On
falsification of documents
Falsification

Falsification by Private Individuals and Use of Falsified Instruments

Art. 172.

Falsification by private individual and use of falsified documents. - The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than P5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon:

1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the falsifications enumerated in the next preceding article in any public or official document or letter of exchange or any other kind of commercial document; and

2. Any person who, to the damage of a third party, or with the intent to cause such damage, shall in any private document commit any of the acts of falsification enumerated in the next preceding article.

Any person who shall knowingly introduce in evidence in any judicial proceeding or to the damage of another or who, with the intent to cause such damage, shall use any of the false documents embraced in the next preceding article, or in any of the foregoing subdivisions of this article, shall be punished by the penalty next lower in degree.

Elements of Falsification of Public, Official, or  Commercial Document By A Private Individual (par 1):
1. That the offender is a private individual or a public officer or employee who did not take advantage of his official position;
2. That he committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated in ART. 171;
3. That the falsification was committed in any public or official or commercial document.

Under this paragraph, damage is not essential, it is presumed.

Lack of malice or criminal intent may be put up as a defense under this article.

The following writings are public:
a. written official acts or records of acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and of the public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, whether of the Philippines or of a foreign country;
b. Documents acknowledged before notary public except last wills and testaments;
c. Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to be entered therein.

Commercial documents: warehouse receipts, airway bills, bank checks, cash files, deposit slips, and bank statements, journals, books, ledgers, drafts, letters of credit and other negotiable instruments.

Cash disbursement vouchers or receipts evidencing payments are not commercial documents.

A mere blank form of an official document is not in itself a document.

The possessor of the falsified document is presumed to be the author of the falsification.

Issuing in authenticated form a document(art. 171(7)) purporting to be a copy of an original document when no such original exists, or including in such copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original - can be committed only by a public officer or notary public who takes advantage of his official position since the authentication can be made only by the custodian or the one who prepared and retained a copy of the original document.

Elements of Falsification of Private Document
1. That the offender committed any of the acts of falsification, except those in paragraph 7 and 8, enumerated in art. 171;
2. That the falsification was committed in any private document; and
3. That the falsification caused damage to a third party or at least the falsification was committed with intent to cause such damage

   -  It is not necessary that the offender profited or hoped to profit

A document falsified as a necessary means to commit another crime (complex crime) must be public, official or commercial. Hence, there is no complex crime of estafa through falsification of private document because the immediate effect of the latter is the same as that of estafa.

There is no falsification through reckless imprudence if the document is private and no actual damage is caused.

If the estafa was already consummated at the time the falsification of a private document was committed for the purpose of concealing the estafa, the falsification is not punishable. As regards the falsification of the private document, there was no damage or intent to cause damage.

A private document may acquire the character of a public document when it becomes part of an official record and is certified by a public officer duly authorized by law.

The crime is falsification of public documents even if the falsification took place before the private document became part of the public records.

Elements of Use of Falsified Document (par. 3, art. 172):
Introducing in a judicial proceeding
1. That the offender knew that a document was falsified by another person.
2. That the false document is embraced in art. 171 or in any subdivisions nos. 1 and 2 of art. 172.
3. That he introduced said document in evidence in any judicial proceeding.

Use in any other transaction
1. That the offender knew that a document was falsified by another person.
2. That the false document is embraced in art. 171 or in any of subdivision nos. 1 and 2 of art. 172.
3. That he used such documents (not in judicial proceedings).
4. That the use of the documents caused damage to another or at least was used with intent to cause such damage

The user of the falsified document is deemed the author of the falsification, if:
1. The use was so closely connected in time with the falsification, and
2. The user had the capacity of falsifying the document.

Falsification Of Private Documents - Damage to third party is an element of the offense.

Falsification Of Public/Official Documents - Damage to third persons is immaterial. what is punished is the violation of public faith and perversion of truth which the document proclaims.

People vs. Manansala, 105 Phil 1253
The possessor of a falsified document is presumed to be the author of the falsification

People vs. Sendaydiego, 82 SCRA 120
The presumption also holds if the use was so closely connected in time with the falsification and the user had the capacity of falsifying the document

There is no crime of estafa through falsification of a private document.
   - Both crimes require the element of damage which each of the two should have its own.
   - The fraudulent gain obtained through deceit should not be the very same damage caused by the falsification of the private document.

Since damage is not an element of falsification of a public document, it could be complexed with estafa as a necessary means to commit the latter.

There can be falsification of public document through reckless imprudence but there is no crime of falsification of private document through negligence or imprudence.

If the document is intended by law to be part of the public or official record,
the falsification, although it was private at the time of falsification, is
regarded as falsification of a public or official document.

Bar Exam Question (1999)

Falsification; Presumption of Falsification (1999)

A falsified official or public document was found in the possession of the accused. No evidence was introduced to show that the accused was the author of the falsification. As a matter of fact, the trial court convicted the accused of falsification of official or public document mainly on the proposition that "the only person who could have made the erasures and the superimposition mentioned is the one who will be benefited by the alterations thus made" and that "he alone could have the motive for making such alterations". Was the conviction of the accused proper although the conviction was premised merely on the aforesaid ratiocination? Explain your answer.

Suggested Answer:

Yes, the conviction is proper because there is a presumption in law that the possessor and user of a falsified document is the one who falsified the same.

Related Article: