a. That the offender committed any of the acts of falsification, except those in paragraph 7 and 8, enumerated in art. 171.
b.
That the falsification was committed in any private document (must affect the truth or integrity of the document)c.
That the falsification caused damage (essential element; hence, no crime of estafa thru falsification of private document) to a third party or at least the falsification was committed with intent to cause such damage.• Not necessary that the offender profited or hoped to profit from the falsification
* Falsification of a private document is consummated when such document is actually falsified with the intent to prejudice a third person whether such falsified document is or is not thereafter put to illegal use for which it is intended. (Lopez vs. Paras, 36 Phil. 146)
* What is emphasized at this point is the element of falsification of private document. There must be intent to cause damage or damage is actually caused. The intention is therefore must be malicious or there is deliberate intent to commit a wrong. Reckless imprudence is incompatible with malicious intent.
• Falsification is not a continuing offense
* There is no falsification through reckless imprudence if the document is a private document. • Falsification by omission
* Mere falsification of a private document is not enough to commit crime under paragraph 2 of Article 172. Two acts must be done by the offender. 1) He must have performed in the private document the falsification contemplated under Article 171. 2) He must have performed an independent act which operates to cause damage or prejudice to a third person. The third person mentioned herein may include the government. Damage is not limited to money or pecuniary prejudice. Damage to one’s honor, reputation or good name is included.
• A document falsified as a necessary means to commit another crime must be public, official or commercial
•
There is no complex crime of estafa through falsification of a private document because the immediate effect of the latter is the same as that of estafa* If a private document is falsified to cause damage to the offended party, the crime committed is falsification of a private document. Remember that in estafa, damage or intent to cause damage is an indispensable element of the crime. The same element is necessary to commit the
crime of falsification of private document. Since they have a common element, such element cannot be divided into the two parts and considered as two separate offenses.
* There is no complex crime of estafa with falsification because deceit is a common element of both. One and the same deceit or damage cannot give rise to more than one crime. It is either estafa or falsification.
Criteria to determine whether the crime is estafa only or falsification only :
IF the falsification of the private document was essential in the commission of estafa because the falsification, estafa cannot be committed, the crime is falsification; estafa becomes the consequence of the crime.
IF the estafa can be committed even without resorting to falsification, the latter being resorted only to facilitate estafa, the main crime is estafa; falsification is merely incidental, since even without falsification, estafa can be committed.
• If the estafa was already consummated at the time of the falsification of a private document was committed for the purpose of concealing the estafa, the falsification is not punishable, because as regards the falsification of the private document there was no damage or intent to cause damage.
* A private document which is falsified to obtain money from offended party is a falsification of private document only.
• A private document may acquire the character of a public document when it becomes part of an official record and is certified by a public officer duly authorized by law
• The crime is falsification of public documents even if falsification took place before the private document becomes part of the public records
Examples:
An employee of a private company who punches the bundy clock on behalf on a co-employee is guilty of falsification of a private document.
One who will take the civil service examination for another and makes it appear that he is the examinee is guilty of falsification of a public document.
USE OF FALSIFIED DOCUMENT (par. 3, art. 172)
• ELEMENTS:a. Introducing in a judicial proceeding:
1. That the offender knew that a document was falsified by another person.
2. That the false document is embraced in art. 171 or in any subdivisions nos. 1 and 2 of art. 172.
3.
That he introduced said document in evidence in any judicial proceeding. (intent to cause damage not necessary)b. Use in any other transaction:
1. That the offender knew that a document was falsified by another person.
2. That the false document is embraced in art. 171 or in any of subdivisions nos. 1 and 2 of art. 172.
3.
That he used such documents (not in judicial proceedings).4. That the use of the documents caused damage to another or at least was used with intent to cause such damage.
• The user of the falsified document is deemed the author of falsification, if: a. the use is so closely connected in time with the falsification
b. the user had the capacity of falsifying the document
Falsification of Private Documents Falsification of Public/Official Documents Prejudice to third party is an element
of the offense.
Prejudice to third persons is immaterial, what is punished is the violation of public faith and perversion of truth which the document proclaims.
Rules to observe in the use of a falsified document.
1. It is a crime when knowingly introduced in a judicial proceeding even if there is not intent to cause damage to another. Knowingly introducing a falsified document in a judicial proceeding, the use alone is not a crime. The mere introduction of the forged document is the crime itself. But when the falsified document is knowingly introduced in an administrative proceeding, the use alone is not a crime. There must be intent to cause damage or damage is actually inflicted.
2. Falsification of document is a separate and distinct offense from that of the use of falsified documents. So if the falsification of document was done or performed because it was necessary to the use of the same and in the commission of the crime, then we may have a complex crime defined and punished under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code.
3. Good faith is a defense in falsification of public document.