G.R. No. 106 : February 14, 1902
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. EMILIANO PARAISO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
In 1900, the defendant, Emiliano Paraiso, was the agent in Vigan for the Philippine Trading Company. In March and July of that year, he falsified two receipts by signing them with the name “Luis Encarnacion,” making it appear that Encarnacion had received sums of money ($150 and $970) for the purchase of maguey. During trial, the defendant confessed that the receipts were false, that no maguey was purchased from Encarnacion, and that no money was paid. He also made corresponding false entries in the company’s books. The falsified receipts were kept in his house without being delivered, shown, or used in any way. They were later produced in court by the company’s cashier, Van Sternberghe, who had apparently taken them from the defendant’s house in his absence. The complaint was limited to the crime of falsification of a private document under Article 304 of the Penal Code.

ISSUE:
Whether the defendant is guilty of the crime of falsification of a private document under Article 304 of the Penal Code, considering that he created the false documents but did not use them to the prejudice of a third party or perform any independent act with the intent to cause such prejudice.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of conviction and acquitted the defendant.
The Court held that for a person to be guilty under Article 304 of the Penal Code (falsification of a private document), it is not sufficient merely to have fabricated a false document. The law requires either: (1) that prejudice is actually caused to a third person, or (2) that there is an intent to cause such prejudice, demonstrated by an independent act performed to make use of the falsified document. The mere intention to commit a crime, without an overt act in execution of that intent, is not punishable.
In this case, the defendant falsified the receipts but kept them in his house without delivering, showing, or utilizing them. No independent act was performed to employ the documents to the prejudice of anyone. Consequently, neither actual prejudice nor the requisite intent manifested by an overt act was proven. His acts did not constitute the crime of falsification as defined by law.