prejudice another person ¾It is necessary that the intention of the intention of the offender must be to INJURE ANOTHER PERSON. ¾In case of making false statements in a narration of facts, it is necessary that the offender must have the legal obligation to disclose the truth in the said narration of facts. ¾Absence of such legal obligation, then it cannot be said that he is liable for falsification. ¾When you say legal obligation, there is a law which requires him to state nothing but the truth in the said document. Q: So what if the offender, a public officer, falsified the statement in his residence certificate or community tax certificate. Although he stated his true name, he did not state his address, citizenship, etc. So makes false statement of facts in his residence certificate or community tax certificate, otherwise known as cedula. So he was charged with falsification. He contended that there is no law which requires him to state the truth in his residence certificate. Is his contention correct? A: His contention is wrong. According to a ruling in the Supreme Court, if it is a residence certificate or community tax certificate, there need not be a law which requires a person to state the truth in the said residence certificate, it is inherent in the kind of document. Since it is a residence certificate or cedula, it is inherent that in this document, nothing but the truth must be stated –no falsity. Because it requires identification. V. ALTERING TRUE DATES ¾It is necessary that what has been altered must be a true date and in the alteration of the said true date, the document will no longer have any effect. VI. MAKING ANY ALTERATION OR INTERCALATION IN A GENUINE DOCUMENT WHICH CHANGES ITS MEANING ¾2 ACTS: i. The offender makes an alteration ii. The offender makes an intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning ¾ALTERATION –changes in a document ¾INTERCALATION –there must be some insertion made in the said document, in a genuine document that changed the meaning