Case Summary (G.R. No. L-25484)
Charge and Facts Before the Trial Court
By Information dated November 15, 1996, petitioner was charged with falsification of public document, alleging that on or about June 10, 1994, he unlawfully altered a TOP No. 02774452-A, originally issued to Chief Inspector Antonio D. Salas, by filling in spurious data purportedly making it appear that the TOP was validly issued to his son. The falsified entries included the son’s name, a false birth date, and alteration of petitioner’s badge number. The TOP was then presented by petitioner’s son during a vehicular accident investigation, despite him being unlicensed. Petitioner pleaded not guilty.
Prosecution’s Version of the Facts
The vehicular accident occurred on July 3, 1994, involving petitioner’s son who presented the questioned TOP instead of a driver’s license. The LTO certified that the son was unlicensed and the TOP booklet originally belonged to C/Insp. Salas. Testimony from C/Insp. Salas confirmed he never issued the subject TOP and acknowledged that petitioner had access to his TOP booklet, sometimes leaving it unsecured, thus allowing the petitioner to fill out the spurious TOP. Documentary evidence from the LTO supported the prosecution's case, certifying petitioner was not authorized to issue TOPs, and that the son did not have a valid license at the time.
Defense’s Version of the Facts
Petitioner admitted having filled out the TOP but claimed it was solely for instructional purposes during lectures for traffic enforcers. He denied issuing the TOP to his son or that the latter used it. Petitioner also asserted that he was deputized to issue TOPs and that his son had a valid driver’s license, which contradicted the prosecution’s evidence.
Trial Court Ruling
The Regional Trial Court found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of falsification of a public document. It emphasized that petitioner admitted his handwriting on the TOP, and LTO certifications established he was not authorized to issue such permits. It also noted the son's driver’s license was issued only after the accident, confirming the son was unlicensed at the time. The court imposed an indeterminate penalty of 4 years, 2 months, and 1 day to 6 years’ imprisonment.
Court of Appeals Proceedings and Ruling
Petitioner appealed, arguing the prosecution failed to formally offer testimonies of witnesses and that the certifications were not properly identified. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) countered that petitioner waived these objections by not raising them during trial and by cross-examining witnesses. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s conviction, holding that failure to formally offer witnesses’ testimonies was waived in the absence of objection, and the evidence sufficiently proved falsification beyond reasonable doubt. A motion for reconsideration was denied.
Present Petition and Arguments
Petitioner sought the Supreme Court’s review, asserting lack of malicious intent or wrongful purpose to injure any party, claiming the TOP was a mere educational tool and never used by his son. The OSG maintained that the case involved factual issues and that the trial court’s and Court of Appeals’ factual findings are binding and conclusive.
Issue
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction for falsification of public document.
Legal Analysis and Ruling
Under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, falsification of a public document requires: (1) the offender to be a public officer or employee; (2) the offender must take advantage of his official position; and (3) the offender falsifies a document in the ways enumerated. Crucially, the presence of intent to gain or intent to injure a third person is not an essential element. The crime primarily punishes violation of public faith and destruction of truth, irrespective of whether damage or intent to harm occurred.
The petitioner admitted making untruthful statements in a narration of facts in the public document — specifically, inserting his son’s name, a false birthdate, and altering the badge number to imply authorization. These constituted falsehoods in a public document and violated his duty to disclose the truth. His plea that there was no malicious intent is im
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-25484)
Case Background and Proceedings
- Petitioner, C/Insp. Ruben Liwanag, Sr., a police officer of the Western Police District Command, was charged by Information dated November 15, 1996, with falsification of public document under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
- The alleged falsification involved Temporary Operator’s Permit (TOP) No. 02774452-A, originally issued to C/Insp. Antonio D. Salas, which petitioner was accused of forging to appear as if issued to his son, Ruben Rubio Liwanag, Jr.
- Specific falsifications included filling in the date “June 10, 1994,” the son’s name, an incorrect badge number (altered from 04580 to 50480), and leaving the permit/registration number blank.
- The TOP was presented by petitioner’s son during a vehicular accident investigation, although it was allegedly spurious and unauthorized.
- Petitioner pleaded not guilty; the trial court rendered a guilty verdict on August 24, 2001.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction on June 27, 2011, and denied the subsequent motion for reconsideration on October 21, 2011.
- Petitioner filed the present petition for review questioning the findings and the absence of requisite malicious intent.
Facts as Presented by the Prosecution
- On July 3, 1994, petitioner’s son caused a vehicular accident in Biñan, Laguna, and could not produce a valid driver’s license; he instead presented the questioned TOP to PNCC guards.
- The TOP purportedly issued on June 10, 1994, to "Ruben Rubio Liwanag" with a birthdate of June 27, 1974, conflicted with the son’s actual birthdate of June 27, 1977, and evidence showed he did not possess a valid driver’s license at the time.
- C/Insp. Antonio Salas testified the TOP booklet containing the subject TOP belonged to him, issued by the Land Transportation Office (LTO), and that he never issued the disputed TOP. He acknowledged carelessness in securing the booklet that contained the TOPs.
- Certificates from the LTO showed petitioner was not a deputized agent authorized to issue TOPs, that the TOP No. 02774452-A belonged to Salas’ booklet, and that Ruben Liwanag, Jr. had no license at the time.
- The prosecution’s evidence and witnesses were admitted and not validly objected to by the defense.
Defense’s Contentions
- Petitioner admitted handwriting on the TOP but denied issuing it to his son or any unauthorized issuance.
- He claimed the TOP was only used for instructional purposes during lectures to traffic enforcers.
- Petitioner asserted his son had a valid driver's license, and the TOP was merely recovered from the car post-accident, not issued or used by the son.
- Petitioner challe