“Falsification” under Philippine law is a crime against public interest that punishes (a) the making of false documents or altering genuine ones, and (b) the knowingly wrongful use of such documents. Liability depends on who commits it (public officer vs. private individual), what kind of document is involved (public/official, commercial, or private), and how the falsification is carried out (the specific acts or “modes” punished by law).

Core Legal Architecture

Where it sits in the Code. The Revised Penal Code (RPC), Title on Crimes Against Public Interest, contains the provisions on falsification of documents. The RPC distinguishes:
- By public officers, employees or notaries (with or without taking advantage of official position);
- By private individuals;
- Use of falsified documents; and
- Specialized falsifications (e.g., telegraph/wireless messages, certificates), and tools for falsification.
Why punished. The law protects public faith in documents (especially those issued or authenticated by public authorities) and security of transactions in commerce.

Types of Documents (Why Classification Matters)

Public or Official Documents
- Executed, issued, or acknowledged by a public officer in the performance of official duties (e.g., birth/marriage certificates, court orders, police reports, tax clearances, titles, notarized documents).
- Notarized documents are treated as public documents because notarization converts a private writing into a public instrument.
Commercial Documents
- Instruments used in trade or commerce (e.g., checks, bills of exchange, invoices, receipts issued in business, warehouse receipts, bills of lading).
Private Documents
- All others (letters, private contracts not notarized, personal receipts).

Consequences of classification: • Public/official & commercial documents enjoy high public faith. Falsification here is punished even without proof of actual damage. • For private documents, the law typically requires intent to cause damage or intent to defraud (or that damage actually occurred).

Who Can Be Liable

1) Public Officer / Employee / Notary

If a public officer (or notary public) commits falsification, especially taking advantage of official position (e.g., inserting false statements in a certificate they issue or acknowledge), penalties are higher.
A public officer who does not take advantage of position may still be liable under provisions applicable to private individuals.

2) Private Individual

May be liable for:
- Falsifying a public/official or commercial document (even if not a public officer);
- Falsifying a private document (with intent to cause damage or defraud); and
- Using a falsified document knowing it to be falsified.

Punishable Acts (“Modes” of Falsification)

The RPC enumerates specific falsification acts. In essence, a person commits falsification if they manufacture a false document or alter a genuine one so that it speaks an untruth or misleads. Key modes include:

Forging a signature or handwriting (counterfeiting or imitating another’s signature/rubric).
Making it appear that someone participated in an act or proceeding when they did not (e.g., adding a “co-maker” who never signed).
Attributing to a person statements other than those actually made (e.g., altering the content of an affidavit to change what the affiant supposedly said).
Untruthful narration of facts in a document where the maker is legally bound to state the truth (e.g., an officer issuing a certification with false content).
Altering dates to produce legal effect (e.g., pre/post-dating a deed to evade a deadline).
Making material insertions, erasures, or intercalations in a genuine document that change its meaning (e.g., changing “₱10,000” to “₱100,000”).
Issuing an authenticated copy that intentionally does not match the genuine original (e.g., a public officer issuing a “certified true copy” with additional text).
Including or inserting notes/instruments into official records to create the false appearance of authority, approval, or issuance of a license/permit/certificate.

The materiality requirement: The change must be material—capable of affecting legal rights/obligations or the document’s meaning. Trivial typos that don’t alter meaning are not criminal falsification.

“Use” of a Falsified Document

A separate offense punishes any person who uses a falsified document knowing it to be falsified. Elements:

The document is falsified (public/official, commercial, or private);
The accused knew of the falsity at the time of use; and
The document was used to the prejudice of another or with intent to prejudice (for private documents; prejudice need not be proven for public/official or commercial documents).

Presumption from possession/use. Jurisprudence recognizes that unexplained possession and use of a falsified document may raise a presumption that the possessor/user is the falsifier, unless satisfactorily explained.

Elements: At a Glance

Falsification of a Public/Official or Commercial Document

Authorship/Participation in any of the falsification modes;
Document is public/official or commercial;
Intent to injure is not indispensable—public faith is the protected interest.

Falsification of a Private Document

Authorship/Participation in any falsification mode;
Document is private;
With intent to cause damage or intent to defraud (or damage actually results).

Use of Falsified Document

Document is falsified;
Knowledge of falsity;
Use (presentation, submission, filing, negotiation, encashment, etc.);
For private documents, with intent to prejudice or actual prejudice.

Penalties (Orientation Guide)

Higher when committed by a public officer/notary or when the document is public/official or commercial.
Lower for falsification of private documents (but still serious: typically prisión correccional range plus fines).
Use of a falsified document is penalized separately; courts may impose distinct penalties for falsification and for use.
If the offense is committed by means of information and communications technologies (ICT), the penalty may be imposed at one degree higher under special rules that aggravate RPC offenses when done through ICT.

Exact periods and fine amounts depend on the specific article applied and any modifying circumstances.

Special Variants

Falsification of telegraph/wireless/telephone messages (historical provision; still illustrative of official communications falsified for deceit).
False medical or allied certificates by physicians or public officers; and use of such false certificates.
Manufacture/possession of tools for falsification (e.g., plates, devices intended for falsifying).

Evidence & Proof

Authenticity vs. falsity is proved through document examination (questioned-document experts), handwriting comparison, testimony of signatories/attesting officers, and chain of custody for originals.
Notarized instruments: The notary’s jurat/acknowledgment carries presumption of regularity—but can be overturned by clear, convincing evidence (e.g., signatory proves non-appearance or forged signature).
For forgery, courts look for mode and materiality, not just “something is wrong.” Mere suspicion does not convict.

Frequent Fact Patterns (and How Courts Analyze Them)

Forged signature on a notarized deed
- Document class: public (due to notarization).
- Issues: Was the signature forged? Did the notary observe the formalities (personal appearance, ID)? Materiality is obvious—transfers ownership/rights.
Fabricated “certificate” by a public officer
- Mode: untruthful narration / issuing authentic copy with false content.
- Taking advantage of official position aggravates liability.
Altering numbers/amounts on a check or receipt
- Commercial document; material alteration changes obligations; falsification even without proof of actual monetary loss.
Submitting a fake diploma/PRC card to HR
- Use of a falsified public document (if the diploma/transcript is duly issued by a public school or the PRC license is forged); knowledge and materiality are key.
Faked private promissory note to sue in small claims
- Private document: Prosecution must show intent to injure/defraud or actual damage (e.g., attempted collection).

Defenses & Doctrinal Nuances

Good faith / lack of knowledge: Powerful defense in use cases and in acts requiring intent to defraud (private documents).
No material alteration: Changes must affect legal meaning; cosmetic edits aren’t criminal falsification.
Truth of statements: “Untruthful narration of facts” requires a duty to state the truth; if the maker had no such legal duty, falsification may not lie under that mode.
Variance between the charge and the proof: The information must match the mode proven at trial; material variance can acquit.
Identification of the falsifier: Mere existence of a forged document doesn’t automatically identify the accused as the forger; presumption from possession/use is rebuttable (e.g., received in good faith).
Notary liability: A notary may incur criminal liability (for falsification) and administrative sanctions (suspension/revocation of notarial commission, disciplinary action) if they notarize without personal appearance or proper verification.

Civil & Administrative Fallout

Civil damages: Victims may recover actual, moral, exemplary damages and attorney’s fees for harm caused (e.g., property loss, reputational injury).
Property/contract consequences: A falsified deed may be void; bona fide third parties are protected only under strict conditions (e.g., in land registration, buyers in good faith rely on the Torrens system, but forged instruments can still unravel chains of title in specific scenarios).
Regulatory sanctions: Public officers, notaries, and professionals face administrative cases (civil service discipline, disbarment/discipline for lawyers and notaries, PRC actions).

Procedural Essentials

Venue: Generally, where the falsification was committed or where a falsified document was used (each use can be a separate offense).
Prescription: Follows the RPC prescriptive periods for the penalty attached to the offense; interrupted by filing of complaint or information.
Multiple counts: One falsified instrument may spawn (a) the falsification case and (b) separate use cases for each distinct act of use.

Compliance & Prevention (Practical Playbook)

For individuals & businesses

Authenticate: Use direct verifications (PSA/PRC/CHED/LGU portals), QR-secured certificates, or request originals sent directly from issuing offices.
Notarial hygiene: Appear personally before a notary; bring valid government ID; avoid “drive-by” notarizations.
Document control: Watermarks, serial numbers, tamper-evident paper; audit trails for issuance; strict custody of corporate seals and checkbooks.
Digital posture: Use qualified e-signatures/PKI where available; implement role-based access to PDF editors; keep immutable logs (WORM storage).

When you suspect falsification

Quarantine the document; preserve the original.
Get internal statements from purported signers/attestors.
Seek forensic document exam if needed.
Decide on criminal complaint (with the City/Provincial Prosecutor) and civil action (annulment of document/contract and damages).
For public documents, notify the issuing agency and consider administrative complaints (e.g., against notaries or public officers).

Frequently Asked Questions

1) Is “intent to injure” always required? No. For public/official or commercial documents, the law protects public faith, so damage is not essential. For private documents, the State usually proves intent to defraud/cause damage (or resulting damage).

2) Is a scanned or electronic PDF covered? Yes. A “document” includes electronic writings. If falsification is committed through ICT, expect stiffer penalties (one degree higher) on top of the base RPC offense.

3) Are mistakes in a sworn statement falsification? Not automatically. The act punished is knowing, willful falsification—e.g., untruthful narration where the affiant had a legal duty to tell the truth. Innocent mistakes or immaterial errors don’t suffice.

4) Can the “user” be different from the “falsifier”? Yes. The law separately punishes the maker and the user who knows of the falsity. One can be convicted even if the other is not identified.

5) Are notarized private contracts “public documents”? Yes, once notarized, they become public instruments, and falsification thereof attracts the stricter regime.

Bottom Line

Falsification punishes making or altering documents so they lie, and the knowing use of such lies.
Liability turns on who did it (public officer vs. private person), what was falsified (public/official, commercial, or private), and how it was done (the mode).
Public faith in documents is paramount: falsifying public/official or commercial documents is punishable even without actual damage.
Expect heavier penalties where public office is abused, where notarization is involved, or when the crime is committed through ICT.
Prevention hinges on verification, notarial rigor, and digital controls—and when falsification is suspected, move fast to preserve originals, verify, and pursue remedies (criminal, civil, administrative).