The Difference between ‘Falsification of Public Documents’ and ‘Perjury’

🔍

↵

SUBJECT: The Difference between ‘Falsification of Public Documents’ and ‘Perjury’

I. Introduction

This memorandum provides an exhaustive analysis of the distinction between the crimes of falsification of public documents under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code and perjury under Article 183 of the same code. While both offenses involve the making of an untruthful statement and undermine public faith, they are distinct crimes with different elements, protected interests, and procedural contexts. A clear understanding of their differences is crucial for proper case assessment, charging, and defense. This research will delineate the legal bases, elements, nature, and nuances of each crime.

II. Legal Bases

The crimes are defined in separate provisions of the Revised Penal Code.
Falsification of public documents is primarily governed by Article 171. Related forms of falsification are found in Articles 172 (Falsification by private individuals and use of falsified documents), 174 (Falsification of legislative documents), and 175 (Falsification of wireless, cable, telegraph, and telephone messages).
Perjury is defined under Article 183. The preceding Article 180 defines False testimony in other cases and perjury in solemn affirmation, while Article 182 covers Offering false testimony in evidence.

III. Definition and Core Concept

Falsification of public documents is a crime against public faith. It is an act whereby a person, who is a public officer, employee, or notary public, counterfeits or alters a public document to make it appear that it contains facts or statements different from those actually contained therein, or attributes to persons who participated in an act statements different from those made by them. The essence is the violation of the truth and genuineness of a public document itself.
Perjury is a crime against public justice. It is the willful and corrupt assertion of a falsehood under oath or affirmation administered by authority of law on a material matter in a judicial proceeding or in an affidavit required by law. The essence is the violation of an oath to tell the truth before a duly constituted authority.

IV. Elements of the Crimes

The elements of falsification of public documents under Article 171 are: (1) The offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public; (2) He takes advantage of his official position; (3) He falsifies a document by committing any of the specific acts enumerated in the article (e.g., counterfeiting, altering, making untruthful statements, making alterations, etc.); and (4) The document falsified is a public document.
The elements of perjury under Article 183 are: (1) The accused made a statement under oath or executed an affidavit upon a material matter; (2) The oath or affidavit was required by law or made in connection with a judicial proceeding; (3) The accused made the statement willfully and with deliberate intent to swear falsely; and (4) The sworn statement or affidavit is false.

V. Nature of the Offense

Falsification of public documents is a crime against public faith. It protects the confidence of the public in the authenticity and reliability of public documents issued by government officers or notaries. The law presumes that public documents are truthful, and their falsification erodes this trust, which is essential for administrative and legal order.
Perjury is a crime against public justice. It safeguards the integrity of judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings by ensuring that statements made under oath are truthful. It aims to prevent the obstruction of justice through lies told to courts or other tribunals.

VI. Key Distinctions

The primary distinctions lie in the subject matter, the status of the offender, the context of the lie, and the object of the crime.

Subject Matter: Falsification concerns the integrity of a document; perjury concerns the integrity of an oath or testimony.

Status of Offender: For falsification under Article 171, the offender must generally be a public officer, employee, or notary public. Perjury can be committed by any person who is under oath.

Context: Falsification can occur in any context, administrative or otherwise, where a public document is created or altered. Perjury is inherently tied to a judicial proceeding or an affidavit required by law.

Materiality: In perjury, the false statement must be upon a material matter—one that could influence the outcome of the proceeding. In falsification, materiality is not an explicit element for most modes under Article 171; the act of falsifying the document itself is the crime.

Form: Falsification results in a tangible, falsified document. Perjury may result in a false sworn statement or testimony, which may or may not be reduced to a formal document like an affidavit.

VII. Comparative Table

Aspect of Comparison	Falsification of Public Documents (Art. 171, RPC)	Perjury (Art. 183, RPC)
Legal Provision	Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code	Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code
Nature of Crime	Crime against public faith	Crime against public justice
Essential Element	Falsification of a public document	Making a false statement under oath
Status of Offender	Must be a public officer, employee, or notary public (for Art. 171).	Any person who is under a lawful oath or affirmation.
Context of the Act	Can be committed in any context (administrative, notarial, etc.).	Committed in a judicial proceeding or in an affidavit required by law.
Requirement of Materiality	Generally not an element; the act of falsification itself is punishable.	The false statement must be upon a material matter.
Object of the Crime	The authenticity and reliability of the public document.	The truth-seeking function of courts and tribunals.
Gravity	Generally considered a more serious offense due to the abuse of official position and the threat to public trust in documents.	Serious, but gravity is often tied to its impact on the specific proceeding.
Prescription Period	15 years (for crimes punishable by afflictive penalties like prision mayor).	10 years (for crimes punishable by correctional penalties like prision correccional).

VIII. Illustrative Examples and Jurisprudence

In People v. Po Giok To, the Supreme Court held that for falsification, the document must be a public document, and the falsification must be connected to the official duties of the accused public officer. Merely signing a document in one’s capacity as a public officer does not automatically make the act one of falsification if the document is not related to official functions.
For perjury, the case of People v. Beriales emphasized the requirement of materiality. A false statement in an affidavit, to constitute perjury, must be on a point so material that it could affect the outcome of the proceeding for which the affidavit is intended. A trivial or inconsequential falsehood does not constitute the crime.

IX. Complex Crimes and Separate Prosecutions

A single act may give rise to both crimes, leading to questions of complex crimes under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. For instance, a public officer who submits a falsified public document as evidence in court, accompanied by a sworn affidavit attesting to its authenticity, may commit both falsification (for creating the false document) and perjury (for swearing falsely to its genuineness in the affidavit). Whether they constitute a complex crime depends on whether one act is a necessary means to commit the other. Generally, they are considered distinct offenses that can be prosecuted separately, as they violate different laws and protect different interests.

X. Conclusion and Summary

In summary, falsification of public documents and perjury are distinct felonies under the Revised Penal Code. Falsification is a crime against public faith committed by a public officer through the forgery or alteration of a public document. Perjury is a crime against public justice committed by any person under oath who willfully makes a false statement on a material matter in a judicial context. The key differences are codified in their respective elements: the former requires the offender to be a public officer and the object to be a document, while the latter requires a lawful oath and materiality of the falsehood. Proper legal characterization hinges on a careful analysis of the actor’s status, the nature of the falsehood, and the context in which it was made.