Can Private Employees Be Prosecuted for Falsifying Receipts?

Introduction

Private employees, agents, and representatives who alter commercial receipts to obtain excessive expense reimbursements may face criminal prosecution under Philippine law. The offense may arise even when the receipt concerns a private business transaction and the reimbursement is claimed from a private client or employer.

The principal legal issue is whether the altered receipt is a commercial document or a private document, whether the accused personally falsified or knowingly used it, and whether the required damage or intent to cause damage is established. The classification affects the applicable provision of Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code and the penalty that may be imposed.

What Conduct May Constitute Falsification?

Falsification may include changing the amount stated on an authentic receipt, inserting additional items, altering dates or descriptions, replacing pages, or using a receipt that does not accurately reflect the underlying transaction.

For example, an employee who paid ₱2,000 for transportation but changes the receipt to ₱8,000 before submitting it for reimbursement may have falsified a commercial document. If the employee then presents the altered receipt to obtain the additional ₱6,000, the employee may also be prosecuted for the use of a falsified document.

The prosecution must establish more than the existence of an inaccurate receipt. It must prove the statutory elements of the offense, including the accused’s participation, the falsification described by law, and the applicable damage or intent requirement.

Which Provision of Article 172 Applies?

Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code covers falsification by private individuals and the use of falsified documents. Republic Act No. 10951 amended the monetary fine under Article 172 to not more than ₱1,000,000, while retaining the prescribed periods of imprisonment.

Two classifications are particularly relevant in reimbursement cases:

Situation	Potential provision	Additional requirement
Alteration of a receipt or invoice that is a public, official, or commercial document	Article 172(1), Revised Penal Code	The prosecution must prove the falsification and the character of the document.
Falsification of a private document	Article 172(2), Revised Penal Code	Damage to a third party or intent to cause such damage must be proved.
Knowing presentation or use of a falsified document	The final paragraph of Article 172	The accused must have knowingly used the false document, with the circumstances stated in the law.

A receipt issued in connection with the sale of goods or services will ordinarily be examined as a possible commercial document. The label placed on the document is not conclusive; courts consider its purpose, source, contents, and legal or commercial function.

Falsification of Commercial Receipts Under Article 172(1)

Article 172(1) punishes a private individual who commits any of the falsification acts under Article 171 in a public or official document, letter of exchange, or other commercial document. The provision may apply to an employee or agent who alters a genuine receipt to make it state a higher amount.

Relevant falsification acts may include making an untruthful statement in a narration of facts, inserting an alteration or intercalation in a genuine document, or causing a document to appear that it was issued by a person or entity that did not actually issue it.

In Tan, Jr. v. Matsuura, et al., G.R. No. 179003, 2013, the Supreme Court explained that an alteration or insertion must be made on a genuine document, must change its meaning, and must make the document state something false. When the falsification is committed by a private individual on a commercial document, Article 172(1) may apply.

The receipt need not be a government record for Article 172(1) to be considered. A commercial receipt may qualify because it records a transaction and is intended to serve as evidence of payment, price, or delivery.

Falsification of Private Documents Under Article 172(2)

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

In Manansala v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 215424, 2015, the Supreme Court identified the elements of falsification of private documents as follows:

• The offender committed an act of falsification, except the act covered by Article 171(7) of the Revised Penal Code;
• The falsification was committed in a private document; and
• The falsification caused damage to a third party or was committed with intent to cause such damage.

Thus, if the document is treated as purely private rather than commercial, the prosecution must prove actual damage or the intent to cause damage. The employer or client’s payment of an inflated reimbursement may constitute the relevant financial injury, subject to proof at trial.

Use of the Altered Receipt

An employee may incur separate liability for knowingly using a falsified document. This may occur when the employee submits the altered receipt with a reimbursement form, presents it to an accounting department, or relies on it during an audit or investigation.

Knowledge is important. The prosecution must show that the accused knew the document was false and nevertheless used it under circumstances covered by Article 172. Mere possession of an inaccurate document, without proof of knowledge or participation, may not by itself establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

In Brisenio v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 241336, 2021, the Supreme Court recognized the rule that a person found in possession of a forged document who uses or utters it may be presumed to be the forger in the absence of a satisfactory explanation. This is a disputable inference and does not relieve the prosecution of proving the elements of the offense.

Possible Estafa Through Falsification

Where an employee uses an altered receipt to obtain money, the facts may support a charge of estafa through falsification, depending on the evidence and the allegations in the Information.

Falsification and estafa may be treated as a complex crime when the falsification is the means used to commit the fraud. The penalty must then be determined under the applicable provisions governing complex crimes, including Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code.

In Brisenio v. People of the Philippines, the Supreme Court held that, in the circumstances of that case, the penalty for falsification was more serious than the penalty for estafa after the application of Republic Act No. 10951. The Court also applied the more favorable penalty where the amended law benefited the accused.

The amount allegedly obtained remains significant in determining the penalty for estafa. The amount may also provide evidence of damage, fraudulent intent, and the accused’s purpose in altering the receipt.

Effect of Republic Act No. 10951

Republic Act No. 10951 amended Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code by increasing the fine to not more than ₱1,000,000. The imprisonment prescribed under Article 172 remains prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods for the principal falsification offense.

Under Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, penal laws may have retroactive effect when they are favorable to the accused, provided the accused is not a habitual criminal within the meaning of the law. Courts must therefore compare the old and amended penalties when the alleged conduct occurred before the amendment.

The application of Republic Act No. 10951 requires a careful comparison of the entire penalty, including imprisonment, fines, and the penalty for any complex crime. The more favorable law must be applied only in accordance with the governing rules on retroactivity.

Distinguishing Criminal Falsification from an Accounting Error

Not every inaccurate reimbursement claim is criminal falsification. An innocent clerical mistake, mistaken calculation, or failure to understand an accounting policy may lack the deliberate falsity required for criminal liability.

The following circumstances may support a criminal complaint:

• The original receipt shows a lower amount than the document submitted for reimbursement;
• The alteration is designed to increase the amount claimed;
• The employee receives or attempts to receive the excess amount;
• The employee conceals the original receipt or gives inconsistent explanations; or
• Digital files, messages, metadata, or witness testimony show that the receipt was intentionally changed.

By contrast, an isolated typographical error that is promptly corrected and does not result in a claim or payment may be insufficient to establish the required criminal intent. The surrounding circumstances, rather than the alleged alteration alone, must be evaluated.

Evidence Needed in a Criminal Complaint

A complainant should preserve the original receipt, the altered copy, the reimbursement request, proof of payment, accounting records, and communications concerning the claim. The difference between the genuine and submitted amounts should be clearly documented.

Useful evidence may include:

• Testimony from the merchant or issuer confirming the genuine amount;
• The original electronic receipt or point-of-sale record;
• Audit findings and reimbursement policies;
• Bank, payroll, or accounting records showing payment of the reimbursement; and
• Electronic evidence showing the creation, modification, transmission, or submission of the altered document.

Documents should be authenticated and properly preserved. If the alleged alteration is digital, the complainant should maintain the original file and obtain appropriate forensic or technical evidence rather than relying solely on a printed copy.

Preliminary Investigation and Prosecutorial Review

A complaint for falsification is ordinarily evaluated during preliminary investigation. The complainant must submit affidavits and supporting evidence sufficient to show probable cause, while the respondent may present defenses and counter-evidence.

In Tan, Jr. v. Matsuura, et al., G.R. No. 179003, 2013, the Supreme Court stated that the determination of probable cause is primarily an executive function. Courts may review the prosecutor’s determination only in exceptional cases involving grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

The complaint should identify the specific document, the precise alteration, the person who made or authorized it, the circumstances showing knowledge, and the resulting or intended financial injury. General accusations that an employee “submitted fraudulent receipts” may be vulnerable to challenge for lack of factual detail.

Importance of the Information

The accused may be convicted only of the offense charged in the Information or an offense necessarily included in it. The Information must therefore allege the correct document classification, falsification act, participation of the accused, and damage or intent when Article 172(2) is invoked.

In Malabanan v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 186329, 2017, the Supreme Court emphasized that conviction for an offense not alleged, and not necessarily included, violates the accused’s constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.

This requirement is particularly important where the evidence concerns a commercial receipt but the charge alleges falsification of a private document, or where the Information alleges falsification but does not sufficiently allege the knowing use of the document.

Relationship with Tax Offenses

Section 264 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 penalizes persons required under Section 237 to issue receipts or sales or commercial invoices who fail or refuse to issue them, issue inaccurate receipts, or use multiple or double receipts or invoices. It also penalizes unauthorized or fraudulent printing of receipts and invoices.

These tax provisions generally address violations involving the issuance, printing, or use of receipts within the tax system. An employee who privately alters a genuine receipt for an inflated reimbursement may primarily face liability under the Revised Penal Code, although tax-related offenses may also be considered when the facts involve the issuance or use of receipts for tax purposes.

The applicable charge depends on the particular conduct, the person’s role, the type of receipt, and the evidence available. A private reimbursement dispute should not automatically be characterized as a violation of the National Internal Revenue Code without establishing the statutory elements of the tax offense.

Possible Defenses

Potential defenses depend on the evidence and the allegations in the Information. Common issues include lack of authorship, absence of knowledge, failure to prove that the document was false, failure to establish the document’s commercial or private character, and absence of damage or intent where Article 172(2) applies.

The accused may also challenge the reliability of a comparison between the original and submitted documents. A receipt may have been corrected by the issuing establishment, reprinted through an authorized system, or altered by another person without the accused’s knowledge.

In falsification cases, criminal intent and the statutory requirements must be examined carefully. As explained in Malabanan v. Sandiganbayan, an alteration that is not attended by malice, benefit, or damage may not support criminal liability, depending on the offense charged and the evidence presented.

Recommended Steps for Employers and Clients

Employers and private clients should adopt written reimbursement rules identifying acceptable receipts, required approvals, deadlines, and consequences for false claims. They should also preserve original documents and provide employees an opportunity to explain material discrepancies before filing a criminal complaint.

Before initiating prosecution, counsel should:

• Compare the original and submitted receipts;
• Determine whether the document is commercial or purely private;
• Identify the precise falsification act under Article 171;
• Quantify the actual or intended financial damage;
• Assess whether the facts support separate or complex estafa; and
• Ensure that the complaint and supporting affidavits state specific, provable facts.

Employers should also consider administrative proceedings, recovery of the excess reimbursement, suspension of payment, and preservation of electronic evidence. These remedies may proceed separately from a criminal complaint, subject to applicable employment policies and labor laws.

Conclusion

Private employees or agents who intentionally alter commercial receipts to obtain excessive reimbursements may be prosecuted under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code. The likely classification is Article 172(1) when the altered receipt is a commercial document, while Article 172(2) may apply when the document is treated as private and damage or intent to cause damage is established.

The knowing submission or use of the falsified receipt may create additional criminal exposure, and the facts may also support estafa through falsification. A sound case requires proof of the alteration, the accused’s participation and knowledge, the character of the document, and the resulting or intended injury.

Employers and clients should preserve the original records, document the reimbursement trail, obtain statements from the receipt issuer, and ensure that the criminal charge matches the evidence and the allegations required by law.

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]. Visit our website https://ndvlaw.com.