CRIMINAL LAW 2

Importance of distinguishing Falsification of Public

from Falsification of Private Documents
ART. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee;
or notary or ecclesiastical minister. – The penalty of
prision mayor and a fine not to exceed 5,000 pesos shall 1. As to penalty: a higher penalty is imposed for
be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary falsification of public documents
who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify
a document by committing any of the following acts:
2. As to modes of commission: there are 8 ways
1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting,
signature, or rubric; of falsifying a public documents as against 7 as to
private documents
2. Causing it to appear that persons have
participated in any act or proceeding when they
did not in fact so participate; 3. As to complexing with Estafa: Estafa cannot be
complexed with Falsification of Private document.
3. Attributing to persons who have participated in
an act or proceeding statements other than The reason is because both have a common
those in fact made by them;
element which is damage
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of a). The crime is falsification if the deception
facts; cannot be committed without falsification, i.e. the

5. Altering true dates; falsification is committed as a means to commit

estafa.
6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a
genuine document which changes its meaning; b). It is estafa if the estafa can be committed
without the necessity of falsifying a document
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 4. As to requirement of damage: In falsification of
such copy a statement contrary to, or different
a private document the act of falsification must be
from, that of the genuine original; or
coupled with either (a) actual damage even if
8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to
there was no intent to cause damage or (b) an
the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or
official book. intent to cause damage even if no actual damage

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:
resulted. In falsification of public document, the
gravamen of the offense is the perversion of truth;
the loss of faith and confidence by the public in
the document even if there is no actual damage

1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the public

the falsifications enumerated in the next
preceding article in any public or official Principles Involving Falsification:
document or letter of exchange or any other kind
of commercial document; and
1. The Falsification maybe complexed with the
2. Any person who, to the damage of a third party,
or with the intent to cause such damage, shall in crimes of Estafa ( save private documents)
any private document commit any of the acts of malversation or theft
falsification enumerated in the next preceding
article.
2. Maybe committed intentionally or through
Any person who shall knowingly introduce in evidence in
any judicial proceeding or to the damage of another or negligence
who, with the intent to cause such damage, shall use
any of the false documents embraced in the next a). Examples through negligence:
preceding article, or in any of the foregoing subdivisions
of this article, shall be punished by the penalty next
lower in degree.
Page 1 of 7
 (i) The Register of Deeds who issued a
duplicate title without noting on its back a
notice of the encumbrances (ii) A Clerk who
issues a certified true copy of a birth certificate
but inadvertently copied the wrong entries (iii)
a person who signs a check to accommodate a
payee without verifying the payee’s
identification
b). Thus the accused who is charged with
intentional falsification may be convicted for
falsification thru negligence without amending
the Information because the former includes
the latter (PP vs Uy 475 SCRA 248)
3. As to the liability of Heads of Offices as final
approving authority if it turns out the document to
which they affixed their signatures contains
falsities:
a). The Arias Principle ( Arias vs.
Sandiganbayan, 180 SCRA 315) as reiterated
in Magsuce vs. Sandiganbayan ( Jan. 3, 1995)
holds: “ All heads of offices have a right to rely
to a reasonable extent on their subordinate
and on the good faith of those who prepared
the documents, and are not liable for the
falsification”
b). Exceptions: (i). Where there is a clear
evidence of conspiracy with the authors (ii) if
through their negligence, they brought about
the commission of the crime. Thus in PP. vs.
Rodis the Head of Office was held liable where
the document signed by him contained
anomalies which were glaring in the document
4. The following are accepted as defenses
a). Good faith and lack of intent to pervert the
truth. As in the case of a co-employee who
signed for another in the payroll because the
latter was sick
Page 2 of 7
b). Alterations which are in the nature of
corrections such as changing the civil status
from single to married in a Community Tax
Certificate
d). Alterations which do not affect the integrity
or veracity of the document. Example: The
Certification by the treasurer that he paid the
salary on July 10 when in truth it was on July
12
e) Minor inaccuracies as in a deed of sale
which declared the consideration was paid in
cash when it was paid in two installments
5. Presumption of Authorship of the Falsification:
In the absence of satisfactory explanation, one
found in possession of and who used a forged
document is the forger of said document. If a
person had in his possession a falsified document
and he made sue of it, taking advantage of it and
profiting thereby, the clear presumption is that he
is the material author of the falsification. ( Nierva
vs. PP. 503 SCRA 114).
6. There is a ruling that generally, falsification of
public/commercial documents have no attempted
or frustrated stages unless the falsification is so
imperfect that it may be considered as frustrated.
(Personal Opinion: the crime should be
consumated since what was frustrated was not
the act but the purpose of the offender)
7. There are as many falsifications as there are
documents falsified; or as there are separate acts
of falsification committed by one person within the
same period of time
a). The falsification of several signatures in
one payroll is only one falsification
b). Several checks falsified at the same time
gives rise to several separate crimes
8. Falsification is not a continuing crime

Proof of Falsification.
A. An allegation of forgery and a perfunctory
comparison of the signature/handwritings by
themselves cannot support a claim of forgery, as
forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by
clear, positive and convincing evidence and the
burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery.
B. Criteria to determine forgery or falsification: per
Ladignon vs. CA (390 Phil. 1161 as reiterated in
Rivera vs. Turiano ( March 7, 2007)
The process of identification must include not only the
material differences between or among the
signatures/handwritings but a showing of the
following:
(i) the determination of the extent, kind and
significance of the resemblance and variation ( of
the handwriting or signature)
(ii) that the variation is due to the operation of a
different personality and not merely an expected
and inevitable variation found in the genuine
writing of the same writer
(iii) that the resemblance is a result more or less
of a skillful imitation and not merely a habitual
and characteristic resemblance which normally
appears in genuine handwriting
CASES
G.R. No. 179448 June 26, 2013
CARLOS L. TANENGGEE, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
Elements of falsification of commercial documents
established.
Falsification of documents under paragraph 1, Article
172 in relation to Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC) refers to falsification by a private individual or a
public officer or employee, who did not take advantage
of his official position, of public, private or commercial
document. The elements of falsification of documents
under paragraph 1, Article 172 of the RPC are: (1) that
the offender is a private individual or a public officer or
Page 3 of 7
employee who did not take advantage of his official
position; (2) that he committed any of the acts of
falsification enumerated in Article 171 of the RPC;33 and,
(3) that the falsification was committed in a public, official
or commercial document.
All the above-mentioned elements were established in
this case. First, petitioner is a private individual. Second,
the acts of falsification consisted in petitioner’s (1)
counterfeiting or imitating the handwriting or signature of
Tan and causing it to appear that the same is true and
genuine in all respects; and (2) causing it to appear that
Tan has participated in an act or proceeding when he did
not in fact so participate. Third, the falsification was
committed in promissory notes and checks which are
commercial documents. Commercial documents are, in
general, documents or instruments which are "used by
merchants or businessmen to promote or facilitate trade
or credit transactions."34 Promissory notes facilitate
credit transactions while a check is a means of payment
used in business in lieu of money for convenience in
business transactions. A cashier’s check necessarily
facilitates bank transactions for it allows the person
whose name and signature appear thereon to encash
the check and withdraw the amount indicated therein.35
Falsification as a necessary means to commit estafa.
When the offender commits on a public, official or
commercial 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 of
the RPC, there are two classes of a complex crime. A
complex crime may refer to a single act which
constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies or to
an offense as a necessary means for committing
another.
In Domingo v. People,36 we held:
The falsification of a public, official, or commercial
document may be a means of committing estafa,
because before the falsified document is actually utilized
to defraud another, the crime of falsification has already
been consummated, damage or intent to cause damage
not being an element of the crime of falsification of
public, official or commercial document. In other words,
the crime of falsification has already existed. Actually
utilizing that falsified public, official or commercial
document to defraud another is estafa. But the damage
is caused by the commission of estafa, not by the
falsification of the document. Therefore, the falsification
of the public, official or commercial document is only a
necessary means to commit estafa.
"Estafa is generally committed when (a) the accused
defrauded another by abuse of confidence, or by means
of deceit, and (b) the offended party or a third party
suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary
estimation."37 Deceit is the false representation of a
matter of fact, whether by words or conduct, by false or
misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which
should have been disclosed which deceives or is
intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it
to his legal injury."38
The elements of estafa obtain in this case. By falsely
representing that Tan requested him to process
purported loans on the latter’s behalf, petitioner
counterfeited or imitated the signature of Tan in the
cashier’s checks.1âwphi1 Through these, petitioner
succeeded in withdrawing money from the bank. Once in
possession of the amount, petitioner thereafter invested
the same in Eurocan Future Commodities. Clearly,
petitioner employed deceit in order to take hold of the
money, misappropriated and converted it to his own
personal use and benefit, and these resulted to the
damage and prejudice of the bank in the amount of
about ₱43 million.
Taken in its entirety, the proven facts show that
petitioner could not have withdrawn the money without
falsifying the questioned documents. The falsification
was, therefore, a necessary means to commit estafa,
and falsification was already consummated even before
the falsified documents were used to defraud the bank.
The conviction of petitioner for the complex crime of
Estafa through Falsification of Commercial Document by
the lower courts was thus proper.
G.R. No. 186329
DR. FRISCO M. MALABANAN, Petitioner,
vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondent
x-----------------------x
GR. Nos. 186584-86
ABUSAMA MANGUDADATU ALID, Petitioner,
vs.
THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN - 1st DIVISION,
OFF'ICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, HON.
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE, Respondents.
x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 198598
ABUSAMA M. ALID, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
The Sandiganbayan erred in convicting Alid of the
crime of falsification of a private document under
paragraph 2 of Article 172 of the Revised Penal
Code.
In G.R. No. 198598, the Sandiganbayan convicted Alid
of falsification of a private document for altering the PAL
Ticket. We disagree with that conviction for two reasons.
First, a conviction for falsification of a private document
under paragraph 2 of Article 172 violates the right of Alid
to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him given that his Information charged him only
Page 4 of 7
with falsification of documents committed by a public
officer under Article 171. Second, for falsifying a
commercial document, the penal provision allegedly
violated by Alid was paragraph 1, and not paragraph 2,
of Article 172.
Here, it cannot be overlooked that there is a variance
between the felony as charged in the Information and as
found in the judgment of conviction. Applying the rules,
the conviction of Alid for falsification of a private
document under paragraph 2, Article 172 is valid only if
the elements of that felony constituted the elements of
his indictment for falsification by a public officer under
Article 171.
Article 171 - the basis of the indictment of Alid - punishes
public officers for falsifying a document by making any
alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which
changes its meaning. The elements of falsification under
this provision are as follows:39
1. The offender is a public officer, employee, or
a notary public.
2. The offender takes advantage of his or her
official position.
3. The offender falsifies a document by
committing any of the acts of falsification under
Article 171.40
Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code contains three
punishable acts. It reads:
Art. 172. Falsification by Private Individuals and Use of
Falsified Documents. - The penalty
of prisioncorreccional in its medium and maximum
periods and a fine of not more than 5,000 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.
Paragraph 2 of Article 172 was the basis of Alid's
conviction. Its elements are as follows:
1. The offender committed any of the acts of
falsification, except those in Article 1 71 (7).
 2. The falsification was committed on a private
document.
3. The falsification caused damage or was
committed with intent to cause damage to a
third party.41
Comparing the two provisions and the elements of
falsification respectively enumerated therein, it is readily
apparent that the two felonies are different. Falsification
under paragraph 2 of Article 172 goes beyond the
elements of falsification enumerated under Article 171.
The former requires additional independent evidence of
damage or intention to cause the same to a third
person.42 Simply put, in Article 171, damage is not an
element of the crime; but in paragraph 2 of Article 172,
or falsification of a private document, damage is an
element necessary for conviction.
Therefore, not all the elements of the crime punished by
paragraph 2, Article 172 are included under Article 1 71.
Specifically, the former offense requires the element of
damage, which is not a requisite in the latter. Indeed, the
Information charging Alid of a felony did not inform him
that his alleged falsification caused damage or was
committed with intent to cause damage to a third party.
Since Alid was not specifically informed of the complete
nature and cause of the accusation against him, he
cannot be convicted of falsification of a private document
under paragraph 2 of Article 172. To convict him
therefor, as the Sandiganbayan did, violates the very
proscription found in the Constitution and our Rules of
Criminal Procedure. On this ground alone, we find that
the court a quo erred in its decision.
Falsification under Articles 171 and
172 of the Revised Penal Code
Notwithstanding the erroneous conviction meted out by
the Sandiganbayan, this Court proceeds to peruse the
nature of the crime established in the records of this
case. In People v. Castillo,43 we emphasized a basic rule
in criminal jurisprudence: that the defendant in a criminal
case may be found guilty of any offense necessarily
included in the allegation stated in the information and
fully established by the evidence.
Guillergan v. People 44 declares that the falsification of
documents committed by public officers who take
advantage of their official position under Article 171
necessarily includes the falsification of commercial
documents by private persons punished by paragraph 1
of Article 172. To reiterate, the elements of Article 171
are as follows:
1. The offender is a public officer, employee, or
a notary public.
2. The offender takes advantage of his or her
official position.
3. The offender falsifies a document by
committing any of the acts of falsification under
Article 171.
Page 5 of 7
In turn, paragraph 1 of Article 172 contains these
requisites:
1. That the offender is a private individual or a
public officer or employee who did not take
advantage of his or her official position.
2. The falsification was committed in a public or
official or commercial document.
3. The offender falsifies a document by
committing any of the acts of falsification under
Article 171.
Analyzing these felonies, we find that neither of them
include damage or intent to cause damage as an
element of the crime; and that Article 171 encompasses
all the elements required in a conviction for falsification
under paragraph 1 of Article 172. Thus, in Daan v.
Sandiganbayan,45 we allowed the accused facing
Informations for falsification of public documents under
Article 171 to plead guilty to falsification under Article
172. We specifically stated that "in the charge for
Falsification of Public Documents, petitioner may plead
guilty to the lesser offense of Falsification by Private
Individuals inasmuch as it does not appear that
petitioner took advantage of his official position in
allegedly falsifying the time book and payroll of the
Municipality of Bato, Leyte."46
Here, if the records show sufficient allegations that
would convict Al id of paragraph I of Article 172, the
Sandiganbayan is bound to sentence him to that lesser
offense.1âwphi1 But, as mentioned, it overlooked this
provision and jumped to convicting him of falsification
under paragraph 2 of Article 172. As discussed, the
latter felony is not covered by his indictment under
Article 171.
This Court finds that the prosecution has sufficiently
alleged all the elements of paragraph 1 of Article 172. As
regards the first element, Alid was a public officer who
did not take advantage of his official position.
Offenders are considered to have taken advantage of
their official position in falsifying a document if (1) they
had the duty to make or prepare or otherwise intervene
in the preparation of the document; or (2) they had
official custody of the falsified document.47 Here, the
accused definitely did not have the duty to make,
prepare, or intervene in the preparation of the PAL
Ticket. Neither was it in his official custody. Therefore,
when he falsified the PAL Ticket, he did not take
advantage of his official position as Assistant Regional
Director of the DA.
Anent the second element, the Sandiganbayan
concluded that because the PAL Ticket was a private
document, Alid should not have been charged with
falsifying a public document. However, the PAL Ticket
fell under the category of commercial documents, which
paragraph 1 of Article 172 protects from falsification.
Commercial documents or papers are those used by
merchants or business persons to promote or facilitate
trade or credit transactions. Examples include receipts,
order slips, and invoices.48 In Seaoil Petroleum
Corporation v. Autocorp Group, 49 we considered a sales
invoice a commercial document and explained:
The Vehicle Sales Invoice [Autocorp sold to Seaoil one
unit Robex 200 LC Excavator paid for by checks issued
by one Romeo Valera] is the best evidence of the
transaction. A sales invoice is a commercial document.
Commercial documents or papers are those used by
merchants or businessmen to promote or facilitate trade
or credit transactions. Business forms, e.g., order slip,
delivery charge invoice and the like, are commonly
recognized in ordinary commercial transactions as valid
between the parties and, at the very least, they serve as
an acknowledgment that a business transaction has in
fact transpired.
In this case, since the PAL Ticket functioned as a sales
invoice that memorialized the consummation of the
commercial transaction between the air carrier and the
passenger, the Sandiganbayan should have considered
the fact that Alid had altered a commercial document.
Finally, the accused did not dispute that he had altered a
genuine document. The date "22 AUG 2004" was
changed to read "28 JULY 2004"; and the flight route
"Cotabato-Manila-Cotabato" appearing on the PAL
Ticket was altered to read "Davao-Manila-
Cotabato."50 Hence, the third element of the felony
punished by paragraph 1 of Article 172 is apparent in
this case.
******************
This Court is well aware that falsification of documents
under paragraph 1 of Article 172, like Article 171, does
not require the idea of gain or the intent to injure a third
person as an element of conviction. But, as early
as People v. Pacana,57 we have said:
Considering that even though in the falsification of public
or official documents, whether by public officials or by
private persons, it is unnecessary that there be present
the idea of gain or the intent to injure a third person, for
the reason that, in contradistinction to private
documents, the principal thing punished is the violation
of the solemnly proclaimed, it must, nevertheless, be
borne in mind that the change in the public document
must be such as to affect the integrity of the same or
to change the effects which it would otherwise
produce; for unless that happens, there could not exist
the essential element of the intention to commit the
crime which is required by article 1 [now Article 3] of the
Penal Code. (Emphasis supplied)58
Here we find that, similar to Amara, Jr. and Regional
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, there is no moral
certainty that Alid benefitted from the transaction, with
the government or any third person sustaining damage
from his alteration of the document.
The peculiar situation of this case reveals that Alid
falsified the PAL Ticket just to be consistent with the
deferred date of the turnover ceremony for the outgoing
and the incoming Secretaries of the DA Central Office in
Quezon City. Notably, he had no control as to the
Page 6 of 7
rescheduling of the event he had to attend. Neither did
the prosecution show that he had incurred any additional
benefit when he altered the document. Moreover, after
he submitted the PAL Ticket that he had used to support
his liquidation for a cash advance of ₱10,496, the public
funds kept by the DA remained intact: no apparent illegal
disbursement was made; or any additional expense
incurred.
Considering, therefore, the obvious intent of Alid in
altering the PAL Ticket - to remedy his liquidation of
cash advance with the correct date of his rescheduled
travel - we find no malice on his part when he falsified
the document. For this reason, and seeing the overall
circumstances in the case at bar, we cannot justly
convict Alid of falsification of a commercial document
under paragraph 1 of Article 172.
G.R. No. L-7236 April 30, 1955
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
PO GIOK TO, defendant-appellee.
Anent the second element allegedly lacking in the
information in question, the law is clear that wrongful
intent on the part of the accused to injure a third person
is not an essential element of the crime of falsification of
public document.
Article 172, par. 1, in connection with Art. 171, par. 4, of
the Revised Penal Code, under which provision the
accused is charged, provides as follows:
ART. 171. Falsification by the public officer,
employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister. —
The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to
exceed 5,000 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 xxx xxx
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of
facts.
ART. 172. Falsification by private individuals and
use of falsified documents. — The penalty
of prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods and a fine of not more than
5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon:
xxx xxx xxx
1. Any private individual who shall commit any of
the falsifications enumerated in the next
preceding article in any other kind of commercial
document.
 On the other hand, Art. 172, par 2, defining the
crime falsification of private document, provides:
2. Any person who, to the damage of a third
party, or with intent to cause such damage, shall
in any private document commit any of the acts
of falsification enumerated in the next
preceeding article.
it is true that it was the employee of the Office of the City
Treasurer of Cebu who performed the overt act of writing
the allegedly false facts on the defendant's residence
certificate, it was however, the defendants who induced
him to do so by supplying him with those facts.
Consequently, the employee was defendant's mere
innocent agent in the performance of the crime charged,
while defendant was a principal by inducement.

The distinction made by the law between falsification by

private persons, first, of public documents, and secondly
of private documents, is clear; the first is committed by
the mere performance of any of the acts of falsification
enumerated in Art. 171; while the second is committed
not only by the performance of any of the acts of
falsification enumerated in Art. 171; but it must likewise
be shown that such act of falsification was committed to
the damage of a third party or with intent to cause such
damage.

The reason for the distinction is given in a decision of the

Supreme Court of Spain dated December 23, 1885,
cited by this Court in the case of People vs. Pacana, 47
Phil. 48; i.e., that in the falsification of public or official
documents, whether by public officials or by private
persons, it is unnecessary that there be present the idea
of gain or the intent to injure a third person, for the
reason that, in contradiction to private documents, the
principal thing punished is the violation of the public faith
and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly
proclaimed.

Our own commentators on the Revised Penal Code are

also agreed on this distinction. (Francisco, Revised
Penal Code.) Sec. ed., Vol. II, Part 1, p. 301; Guevara,
Comm. on the Revised Penal Code, IV Ed., P. 172;
Albert, Revised Penal Code, 1948 Ed., p. 398).

Moreover, the acts charged, if true, would result in

confusion in the government records, since the
fingerprint of the accused would not correspond to that
of the person whose personal circumstances are recited
in the certificate. Such confusion in its records evidently
operates to the Government's prejudice. Being the
natural and direct result of the criminal act charged, the
accused must be presumed to have intended it.

Defendant-appellee also advances the theory that a

private person can not commit the crime of falsification
charged, i. e., by making untruthful statements in a
narration of facts, referring to the opinion of the late
Justice Albert that "only of the eight ways of committing
falsifications enumerated in Article 171, to wit, the first,
the fifth, and the sixth, are open to a private individual"
(Albert, supra, p. 405); and stresses that if there had
been any falsification at all in this case, it was committed
by the employee who, though innocently, wrote the
allegedly untrue facts on defendant's residence
certificate. The opinion quoted plainly refers to direct
falsification by a private person, and does not
contemplate situations where the accused, though a
private person, becomes a principal to the act of
falsification committed by a public official or employee,
by induction, cooperation, or planned conspiracy (cf.
Sent. of Tribunal Supremo of Spain of 23 Mar. 1885; 28
Apr. 1905; 28 Mar. 1893). In the present case, although

Page 7 of 7