1 ;• - Sandiganbayan - Supreme Court

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

ânlitganbapanQUEZON CITY

SEVENTH DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Criminal Case No. SB-18-CRM-Plaintiff 0537

- versus -

ARTEMIO QUE CHAN,Accused.

Present:

Gomez-Estoesta, J., ChairpersonTrespeses, J., andHidalgo, J.

Promulgated:

X- X

DECISION

GOMEZ-ESTOESTA, J,:

The solemnization of the civil marriage of Andy D, Dela Rosa andMary Jane H. Jovellanos ["Spouses Dela Rosa"] on March 26,2015, at theMunicipal Hall of Pozorrubio, Pangasinan, would have been ordinarilydocumented as one of the marriages officiated by then Municipal MayorArtemio Que Chan ["Accused"] pursuant to his inherent functions andduties. An irregularity over the same, however, was reported to theOmbudsman by none other than the same couple. Instead of Municipal MayorArtemio Que Chan acting as the solemnizing officer, it was alleged that it washis son, then-Vice Mayor Kelvin Tong Chan, who arrived and solemnized themarriage. Since the Certificate of Marriage was signed by the Accused assolemnizing officer, a criminal charge of Falsification ofPublic Documentspunishable under Article 171 par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code was filedagainst him.

ThQ Information^ dated April 25,2018, alleged:

1 ;•' Records, Vol. 1, p. 1.

People vs. Artemio Quc Chan 21P a g eCriminal Case No. SB-18-CRM-0537

DECISION

That on March 26, 2015, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto,in Pozorrubio, Pangasinan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of thisHonorable Court, accused Artemio Que Chan, a public officer, being theMayor of Pozorrubio, Pangasinan, taking advantage of his official positionand committing the crime herein charged in relation to his office, did thenand there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously falsify the Certificate ofMarriage, a public document, by causing it to appear that he solemnized themarriage of Andy D. Dela Rosa and Mary Jane H. Jovellanos on March 26,2015 at the Office of the Municipal Mayor of Pozorrubio, when in truth andin fact, it was Kelvin Tong Chan who officiated the marriage ceremony.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

The court found probable cause and ordered the issuance of a warrantof arrest against the Accused in its Resolution dated October 16, 2018.^ AHold Departure Order was likewise issued on October 15,2018.^ On October25,2018, the Accused voluntarily surrendered to this court and posted a cashbond for his provisional liberty, which necessarily recalled the warrant ofarrest previously issued.'^

Upon arraignment held on November 23, 2018, the Accused, assistedby counsel, pleaded not guilty to the charge.^

On March 11, 2019, the Prosecution and the Accused filed their JointStipulation of Facts^ which was approved by the court in its Resolution datedMarch 12, 20197

Pre-trial was terminated on April 29, 2019, where the court issued aPre-Trial Order^, containing the following stipulations agreed upon by theparties:^

I. Stipulated Facts

1. Accused Artemio Que Chan is the same person charged in, andarraigned under, the Information. Whenever referred to orally or inwriting by this Honorable Court or witnesses in the course of the trial,accused admits that he is the same person being referred to.

2. On March 26, 2015, accused was a public officer, being the municipalmayor of Pozorrubio, Pangasinan.

3. Part of his function as municipal mayor of Pozorrubio, Pangasinan, wasto solemnize marriage and sign documents pertinent thereto.

/^ Records, Vol. 1, pp. 40,43.^ Records, Vol. I, p. 39." Records, Vol. 1, p. 52. 05 Records, Vol. l,p.77. ^® Records, Vol. 1, pp. 103-104.' Records, Vol. I, p. 113.

® Records, Vol. 1, pp. 149-155.' Records, Vol. 1, pp. 149-151. The same admitted facts are incorporated in the parties' Joint Stipulation ofFacts and Issues (Records, Vol. 1, pp. 103-104.)

People vs. Artemio Que Chan 31P a g eCriminal Case No. SB-18-CRM-0537

DECISION

4. Accused admits the existence, authenticity and due execution of theCertificate of Marriage of Andy Siapno Dela Rosa and Mary Jane HugoJoveilanos.

5. On March 26, 2015, Andy S. Dela Rosa and Mary Jane H. Joveilanoswere married in a civil ceremony at the Municipal Hall of Pozzorubio(sic), Pangasinan.

6. In the Certificate of Marriage of Andy S. Dela Rosa and Mary Jane H.Joveilanos which was registered in the Office of the Civil RegistrarGeneral, it appeared that it was accused Artemio Que Chan whosolemnized the marriage of March 26,2015.

7. Accused Artemio Que Chan signed both the Certification of theSolemnizing Officer and the Affidavit of Solemnizing Officer containedin the marriage certificate.

8. Accused Artemio Que Chan admits the authenticity and genuineness ofhis signatures in the Certificate of Marriage and the Affidavit ofSolemniidng Officer contained in the marriage certificate.

9. The Affidavit of Solemnizing Officer which is part of Certificate ofMarriage was subscribed and sworn to before Rolando T. Igoy,Municipal Civil Registrar of Pozorrubio, Pangasinan on March 26,2015.

10. Accused admits the existence and due execution of the Joint Counter-

Affidavit dated September 21,2016 of Artemio Que Chan, except as tothe material correctness of all the statements stated therein;

11. Accused Artemio Que Chan admits the authenticity and genuineness ofhis signature in the Joint Counter-Affidavit dated September 21, 2016,except as to the signature of Kelvin Tong Chan;

12. Accused admits the existence and due execution of the Position Paperdated October 2016 filed before the Office of the Ombudsman byArtemio Que Chan, except as to the material correctness of all thestatements stated therein;

13. Accused Artemio Que Chan admits the authenticity and genuineness ofhis signature in the Position Paper dated October 2016 filed before theOffice of the Ombudsman, except as to the signature of Kelvin TongChan;

14. Accused received through registered mail a Manifestation datedSeptember 2018 of Spouses Andy Dela Rosa and Mary Jane JoveilanosDela Rosa.

The lone issue to be resolved, which was stipulated by the parties, iswhether or not the Accused violated Article 171 paragraph 2 of the RevisedPenal Code on Falsification of Public Documents}^

/ ' .Records, Vol. l,p. 154.

?

People vs. Artemio Que Chan 4|PageCriminal Case No. SB-18-CRM-0537

DECISION

EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION"

Private complainants Andy Dela Rosa and Mary Jane H. Jovellanosinitiated the filing of the present charge but they never came to court despitethe issuance of several subpoenas}^ After a long wait, stipulations wereinstead made as follows:'^

1. The due execution and authenticity of the Complaint-Affidavitexecuted by Spouses Andy Dela Rosa and Mary Jane H. Jovellanos-Dela Rosa on June 9,2016;

2. The due execution and authenticity of the undatedManifestation/Motion marked as Exhibit "9" for the defense; and

3. The due execution and authenticity of the Sinumpaang Salaysay ofSpouses Andy Dela Rosa and Mary Jane H. Jovellanos-Dela Rosamarked as Exhibit "10" for the defense.

The stipulated Complaint-Affidavit^^ dated June 9, 2016 is partiallyquoted, thus:

6. The facts surrounding this case are as follows: On 26 March 2015, thecomplainants were scheduled to be married in a civil ceremony at theMunicipal Hall of Pozorrubio, Pangasinan. Hence, on that day, thecomplainants and members of their families arrived at the MunicipalHall to attend the ceremony. Attached to this Complaint as Annex "A"is the Joint-Affidavit of Jesus De Leon, a close relative of thecomplainants and a municipal employee who attended the wedding,and Councilor Miguel Abalos who stood as principal sponsor and

" As this case is covered by the Revised Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases (A.M. No. 15-06-10-SC, effective September 1,2017), judicial affidavits of witnesses were submitted which took the placeof their direct testimonies.

The court issued three subpoenas to Spouses Dela Rosa dated July 17, 2019, August 16, 2019 andSeptember 27,2019:1. The first subpoena dated July 17, 2019 ordered the Spouses to appear before the court on August 14,

2019. (Records, Vol. 1, pp. 179-A-180). In an OriJer dated August 14,2019, the court noted that the firstsubpoena was duly received to the address sent to Andy S. Dela Rosa. Nevertheless, they failed to appearin court. The court ordered Andy Dela Rosa to show cause and explain why he should not be cited incontempt of court for failure to appear during the August 14, 2019 hearing. (Records, Vol. 1, p. 185).

2. The court issued a second subpoena dated August 16,2019 ordering Andy S. Dela Rosa to appear beforethe court on September 16, 2019. (Records, Vol. 1, p. 190). In an Order dated September 26, 2019, thecourt noted that there is no return yet on the second subpoena dated August 16, 2019 issued to theSpouses Dela Rosa. The court ordered that another subpoena be issued to the Spouses Dela Rosa.(Records, Vol. l,p. 200).

3. A third subpoena dated September 27, 2019 was issued by the court ordering Andy S. Dela Rosa andMary Jane Jovellanos to appear before the court on November 28,2019. (Records, Vol. 1, pp. 203-204).In an Order dated November 28, 2019, the court noted that Spouses Dela Rosa failed to appear in courteven after the issuance of several subpoenas. The court deferred the motion of the prosecutor for theissuance of a warrant of arrest to compel their attendance. The court considered the corroborative natureof their testimonies and that fact that they reside more than 100 kilometers away from the court. Instead,the prosecution and the defense agreed on stipulations regarding the due execution and authenticity ofthe Complaint-Affidavit, undated Manifestation/Motion, and the Sinumpaang Salaysay of Spouses DelaRosa (Records, Vol. 1, pp. 220-221).

Order dated November 28,2019 (Records, Vol. 1, p. 220).Exhibit "E".

1 ,

People vs. Artemio Que Chan 51 P a g eCriminal Case No. SB-18-CRM-0537

DECISION

witness. Also present as witnesses were Cesario Layos, Josie Ferrer,Raul Lambino, Gilda Ligot, Manny Oligan, Evelyn Villafania, JoelGamboa, Jovelito Catungal, Dante De Vera, Rosalinda Bustillo, JesusDe Leon, Editha Pasalo, Tita Lucas, Frudencio Fernandez, andMarissa Cruz.

7. Before the ceremony started, a staff from the mayor's office made thewitnesses sign the Certificate of Marriage. After the signatures werecompleted, respondent Vice Mayor Kelvin T. Chan arrived andannounced that he would officiate the wedding as the "duly-authorizedrepresentative" of his father, respondent Mayor Artemio Q. Chan.Photographs of the ceremony being officiated by respondent ViceMayor Kelvin are attached herewith as Annexes "B" and series.

8. Eventually the complainants were able to get an official copy of theirCertificate ofMarriage, a copy of which is attached herewith as Annex"C," from the Office of the Civil Registrar. As item 19 of the documentclearly shows, it was respondent Mayor Artemio himself who signedthe space provided for "solemnizing officer." To be more specific,item 19 reads:

"CERTIFICATION OF THE SOLEMNIZING

OFFICER:

"THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT: BEFORE ME, on thedate and place above-written, personally appeared theabove-mentioned parties, with their mutual consent,lawfully joined together in marriage which was solemnizedby me in the presence of the witnesses named below, all oflegal age.

"I CERTIFY FURTHER THAT: No marriage licensewas necessary, the marriage being solemnized under Art.34 of Executive Order No. 209."

9. The Affidavit ofthe Solemnizing Officer found at the back page of theCertificate ofMarriage also shows the following, which were signedand sworn to by respondent Mayor Artemio:

"I, ARTEMIO Q. CHAN, of legal age, SolemnizingOfficer, after having sworn to in accordance with law, dohereby depose and say:

"1. That I have solemnized the marriage betweenANDY SIAPNO DELA ROSA and MARY JANE HUGO

JOVELLANOS,

"2. That I have ascertained the qualifications of thecontracting parties and have found no legal impediment forthem to marry as required by Article 34 of the Family Code.

"3. That I took the necessary steps to ascertain the agesand relationship of the contracting parties and that neither

17

People vs. Artemio Que Chan 61 P a g eCriminal Case No. SB-i8-CRM-0537

DECISION

of them are under any legal impediment to marry eachother.

"4. That I am executing this affidavit to attest to thetruthfulness of the foregoing statements for all legal intentsand purposes."

XXX XXX XXX.

15. In Goma vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court held that "[t]heelements of the crime of falsification of public documents, as abovedefined and penalized, are:

"(1) That the offender is a public officer, employee, ornotary public;

"(2) That he takes advantage of his official position;

"(3) That he falsifies a document by causing it to appearthat persons have participated in any act or proceeding;

"(4) That such person or persons did not in fact soparticipate in the proceeding."

16. All of the foregoing elements are present in the instant case. As to thefirst and second elements, respondent Artemio Q. Chan (being agovernment official) took advantage of his official position by signingthe subject Certificate of Marriage. The same is true for respondentVice Mayor Kelvin who (being a government official) also tookadvantage of his official position by solemnizing a marriage withoutany authority to do so. Considering that respondent Vice MayorKelvin's act of solemnizing the marriage under respondent MayorArtemio's signature cannot be had without the latter persuading,inducing, and influencing the former, it is clear that conspiracy existedbetween them and both should be held liable as principals.

17. As to the third and fourth elements, by preparing the Certificate ofMarriage, a public document, the respondents caused it to appear that(1) the complainants have "personally appeared" before respondentMayor Artemio and "lawfully joined together in marriage," and (2) itwas respondent Mayor Artemio who solemnized the complainants'marriage. These are of course untrue, as the complainants did notpersonally appear before respondent Mayor Artemio, who in turn didnot in fact solemnize their marriage.

18. Based on the foregoing, there exists probable cause to indict bothrespondents for the offense of Falsification of Public Document underArticle 171 (2) of the Revised Penal Code, (citations omitted)

In a span of two (2) years, Spouses Andy Dela Rosa and Mary Jane H.Jovellanos-Dela Rosa would have sung a different tune. In the stipulated

1


DECISION

Manifestation and/or Motion^^ dated September 2018, they instead alleged, asfollows:

1. They were named complainants in the above-entitled case;

2. They are not aware that what they signed is a Complaint-Affidavitagainst Mayor Artemio Chan of Pozzorubio (sic), Pangasinan. If truthbe told, they were tricked into signing the said Complaint-Affidavitbecause they thought that the document presented to them is abouttheir marriage and nothing more;

3. When they were brought to Urdaneta City, Pangasinan, where theywere made to sign a document, it was represented to them that there isa problem regarding their marriage and that document they are signingis for its correction only;

4. They never asked somebody to prepare an affidavit-complaint againstMayor Artemio Q. Chan as they never intended to file any case againsthim in relation to the celebration of their marriage before his Office.As a matter of fact, they recognized the validity of their marriage;

5. They do not understand the contents of the affidavit complaint thatthey were made to sign in Urdaneta City, Pangasinan. They do notpossess the proper education to make such affidavit-complaint;

6. They likevdse do not know that the subsequent documents they weremade to sign is about the case against Mayor Artemio Q. Chan. Everytime that they were made to sign a document the person asking themto sign does not explain its contents, effects and legal consequences,what they thought is that they are still about their marriage and nothingmore;

7. They have not meet (sic) nor talked with Atty. Percival Peralta norhave appeared before a notary public in Quezon City, regarding thecase against Mayor Artemio Q. Chan;

8. They were surprised when they received a letter from this HonorableOffice, because of the situation, they were prompted to see a lawyerwho explained to them the contents of the letter. It was only at thatmoment that they became aware that what they were made to sign is aComplaint-Affidavit against Mayor Artemio Q. Chan;

9. With their desire to state the truth that they never intended to file acomplaint or case against Mayor Artemio Q. Chan, they executed aSinumpaang Salaysay, a copy of which is herein attached as ANNEX"A" and made as integral part hereof.

10. From the circumstances attendant to herein complainants' situation, itappears that through misrepresentation and trickery, they unknowingly

During trial in November 28, 2019, the parties stipulated in open court on the due execution andauthenticity of the Manifestation and/or Motion dated September 2018, which was then referred to as Exhibit"9". However, the Accused moved for its remarking as Exhibit "8" and series in a Motion to Cancel and Re-Mark Documentary Exhibits dated July 19, 2021 (Records, Vol. 1, p. 425-426). In a Resolution datedNovember 16,2021, the court granted its remarking as Exhibit "8" and series (Records, Vol. 2, pp. 160-164).

1 1

People vs. Artemio Que Chan 81 P a g eCriminal Case No. SB-I8-CRM-0537

DECISION

signed a Complaint-Affidavit, the contents, its effects and legalconsequences was (sic) not fully explained;

11. It must be observed that herein complainants are not lawyers orequipped with proper education to make a Complaint-Affidavitcontaining discussions of law and jurisprudence;

12. At most, the persons who approached them took advantage of theirignorance and lack of proper education, thus, they easily persuadedthem to sign a document the contents, legal effects and consequencesare unknown to them;

13. It could be said that the statements contained in the Complaint-Affidavit and the subsequent pleadings filed at their instances are nottheirs as they were fhiits of misrepresentation and trickery.

This was apparently duplicated in their Sinumpaang Salaysay^^ datedSeptember 18, 2018, quoted, as follows:

SINUMPAANG SALAYSAY

KAMI, ANDY S. DELA ROSA at MARY JANE J. DELA ROSA,pawing nasa hustong gulang at nanininirahan sa Tebang District, DagupanCity ay sumusumpa sa katotohanan ng mga sumusunod:

Kami ay ikinasal noong March 26, 2015 sa Munisipyo ngPozorrubio, Pangasinan at bago pa nag umpisa ay nandoon naman talagasi Mayor Chan at kinausap pa nga kaming magnobyo at nobya.

Mga dalawang linggo pagkatapos ng kasal ay nilapitan kami niKgd. Gloria Salcedo, Ana Marie Sales at Kgd. Abalos at sinabi sa amin niKgd. Salcedo na hindi daw valid ang aming kasal at mayroongpinapirmahan sa amin iyon kundi sinabi tungkol lang daw sa kasal namingna invalid para maayos at hiningidin (sic) sa amin ang mga picturesnaming noon kasal naming (sic).

Dinala kami sa Urdaneta City, Pangasinan at pinapirma kami doonpero hindi nila sinasabi kung ano ang mga papeles na pinapirmahan namin.

Nalaman nalang (sic) namin na ang pinirmahan naming papeles aykaso pala na isinampa nila kay Mayor Chan noong may dumating na sulatgaling sa Ombudsman at may pumuntang pulis sa bahay naming (sic) saBrgy. Bobonao pero wala kami dahil naninirahan na kami sa DagupanCity.

Noong mga tatlong buwan na siguro ang nakalipas ay tinawaganna kami ni Kgd. Salcedo at sinabi niyang may pipirmahan kami na hindinaman ipinabasa. Ayaw na namin pero sinabi niya na baka baliktarin kami

During trial in November 28, 2019, the parties stipulated in open court on the due execution andauthenticity of the Sinumpaang Salaysay of Spouses Andy Dela Rosa and Mary Jane H. Jovellanos-DelaRosa dated September 18, 2018, which was then referred to as Exhibit "10". However, the Accused movedfor its remarking as an attachment to Exhibit "8" and series in a Motion to Cancel and Re-Mark DocumentaryExhibits dated July 19, 2021 (Records, Vol. 1, p. 425-426). In a Resolution dated November 16, 2021, thecourt granted its remarking as Exhibit "8" and series (Records, Vol. 2, pp. 160-164).

/j - f


DECISION

ni Mayor Chan kaya natakot kami at napilitan kaming pumirma doon sapapel. Dadalhin daw sana kami sa Manila at doon kami pipirma pero diyanna iang kami pinapirma sa bahay kasi ayaw naming pumunta sa Maynila.

Hindi totoo na nagpunta kami sa opisina ng isang abugado saManila para hingiin na kumuha ng kopya sa Ombudsman noong January2017. Wala kaming kilalang Atty. Percival Peralta at Hindi namin siyakinuhang abugado para magsampa ng kaso laban kay Mayor ArtemioChan.

Ginawa namin itong salaysay na ito upang hingiin sa mgaawtoridad na iatras nila ang aming mga pinirmahang papeles kontra kayMayor Chan dahil Hindi namn naming (sic) sya ikinaso o sinampahan nganumang kaso sa Omdbusman o sa Piskalya.

Lalong-lalo na ipinahayag naming na Hindi naman naming (sic)kiniikwestiyon ang aming kasal, ayaw naming (sic) itong ipagwalang-bisaat Hindi naming (sic) sinasabi o pinapayagang ituring na ito ay invalid.

Ginagawa namin itong salaysay na ito ng walang pananakot,pagbabanta, karahasan o anumang kapalit na pera o materyales na bagay,ngayong Spetember , 2018 sa , Pangasinan.

With the vacillating tenor of such charge on the part of Spouses AndyDela Rosa and Mary Jane H. Jovellanos-Dela Rosa, the Prosecution'sevidence was instead established on the basis of the testimonies of the

following witnesses:

1. Jesus de Leon ["De Leon"] who was one of the principal sponsorspresent during the marriage ceremony of Spouses Dela Rosa.'^ He is a closerelative of Mary Jane H. Jovellanos-Dela Rosa and a retired employee of themunicipal government.'^ While they were waiting for the arrival of theAccused as the solemnizing officer, he and the other principal sponsors wereasked to sign a Certificate of Marriage by a staff of the Office of the Mayor.'^He signed the Certificate of Marriage as a principal witness.^''

De Leon recounted that the Accused was not around during the weddingceremony.^' Vice Mayor Kelvin T. Chan arrived and told them that he wouldofficiate the wedding as the authorized representative of Mayor Chan.^^During the wedding, De Leon took a photograph using his cellphone showingthat it was the Vice Mayor who was solemnizing the marriage:^^ The imageappeared, as follows:

Judicial Affidavit of Jesus De Leon. (Judicial Affidavit Folder, Vol. 1, pp. 1-11), which was submitted ashis direct testimony (TSN, April 29,2019, pp. 4-5).

Exhibit "F".

Judicial Affidavit of Jesus De Leon, Q&A 4 to 6.Judicial Affidavit of Jesus De Leon, Q&A 8 to 9; Exhibit "C".Judicial Affidavit of Jesus De Leon, Q&A 19.Judicial Affidavit of Jesus De Leon, Q&A 10.

^ Judicial Affidavit of Jesus De Leon, Q&A 13 to 16; Exhibit "D'

L"

People vs. Artemio Que ChanCriminal Case No. SB-18-CRM-0537

DECISION

101 P age

of pages

■iflf faowT

J

Together with Councilor Miguel A. Abalos, he executed a JointAffidavif^ dated June 9, 2016 narrating the wedding ceremony of SpousesDela Rosa:

I, Miguel Abalos, of legal age, Filipino, with postal address atBobonan, Pozorrubio, Pangasinan; and I, Jesus De Leon, of legal age,Filipino with postal address at the Municipal Hall, Pozorrubio,Pangasinan, after having been jointly sworn in accordance with law, dohereby depose and state that:

1. We were both present during the civil wedding of Andy DelaRosa and Mary Jane Jovellanos held on 26 March 2015 at the MunicipalHall, Pozorrubio, Pangasinan. I (Miguel Abalos) was invited to be one ofthe principal sponsors. I (Jesus De Leon) was a close relative and anemployee of the municipal government.

2. On the day of the wedding, both of us were among the guestswho were waiting for the arrival of Mayor Artemio Q. Chan at theMunicipal Hall, as he was supposed to be the solemnizing officer. Whilewe were waiting, a staff of the Office of the Mayor asked the witnesses tosign the Certificate of Marriage before the ceremony could commence. Weboth saw how the staff circulated the document around the hall.

3. After the signatures were completed. Vice Mayor Kelvin T.Chan arrived and told us that he would officiate the wedding as MayorArtemio Q. Chan's authorized representative. Since the couple did notobject, the ceremony proceeded and Vice Mayor Kelvin eventuallydeclared them married. After our photographs were taken at the MunicipalHall, we all left right away and went to the reception.

Judicial Affidavit of Jesus De Leon, Q&A 22; Exhibit "F".

/

People vs. Artemio Que Chan 111 PageCriminal Case No. SB-I8CRM-0537

DECISION

On cross-examination, De Leon narrated that he arrived at around 10:00a.m. on March 26, 2015 at the Municipal Hall for the civil wedding.^^ He alsoexplained that the cellphone that he used to take the photograph was alreadydestroyed. He likewise failed to save a soft copy on a USB or forward it toanyone.^^

2. Councilor Miguel A. Abalos ["Abalos"] who also served as aprincipal sponsor in the wedding, offered cumulative evidence similar tothat of Jesus De Leon. An employee from the Office of the Mayor asked himto sign the Certificate of Marriage as a principal witness.^^ They wereexpecting the arrival of the Accused but it was Vice Mayor Chan who arrivedand solemnized the marriage.^^ The Accused was nowhere to be seen duringthe marriage ceremony After the ceremony, the guests and the newlymarried couple boarded separate cars to the wedding reception.^*

During cross-examination, Abalos testified that he was in the Office ofthe Mayor before the spouses arrived for the wedding ceremony and he wasthere until the end of the ceremony When the defense coimsel asked him topinpoint where he and Secretary Raul L. Lambino appeared in the photograph,he admitted that they were not included in the picture.^^

On re-direct examination, Abalos described that the room where thewedding was held had a very wide space, and the photograph did not coverthe entire room.^'* Abalos did not question that the wedding was beingsolemnized by the Vice Mayor since the latter told them that the Accused wascoming, but the latter did not arrive.^^

During the wedding and at the time of his testimony, he was anincumbent Municipal Councilor of Pozorrubio, Pangasinan.^^ As quotedabove, Abalos and De Leon executed a Joint Affidavit''^ dated June 9, 2016recounting the wedding ceremony of Spouses Dela Rosa.^^ He executed itmore than a year after the marriage since it was only around that time that hisattention was called regarding the matter.^^

TSN, April 29,2019, p. 52^ TSN, April 29,2019, p. 8.

Judicial Affidavit of Miguel A. Abalos. (Judicial Affidavit Folder, Vol. 1, pp. 12-22), which was submittedas his direct testimony (TSN, April 29,2019, pp. 14-15).

Judicial Affidavit of Miguel A. Abalos, Q&A 4-6." Judicial Affidavit of Miguel A. Abalos, Q&A 10-12.

Judicial Affidavit of Miguel A. Abalos, Q&A 18.TSN, April 29,2019, p. 16

32 TSN, April 29,2019, p. 16.33TSN, April29,2019,p. 18.TSN, April 29,2019, p. 20.

35 TSN, April 29,2019, p. 24.3® TSN, April 29,2019, p. 21.32 Exhibit "F".

3® Judicial Affidavit of Miguel A. Abalos, Q&A 21.39 TSN, April 29,2019, p. 27.

People vs. Artemio Que Chan 12 ] P a g eCriminal Case No. SB-18-CRM-0537DECISION

Upon stipulation, the testimonies of the following witnesses weredispensed with:

3. Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Brian C. Viray ["ProsecutorViray"] who served as the Administering Officer of the Complaint-Affidavif^dated June 9, 2016 of Spouses Dela Rosa. These stipulations made were:'*'

1. That Prosecutor Viray was the one who served as theAdministering Officer of the Complaint Affidavit executed by AndySiapno Dela Rosa and Mary Jane Hugo Jovellanos on June 9,2016 markedas Exhibit "E" and that he was likewise the Administering Officer of theJoint Affidavit dated June 9, 2016 executed by Miguel Abalos and JesusDe Leon marked as Exhibit "F";

2. That the witness can identify his signature in both affidavits asAdministering Officer.

4. Atty. Winifred L. Cruz ["Atty, Cruz"] who was the Notary Publicwho notarized the Joint Counter-Affidavit^^ dated September 21,2016 and thePosition Paper'^^ of Artemio Que Chan and Kelvin Tong Chan dated October2016 filed before the Office of the Ombudsman. On May 29, 2019, theProsecution requested the issuance of a subpoena to Atty. Cruz to testify onthe voluntariness of the affiants executing such affidavit.'*'* The Prosecutiondispensed with the testimony of Atty. Cruz and recalled its request forsubpoena after discussion was made in court that it is a legal presumption thatthe Notary Public has performed his duty as such after examining thevoluntariness of the taking of such affidavit.'*^

5. Ziegfredo A. Eusebio ["Eusebio"] who was an AdministrativeOfficer III at the Records Management of the Office of the DeputyOmbudsman for Luzon.'*^ On account of his duty as records custodian, thefollowing stipulations were made:'*^

1. On the existence of Exhibit "I", which is the OmbudsmanResolution dated November 22, 2016 issued in the case entitled Ly-Ar C.Punzalan, et al. vs. Artemio Que Chan, et at. docketed as OMB-L-C-16-0341, which found probable cause to indict the Accused for Falsificationof Public Document under Article 171 (2) and (4) of the Revised PenalCode;

^ Exhibit "E".

Order dated July 15,2019 (Records, Vol. 1, p. 176).« Exhibit "G".

Exhibit "H".

^ Records, Vol. 1, p. 170.Order dated July 15,2019 (Records, Vol. 1, p. 176).

^ Judicial Affidavit of Ziegfredo A. Eusebio, Q&A 1. (Judicial Affidavit Folder, Vol. I, pp. 23-63)Order dated May 21,2019 (Records, Vol. 1, p. 164).

11

People vs. Artemio Que ChanCriminal Case No. SB-18-CRM-0537

DECISION

13 j Page

2. On the existence of Exhibit "J", which is the Ombudsman

Decision dated November 22, 2016 issued in OMB-L-A-16-0390 findingthe Accused administratively liable for Grave Misconduct and SeriousDishonesty as he was meted the penalty of Dismissal from Service,including perpetual disqualification from holding public office,cancellation of civil service eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits,and bar from taking civil service examination; and

0340.

3. On the existence of the Complaint Affidavit in OMB-L-C-16-

6. Secretary Raul L. Lambino ["Lambino'J who was one of theprincipal sponsors during the wedding of Spouses Dela Rosa."*^ He served asthe Administrator & Chief Executive Officer of the Cagayan Economic ZoneAuthority during the course of the trial.'*^

The Prosecution dispensed with his testimony in view of thestipulations entered into by the parties with respect to the due execution andauthenticity of the Complaint-Affidavit^^ undated Manifestation/Motiort\and the Sinumpaang Salaysayt^ of Spouses Dela Rosa.^^

Following the presentation of its witnesses, the Prosecution formallyoffered the following documentary exhibits:^'*

Exhibits Documents

"A" Certified True Copy of Personal Data Sheet of Artemio Que Chan

"B" Service Record of Accused Artemio Que Chan

"C"

"C-1"

"C-2"

Certified True Copy of Certificate of Marriage of Andy Siapno DelaRosa and Mary Jane Hugo Jovellanos

"D" Photocopy from the original photographs taken during the marriageceremony of Spouses Dela Rosa

"E" Original Copy of Complaint-Affidavit dated June 9,2016 of SpousesDela Rosa

"P" Original copy of the Joint-Affidavit of Miguel Abalos and Jesus DeLeon

"G" Certified True Copy of the Joint Counter-Affidavit of Artemio QueChan and Kelvin Tong Chan dated September 21, 2016

"H" Certified True Copy of the Position Paper of Artemio Que Chan andKelvin Tong Chan filed before the Office of the Ombudsman

Certified true copy of records of Ombudsman Resolution datedNovember 22, 2016 in the case entitled Ly-Ar C. Punzalan vs.Artemio Que Chan and Daniel M. Sarmiento

Exhibit "C".

Records, Vol. 1, pp. 212-215.Exhibit "E".

Exhibit "8" and series.


Records, Vol. 1, p. 223.Records, Vol. 1, pp. 226-231.

i ?'

People vs. Ailemio Que Chan 141P a g eCriminal Case No. SB-18-CRM-0537

DECISION

Certified true copy of records of Ombudsman Decision datedNovember 22, 2016 in an administrative case entitled Ly-Ar C.Punzalan vs. Aitemio Que Chan and Daniel M. Sarmiento

In its Resolution^^ dated January 31, 2020, the court admitted all theexhibits above, from "A" to "J", offered by the Prosecution.

ACCUSED^S DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE

After the Prosecution rested its case, the Accused filed a Motion to FileDemurrer to Evidence with Leave of Court on March 4, 2020 claiming thatthe evidence presented by the Prosecution failed to prove that he was liablefor the crime charged. First, the Manifestation/Motion and the SinumpaangSalaysay of Spouses Dela Rosa showed that he solemnized the marriage.Second, Abalos and De Leon failed to prove their presence at the weddingsince they were not visible in the picture introduced by the Prosecution.Lastly, the failure of the Spouses Dela Rosa to testify before the court meantthat there was a failure to prosecute the present case.^^

In its Opposition dated March 9, 2020, the Prosecution argued that thegrounds cited by the Accused were not proper grounds to support a motion todemur to evidence since they were evidentiary in nature. First, the Accusedstipulated on the genuineness, due execution, and authenticity of theComplaint-Affidavit of Spouses Dela Rosa. While it was recanted, it did notmean that it had no evidentiary weight since it was already covered by astipulation. Second, the defense ought to present its own evidence to provethe absence of Abalos and De Leon. Lastly, the failure of the Spouses DelaRosa to testify did not mean that the Prosecution failed to prosecute the caseconsidering that the documents that they executed were covered bystipulations.^^

In its Resolution dated June 03,2020, the court denied the Motion sincethere was sufficient evidence to sustain the indictment against the Accused.^^The probative value of the recantation of Spouses Dela Rosa through theirManifestation/Motion and the Sinumpaang Salaysay could not be assessedsince these documents were not yet formally offered as evidence. Further, thefact that Abalos and De Leon did not appear in the photograph did notnecessarily mean that they were not present during the marriage ceremony.Their court testimony should be weighed as positive evidence that they werepresent and it was the Vice Mayor who solemnized the marriage. Third, evenif Spouses Dela Rosa failed to appear in court, the charge may still besustained through the testimonies of other witnesses.

" Records, Vol. 1, pp. 304-306.Records, Vol. 1, pp. 312-313.

^'Records, Vol. 1,pp. 315-321.Records, Vol. 1, pp. 325-330. J1

People vs. Artemio Que Chan 151 P a g eCriminal Case No'. SB-18-CRM-0537

DECISION

Thus, the court directed the Accused to present his defense evidence.

EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE

1. Mayor Artemio Que Chan ["Accused"]^^ as the Accused himselfwho was the Municipal Mayor of Pozorrubio from 2013 to 2016. He was alsore-elected for the same position in 2016.^®

Accused reported for work on March 26, 2015 and was reminded byhis staff that he has a scheduled wedding to solemnize at 10 am. Before thewedding, however, he received an urgent call informing him of a medicalemergency concerning his 94-year-old mother.^' He thus instructed his staffto check if the couple were around so he could start the ceremony. His staffeventually informed him that the couple, Andy Dela Rosa and Mary Jane H,Jovellanos, were already at the Municipal Hall^^ Accused summoned thecouple to come to see him at his office where he informed them about theemergency and that he needed to leave immediately. He asked them if hecould already solemnize the wedding. The couple agreed and the weddingceremony was conducted in the presence of two unnamed witnesses.^^ TheAccused then signed the Marriage Certificate in the presence of the couple,his staff, and Vice Mayor Kelvin Tong Chan ["VM Chan"].^'* As theAccused was about to leave, the couple requested a simple ceremony sincetheir relatives and sponsors started to arrive. The Accused apologized, statingthat he just performed the wedding ceremony, and excused himself becausehe needed to leave to attend to his ailing mother. He nonetheless asked VMChan to extend his apologies to the relatives and guests of the couple. He thenleft the Municipal Hall.^^

After three months, the Accused and VM Chan were surprised to learnabout a complaint filed by Spouses Dela Rosa before the Office of theOmbudsman. They conferred with a lawyer with whom they relied on for thepreparation of their counter-affidavit.^^

Subsequently, the Accused received a Decision^^ dated August 24,2017 from the Office of the Ombudsman ["Ombudsman Decision"]resolving the complaint filed by Spouses Dela Rosa entitled "Andy S. Dela

The Accused testified through a Judicial Affidavit dated June 18,2021 (Judicial Affidavit Folder, Vol. 1,pp. 135-143) in lieu of his direct testimony. He identified his judicial affidavit in open court through a remotehearing on June 28,2021. dated June 28, 2021. (Records, Vol. I, pp. 410-411).

Judicial Affidavit of Artemio Que Chan, Q&A 4.Judicial Affidavit of Artemio Que Chan, Q&A 7-9." Judicial Affidavit of Artemio Que Chan, Q&A 10-11." Judicial Affidavit of Artemio Que Chan, Q&A 12-13. The names of the "two wimesses" were not disclosedin the Judicial Affidavit.

^ Judicial Affidavit of Artemio Que Chan, Q&A 15-16.Judicial Affidavit of Artemio Que Chan, Q&A 17-18.

^ Judicial Affidavit of Artemio Que Chan, Q&A 19-20." Exhibit "3".

/


DECISION

Rosa and Mary Jane H Jovellanos versus Artemio Q. Chan and Kelvin TChan " docketed as 0MB L-A-16-0389, as follows:

WHEREFORE, finding substantial evidence, respondent ArtemioQue Chan is found administratively liable for Simple Dishonesty for whichhe is meted the penalty of SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE WITHOUTFAY FOR THREE MONTHS; and respondent Kelvin Tong Chan isfound administratively liable for Simple Misconduct for which he is metedthe penalty of SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE WITHOUT PAY FORTHREE MONTHS, pursuant to Section 10, Rule III, Administrative OrderNo. 07, as amended by Administrative Order No. 17, in relation to Section25 of Republic Act No. 6770.

XXX XXX XXX XXX.

The charges for Grave Misconduct, Serious Dishonesty andConduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service are DISMISSED,(emphasis sourced from the document)

Accused and his son, VM Chan, both served the three-monthsuspension after receiving the Ombudsman Decision dated August 24, 2017,and the corresponding DILG Memorandum^^ dated January 15, 2018implementing the said Decision.^^

Afterwards, they received a Motion for Reconsideration^^ datedJanuary 11, 2018 filed by Spouses Dela Rosa through their counsel.^' TheMotion for Reconsideration sought to reconsider the penalty imposed becauseof the gravity of the charge. Spouses Dela Rosa asserted that the act of theAccused in signing the Marriage Certificate without actually solemnizingtheir marriage warranted dismissal from government service. Spouses DelaRosa also pointed out another instance where the Accused signed a marriageCertificate of another couple without personally solemnizing it as shown in theOmbudsman Decision dated November 22, 2016 entitled Ly-Ar C. Punzalan,et al V.?. Artemio Que Chan, et alJ^ Accused no longer filed a comment tothe Motion for Reconsideration since they already served the suspension ofservice.^^

As it appeared, the Office of the Ombudsman granted the Motion forReconsideration in its Order dated March 14, 2018.^"^ It reversed its earlierDecision dated August 24, 2017, and ordered the dismissal of the Accused

^ Exhibit "4".

Judicial Affidavit of Artemio Que Chan, Q&A 22.™ Exhibit "5".

Judicial Affidavit of Artemio Que Chan, Q&A 23.■^2 Exhibit "J".

Judicial Affidavit of Artemio Que Chan, Q&A 24.Exhibit "6"; Judicial Affidavit of Artemio Que Chan, Q&A 25-26. In his judicial affidavit, the Accused

initially referred to the Ombudsman Order dated March 14, 2018 as Exhibit "7". However, the Accusedmoved for its remarking as Exhibit "6" in a Motion to Cancel and Re-Mark Documentary Exhibits dated July19, 2021 (Records, Vol. 1, p. 425-426). In a Resolution dated November 16, 2021, the court granted itsremarking as Exhibit "6" (Records, Vol. 2, pp. 160-164).

People vs. Artemio Que Chan 17] PageCriminal Case No, SB-18-CRM-0537

DECISION

from government service and the suspension of VM Chan for one year,quoted, as follows:

Respondent Artemio Q. Chan is found liable for Serious Dishonestyfor which he is meted the penalty of DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICEwith cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits andperpetual disqualification for re-employment in the Government Service xX X

Respondent Kelvin Tong Chan is found administratively liable forConduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and SimpleMisconduct for which he is meted the penalty of SUSPENSION FROMOFFICE WITHOUT PAY FOR ONE YEAR x x x

After receiving the Ombudsman Order dated March 14,2018, Accusedfiled a Motion for Reconsideration dated August 17, 20187^ In the interim.Accused received a registered mail from Atty. Alexander Rigonan Jr.containing the Sinumpaang SalaysayP^ and the Manifestation and/or Motioif^both executed by Spouses Dela Rosa7® These two documents alleged that hewas at the Municipal Hall on March 26, 2015 when Spouses Dela Rosa gotmarried; they were only made to believe by Kagawad Gloria Salcedo thattheir marriage was not valid for which reason they signed the Complaint-Affidavit?'^ He gave the two documents to his counsel.

Insofar as the allegations of Abalos and De Leon that he did notofficiate the wedding ceremony of Spouses Dela Rosa, Accused insteadasserted that it was the two who were not present during the wedding.^^

On cross-examination, the Accused recounted that the couple firstsigned the Marriage Certificate, then he signed it in front of the Spouses.During the solemnization of the marriage, the witnesses were not present andhave not yet signed the Marriage Certificate.^^ Two of his staff, Mabelle andCheng, were present, but he did not ask or orient them to be witnesses,^^ Aftersigning the Marriage Certificate, he asked his son to apologize on his behalfto the witnesses because he could not meet them.®^

Throughout his tenure, Accused admitted that he officiated marriageswithout witnesses if he was in a hurry He could no longer confirm if the

Exhibit "7"; Judicial Affidavit of Artemio Que Chan, Q&A 27-28. In his judicial affidavit, the Accusedinitially referred to the Motion for Reconsideration dated August 17, 2018 as Exhibit "8". However, theAccused moved for its remarking as Exhibit "7" in a Motion to Cancel and Re-Mark Documentary Exhibitsdated July 19,2021 (Records, Vol. 1, p. 425-426). In a Resolution dated November 16,2021, the court grantedits remarking as Exhibit "7" (Records, Vol. 2, pp. 160-164).


" Exhibit "8" and series.

Judicial Affidavit of Artemio Que Chan, Q&A 29-31.Exhibit "E".

Judicial Affidavit of Artemio Que Chan, Q&A 32.TSN, June 28,2021, pp. 49, 53.

"2 TSN, June 28,2021, pp. 45-46.TSN, June 28,2021, pp. 54,67.TSN, June 28,2021, pp. 22,49. /

People vs. Artemio Que Chan 18|FageCriminal Case No. SB-18-CRM-0537

DECISION

names of the witnesses stated in the Marriage Certificate of Spouses DelaRosa were the same persons who stood before him. For him, it was onlynecessary to verify the couple who would many.^^ If there was no rush, itwould take him fi*om around 20 to 35 minutes to officiate the wedding.However, if he was in a hurry, it would take around 10 minutes.^^

After receiving the complaint of Spouses Dela Rosa, he asked for theassistance of his previous counsel, who was also his friend and political ally.He related to his previous counsel that he was the one who solemnized themarriage. However, it was not reflected in his affidavits before the Office ofthe Ombudsman as he was not able to read and verify the contents thereofsince he trusted his previous coimsel. Further, there were a lot of documentsto read about the case.®^ Nonetheless, the Accused never claimed to beilliterate and admitted that he studied business administration as an

undergraduate.^^

2. Former Vice Mayor Kelvin Tong Chan ["VM Chan"]®^ was theVice Mayor of Pozorrubio from 2013 to 2016. He served concurrently whilehis father, the Accused, was the elected mayor of their municipality

VM Chan corroborated the testimony of the Accused and narrated asimilar sequence of events from his perspective. He alleged that at around10:00 a.m. on March 26, 2015, he visited the Mayor's Office to ask theAccused about the status of his grandmother. Upon arriving, he saw theAccused in the act of solemnizing a marriage inside the Mayor's Office. Heheard the Accused ask the couple if they take each other as husband and wife,which they affirmed.^' The Accused then declared them as husband and wifeand informed them that he would need to leave soon because of an emergency,but he would sign the Marriage Certificate before leaving.^^

As soon as the guests for the wedding arrived, however, the couplerequested a ceremony from the Accused. The Accused declined because hehad already solemnized the marriage and had to leave.^^ Instead of theAccused, it was VM Chan who performed an informal ceremony in front ofthe guests as requested by the couple. VM Chan congratulated them and leftthe municipal hall to check on his grandmother.^"^

TSN, June 28,2021, pp. 19-22.8® TSN, June 28,2021, p. 18.87TSN, June 28,2021, pp. 72, 74-75.88 TSN, June 28,2021, p. 16.8' Kelvin Tong Chan testified through a Judicial Affidavit dated January 14,2021 (Judicial Affidavit Folder,Vol. 1, pp. 88-92) in lieu of his direct testimony. He identified his judicial affidavit in open court through aremote hearing on February 10, 2021. Order dated February 10,2021. (Records, Vol. 1, pp. 394-395).^ Judicial Affidavit of Kelvin Tong Chan, Q&A 3-4.

Judicial Affidavit of Kelvin Tong Chan, Q&A 6-7.^ Judicial Affidavit of Kelvin Tong Chan, Q&A 8-9.

Judicial Affidavit of Kelvin Tong Chan, Q&A 10-11.Judicial Affidavit of Kelvin Tong Chan, Q&A 12-15.

y


DECISION

VM Chan denied the assertions of Abalos and De Leon that he

officiated the wedding. He clarified that he merely conducted an informalceremony, greeted the guests, and gave marriage advice to the couple.^^

VM Chan recounted that he was also surprised to learn about thecomplaint filed by Spouses Dela Rosa. VM Chan later served the suspensionas stated in the Ombudsman Decision^^ dated August 24, 2017, and itssubsequent modification in the Ombudsman Order dated March 14, 2018.^^

On cross-examination, VM Chan recounted that he received a call fromtheir house informing him that his grandmother suffered a mild stroke. Hewent to the Mayor's Office and upon arriving, he witnessed the Accusedstating "/ now pronounce you husband and wife. " He recalled that the onlypeople inside the room were the couple, the secretary of the Mayor, and theAccused.^^ The principal sponsors indicated in the Marriage Certificate werenot present before the Accused.'^®

It was only during the informal ceremony performed by VM Chan thatsome of the principal sponsors arrived.^*^* VM Chan gave an informalceremony as part of the picture-taking since the guests, parents and thesponsors had arrived. He affirmed that he was the person wearing thecheckered shirt in front of the spouses in the photograph'^^ taken by one ofthe principal sponsors, De Leon. He gave advice to the newly-weds but he didnot declare them as husband and wife.'^^

VM Chan acknowledged that he signed the Joint Counter-Affidavit^'^^dated September 21, 2016, where he admitted that it was him, and not theAccused, who solemnized the marriage in good faith, viz:'®^

13. Respondent Mayor knew that it is the Municipal Mayor who isvested by law, with the authority to solemnize marriages. The truth is that,on the date of the marriage of the complainants, respondent Mayor Chanwent to work and was in the office to perform his regular functions asmayor, however, before the said marriage could take place, he received anemergency call stating that his ailing mother, who is already ninety four(94) years old was taken seriously ill, so he had to leave in haste to see her.Respondent Kelvin, thinking that it was the duty of the vice mayor toperform the functions of the office of the mayor in his absence,performed the function in good faith; (Emphasis supplied):'^^

Judicial Affidavit of Kelvin Tong Chan, Q&A 25.^ Exhibit "3".

^ Exhibit "6"; Judicial Affidavit of Kelvin Tong Chan, Q&A 23-24.^ TSN, February 10, 2021, pp. 20-21.TSN, February 10,2021, pp. 29-30.TSN, February 10,2021, pp. 31, 49.TSN, February 10,2021, pp. 35-36.Exhibit "D";TSN, February 10,2021, p. 39.Exhibit "G".

TSN, February 10,2021, p. 27.Exhibit "G-l". /' 7

People vs. Artemio Que Chan 201 P a g eCrimmal Case No. SB-18-CRM-0537

DECISION

XXX XXX XXX XXX.

24. X X X Mayor Chan did not persuade, induce, or influencerespondent Vice-Mayor Kelvin Chan to solemnize the marriage ofcomplainants Andy and Mary Jane. Respondent Mayor Chan knew that itwas the mayor who was authorized to solemnize marriages, but thecircumstances on that day, made Respondent Kelvin, by himself, decide forthis particular instance alone, to solemnize the marriage of complainantsand to prevent the parties from suffering severe disappointment; x x x.

However, VM Chan insisted that he solely relied on the preparation oftheir previous counsel when he signed the Joint Counter-Affidavit^^^ and thePosition PapeP^^ dated October 2016 which contained the same narration.'®^He no longer read these documents because their counsel had prepared otherpapers on their behalf before,"^ According to him, he relayed the same storythat it was the Accused who solemnized the marriage but their previouscounsel failed to reflect it therein. He was not familiar with the name of their

previous counsel, since the latter just arrived at their residence and wascontacted by the Accused.' ̂' Similar to the Accused, VM Chan never claimedto be illiterate and admitted that he was able to finish up to second-yearcollege.'

On re-direct examination, VM Chan affirmed that he personally knewAbalos and De Leon since they were also local government officials.However, he did not see them during the informal ceremony that heconducted."^

3. Atty. Alexander D. Rigonan, Jr. ["Atty. Rigonan"]"'' served as alegal aid lawyer and an officer of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IB?)Pangasinan Chapter, aside from engaging in private practice."^

On September 18,2018, Spouses Dela Rosa arrived at the office of theIBP Pangasinan Chapter seeking legal assistance."^ Atty. Rigonan helpedthem in executing their Sinumpaang Salaysay^' ̂ and guided them to the Officeof the Provincial Prosecutor in Dagupan City where they made their oath."^

'0^ Exhibit "G".

Exhibit "H".

TSN, February 10,2021, p. 27.110 tsn, February 10,2021, pp. 56-57.TSN, February 10,2021, pp. 27-28.

"2 tsn, February 10,2021, p. 56."2 TSN, February 10,2021, p. 50.

Atty. Rigonan testified through a Judicial Affidavit dated October 9,2020 (Judicial Affidavit Folder, Vol.1, pp. 74-76) in lieu of his direct testimony. He identified his judicial affidavit in open court throu^ a partialremote hearing on October 12, 2020. Order dated October 12,2020. (Records, Vol. 1, p. 366).' Judicial Affidavit of Atty. Alexander D. Rigonan, Jr., Q&A 2, 4.

Judicial Affidavit of Atty. Alexander D. Rigonan, Jr., Q&A 4.'" Exhibit "8" and series.

Judicial Affidavit of Atty. Alexander D. Rigonan, Jr., Q&A 4-5.

/; ■

People vs. Artemio Que Chan 211 PageCriminal Case No. SB-18-CRM-0537

DECISION

After the execution of the Sinumpaang Salaysay, Atty. Rigonan also made theManifestation and/or Motion^^^ with the conformity of Spouses Dela Rosa.'^®

While assisting them, Atty. Rigonan narrated that the Spousesconveyed to him that they had no knowledge that a complaint against theAccused would be filed using their names. They had never conferred withAtty. Percival Peralta and had never appeared before a notary public toexecute a complaint.'^'

On cross-examination, Atty. Rigonan stated that he was not familiarwith the Spouses prior to this encounter and they were simply referred to theirIBP office.^^^ The Spouses showed him a letter from the Ombudsman butAtty. Rigonan never read the Complaint-Ajfidavit^^^ of the Spouses itself sincethey did not have a copy then,^^"^

He guided the Spouses for their oath to the Office of the ProvincialProsecutor, instead of a Notary Public, since it was near the IBP office. Hewas not aware that Prosecutor Viray was the administering office of theComplaint-Affidavit of the Spouses.

4. Prosecutor Myla Malicdem ["Prosecutor Malicdem"] was theAdministering Officer of the Sinumpaang Salaysay of Spouses Dela Rosa.Her testimony was dispensed with after the Prosecution and the defenseagreed on the stipulation that she signed the jurat and administered the oathon the said Sinumpaang Salaysay without admitting the truth of thecontents thereof.

REBUTTAL EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION

The Prosecution was supposed to present Atty. Percival Peralta as itswitness for its rebuttal evidence. His testimony was dispensed with after theparties stipulated that "/le will be testifying on the fact that a Motion forReconsideration, marked as "Exh. 5' for the defense was filed by Spousesdela Rosa and Jovellanos with his assistance, as reflected in accused's"Formal Offer ofEvidence'\^^^


'20 Judicial Affidavit of Atty. Alexander D. Rigonan, Jr., Q&A 5.'2' Judicial Affidavit of Atty. Alexander D. Rigonan, Jr., Q&A 6.»22 tSN, October 12,2020, p. 21.

Exhibit "E".

TSN, October 12, 2020, p. 20.tSN, October 12, 2020, p. 22.Exhibit "8" and series.

Order dated February 10,2021 (Records, Vol. 1, p. 395).'28 Order dated May 25,2022 (Records, Vol. 2, pp. 228-229).

/f


DECISION

MEMORANDUM OF THE PROSECUTION^^^

In its Memorandum, the Prosecution submitted that the Accused shouldbe held guilty for Violation of Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code asestablished by the following:

First, Accused had openly admitted in his Joint Counter-Affidavit^^dated September 21, 2016 that it was Vice Mayor Chan who actuallysolemnized the marriage of Spouses Dela Rosa. Accused narrated therein thathe had to leave on the day of the marriage as he received an emergency callthat his mother was ill. Meanwhile, Vice Mayor Chan thought that it was hisduty to solemnize the marriage in the absence of the mayor. Similarly, thePosition Paper'^' of the Accused contained the same tale. Then, the Accusedretracted his earlier narrative and testified before the court that he was actuallythe one who solemnized the marriage of Spouses Dela Rosa. He merelydismissed the earlier version in his Joint Counter-Affidavit by stating that hedid not read it after his previous lawyer drafted it.

Second, the Prosecution pointed out that Accused failed to give asimilar narrative that he was the one who solemnized the marriage in hisMotion for Reconsideration^^^ dated August 17, 2018 filed before the Officeof the Ombudsman. The said pleading was prepared by the same counsel thatappeared for him before this court.

Third, Accused admitted that it was Vice Mayor Chan and one of hisstaff who were present during the marriage ceremony. The MarriageCertificate, however, reflected the names of other principal witnesses.

Lastly, the two principal witnesses in the marriage, Abalos and DeLeon, positively identified Vice Mayor Chan as the one who solemnized themarriage.

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ACCUSED133

In his Memorandum, Accused insisted that he should be acquitted basedon the following grounds:

'29 Records, Vol. 2, pp. 255-270.Exhibit "G".

Exhibit "H".

Exhibit "7"; The Memorandum (for the Prosecution) erroneously referred to it as Exhibit "8" which wasthe original marking of the said exhibit. In his judicial affidavit, the Accused initially referred to the Motionfor Reconsideration dated August 17, 2018 as Exhibit "8". However, the Accused moved for its remarkingas Exhibit "7" in a Motion to Cancel and Re-Mark Documentary Exhibits dated July 19,2021 (Records, Vol.1, p. 425-426). In a Resolution dated November 16, 2021, the court granted its remarking as Exhibit "7"(Records, Vol. 2, pp. 160-164).'33 Records, Vol. 2, pp. 284-309.

People vs. Artemio Que Chan 231P a g eCriminal Case No. SB.18-CRM-0537

DECISION

First, he remained firm that he was the one who solemnized themarriage. He only had to leave immediately to attend to a medical emergency.VM Chan thereafter performed another wedding, but for ceremonial purposesonly, as soon as the Accused left the municipal hall.

Second, the Accused cast doubt on the photograph'^'* identified by DeLeon, harping that it has not been validly authenticated as the cellular phoneused to take it was already destroyed and not presented in court. The saidphotograph also did not show any act of solemnization. Further, De Leon,Abalos, and Sec. Raul Lambino were not visible in the picture. The Accusedasserted that it was highly unlikely for a principal sponsor to be designated asthe photographer of a wedding ceremony.

Third, the Accused pointed out the inconsistencies in the testimonies ofAbalos and De Leon. De Leon was not able to identify the persons at the backof Spouses Dela Rosa in the photograph. De Leon was also inconsistent instating if he saw the Accused sign the marriage certificate. On the other hand,Abalos stated in his Judicial Affidavit that VM Chan announced that he will

officiate the wedding. However, upon clarification of the court, he explainedthat VM Chan assured them that the Accused would eventually arrive toofficiate the wedding.

Lastly, the Accused challenged the presentation of the OmbudsmanDecision'^^ and Resolution'^^ related to the marriage of Ly-Ar C. Punzalanand Cherilyn O. Buyao, as the judgment rendered by the Regional TrialCourt in this case resulted to his acquittal for another alleged delegation of thesolemnization of the marriage of Spouses Punzalan.

THE COURTIS RULING

Under the Family Code, a marriage ceremony is a solemn rite where aman and a woman exchange their marital vows before a solemmzing officerin the presence of at least two witnesses, viz:

Art. 6. No prescribed form or religious rite for the solemnization ofthe marriage is required. It shall be necessary, however, for thecontracting parties to appear personally before the solemnizing officerand declare in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal agethat they take each other as husband and wife. This declaration shall becontained in the marriage certificate which shall be signed by thecontracting parties and their witnesses and attested by the solemnizing

• officer. (Emphasis supplied)

Exhibit "D".

'35 Exhibit'T'.

'36 Exhibit "I".

fI 7 t


DECISION

The binding force behind every marriage celebrated is one officiated bythe solemnizing officer. The solemnization of the marriage itself is an intimateceremony that those who perform it must have the authority vested upon themby law to make the marriage valid and legally binding. The Local GovernmentCode granted this authority to municipal mayors to solemnize marriages forthem to be able to serve their inhabitants, viz:

Section 444. The Chief Executive: Powers, Duties, Functions andCompensation. -XXX

(b) For efficient, effective and economical governance the purposeof which is the general welfare of the municipality and its inhabitantspursuant to Section 16 of this Code, the municipal mayor shall:

XXX XXX XXX XXX.

(xviii) Solemnize marriages, any provision of law to the contrarynotwithstanding; (emphasis supplied).

For the couple Andy and Mary Jane Dela Rosa, they have opted to havethe Municipal Mayor of Pozorrubio, Pangasinan officiate their wedding.While the solemnizing officer in their marriage certificate appears to be theAccused himself. Spouses Andy and Mary Jane Dela Rosa became theinstigator of the present charge when based on their Complaint-Affidavit^^'^filed before the Office of the Ombudsman, they averred that it was not theAccused as Municipal Mayor who performed the ceremony but his son, theVice Mayor, who solemnized it. They litigated their cause before the Officeof the Ombudsman which inevitably caused Accused's perpetual dismissalfi*om government service. A few months after the Decision of theOmbudsman, however, they made a complete turnabout and executed aSinumpaang Salaysay^^^ and a Manifestation and/or Motion^^^ claiming thatthey were merely cajoled into signing their Complaint-Affidavit.

As the wedded couple themselves never answered the subpoena issued,the court is left to calibrate the essence of the charge from the evidencepresented sans their supposed testimony. The foreboding question thus is, hasthe Prosecution gathered enough evidence to convict the Accused of thepresent charge?

Accused is indicted for violation of Article 171, paragraph 2 of theRevised Penal Code on Falsification of Public Documents for allegedlyfalsifying the Marriage Certificate of Spouses Dela Rosa by causing it toappear that he solemnized the marriage. Article 171, paragraph 2 provides:

Exhibit "E".



Exhibit "E".

^ ''■ f


DECISION

Article 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary orecclesiastic minister. - The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceedP5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notarywho, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document bycommitting any of the following acts:XXX

2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act orproceeding when they did not in fact so participate; x x x.

Falsification of public documents is penalized because of the violationof the public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnlyproclaimed. Hence, the presence of intent to gain or intent to injure a thirdperson is not necessary in Falsification of public documents.^"^' Instead, theelements of Article 171, par (2) include:

1. That the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public.

2. That he takes advantage of his official position.

3. That he falsifies a document by causing it to appear that persons haveparticipated in any act or proceeding.

4. That such person or persons did not in fact so participate in theproceeding.

All the elements have been proven in this case.

First element. It is a stipulated fact that the Accused was a publicofficial at the time he signed the Marriage Certificate on March 26, 2015,being the Municipal Mayor of Pozorrubio, Pangasinan, and that part of hisfunction as municipal mayor was to solemnize marriages and sign documentspertinent thereto.'"^^

Second element. A public official is considered to have takenadvantage of his official position when either (1) he had the duty to make orprepare or otherwise intervene in the preparation of the document; or (2) hehad official custody of the document which he falsified."'*'^

As Municipal Mayor, the Accused has the authority to solemnizemarriages.*'*^ This accords the concomitant duty to attest the fact that thecontracting parties appeared before him and have declared each other as

Liwanag, Jr. vs. People^ G.R. No. 205260, July 29, 2019; Pacasum vs. People, G.R. No. 180314, April16,2009.Goma and Umale, G.R. No. 168437, January 8,2009.Pre-Trial Order dated April 29,2019 (Records, Vol. 1, p. 149).Pacasum vs. People, G.R. No. 180314, April 16, 2009; Mayor Corpuz vs. People and Sandiganbayan,

G.R. Nos. 212656-57, November 23, 2016.Section 444 (b) (1) (xviii). Local Government Code of 1991.

f


DECISION

husband and wife in the presence of at least two witnesses of legal age,'"*^Likewise, his mayoral duty mandated him to retain custody of a copy of themarriage certificate, and to forward the original copy to the contractingparties, and the other copies to the local civil registrar. Article 23 of theFamily Code provides:

Article 23. It shall be the duty of the person solemnizing themarriage to furnish either of the contracting parties the original of themarriage certificate referred to in Article 6 and to send the duplicate andtriplicate copies of the certificate not later than fifteen days after themarriage, to the local civil registrar of the place where the marriage wassolemnized. Proper receipts shall be issued by the local civil registrar tothe solemnizing officer transmitting copies of the marriage certificate.The solemnizing officer shall retain in his file the quadruplicate copy ofthe marriage certificate x x x.

While there is no question that the Accused is vastly aware of his dutyas solemnizing officer as such, it appeared that he took advantage of hisposition when he caused the preparation of the Certificate of Marriage ofSpouses Dela Rosa by placing his name as solemnizing officer when in truthand in fact, it was his son, VM Chan, who solemnized it.

Why a conclusion of this fact is made is elucidated in the succeedingdiscussion.

Third and Fourth elements. Without the eyewitness testimonies ofSpouses Dela Rosa, the Prosecution sourced its evidence presentation fromthe following:

(a) A photograph^'*^ showing VM Chan in front of the Spouses, whichwas buttressed by the testimonies of principal sponsors Jesus deLeon and Miguel A. Abalos;

(b) Accused's own Joint Counter-Affidavit dated September 21,2016;^^^

(c) Accused's own Position Paper filed before the Office of theOmbudsman;

(d) Decision dated November 22, 2016 of the Office of theOmbudsman;'^^ and

Article 6, Family Code, x x x It shall be necessary, however, for the contracting parties to appearpersonally before the solemnizing officer and declare in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legalage that they take each other as husband and wife. This declaration shall be contained in the marriagecertificate which shall be signed by the contracting parties and their witnesses and attested by thesolemnizing officer, (emphasis supplied)

Exhibit "D"

Exhibit "G".

Exhibit "H'\

Exhibit "r.

1

People vs. Artemio Que Chan 271 P a g eCriminal Case No. SB-I8-CRM-0537

DECISION

(e) Resolution dated November November 22, 2016 of the Office ofthe Ombudsman rendered in Ly-Ar C. Punzalan and Cherilyn O.Buyao v. Artemio Q. Chan, et al, docketed as OMB-L-C-16-0341.

After assessment, the documents listed under (a), (b), and (c) made aconsequential impact on the charge without necessitating the court testimonyof the Spouses Dela Rosa. The failure of the wedded couple to appear in courtis merely reflective of their own declination to assist in the prosecution of thecase but never had it stirred doubt on the veracity of the charge.

Two of the principal sponsors of thewedding categorically stated that it was notthe Accused who solemnized the marriage.

For one, the gap created by the wedded couple for their non-appearancein court has been filled by the testimonies of principal sponsors Miguel A,Abalos and Jesus De Leon.

Abalos and De Leon positively identified VM Chan as the one whosolemnized the marriage with them as principal sponsors. They recounted thatthey were asked to sign the Certificate of Marriage by a municipal employeeof the Office of the Mayor but it was VM Chan who arrived and aimouncedthat he would solemnize the marriage as the Accused's authorizedrepresentative.'^^ There was no reference to the Accused celebrating themarriage at all.

Exhibit "D" or the photograph'" of the ceremony taken by De Leonwas the offered evidence which solidified their claim that it was VM Chan

who solemnized the marriage.'^"'

The photograph was identified by De Leon himself as the photographerwho explained that he took it while VM Chan was solemnizing themarriage. De Leon's presence at the wedding was supported by hissignature appearing in the Marriage Certificate'^^ and signed by the Accused.

At this instance. Accused questioned the worth of the photograph as itmerely showed VM Chan performing an informal ceremony after the Accused

'^'Exhibit "r.

Exhibit "F'; Judicial Affidavit of Jesus De Leon, Q&A 4, 10; Judicial Affidavit of Miguel A. Abalos.Q&A4, 10.

Exhibit "D"; see page 10 of the Decision.Judicial Affidavit of Jesus De Leon, Q&A 13-16.Judicial Affidavit of Jesus De Leon, Q&A 13-18.Exhibit "C".

f 7


DECISION

had allegedly solemnized the marriage.'^' VM Chan affirmed that it was himin the checkered shirt facing the Spouses, but only for ceremonial purposesAccused insisted that, quite the reverse, it was Abalos and De Leon who werenot present at the time that he solemnized the marriage, proof of which isthe fact that the two were not visible in the photograph. The Accused alsoharped that the photograph was not validly authenticated as De Leon did notpresent the cellular phone that he used to take the said picture,'^®

Contrary to the assertion of the Accused, the Rules on ElectronicEvidence do not require the presentation of the device used by the person whotook the photograph. Here, the photograph was sufficiently authenticated byDe Leon as he was the one who took the same. Rule 11, Section 1 of the Ruleson Electronic Evidence'^' provides that a photograph may be authenticated bythe person who made the recording, v/z:

RULE 11. Audio, Photographic, Video, and EphemeralEvidence

SECTION 1, Audio, video and similar evidence. — Audio,photographic and video evidence of events, acts or transactions shall beadmissible provided it shall be shown, presented or displayed to the courtand shall be identiHed, explained or authenticated by the person whomade the recording or by some other person competent to testify on theaccuracy thereof, (emphasis supplied)

Even before the promulgation of the Rules on Electronic Evidence,jurisprudence has already recognized the probative worth and admissibility ofphotographs as an impartial account of what actually transpired at a crimescene. In Sison v. People, the Court appreciated the photographs of amauling incident in convicting the accused who were seen assaulting thevictim. The court held that the photographer may testify as to the accuracy ofthe photograph in representing the situation that it portrayed, to quote:

The rule in this jurisdiction is that photographs, when presented inevidence, must be identified by the photographer as to its productionand testified as to the circumstances under which they were produced.The value of this kind of evidence lies in its being a correct representationor reproduction of the original, and its admissibility is determined byits accuracy in portraying the scene at the time of the crime. Thephotographer, however, is not the only witness who can identify the pictureshe has taken. The correctness of the photograph as a faithfulrepresentation of the object portrayed can be proved prima facie, either

'^'Judicial Affidavit of Artemio Que Chan, Q&A 17-18; Judicial Affidavit of Kelvin Tong Chan, Q&A 12-15; Memorandum for the Accused dated June 24,2022 (Records, Vol. 2, pp. 288-289).'58 TSN, February 10,2021, p. 39.'5' Judicial Affidavit of Artemio Que Chan, Q&A 32.

Exhibit "D"; Records, Vol. 2, 292.

Rules on Electronic Evidence, A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC, July 17,2001. The scope of the Rules on ElectronicEvidence has been expanded to criminal cases. See A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC, Re; Expansion of the Coverage ofthe Rules on Electronic Evidence, September 24,2002.

G.R. Nos. 108280-83 & 114931-33, November 16,1995.

i /■

People vs. Aftemio Que Chan 291 P a g eCriminal Case No. SB-18-CRM-0537

DECISION

by the testimony of the person who made it or by other competentwitnesses, after which the court can admit it subject to impeachment as toits accuracy. Photographs, therefore, can be identified by the photographeror by any other competent witness who can testify to its exactness andaccuracy, (emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

The still image of the wedding thus captured in a single photographeffectively conveyed the event that would later become the subject of thiscase. At best, a photograph is a neutral narrator of what transpired in theevent that it depicted. It may be a mute testament to an event but therecollection of eyewitnesses animates its life and substance. As expounded inSison V. People, a photograph may only represent a segment of the entireoccasion but it can be appreciated in totality with the other evidence on record,including the documents and testimonies of the witnesses who were presentat the time.

Here, the photograph was taken by one of the principal sponsors, DeLeon, which should give it much weight. The photograph depicted VM Chanin front of the Spouses Dela Rosa solemnizing the marriage. De Leon addedcontext by asseverating that he took the photograph during the solemnizationof the marriage by VM Chan. He was also categorical in stating that theAccused did not arrive to solemnize the marriage.

Notably, as pointed out by the Accused, De Leon, Abalos, and Sec.Raul Lambino were all not visible in the said photograph. Their absence inthe photograph, however, did not mean that they were not present at thewedding as their respective names appeared on the Marriage Certificate^^"^signed by the Accused.

Verily, Accused's mere denial cannot efface the fact that these principalsponsors witnessed a wedding but one not solemnized by the Accusedhimself.

The defense of the Accused that it wasAbalos and De Leon who were absent at the

time that he actually solemnized themarriage cannot be given merit.

Accused insisted that it was Abalos and De Leon who were not presentat the time that he officiated the marriage. Should the claim of the Accused begiven credit, his duty as solemnizing officer would have required him toindicate in the Certificate of Marriage the names of the principal witnesseswho were physically present in the ceremony. The solemnization is not oneidle ceremony that can be made in a fleeting manner as its effects are legal

Judicial Affidavit of Jesus De Leon, Q&A 13-16.Exhibit "C".

i; [

People vs. Artemio Que ChanCriminaJ Case No. SB-I8-CRM-0537

DECISION

301 P a g e

and binding. The principal witnesses at this time should have been the oneswho appeared in the Certificate of Marriage.

The Certificate of Marriage necessarily contradicted Accused'stestimony that Abalos and De Leon were not present during the wedding. Theblunder further resonated with his duty concomitant thereto. The Accusedsupposedly certified that he solemnized the marriage in the presence of all thewitnesses named therein. The relevant portions of the Certificate ofMarriage'^^ of Spouses Dela Rosa are reproduced below:

j19. CERTinCATION OF 1>€ SOLEMNIZING OFFICER

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT BEFOf^ PtIE, on the dae and place aboveiwinen, peraonally appeared Sie abovfrnieniioned partjee,thee mutual'consent. lawfully loined together r manage vMwh wn solvnnized by mo in the ptesence of the wtnessea namod bekMK al of legal age.

^ I CERTIFY FURTHER THAT1 a. Memage License No tuuedon . _ ,el

^r!in favor of said parties, was eyhiMed to meI X ib. no mamage license was necessary, the mamage t»«g sotemnccBd urvler Art... .34 of Erreculivo Order No 209

c. the

HON.ART|M10^. CHAN(StgnaiLue Name of Solcrmartg

nnt Name,and Sign)Ettme

prowai^qf fjresidqiagtjêge) ̂

PafleMiinltrtfal MayW^"{PosJion/OesignMioni i' '

1063.

20a

CESARIOUttOS

:eiigiOiiS Sect. Remtry No. arvJ ExpirationDate, if ap^cable)

IÊUZABETHSAICEDO

1 20b. Vsa^TEÊS (^nnt Name and Sign)

fGAL

•tiAWTE-DEVERA-

Â.

EMILY BIALA

16AM.....

5ACRUZ FRUbEMCm FE^NOEZA^STtH-O

TITA

EDmiA

AFFIDAVIT OF SOLEMNÎNG OFFICERAWlbMIQ Q..CHAN, of legal oga. Soiomnifing Officer of with address at

after havng sworn lo accordance wdn law. do lteiet>y depose and say.

lANg HHflO JOVSUaMOSnave wUamnizod me mamage between

a That I' lave ascortaned tne quaeScalens of the CorrtfacUng peiSes and have found no legal impedinanl far BMHI lomarry as requeod by Artde M of the Famty Code.

b Tlial tjvt mamage was pariormed m anculo mortiB or at the poetl of deailt.bc Tttat tne conuacang party/ws .and etfig at lha point of

death and physicaiiy unable to sqn Die foiegoog certdicate of mamage by signature or mark, one of the vrnmaiiai to lha nunlage. svilor hat| or bor by wntmg the dying patty's name end bei«am s. the wimess' own Mpneture preceded by me grapowbon "Or*.

d That (He residBnoe of either party is so toeated mat there is no means of tiansportason to enable conoemed paity/partws to appearpenonMy before the ciwil legeuar

I e. That IM mamage was among Muslens or among tnenaiws of Pie EHtnic CuMural ConvnutWtos and that the mamage was solenwuaedI accordance waOi ihotr customs and pracboes,

I I look the iecessaty steps lo ascenam the ages and relaOioftthip of the oontraoung parties and that nedher of them are tniar any tagalenped meni to marry each oOier

4 Thi 1 1 am exacuing ovs aflkSavd to attest to the iruthUness of the foiegoeig staMnenis (or afl legN mtanls arMi purposes.

Ell

Paji

Iri. Uull-ra^

lereof. I have affixed my signaiura below this ̂ 9* day e^flSifian PtaHgyes ^ ̂

ef of pages^

Page.

U^SCÎBEO AND SWORtI to before me this

alure of

RQl

nng Omcer

TJGQV

CHAN

Name of (he Soternruziitg OIncer

Uasb 2615Ptulippmae, afAaru who exhibited lo me Ns Community Tax Cert.

PozofTubio, Pangaainan

Miinlfdpnt f^hrll flftgUtrarRosilion'TsierDesignation

Pnznmihlfi. Pangatlmn

The certification of the solemnizing officer, as found in a Certificate ofMarriage, states thus:

THIS IS TO CERTIFY: THAT BEFORE ME, on the date and placeabove-written, personally appeared the above-mentioned parties, with their

Exhibit "C".

f?- f

People vs. Artemio Que Chan 311 P a g eCriminal Case No. SB-I8-CRM-0537DECISION

mutual consent, lawfully joined together in marriage which was solemnizedby me in the presence of the witnesses named below, all of legal age.

The Certification of the Solemnizing Officer, as quoted above, includesthe following premises:

1. That the solemnizing officer personally solemnized the wedding;2. That the contracting parties to be married personally appeared

before the solemnizing officer;3. That it was solemnized before the presence of all the witnesses

named therein.

Hence, the Certificate of Marriage, on its face, would show that theAccused personally solemnized the marriage of Spouses Dela Rosa in front ofsixteen witnesses, including Abalos and De Leon. It was the Accused'ssignature itself that certified that the two were present during the ceremony.

Assuming arguendo that the Accused solemnized the marriage ofSpouses Dela Rosa without the presence of Abalos and De Leon, the Accusedwould have still contradicted his certification as the solemnizing officer. Hiscertification included the fact that it was solemnized in the presence of thewitnesses named in the Certificate of Marriage. Had Accused trulysolemnized the marriage before all the guests, relatives, and principalsponsors came in, he should have, at least, still listed the names of the actualsponsors who stood by the wedding ceremony. But none was effected by theAccused at this instance. That the Accused asserted that he had officiated

marriages without witnesses if he was hurriedly conducting the weddingceremony is only a standing affirmation to the mayoral obligation he takes forgranted but which legal effects are consequential.^^^

In a parallel case found in Corpuz v. People and Sandiganbayan,^^^ theSupreme Court acquitted a municipal mayor who was indicted for allegedlydelegating the solemnization of two marriages to the Municipal Registrar. Inacquitting the mayor, however, the Supreme Court gave weight to thetestimony of the husbands who came to Court to positively state that theirmarriages were solemnized by the mayor. The Supreme Court appreciatedtheir testimonies as against the testimonies of the wedding guests andphotographers who did not sign in the Certificate of Marriage, and themunicipal registrar who claimed that he solemnized the marriages himself.

Unlike Corpuz, neither the husband nor wife came to court to testify.In contrast, the ones who testified are Abalos and De Leon, who were notmere wedding guests, but principal sponsors whose presence were confirmedby the Certificate of Marriage itself signed by the Accused. It is theeyewitness testimonies of Abalos and De Leon which alleged that the

TSN, June 28,2021, pp. 22,49.G.R. Nos. 212656-57, November 23, 2016.

/ / 1

People vs. Artemio Que Chan 321 P a g eCriminal Case No. SB-18-CRM-0537DECISION

marriage was solemnized by VM Chan and not the Accused himself. For thecourt to give credence to the Accused's testimony that he formally solemnizedthe wedding even before the guests and relatives arrived, the least he couldhave done was produce who the witnesses were to the real wedding. TheAccused could have had his testimony corroborated by presenting his twostaff members, Mabelle and Cheng, whom he alleged were there to assisthim.'^^ They could have testified that the Accused personally solemnized themarriage. Unfortunately, he could not even remember their flill names. Or, hecould not even state for certain where these supposed witnesses came from.'^^

Accused is bound by the admissions in hisaffidavits before the Office of theOmbudsman that it was VM Chan who

solemnized the marriage.

During the preliminary investigation of the case before the Office of theOmbudsman, the Accused and VM Chan (as co-respondent) offered as adefense in their Joint Counter-Affidavit^^^ dated September 21, 2016 that itwas VM Chan who solemnized the marriage in good faith. It was only beforethis court that the Accused back-pedalled and claimed that it was actually himwho solemnized the marriage of the Spouses Dela Rosa.'^^

Specifically, the Accused admitted in the Joint Counter-Affidavit thatafter attending to his ailing mother, the Accused returned to the municipal hallon the same day and signed the Certificate of Marriage left on his table, vizffi

13. Respondent Mayor knew that it is the Municipal Mayor who isvested by law, with the authority to solemnize marriages. The truth is that,on the date of the marriage of the complainants, respondent Mayor Chanwent to work and was in the office to perform his regular functions asmayor, however, before the said marriage could take place, he receivedan emergency call stating that his ailing mother, who is already ninetyfour (94) years old was taken seriously ill, so he had to leave in haste tosee her. Respondent Kelvin, thinking that it was the duty of the vicemayor to perform the functions of the office of the mayor in his absence,performed the function in good faith;

14. It was only because of the medical emergency which the mayorhad to personally attend to, that he was constrained to act in behalf of themayor. The parties were already there at the Municipal Hall, wearing theirSunday's best, so to speak, and the reception was already prepared, and theparties did not want to postpone "THE DAY," hence in order not to causethem severe disappointment, inconvenience, damage and prejudice,respondent Kelvin had to act accordingly. It should be borne in mind that

'^8 TSN, June 28,2021, pp. 45-46.'®'TSN, June 28,2021, p. 41.

Exhibit "G".

Judicial Affidavit of Artemio Que Chan, Q&A 12-13,16.■'2 Exhibit "G-1".

i/•


DECISION

the bride was wearing her wedding gown, the groom was in his formal suitand respondent Kelvin did not have the heart to make them go home.

XXX XXX XXX XXX.

17. Respondent Chan as the Mayor of Pozorrubio intended tosolemnize the marriage of the parties, were it not for the emergency thatthat (sic) came up on that day. The Certificate of Marriage of thecomplainants were among these documents piled on his table, it havingearlier passed his scrutiny, before he left in haste to attend to his ailingmother, and he simply signed it soon after his return to office, together withall the rest of the documents, most of which are business permits andcertificates, x x x (emphasis and underlining supplied)

This narrative \vas substantially duplicated in the Position Paper^^^ ofthe Accused and VM Chan dated October 2016.

The Accused stipulated on the authenticity and genuineness of both ofhis signatures in the Joint Counter-Affidavit and the Position Paper, asfollows:'^"^

10. Accused admits the existence and due execution of the Joint Counter-

Affidavit dated September 21,2016 of Artemio Que Chan, except asto the material correctness of all the statements stated therein;

11. Accused Artemio Que Chan admits the authenticity and genuineness ofhis signature in the Joint Counter-Affidavit dated September 21,2016, except as to the signature of Kelvin Tong Chan;

12. Accused admits the existence and due execution of the Position Paperdated October 2016 filed before the Office of the Ombudsman byArtemio Que Chan, except as to the material correctness of all thestatements stated therein;

13. Accused Artemio Que Chan admits the authenticity and genuineness ofhis signature in the Position Paper dated October 2016 filed beforethe Office of the Ombudsman, except as to the signature of Kelvin TongChan; (emphasis supplied).

The Accused merely dismissed his own admissions in the saiddocuments by claiming that he was not able to read both documents beforesigning them as they placed their faith on their unnamed previous counsel.''^Meanwhile, in his Comment/Opposition on the Prosecution's Formal Offer ofEvidence the Accused admitted both the Joint Counter-Affidavit and thePosition Paper. He merely denied the allegations contained therein and statedthat the criminal case filed against him was politically motivated. Meanwhile,VM Chan admitted signing the Joint Counter-Affidavit during trial.

"3 Exhibit "H".

Pre-Trial Order dated April 29, 2019 (Records, Vol. 1, p. 150).TSN, February 10,2021, p. 56; TSN, June 28,2021, pp. 72, 74-75.Records, Vol. 1, p. 302.TSN, February 10,2021, p. 27.

/ ?


DECISION

The court, however, cannot set aside the tenor of these admissionsbased on the flimsy excuse that the Accused did not read the contents of hisown affidavits. The fact that the Accused appeared to have signed them on hisown, without the signed assistance of counsel, is also immaterial.

ThQ oi Ladiana vs. People^^^ is instructive. The Supreme Courtsignificantly held in this case that an accused is bound by the admissions ofhis affidavit which was voluntarily presented by him during the preliminaryinvestigation. In Ladiana, the Sandiganbayan convicted the accused ofhomicide based on the admissions in his counter-affidavit that he shot the

victim as self-defense. The counsel of Ladiana stipulated during trial on theauthorship, authenticity, and voluntariness of the execution of the counter-affidavit which was subscribed and sworn to before a public prosecutor. Inhis appeal before the Supreme Court, Ladiana challenged his conviction onseveral grounds which included his own carping that the basis of hisconviction was his own counter-affidavit. He claimed that the admission of

the counter-affidavit as evidence violated his right against self-incriminationas it was admitted by his own counsel, but not personally by the accused.Hence, he argued that the counter-affidavit could not be appreciated asevidence as it was an extrajudicial confession which was executed without theassistance of a counsel.

In a similar way, the Accused in this case dismissed the admissions andcontents of the Joint Counter-Affidavit and the Position Paper on the basisthat they were solely prepared by his previous coimsel and that he blindlysigned them without reading.

Such claim, however, cannot be considered. As Ladiana V5. Peopleespoused, the accused is bound by the admission he made on his Counter-Affidavit since it was not an extrajudicial confession made under custodialinvestigation. To quote:

The Constitution bars the admission in evidence of any statementextracted by the police from the accused without the assistance of competentand independent counsel during a custodial investigation. However, acounter-affidavit voluntarily presented by the accused during thepreliminary investigation, even if made without the assistance ofcounsel, may be used as evidence against the afiiant.

XXX XXX XXX XXX.

There is no question that even in the absence of counsel, theadmissions made by petitioner in his Counter-Affidavit are notviolative of his constitutional rights. It is clear from the undisputed factsthat it was not exacted by the police while he was under custody orinterrogation. Hence, the constitutional rights of a person under custodialinvestigation as embodied in Article III, Section 12 of the 1987Constitution, are not at issue in this case.

178 G.R. No. 144293, December 4, 2002.

/f


DECISION

However, the accused — whether in court or undergoingpreliminary investigation before the public prosecutor - unquestionablypossess rights that must be safeguarded. These include: 1) the right to refuseto be made witnesses; 2) the right not to have any prejudice whatsoeverimputed to them by such refusal; 3) the right to testify on their own behalf,subject to cross-examination by the prosecution; and 4) while testifying, theright to refuse to answer a specific question that tends to incriminate themfor some crone other than that for which they are being prosecuted.

We do not, however, agree with the Sandiganbayan'scharacterization of petitioner's Counter-Affidavit as an extrajudicialconfession. It is only an admission. Sections 26 and 33 of Rule 130 ofthe Revised Rules on Evidence distinguish one from the other as follows:

SEC. 26. Admissions of a party. — The act,declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact maybe given in evidence against him.

SEC. 33. Confession. — The declaration of anaccused acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged, orof any offense necessarily included therein, may be given inevidence against him.

In a confession, there is an acknowledgment of guilt; in anadmission, there is merely a statement of fact not directly involving anacknowledgment of guilt or of the criminal intent to commit the offensewith which one is charged. Thus, in the case at bar, a statement by theaccused admitting the commission of the act charged against him butdenying that it was done with criminal intent is an admission, not aconfession.

XXX XXX XXX XXX.

Through the above statement, petitioner admits shooting the victim— which eventually led to the latter's death — but denies having done itwith any criminal intent. In fact, he claims he did it in self-defense.Nevertheless, whether categorized as a confession or as an admission, it isadmissible in evidence against him.

Further, we do not doubt the voluntariness of the Counter-Affidavit.Petitioner himself submitted it to the public prosecutor to justify his actionsin relation to the charges hurled against him. It escapes this Court how hecan cavalierly deny a document that he has voluntarily submitted andoriginally relied upon in his defense.

In general, admissions may be rebutted by confessing their untruthor by showing they were made by mistake. The party may also establish thatthe response that formed the admission was made in a jocular, not a serious,manner; or that the admission was made in ignorance of the true state offacts. Yet, petitioner never offered any rationalization why such admissionshad been made, thus, leaving them unrebutted. In addition, admissionsmade under oath, as in the case at bar, are evidence of great weightagainst the declarant. They throw on him the burden of showing amistake. (Underscoring and emphasis supplied).

1 7' I


DECISION

Similar to Ladiana, the Joint Counter-Affidavit and the Position Paperare affidavits containing admissions submitted in a preliminary investigation.They were not extracted in the form of an extrajudicial confession. Whileadmitting it was VM Chan who solemnized the marriage, the Accused deniedcriminal liability by invoking that his delegation of the solemnization wasdone in good faith. As discussed above, admissions made under oath aregiven great weight against the affiant. These affidavits before the Office ofthe Ombudsman were also voluntarily signed and submitted by the Accused.Hence, he could not simply brush off its contents by stating that he failed toread them.

Both the Joint Counter-Affidavit 2CEid the Position Paper filed before theOffice of the Ombudsman were duly notarized before Atty. Winifred L. Cruz.Being notarized, these exhibits should likewise be accorded with thepresumption of regularity that they were duly executed. As explained by theSupreme Court in Dandan v. Arfel Realty & Management CorpJ''^

X X X As a notarized document, it has in its favor the

presumption of regularity and carries the evidentiary weight conferredupon it with respect to its due execution. It is admissible in evidencewithout further proof of its authenticity and is entitled to full faith and creditupon its face.

Further still, under Section 3 (d). Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, itis presumed that a person takes ordinary care of his concerns. Hence, thenatural presumption is that one does not sign a document without firstinforming himself of its contents and consequences. (Emphasis supplied,citations removed)

A person is thus presumed to have read the contents of a document andhave tmderstood its consequences before signing it.'^® Accused and VM Channever claimed to be illiterate and were both educated persons as they wereable to study in college.'^' They could not escape their own admissions bysimply claiming that they signed the documents without reading them. In acivil case, the Supreme Court rejected a similar claim from the petitioners whowere high school graduates who claimed that they were not able to read thecontents of their contract, to wit:'®^

XXX being high school graduates and thus literate, they werenot completely precluded from reading the contents thereof, as theyshould have done if they were prudent enough, x x x

Petitioner and her husband's admission that they failed to exerciseprudence can only be fatal to their cause. They are not unlettered peoplepossessed with a modicum of intelligence x x x Their failure to thus

Diampoc V. Buenaventura, G.R. No. 173114, September 8,2008.Section 3. Rule 131,2019 Amendments to the 1989 Revised Rules on Evidence. Disputable presumptions.

The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome byother evidence: x x x (d) That a person takes ordinary care of his or her concerns.

TSN, February 10,2021, p. 56; TSN, June 28, 2021, p. 16.g.R. No. 200383, March 19,2018.

/?

People vs. Aitemio Que Chan 37 i P a g eCriminal Case No. SB.18-CRM-0537

DECISION

observe the care and circumspect expected of them precludes the courtsfrom lending a helping hand, and so they must bear the consequencesflowing from their own negligence.

The rule that one who signs a contract is presumed to know itscontents has been applied even to contracts of illiterate persons on theground that if such persons are unable to read, they are negligent if theyfail to have the contract read to them. If a person cannot read theinstrument, it is as much his duty to procure some reliable persons to readand explain it to him, before he signs it, as it would be to read it before hesigned it if he were able to do so and his failure to obtain a reading andexplanation of it is such gross negligence as will estop him fromavoiding it on the ground that he was ignorant of its contents, x x x(emphasis supplied)

While the jurisprudence above pertained to a civil case, the sameprinciple may be applied here as the Accused was an educated person.

In sum, the Prosecution established the guilt of the Accused beyondreasonable doubt based on his own previous admissions as bolstered by thetestimonies made by the principal sponsors and the photograph of thewedding. His change of theory and latter assertion that he was the one whosolemnized the marriage could not obliterate his liability.

This is not to say that it is beyond comprehension, if not an oddity tohuman experience, why two wedding ceremonies have to be made, one afterthe other, if only to accommodate the purported haste with which the Accusedhad to make at such time. The illness his mother may have suffered cannotcertainly be downplayed but proof on this fact was not even made, absentmedical documents to sustain the claim. If indeed Accused had to rush at the

hour of the wedding celebration, the least that he could have done was todocument it properly, with the couple together with the actual principalsponsors who stood by the wedding ceremony reflected on the Certificate ofMarriage. As it appeared, however, not any one of the principal sponsors atthe wedding were notified of the prior celebration made. The weddingceremony proceeded like any other principal sponsor would have witnessedit, except that the solemnizing officer happened to be the Vice Mayor himself.Being a high public official, the ceremony simply had to go on. The grain oftruth, however, rang when instead of the Vice Mayor signing the Certificateof Marriage, it was the signature of an absentee solemnizing official whichappeared therein.

The retraction and the failure of theSpouses Dela Rosa to testify before the courtdid not tilt the balance in favor of theAccused

1' I

People vs. Artemio Que Chan 381P a g eCriminal Case No. SB-18-CRM-0537DECISION

As his last refuge, the Accused harped on the retraction made bySpouses Dela Rosa through their Sinumpaang Salaysay and Manifestationand/or Motion. In the said statements, Spouses Dela Rosa claimed that theywere only tricked to sign the Complaint-Ajfidavid^'^ without fullyunderstanding the legal implications of the said document.

The court, however, cannot accord evidentiary weight to the retractionallegedly made by Spouses Dela Rosa vis-a-vis the totality of theProsecution's evidence. First, the Sinumpaang Salaysay and Manifestationand/or Motion^^^ both executed on September 2018 were made more than twoyears after the Complaint-Affidavit dated June 9, 2016, The Spouses DelaRosa have actively participated in the administrative proceedings before theOmbudsman against the Accused. After receiving the Ombudsman Decisiondated August 24,2017,'^^ the Spouses even filed a Motion for Reconsiderationdated January 11, 2018'^^ which prayed for a heftier administrative penaltyagainst the Accused and VM Chan. The same was granted by the Ombudsmanin the Order dated March 14, 2018.'^^ It was only in September 2018, ormonths after the Ombudsman ordered the permanent dismissal of the Accusedfrom the government service that the Spouses executed their SinumpaangSalaysay and Manifestation and/or Motion.

Both the Sinumpaang Salaysay and Manifestation and/or Motion^^^contained a mere general denial that they were duped into signing thecomplaint and that they never intended to press charges. For all the worth thatthese pleadings could be accorded, what is notable is that the Spouses DelaRosa did not retract the allegation that it was not the Accused whoperformed the ceremony. In truth, they merely issued a general denial thatthey were duped into signing the complaint and that they never intended topress charges. The allegation that the Accused did not perform theirmarriage vows still remained. There was, therefore, no retraction to speakof in the first place.

Even with this court's findings that it was the Vice Mayor whosolemnized the marriage of Spouses Dela Rosa, it would nonetheless appearthat the marriage of Spouses Dela Rosa legally stands as valid. The FamilyCode states that a marriage solemnized by a person with no legal power to doso remains valid as long as one of the parties believed in good faith that thesolemnizing officer had the legal authority to officiate the marriageceremony.'^' Despite this legal stance, the persistent failure of Spouses Dela


Exhibit "E"


'8^ Exhibit "3".'8' Exhibit "5".'88 Exhibit "6".

'8^ Exhibit "8" and series.


Article 4. Family Code. The absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the marriagevoid ab initio, except as stated in Article 35 (2).

/ ?

People vs. Afternic Que ChanCriminal Case No. SB-18-CRM-0537DECISION

391 P a g e

Rosa to answer the subpoena issued by the court almost amounted to theissuance of their warrant to compel their attendance but their failure to testifywhen required did not negate the positive statements already made against theAccused.

The acquittal of the Accused in thedelegation of the solemnization of anothermarriage Is not binding before the court*

To prove that the Accused had a habit or pattern of delegating thesolemnization of the marriages of his constituents, the Prosecution presentedthe following Ombudsman Decision and Resolution related to the marriage ofLy-Ar C. Punzalan and Cherilyn O. Buyao ["Spouses Punzalan"]:

Exhibits Documents

Certified true copy of records of OmbudsmanResolution dated November 22, 2016 in the

case entitled Ly-Ar C. Punzalan vs. ArtemioQue Chan and Daniel M. Sarmiento

"J" Certified true copy of records of OmbudsmanDecision dated November 22, 2016 in an

administrative case entitled Ly-Ar C.Punzalan vs. Artemio Que Chan and DanielM. Sarmiento

From Exhibits "I" and "J", it appeared that the Accused was dismissedfrom government service^^^ and indicted for another falsification case^^^ afterdelegating the solemnization of the marriage of Spouses Punzalan to a casualemployee of the municipality of Pozorrubio. In the administrative caseentitled C Punzalan vs. ArtemioQue Chan and Daniel M. Sarmiento^^^^the Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the Accused from governmentservice after finding sufficient evidence that he delegated his duty to DanielM. Sarmiento, Jr., to quote:

Complainants allege that on 14 March 2016, they were scheduled tobe married in civil rites at the Municipal Hall of Pozorrubio, Pangasinan. xX X Before the ceremony started, respondent Sarmiento asked the witnessesto sign the Certificate of Marriage and announced that he would officiatethe wedding in behalf of respondent Chan. Respondent Sarmiento told themthat he was authorized by respondent Chan to officiate the marriage and thathe had previously officiated several marriages, x x x When they got a copy

Art. 35. Family Code. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning: x x x (2) Those solemnizedby any person not legally authorized to perform marriages unless such marriages were contracted witheither or both parties believing in good faith that the solemnizing officer had the legal authority to doso; (emphasis supplied)192 Exhibit "J".

193 Exhibit "I".

19^ Exhibit "J".

/ ? i

People vs. Artemio Que Oian 401P a g eCriminal Case No. SB-18-CRM-0537

DECISION

of their Certificate of Marriage, they saw respondent Chan's signature overthe space for "solemnizing officer." x x x

X X X it was clearly established that he failed to actually officiatecomplainants' marriage, yet he certified in the Certificate of Marriage thatcomplainants appeared before him and he solemnized their marriage x x x

XXX Respondent Chan allowed respondent Sarmiento to performhis (respondent Chan) duty to solemnize marriage, knowing that thelatter is not authorized under the law. He cannot delegate to anybodythe authority attached to his position as Municipal Mayor, x x x(emphasis supplied)

Subsequently, however, the Accused was acquitted in the criminal casefiled against him for allegedly delegating the solemnization of the marriage ofthe Spouses Punzalan. In a Manifestation^^^ dated June 23,2022, the Accusedrevealed that the Regional Trial Court, Branch 215, Quezon City ["RTC")has acquitted him in the criminal case related to the marriage of the SpousesPunzalan. Specifically, the RTC dismissed the following criminal cases: 1)Criminal Case No. R-QZN-18-03469 for the Violation of Section 3 (a) ofR.A.No. 3019 and 2) Criminal Case No. R-QZN-18-03470 Violation of Article171 par (2) and (4) of the Revised Penal Code.

In acquitting the Accused and his co-accused Daniel Sarmiento, theRTC concluded that Sarmiento merely gave an orientation to the couple. TheRTC also considered that the video recording of the ceremony did not coverthe crucial parts that will indisputably prove that it was not Accused Que Chanwho solemnized the marriage, to wit:

The testimony of accused Daniel, as follows, was unrebutted: Danieldenied the assertions of prosecution witness Arly Pun2:alan (Arly), sister ofprivate complainant that he wajs the one who solemnized the wedding ofprivate complainant and that in fact, he was just conducting a briefing. Infact, in the photos taken by Arly, there was no depiction of the giving andwearing of the wedding rings as well as the giving of the arrhae. Thepronouncement that the private complainant and partner are husband andwife, facing their sponsors and relatives, the couple's kiss and the signingof the certificate of marriage were not depicted in the pictures presented bythe prosecution. These parts of the wedding ceremony were also notcaptured in the video presented by the prosecution and which incidentally,all took place inside the mayor's office when accused Mayor Chansolemnized the wedding of the private complainant. Daniel asserted thatas in other previous wedding ceremonies officiated by the mayor, heassisted the latter by giving briefings to the parties and their witnessesfirst. In fact, a quick review of prosecution Exhibit "F", the video recordingbetween private complainant Jay R Punzalan and his wife Cherilyn, doesnot convincingly help the cause of the prosecution in the absence ofconcomitant audio recording, documenting the crucial parts of the wedding:particularly the address of the solemnizing officer ensuring the presence ofthe couple at the wedding ceremony out of their own individual fi*ee will

Records, Vol. 2, pp. 274-275.

//

People vs. Artemio Que Chan 411P a s eCriminal Case No. SB-18-CRM-0537DECISION

and with their full consent to bind themselves in marriage; the solemnizingofficer's facilitation of wedding rings exchange of the couple, as well as thecouple's sealing of. their marriage with a kiss. All of which were notconvincingly established by the prosecution as not to have beensolemnized/ofhciated by accused Mayor Chan himself through the picturesdepicting and video recording documenting the alleged wedding ceremonyof the private complainant.

In the absence of convincing evidence proving that the prosecution'stheory that accused Mayor Chan did not officiate the abovementionedcrucial parts of the wedding ceremony and instead instructed co-accusedSarmiento to perform the same, the court is more inclined to believe thatco-accused Sarmiento was merely performing a briefing-reminder-orientation, as shown by the photos and video recording, before thewedding ceremony proper to be officiated by accused Mayor Chan. In fact,the conflicting testimonies of prosecution witnesses, particularly thetestimony of private complainant that it was not accused Mayor Chanwho signed the subject Certificate of Marriage and the testimony ofprosecution witness Gloria Salcedo to the contrary, asserting that it wasaccused Mayor Chan who signed the subject marriage certificate sinceshe is familiar with the signature of accused mayor, do not help theprosecution, (emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

Accused's acquittal for the alleged delegation of the marriage ofSpouses Punzalan will be immaterial to the judgment of this court as thepresent charge covered the marriage of Spouses Dela Rosa, which is a separateand entirely different act to the one in which he was acquitted from. The Ruleson Evidence provide that previous conduct of a similar act is not admissibleto prove that he performed the similar thing at another instance, to quote:

Section 3 5. Similar acts as evidence. - Evidence that one did or did

not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he orshe did or did not do the same or similar thing at another time; but itmay be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan,system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like, (emphasis supplied)

In contrast to the marriage of Spouses Punzalan, the records of the caseand the admissions of the Accused clearly showed that it was not him but VMChan who solemnized the marriage of the Spouses Dela Rosa.

Accused's conviction is thus proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Computation of the penalty.

The crime of Falsification ofPublic Documents under Article 171 par.2 of the Revised Penal Code is punishable by prision mayor and a fine notexceeding P5,000. While the court notes the retroactive effect of Republic ActNo. 10951, the same cannot be applied in this case since the adjusted penaltyof fine, which increased from the original amount of more than 5,000

Section 35. Rule 130.2019 Amendments to the 1989 Revised Rules on Evidence.

ir I

People vs. Artemio Que Chan 42! P a s eCriminal Case No. SB-18-CRM-0537DECISION

pesos" to "wo/ more than One million pesos (PI,000,000)" is prejudicial tothe Accused.

In imposing a prison sentence for falsification of public documentspursuant to Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the court shallsentence the Accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of

which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could beproperly imposed under the rules of the said Code, and to a minimum whichshall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by theCode for the offense.

Hence, the penalty one degree lower to prision mayor is prisioncorreccional with a duration of six months and one day to six years, whichmay be applied in any of its periods in the discretion of the court, taking intoaccount not only the circumstances attending the crime but such othercircumstances as are material for the determination of a penalty adequate tothe peculiar situation of the Accused. The minimum period can thus be fixedat two (2) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day ofprision correccionaL

Since neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstance has been proven,the maximum can be fixed at eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayorin its medium period

Following Articles 64 and 76 of the Revised Penal Code and theIndeterminate Sentence Law, and noting that no mitigating or aggravatingcircumstance was alleged and proven in this case, the Accused is thus metedthe penalty of prision correccional for a minimum period of two (2) years,four (4) months, and one (1) day and a maximum period of eight (8) years andone (1) day. All accessory penalties including temporary absolutedisqualification for public office and that of perpetual special disqualificationfrom the right of suffrage pertinent to prision mayor are likewise imposedupon the Accused.^^^ A fine of P5,000 is also imposed on the Accused.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing. Accused ARTEMIO QUECHAN is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime ofFalsification of Public Document defmed and penalized under Article 171,paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code and is imposed an indeterminate

Section 100. R.A. No. 10951. Retroactive Effect. - This Act shall have retroactive effect to the extent thatit is favorable to the Accused or person serving sentence by final judgment, (emphasis supplied)

Article 64. Revised Penal Code. Rules for the application of penalties which contain three periods. Incases in which the penalties prescribed by law contain three periods, whether it be a single divisible penaltyor composed of three different penalties, each one of which forms a period in accordance with the provisionsof Articles 76 and 77, the court shall observe for the application of the penalty the following rules, accordingto whether there are or are not mitigating or aggravating circumstances:1. When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, they shall impose the penalty prescribedby law in its medium period, x x x

Article 42. Revised Penal Code. Prision mayor. The penalty of prision mayor shall carry with it that oftemporary absolute disqualification and that of perpetual special disqualification from the right of suffragewhich the offender shall suffer although pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall have beenexpressly remitted in the pardon.

1;

People vs. Arteraio Que Chan 431P a e eCriminal Case No. SB-18-CRM-0537DECISION

penalty of TWO (2) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS, and ONE (1) DAY ofprision correccional as minimum to EIGHT (8) YEARS AND ONE (1)DAY of prision mayor as maximum. The accessory penalties of temporaryabsolute disqualification for public office and that of perpetual specialdisqualification from the right of suffrage are likewise imposed.

The Accused is likewise directed to pay FINE in the amount of FIVETHOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00).

Upon finality ofjudgment, let a copy of this Decision be furnished theCommission on Elections.

SO ORDERED.

MA. THERESA DOI^RES C. GOMEZ-ESTOESTA

Associate Justice, Chairperson

WE CONCUR:

. TMSPESES

AssociaftiJustice

GEORGINA p. HIDALGOAssociate Justice

People vs. Aftemio Que ChanCriminal Case No. SB-18-CRM-0537

DECISION

44] Page

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decisions were reached in

consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of theCourt's Division.

MA. THERESA DOLOI^'c. GOMEZ-ESTOESTAChairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution and the DivisionChairman's Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the aboveDivision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to thewriter of the opinion of the Court's Division.

[FARO M. gABpTA®-TAN<Presiding Ju^c

1

Date post:	22-Nov-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	khangminh22
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times