(Philippine legal framework; criminal, administrative, and practical consequences)

1) Why TESDA document falsification is treated seriously

TESDA credentials and records—especially National Certificates (NC) and Certificates of Competency (COC)—are relied on for employment, promotion, overseas deployment, licensing/permit requirements for certain trades, procurement/vendor qualification, and compliance audits. Because many of these papers are government-issued or government-used records, falsifying them is commonly treated as falsification of public/official documents, which carries heavier penalties than falsifying purely private papers.

Falsification cases often expand beyond “just a fake certificate.” Depending on the facts, they can also lead to charges for use of falsified documents, perjury, estafa (fraud), and—if digital systems are involved—computer-related forgery under the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

2) What counts as “TESDA documents” in practice

The term isn’t a single legal category; liability depends on what the document is, who issued it, and how it’s used. Common TESDA-related documents implicated in falsification complaints include:

A. TESDA-issued credentials and records (typically public/official)

National Certificate (NC I/II/III/IV)
Certificate of Competency (COC)
Certification/assessment result records and official TESDA printouts
Trainer qualification credentials tied to TESDA systems (e.g., trainer certification frameworks and records)
Official TESDA communications, endorsements, authorizations, IDs, seals/stamps, and similar instruments

B. Documents submitted to TESDA for program registration/accreditation (can be public/official once used in government files)

Program registration and compliance submissions
Trainer dossiers (qualifications, experiences, certifications)
Assessment center/assessor accreditation requirements
Facility, equipment, and operational compliance records
Attendance, training logs, completion lists used for official reporting

C. Private training documents (often private, but may trigger liability when used to deceive)

Training certificates issued by a private TVI/training center
Internal class records/grade sheets not filed with a public office

Key point: A private document can still lead to serious criminal exposure when it is (a) used to obtain government action, (b) made to appear as an official TESDA issuance, or (c) paired with fraud (e.g., selling “TESDA certificates” that are not genuine).

3) The core criminal law: Falsification under the Revised Penal Code (RPC)

Falsification offenses are primarily prosecuted under the Revised Penal Code, particularly:

Article 171 – Falsification by public officer/employee, notary public, or ecclesiastical minister
Article 172 – Falsification by private individual; and use of falsified documents
Often paired with Article 183 (Perjury) and sometimes Article 315 (Estafa)

3.1. What “falsification” legally means

The RPC recognizes multiple ways a document can be falsified. In simplified terms, falsification includes acts like:

Forging/counterfeiting signatures (e.g., signing as a TESDA official/assessor)
Making it appear that someone participated/signed when they did not
Altering entries (names, grades, serial numbers, dates, assessment results)
Inserting false statements or deleting true ones in a material way
Changing dates or material details to create a false narrative
Issuing a document in authenticated form when it was not validly issued
Tampering with seals, stamps, QR codes, serial numbers, or official marks

What matters is that the falsification is material—i.e., capable of affecting the document’s meaning or legal effect (for example, turning “not competent” into “competent,” or making a person appear certified when they are not).

4) Who can be charged (and why the category matters)

A. If the offender is a public officer or TESDA personnel (Art. 171)

If a public officer/employee (including one who has duties relating to the document) falsifies an official document—especially by taking advantage of their position—the charge typically falls under Article 171.

Penalty (baseline):

Prisión mayor (6 years and 1 day to 12 years) and a fine (fine amounts in the RPC have been subject to legislative adjustments over time). In addition, conviction commonly carries accessory penalties that can affect holding public office and related rights.

B. If the offender is a private individual (Art. 172)

Most “fake TESDA certificate” cases involve private individuals (students, job applicants, fixers, employees of training centers, print shops, recruiters, etc.). Article 172 is the usual anchor:

(1) Falsifying a public/official/commercial document (Art. 172[1])

This is often alleged when the document is a TESDA-issued NC/COC, or made to look like one, or when a falsified document is filed/used in a government setting.

Penalty (baseline):

Prisión correccional (medium and maximum) = 2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 6 years, and a fine.

(2) Falsifying a private document (Art. 172[2])

This can apply to purely private training records/certificates (not TESDA-issued), but a crucial distinction is commonly litigated:

For falsification of a private document, prosecution typically must show damage (or intent to cause damage) because private document falsification is treated as more closely tied to private injury or prejudice.

Penalty (baseline):

Prisión correccional (minimum and medium) = 6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months, and a fine.

C. “Use of falsified documents” (also under Art. 172)

A person can be charged even if they did not forge the document themselves—if they knowingly used a falsified document as if it were genuine (for example, submitting a fake NC to an employer or government office).

Penalty: generally the same as the falsification category applicable to the document used.

Practical consequence: “I didn’t make it; I just submitted it” is not automatically a defense. The key issue becomes knowledge and intent.

5) Common TESDA-specific fact patterns and how they map to criminal exposure

Scenario 1: Fake/altered National Certificate (NC) used for employment

Likely charge: Use of falsified public/official document (Art. 172[1])
Possible add-ons: Estafa if money was taken from someone (e.g., selling fake certificates); Perjury if the person swore to a false statement in a sworn form.

Scenario 2: “Fixer” sells counterfeit TESDA NC/COC

Likely charges: Falsification (Art. 172[1]) + Use (Art. 172)
Often paired: Estafa (Art. 315) for defrauding buyers
If done through online systems, databases, or forged QR verification: possible Cybercrime angle (see Section 7)

Scenario 3: Training center submits forged trainer qualifications or compliance permits to TESDA

If forged permits/licenses are government-issued or filed with government: Art. 172[1] is often alleged
If internal-only private docs: Art. 172[2] may apply, but cases frequently hinge on damage, intent, and government reliance
Administrative consequences are often immediate and severe (see Section 8)

Scenario 4: Assessment results altered (e.g., “Competent” inserted)

If tied to TESDA certification issuance: typically treated as falsification/use of falsified official records
If a public officer is involved: possible Art. 171 exposure

Scenario 5: Notarized TESDA-related submissions with false appearances

Notaries who notarize improperly or falsify entries may face criminal exposure (Art. 171 as to notaries) plus administrative sanctions affecting commission and—if lawyer—professional discipline.

6) Perjury and sworn statements: the “extra” charge that often appears

Many TESDA-facing processes and employment/credentialing workflows involve sworn statements (affidavits, notarized declarations, sworn application forms).

If someone willfully makes a material false statement under oath before a competent authority, Perjury (Art. 183) may apply.

Penalty (baseline):

Arresto mayor (maximum) to prisión correccional (minimum)
- 4 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months, plus potential fine depending on the provision applied.

Perjury is especially relevant where the falsification is embedded in an affidavit—e.g., falsely swearing “this is a genuine TESDA certificate” or “I completed the required assessment/training” when untrue.

7) When digital methods raise penalties: Cybercrime Prevention Act (RA 10175)

If falsification involves computer systems or computer data—for example:

altering data in a registry, database, or verification system
creating/altering digital certificate files meant to be relied upon as authentic
manipulating QR code verification outputs
hacking/unauthorized access used to generate “valid-looking” records

then computer-related forgery provisions under RA 10175 may come into play.

A major consequence of RA 10175 in many cyber-enabled crimes is that penalties can be one degree higher than their RPC counterparts when the act is committed through and with the use of ICT (information and communications technology), subject to how the specific charge is framed.

Practical takeaway: the same “fake certificate” scheme can become significantly more serious when it involves database manipulation, systematic online distribution, or hacking.

8) Administrative penalties within TESDA’s regulatory ecosystem (separate from criminal cases)

Even without (or while awaiting) criminal prosecution, TESDA can impose administrative/regulatory sanctions against regulated participants such as:

TVIs (training providers)
assessment centers
accredited assessors
trainers and program implementers within regulated frameworks

While the exact sanction menu depends on the governing TESDA circulars and accreditation/program registration rules in force, the typical administrative consequences of document falsification or misrepresentation include:

Denial of application (program registration, accreditation, renewal)
Suspension of program registration or accreditation
Revocation/cancellation of program registration or accreditation
Disqualification/blacklisting from applying for a period or indefinitely
Corrective action orders, compliance directives, and mandatory audits
Possible directives related to refunds, cessation of operations, or public advisories, depending on severity and consumer protection posture

Administrative action usually runs on a separate track from criminal proceedings and can move faster because the standard is typically substantial evidence (administrative) rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt (criminal).

9) Civil, labor, and real-world consequences beyond jail/prison

Document falsification is not only a criminal issue; it can cascade into:

A. Employment and HR outcomes

Using falsified TESDA credentials can be treated by employers as:

serious misconduct, fraud, dishonesty
grounds for termination (especially for positions of trust)
grounds for rescission of hiring, promotion, or benefits

B. Contract and damages exposure

If falsification causes loss—e.g., a company hires an uncertified worker for a regulated job, suffers project delays, penalties, or accidents—civil claims may follow.

C. Licensing, compliance, and procurement fallout

False credentials used to meet compliance requirements can trigger:

contract termination
blacklisting by procuring entities
regulatory referrals

D. Immigration/overseas employment complications

Where TESDA certification is used for overseas qualification, falsification can lead to:

denial of processing
bans by employers/agencies
criminal exposure if fraud is involved in documentation for deployment

10) How cases are typically detected and proven

A. Verification mismatches

Falsified TESDA certificates often fail verification against official records (serial numbers, names, issuance dates, competency units, assessment centers).

B. Document examination and witness testimony

Prosecution may rely on:

testimony from TESDA custodians of records
assessors/training officers who can confirm non-issuance
comparison of signatures, seals, security marks
paper/printing inconsistencies, altered entries, overwritten details

C. “Chain” evidence in fixer schemes

Fixer operations often leave trails:

payment records, chat logs, delivery records
multiple complainants with similarly formatted counterfeit documents
printers/templates, digital files, or equipment seized lawfully

11) Sentencing notes that matter in practice (without changing the legal elements)

A. Indeterminate Sentence Law

Many convictions for falsification result in indeterminate sentences (a minimum and maximum term), depending on the final penalty and circumstances.

B. Probation

Eligibility depends on the final sentence imposed and statutory disqualifications. Because some falsification penalties can reach up to 6 years or more (and can be increased through complex crime or cybercrime frameworks), probation is fact-dependent.

C. Complex crimes (Art. 48, RPC)

Where falsification is a means to commit another offense (commonly estafa), charges may be framed as a complex crime (e.g., “estafa through falsification of public documents”), which can increase exposure because the penalty for the more serious offense is applied in its maximum period (subject to rules).

12) Practical compliance lens: avoiding exposure in TESDA-facing transactions

For individuals:

Treat “buying a certificate” without training/assessment as a red flag; possession and submission can itself create liability if knowledge is shown.
Keep proof of legitimate assessment/training: official receipts, assessment schedules, communications, and verification steps.

For training/assessment institutions:

Maintain tight controls on certificate handling, printing, issuance logs, and custody.
Audit trainer qualifications and submissions; avoid “paper compliance.”
Segregate duties (preparation vs approval vs release) and preserve audit trails.
Respond promptly to anomalies—delayed action can worsen regulatory outcomes.

For employers/recruiters:

Verify credentials through TESDA-recognized verification channels and keep documentation of verification as part of hiring due diligence.

13) Bottom line: the penalty landscape in one view

Falsifying or using falsified TESDA documents in the Philippines most often triggers:

RPC Art. 172(1) (private individual falsifying or using a falsified public/official document): 2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 6 years, plus fine
RPC Art. 171 (public officer/notary falsifying): 6 years and 1 day to 12 years, plus fine and accessory penalties
RPC Art. 172(2) (private document falsification): 6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months, plus fine, commonly with damage/intent to cause damage as a focal issue
Perjury (Art. 183) where sworn statements are involved: 4 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months (baseline range)
Potential escalation under RA 10175 when ICT is used (digital manipulation/forgery), and frequent pairing with estafa in fixer-for-profit schemes.

In short: TESDA document falsification is rarely “just an administrative issue.” The criminal penalties can be substantial, and regulatory sanctions can end operations, revoke accreditations, and bar future participation in TESDA programs—even while criminal cases are still pending.