cc no. 130612 decisions

7/21/2019 CC No. 130612 Decisions

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cc-no-130612-decisions 1/9

Reoublic

of

the

Philippines

Muni'cip

al

Trial

Coiri

in

Cities

First

Iudicial

ReS,ion

Second

Branch

Baguio

CitY

PEOPLE

OF

THE,

PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

-aersrls-

JULIEWHYN

R.

QUINDOZA,

Accused.

CRIMINAL

CASE

NOS.

130612

FoT:

FALSIFICATION

OF

PUBLIC

DOCUMENT

BY

A PRIVATE

INDIVIDUAL

-----------x

DECISION

The

parties herein

are

no

strangers

to

each

other.

Yet,

what

relations

they

may

have

had

that bound

them

in

the

past

has

now

seen

them

dueling

in Court

at

opposite

ends.

Accused

initially

filed

a

criminal

case

against

the

private complainant

herein.

In

a

twist

of

fate,

her

complaint

became

the

fount

of

this

present

prosecution

for

Falsification

of a

Public

Document.

0n

fune

3,ZOl3,

the

Qffice

of the

City

Prosecutor

of

Baguio

City

()CP-Baguio)

clrarged

the

accused

fuliewhyn

R.

Quind

oza

(Quindoza)

with

the

crime

of

Falsification

of

public

Document

by

a Private

Individual

upon the

complaint

of

Ernesto

Llmas

De

Los

Santos

(Ernesto),

committed

as follows:

Infbrmation

That on

or

about

December

4,1993

,

in

the

City

of

Baguio,

Philippines,

and

within

the

iurisdiction

of

this

Honorable

Court,

the

above-named

accused, a

private

individual,

did

then

and

there,

willfuily,

unlawfulty

and

feloniously

falsify

the

certificate

of

Live

Birth

of one

Margarett

Veronica

Quindoza

De Los

Santos,

a

public

document

by supptying

all

the

entries

therein,

such

as

the

name

of

ERNESTO

LLAMAS

DEL1S

SANTOS,

herein

private

complainant,

as

the

father

of

Margarett

veronica

Quindoza

De

Los

Santos

and

as

well

as

in

particular

the

DATE

AND

PLACE

0F

MARRIAGE

OF

PARENTS

ss

December

15,

1991

at

Pansol,

Laguna,

wherein

the

accused

made

and

caused

it

to appear

that

Ernesto

L.

De

Los Santos

participated

in a marriage

ceremony

when

in

ffuth

and

in

fact,

the

accused

knows

fulty

well

that

they

were

not

maffied

to

each

other

and

neither

has there

been

a

marriage

ceremony

wherein

they

both

took

their

vows

of

matrimony,

more

particularly

on

December

L5,

7991

at

Pansol.

Laguna

and

such

falsification

was

only

discovered

by

Ernesto

De Los

Santos,

herein

private

complainant

sometime

on

September

23,

201L

when

the

accused

filed

a complaint

against

him and

she

utilized

and

introduced

the

said

falsified

certificate

of

Live

Birth as

her

evidence,

to

the

damage

and

preiudice

of

Ernesto

De Los Santos.

CONTRARY

TO

LAW.

which

motion

was

D

Accused

initially

filed a

motion

to

denied

by

the court

on August

B,

2013.

quash

the

information,

The

accused

was

then

7/21/2019 CC No. 130612 Decisions


Crim. Case No.

130612

People

of the Phil.

vs.

fuliewhyn

R.

Quindoza

DECISION

assistance of

her counsel

de

parte,

Atty.

Clarence

Villanueva,

and entered

a

plea

of

not

guilty

to the

offense

charged.

Pre-trial

was

set and ensued

on

May

5,

2074.

In

the

interim,

a

string

of appearances

of

private

counsels

were

entered

for

the

prosecution,

beginning

with private

prosecutor

Atty.

Judith

Z. Luiz.

She

was

joined

by

Attorneys

Richard

Garcia and

Rosanne

Rarang as

collaborating

counsels.

Atty.

Luiz

later

withdrew

her appearance

as

private

prosecutor.

No

stipulations

were entered

into

during

the

pre-trial.

The

prosecution

marked

their exhibits consisting

of

the affidavit complaint

of

the

accused with

the OCP-Baguio

(Exh

A);

the Certificate

of Live

Birth

of Mergarett

Veronica

Quindoza

Delos Santos

[Exh

B);

Certification

of

No

Marriage

[Exh

C); and

the Affidavit

of

Virgil

Delos Santos

(Exh

D)

The

defense

did not have

any

documentary

exhibits

to

mark. With

their

witnesses

identified

and

issues

defined,

trial of

the case

ensued.

On

fune

2,20L4,

upon motion of

the accused,

through

counsel, the

pre-trial

order

dated May

5, 20t4,was

amended

in the

interest

of

justice,

to include

one

Gilda Belino

as

a witness for

the

accused.

EVIDENCE FOR

THE

PROSECUTION

The

prosecution's

evidence

is hinged

on

the documents

and

testimonies

of

their

two witnesses,

Virgil Patrick

De

Los Santos,

the son

of

private

complainant

Ernesto,

and

Gerard

Tolito,

the outlet

supervisor

of

the

"Census

Serbilis

Center" and representative

of

the Philippine

Statistics

Office.

Both

witnesses

executed

their

respective

judicial

affidavits,

which

comprised

their direct testimonies

in this

case.

The

private

complainant

Ernesto

never

came

forth

to testify

in this case.

Instead,

his

son, Virgil Patrick

De Los

Santos

(Virgil),

who

knew

the

accused

Quindoza

as his

father's

estranged

common-law wife

testified herein.

Virgil

stated

that

in

Quindoza's

Complaint-Affidavitl

for

R.A

9262,

which

she

filed

against

Ernesto,

Quindoza

attached

a

Certificate

of Live Birth2

of Mergarett

Veronica

Delos

Santos,

her

daughter

with Ernesto.

Indicated

in the

said

Certificate

of

Live

Birth, which

Virgil

personally

read

and examined,

were

the

date

and

place

of marriage

of

parents,

as

"December

15,

1991

-

Pansol,

Laguna."

Virgil

decries

the

same

to

be

an

utter

falsity

because

Quindoza

and Ernesto

were never

married

on the

date and at

the

place

stated,

as his

father

Ernesto

was

already married

to

Edita

Castillo Baltazar

at

the time

of

the execution

of

the

Certificate

of

Live Birth.

It

was

even Virgil

who assisted

Ernesto

in

securing

certified

copies

of

their

Marriage

Contract

with Baltazar,

thus, he

saw

for

himself

the document

evidencing

such marriage.

Virgil

averred further

that

the entries

in

the Certificate

of

Live

Birth

had

one

fuliewhynne

Delos

Santos,

with

a signature

"Jdelossantos"

affixed, as

informant.

Yet

Quindoza

herself

alleged

in her

pleadings

for RA

9262

that Ernesto's

legitimate wife

is

Baltazar.

On

cross-examination,

Virgil

had no

qualms

admitting

that

he, too, is

an

illegitimate

child

of

Ernesto.

And,

that at the

time of

birth

of

her

half-sister Mergarett,

he

was

only

13

years

old,

and

was

not

present

when

the birth certificate was prepared

or

signed.

Gerard

Tolito,

the outlet

supervisor in

charge

of

"Census

Serbilis Center"

of the

Philippine

Statistics

Authority

(PSA),

also

took

the stand for

the

prosecution.

He

testified

on

the

organization

of the PSA

and how

civil

registry

documents find

their

way to

their

office

and into

the Civil

Registry

System

Database

and

how

the

public

can

access these

documents.

Prefatorily,

he averred

that

the

Census

Serbilis Center

issues

civil

registry

documents

like

birth

certificates,

marriage

certificates

and

death

certificates, to the

public.

As

an

outlet

supervisor,

he

has

the authority

to attest

to

the

authenticity

and

r

t

Exhibit

"A"

'

Exhibit

"8"

7/21/2019 CC No. 130612 Decisions


Crim.

Case No.

130612

People

of the Phil.

vs.

]uliewhyn

R.

Quindoza

DECISION

genuineness

of

civil

registry

documents

issued

by the PSA,

which

can

be

determined

by

checking

if the

printout

is

on

security

paper,

and

if

the

codes

and

serial

numbers

appearing

in

the

printout

as

well

as

the

authorized

signatures

appearing

thereon

were

authentic.

In this

case, Tolito

confirmed

that the

document,

which purports

to

be

a

Certificate

of Live

Birth of Mergarette

Veronica

Q.

De

los

Santos,

is

a certified

true

copy

of the

Certificate

of

Live

Birth

duly

issued

by

the

PSA.

He

similarly

confirmed

the

authenticity

of

the marriage

contract

between

Ernesto

and

Baltazar.

Tolito

clarified

that

that

there

is

no

ready-made

printout

for

a

Certificate

of

No

Marriage

or

CENSMAR

because

their office

is

required

to search

marriage

indices

every

time

a request

therefor

is received,

if

only

to

ascertain

any

change

in

the

status

of a

particular

individual.

The

CENOMAR3

issued

in

the

name

of

Private

Complainant

by

the PSAa

bears all

the

earmarks

of authenticity

as

per

his

verification.

On

cross-examination,

Tolito

counseled

that when

a

person

requests

for

a CENOMAR

and

it appears

that the

person

has a

registered

marriage,

the

PSA issues

an

Advisory

of

Marriage

and

not a

CENOMAR.

After

their

testimony,

the

prosecution's

Exhibits

"A",

"8,,,,,D,,

and

,,E,,

were

admitted

in

evidence

for

the

prosecution and

with

such admission,

they

rested

their

case.

s

EVIDENCE

FOR

THE

DEFENSE

The

defense

presented

their lone

witness,

Gilda

Beleno (Beleno),

an employee

of

the

University

of

Manila (UM)

where

Quindoza

was

a former

student

and

where

Ernesto

served

as Executive

Vice President

and

University

Registrar.

Beleno

was

also

an

employee

of

the Baguio

Pines

Tourist

Inn

(BPTIJ,

a hotel

owned

by

UM,

where

Ernesto

was

former

General

Manager,

and

her

superior.

Beleno

knows

Quindoza

and

confirmed

further

that

she was

present

when

Quindoza

gave

birth

to

Mergarett,

her

daughter

with

Ernesto,

by

caesarean

section

on

December

4,

t993

at

the

Baguio

Medical Center

by

caesarean

section.

She

was

personally

instructed

by

Ernesto

to

accompany

Quindoza

during

childbirth

and

she was

there

from

about

4

o'clock in

the

afternoon

until

the evening.

While

she

was

at

Quindoza's

room

at

about

B:30

o'clock

that

same

evening,

a nurse

came

to ask

Quindoza

about

the factual

data for

Mergarett's

Birth

Certificate

since

it

was

the hospital's

duty

to

cause

its registration.

Because

Quindoza

was

still

recovering

from

the

effects

of sedation,

Beleno

asked

the nurse

to leave

the form

to

be

filled

out by Ernesto.

Belino

then went

home

to

BPTI

and handed

the blank

Birth

Certificate

Form

to

Ernesto

before

she

went to

bed.

In

the

morning,

Ernesto

handed

her

back

the

Birth

Certificate

form

as

she was

about

to

leave

for

the

marke

with the

specific

instruction

to

bring

and

submit it

to the

hospital.

The

blank

spaces

in

the form,

save

for the

child's

weight

at

birth,

the

attendant,

the informant

and

who

received

the

same

from

the local

civil

registrar,

were,

by

then,

already

filled

out

with

the

entries

written

in

pencil.

While

she

did not

personally

see him

accomplish

the

form,

it

was

Ernesto,

she claims,

who

filled

out

the entry

on

item no.72

relative

to

the

date

and

place

of

marriage

of

the child's

parents

because

all the

entries

were

done

in

Ernesto's

handwriting.

She was

very familiar

with his

handwriting

having

been

under

his employ

at BPTI.

Thus,

as

instructed,

upon reaching

the hospital,

Belino

handed

the form

to

the

same

nurse from

whom

she

received

it,

with

the assurance

that

the

hospital

shall

be

responsible

for

submitting

the

same

for

registration.

Belino

was

certain

that

sometime

in

200L,

Ernesto

was

able

to

obtain

a copy of

Mergarett's

birth

certificate

because

she

secured

one for him.

Belino

recalled

that

she

t

Exhibit

"c'.

o

Judicial

Affidavit

of

Gdrard Tolito

s

See order,

September

22,2074

7/21/2019 CC No. 130612 Decisions


Crim.

Case

No. 130612

People

of

the Phil.

vs.

luliewhyn

R.

Quindoza

DECISION

was instructed

by Ernesto

to secure

a

copy of Mergarett's

Birth

Certificate

for

her first

communion.

She did as instructed

and handed

the

copy

to

Ernesto.6

0n

cross-examination, Belino

said

that

she

was assigned at

the

front desk of

BPTI

sometime

in

2001

until

2003.

Because

Ernesto

was

their

general

manager, she

usually

did what

was

asked

of

her,

even

when

the

same

was

not part of

her job.

Thus,

on

December

4, L993,

she

went

to

the

hospital

because

Ernesto asked her

to accompany

Quindoza.

She had no

personal

relations with

Quindoza

as she

was

merely

introduced to

her

by

Ernesto

as

his

girlfriend.

Belino

recalled that

she

handed the blank

Birth

Certificate form

to

Ernesto

in

the

evening

and

it

was

returned

to her

the

following

morning

with the entries

already

filled

up. She

admitted, however, that

she

was neither

with Ernesto

nor

Quindoza

the entire time

from

December

4

until

December 5, L993 and

did not

see

either of them

fill

up the

form.

She

was

unable to

recognize the signature

appearing in

the

birth

certificate

above

the

name

fuliewhyn

Delos Santos. And, while she

was

very

familiar

with the signature

of

Ernesto,

his

signature

does

not

appear

anywhere

in the birth certificate.T While she claims that she

got

a

copy

of the

subject

birth

certificate

way

back

in

2001

from the

NSO,

she does

not

recall having

signed

any

document

to

show

that

she

received the

same, except

for the

request

she

signed,

which

she was unable

to

present

in

Court

as well.

She handed

the

Birth

Certificate

to

Ernesto as

she alleged she did

without

making any acknowledgment

receipt.

The

defense, having

no

other

witness

to

present

and

no

documentary

evidence

to

formally offer, rested

their

case.

The

case

was

therefor submitted

for

decision

with

the

sole

issue

of

whether

or not accused

Quindoza

may be held liable

for

Falsification of

a

Public

Document

by a Private Individual under Article

L72 in

relation

to

Article L7t

(L)

of the

Revised Penal

Code.

FALSIFICATION

OF

PUBLIC

DOCUMENT BY A PRIVATE

INDIVIDUAL

Quindoza

is

charged

with the

offense of

Falsification of

public

document

in

the

manner

alleged

in the

Information as:

That on

or

about December 4,1993

,

in

the City of

Baguio,

Philippines, and

within the

jurisdiction

of this Honorable Court, the

above-named accused,

a

private

individual,

did then and there,

willfully,

unlawfully and

feloniously falsifi

the cerfficate of

Live

Birth

of

one

Margarett

Veronica Quindoza De

Los Santos,

a

public

document by supplying

all

the entries therein, such

as the name of

ERNESTO LLAMAS DELOS

SANT)S, herein

private

complainant,

as

the

father

of Margarett

Veronica

Quindoza

De Los Santos and as

well

as

in

particular

the

DATE AND PLACE OF MARRIAGE OF

PARENTS

as

December

15, 7991

at

Pansol, Laguna, wherein the

accused

made

and caused it to appear that

Ernesto

L. De Los

Santos

participated

in a

marriage

ceremony when in

truth and

in

fact,

the

accused

knows

fully

well that

they were

not

married to each

other

and

neither

has there been a

marriage

ceremony

wherein

they both took

their vows of

matrimony,

more

particularly

on

December 75,

7991

at Pansol. Laguna

and

such

falsification

was

only

discovered

by

Ernesto

De

Los

Santos,

herein

private

complainant

sometime

on

September

23,

2077

when the

accused

filed

a

complaint against

him

and

she

utilized

and introduced

the

said

falsified

Certiftcate of

Live

u

Judicial Affidavit of

Gilda

Beleno.

7

TSN,

August

LO, 20:-5,

5.

7/21/2019 CC No. 130612 Decisions


Crim. Case

No.

130612

People of the

Phil.

vs.

Juliewhyn

R.

Quindoza

DECISION

Birth

as

her

evidence, to the damage and

prejudice

of

Ernesto

De Los Santos.a

Falsification of documents

under

paragraph

l-,

Article

l72e in

relation to

Article

l7lt0

(2)

of

the

Revised Penal

Code

refers

to

falsification by

a

private individual,

or

a

public

officer

or employee

who did

not take advantage

of

his official

position,

of

public,

private,

or

commercial

documents.

To

sustain

a charge

under

such

Article would

require

the

following elements:

(1)

that the offender

is a

private

individual

or a

public

officer

or

employee

who did

not

take advantage of

his

official

position;

[2)

that

he

committed

any of

the

acts of

falsification

enumerated

in

Article t7L

of

the

RPC;

and

(3)

that the

falsification

was committed

in

a

public,

official

or

commercial

document.ll

The

accused

herein

is

particularly charged

under

paragraph

2

of

Article

L7L,

which

bears

the

following requisites:

[1)

that the offender

caused

it to

appear in

a document that

a

person

or

persons

participated

in

an act

or

proceeding;

and

[2)

that such

person

or

persons

did not in

fact so

participate

in

the act or

proceeding.

Assaying the

evidence

of the

prosecution

to

prove

the

elements of the

offense

charged,

it

has

sufficiently

proven

that

the

document subject

of the offense

is a

public

document and

that

the accused herein

is

a

private

individual

$.>

r,/

Boldface

ours.

L--"

n

grr.

112. FalsiJication by

privcile

inctiyiduals and use offalstfied

documents.

-

The

penalty

of

prisi.on

correccional

in its

medium and

maximum

periods

and a fine of not more than 5,000

pesos

shall be imposed upott:

1.

Any

private

individual who shall commit

any

of

the

falsifications

enumerated

in

the

next

preceding

article

in any

public

or official document

or letter ofexchange or

any

other

kind ofcommercial

document; and

2. Any

person

who, to the damage

of a third

party"

or

with

the intent

to

cause such damage,

shall

in any

private

document commit any

ofthe

acts

offalsification

enumerated

in

the

next

preceding

article.

Any

person

who shall knowingly

introduce in evidence in anyjudicial

proceeding

or to the damage

ofanother or

who, with the

intent

to

cause such damage, shall use any

ofthe false documents embraced

in the next

preceding

article or

in

any

ofthe

foregoing subdivisions ofthis article, shall

be

punished

by the

penalty

next lower

in

degree.

'o

ART.

171.

Falsification

by

public

officer, emptoyee or

notory or ecclesiostic minister.

-

The

penalty

of

prision

moyor and a

fine not to

exceed 5,000

pesos

shall be

imposed upon any

public

officer, employee,

or

notary

who,

taking

advantage

of

his official

position,

shall

falsify

a document

by committing any of the

following

acts:

1. Counterfeiting or

imitating any handwriting, signature

or rubric;

2. Causing

it

to appear

that

persons

have

participated

in

any act

or

proceeding

when they

did not in fact so

pa

rtici

pate;

3. Attributing to

persons

who

have

participated

in an act

or

proceeding

statements other than

those in

fact

made

by

them;

4.

Making

untruthful

statements in

a

narration of facts;

5. Altering true dates;

6. Making any alteration or

intercalation in

a

genuine

document

which changes its meaning;

7. lssuing in an authenticated form a document

purporting

to

be a copy of an original

document when

no such

original exists,

or

including

in

such a copy

of

a

statement

contrary

to, or different

from,

that

of the

genuine

original;

or

8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof

in a

protocol,

registry, or official book.

The same

penalty

shall

be

imposed

upon

any

ecclesiastical

minister who shall commit any of

the offenses enumerated

in the

preceding paragraphs

of

this

article,

with

respect

to

any

record

or

document of

such

character that

its falsification

may

affect

the civil

status

of

persons.

"

Panun.io ,. People of the Philippines, 165678, July t1

,2OOg

7/21/2019 CC No. 130612 Decisions


Crim. Case No.

130612

People

of

the

Phil.

vs.

fuliewhyn

R.

Quindoza

DECISION

It

would

clearly appear that the document subject of the falsification

in

this case

is

a birth

certificate.

It

is

a

public

document.

A

public

document,

from

among

others,

is

one created,

executed,

or

issued by

a

public

officer

in response to

the

exigencies

of the

public

service.l2

Public documents

are

the

written

official

acts,

or

records

of

the

official

act of

the sovereign

authority, official

bodies and

tribunals,

and

public

officers,

whether

of the Philippines,

or

a foreign country.l3

Without

doubt, a birth certificate falls under

such

category.

Similarly, the

accused is,

undoubtedly,

a

private

individual as

well, who

has not

been alleged

or

proved

to

be a

public

officer, discharging

a

public

function.

Without

belaboring on these elements

that

have been

proven

by the

prosecution,

the

remaining

query

centers

on whether falsification was

committed and whether the

accused

has indeed

committed

the same

by the specific

manner alleged in

the

information

under

paragraph

2 of Article L71,by

causing

it

to

appear

in

a

document that

a

person,

Ernesto, in

particular, participated

in

a marriage

-

his

marriage

with

Quindoza-

when

in

fact

he did not.

More in

point

did

Quindoza

make

it

appear

in

the

birth

certificate

that

Ernesto

participated

in

a

marriage

with

her,

when no

marriage actually

took

place?

It is

clear

that

a falsity

appears

in

the subject

birth certificate. The

entry in

the

birth

certificate

of

the date

and

place

of

marriage of

Quindoza

and

Ernesto

is

an

apparent falsity

because

they were never

married

and

could not

have

validly

done

so

as

Ernesto

was

still

married

to

another. The

prosecution's

report

of

marriage

proves

with

certainty

that

Ernesto

was married

to

one

Edita

Baltazar.

Quindoza's

allegations in

the

pleadings

she

filed

against Ernesto similarly reveal

that she

knows

of the

existing

marriage

and acknowledges

that

Ernesto is

legally

married to

Baltazar.

The

apparent

falsity in

the

birth

certificate

notwithstanding,

the prosecution

has

not

been

able to

prove

beyond a

whisper of

doubt that it

was

the accused who

committed

the same, and, more

importantly,

in

the

manner

as alleged

in

the

information.

First

off, the accused

is

alleged to

be

the

author

of

the falsification.

The

prosecution

summons the

oft

repeated

principle

that

absent

a

satisfactory

explanation,

one who

is

found

in

possession

of,

and who

has

used

a

forged

document is the forger,

and

therefore,

guilty

of

falsification.

The

principle

is

inapplicable

to the case

at

bar. The

principle

in full,

states

that

if

a

person

had

in

his

possession

a

falsified

document and he

made use

of it

(uttered

it)

taking advantage of

it

and

profiting

thereby,

the

presumption

is that he is

the material

author

of

the

falsification.la

The

presumption

applies

in

cases

where

the

documents

are

susceptible

to

falsification

while

in

the

custody of

the

possessor

and having

the

ease

of effecting

such

falsification,

uses

it

and

profits

from

it.

The

use

attributed

to

the

accused was

when

she attached the said

birth

certificate

to her

complaint

for violation of RA

9262

against Ernesto.ls There is no

profit

attributable

to the

accused by

presenting

the

said

document

at such time, even assuming

for

the

sake

of

argument

that the

falsification was

committed. The

birth

certificate

is

proof

only of the

fact

of

birth and

not the

marriage

of the

parents

of the child.

That

Mergarette

is

the child

of

Quindoza

and Ernesto

is beyond contest.

Accused

could

not

have

used

the

said

document as

proof

of

her marriage

with

Ernesto,

as she even alleged

the

contrary,

that

is, Ernesto was

legally married

to Baltz

^rb

"

R"y"r,

Revised Penal

Code, Book

ll,

18'h

edition,

2OL2,228.

"

Makati

Shangri-la

Hotel

and

Resort,

Inc. v. Harper

et al.,

G.R.

No. 189998, August 29,2012.

'o

People v.

Sendaydieeo,

81 SCRA 120.

tt

Memorandum,

13.

7/21/2019 CC No. 130612 Decisions


Crim.

Case

No.

130612

People

of the Phil.

vs.

fuliewhyn

R.

Quindoza

DECISION

Secondly,

the

prosecution

is

adamant

that the

accused

committed

the

acts

of

falsification

that

verily

fall under

paragraph

2

of Article

L71, by making

it

appear

on

the

birth

certificate that

Ernesto

participated

in a marriage

ceremony

that

never

took

place.

The

mode

of

falsification

allegedly

committed is

glaringly

erroneous.

By

causing

the entry of the

date and

place

of

marriage

in

the

birth

certificate

of

Mergarette, the

accused

could

not

have

made

it

appear

that

Ernesto

participated

in a marriage, which

did not

even

take

place.

For one,

the

birth

certificate

is not

proof

of

marriage,

much less,

the

conduct

of

a marriage

ceremony.

For

another,

the

mode

alluded to refers to acts

where,

in

the

very document

itself,

which

proves

the

act

or

proceeding,

a

person

is made

to

appear

to have

participated

in

it

either

by signing his name

or affixing his mark

or

imprint.

It

may

occur for

instance

had

the accused herein,

signed

the

name

of

Ernesto

or

caused

Ernesto's

name

to

be

signed

upon

a

marriage

contract. In

jurisprudence,

the

trove

of

similar

instances

include, having

to affix

marks of those who

did not

participate

in the

making

of

a

payroll

had

participated

therein,

or

placing

the thumb marks

of

voters

opposite

their

names

to

prove

that they

have

voted, when in

fact

they did not.16 No

such

case

is extant herein. The

accused

did not

make

it

appear

that

Ernesto

participated

in

a

marriage

which

did not take

place.

The accused

cannot be

convicted

on such

ground,

The

accused

cannot

similarly be convicted

on another

mode

of

committing

the

crime

of

falsification,

that

is,

by

making

untruthful statements

in

a

narration of facts,

which

was

not

alleged

in

the

information.

Both

the

body

and

the technical

name

given

to

the crime

under

the Revised

Penal

Code

laid

out a

charge

under

Article

17L

(2)

and

not

L7L

(4).

While

the acts alleged in

the

Information

properly

make

out a

iharge

of

falsification

under

Article

777

(2),

the

evidence of

the

prosecution

did

not establish

its

elements.

The act

of

falsification,

if

at all, was

not

proven

to

have

been committed

in the

manner

as alleged

in the Information.

And,

to

convict her

on a mode

not

alleged

in

such

information

is

a

travesty

of her

constitutional

right

to

be informed

of the

nature

and

cause

ofthe

accusation

against her.

ln

Andaya

v. People

of the

Philippines,lT

the

Supreme Court,

citing Il,S. v. Karelsen

enunciated

the

purpose

of the Information,

thus:

The

object

of

this

written

accusation

was

-

First. To

furnish

the

accused

with

such a

description

of the charge

against

him

as

will

enable

him

to

make

his

defense;

and

second, to

avail himself

of his

conviction or

acquittal for

protection

against

a

further

prosecution

for

the

same

cause;

and

third, to

inform

the

court

of the

facts alleged,

so

that

it

may

decide

whether

they

are

sufficient

in law

to support

a

conviction,

if

one

should

be had.

fUnited

States

vs. Cruikshank,g2

U.S.

542.)

In

order

that

this requirement

may be

satisfied, facts

must

be stated,

not

conclusions

of

law. Every

crime

is made

up

of

certain

acts and inten

these

must

be

set

forth

in

the

complaint

with reasonable

particularity

of time,

place,

names

(plaintiff

and

defendantJ,

and

circumstances.

In short,

the

complaint

must

contain

a specific

allegation

of

every fact

and

circumstances

necessary

to constitute

the crime

charged.

It is fundamental

that

every

element

constituting

the

offense

must

be

alleged

in

the information.

The

main

purpose

of requiring

the various

elements

of

a

crime to

be set

out

in

the information

is

to

enable the

accused

to

suitably

prepare

his

defense

because he

is

presumed

to

have

16

Gregorio, Fundamentals

of Criminal

Law Review,

9th ed., 455.

"

G.R.

No. 168486,

June 27, 2006.

5

7/21/2019 CC No. 130612 Decisions


Crim. Case No. 130612

People

of

the

Phil.

vs.luliewhyn

R.

Quindoza

DECISION

no independent

knowledge

of the facts

that constitute

the

offense.The

allegations

of

facts constituting

the

offense charged

are substantial

matters

and

an accused's

right

to

question

his

conviction

based on facts

not alleged

in the

information

cannot

be

waived.

No matter

how

conclusive

and

convincing

the evidence

of

guilt

may

be,

an

accused

cannot

be

convicted

of

any

offense unless

it is

charged

in

the

information

on which he is

tried

or

is necessarily

included

therein.3a To

convict

him

of a

ground

not alleged while he is

concentrating

his

defense

against

the

ground

alleged

would

plainly

be unfair and

underhanded. The

rule

is

that a

variance

between the allegation in the

information

and

proof

adduced

during

trial

shall be

fatal

to the criminal

case if

it is

material

and

prejudicial

to

the

accused

so

much

so

that

it

affects his

substantial

rights.lB

More

in

point,

citing

Burgos

v. Sandiganbayan, in

the

same

case,

the

Supreme

Court

similarly

stated

that the court

cannot convict the accused

under

another mode

of

committing

a crime different from that alleged

in the information

without

trampling

upon the

right

ofthe

accused

to

due

process,

thus:

Similarly,

in

the

case

of

Burgos v.

Sandiganbayan,al

we

upheld the

constitutional

right of the

accused

to

be informed

of the

accusation

against him

in a

case

involving a

variance between

the

means of

committing the

violation

of

Section

3[e)

of

R.A.

3019

alleged in the

information

and

the means found

by the Sandiganbayan:

Common

and foremost

among

the

issues

raised

by

petitioners

is the

argument

that the

Sandiganbayan

erred in coitvicting them

on

a

finding

of fact

that

was

not

alleged

in

the information. They

contend

that

the

information

charged

them

with

having

allowed

payment

of

PB3,B50

to

Ricardo

Castafleda

despite

being aware and knowing fully well that

the

surveying instruments

were

not

actually repaired and rendered

functional/operational.

However,

their conviction

by the

Sandiganbayan was

based on

the finding

that the surveying instruments

were

not repaired

in accordance

with

the

specifications

contained in

the

job

orders.x x x

x

In criminal

cases, where the

life and

liberty

of the

accused

is

at

stake,

due

process

requires

that

the

accused

be informed

of

the

nature

and

cause

of the

accusation

against him. An

accused

cannot

be

convicted of

an

offense

unless it

is

clearly

charged

in the complaint

or

information.

To

convict him

of an offense

other than that

charged

in

the complaint or

information

would

be

a

violation

of this

constitutional

right. The

important

end

to

be accomplished

is

to describe

the

act

with sufficient

certainty in

order

that

the

accused

may

be appraised

of the nature

of

the

charge

against

him

and

to avoid

any

possible

surprise

that may lead

to injustice.

Otherwise,

the

accused

would

be

left in

the unenviable

state

of

speculating

why

he is

made

the object

of a

prosecution.There

is no

question

that

the manner

of

commission

alleged

in the

information

and

the

act

the

Sandiganbayan

found to have

been

committed are

both

violations

of

Section

3[e)

of

R.A.

3019. Nonetheless,

they

are and

remain

two

different means

of execution

and, even

if reference

to Section

3[e)

of R.A.

3019

has

been made

in

the information,

appellants' conviction

"

Citations omitted.

7/21/2019 CC No. 130612 Decisions


Crim.

Case No.

130612

People

of the Phil.

vs.

Juliewhyn

R.

Quindoza

DECISION

should

only

be based

on

that which

was

charged,

or

included,

in

the

information.

Otherwise,

there would

be a

violation of

their

constitutional

right

to

be

informed

of

the

nature

of

the accusation

against

them.

In

sum,

in

all criminal

prosecutions,

the

burden of

proof

is

on

the

prosecution

to

establish

the

guilt

of

the

accused beyond

reasonable

doubt.z8 It

has the duty

to

prove

each

and

every

element

of the crime

charged in

the

information

to

warrant

a

finding of

guilt

for the

said crime

or

for

any other

crime

necessarily included

therein.

In

the

absence

of

such

stringent

proof,

the acquittal

of

the

accused

must

follow.

WHEREFORE,

for

failure

of the

prosecution

to

prove

the

guilt

of the accused

Juliewhynn

Quindoza

beyond

reasonable

doubt,

she

is

hereby found

NOT

GUILTY

and

is

ACQUITTED

of

the

charge of

Falsification

of Public Document.

SO

ORDERED,

ISSUED

IN

CHAMBERS,

this 9ft day

of

November

20L5,

Baguio City.

cc no. 130612 decisions

Documents