Elements of Falsification

1.
Thus, for falsification of a public document to be established, the following elements must concur:

1) that the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public;

2) that he takes advantage of his official position; and
3) that he falsifies a document by committing any of the aforementioned acts.

Likewise, in falsification of public or official documents, it is not necessary that there be present the idea of
gain or the intent to injure a third person because in the falsification of a public document, what is punished is
the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed. (Lastrilla v.
Granda, G.R. No. 160257, January 31, 2006, 481 SCRA 324, 345, citing Lumancas v. Uriarte, 347 SCRA 22,
33-34 (2000), further citing People v. Po Giok To, 96 Phil. 913, 918 (1955))

2.
Even granting that the present petition may be admitted, we find no cogent reason to reverse the CA
decision appealed from, considering that the elements of the crime of falsification under Art. 171, par. 4 of the
Revised Penal Code, in relation to Art. 172 thereof, were duly proved during the proceedings below. Said
elements are as follows:

(a) The offender makes in a public document untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
(b) The offender has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him; and
(c) The facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false.

These elements are based on the provisions of Art. 172, in relation to Art. 171, par. 4, of the Revised
Penal Code, which reads:

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

The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any
public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a
document by committing any of the following acts:

xxx

4. Making untruthful statements in narration of facts;

xxx

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.

x x x (Norma Delos Reyes, et al v People of the Philippines, GR No. 186030, citing

Galeos v. People, G.R. Nos. 174730-37, February 9, 2011, 642 SCRA 485, 506, citing Fullero v.
People, G.R. No. 170583, September 12, 2007, 533 SCRA 97, 114.)
He who is in possession of falsified document is the one who falsified it jurisprudence

1.

In Maliwat vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. Nos. 107041-42. May 15, 1996), the Supreme Court held that in
the absence of satisfactory explanation, one found in possession of and who used a forged document is
the forger and therefore guilty of falsification. If a person had in his possession a falsified document and
he made use of it, taking advantage of it and profiting thereby, the clear presumption is that he is the
material author of the falsification.

2.
In line with the above ruling, and considering that it was the accused who took advantage and profited in
the use of the falsified Employees Clearance in question, the presumption is inevitable that she is the
material author of the falsification. And despite full opportunity, she was not able to rebut such
presumption by failing to show that it was another person who forged or falsified the signature of Laura
Pangilan or that at least another person and not she alone, had the reason or motive to commit the
forgery or falsification, or was or could have been benefited by such falsification/forgery. (Normallah A.
Pacasum v People Of The Philippines, G.R. No. 180314, April 16, 2009)

3.
The fact that no proof was introduced to prove or show as to who committed the falsification
abovementioned, does not exempt or exculpate the herein accused-appellant from liability. The accused-
appellant is the person who stood to benefit by the falsification of the documents in question as such, 'it
is presumed that he is the material author of the falsifications.' (Sarep vs. Sandiganbayan, 177 SCRA
440; 449).