Prior to August 29, 1908, the Chinaman Tan Chian had been receiving merchandise on credit from the firm known as Kim Hoc Hen, composed of Chinese merchants residing in the municipality of  Sorsogon, for the purpose of afterwards selling the merchandise on his own account, under agreement to pay for the same in small  installments from time to  time.   As a result of these operations the  said Chinaman  tan  Chian  owed  the firm   above-mentioned, according to a  balance sheet of  his account, the  sum of P288.35;  wherefore, on August 29 of that year,  the  Chinaman Liao Gui, the manager of the said fim, forwarded to Tan Chian, through another Chinaman named Chua Ungco, the document marked "Exhibit A," attached to the complaint  (p. 149 of the record),  showing a statement of the said balance and the amount of P288.35 due the firm.  As, notwithstanding that this statement of account,  which was virtually a memorandum and was  left with the debtor, the latter did not pay his debt, the said Liao Gui instituted a civil action for the collection of the said amount, and Tan Chian, on filing a counterclaim in  the said suit, exhibited the aforementioned document,  Exhibit A, in which alterations were observed  in its characters,  ciphers, and  signs whereby Tan Chian was made to appear as the creditor instead of the debtor of the said firm of Kim Hoc Hen.   The civil case was therefore dismissed, on petition of the plaintiff, without prejudice to the prosecution of such an action as might be proper.

For the foregoing reasons the provincial  fiscal filed a complaint,  on  March 15,  1909, against  Tan Chian and another Chinaman, Rufino Beltran,  charging them with the falsification of the said document by reason of their having made alterations and changes in the note or memorandum, Exhibit A, evidencing the balance of accounts, by changing the Chinese characters meaning Debit for others that  stand for Credit, with other ciphers and signs, so that the Kim Hoc Hen Company was shown to be the debtor, instead of the creditor, to the extent of ^288.35; the defendants were further accused of afterwards having presented the said false document at the trial, knowingly and with intent of gain.   This cause having come to trial, the court, after considering the evidence adduced, rendered judgment on  April 20, 1909, acquitting Rufino Beltran, with  one-half of the costs de oficio, and sentenced Tan Chian, for the falsification of a private document, to the penalty of one year  eight months and twenty-one days' presidio correccional, and in case of  insolvency,  to the corresponding subsidiary imprisonment, to pay one-half of the costs, and to the  other accessory penalties.   From this  judgment  the defendant appealed.

From the facts hereinbefore related,  which were  duly proved in the present cause, it is found that  the crime of falsification was in fact committed  with respect to a  document of a private character, provided for and punished by article  304, in connection with article 300, of the Penal Code; the first-named article is as follows:

"He  who, to  the prejudice of a third person  or with intent of causing it, shall, in a private document, commit any of the falsifications specified in  article 300,  shall be punished with the penalties of presidio correccional in its minimum and medium degrees and a  fine of from 625 to 6,250 pesetas."

The following facts were fully proven at  the trial:  The Chinaman Liao Gui, the manager of the said firm of Kim Hoc Hen,  sent, through another Chinaman, Chua  Ungco, the memorandum, Exhibit A, of the  account, showing a debit balance of P288.35, to the Chinaman Tan  Chian;  this account was made out by the bookkeeper of the firm, Vicente Jorge Guan Muaco, from the entries recorded in the ledger, fi'om which was torn out and attached to page 150 of the trial record the leaf which was presented as Exhibit B, in which the said sum appears as a balance owed by the defendant  to  the said firm.   The bearer of the  note or memorandum, Exhibit A, personally went to Guinlajon, a barrio of Sorsogon, to deliver it to the debtor who, after taking cognizance thereof, stated to Chua Ungco  that on account of the poor business  which he  was doing he could not pay the whole debt, but that he would do  so in small monthly payments.  This  memorandum, which was  left with the accused, had been transmitted to him at  the  end of the said month in order that he might be informed, according to the custom observed  by the Chinese in their mercantile relations,  that  there  was  an  unpaid  balance charged against him in account.  However,  notwithstand- ing the  demands made upon  him, Tan Chian did not pay the whole nor any part of the said sum of P288.35, and thereupon the legal  representative of  the manager, Liao Gui, filed suit against him in the justice of the peace court of Sorsogon, and  the defendant in his  answer to the complaint denied all the facts  alleged by  the plaintiff and at the same time filed a counterclaim, alleging that the plaintiff was owing him P288.35, according to  a settlement had between them on September 24,  1908.   Therefore, on the plaintiff's petition, the case was dismissed, with reservation of the right to institute such other action as might be proper. Tan Chian exhibited at the  said trial, in answer to a subpoena duces tecum, the document marked "Exhibit A," the same document or memorandum which was written by the bookkeeper, Vicente Guan Muaco, and which was delivered by its bearer, Chua Ungco, to the debtor,  Tan Chian, in the latter Js  store in Guinlajon.  After the said  document had been exhibited by the accused,  alterations, changes, and the insertion of the signs, figures, and Chinese characters thereof were observed; these had been made in  such manner that, in the  place where before  one read P1.39  now  appears P678.09,  where before  one read P288.35  now  appears P388.35, and where before appeared P289.74 one now reads P389.74;  and if before one  read  expenditure,  debit  or balance owing, now one reads  deposit or  balance to credit, according to the testimony of the said bookkeeper  who,  on the paper Exhibit C graphically showed how by intercalating, amplifying, and superposing lines and signs in  the Chinese, words, they may be converted into characters and words different from those previously written and of a different meaning.   The bearer  of the said memorandum,  Chua Ungco,  affirmed  that this document then contained words different from those which were previously written therein at the time that he  conveyed and delivered it to the debtor.

From  all the  foregoing facts  it  is  concluded that the document or memorandum, Exhibit A,  was  falsified  by means  of alterations,  changes, and the insertions of characters and signs in such manner  that its contents, instead of .showing a balance due by the accused Tan Chian, shows the latter to be a creditor of the  firm which  sent him the said memorandum for the purpose of informing him of his debt, so that he might pay the same, as was proper for him to do.

The defendant Tan Chian is the sole responsible perpetrator of this  crime, by direct participation.   It  is immaterial whether it was  he or another who made the said alterations and changes in the document, inasmuch as the falsified  memorandum remained in his control from the time that he received it from Chua Ungco, on  August 29, to the first part of November, 1908, when  he exhibited it on the occasion of his filing the counterclaim in the justice of the peace court,  whereby he demanded payment of the amount which in  appearance the said firm was owing him, and  during which  long  interval of time  he could have effected the falsification. Whereas the execution  of the criminal act aforesaid could have been of benefit and profit to him alone, since from debtor that he was, he became the creditor, after the alterations and changes which were made in the said memorandum, which was received without them, it must undoubtedly  be  presumed, without any evidence to the contrary, that the  accused Tan Chian was, notwithstanding his denial, the  sole perpetrator of the crime of falsification herein  prosecuted; and, even though  it were another who made the alterations, changes, and insertions of the characters and figures in the document referred to, it is  also to be presumed that  such  third person  did so through inducement and. upon order of the defendant, for the very reason that the latter exhibited  the said  instrument afterwards at the trial to prove that he was a creditor for the amount therein expressed.

The penal law does not absolutely require that the falsification of a private document should have been detrimental to another; it is sufficient that the falsifier should have had the intention to cause such detriment to  another person. In the present case it is evident that the defendant, in making alterations  and changes  in the said document, intended not only to elude the payment of his debt by defrauding his creditor, but also to effect his perverse  purpose of having his creditor company pay to  him the  amount he actually owed the concern, by means of the falsification of the document expressive of his. debt.

With respect to the nature of this document, it is unquestionable that it is a private instrument and does not embody the conditions required to allow its being considered as of a mercantile character, and therefore falls within the provisions of the said article 304 of the Penal Code.

The defendant recognized the  document, Exhibit A, as being the same that he received from the manager, Liao Gui, although he  denied having made alterations and changes therein, stating that he did not know how to write.  Such allegations, for lack of proof, can not be considered as true and are, on the one hand, unlikely in themselves, and on the other,  devoid of reasonable grounds for  belief, for it was proved at the trial that by the alterations and changes made in the said  document the defendant  is made to appear therein as converted from a debtor to a creditor of the firm whose manager by means of the said document demanded of him the payment of his debt.   Moreover, the  said Tan Chian  did not succeed in his attempt to prove that the firm of Kim Hoc Hen owed him P678.09 for the six sacks of rice removed by the manager, Liao Gui, from  the defendant's store to another near by, which, for reasons not explained in this cause, could not have been the cause of the company's owing him so large a  sum.

For  the foregoing reasons, whereby the errors attributed to the  judgment appealed from have been disposed of, and accepting  the findings therein contained,  as they  are  in accordance with law, it is proper, in our  opinion, to affirm and we do hereby affirm  the said judgment, with  the costs against the appellant; provided, however, that he shall be sentenced to  the accessory penalties specified in article 61 of the  Penal  Code.

Arellano, C. J., Johnson, Moreland, and Trent, JJ., concur.