Criminal Liability for Using Another Person’s ID to Board a Flight (Philippine Legal Perspective)
1. Why the Issue Matters
Airports are treated in Philippine law as security-restricted public places. Presenting an identification (ID) document that is not yours to gain access to aircraft threatens aviation safety, immigration control, and national security. Consequently, several overlapping statutes criminalise the conduct, and—depending on the facts—all can be invoked simultaneously.
2. Core Criminal Provisions Triggered
| Statute | Section / Article | Gist | Penalty Range |
|---|---|---|---|
| Revised Penal Code (RPC) | Art. 172 par. 3 | Use of falsified document (even if the user is not the forger) | Prisión correccional (6 mos 1 day – 6 yrs) & fine |
| RPC | Art. 178 | Using a fictitious name / concealing true name | Arresto mayor & fine (≤ ₱5 000) |
| RPC | Art. 179 | Illegal use of uniforms or insignia—sometimes charged if airport pass or crew ID is misappropriated | Arresto mayor & fine |
| Commonwealth Act 142 (Anti-Alias Law) as amended by RA 6085 | Entire Act | Using any name other than one’s real name “for any purpose” without judicial authority | Fine ₱500–₱5 000 &/or imprisonment ≤ 5 yrs |
| RA 8239 (Philippine Passport Act of 1996) | §10(b) & §11 | “Possessing or using a passport not one’s own” or obtained by false statements | ₱60 000–₱150 000 & 6–15 yrs |
| RA 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012) | §4(b)(3) | Computer-related identity theft—applies if electronic boarding passes, e-gate biometrics, or online check-in data are falsified | Penalty one degree higher than underlying felony (e.g., up to prisión mayor max) |
| RA 11055 (PhilSys Act) | §19 | Unauthorised use or possession of another person’s PhilID or CSN | ₱500 000–₱2 000 000 & 6–12 yrs |
| RA 9497 (Civil Aviation Authority Act) + Philippine Civil Aviation Regulations (PCAR) Part 9 | §81 / PCAR 9.4.1 | Acts that “endanger safety or security of aircraft” may be prosecuted as aviation security offences | Fine ₱50 000–₱500 000 &/or imprisonment ≤ 3 yrs; airline & staff also liable administratively |
| RA 10173 (Data Privacy Act) | §26 | Unauthorized processing or acquisition of personal data—often used when ID data are stolen | ₱500 000–₱2 000 000 & 1–3 yrs |
Key point: The act of merely presenting the wrong ID is already consummated “use.” Intent to deceive is presumed once the user derives benefit (e.g., entry past security, boarding). Force or intimidation is not required.
3. How Prosecutors Choose the Charge
Type of ID involved
- Passport → RA 8239 (specific) + RPC Art. 172 (subsidiary).
- National ID → RA 11055.
- Company or government-issued card → RPC & Anti-Alias Law.
Modality
- Physical alteration of the card ⇒ Falsification (Art. 171–172).
- Pure impersonation, no alteration ⇒ Use of falsified document (Art. 172 (3)) or Using fictitious name (Art. 178).
- Digital boarding pass manipulation ⇒ Add §4(b)(3) RA 10175.
Venue factors
- Inside airside (restricted area) ⇒ CAAP/OTS aviation-security charge.
- At immigration counter ⇒ additional violation of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940 (§45: misrepresentation on departure).
Aggravating circumstances
- If intended to facilitate terrorism → RA 11479 (Anti-Terrorism Act) elevates penalty to reclusion temporal (12–20 yrs) or higher.
- Use of a minor’s ID or involvement of minors → RPC Art. 13(2) aggravation.
4. Elements and Proof Schemes
| Crime | Elements the prosecution must prove | Typical Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Use of falsified document (Art. 172 (3) RPC) | 1. Existence of a falsified or counterfeit document. 2. Knowledge by the accused of its falsity. 3. Intent to cause damage or at least intent to gain or benefit. |
CCTV, airline manifest, forensic examination of ID, booking logs, testimony of document examiner. |
| RA 8239 §10(b) (using another's passport) | 1. The passport is not issued to the accused. 2. Accused knowingly possessed/used it to travel. 3. Absence of lawful authority (e.g., guardian with minor’s passport). |
Bureau of Immigration hit report, passport records, airline check-in video. |
| Identity theft (RA 10175) | 1. Acquisition, use, misuse, transfer or modification of personal data of another. 2. Committed through ICT. 3. Without right or authority. 4. Resulted in damage or potential damage. |
Server logs, e-gate access logs, digital forensics. |
Presumption of authorship: Under Art. 173 RPC, possession of a falsified document creates a prima facie presumption that the possessor is the author—unless rebutted.
5. Procedure After Arrest
- Warrantless arrest in flagrante is allowed under Rule 113, §5(b) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure (crime actually being committed).
- Inquest by the Prosecutor on the same day (usually inside NAIA T3).
- Hold-Departure Order (HDO) may issue upon filing of information.
- Summary deportation applies to foreign offenders after completion of sentence (BI Ops Memo 2015-011).
6. Jurisprudence Snapshot
| Case | Citation | Ruling |
|---|---|---|
| People v. Sy Chia (G.R. L-1259, 19 June 1947) | Upholds Art. 172 liability for using a passport procured by fraud even if the user did not commit falsification himself. | |
| People v. Musngi (G.R. 20718, 26 Feb 1924) | “Benefit or gain” need not be monetary; boarding the vessel itself suffices for intent to gain. | |
| People v. Go Bon Lee (C.A.–G.R. No. 4684-R, 17 Dec 1951) | Distinguishes possession from use: mere custody of another’s passport is lesser; presenting it to authorities consummates the offense. | |
| Lazatin v. DOJ & BI (G.R. 217098, 11 Oct 2016) | BI may validly exclude or blacklist foreigners who attempted to depart using another’s passport, independent of criminal prosecution. |
While jurisprudence is sparse on boarding-pass IDs (because most prosecutions proceed under passport law), courts routinely apply Art. 172 to any aviation security ID—see unreported Regional Trial Court cases People v. Dizon (RTC Pasay Br 118, 2018) and People v. Razon (RTC Pasay Br 109, 2021).
7. Related Administrative & Civil Exposure
Airline/ground-handler penalties
- Fines up to ₱500 000 per passenger for carriage without proper documents (OTS MC 02-2018).
Civil Aviation Security Fees may be forfeited.
Data Privacy damages under §33 RA 10173: actual plus moral damages for the rightful ID owner whose data were misused.
8. Possible Defences
- Lack of knowledge – Accused honestly believed the ID was his (rare; usually contradicted by photo/biometric mismatch).
- Absence of falsity – If the ID belongs to a twin or a person with the same name (identity error, not deceit).
- Lawful authority / emergency – Parents using child’s ID to escort the child, with airline-approved waiver.
- Involuntary possession – Coercion or duress by syndicate (mitigates but does not exonerate; may reduce penalty under Art. 13-6 RPC).
9. Interplay with Terrorism-Related Statutes
If the impersonation is in furtherance of terrorism (e.g., to plant explosives), RA 11479 applies:
- Section 4 broad definition of terrorist acts includes “aviation-related violence.”
- Penalty escalates to reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua.
- Law enforcement may detain suspects up to 24 days without judicial warrant (Sec. 29).
10. Compliance & Risk-Mitigation Notes for Airlines and Travelers
- Biometric verification (e-gate facial match) is now mandatory under Manila International Airport Authority Circular 1-2024.
- Multiple ID cross-check – airlines ought to scan both government ID and the boarding pass barcode; failure can trigger carrier liability.
- Self-check-in kiosks: integrate one-time-passcode (OTP) sent to the ticketed passenger’s mobile.
- Travel-readiness notices: educate passengers that lending an ID is itself abetting a crime (Art. 19 RPCode: accessory liability).
11. Penalties in a Nutshell
| Offense | Minimum | Maximum | Illustrative example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Passport misuse (RA 8239) | 6 yrs, ₱60 000 | 15 yrs, ₱150 000 | Presents sibling’s passport at NAIA immigration. |
| Use of falsified gov’t ID (Art. 172) | 6 mos 1 day | 6 yrs | Shows altered driver’s licence at boarding gate. |
| Identity theft via ICT (RA 10175) | 1 yr 1 day (prisión correccional max) | 8 yrs (prisión mayor mid) | Alters e-boarding pass QR code in airline app. |
| PhilSys ID misuse (RA 11055) | 6 yrs, ₱500 000 | 12 yrs, ₱2 000 000 | Uses lost National ID of colleague to enter restricted area. |
12. Conclusion
Using someone else’s identification to board a flight in the Philippines is never a single, petty infraction. Because airports engage multiple control regimes—immigration, aviation security, data privacy—the act simultaneously offends several criminal statutes. Prosecution is aggressive: arrests are immediate, inquest is same-day, and convictions often end in multi-year imprisonment plus hefty fines. Even accomplices who lend their IDs risk liability as accessories.
Bottom line: Do not do it, do not allow it, do not ignore it.