Elements & Case Law on Forgery vs Falsification of Public Documents (Philippine Revised Penal Code)
1. Statutory Framework
| Heading | Governing Articles | Core Conduct Punished |
|---|---|---|
| Forgery (Title IV, Ch. I, Rev. Penal Code) |
Arts. 161-169 | Counterfeiting or imitating (a) the Great Seal, government signatures/handwriting, or corporate seals; (b) coins, treasury or bank notes, other obligations and securities; and (c) stamping instruments and marks. |
| Falsification of Documents (still under Ch. I “Forgeries”, Arts. 171-174) |
Art. 171 (public/official docs) & Art. 172 (¶1-3) | Altering or perverting the truth in a document in any of seven specific ways, or using such falsified document. |
“Forgery is directed at the genuineness of the thing itself; falsification is directed at the veracity of the statements contained in the document.” – People v. Dizon, G.R. 211630, 6 Jan 2016.
2. What Counts as a “Public Document”?
- Official – created, executed or issued by a public officer in the exercise of official functions (e.g., a mayor’s certification, police blotter).
- Public – any instrument acknowledged before a notary or competent official, or required by law to be accomplished before such officer (e.g., notarised Deed of Sale).
- Entries in public registries (civil registry, Registry of Deeds). (See Arts. 1358 & 1317, Civil Code; Art. 410, RPC).
3. Elements of the Crimes
A. Forgery (selected modalities)
| Article | Elements |
|---|---|
| Art. 161 — Forging the Great Seal or signature/handwriting of the President | 1. Offender forges or counterfeits the Seal of the Republic or the signature/handwriting of the Chief Executive. 2. Intent to deceive or defraud the Government or any individual. |
| Art. 162 — Using forged seal/signature | 1. Offender knows of the forgery. 2. Uses the forged seal or signature. |
| Art. 168 — Forgery of treasury/bank notes and other obligations | 1. Forging or falsifying currency, passports, stamps, certificates of stock, bonds, etc. 2. Intent that the forged instrument be accepted as genuine. |
| Art. 169 — Stamping Instruments | 1. Making, importing or uttering instruments for forging government/corporate marks. 2. Knowledge and intent to use. |
Possession of forged currency or seal with intent to utter is penalised the same as the principal act (e.g., People v. Agustin, 73 Phil 401 [1941]).
B. Falsification of Public Documents (Art. 171)**
The law lists seven punishable acts when the document involved is public, official or commercial:
- Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric.
- Causing it to appear that persons participated in an act or agreement when they did not.
- Attributing to a person statements other than those in fact made by him.
- Making untruthful statements in narration of facts.
- Altering true dates.
- Making alterations or intercalations in a genuine document which change its meaning.
- Issuing authenticated copies containing statements contrary to, or different from, the original.
Key jurisprudence:
| Case | G.R. No. / Date | Doctrinal Point |
|---|---|---|
| People v. Dizon | 211630 / 06 Jan 2016 | Even a private individual may be liable for falsification of a public doc if any of the seven acts is committed. |
| Malabago v. People | 211476 / 30 Jan 2017 | “Making untruthful statements” does not require intent to cause damage; it is mala prohibita. |
| Ticzon v. People | 199403 / 07 Jan 2015 | Altering the date of a notarised Deed of Absolute Sale constitutes falsification under Art. 171 (5). |
| People v. Domingo | L-13018 / 29 Sept 1960 | Annotations in civil registry by non-authorized persons falsify an official document. |
C. Falsification by Private Individuals & Use of Falsified Docs (Art. 172)
¶1 – Private individual falsifying a public, official or commercial document Elements: (a) Offender is a private individual or public officer not in official duty; (b) commits any act under Art. 171; (c) document is public/official/commercial.
¶2 – Falsification of private document (Acts in Art. 171, but document is private; intent to cause damage essential.)
¶3 – Use or introduction in evidence of a falsified document (a) Offender introduced document in a judicial proceeding or uses it to prejudice another; (b) he knew of its falsity.) – Use is a distinct felony; one may be prosecuted even if the forger is unknown (U.S. v. Asuncion, 22 Phil 297 [1912]).
4. Distinguishing Forgery vs Falsification
| Aspect | Forgery | Falsification |
|---|---|---|
| Immediate Object | Seal, signature, currency, stamp, security. | Document as a whole or its contents. |
| Means | Fabrication or imitation of the thing itself. | Alteration/false narration within an existing document (or simulation of a document). |
| Typical Evidence | Physical comparison of genuine vs forged seal/signature; numismatic analysis. | Discrepancies in entries, expert handwriting/scanner examination, testimonial corroboration. |
| Damage or intent to injure | Presumed; not an element. | Not required for public docs; required for private docs (Art. 172 ¶2). |
| Penalties | Generally prision mayor or reclusion temporal; higher when currency/securities of the Gov’t are involved. | Same range but calibrated (e.g., falsification by public officer is heavier). |
| Prescriptive Period | Assessed from last overt act (e.g., uttering forged note). | From date of falsification or from last use that perpetuates concealment (see People v. Gozo, 220040, 05 Feb 2014). |
5. Procedural & Evidentiary Notes
- Venue lies where the document was falsified or where it was used.
- Presumption of authorship – the possessor or introducer of a falsified public doc is presumed the forger unless he explains (People v. Manalansan, 151 Phil 259 [1973]).
- Good Faith may negate intent only in falsification of private documents; for public docs, intent is immaterial once the act falls under Art. 171 (4) (Malabago, supra).
- Mitigating/Aggravating – Relationship, public office abuse (Art. 171), amount/value when currency is involved (Arts. 163-168), recidivism.
6. Selected Recent Trends (up to 2024)
| Development | Relevance |
|---|---|
| Electronic docs & e-notarization (RA 8792, NTRCP Rules) | Courts analogise e-signatures to handwritten ones (“forging an e-signature” may fall under Art. 171 [1]). |
| Ease of Doing Business Act (RA 11032) | Heightened internal controls in issuing gov’t certificates; falsification cases now often arise from forged certs. of occupancy, business permits. |
| PhilSys ID & Digital IDs | Bangko Sentral and PSA treat counterfeiting of the PhilID’s QR code as Art. 161/168 violation. |
| Anti-Red Tape Authority reports | Rapid prosecution of fixers falsifying Mayor’s Permits; jurisprudence developing on liability of LGU employees who “facilitate” falsified docs. |
7. Practical Compliance Tips for Practitioners & Public-Facing Offices
- Serialisation & Watermarks – Make them machine-readable to deter Art. 161/168 forgeries.
- Chain-of-custody logs – Crucial when public documents pass through several desks; helps identify the nexus for falsification.
- Handwriting exemplar protocols – Keep specimen signatures of signatories to rebut Art. 171 (1) claims.
- Whistle-blower mechanisms – Early detection reduces exposure to “use” liability under Art. 172 ¶3.
8. Conclusion
While both crimes are grouped under “Forgeries” because they attack public faith, forgery focuses on the genuineness of seals, signatures, currency and similar instruments, whereas falsification focuses on the truthfulness of statements in a document. Philippine jurisprudence consistently punishes falsification of public documents more severely—and more easily—than forgery, because the State need not prove intent to cause damage. Familiarity with the seven statutory modes, the presumptions arising from possession or use, and the fine distinctions among documents is essential whether you prosecute, defend, notarise, or simply rely on public records.