Wrongful intent on the part of the accused to injure a third person is not an essential element of the crime of falsification of public document. – “The distinction made by the law between falsification by private persons, first, of public documents, and secondly of private documents, sis clear; the first is committed by the mere performance of any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Art. 171; while the second is committed not only by the performance of any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Art. 171; but it must likewise be shown that such act of falsification was committed to the damage of a third party with intent to cause such damage.
The reason for the distinction is given in a decision of the Supreme Court of Spain dated December 23, 1885, cited by this Court in the case of People vs. Panama, 47 Phil. 48, i.e., that in the falsification of public or official documents, whether by public officials or private persons, it is unnecessary that there be present the idea of gain or the intent to injure a third person, for the reason that, in contradiction to private documents, the principal thing punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed.
Our own commentators on the Revised Penal Code are also agreed on this distinction. (Francisco, Revised Penal Code.) Sec. ed., Vol. II, Part 1, p. 310; Guevara, Comm. on the Revised Penal Code, IV ed. P. 172; Albert, Revised Penal Code, 1948 Ed., p. 398)”[1]
“It has been ruled that damage or intent to cause damage is not an element in falsification of a commercial document, because what the law seeks to repress is the prejudice to the public confidence in such documents.”[2]
“The law is clear that wrongful intent on the part of the accused to injure a third person is not an essential element of the crime of falsification of public document. It is jurisprudentially settled that in the falsification of public or official documents, whether by public officers or private persons, it is not necessary that there be present the idea of gain or the intent to injure a third person for the reason that, in contradistinction to private documents, the principal thing punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of truth as therein solemnly proclaimed. In falsification of public documents, therefore, the controlling consideration is the public character of a document; and the existence of any prejudice caused to third persons or, at least, the intent to cause such damage becomes immaterial.”[3] (Citations omitted)
Change in the public document must be such as to affect the integrity of the same or to change the effects which it would otherwise produce. – “Considering that even though in the falsification of public or official document, whether by public officials or private persons, it is unnecessary that there be present the idea of gain or the intent to injure a third person, for the reason that, in contradistinction to private documents, the principal thing punished is the violation of the solemnity proclaimed, it must, nevertheless, be borne in mind that the change in the public document must be such as to affect the integrity of the same or to change the effects which it would otherwise produce; for unless that happens, there could not exist the essential element of the intention to commit the crime which is required by article 1 [not Article 3} of the Penal Code. (Emphasis supplied)”[4]
[1] People v. Po Giok To, G.R. No. L-7236, April 30, 1955
[2] Samson v. CA, 103 Phi. 277, cited in Domingo v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 186101, October 12, 2009
[3] Fullero v. People of the Philippines. G.R. No. 170583, September 12, 2007
[4] People v. Paceman, 47 Phil. 48 (1924), cited in Malabanan v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 186329, August 2, 2017