Short answer. That is falsification under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code. The article names notaries expressly, and the second of its eight modes is causing it to appear that persons have participated in an act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate.
What the law says
Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate
Revised Penal Code, Article 171 — Falsification By Public Officer. Read the full provision →
What the law says
Counterfeiting or using any handwriting, signature or rubric
Revised Penal Code, Article 171 — Falsification By Public Officer. Read the full provision →
The article names notaries
Article 171 applies to any public officer, employee or notary who, taking advantage of his position, falsifies a document. A notary is not an ordinary private individual for this purpose: the law treats the notarial act as a public function, which is why a notary who abuses it falls under this heavier article rather than the lighter one that governs private persons. The mode your situation fits is the second: Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate. Certifying that you personally appeared and acknowledged a document when you were never there is precisely what that clause describes.
Personal appearance is the point of notarisation
The whole value of a notarised document lies in one thing — that the notary looked at the signatory, checked identification, and can vouch that the person before him signed. That is why a notarised instrument is received as a public document and needs no further proof of due execution. A notary who signs the acknowledgment for someone who was not there destroys that guarantee. It is no defence that a relative brought the papers, that the signature looked genuine, that you had authorised the transaction in principle, or that the parties were regular clients. And if your signature itself was written by another hand, the first mode is engaged as well — Counterfeiting or using any handwriting, signature or rubric.
Two more layers of liability
The criminal case is not the only exposure. A notary's authority to act is a commission granted by a court, and the rules governing notaries provide for its revocation and for disqualification from being commissioned again — a separate proceeding with its own standard, which does not wait for the criminal case. Third, you can sue for the damage the false document caused you, and a lawyer who is also a notary faces disciplinary proceedings as a member of the Bar. Whoever procured the notarisation — the person who brought the document and passed himself off as you, or who arranged for it — is exposed too, and typically for using or profiting from a falsified document.
The penalty, and what to secure first
Article 171 carries prisión mayor and a fine not to exceed One million pesos (₱1,000,000). That ceiling was set by Republic Act No. 10951 (2017), which revised the fines and property values throughout the Revised Penal Code; older reproductions still print the far smaller 1930 figures, so check which version any source you consult is giving you. Move on the evidence quickly. Notaries are required to keep a notarial register and to submit copies of their notarised documents to the court that commissioned them, so a certified copy of the register entry and of the filed document can be obtained independently of the notary. Secure proof of where you actually were on that date, and get advice before signing anything else connected with the transaction.
Related provisions
- Revised Penal Code, Article 171 — Falsification By Public Officer
- Revised Penal Code, Article 172 — Falsification By A Private Individual