G.R. No. L-5627
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. TAN CHIAN, appellant.
October 17, 1910

FACTS: Tan Chian had an outstanding debt of P288.35 to the firm Kim Hoc Hen for merchandise received on credit. On August 29, 1908, the firm’s manager, Liao Gui, sent Tan Chian a memorandum (Exhibit A) through a messenger, Chua Ungco, detailing this debit balance. Tan Chian received and kept the document, acknowledging his debt and promising to pay in installments.

When Tan Chian failed to pay, Liao Gui filed a civil action for collection. In response, Tan Chian filed a counterclaim, alleging that Kim Hoc Hen actually owed him P288.35. He presented Exhibit A as proof in court.

Upon examination, Exhibit A was found to have been altered. The Chinese characters for “Debit” had been changed to “Credit,” and the monetary figures were modified (e.g., P288.35 was changed to P388.35, and other figures were altered to show him as a creditor for a larger sum), effectively reversing the financial obligation.

Due to the apparent falsification, the civil case was dismissed without prejudice. The provincial fiscal then filed a criminal complaint against Tan Chian for falsification of a private document. The trial court convicted Tan Chian, sentencing him to one year, eight months, and twenty-one days of presidio correccional. Tan Chian appealed, denying the alterations and claiming illiteracy.

ISSUE: Was Tan Chian guilty of falsification of a private document, given that the altered memorandum was in his possession and he benefited from the changes, despite his denial of making the physical alterations?

RULING: Yes, Tan Chian was guilty of falsification of a private document.

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, finding that the crime of falsification was indeed committed with respect to a private document. The Court held that Tan Chian was the sole responsible perpetrator, by direct participation, of the falsification. It was immaterial whether he personally made the alterations, because the falsified memorandum remained in his exclusive control from the time he received it until he presented it in court. Since the execution of the criminal act could only have benefited him, changing him from a debtor to a creditor, it is presumed, without evidence to the contrary, that he was the perpetrator or induced another to commit the act.

The Court emphasized that the penal law does not require actual detriment; it is sufficient that the falsifier had the intention to cause prejudice. In this case, Tan Chian clearly intended not only to evade payment of his debt and defraud his creditor but also to make the creditor company pay him the amount he actually owed. The document, being a memorandum of account, was unquestionably a private instrument, thus falling under Article 304, in connection with Article 300, of the Penal Code.

The Court sentenced Tan Chian to the accessory penalties specified in Article 61 of the Penal Code, in addition to the penalty imposed by the trial court.