Table Of Contentyublic of the Phi
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT
Seventh (7#) Judicial Region
Barili, Cebu
“THE PHILIPPINES,
bi Sear? Piainstiff, ioc
For: FALSIFICATION
PRIVATE INDIVID
AND USE OF FAIS!
DOCUMENT
HL.
JOSE MANIPIS JR, LEONI
MANIPIS, and ROXINE
TILMOUTH aka ROXINE
MANIFIS,
Accused
1
DECISION
The Case
This isa criminal case for Falsiication by Private Indiviciual an
Use of Falsiied Document under Article 172 in relation to Article
pi the Revised Penal Code against Accused Jose Manipis J
Pose), Arcused Leonil Manipis (“Accused Leonil”), andi
RoxineTilmonth aka Roxine Manipis (“Accused Roxyuc’)
Accused
The Information dated July 15, 2014
led by the F
Prosecutor states as follows:
Mab andersigned accuses JOSE MANLPIS
ses ANIPIS JR, LEONIL
nies ot OMNE TEMOUTH nye LEON!
PANIPES of the crime of Telstar
Individual and Use of 5 alsified Docume , de i
iN telation to Art. 171, Revised Penal af
‘committed as follows: s
‘That sometime in ,
Mah Rtevtbes ok Cet pram 8 he M
y Msdicion of this tise
fame a private individu
‘al mutually belping il
a nagainandito defraud and by mar
atte, did es_and there willulh
aAimiously FALSIFY and tampe
PValig of the TAX DECLARATION
SEY NO. 35 DDL2 07356 in the amount
Mine amount of P3,260.00 which
cate of the land as found in
Be "G" of Roxine Tilmouth/ Rows
ted) by her Atiorneys-In-Fact
dpi, in Civil Case No. CEB-Bal
vahip with Declaration of Muli
jurt did not acquire jurisdic
ged, heard, and tried by
‘would show that two
‘by Private Individual
et, the Accused failed to
to Quash as prov
Section 3, Rule 121
Iprovides.as follows,
tion presented the sole testimony of
SSabella who mainly testified that the
they filed a civil case against her and
(Court, Branch 60, Baril, Cebu, which
CEB BAR-72. In the Complaint
fttached as Annex “G" a Tax
fi2 07356, which was falsified by
erein pertaining to the assessed
reby, as by typing or causing to be
3", so as to make it appear
23,260.00", instead of just
‘and in confederation
ereby
“af the property cow
mt. “THREE THOUSAND TWO
executed by Roxine |
‘Manipis, in favor of Jose |
“Leonid, Manipis, attached as
Complaint in Civil Case No.
iimouth
|
the Tax Declaration |
5, issued by the Office of
oy Meni 5]
iON 10 the Formal Ofte»:
Lib of the Prose |
fee ae Comment /i
the Complaint that was filed before the
ch 60, Baril, Cebu.
able for the crime of Falsification
‘Falsified Document under
Penal Cede,
nd
es Sabello is entitled to
pof attorney's fees, plus
ual and eof
i
periods and a fine of not more
= imposed upon:
Lor official document or letter
Fkind of commercial document
p, inthe damage of a third party
such damage, shall in any
mit any of the acts
the next preceding article
introduce in evidence in
peat another or who,
Shall use any of the
ing article, or
fi. ntereaating any nstrome
Ctence thereof in a. prot
book.
ee
Mi dation may fect the ciel ar
Biter
ted provi
cant gael fromthe abo"
ore et tea Pe Docues >
craton
1a) The offender is a private individual, 2
1) There was alteration, change, intercalation, or inses
publie document;
©) The alteration, change, intercalation, or ins
‘ona genusine public document; mz
4) Thealteration, change, intercalation, or insertion chan
‘meaning of the public document; and
) The alteration, change, intercalation, or insertion made: th
public document speak of something false
(On the other hand, the elements of the erime of Use of Fa
Document in a Judicial Proceeding ate as follows:
4) The offender knew that the document is falsified,
b) The felsied document is embraced or contemplate:
Anicie171 in relation io Article 1720f the Rev
©) The offender introduced the said falsific:
evidence in any judicial procceding
ed Penal C.
od docume:
It has been held that in fast
Glia ned othe made
thedocumentis piven the appearence a
theofficial form Moreover te us
thal the simcletion of a public or «
MANNE as 0 sly lead to cerns
ication of a public docume
n official form. It is suit
‘or made to appe:
fe {0 appear sim
orral the Supreme Cc
official document; done in «:
#5 to its authenticity, constit,
&
{Court ruled that the posses:
benefit thereby is presumed to be
‘vie:
Court ruled that
of falsification of
er 4, 2000), 420 Pea.
a8, 2009), 396 PHIL 1-14
Page ota
beyond renumable doubt. — a ctitat
tied foam acquittal, unless hs
foes not mean such a degree of pres
rofertor, produces absolute certain
‘required, oF that degree of proo
Sman unprejudiced min
jes the Supreme Court explainet
cation must discharge the burden
Jhas the onus proband
Ei ncumbit probatc
ci by the prosecution,
‘not on the weakness
lial evidence that
ks upon it
da private individual,
tion No. 35.0012 07356, which the
“public document. Moreover, the
alteration, change, intercalation, or
‘therein pertaining, to the assessed
thereby a9 by typing o: causing
8", $0 as to make it appear
Property is “23,260.00%, instead! of just
“Meaning of such Tax Declaratic
18,2015], 756 Prin. 202.229,
Page 10.419
defense, Arcused Jose argued that the subject
4 Bi Gp. 35 ONIZATASO ie nota public daciment because
argued | edheration, change, intercalation, or insertion in the
be thatthe assexsed value therein i5 not material
efit from the alleged
did not derive any be
oosidering that be
falsification. the Accused untenable
| This Cour finds the ange
Cebu and by the Provincial Assessor of the
b pace ecuces Band G;fespactvely, for tne
that the said government offices issued suc!
ee ee ea 07356 is a
in the Complaint in Civil Case No. CEB BAR-
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 60, Barili, Cebu,
immaterial. As discussed above, the falsification
‘an official form,
® convinced that the alteration, chan,
pain the numerical entry of the assessed value
#88 result of the falsificatior
ATarwary 8, 20}, 536 PHIL 1-14
Page thot 15
