Short answer. Not under this article. Article 176 of the Revised Penal Code punishes possession of falsification tools only when done "with the intention of using them." Mere possession of tools that could be used for forgery, without that intent, does not by itself satisfy this specific offense — intent to use is an express element of criminal liability here.
What the law says
Any person who, with the intention of using them, shall have in his possession any of the instruments or implements mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that provided therein
Revised Penal Code, Article 176 — Tools For Falsification. Read the full provision →
What the law says
any person who shall make or introduce into the Philippines any stamps, dies, marks, or other instruments or implements intended to be used in the commission of the offenses of counterfeiting or falsification
Revised Penal Code, Article 176 — Tools For Falsification. Read the full provision →
What Article 176 covers
Article 176 of the Revised Penal Code creates two related offenses. The first punishes making or importing tools meant for falsification. The second is the one that answers your question, and it is explicit about intent: "Any person who, with the intention of using them, shall have in his possession any of the instruments or implements mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that provided therein." Possession alone is not what the text describes — possession joined to an intention to use the tools is.
Why the intent element matters so much here
The phrase "with the intention of using them" is not incidental language — it is what separates a criminal act from an innocent one under this specific provision. Without that intent, the conduct the second paragraph describes is not present, because the paragraph does not punish possession by itself; it punishes possession undertaken for a particular purpose. Someone who owns tools capable of being used for forgery, but who never formed the intention to use them that way, has not done what this paragraph requires for liability to attach.
The separate, harsher offense of making or importing the tools
The article's first paragraph covers a different act entirely — making the tools, or bringing them into the Philippines — and it carries a heavier penalty than the possession offense. It reaches "any person who shall make or introduce into the Philippines any stamps, dies, marks, or other instruments or implements intended to be used in the commission of the offenses of counterfeiting or falsification." That offense turns on what the tools were made or brought in for, not on a later possessor's state of mind, so it is a distinct question from the one you are asking.
What this doesn't settle
None of this means intent is simply taken on faith. Whether someone actually had the intention of using particular tools for forgery is a factual question, and it is ordinarily proven, or disproven, through the surrounding circumstances — how the tools were used, kept, or explained, not just a person's own say-so after the fact. This article also does not address whether possessing such items might raise concern under some other provision entirely; it speaks only to the specific offense it defines, which requires intent to use as one of its elements.