Del Rosario vs. People

The Court held that the alteration of figures, letters, words, or signs on genuine Philippine treasury notes constitutes forgery under Article 169 of the Revised Penal Code; consequently, the knowing possession of such altered notes with intent to use them violates Article 168 and is subject to the corresponding penal sanctions.

Petitioner Sergio del Rosario, alongside Alfonso Araneta and Benedicto del Pilar, presented Philippine one-peso and two-peso bills to complainant Apolinario del Rosario in Davao City on June 23, 1955. The defendants represented the bills as counterfeit currency they had manufactured and solicited P1,700.00 from the complainant to finance the alleged production of additional fake notes. The complainant relied on the representation and delivered the funds. Examination of the bills revealed they were genuine government-issued treasury notes, but specific digits in their serial numbers had been deliberately erased and modified. The prosecution charged the defendants with illegal possession of forged treasury notes, resulting in conviction by the trial court and subsequent affirmation by the appellate court with a modified penalty.

• On June 23, 1955, petitioner Sergio del Rosario and two co-defendants presented genuine Philippine one-peso and two-peso treasury notes to complainant Apolinario del Rosario in Davao City. The defendants induced the complainant to believe the bills were counterfeit currency manufactured by the defendants. Relying on this representation, the complainant handed over P1,700.00 to finance the alleged mass production of additional fake notes. Forensic examination established that the bills were genuine government-issued currency, but specific digits in their serial numbers had been deliberately erased and altered (e.g., changing a terminal "9" to a "0"). The prosecution charged the defendants with illegal possession of false treasury notes. The trial court convicted them and imposed an indeterminate penalty. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction while adjusting the maximum term. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court, challenging the statutory classification of the altered notes.

• Petitioner maintained that the instruments in question were genuine Philippine treasury notes issued by the government. Because the paper and primary design remained authentic, petitioner argued that mere possession of such notes could not satisfy the elements of Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes the illegal possession and use of false or falsified instruments.

• The Office of the Solicitor General contended that the deliberate erasure and modification of serial number digits on genuine currency constitute forgery under Article 169 of the Revised Penal Code. Consequently, the knowing possession and intended use of the altered notes fall squarely within the prohibitions of Article 168. The prosecution emphasized that the statutory definition of forgery encompasses the alteration of figures or signs on genuine instruments to change their identity or legal character.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues: Whether the possession of genuine Philippine treasury notes with deliberately altered serial number digits constitutes a violation of Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive: The Court ruled that the possession of the altered treasury notes constitutes a violation of Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court found that Article 169 expressly defines forgery to include the act of erasing, substituting, counterfeiting, or altering by any means the figures, letters, words, or signs contained in a treasury or bank note. Because the defendants altered the serial numbers on genuine notes and deployed them to deceive the complainant, the instruments were legally classified as falsified. Accordingly, knowing possession of such altered notes with intent to use them satisfies the statutory elements of the offense under Article 168, read in relation to Article 166. The decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed.

• Statutory Construction of Forgery (Article 169, RPC) — The doctrine establishes that forgery extends beyond the fabrication of entirely counterfeit instruments to include the material alteration of genuine ones. The Court applied this principle to hold that any erasure or modification of serial numbers on genuine treasury notes transforms them into falsified instruments for penal purposes. Because the petitioner knowingly possessed and intended to use notes bearing altered identifying marks, the Court concluded that the statutory definition of forgery was satisfied, triggering liability under Article 168.

• "It is clear from these provisions that the possession of genuine treasury notes of the Philippines any of 'the figures, letters, words or signs contained' in which had been erased and or altered, with knowledge of such notes, as they were used by petitioner herein and his co-defendants in the manner adverted to above, is punishable under said Article 168, in relation to Article 166, subdivision (1), of the Revised Penal Code." — The Court deployed this passage to definitively link the statutory definition of forgery under Article 169 to the crime of illegal possession under Article 168, foreclosing the petitioner's argument that only wholly counterfeit notes fall within the penal provision.

• U.S. vs. Gardner, 3 Phil., 398 — Cited as controlling precedent establishing that the alteration or falsification of currency, even when the base instrument is genuine, constitutes a penal offense under the Revised Penal Code.
• U.S. vs. Solito, 36 Phil., 785 — Cited to reinforce settled jurisprudence that modifying identifying figures or marks on genuine government instruments renders them falsified, thereby supporting the conviction under Article 168.

• Article 168, Revised Penal Code — Penalizes the illegal possession and use of false treasury or bank notes and other instruments of credit. The Court applied this provision as the direct statutory basis for the petitioner's conviction.
• Article 169, Revised Penal Code — Defines the means by which forgery is committed, specifically enumerating the erasure or alteration of figures, letters, words, or signs contained in a treasury or bank note. The Court relied on this article to legally classify the modified bills as falsified instruments.
• Article 166, Revised Penal Code — Cited to establish the penalty framework for forging or falsifying treasury notes, providing the statutory linkage that determines the degree of punishment applicable under Article 168.

• Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon and De Leon, JJ. — Concurred fully with the ponencia. No separate opinions or additional legal reasoning were appended to the decision.