Practice question
An officer completes a malversation and later falsifies a record solely to conceal the completed taking. The falsification neither enables nor carries out the misappropriation. Does that concealment alone make the two complex crime proper?
- Yes, because every later record concerns the same money.
- Yes, because all concealment is a necessary means to the past taking.
- Yes, because one offender can commit only one offense.
- Yes, because public documents always erase separate liability.
- No; concealment of the already completed offense is not the stated necessary means of committing it.
Legal references
- Revised Penal Code, Article 48 as amended, text and current two-branch rule reproduced in People v Reyes, G.R. No. 260030, May 19, 2025: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2025/may2025/gr_260030_2025.html
- Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales Vda. de Carungcong v People, G.R. No. 181409, February 11, 2010, main decision, necessary means and falsification-estafa: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_181409_2010.html
- People v Sendaydiego, G.R. Nos. L-33253 and L-33254, January 20, 1978, main decision, falsification to conceal malversation distinguished from necessary means: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1978/jan1978/gr_33254_1978.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.