Falsification of private documents (Article 172(2) of the RPC)

Statutory provision

The offense of falsification of private documents is defined and penalized under Article 172 (2), in
relation to Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC):

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:

xxxx

(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.

Elements

The elements of the offense of falsification of private documents are:

(i) The offender committed any of the acts of falsification, except those in paragraph 7, under Article 171

(ii) The falsification was committed in any private document;

(iii) The falsification caused damage to a third party or at least the falsification was committed with intent
to cause such damage.

[see Fernando Dizon vs. People, G.R. No. 144026, June 15, 2006]

Private document

A private document refers to a deed or instrument executed by a private person without the intervention
of a notary public or other person legally authorized, by which document some disposition or agreement
is proved, evidenced, or set forth. [see United States vs. Orera, G.R. No. 3810, October 18, 1907]
| Page 1 of 3
Hence, a private document is transformed into a public document upon acknowledgement before a
notary public. [see Del Prado vs. People, G.R. No. 186030, March 21, 2012]

In Monteverde vs. People, G.R. No. 139610, August 12, 2000, what was falsified were sales invoices
required by the BIR, it was held that If the document is intended by law to be part of the public or official
record, the preparation of which being in accordance with rules and regulations issued by the
government, the falsification of that document, although it was a private document at the time of the
falsification, is regarded as falsification of public or official documents

Element of damage must be separately proved

When [the acts punished under Article 171, RPC) are committed by a private individual on a private
document, the violation would fall under paragraph 2, Article 172 of the same code, but there must be, in
addition to the [elements of the offense under Art 171], independent evidence of damage or intention to
cause the same to a third person. [Tan vs. Yoshitsuga Matsuura and Carolina Tanjutco, G.R. No.
179003 and G.R. No. 195816, January 9, 2013; Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128213 ,
December 13, 2005]

Note: The evidence of damage is only required when the document falsified is a private document. In
contrast, the element of gain or benefit on the part of the offender or prejudice to a third party as a result
of the falsification, or tarnishing of a documents integrity, is not essential to maintain a charge for
falsification of public documents. What is punished in falsification of public document is principally the
undermining of the public faith and the destruction of truth as solemnly proclaimed therein. In this
particular crime, therefore, the controlling consideration lies in the public character of a document; and
the existence of any prejudice caused to third persons or, at least, the intent to cause such damage
becomes immaterial. [see In Laurino Goma vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 168437, January 8, 2009]

The existence of a wrongful intent to injure a third person is not necessary when the falsified document is
a public document. [see Siquian vs. People, G.R. No. 82197, March 13, 1989]

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

In Maliwat vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107041, 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. [see Spouses Villamar vs. People, G.R. No. 178652, December 8,
| Page 2 of 3
2010; Lastrilla vs. Granda, G.R. No. 160257, January 31, 2006]

Other jurisprudence

In People vs. Melecio Reyes, G.R. No. 34516 November 10, 1931, the accused was in charge of
entering the laborers' workdays in the time book of the Calamba Sugar Estate. He falsified the time book
by making it appear that a laborer worked twenty-one days during the month of July, 1929, when in
reality he had only worked eleven. It was held that the falsification of the time book, with the intent of
gain at the expense of the Calamba Sugar Estate, constitutes the crime of falsification of a private
document with prejudice to a third person.

In Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128213 , December 13, 2005, the accused made payments
for the purchase of a house and lot from complainant. The accused altered one of the payment receipts,
in the amount of five thousand, by inserting the word fifty and thus making it appear that the amount
of P55,000 was paid instead of the P5,000 only. The accused was held guilty of the crime of falsification
of a private document under Article 172 in relation to Article 171(6) of the RPC.

In United States vs. Chan Tiao, G.R. No. L-12609, October 30, 1917, the accused, desiring to profit in
the amount of P2,055, which is the value of one hundred and fifty sacks of sugar belonging to the firm
Smith, Bell & Co., forged the document Exhibit A, purporting to be signed by the manager of the Chinese
firm Ortiga Hermanos, which act certainly constitutes the crime of falsification of a private document, to
the prejudice of the firm Smith, Bell & Co., the owner of the sugar. The court said: The crime committed
should be classified only as that of falsification of a private document, for the reason that the fraudulent
gain obtained by the falsifier is involved in the harm caused an essential and indispensable ingredient
for the existence of the crime of falsification of a private document; and it cannot be classified as estafa
with falsification, nor may the penalty for a more serious crime be applied, pursuant to the provision of
article 89 of the Penal Code, inasmuch as the harm occasioned or intended by the perpetrator of the
crime does not constitute estafa.

| Page 3 of 3