| SUBJECT: The Rule on ‘Falsification of Wireless, Telegraph or Telephone Messages’ |
I. Introduction
This memorandum provides an exhaustive analysis of the rule on the falsification of wireless, telegraph or telephone messages under Philippine criminal law. The offense is defined and penalized under Article 172, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Article 171. This research will examine the elements of the offense, its legal basis, jurisprudence, distinctions from related crimes, and procedural considerations. The crime addresses the public need for reliability and integrity in modern means of communication, which are considered extensions of the postal system, and punishes those who, by virtue of their office or position, alter or falsify such messages to the damage of a third party or with intent to cause such damage.
II. Legal Basis and Statutory Text
The primary legal basis is found in the Revised Penal Code, specifically:
Article 171, paragraph 2: Defines falsification by public officer, employee, or notary public. It states that the penalty of prision mayor* and a fine not to exceed 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by committing any of several acts, including: “Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate.”
Article 172, paragraph 2: Defines falsification by private individuals and use of falsified documents. It states: “Any private individual who shall commit any of the falsifications enumerated in the next preceding article in any public or official document or letter of exchange or any other kind of commercial document; or any person who shall, to the damage of a third party, or with the intent to cause such damage, in any private document commit any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Article 171; or any person who shall knowingly introduce in evidence in any judicial proceeding or to the damage of another or who, with the intent to cause such damage, shall use any of the falsified documents embraced in the next preceding article or in this article, shall be punished by prision correccional* in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than 5,000 pesos.”
The specific application to wireless, telegraph, or telephone messages is established by jurisprudence which interprets such messages as falling within the scope of “any other kind of commercial document” or “private document” under Article 172, depending on the context, when falsified by the individuals tasked with their transmission.
III. Elements of the Offense
For a private individual to be liable for the falsification of a wireless, telegraph, or telephone message under Article 172(2), the following elements must concur:
It is critical to note that the offender is typically an employee or agent of the communication service provider. Their role imbues the message with a quasi-public or commercial character, and their duty is to transmit the message accurately. The damage can be actual or potential (intent to cause suffices).
IV. Nature of the Document Falsified
The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that telegraphic messages, and by extension wireless and telephone messages (where a record exists), are considered documents for purposes of the law on falsification. In U.S. v. Asensi, G.R. No. 10992, October 26, 1916, the Court held that a telegraphic message is a “commercial document” within the meaning of the Revised Penal Code. The rationale is that these messages are used in commerce, serve as proof of transactions, and their accuracy is paramount. When such a message is altered by the person duty-bound to transmit it faithfully, the crime of falsification is committed. The document falsified is the written or recorded message itself-the telegram form, the wireless dispatch record, or the logged telephone message.
V. Modes of Falsification
The specific acts of falsification applicable to this crime are those enumerated in Article 171. The most commonly applicable modes in the context of communication messages are:
Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature, or rubric* (e.g., forging the signature of the sender on a telegram).
Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate* (e.g., altering a message to make it appear it came from a different person).
Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts* (e.g., changing the substantive content of the message, such as the quantity of goods, price, or terms).
Altering true dates*.
Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning*.
Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original document when no such original exists, or including in such copy statements contrary to, or different from, those of the genuine original*.
The act must be done by the offender taking advantage of their official position as an operator or clerk, which satisfies the “taking advantage of official position” clause for private individuals performing public functions or duties of a confidential nature.
VI. Distinction from Other Forms of Falsification and Related Crimes
Falsification of Public/Official Document (Article 171): This requires the offender to be a public officer and the document to be public or official. The falsification of messages involves private employees* of a public utility, and the document, while commercial, is not strictly a public document created by a government officer.
Falsification of Private Document (Article 172, in fine): This is the closest analogue. The key distinction is that the falsification of telegraph messages has been jurisprudentially elevated due to the nature of the duty and the impact on commerce, often being treated with greater severity. The elements* are otherwise similar.
Estafa (Article 315): Falsification may be a means to commit estafa. If the falsification of the message is done as a necessary means to perpetrate a swindle, and the two crimes are intimately connected, they may be considered a complex crime under Article 48*, punishable as the more serious offense. If not, they are separate crimes.
Using Falsified Documents (Article 172): A person who knowingly uses a falsified telegraph message, for instance, in court or to damage another, can be separately liable for use of falsified documents*.
VII. Comparative Analysis with Similar Crimes (Markdown Table)
| Aspect | Falsification of Wireless/Telegraph/Telephone Msgs (Art. 172[2]) | Falsification of Public Document (Art. 171) | Falsification of Private Document (Art. 172) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Governing Provision | Article 172(2), in relation to Article 171 | Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code | Article 172, last paragraph, of the Revised Penal Code |
| Status of Offender | Private individual (employee/officer of a communication co.) | Public officer, employee, or notary public | Any private individual |
| Nature of Document | Wireless, telegraph, or telephone message (treated as a commercial/private document) | Public or official document | Private document |
| Key Element of Position | Offender takes advantage of their official position as a communication company agent | Offender takes advantage of their official position as a government or notarial agent | No requirement of an official position |
| Presence of Damage | To the damage of a third party OR intent to cause such damage | Damage is not an element of the crime under Article 171 | To the damage of a third party OR intent to cause such damage |
| Penalty | Prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine (max: 5,000 pesos) | Prision mayor and a fine (max: 5,000 pesos) | Prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine (max: 5,000 pesos) |
| Jurisprudential Basis | U.S. v. Asensi; People v. Po Giok To | Various cases defining public documents | Cases involving deeds, personal letters, etc. |
VIII. Relevant Jurisprudence
U.S. v. Asensi, G.R. No. 10992, October 26, 1916: The landmark case establishing that a telegraphic message is a commercial document. A telegraph operator who altered the text of a telegram was convicted of falsification under what is now Article 172*.
People v. Po Giok To, G.R. No. L-9586, April 29, 1957: The Court reaffirmed that a private individual (a radio-telephone operator) who falsifies a message in the course of his duty commits falsification under Article 172*. The duty to transmit accurately is paramount.
People v. Pacana, G.R. No. L-8349, September 30, 1955: The Court clarified that for a private individual to be liable under Article 172 for acts described in Article 171*, the act must be done “with abuse of his official position.” A telegraph operator clearly occupies such a position.
People v. Villanueva*, G.R. No. L-12685, April 29, 1960: Emphasized that intent to cause damage is sufficient; actual damage need not be proven. Altering a telegram to change the place of delivery was held to be falsification.
IX. Procedural Considerations
Prescription: The crime prescribes in 10 years (Article 90, Revised Penal Code), as the penalty is prision correccional*, which has a maximum duration of 6 years.
Jurisdiction: The Regional Trial Court has original jurisdiction over the offense, as the penalty exceeds 6 years of imprisonment (considering the medium and maximum periods of prision correccional*).
Venue: The criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipality or territory where the falsification was committed or where any of its essential elements* occurred.
Prosecution: The offended party or the state may file the complaint. The information must allege with particularity the specific act of falsification committed from Article 171*, the official position of the accused, the nature of the message, and the damage or intent to cause damage.
X. Conclusion
The falsification of wireless, telegraph, or telephone messages is a distinct application of the crime of falsification of documents by a private individual under Article 172(2) of the Revised Penal Code. It protects the integrity of commercial and private communications transmitted through essential services. The crime is committed when an employee or agent of a communication company, abusing their official position, alters a message by any of the modes in Article 171, with intent to cause or resulting in damage to a third party. Jurisprudence firmly establishes these messages as documents subject to the falsification law, imposing a high standard of fidelity on those entrusted with their transmission. Prosecutors must carefully allege all elements, particularly the specific act of falsification and the accused’s abuse of their official position within the private communication company.
