Liwanag v. People
G.R. No. 205260
July 29, 2019
FACTS:
The CA
convicted Ruben Liwanag for the crime of falsification of public document. On
July 3, 1994, a vehicular accident occurred in Bifian, Laguna. Petitioner's
son, Ruben Liwanag, Jr. drove a Kia Pride car which collided with a military
jeep driven by Noel Agcopra. Ruben Liwanag, Jr. was not able to present a valid
driver's license but showed Temporary Operator's Permit (TOP) No. 02774452-A
instead to the investigating officer, Conrado Tamayo of the Philippine National
Construction Company (PNCC). The TOP showed that it was issued on June 10, 1994
to "Ruben Rubio Liwanag" who was purportedly born on June 27, 1974.
It also appeared that petitioner issued the TOP to his own son. During the
investigation, it was discovered that per certification by the Land
Transportation Office (LTO), Ruben Liwanag, Jr. indeed did not have a driver's
license. At the time of the accident, Ruben Liwanag, Jr., who was born on June
27, 1977 according to his birth certificate, was still a minor and was not
eligible to hold a driver's license. His birth date on the TOP, however, was
"June 27, 1974." In view of the dubious entries on the TOP, Nelia
Enoc and Noel Agcopra, owners of the military jeep, filed an
affidavit-complaint for falsification of public document against petitioner,
which led to his indictment therefor in court.
C/Insp. Antonio Salas, who was also a police officer at the Western
Police District Command, testified that when a driver commits a traffic
violation and his driver's license is confiscated by the apprehending officer,
a TOP is issued. TOP permits the violator to drive for the period that his
actual license is not in his possession. The TOP is valid for fifteen days.
C/Insp. Salas further stated that TOP No. 02774452-A was part of the booklet
issued to him by the LTO. He denied ever issuing the TOP in question and he
only came to know of its issuance when the same was traced to have come from
him. In truth, the TOP in question was among the other TOPs which were detached
from the LTO booklet issued to him. He also confirmed that petitioner was a
fellow officer at the Western Police District Traffic Command. He and
petitioner used to share a room together at their headquarters and he sometimes
forgot to secure his locker where he kept his TOP booklet.
ISSUE:
Whether
or not the CA erred in affirming the conviction of the appellant.
HELD:
No.
Falsification of a public document is defined and penalized under Article 171
19 of the Revised Penal Code. It requires the following elements: 1) the offender is a public officer,
employee, or notary public; 2) he takes advantage of his official position; and
3) he falsifies a document by committing any of the aforementioned acts. In
falsification of public or official documents, the presence of intent to gain
or intent to injure a third person is not necessary. For what is punished is the violation of the
public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed. Here, petitioner was indicted for and
convicted of falsification of public document under Article 171 (par. 4) of the
Revised Penal Code because when he issued TOP No. 02774452-A he made untruthful
statements in a narration of facts, i.e. a) he entered his son's name
"Ruben Rubio Liwanag, Jr." on the TOP; b) he made a false entry
pertaining to his son's birthdate i.e. June 27, 1974 instead of June 27, 1977
(his son's true birthdate); and c) he altered his badge number from
"04580" to "50480," thus, making it appear that he had
authority to issue the subject TOP. To
be convicted under Article 171(par. 4) of the Revised Penal Code, the following
elements must concur: 1) the offender makes in a public document untruthful
statements in a narration of facts; 2) he has a legal obligation to disclose
the truth of the facts narrated by him; and 3) the facts narrated by him are
absolutely false.
Petitioner does not deny the
presence of these elements here. He, nonetheless, insists on his plea that he
had no malicious or wrongful intent to injure a third person. On this score,
suffice it to state that intent to gain or intent to injure is not an element
of the crime of falsification of public document. Nor is it a valid defense. Typoco, Jr. v. People is apropos: In
addition, petitioners argue that damage to the government should have been
proven considering that this was alleged in the Information. We do not agree.
In falsification of public or official documents, it is not necessary that
there be present the idea of gain or the intent to injure a third person
because in the falsification of a public document, what is punished is the
violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein
solemnly proclaimed. The law is clear that wrongful intent on the part of the
accused to injure a third person is not an essential element of the crime of
falsification of public document. It is jurisprudentially settled that in the
falsification of public or official documents, whether by public officers or
private persons, it is not necessary that there be present the idea of gain or
the intent to injure a third person for the reason that, in contradistinction
to private documents, the principal thing punished is the violation of the
public faith and the destruction of truth as therein solemnly proclaimed. In
falsification of public documents, therefore, the controlling consideration is
the public character of a document; and the existence of any prejudice caused
to third persons or, at least, the intent to cause such damage becomes
immaterial.