Falsification

5 Classes of Falsification

a. Falsification of legislative documents (Article 170)

b. Falsification of a document by a public officer, employee or notary public (Article, 171)
c. Falsification of a public or official, or commercial document by a private individual
(Article 172, par. 1)
d. Falsification of a private document by any person (Article 172, par. 2)
e. Falsification of wireless, telegraph and telephone messages (Article 173)

Article 170. Falsification of legislative documents. Committed by any person who, without
proper authority therefor, alters any bill, resolution, or ordinance enacted or approved or pending
approval by either House of the Legislature or any provincial board or municipal council.

Elements:

1. That there be a bill, resolution or ordinance enacted or approved or pending approval by

either House of the Legislature or any provincial board or municipal council.
2. That the offender alters the same.
3. That he has no proper authority therefor.
4. That the alteration has changed the meaning of the document.

Notes:

The phrase enacted or approved or pending approval presupposes that the bill,
resolution or ordinance must be genuine.
If the falsification is committed on a simulated or fabricated legislative document, the
crime is not governed by Article 170.
Not all acts of falsification on legislative document are penalized under Article 170, but
only those which alters any bill, resolution or ordinance. (Example: Unauthorized
alteration of a certain appropriation from P3Million to P7Million in an appropriation
ordinance).

Article 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastical minister.

Committed by any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official
position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts:

1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature, or rubric.

There are 2 ways of committing falsification under this paragraph. First is

counterfeiting, which is imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric. And
second is feigning, which is simulating a signature, handwriting or rubric out of
one which does not in fact exist.
In counterfeiting, there is an original signature or handwriting which is imitated.
An imitation is necessary but it need not be perfect. If there is no attempt
whatsoever by the accused to imitate the signature of other persons so that they
are entirely unlike the genuine signatures of those persons, the accused may be
found guilty under Article 171, par. 2 in causing it to appear that those persons
have participated in the act when they did not in fact so participate. (US vs. Cinco,
42 Phil. 839).
In feigning, there is no original signature, handwriting or rubric but a forgery of a
signature, handwriting or rubric that does not exist. To feign means to represent
by a false appearance; to give a mental existence to; to imagine.
2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they
did not in fact so participate.

If committed by private individual, the act is punishable under Article 172.

Example, the placing by the accused of their thumbmarks in the list of voters
opposite the names of the electors who have not actually voted, thereby making it
appear that those electors cast their votes when they did not in fact vote, is
falsification under Article 171, par. 2, and the offenders who are private
individuals are liable under Article 172.

3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other

than those in fact made by them.

A trusted B and wanted to appoint the latter as his attorney-in-fact in connection

with a suit against C. Taking advantage of the confidence reposed on him and As
illiteracy, B, in connivance with Atty. Tikas, executed a document purporting to be
a power of attorney but, in reality, it contains recitals transferring ownership of
As land to B. (See US vs. Capule, 24 Phil. 13).

4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts.

To commit falsification under this paragraph, the following requisite must be

present: (a) the offender makes in a document statements in a narration of facts,
(b) that he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him,
(c) that the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false, and (d) that the
perversion of truth in the narration of facts was made with the wrongful intent of
injuring a third person. Letter (d) is not essential in falsification of public or
official document.
In People vs. Yanza, the Supreme Court exonerated the accused from the charge
of falsification when she stated in her certificate of candidacy for councilor that
she was eligible to said position, despite her knowledge that she was only 23
years old at the time of making the certificate of candidacy. According to the
Supreme Court, when the accused certified that she was eligible for the position
she was making a conclusion of law, not a narration of facts. It would have been
different if accused misstated her date of birth in the certificate of candidacy.
The second element requires that there must be a legal obligation on the part of
the accused to disclose the truth of the facts narrated. Legal obligation means that
there is a law requiring the disclosure of the truth of the facts narrated.
In People vs. Poserio, the accused police officer submitted a PDS to Manila
Police Department in connection with his appointment as patrolman. In question
number 10 of the PDS, which asked if the applicant had previously been
convicted of a criminal offense, the accused wrote the word none. Later, it was
discovered that accused had a previous conviction of the crime of theft. In
acquitting the accused, the Supreme Court reasoned out that the prosecution failed
to point any law or ordinance imposing upon the accused the legal obligation to
reveal his previous conviction in filling in the PDS.
However, in Fullero vs. People (2007), the Supreme Court seems to have taken a
different stance, the accused here submitted a PDS in connection with his
application for promotion at the Bureau of Telecommunications. He stated under
Item No. 18 therein that he passed the civil engineering board examination given
on May 30-31, 1985 in Manila with a rating of 75.8%. Upon investigation
however, it was discovered that accused did not pass the civil engineering board
exam. In convicting the accused, the Supreme Court noted, among others, that
accused was legally obliged to make truthful statements in his PDS since he
affirmed therein under the penalty of perjury that his answers to the queries are
true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.
 Also in People vs. Po Giok To, the Supreme Court declared that the obligation to
disclose the truth as to the facts that should appear in a residence certificate is
inherent in the very nature and purpose of said document.

5. Altering true dates.

There is falsification under this paragraph only when the date mentioned in the
document is essential. The date is considered essential when alteration thereof
would affect the veracity of the document or its effects.
Thus, the act of the municipal treasurer of dating the payroll on July 31, when in
fact the actual payment of salaries was done on July 23 was not held as
falsification, the date being considered not essential because at any rate the
employees were in fact paid. But alteration of true date by the chief of police in
the book of records of arrest, in order to conceal liability under Article 125 is
falsification under this paragraph.
The dates of birth, marriage and death are essential, because without them the
documents cannot produce any legal effect.

6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning.

To commit falsification under this paragraph, the following requisites must be

present: (a) that there be an alteration [change] or intercalation [insertion] on a
document, (b) that it was made on a genuine document, (c) that the alteration or
intercalation has changed the meaning of the document, and (d) that the change
made the document speak something false.
Correction or alteration which speaks the truth is not falsification.
In People vs. Romualdez (1932), the secretary (Estela Romualdez) of the 1926
Bar Exam Chairman (Justice Romualdez) altered the grade composition of one of
the bar candidates (Luis Mabunay) by striking out the grade of 63% in civil law
and replacing it with 73% and striking out the grade of 58% in remedial law and
replacing it with 64%. The Supreme Court convicted the accused of falsification
by (a) making alterations on genuine documents, (b) making it appear that the
correctors had participated in blotting out the grades and writing new and
increased grades opposite their initials, and (c) attributing to the correctors
statements other than those in fact made by them.

7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document 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. Or,

The acts of falsification under this paragraph can be committed only by a public
officer or notary public who takes advantage of his official position, since the
authentication of a document can be made only by the custodian or the one
who prepared and retained a copy of the original document.
Examples: A notary public made a supposed copy of a deed of sale which was
never executed and of which he had no copy. Or, a civil registrar who stated in a
certified copy of a record of birth that the person mentioned therein was
legitimate when there was no such statement in the original.

8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry,
or official book.

If offender is an ecclesiastical minister, the act of falsification is committed with respect to

any record or document of such character that its falsification may affect the civil status of
persons.
 Notes:

The offender in Article 171 must take advantage of his official position in falsifying
a document. This happens when (a) he has the duty to make or to prepare or otherwise
to intervene in the preparation of the document; or (b) he has the official custody of
the document which he falsifies. In other words, even if the offender was a public
officer but if he did not take advantage of his official position, he would not be guilty
under Article 171. Rather, he would be guilty of falsification of a document by a
private person under Article 172.
Thus, a court stenographer who deliberately and maliciously changed, in making
transcription of his notes, the statements of a witness taken by him is guilty of
falsification under Article 171, while any other officer, say a chief of police, who
happened to make the same changes or alterations in the same document, is guilty of
falsification of a public document by a private person under Article 172, par.1. (US
vs. Austero, 14 Phil. 377).
Good faith or lack of intent to gain or prejudice is not a valid defense in prosecution
under Article 171, because it is the official character of the offender which is the main
consideration of the crime treated thereunder. Consequently, there is a crime of
falsification of public document through reckless imprudence. So, in People vs.
Banas, the director of hospital was convicted of the crime of falsification through
reckless imprudence for signing a bill prepared by his clerk erroneously stating that
the patient (veteran) was hospitalzed for 31 days when in truth the hospitalization was
only for 6 days resulting to overcharging.
However, in El Pueblo de las Islas Filipinas vs. Mendoza, the Supreme Court
acquitted the local civil registrar who signed a certified copy of birth certificate
containing falsities, prepared by a clerk of his office. The Supreme Court conceded
that the accused had the right to rely on his subordinate employee.

Article 172. Falsification by private individuals and use of falsified documents. There are 3
punishable acts under this Article:

1. Falsification of public, official or commercial document by a private individual.

Under this paragraph, the following elements must be present: (a) that the
offender is a private individual or a public officer or employee who did not take
advantage of his official position, (b) that he committed any of the acts of
falsification enumerated in Article 171, and (c) that the falsification was
committed in a public or official or commercial document.
Doctrine of Settled Presumption in falsification cases: If a person had in his
possession a falsified document and he made use of it (uttered it) taking
advantage of it and profiting thereby, the presumption is that he is the material
author of the falsification. This presumption is a recognition that an act of
falsification contrived clandestinely is difficult to prove. Example: A public
employee who presents a falsified certificate of attendance in order to recover
travel expenses reimbursement is presumed to be the author of the falsification.

2. Falsification of private document by any person.

Under this paragraph, the following elements must be present: (a) that the
offender committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Article 171,
except par. 7, (b) that the falsification was committed in any private document,
and (c) that the falsification caused damage to a third party or at least the
falsification was committed with intent to cause such damage.
 Mere falsification of private documents is not enough. The offender must have the
intent to cause damage or prejudice to another person. Damage here need not be
material. Damage to ones honor is included.
Moreover, it is not necessary that the offender actually profited by the
falsification, as all that the law requires is an intent to prejudice another person.
Because of the element of intent to cause damage, there is no falsification of
private document through reckless imprudence.
When the offender commits on a document any of the acts of falsification
enumerated in Article 171 as a necessary means to commit another crime, like
estafa, theft or malversation, the two crimes form a complex crime under Article
48. However, the document falsified must be public, official or commercial. If a
private document is falsified to obtain from the offended party the money or other
personal property which the offender later misappropriated or converted to his
use, the crime is falsification of private document only. Thus, in People vs. Reyes,
the accused falsified the log book of the company (a private document) by making
it appear that a certain laborer had worked for 21 days but in reality, said laborer
worked only for 11 days. The accused charged the company the wages of said
laborer for 21 days. Thereafter, he paid the laborer his wages for 11 days. The
accused misappropriated to himself the balance. The Supreme Court convicted the
accused of falsification of private document only.

3. Use of falsified document.