Decision Criminal Case 130612

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



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".



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



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.



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



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.



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



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.



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

Documents

Decision Criminal Case 130612