Upload
delys-inn
View
218
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/24/2019 Decision Criminal Case 130612
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/decision-criminal-case-130612 1/9
Republic of the
Philippines
Municip
al
Trial
Court
in
Cities
First
Judicial
Region
Second
Branch
Baguio City
PEOPLE OF
THE
PHILIPPINE,S,
Plaintiff,
-aersrls-
JULIEWHYN
R.
QUINDOZA,
Accused.
CRIMINAL
CASE
NOS.
130612
FoT:
FALSIFICATION
OF
PUBLIC
DOCUMENT
BYA
PRIVATE
INDIVIDUAL
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
]une
3, 201-3, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Baguio City
()CP-Baguio)
clrarged the
accused
fuliewhyn
R.
Quindoza
(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:
Information
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 falsify
the certificate 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 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
as
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 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 15,
1991
at
Pansol. Laguna
and such
falsification
was only discovered
by Ernesto
De Los Santos,
herein
private
complainant sometime
on
September 23, 2011
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
prejudice
of Ernesto
De Los Santos.
CONTRARY TO LAW,
which motion
was
arraigned
with
the
()
Accused
initially
filed
a motion
to
quash
the
information,
denied
by
the
court on August
B,
2013.
The
accused
was
then
7/24/2019 Decision Criminal Case 130612
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/decision-criminal-case-130612 2/9
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.
]udith
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
f
une
2,
20L4, upon motion of
the
accused,
through counsel, the
pre-trial
order dated May
5,
2014, 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,
L99L
-
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 Mergaret 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
'
Exhibit
"A".
'
E*hibit
"B".
7/24/2019 Decision Criminal Case 130612
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/decision-criminal-case-130612 3/9
Crim.
Case
No.
L30612
People
of
the Phil.
vs.
fuliewhyn
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 CENOMAR
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.5
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
(BPTI),
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, 1993 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 market,
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.
LZ
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
2001-, 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
22,20L4
7/24/2019 Decision Criminal Case 130612
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/decision-criminal-case-130612 4/9
Crim.
Case
No.
130612
People of
the
Phil.
vs.
Juliewhyn
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
On
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,
t993,
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,
1993 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
]uliewhyn
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
172 in relation
to
Article
17t
(1)
ofthe Revised Penal Code.
F'ALSIFICATION
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
4,7993
,
in
the City
af
Baguio,
Philippines,
and within
the
iurisdiction
of
this
Honorable Court,
the
above-named
accused,
a
private
individual,
did
then and
there,
willfully,
unlawfully
and
feloniously
falsify
the
certificate
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, 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
truth
and
in
fact,
the
accused
knows
fully
well
that they were
not
married to
each
other and
neither
has
there
been
a
marriage
ceremany
wherein
they both
took
their
vows
of
matrimony,
more
particularly
on
December
15, 7997
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
falsifted
Certificate
of
Live
t
Jrdicial
Affidavit
of
Gilda Beleno.
7
TSN,
August
10, 2015,
5.
7/24/2019 Decision Criminal Case 130612
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/decision-criminal-case-130612 5/9
Crim. Case
No. 130612
People of the
Phil. vs.
fuliewhyn
R.
Quindoza
DECISION
Birth as
her
evidence,
to
the damage
and
preiudice
of
Ernesto
De Los Santos.a
Falsification
of
documents
under
paragraph
1, Article
172e tn
relation to
Article
7 10 (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:
[1J
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
17
L
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
17L,
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
[2J
that such
person
cr
persons
did
not in
fact so
participate
in
the act
or
proceeding.
Assaying the evidence
of the
prosecution
to
prove
the
elements
of
charged,
it has sufficiently
proven
that the
document
subject
of
the
offense
the offense
is a
public
document
and
that the
accused
herein is a
private
individual.
t
Boldface ours.
n
An.
172.
Falsificarion by
prtuate
inclividuals
and use of
fatsified
documents.
-
The
penalty
maximum
periods
and
a fine ofnot more than 5,000
pesos
shall
be imposed upon:
of
prision
correccional
in
its medium and
L
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 darnage
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
any
judicial
proceeding
or
to the damage ofauother
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
fbregoing subdivisions ofthis article, shall be
punished
by the
penalty next lower in
degree.
'o
nRt. tzt. Falsificotion
by
public
officer, employee
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
rticipate;
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.
lntercalating
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.
11
Panun.io r.
People
of
the
Philippines, L65678,
July
77, 2OOg
7/24/2019 Decision Criminal Case 130612
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/decision-criminal-case-130612 6/9
Crim.
Case
No. L30612
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.12
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
LTlby
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
poin
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 hls
possession
a
falsified
document
and
he
made use
of
it
(uttered
it) taking
advantage
of it and
proftting
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
,^r.b
"
R"y"., Revised Penal Code, Book
ll,
18th
edition,
2oL2,228.
"
Makati
Shangri-la
Hotel
and
Resort, lnc.
v.
Harper
et al., G.R.
No.
189998,
August
29,2072.
1o
People
v.
Sendaydiego, 81
SCRA
120.
1s
Memorandum, 13.
7/24/2019 Decision Criminal Case 130612
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/decision-criminal-case-130612 7/9
Crim.
Case
No.
130612
Feopte
of
tne Phil.
vs.
Juliewhyn
R.
Quindoza
DECISION
Secondly,
the
prosecution
is
adamant
that
the
accused
committed
the
acts
of
falsification
that
verily
fall
under
paragraph 2 of
Article
17 t 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
L7L
(2)
and
not
L7L
(4).
While
the acts
alleged
in
the Information
properly make
out
a charge
of
falsification
under
Article
L7l
(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,
17
the
Supreme
Court,
citing
U.S.
v.
Karelsen
enunciated
the
purpose
of the
Inforrnation,
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.
(United
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
defendant),
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
tt
Gregorio,
Fundamentals
of
Criminal
Law Review,
9th
ed.,
455.
t'G.R.
No. L68486,
June27,2006.
o
7/24/2019 Decision Criminal Case 130612
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/decision-criminal-case-130612 8/9
Crim.
Case
No.
130612
People
of the
Phil.
vs.
Juliewhyn
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
convicting 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
tt
cit.tions
omitted.
7/24/2019 Decision Criminal Case 130612
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/decision-criminal-case-130612 9/9
Crim.
Case
No.
130612
People
of
the Phil.
vs.
fuliewhyn
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.Ze 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
9th day
of
November
2015,
Baguio
City.
a-tw/\f-
DA T. OR
RIANO
Presiding
j'udge