Title
Del Rosario vs. People
Case
G.R. No. L-16806
Decision Date
Dec 22, 1961
Accused convicted for possessing genuine Philippine treasury notes with altered serial numbers, violating Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code.
illegal possession
altered treasury notes
fraudulent activities
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-16806)

Petitioner and Respondent

Petitioner sought relief by certiorari from a judgment of conviction for illegal possession of forged treasury notes. The People prosecuted the offence under the Revised Penal Code for possession and intended use of falsified instruments.

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

Offense occurred June 23, 1955, in Davao. Conviction was rendered by the Court of First Instance of Davao; the Court of Appeals affirmed but adjusted the upper limit of the indeterminate sentence; the matter was then brought to the Supreme Court by petitioner’s appeal. (Decision date appears in the original record.)

Applicable Law and Constitution

Applicable statutory provisions: Articles 168 and 169 of the Revised Penal Code, and the decision was considered in relation to Article 166, subdivision (1). Because the decision was rendered prior to 1990, the 1935 Philippine Constitution is the appropriate constitutional context for the Court’s decision. Precedential authorities cited in the decision include U.S. v. Gardner and U.S. v. Solito.

Facts Found by the Trial Court

The trial court found that Exhibits C, E, G and H (one-peso and two-peso Philippine treasury notes) had been physically altered: specific serial-number digits were erased and changed (detailed serial-number alterations were identified in the record). The defendants represented to the complainant that those notes were counterfeit money manufactured by them and thereby obtained P1,700.00 from the complainant for the stated purpose of financing production of more counterfeit notes. The prosecution proved knowledge of the alterations and an intent to use the altered notes for fraudulent purposes.

Issue Presented

Whether possession of genuine government treasury notes, the serial-number figures of which had been erased and altered, constitutes illegal possession under Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code when the possessor knows of the alteration and intends to use the notes.

Governing Legal Principles and Their Application

  • Article 169 defines one mode of forgery to include “erasing, substituting, counterfeiting or altering by any means the figures, letters, words or signs contained” in a treasury or bank note. Thus an alteration of serial-number digits on a treasury note falls within the statutory definition of forgery.
  • Article 168 penalizes the knowing possession or use, with intent to use, of false or falsified treasury or bank notes and other instruments of credit; it prescribes the penalty next lower in degree than that provided for the primary forgery offenses.
  • The elements required under Article 168 are (1) possession of a false or falsified instrument (which Article 169 shows can be effected by altering figures on an otherwise genuine note), (2) knowledge of the falsification or alteration, and (3) intent to use the altered instrument.
  • Where a government treasury note has been materially altered in the manner described, the mere fact that the underlying paper was originally a genuine treasury note does not prevent the note from being treated as falsified for purposes of Article 168 if the other elements (knowledge and intent to use) are present. The Court relied on established authority holding that altered genuine treasury notes may constitute falsified instruments (citing U.S. v. Gardner and U.S. v. Solito).

Court’s Reasoning and Conclusion

The Supreme Court agreed with the courts below that the notes in question were falsified by virtue of the erasure and alteration of serial-number digits. The record supported a finding that petitioner and his co-defendants knew of t

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms