Falsification of Official Receipts as a Crime in Philippine Law
1. What is an “official receipt”?
| Kind of O.R. | Issuer | Legal source | Classification for falsification |
|---|---|---|---|
| Government OR – e.g., Land Transportation Office fee receipt, municipal treasurer’s receipt for taxes | Public officer or employee | Administrative Code, charter or special law creating the agency | Public document (Art. 171, Revised Penal Code) |
| Business OR – the BIR‑authorized form that merchants must issue when money or property is received | Private individual or juridical entity | §237 & §238, National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) as amended; BIR Revenue Regulations | Commercial document (Art. 172, Revised Penal Code) |
| Electronic OR – digital or e‑invoicing token under §237‑A, NIRC (TRAIN Law) | Same as above, but generated in the e‑receipt system | §237‑A, §264‑A, NIRC; R.A. 8792 (E‑Commerce Act) | Commercial/electronic document (Art. 171[6], RPC; Sec. 33, R.A. 8792) |
Practical tip: The document is considered an “official receipt” the moment the BIR (or a government agency) pre‑prints its serial number/QR code and authorizes its use—even before it is filled‑out.
2. Statutory bases
| Provision | Offender | Acts punished | Penalty |
|---|---|---|---|
| Art. 171, Revised Penal Code (RPC) | Public officer or private individual who takes advantage of official position | Eight enumerated acts of falsification of public or official documents (counterfeiting signatures, fabricating content, erasures, intercalations, etc.) | Prisión mayor & a fine; accessory penalties |
| Art. 172(1), RPC | Private individual or public officer not acting in official capacity | Falsification of official, public, or commercial documents | Prisión correccional in its medium & maximum periods and a fine |
| Art. 172(3), RPC | Any person | Knowingly introducing in evidence a falsified document | Same penalty as for the principal falsifier |
| §264, NIRC (as amended by R.A. 10963, TRAIN) | Printer, seller, user, or possessor of unauthorized, unregistered or multiple‑set receipts | 6 – 10 years imprisonment and ₱500,000 – ₱10 million fine; plus closure & VAT deficiency assessment | |
| §§264‑A & 264‑B, NIRC | Maker or user of fake electronic OR/invoice | 6 – 10 years & ₱500 k – ₱5 M (first offense) / ₱10 M (second) | |
| R.A. 8792, §33 | Any person | Altering or falsifying electronic documents | Fine up to ₱1 M &/or 6 years imprisonment |
| Administrative rules – BIR RMO 12‑2013, RMC 36‑2020, etc. | Taxpayers & printers | Administrative compromise penalties, suspension of TIN or business registration | Monetary; business closure |
Other overlapping crimes that are often charged together with OR falsification:
- Estafa (Art. 315, RPC) – if the falsified receipt is used to defraud someone of money or property.
- Malversation (Art. 217, RPC) – where a government cashier falsifies the OR to conceal shortage.
- Violation of the Government Auditing Code – where falsified ORs support fraudulent disbursements.
3. Elements of the offense (Art. 171 & 172, RPC)
- There is an official/public/commercial document – here, an official receipt.
- The offender performs any of the enumerated acts of falsification, e.g.:
- Counterfeiting or imitating genuine handwriting or signature;
- Causing it to speak the truth falsely – e.g., inflating the amount, altering dates or particulars;
- Issuing in duplicate or by adding sheets not authorized;
- Erasing, substituting, or intercalating characters or figures;
- The falsification is made with intent to cause damage or with the effect of violating public faith (animus nocendi is not essential; the gravamen is the act of alteration itself).
Doctrine: People v. Dizon, G.R. L‑16574 (Apr 28 1962) – intent to gain or actual damage is immaterial; falsification is mala prohibita and is consummated the moment the spurious document is created.
4. Key Supreme Court decisions
| Case | G.R. No. / Date | Ratio relevant to OR falsification |
|---|---|---|
| People v. Dizon | L‑16574, 28 Apr 1962 | A sales invoice/official receipt is a commercial document; intent to gain need not be proven. |
| People v. Flores | L‑24332, 30 Aug 1974 | Falsification by intercalation—adding figures in an OR to increase amount—is punishable even if the payee actually received the full amount. |
| People v. Marasigan | 138040, 25 Nov 2002 | Liability of a private individual who falsifies a public document (O.R. of a city treasurer) falls under Art. 172(1). |
| Office of the Ombudsman v. Reyes | G.R. 229418‑19, 04 Feb 2020 | Government cashier who issues duplicate ORs to conceal cash shortage incurs falsification and malversation. |
| People v. Millar | 107619, 19 Apr 2000 | A carbon copy is part of the same document; falsifying either the original or duplicate constitutes the crime. |
5. How falsification of ORs is commonly committed
| Modus | Typical purpose |
|---|---|
| Printing “ghost” booklets with no BIR authority (serial numbers don’t appear in the BIR “Ask for Receipt” database) | Inflate business expenses; support fictitious disbursements in government bidding |
| Issuing two sets of ORs – one genuine for the customer, another falsified for the accountant | Under‑declare sales/VAT |
| Altering amounts on a genuine OR after it is signed | Misappropriate excess funds; pad reimbursement claims |
| Substituting dates (e.g., back‑dating to fit tax amnesty period) | Evade higher income tax bracket |
| Using counterfeit e‑receipts or QR codes that resolve to fake BIR portals | Avoid POS linkage to e‑Invoicing System |
6. Penalties and collateral consequences
Criminal
- RPC: up to 12 years (prisión mayor) if public officer; up to 6 years (prisión correccional) if private.
- NIRC: 6–10 years plus multimillion‑peso fines; each booklet or electronic transmission can be charged per count, drastically increasing exposure.
Tax & administrative
- 50 % surcharge, 25 % interest per annum, compromise penalties, enforcement of closure order under §115(b), NIRC.
- Blacklisting of suppliers/printers; revocation of license to print.
Civil
- Damages to the defrauded party; restitution of public funds if government money is involved.
Professional / corporate
- Disqualification of corporate officers from holding directorships for five years (Sec. 165, Revised Corporation Code).
- Possible anti‑money‑laundering reporting obligation for covered institutions.
7. Procedural aspects
| Stage | Particulars |
|---|---|
| Investigation | Usually initiated by BIR’s Run‑After‑Fake‑Transactions (RAFT) team or by COA audit observation; NBI Questioned Documents Division conducts handwriting/ink examination. |
| Filing of Information | Prosecutor files separate informations: (a) falsification (RPC) in the RTC; (b) violation of §264 (NIRC) in the CTA Division in exercise of its original jurisdiction (as clarified in People v. Cuaresma, A.M. 05‑11‑07‑CTA). |
| Prescriptive periods | RPC: 10 years from discovery if punishable by prisión mayor; 5 years if by prisión correccional. NIRC offenses: 5 years from discovery (§281). |
| Evidence | Certified true copies from BIR/COA; expert comparison of serial numbers, inks, paper; testimony of the person to whom the OR was issued; linking of POS logs for e‑receipts; admission under custodial investigation. |
| Defenses | Good‑faith reliance on cashier/3rd‑party printer; absence of intent to falsify (generally unavailing); prescription; void information (failure to specify particular act of falsification). |
8. Special concerns for electronic receipts
- Legal recognition: Under R.A. 8792 and §§237‑A & 264‑A, NIRC, a digitally signed XML/JSON receipt is an “electronic document” carrying the same evidentiary weight.
- Acts of falsification:
- Editing the JSON payload before uploading to BIR;
- Re‑using a legitimate QR code on a fabricated PDF;
- Creating a look‑alike web portal that mimics the BIR validation site.
- Digital forensics: hash comparison, server‑log subpoena, block‑chain timestamp (if taxpayers opt in to Invoice/Receipt Ledger).
9. Interaction with other laws
| Law | Relevance |
|---|---|
| Anti‑Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. 3019) | Government officials who falsify or cause falsification of ORs in connection with procurement may face graft charges. |
| Plunder Law (R.A. 7080) | A series of falsified ORs supporting disbursements that aggregate to ≥ ₱50 M may constitute plunder. |
| Anti‑Money Laundering Act (R.A. 9160) | Proceeds from sales supported by fake ORs constitute “dirty money” once laundered. |
| Cybercrime Prevention Act (R.A. 10175) | If falsification is committed through or directed at a computer system, the penalty is one degree higher (Art. 171 + §6, R.A. 10175). |
10. Compliance & prevention checklist for businesses
- Register each printer and series with the BIR; post the “Ask for Receipt” notice.
- Secure and reconcile blank OR booklets; embed watermarks or micro‑print.
- Implement POS/e‑receipt systems directly linked to the BIR e‑Invoice platform and monitor real‑time telemetry.
- Rotate serial numbers and conduct surprise audits of cancelled/voided ORs.
- Train staff on criminal liability; require countersignature for handwritten alterations.
- Keep backups of electronic receipts and maintain hash logs.
11. Practical pointers for prosecutors and defense counsel
- Drafting the information: Precisely allege the particular act (e.g., “did then and there falsify by counterfeiting the amount ‘₱10,500.00’ in place of ‘₱1,500.00’”). A mere general averment is defective (People v. Dizon).
- Venue: If the falsified OR is used in another province, venue may lie where it was actually introduced in evidence (Art. 172[3]), not where it was fabricated.
- Plea‑bargaining: Courts have allowed plea to §264, NIRC (which carries the same range) in lieu of RPC falsification; conversely, tax cases may be compromised with the BIR, but not the RPC case.
- Corporate liability: The president, treasurer, and any responsible officer are deemed principals (Sec. 253, NIRC) unless they can prove due diligence and lack of knowledge.
- Good‑faith defense of public officers: Must show that the document was signed mechanically or that the discrepant entries were made by subordinates without their connivance.
12. Conclusion
Falsification of official receipts occupies a unique intersection of criminal law, tax enforcement, procurement regulation, and cyber‑security. The Philippine legal framework animates a two‑tier regime: the Revised Penal Code safeguards public faith in documents, while the Tax Code deters systemic tax fraud through heavy economic sanctions. Because OR falsification is often the “paper trail” for larger schemes—ghost sales, kickbacks, malversation—courts and regulators treat it as a gateway offense meriting uncompromising prosecution.
Bottom line: Whether you are a cashier, corporate treasurer, or public disbursing officer, manipulating an official receipt is not a shortcut—it is a crime that can cost you liberty, livelihood, and lifelong civil liabilities.