7/21/2019 CC No. 130612 Decisions
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cc-no-130612-decisions 1/9
Reoublic
of
the
Philippines
Muni'cip
al
Trial
Coiri
in
Cities
First
Iudicial
ReS,ion
Second
Branch
Baguio
CitY
PEOPLE
OF
THE,
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff,
-aersrls-
JULIEWHYN
R.
QUINDOZA,
Accused.
CRIMINAL
CASE
NOS.
130612
FoT:
FALSIFICATION
OF
PUBLIC
DOCUMENT
BY
A PRIVATE
INDIVIDUAL
-----------x
DECISION
The
parties herein
are
no
strangers
to
each
other.
Yet,
what
relations
they
may
have
had
that bound
them
in
the
past
has
now
seen
them
dueling
in Court
at
opposite
ends.
Accused
initially
filed
a
criminal
case
against
the
private complainant
herein.
In
a
twist
of
fate,
her
complaint
became
the
fount
of
this
present
prosecution
for
Falsification
of a
Public
Document.
0n
fune
3,ZOl3,
the
Qffice
of the
City
Prosecutor
of
Baguio
City
()CP-Baguio)
clrarged
the
accused
fuliewhyn
R.
Quind
oza
(Quindoza)
with
the
crime
of
Falsification
of
public
Document
by
a Private
Individual
upon the
complaint
of
Ernesto
Llmas
De
Los
Santos
(Ernesto),
committed
as follows:
Infbrmation
That on
or
about
December
4,1993
,
in
the
City
of
Baguio,
Philippines,
and
within
the
iurisdiction
of
this
Honorable
Court,
the
above-named
accused, a
private
individual,
did
then
and
there,
willfuily,
unlawfulty
and
feloniously
falsify
the
certificate
of
Live
Birth
of one
Margarett
Veronica
Quindoza
De Los
Santos,
a
public
document
by supptying
all
the
entries
therein,
such
as
the
name
of
ERNESTO
LLAMAS
DEL1S
SANTOS,
herein
private
complainant,
as
the
father
of
Margarett
veronica
Quindoza
De
Los
Santos
and
as
well
as
in
particular
the
DATE
AND
PLACE
0F
MARRIAGE
OF
PARENTS
ss
December
15,
1991
at
Pansol,
Laguna,
wherein
the
accused
made
and
caused
it
to appear
that
Ernesto
L.
De
Los Santos
participated
in a marriage
ceremony
when
in
ffuth
and
in
fact,
the
accused
knows
fulty
well
that
they
were
not
maffied
to
each
other
and
neither
has there
been
a
marriage
ceremony
wherein
they
both
took
their
vows
of
matrimony,
more
particularly
on
December
L5,
7991
at
Pansol.
Laguna
and
such
falsification
was
only
discovered
by
Ernesto
De Los
Santos,
herein
private
complainant
sometime
on
September
23,
201L
when
the
accused
filed
a complaint
against
him and
she
utilized
and
introduced
the
said
falsified
certificate
of
Live
Birth as
her
evidence,
to
the
damage
and
preiudice
of
Ernesto
De Los Santos.
CONTRARY
TO
LAW.
which
motion
was
D
Accused
initially
filed a
motion
to
denied
by
the court
on August
B,
2013.
quash
the
information,
The
accused
was
then
7/21/2019 CC No. 130612 Decisions
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cc-no-130612-decisions 2/9
Crim. Case No.
130612
People
of the Phil.
vs.
fuliewhyn
R.
Quindoza
DECISION
assistance of
her counsel
de
parte,
Atty.
Clarence
Villanueva,
and entered
a
plea
of
not
guilty
to the
offense
charged.
Pre-trial
was
set and ensued
on
May
5,
2074.
In
the
interim,
a
string
of appearances
of
private
counsels
were
entered
for
the
prosecution,
beginning
with private
prosecutor
Atty.
Judith
Z. Luiz.
She
was
joined
by
Attorneys
Richard
Garcia and
Rosanne
Rarang as
collaborating
counsels.
Atty.
Luiz
later
withdrew
her appearance
as
private
prosecutor.
No
stipulations
were entered
into
during
the
pre-trial.
The
prosecution
marked
their exhibits consisting
of
the affidavit complaint
of
the
accused with
the OCP-Baguio
(Exh
A);
the Certificate
of Live
Birth
of Mergarett
Veronica
Quindoza
Delos Santos
[Exh
B);
Certification
of
No
Marriage
[Exh
C); and
the Affidavit
of
Virgil
Delos Santos
(Exh
D)
The
defense
did not have
any
documentary
exhibits
to
mark. With
their
witnesses
identified
and
issues
defined,
trial of
the case
ensued.
On
fune
2,20L4,
upon motion of
the accused,
through
counsel, the
pre-trial
order
dated May
5, 20t4,was
amended
in the
interest
of
justice,
to include
one
Gilda Belino
as
a witness for
the
accused.
EVIDENCE FOR
THE
PROSECUTION
The
prosecution's
evidence
is hinged
on
the documents
and
testimonies
of
their
two witnesses,
Virgil Patrick
De
Los Santos,
the son
of
private
complainant
Ernesto,
and
Gerard
Tolito,
the outlet
supervisor
of
the
"Census
Serbilis
Center" and representative
of
the Philippine
Statistics
Office.
Both
witnesses
executed
their
respective
judicial
affidavits,
which
comprised
their direct testimonies
in this
case.
The
private
complainant
Ernesto
never
came
forth
to testify
in this case.
Instead,
his
son, Virgil Patrick
De Los
Santos
(Virgil),
who
knew
the
accused
Quindoza
as his
father's
estranged
common-law wife
testified herein.
Virgil
stated
that
in
Quindoza's
Complaint-Affidavitl
for
R.A
9262,
which
she
filed
against
Ernesto,
Quindoza
attached
a
Certificate
of Live Birth2
of Mergarett
Veronica
Delos
Santos,
her
daughter
with Ernesto.
Indicated
in the
said
Certificate
of
Live
Birth, which
Virgil
personally
read
and examined,
were
the
date
and
place
of marriage
of
parents,
as
"December
15,
1991
-
Pansol,
Laguna."
Virgil
decries
the
same
to
be
an
utter
falsity
because
Quindoza
and Ernesto
were never
married
on the
date and at
the
place
stated,
as his
father
Ernesto
was
already married
to
Edita
Castillo Baltazar
at
the time
of
the execution
of
the
Certificate
of
Live Birth.
It
was
even Virgil
who assisted
Ernesto
in
securing
certified
copies
of
their
Marriage
Contract
with Baltazar,
thus, he
saw
for
himself
the document
evidencing
such marriage.
Virgil
averred further
that
the entries
in
the Certificate
of
Live
Birth
had
one
fuliewhynne
Delos
Santos,
with
a signature
"Jdelossantos"
affixed, as
informant.
Yet
Quindoza
herself
alleged
in her
pleadings
for RA
9262
that Ernesto's
legitimate wife
is
Baltazar.
On
cross-examination,
Virgil
had no
qualms
admitting
that
he, too, is
an
illegitimate
child
of
Ernesto.
And,
that at the
time of
birth
of
her
half-sister Mergarett,
he
was
only
13
years
old,
and
was
not
present
when
the birth certificate was prepared
or
signed.
Gerard
Tolito,
the outlet
supervisor in
charge
of
"Census
Serbilis Center"
of the
Philippine
Statistics
Authority
(PSA),
also
took
the stand for
the
prosecution.
He
testified
on
the
organization
of the PSA
and how
civil
registry
documents find
their
way to
their
office
and into
the Civil
Registry
System
Database
and
how
the
public
can
access these
documents.
Prefatorily,
he averred
that
the
Census
Serbilis Center
issues
civil
registry
documents
like
birth
certificates,
marriage
certificates
and
death
certificates, to the
public.
As
an
outlet
supervisor,
he
has
the authority
to attest
to
the
authenticity
and
r
t
Exhibit
"A"
'
Exhibit
"8"
7/21/2019 CC No. 130612 Decisions
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cc-no-130612-decisions 3/9
Crim.
Case No.
130612
People
of the Phil.
vs.
]uliewhyn
R.
Quindoza
DECISION
genuineness
of
civil
registry
documents
issued
by the PSA,
which
can
be
determined
by
checking
if the
printout
is
on
security
paper,
and
if
the
codes
and
serial
numbers
appearing
in
the
printout
as
well
as
the
authorized
signatures
appearing
thereon
were
authentic.
In this
case, Tolito
confirmed
that the
document,
which purports
to
be
a
Certificate
of Live
Birth of Mergarette
Veronica
Q.
De
los
Santos,
is
a certified
true
copy
of the
Certificate
of
Live
Birth
duly
issued
by
the
PSA.
He
similarly
confirmed
the
authenticity
of
the marriage
contract
between
Ernesto
and
Baltazar.
Tolito
clarified
that
that
there
is
no
ready-made
printout
for
a
Certificate
of
No
Marriage
or
CENSMAR
because
their office
is
required
to search
marriage
indices
every
time
a request
therefor
is received,
if
only
to
ascertain
any
change
in
the
status
of a
particular
individual.
The
CENOMAR3
issued
in
the
name
of
Private
Complainant
by
the PSAa
bears all
the
earmarks
of authenticity
as
per
his
verification.
On
cross-examination,
Tolito
counseled
that when
a
person
requests
for
a CENOMAR
and
it appears
that the
person
has a
registered
marriage,
the
PSA issues
an
Advisory
of
Marriage
and
not a
CENOMAR.
After
their
testimony,
the
prosecution's
Exhibits
"A",
"8,,,,,D,,
and
,,E,,
were
admitted
in
evidence
for
the
prosecution and
with
such admission,
they
rested
their
case.
s
EVIDENCE
FOR
THE
DEFENSE
The
defense
presented
their lone
witness,
Gilda
Beleno (Beleno),
an employee
of
the
University
of
Manila (UM)
where
Quindoza
was
a former
student
and
where
Ernesto
served
as Executive
Vice President
and
University
Registrar.
Beleno
was
also
an
employee
of
the Baguio
Pines
Tourist
Inn
(BPTIJ,
a hotel
owned
by
UM,
where
Ernesto
was
former
General
Manager,
and
her
superior.
Beleno
knows
Quindoza
and
confirmed
further
that
she was
present
when
Quindoza
gave
birth
to
Mergarett,
her
daughter
with
Ernesto,
by
caesarean
section
on
December
4,
t993
at
the
Baguio
Medical Center
by
caesarean
section.
She
was
personally
instructed
by
Ernesto
to
accompany
Quindoza
during
childbirth
and
she was
there
from
about
4
o'clock in
the
afternoon
until
the evening.
While
she
was
at
Quindoza's
room
at
about
B:30
o'clock
that
same
evening,
a nurse
came
to ask
Quindoza
about
the factual
data for
Mergarett's
Birth
Certificate
since
it
was
the hospital's
duty
to
cause
its registration.
Because
Quindoza
was
still
recovering
from
the
effects
of sedation,
Beleno
asked
the nurse
to leave
the form
to
be
filled
out by Ernesto.
Belino
then went
home
to
BPTI
and handed
the blank
Birth
Certificate
Form
to
Ernesto
before
she
went to
bed.
In
the
morning,
Ernesto
handed
her
back
the
Birth
Certificate
form
as
she was
about
to
leave
for
the
marke
with the
specific
instruction
to
bring
and
submit it
to the
hospital.
The
blank
spaces
in
the form,
save
for the
child's
weight
at
birth,
the
attendant,
the informant
and
who
received
the
same
from
the local
civil
registrar,
were,
by
then,
already
filled
out
with
the
entries
written
in
pencil.
While
she
did not
personally
see him
accomplish
the
form,
it
was
Ernesto,
she claims,
who
filled
out
the entry
on
item no.72
relative
to
the
date
and
place
of
marriage
of
the child's
parents
because
all the
entries
were
done
in
Ernesto's
handwriting.
She was
very familiar
with his
handwriting
having
been
under
his employ
at BPTI.
Thus,
as
instructed,
upon reaching
the hospital,
Belino
handed
the form
to
the
same
nurse from
whom
she
received
it,
with
the assurance
that
the
hospital
shall
be
responsible
for
submitting
the
same
for
registration.
Belino
was
certain
that
sometime
in
200L,
Ernesto
was
able
to
obtain
a copy of
Mergarett's
birth
certificate
because
she
secured
one for him.
Belino
recalled
that
she
t
Exhibit
"c'.
o
Judicial
Affidavit
of
Gdrard Tolito
s
See order,
September
22,2074
7/21/2019 CC No. 130612 Decisions
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cc-no-130612-decisions 4/9
Crim.
Case
No. 130612
People
of
the Phil.
vs.
luliewhyn
R.
Quindoza
DECISION
was instructed
by Ernesto
to secure
a
copy of Mergarett's
Birth
Certificate
for
her first
communion.
She did as instructed
and handed
the
copy
to
Ernesto.6
0n
cross-examination, Belino
said
that
she
was assigned at
the
front desk of
BPTI
sometime
in
2001
until
2003.
Because
Ernesto
was
their
general
manager, she
usually
did what
was
asked
of
her,
even
when
the
same
was
not part of
her job.
Thus,
on
December
4, L993,
she
went
to
the
hospital
because
Ernesto asked her
to accompany
Quindoza.
She had no
personal
relations with
Quindoza
as she
was
merely
introduced to
her
by
Ernesto
as
his
girlfriend.
Belino
recalled that
she
handed the blank
Birth
Certificate form
to
Ernesto
in
the
evening
and
it
was
returned
to her
the
following
morning
with the entries
already
filled
up. She
admitted, however, that
she
was neither
with Ernesto
nor
Quindoza
the entire time
from
December
4
until
December 5, L993 and
did not
see
either of them
fill
up the
form.
She
was
unable to
recognize the signature
appearing in
the
birth
certificate
above
the
name
fuliewhyn
Delos Santos. And, while she
was
very
familiar
with the signature
of
Ernesto,
his
signature
does
not
appear
anywhere
in the birth certificate.T While she claims that she
got
a
copy
of the
subject
birth
certificate
way
back
in
2001
from the
NSO,
she does
not
recall having
signed
any
document
to
show
that
she
received the
same, except
for the
request
she
signed,
which
she was unable
to
present
in
Court
as well.
She handed
the
Birth
Certificate
to
Ernesto as
she alleged she did
without
making any acknowledgment
receipt.
The
defense, having
no
other
witness
to
present
and
no
documentary
evidence
to
formally offer, rested
their
case.
The
case
was
therefor submitted
for
decision
with
the
sole
issue
of
whether
or not accused
Quindoza
may be held liable
for
Falsification of
a
Public
Document
by a Private Individual under Article
L72 in
relation
to
Article L7t
(L)
of the
Revised Penal
Code.
FALSIFICATION
OF
PUBLIC
DOCUMENT BY A PRIVATE
INDIVIDUAL
Quindoza
is
charged
with the
offense of
Falsification of
public
document
in
the
manner
alleged
in the
Information as:
That on
or
about December 4,1993
,
in
the City of
Baguio,
Philippines, and
within the
jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused,
a
private
individual,
did then and there,
willfully,
unlawfully and
feloniously falsifi
the cerfficate of
Live
Birth
of
one
Margarett
Veronica Quindoza De
Los Santos,
a
public
document by supplying
all
the entries therein, such
as the name of
ERNESTO LLAMAS DELOS
SANT)S, herein
private
complainant,
as
the
father
of Margarett
Veronica
Quindoza
De Los Santos and as
well
as
in
particular
the
DATE AND PLACE OF MARRIAGE OF
PARENTS
as
December
15, 7991
at
Pansol, Laguna, wherein the
accused
made
and caused it to appear that
Ernesto
L. De Los
Santos
participated
in a
marriage
ceremony when in
truth and
in
fact,
the
accused
knows
fully
well that
they were
not
married to each
other
and
neither
has there been a
marriage
ceremony
wherein
they both took
their vows of
matrimony,
more
particularly
on
December 75,
7991
at Pansol. Laguna
and
such
falsification
was
only
discovered
by
Ernesto
De
Los
Santos,
herein
private
complainant
sometime
on
September
23,
2077
when the
accused
filed
a
complaint against
him
and
she
utilized
and introduced
the
said
falsified
Certiftcate of
Live
u
Judicial Affidavit of
Gilda
Beleno.
7
TSN,
August
LO, 20:-5,
5.
7/21/2019 CC No. 130612 Decisions
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cc-no-130612-decisions 5/9
Crim. Case
No.
130612
People of the
Phil.
vs.
Juliewhyn
R.
Quindoza
DECISION
Birth
as
her
evidence, to the damage and
prejudice
of
Ernesto
De Los Santos.a
Falsification of documents
under
paragraph
l-,
Article
l72e in
relation to
Article
l7lt0
(2)
of
the
Revised Penal
Code
refers
to
falsification by
a
private individual,
or
a
public
officer
or employee
who did
not take advantage
of
his official
position,
of
public,
private,
or
commercial
documents.
To
sustain
a charge
under
such
Article would
require
the
following elements:
(1)
that the offender
is a
private
individual
or a
public
officer
or
employee
who did
not
take advantage of
his
official
position;
[2)
that
he
committed
any of
the
acts of
falsification
enumerated
in
Article t7L
of
the
RPC;
and
(3)
that the
falsification
was committed
in
a
public,
official
or
commercial
document.ll
The
accused
herein
is
particularly charged
under
paragraph
2
of
Article
L7L,
which
bears
the
following requisites:
[1)
that the offender
caused
it to
appear in
a document that
a
person
or
persons
participated
in
an act
or
proceeding;
and
[2)
that such
person
or
persons
did not in
fact so
participate
in
the act or
proceeding.
Assaying the
evidence
of the
prosecution
to
prove
the
elements of the
offense
charged,
it
has
sufficiently
proven
that
the
document subject
of the offense
is a
public
document and
that
the accused herein
is
a
private
individual
$.>
r,/
Boldface
ours.
L--"
n
grr.
112. FalsiJication by
privcile
inctiyiduals and use offalstfied
documents.
-
The
penalty
of
prisi.on
correccional
in its
medium and
maximum
periods
and a fine of not more than 5,000
pesos
shall be imposed upott:
1.
Any
private
individual who shall commit
any
of
the
falsifications
enumerated
in
the
next
preceding
article
in any
public
or official document
or letter ofexchange or
any
other
kind ofcommercial
document; and
2. Any
person
who, to the damage
of a third
party"
or
with
the intent
to
cause such damage,
shall
in any
private
document commit any
ofthe
acts
offalsification
enumerated
in
the
next
preceding
article.
Any
person
who shall knowingly
introduce in evidence in anyjudicial
proceeding
or to the damage
ofanother or
who, with the
intent
to
cause such damage, shall use any
ofthe false documents embraced
in the next
preceding
article or
in
any
ofthe
foregoing subdivisions ofthis article, shall
be
punished
by the
penalty
next lower
in
degree.
'o
ART.
171.
Falsification
by
public
officer, emptoyee or
notory or ecclesiostic minister.
-
The
penalty
of
prision
moyor and a
fine not to
exceed 5,000
pesos
shall be
imposed upon any
public
officer, employee,
or
notary
who,
taking
advantage
of
his official
position,
shall
falsify
a document
by committing any of the
following
acts:
1. Counterfeiting or
imitating any handwriting, signature
or rubric;
2. Causing
it
to appear
that
persons
have
participated
in
any act
or
proceeding
when they
did not in fact so
pa
rtici
pate;
3. Attributing to
persons
who
have
participated
in an act
or
proceeding
statements other than
those in
fact
made
by
them;
4.
Making
untruthful
statements in
a
narration of facts;
5. Altering true dates;
6. Making any alteration or
intercalation in
a
genuine
document
which changes its meaning;
7. lssuing in an authenticated form a document
purporting
to
be a copy of an original
document when
no such
original exists,
or
including
in
such a copy
of
a
statement
contrary
to, or different
from,
that
of the
genuine
original;
or
8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof
in a
protocol,
registry, or official book.
The same
penalty
shall
be
imposed
upon
any
ecclesiastical
minister who shall commit any of
the offenses enumerated
in the
preceding paragraphs
of
this
article,
with
respect
to
any
record
or
document of
such
character that
its falsification
may
affect
the civil
status
of
persons.
"
Panun.io ,. People of the Philippines, 165678, July t1
,2OOg
7/21/2019 CC No. 130612 Decisions
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cc-no-130612-decisions 6/9
Crim. Case No.
130612
People
of
the
Phil.
vs.
fuliewhyn
R.
Quindoza
DECISION
It
would
clearly appear that the document subject of the falsification
in
this case
is
a birth
certificate.
It
is
a
public
document.
A
public
document,
from
among
others,
is
one created,
executed,
or
issued by
a
public
officer
in response to
the
exigencies
of the
public
service.l2
Public documents
are
the
written
official
acts,
or
records
of
the
official
act of
the sovereign
authority, official
bodies and
tribunals,
and
public
officers,
whether
of the Philippines,
or
a foreign country.l3
Without
doubt, a birth certificate falls under
such
category.
Similarly, the
accused is,
undoubtedly,
a
private
individual as
well, who
has not
been alleged
or
proved
to
be a
public
officer, discharging
a
public
function.
Without
belaboring on these elements
that
have been
proven
by the
prosecution,
the
remaining
query
centers
on whether falsification was
committed and whether the
accused
has indeed
committed
the same
by the specific
manner alleged in
the
information
under
paragraph
2 of Article L71,by
causing
it
to
appear
in
a
document that
a
person,
Ernesto, in
particular, participated
in
a marriage
-
his
marriage
with
Quindoza-
when
in
fact
he did not.
More in
point
did
Quindoza
make
it
appear
in
the
birth
certificate
that
Ernesto
participated
in
a
marriage
with
her,
when no
marriage actually
took
place?
It is
clear
that
a falsity
appears
in
the subject
birth certificate. The
entry in
the
birth
certificate
of
the date
and
place
of
marriage of
Quindoza
and
Ernesto
is
an
apparent falsity
because
they were never
married
and
could not
have
validly
done
so
as
Ernesto
was
still
married
to
another. The
prosecution's
report
of
marriage
proves
with
certainty
that
Ernesto
was married
to
one
Edita
Baltazar.
Quindoza's
allegations in
the
pleadings
she
filed
against Ernesto similarly reveal
that she
knows
of the
existing
marriage
and acknowledges
that
Ernesto is
legally
married to
Baltazar.
The
apparent
falsity in
the
birth
certificate
notwithstanding,
the prosecution
has
not
been
able to
prove
beyond a
whisper of
doubt that it
was
the accused who
committed
the same, and, more
importantly,
in
the
manner
as alleged
in
the
information.
First
off, the accused
is
alleged to
be
the
author
of
the falsification.
The
prosecution
summons the
oft
repeated
principle
that
absent
a
satisfactory
explanation,
one who
is
found
in
possession
of,
and who
has
used
a
forged
document is the forger,
and
therefore,
guilty
of
falsification.
The
principle
is
inapplicable
to the case
at
bar. The
principle
in full,
states
that
if
a
person
had
in
his
possession
a
falsified
document and he
made use
of it
(uttered
it)
taking advantage of
it
and
profiting
thereby,
the
presumption
is that he is
the material
author
of
the
falsification.la
The
presumption
applies
in
cases
where
the
documents
are
susceptible
to
falsification
while
in
the
custody of
the
possessor
and having
the
ease
of effecting
such
falsification,
uses
it
and
profits
from
it.
The
use
attributed
to
the
accused was
when
she attached the said
birth
certificate
to her
complaint
for violation of RA
9262
against Ernesto.ls There is no
profit
attributable
to the
accused by
presenting
the
said
document
at such time, even assuming
for
the
sake
of
argument
that the
falsification was
committed. The
birth
certificate
is
proof
only of the
fact
of
birth and
not the
marriage
of the
parents
of the child.
That
Mergarette
is
the child
of
Quindoza
and Ernesto
is beyond contest.
Accused
could
not
have
used
the
said
document as
proof
of
her marriage
with
Ernesto,
as she even alleged
the
contrary,
that
is, Ernesto was
legally married
to Baltz
^rb
"
R"y"r,
Revised Penal
Code, Book
ll,
18'h
edition,
2OL2,228.
"
Makati
Shangri-la
Hotel
and
Resort,
Inc. v. Harper
et al.,
G.R.
No. 189998, August 29,2012.
'o
People v.
Sendaydieeo,
81 SCRA 120.
tt
Memorandum,
13.
7/21/2019 CC No. 130612 Decisions
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cc-no-130612-decisions 7/9
Crim.
Case
No.
130612
People
of the Phil.
vs.
fuliewhyn
R.
Quindoza
DECISION
Secondly,
the
prosecution
is
adamant
that the
accused
committed
the
acts
of
falsification
that
verily
fall under
paragraph
2
of Article
L71, by making
it
appear
on
the
birth
certificate that
Ernesto
participated
in a marriage
ceremony
that
never
took
place.
The
mode
of
falsification
allegedly
committed is
glaringly
erroneous.
By
causing
the entry of the
date and
place
of
marriage
in
the
birth
certificate
of
Mergarette, the
accused
could
not
have
made
it
appear
that
Ernesto
participated
in a marriage, which
did not
even
take
place.
For one,
the
birth
certificate
is not
proof
of
marriage,
much less,
the
conduct
of
a marriage
ceremony.
For
another,
the
mode
alluded to refers to acts
where,
in
the
very document
itself,
which
proves
the
act
or
proceeding,
a
person
is made
to
appear
to have
participated
in
it
either
by signing his name
or affixing his mark
or
imprint.
It
may
occur for
instance
had
the accused herein,
signed
the
name
of
Ernesto
or
caused
Ernesto's
name
to
be
signed
upon
a
marriage
contract. In
jurisprudence,
the
trove
of
similar
instances
include, having
to affix
marks of those who
did not
participate
in the
making
of
a
payroll
had
participated
therein,
or
placing
the thumb marks
of
voters
opposite
their
names
to
prove
that they
have
voted, when in
fact
they did not.16 No
such
case
is extant herein. The
accused
did not
make
it
appear
that
Ernesto
participated
in
a
marriage
which
did not take
place.
The accused
cannot be
convicted
on such
ground,
The
accused
cannot
similarly be convicted
on another
mode
of
committing
the
crime
of
falsification,
that
is,
by
making
untruthful statements
in
a
narration of facts,
which
was
not
alleged
in
the
information.
Both
the
body
and
the technical
name
given
to
the crime
under
the Revised
Penal
Code
laid
out a
charge
under
Article
17L
(2)
and
not
L7L
(4).
While
the acts alleged in
the
Information
properly
make
out a
iharge
of
falsification
under
Article
777
(2),
the
evidence of
the
prosecution
did
not establish
its
elements.
The act
of
falsification,
if
at all, was
not
proven
to
have
been committed
in the
manner
as alleged
in the Information.
And,
to
convict her
on a mode
not
alleged
in
such
information
is
a
travesty
of her
constitutional
right
to
be informed
of the
nature
and
cause
ofthe
accusation
against her.
ln
Andaya
v. People
of the
Philippines,lT
the
Supreme Court,
citing Il,S. v. Karelsen
enunciated
the
purpose
of the Information,
thus:
The
object
of
this
written
accusation
was
-
First. To
furnish
the
accused
with
such a
description
of the charge
against
him
as
will
enable
him
to
make
his
defense;
and
second, to
avail himself
of his
conviction or
acquittal for
protection
against
a
further
prosecution
for
the
same
cause;
and
third, to
inform
the
court
of the
facts alleged,
so
that
it
may
decide
whether
they
are
sufficient
in law
to support
a
conviction,
if
one
should
be had.
fUnited
States
vs. Cruikshank,g2
U.S.
542.)
In
order
that
this requirement
may be
satisfied, facts
must
be stated,
not
conclusions
of
law. Every
crime
is made
up
of
certain
acts and inten
these
must
be
set
forth
in
the
complaint
with reasonable
particularity
of time,
place,
names
(plaintiff
and
defendantJ,
and
circumstances.
In short,
the
complaint
must
contain
a specific
allegation
of
every fact
and
circumstances
necessary
to constitute
the crime
charged.
It is fundamental
that
every
element
constituting
the
offense
must
be
alleged
in
the information.
The
main
purpose
of requiring
the various
elements
of
a
crime to
be set
out
in
the information
is
to
enable the
accused
to
suitably
prepare
his
defense
because he
is
presumed
to
have
16
Gregorio, Fundamentals
of Criminal
Law Review,
9th ed., 455.
"
G.R.
No. 168486,
June 27, 2006.
5
7/21/2019 CC No. 130612 Decisions
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cc-no-130612-decisions 8/9
Crim. Case No. 130612
People
of
the
Phil.
vs.luliewhyn
R.
Quindoza
DECISION
no independent
knowledge
of the facts
that constitute
the
offense.The
allegations
of
facts constituting
the
offense charged
are substantial
matters
and
an accused's
right
to
question
his
conviction
based on facts
not alleged
in the
information
cannot
be
waived.
No matter
how
conclusive
and
convincing
the evidence
of
guilt
may
be,
an
accused
cannot
be
convicted
of
any
offense unless
it is
charged
in
the
information
on which he is
tried
or
is necessarily
included
therein.3a To
convict
him
of a
ground
not alleged while he is
concentrating
his
defense
against
the
ground
alleged
would
plainly
be unfair and
underhanded. The
rule
is
that a
variance
between the allegation in the
information
and
proof
adduced
during
trial
shall be
fatal
to the criminal
case if
it is
material
and
prejudicial
to
the
accused
so
much
so
that
it
affects his
substantial
rights.lB
More
in
point,
citing
Burgos
v. Sandiganbayan, in
the
same
case,
the
Supreme
Court
similarly
stated
that the court
cannot convict the accused
under
another mode
of
committing
a crime different from that alleged
in the information
without
trampling
upon the
right
ofthe
accused
to
due
process,
thus:
Similarly,
in
the
case
of
Burgos v.
Sandiganbayan,al
we
upheld the
constitutional
right of the
accused
to
be informed
of the
accusation
against him
in a
case
involving a
variance between
the
means of
committing the
violation
of
Section
3[e)
of
R.A.
3019
alleged in the
information
and
the means found
by the Sandiganbayan:
Common
and foremost
among
the
issues
raised
by
petitioners
is the
argument
that the
Sandiganbayan
erred in coitvicting them
on
a
finding
of fact
that
was
not
alleged
in
the information. They
contend
that
the
information
charged
them
with
having
allowed
payment
of
PB3,B50
to
Ricardo
Castafleda
despite
being aware and knowing fully well that
the
surveying instruments
were
not
actually repaired and rendered
functional/operational.
However,
their conviction
by the
Sandiganbayan was
based on
the finding
that the surveying instruments
were
not repaired
in accordance
with
the
specifications
contained in
the
job
orders.x x x
x
In criminal
cases, where the
life and
liberty
of the
accused
is
at
stake,
due
process
requires
that
the
accused
be informed
of
the
nature
and
cause
of the
accusation
against him. An
accused
cannot
be
convicted of
an
offense
unless it
is
clearly
charged
in the complaint
or
information.
To
convict him
of an offense
other than that
charged
in
the complaint or
information
would
be
a
violation
of this
constitutional
right. The
important
end
to
be accomplished
is
to describe
the
act
with sufficient
certainty in
order
that
the
accused
may
be appraised
of the nature
of
the
charge
against
him
and
to avoid
any
possible
surprise
that may lead
to injustice.
Otherwise,
the
accused
would
be
left in
the unenviable
state
of
speculating
why
he is
made
the object
of a
prosecution.There
is no
question
that
the manner
of
commission
alleged
in the
information
and
the
act
the
Sandiganbayan
found to have
been
committed are
both
violations
of
Section
3[e)
of
R.A.
3019. Nonetheless,
they
are and
remain
two
different means
of execution
and, even
if reference
to Section
3[e)
of R.A.
3019
has
been made
in
the information,
appellants' conviction
"
Citations omitted.
7/21/2019 CC No. 130612 Decisions
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cc-no-130612-decisions 9/9
Crim.
Case No.
130612
People
of the Phil.
vs.
Juliewhyn
R.
Quindoza
DECISION
should
only
be based
on
that which
was
charged,
or
included,
in
the
information.
Otherwise,
there would
be a
violation of
their
constitutional
right
to
be
informed
of
the
nature
of
the accusation
against
them.
In
sum,
in
all criminal
prosecutions,
the
burden of
proof
is
on
the
prosecution
to
establish
the
guilt
of
the
accused beyond
reasonable
doubt.z8 It
has the duty
to
prove
each
and
every
element
of the crime
charged in
the
information
to
warrant
a
finding of
guilt
for the
said crime
or
for
any other
crime
necessarily included
therein.
In
the
absence
of
such
stringent
proof,
the acquittal
of
the
accused
must
follow.
WHEREFORE,
for
failure
of the
prosecution
to
prove
the
guilt
of the accused
Juliewhynn
Quindoza
beyond
reasonable
doubt,
she
is
hereby found
NOT
GUILTY
and
is
ACQUITTED
of
the
charge of
Falsification
of Public Document.
SO
ORDERED,
ISSUED
IN
CHAMBERS,
this 9ft day
of
November
20L5,
Baguio City.