Can Altered Loan Statements Lead to Article 172 Charges?

Introduction

Business owners who submit altered financial statements, fabricated accounting records, or other false documents to obtain commercial bank credit may face criminal prosecution. Depending on the document involved and the manner of its use, the conduct may constitute falsification of a private document under Article 172(2) of the Revised Penal Code, falsification of a commercial document under Article 172(1), use of falsified documents, or a complex crime involving estafa.

The legal classification depends on several factors: the nature of the document, the specific falsifying act, the accused’s participation, the existence of damage or intent to cause damage, and whether the document was used to obtain money or credit. The mere existence of an inaccurate statement is not automatically sufficient for conviction. The prosecution must establish every element of the offense beyond reasonable doubt.

What Does Article 172 Cover?

Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code punishes falsification by private individuals and the use of falsified documents. Its current fine provisions were amended by R.A. No. 10951, which increased the fine under Article 172 to not more than P1,000,000.

Article 172 generally covers three situations:

Covered conduct	Document involved	General requirement
Falsification by a private individual	Public, official, or commercial document	The accused committed an act of falsification under Article 171
Falsification of a private document	Private document	Damage or intent to cause damage to a third person
Use of a falsified document	False document covered by Article 171 or Article 172	Knowing use, introduction in evidence, or use to another’s damage

The penalty for falsification of a public, official, or commercial document by a private individual is prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine not exceeding P1,000,000. A person who knowingly uses a falsified document is punished by the penalty next lower in degree, subject to the circumstances alleged and proven.

When Is a Loan Document Commercial?

A document is considered commercial when it is used by merchants or businesspersons to promote, facilitate, or document trade or credit transactions. Commercial loan applications, promissory notes, deeds of assignment, credit submissions, and related banking instruments may fall within this category when they are used to obtain or support a credit transaction.

In Desmoparan v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 233598, 2019, the Supreme Court treated a loan application, deed of assignment, and promissory note as commercial documents because they were connected with the extension of credit. The case illustrates that the character of the document is examined in relation to its function in the transaction.

Accordingly, an altered financial statement submitted to a bank may be treated as a commercial document if it is intended to support a business loan, establish the borrower’s financial capacity, or induce the bank to approve or release credit.

What Are the Elements of Falsification of a Commercial Document?

For falsification of a commercial document under Article 172(1), the prosecution must generally prove:

1. The offender is a private individual;
2. The offender committed one or more acts of falsification enumerated in Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code; and
3. The falsification was committed in a commercial document.

These elements were stated in Desmoparan v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 233598, 2019. The prosecution must still prove the accused’s participation and criminal intent through competent evidence.

Possible falsifying acts in a loan application may include making it appear that a person participated in an act when that person did not, attributing a statement or signature to a person who did not make it, inserting false entries, or altering a genuine document so that it conveys a false meaning.

When Does the Offense Involve a Private Document?

Article 172(2) applies when the falsification is committed in a private document and the falsification causes damage to a third person or is committed with intent to cause such damage.

The elements of falsification of a private document are:

1. The accused committed an act of falsification, except the act covered by Article 171(7);
2. The falsification was committed in a private document; and
3. The falsification caused damage to a third party or was committed with intent to cause such damage.

These elements were reiterated in Manansala v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 215424, 2015, Co, et al. v. People of the Philippines, et al., G.R. No. 233015, 2019, and Malabanan v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 186329, 2017.

For example, if a business owner alters an internal financial statement and submits it to a bank to make the company appear more profitable, the prosecution may allege intent to cause damage. The alleged damage may consist of the bank’s exposure to an improperly evaluated credit risk, although the prosecution must prove the legally relevant damage or intent required by the particular charge.

Why Does the Difference Between Falsification and Estafa Matter?

Falsification and estafa are distinct offenses. Falsification focuses on the integrity and truthfulness of the document. Estafa focuses on deceit, reliance, damage, and unlawful gain.

When falsification of a private document is committed as a means of defrauding another person, the damage element may already be part of the falsification charge. In such circumstances, the offenses may not always be complexed as falsification and estafa.

In Co, et al. v. People of the Philippines, et al., G.R. No. 233015, 2019, the Supreme Court explained that when the facts alleged in the Information constitute falsification of a private document as the means of committing fraud, the offense charged is falsification of a private document. The accused cannot be convicted of estafa based on the same factual allegations if the elements of falsification were not established.

By contrast, where the falsified document is a public, official, or commercial document and it is used to commit estafa, the proper charge may involve estafa through falsification, subject to the allegations in the Information and the evidence presented at trial.

Can a Business Owner Be Convicted Without Proof That He Personally Altered the Document?

Yes, in appropriate circumstances. Direct proof that the accused physically altered the document is not always indispensable. Possession and use of a falsified document, together with the absence of a satisfactory explanation, may support an inference that the possessor was also the forger.

In Brisenio v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 241336, 2021, the Supreme Court recognized the presumption that a person who possesses and uses or utters a forged document may be presumed to be its forger when the circumstances are unexplained. This is not an automatic rule of guilt; the totality of the evidence must still establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

For a business owner, the risk is therefore not limited to personally editing a financial statement. Signing, submitting, adopting, or knowingly relying on an altered document may independently support a charge for use of a falsified document or may serve as evidence of participation in the falsification.

What Must the Prosecution Prove About Altered Financial Statements?

An allegation that a financial statement contains incorrect figures is not, by itself, enough. The prosecution should identify the specific falsifying act and demonstrate how the document was made to speak something false.

Relevant questions include:

• Was the document genuine before the alteration?
• Was an entry inserted, deleted, changed, or attributed to another person?
• Did the alteration change the document’s meaning?
• Was the resulting statement objectively false?
• Did the accused make, authorize, sign, submit, or knowingly use the document?
• Was the document used to obtain credit or cause damage to the bank or another person?

In Tan, Jr. v. Matsuura, et al., G.R. No. 179003, 2013, the Supreme Court identified the elements of falsification by alteration or intercalation: there must be a change or insertion in a genuine document; the change must alter its meaning; and the document must thereby speak something false. For private-document falsification, independent evidence of damage or intent to cause damage is also required.

Examples of Conduct That May Support a Criminal Charge

A business owner may face criminal exposure where he or she submits a financial statement that:

• Inflates sales, assets, or receivables;
• Omits material liabilities or existing loan obligations;
• Shows fictitious customers or transactions;
• Uses forged signatures of an accountant, auditor, corporate officer, or customer;
• Alters bank records, tax documents, invoices, or audited statements; or
• Represents that another person approved or prepared a document when that person did not.

The criminal classification will depend on the document’s nature and the particular act. An altered audited financial statement used to obtain a commercial loan may be treated differently from an internal working paper that was never submitted to any lender.

What Defenses May Be Relevant?

The defense may challenge the prosecution’s proof on the document’s classification, the alleged falsifying act, authorship, knowledge, intent, damage, and the connection between the document and the loan approval.

Other relevant defenses may include:

• The document was merely inaccurate because of an accounting mistake, not criminal falsification;
• The accused did not prepare, sign, authorize, or use the document;
• The alleged alteration did not change the document’s meaning;
• The document was not submitted to or relied upon by the bank;
• The prosecution failed to prove damage or intent to cause damage where required; or
• The charge in the Information does not correspond to the offense proven at trial.

Malabanan v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 186329, 2017, emphasizes that an accused may not be convicted of an offense that was not clearly charged or necessarily included in the Information. The same decision also recognizes that criminal intent must be established and that an alteration unaccompanied by malice, benefit, or damage may not result in criminal liability.

How Does R.A. No. 10951 Affect the Penalty?

R.A. No. 10951 amended Article 172 by increasing the fine to not more than P1,000,000. Its amendments may apply retroactively when they are favorable to the accused, consistent with Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code.

In Brisenio v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 241336, 2021, the Supreme Court applied the more favorable provisions of R.A. No. 10951 in determining the applicable penalty. Penalty computation, however, depends on the precise offense charged, whether the crime is complexed with another offense, the amount involved where relevant, and the applicable periods under the Revised Penal Code.

Practical Steps for Businesses and Bank Applicants

Businesses seeking commercial credit should establish clear controls before submitting financial information to a lender.

1. Require the responsible officers and accounting personnel to review every financial statement before submission.
2. Preserve the original accounting records, working papers, electronic files, and communications used to prepare the submission.
3. Do not alter audited statements, tax records, bank certificates, invoices, or other supporting documents without a documented and lawful correction process.
4. Disclose material changes in the company’s financial condition after submission, especially before loan release.
5. Obtain independent legal and accounting advice when the bank requests clarification, restatement, or replacement documents.

When a suspected falsification is discovered, the company should preserve evidence and avoid deleting, replacing, or backdating records. Officers should also avoid making informal admissions before the facts, document history, and potential criminal implications have been reviewed.

Conclusion

Submitting altered financial statements to obtain commercial bank credit may expose a business owner to prosecution under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code. Liability depends on proof of a specific falsifying act, the classification of the document, the accused’s participation and knowledge, and the required damage or intent.

Business owners should maintain accurate records, verify all loan submissions, and preserve the complete document trail. Where an alteration is discovered, prompt consultation with qualified Philippine criminal, banking, and accounting counsel is advisable before communicating with the lender or responding to a complaint.

About Nicolas and De Vega Law Offices

 Nicolas and de Vega Law Offices is a full-service law firm in the Philippines.  You may visit us at the 16th Flr., Suite 1607 AIC Burgundy Empire Tower, ADB Ave., Ortigas Center, 1605 Pasig City, Metro Manila, Philippines.  You may also call us at +632 84706126, +632 84706130, +632 84016392 or e-mail us at [email protected].