G.R. No. 205260 - Liwanag, Sr. y Salvador vs. People

Petitioner C/Insp. Ruben Liwanag, Sr., a police officer of the Western Police District Command, was charged by Information dated November 15, 1996, for falsification of a public document under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code.
The case arose from events on or about June 10, 1994, involving falsification of Temporary Operator’s Permit (TOP) No. 02774452-A issued by the Land Transportation Office (LTO), Quezon City.

Petitioner allegedly obtained possession of the TOP booklet originally issued to C/Insp. Antonio D. Salas and falsified TOP No. 02774452-A by filling in blank spaces with untruthful information, including:

Date “10 June 94.”
The name of his son, “RUBEN RUBIO LIWANAG, JR.”
His badge number altered from “04580” to “50480.”
Leaving blank the permit/registration number which should correspond to his son’s driver’s license.

Petitioner’s son, Ruben Rubio Liwanag, Jr., then used the falsified TOP and was involved in a vehicular accident, presenting this spurious document to PNCC guards.
The LTO and C/Insp. Antonio Salas neither authorized nor participated in the issuance of the falsified TOP.

The accident happened on July 3, 1994, in Biñan, Laguna involving petitioner’s son’s Kia Pride and a military jeep.
Ruben Liwanag, Jr., did not have a valid driver's license at that time, as confirmed by LTO certifications. His actual birthdate (June 27, 1977) was different from the one indicated in the TOP (June 27, 1974). He was a minor and not qualified for a driver’s license at the time.
Prosecution witnesses included C/Insp. Antonio Salas, who denied issuing or authorizing the TOP, and PNCC investigator Conrado Tamayo, who testified about the accident and presentation of the TOP.
Petitioner admitted to filling out the TOP but claimed it was only for instructional purposes when lecturing on traffic duties and denied issuing it to his son. He also claimed his son had a legitimate driver’s license.
The trial court convicted petitioner on August 24, 2001, finding his admission to handwriting on the TOP and the LTO certification that he was not authorized to issue TOPs. The court sentenced petitioner to four years, two months, and one day to six years imprisonment.

On appeal, petitioner argued that the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies were not formally offered and that the certifications were not identified by their issuers. Petitioner denied illegally issuing the TOP to his son.
The Court of Appeals (CA) held that the absence of formal offer was waived by failure to object and affirmed the conviction. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

Petitioner sought review by the Supreme Court, reiterating lack of malicious or wrongful intent and claiming the TOP was a visual aid only.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) maintained the issue is factual, and the trial court’s findings affirmed by the CA are binding.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of petitioner for falsification of public document under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code.