Republic of the PhilippinesMunicipal Trial Court in Cities

FirstJudicial RegionSecond Branch

Baguio City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Plaintiff,

-aersilt-

JULTEST/HYN R. QUINDOZA,Accused.

CRIMINAL CASE NOS. 130612

Fot: FALSIFICATION OF PUBLICDOCUMENT BY A PRIVATEINDIVIDUAL

DrCISIONThe 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 oppositeends. Accused initially filed a criminal case against the private complainant herein. In atwist of fate, her complaint became the fount of this present prosecution for Falsificationof a Public Document.

0n June 3, 20L3, the 0ffice of the City Prosecutor of Baguio CiW PCP-Baguio)charged the accused Juliewhyn R. Quind oza (Quindoza) with the crime of Falsification ofPublic Document by a Private Individual upon the complaint of Ernesto Llmas De LosSantos (Ernesto), committed as follows:

Infbrmation

That on or about December 4,1993 , in the City of Baguio,Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, theabove-named accused, a private individual, did then and there,willfully, unlawfully and feloniously falsifu the certificate of LiveBirth of one Margarett Veronica Quindoza De Los Santos, a publicdocument by supplying all the entries therein, such as the name ofERNEST) LLAMAS DEL)S SANT)S, herein private complainant, asthe father of Margarett Veronica Quindoza De Los Santos and aswell as in particular the DATE AND PLACE 0F MARRIAGE 0FPARENTS as December 15, 1991 at Pansol, Laguna, wherein theaccused made and caused it to appear that Ernesto L. De Los Santosparticipated in a marriage ceremony when in truth and in fact, theaccused knows fully well that they were not married to each otherand neither has there been a marriage ceremony wherein they bothtook their vows of matrimony, more particularly on December 15,1991 at Pansol. Laguna and such falsification was only discoveredby Ernesto De Los Santos, herein private complainant sometime onSeptember 23, 2011 when the accused filed a complaint againsthim and she utilized and introduced the said falsified Certificate ofLive Birth as her evidence, to the damage and prejudice of ErnestoDe Los Santos.

CONTRARY TO LAW,

quash the information, which motion wasThe accused was then arraigned with the

O

Accused initially filed a motion todenied by the court on August B, 2013.

Crim. Case No. 130612People of the Phil. vs. fuliewhyn R. QuindozaDECISION

assistance of her counsel de parte, Atty. Clarence Villanueva, and entered a plea of notguilty to the offense charged. Pre-trial was set and ensued on May 5, 20L4.ln theinterim, a string of appearances of private counsels were entered for the prosecution,beginning with private prosecutor Atty. fudith Z. Luiz. She was joined by AttorneysRichard Garcia and Rosanne Rarang as collaborating counsels. Atty. Luiz later withdrewher appearance as private prosecutor.

No stipulations were entered into during the pre-trial. The prosecution markedtheir 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 (ExhB); 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 witnessesidentified and issues defined, trial of the case ensued. On June 2,20'14, upon motion ofthe accused, through counsel, the pre-trial order dated May 5, 2074,was,amended in theinterest 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 theirtwo witnesses, Virgil Patrick De Los Santos, the son of private complainant Ernesto, andGerard Tolito, the outlet supervisor of the "Census Serbilis Center" and representative ofthe Philippine Statistics Office. Both witnesses executed their respective judicialaffidavits, 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 hisfather's estranged common-law wife testified herein. Virgil stated that in Quindoza'sComplaint-Affidavitl for R.A 9262, which she filed against Ernesto, Quindoza attached aCertificate 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, 1997 - Pansol, Laguna."Virgil decries the same to be an utter falsity because Quindoza and Ernesto were nevermarried on the date and at the place stated, as his father Ernesto was already married toEdita Castillo Baltazar at the time of the execution of the Certificate of Live Birth. It waseven Virgil who assisted Ernesto in securing certified copies of their Marriage Contractwith Baltazar, thus, he saw for himself the document evidencing such marriage. Virgilaverred further that the entries in the Certificate of Live Birth had one JuliewhynneDelos Santos, with a signature "Jdelossantos" affixed, as informant. Yet Quindoza herselfalleged in her pleadings for RA 9262 that Ernesto's legitimate wife is Baltazar.

0n cross-examination, Virgil had no qualms admitting that he, too, is anillegitimate child of Ernesto. And, that at the time of birth of her half-sister Mergarett, hewas only L3 years old, and was not present when the birth certificate was prepared orsigned.

Gerard Tolito, the outlet supervisor in charge of "Census Serbilis Center" of thePhilippine Statistics Authority [PSA), also took the stand for the prosecution. He testifiedon the organization of the PSA and how civil registry documents find their way to theiroffice and into the Civil Registry System Database and how the public can access thesedocuments. Prefatorily, he averred that the Census Serbilis Center issues civil registrydocuments like birth certificates, marriage certificates and death certificates, to thepublic' As an outlet supervisor, he has the authority to attest to the authenticity and t

1Exhibit "A".

' Exhibit "8".

Crim. Case No. 130612People of the Phil. vs. fuliewhyn R. euindozaDECISION

genuineness of civil registry documents issued by the PSA, which can be determined bychecking if the printout is on security paper, and if the codes and serial numbersappearing in the printout, as well as the authorized signatures appearing thereon wereauthentic. In this case, Tolito confirmed that the document, which purports to be aCertificate of Live Birth of Mergarette Veronica Q. De los Santos, is a certiiied true copyof the Certificate of Live Birth duly issued by the PSA. He similarly confirmed theauthenticity of the marriage contract between Ernesto and Baltazar. Tolito clarified thatthat there is no ready-made printout for a Certificate of No Marriage or CENOMARbecause their office is required to search marriage indices every time aiequest thereforis received, if only to ascertain any change in the status of a particular individual. TheCENOMAR3 issued in the name of Private Complainant by the pSAa bears all theearmarks of authenticity as per his verification. On cross-examination, Tolito counseledthat when a person requests for a CENOMAR and it appears that the person has aregistered marriage, the PSA issues an Advisory of Marriage and not a CENOMAR.

After their testimony, the prosecution's Exhibits "A',, ,,8,,,,,D,, and ,,E,, wereadmitted in evidence for the prosecution and with such admission, they rested theircase. s

EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE

The defense presented their lone witness, Gilda Beleno (Beleno),an employee ofthe University of Manila (UMJ where Quindoza was a former student and where Ernestoserved as Executive Vice President and University Registrar. Beleno was also anemployee of the Baguio Pines Tourist Inn [BPTIJ, a hotel owned by UM, where Ernestowas former General Manager, and her superior.

Beleno knows Quindoza and confirmed further that she was present whenQuindoza gave birth to Mergaret! her daughter with Ernesto, by caesarean section onDecember 4, 7993 at the Baguio Medical Center by caesarean section. She waspersonally instructed by Ernesto to accompany Quindoza during childbirth and she wasthere from about 4 o'clock in the afternoon until the even-ing. While she was atQuindoza's room at about B:30 o'clock that same evening a nurse came to ask Quindozaabout the factual data for Mergarett's Birth Certificate since it was the hospital,i duty tocause 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 wenthome to BPTI and handed the blank Birth Certificate Form to Ernesto before she went tobed. In the morning, Ernesto handed her back the Birth Certificate form as she wasabout to leave for the market, with the specific instruction to bring and submit it to thehospital. The blank spaces in the form, save for the child's weight r-t bi.th, 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 iot personally see himaccomplish the form, it was Ernesto, she claims, who filled out the entry on item no.'J,Zrelative to the date and place of marriage of the child's parents becauie all the entrieswere done in Ernesto's handwriting. She was very familiar with his handwriting havingbeen under his employ at BPTI. Thus, as instructed, upon reaching the hospitrt, g.tinohanded the form to the same nurse from whom she reteived it, wiih the assurance thatthe hospital shall be responsible for submitting the same for registration.

Belino was certain that sometime in 200L, Ernesto was able to obtain a copy ofMergarett's birth certificate because she secured one for him. Belino recalled thai she

t Exhibit "c".

o Judi.ial Affidavit of Gdrard Tolitos

See order, September 22, 20L4

Crim. Case No. 130612People of the Phil. vs. fuliewhyn R. euindozaDECISION

was instructed by Ernesto to secure a copy of Mergarett's Birth Certificate for her firstcommunion. she did as instructed and handed the copy to Ernesto.6

On cross-examination, Belino said that she was assigned at the front desk of BpTIsometime in 2001 until 2003. Because Ernesto was their general manager, she usuallydid what was asked of her, even when the same was not part of trei ;on. Thus, onDecember 4, L993, she went to the hospital because Ernesto asked her to accompanyQuindoza. She had no personal relations with Quindoza as she was merely introduced toher by Ernesto as his girlfriend. Belino recalled that she handed the blank BirthCertificate form to Ernesto in the evening and it was returned to her the followingmorning with the entries already filled up. She admitted, however, that she was neitherwith Ernesto nor Quindoza the entire time from December 4 until December 5, l-993 anddid not see either of them fill up the form. She was unable to recognize the signatureappearing in the birth certificate above the name fuliewhyn Delos Santos. And, while shewas very familiar with the signature of Ernesto, his signature does not appear anywherein the birth certificate.T While she claims that she got a copy of tlie subjeit birthcertificate way back in 2001 from the NSO, she does not recall having signed anydocument to show that she received the same, except for the request she signed, whicirshe was unable to present in Court as well. She handed the Birth Certificate to Ernesto asshe alleged she did without making any acknowredgment receipt.

The defense, having no other witness to present and no documentary evidence toformally offer, rested their case. The case was therefor submitted for decision with thesole issue of whether or not accused Quindoza may be held liable for Falsification of aPublic Document by a Private Individual under Article 172 in relation to Article 1,Tt (l)ofthe Revised Penal Code.

FAISIFICATION OF PUBLICDOCUMENT BY A PRIVATEINDIVIDUAL

Quindoza is charged with the offense of Falsification of public document in themanner alleged in the Information as:

That on or about December 4,1995 , in the CiLy of Baguio,Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, theabove-named accused, a private individual, did then and there,willfully, unlawfully and feloniously falsify the certificate of LiveBirth of one Margarett Veronica Quindoza De Los Santos, a publicdocument by supplying all the entries therein, such as the name ofERNESTO LLAMAS DELOS SANTOS, herein private complainant, asthe father of Margarett Veronica Quindoza De Los Santos and aswell as in particular the DATE AND ?LACE OF MARRIAGE OFPARENTS as December 15, 1991 at pansol, Laguna, wherein theaccused made and caused it to appear that Ernesto L. De LosSantos participated in a marriage ceremony when in truth andin facl the accused knows fully well that they were notmarried to each other and neither has there been a marriageceremony wherein they both took their vows of matrimony,more particularly on December 75, 7997 at pansol. Lagunaand such falsiftcation was only discovered by Ernesto De LosSantos, herein private complainant sometime on September23, 2077 when the accused filed a complaint against him andshe utilized and introduced the said fatsified certificate of Live

t Judicial Affidavit of Gilda Beleno.

7 TSN, August 10, 2015, 5.

Crim. Case No. 130612People of the Phil. vs. Juliewhyn R. QuindozaDECISION

Birth as her evidence, to the damage and prejudice of ErnestoDe Los Santos.a

Falsification of documents under paragraph l-, Article !72s in relation to Article17t10 (2) of the Revised Penal Code refers to falsification by a private individual, or apublic 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 oremployee who did not take advantage of his official position;

[2) that he committed any of the acts of falsification enumeratedin Article 171 of the RPC; and

[3J that the falsification was committed in a public, official orcommercial document.ll

The accused herein is particularly charged under paragraph 2 of Article 17!,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 faci so participate inthe act or proceeding.

Assaying the evidence of the prosecution to prove the elements ofcharged, it has sufficiently proven that the document subject of the offense

the offenseis a public

document and that the accused herein is a private individual.

' Boldface ours.n

An. 172. Falsyfication by pritate inclividuals and use of fatsified docwnents.- The penaltymaximum periods and a fine ofnot more than 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon:

of prision correccional in its medium and

l. Any private individual who shall commit any of the lalsifications enumerated in the next precedingartlcle in any public or olficial document or letter ofexchange or any other kind ofcommercial document; and

2- Any persou who, to the damage of a third party, or with the intent to cause such damage, shall in a1yprivate document commit any ofthe acts offalsification enumerated in the next preceding article.

Any person who shall knowingly itrtroduce irr evidence in any judicial proceeding or to the damage of another orwho, with the intent to cause such damage, shall use any ofthe false documents embraced in the uext preceding article or inany ofthe foregoing subdivisions ofthis article, shall be punished by the penalty next lower in degree.

10ART. 171. Folsification by public officer, employee or notory or ecclesiastic minister. - The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to

exceed 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his officialposition, 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. Aitering true dates;6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning;7. Issuing 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; or8. lntercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official book.

The same penalty shall be imposed upon any ecclesiastical minister who shall commit any of the offenses enumerated in thepreceding paragraphs of this article, with respect to any record or document of such character that its falsification may affect the civilstatus of persons.77

Panuncio v. People of the Philippines, 165678, )uly 17 ,2009

Crim. Case No. 130612People of the Phil. vs. |uliewhyn R. euindozaDECISION

It would clearly appear that the document subject of the falsification in this caseis a birth certificate. It is a public document. A public documen! from among others, isone created, executed, or issued by a public officer in response to the exigeniies of thepublic service.l2 Public documents are the written official acts, or records of the officialact of the sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public officers, whetherof the Philippines, or a foreign country.l3 Without doubt, a birth certificate falls undersuch category. Similarly, the accused is, undoubtedly, a private individual as well, whohas 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 theaccused has indeed committed the same by the specific manner alleged in theinformation under paragraph 2 of Article 771,by causing it to appear in a document thata person, Ernesto, in particular, participated in a marriage - his marriage with Quindoza-when in fact he did not. More in poin! did Quindoza make it appear in the birthcertificate that Ernesto participated in a maruiage with her, when no marriage actuallytook place?

It is clear that a falsity appears in the subject birth certificate. The entry in thebirth certificate of the date and place of marriage of Quin doza and Ernesto is anapparent falsity because they were never married and could not have validly done so asErnesto was still married to another. The prosecution's report of marriage proves withcertaintythat Ernesto was married to one Edita Baltazar. Quindoza's allegations in thepleadings she filed against Ernesto similarly reveal that she knows of the existingmarriage and acknowledges that Ernesto is legally married to Baltazar.

The apparent falsity in the birth certificate notwithstanding, the prosecution hasnot been able to prove beyond a whisper of doubt that it was the accused whocommitted 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. Theprosecution 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. Theprinciple in full, states that if a person had in hrs possession a falsified document and hemade use of it (uttered it) taking advantage of it and profiting thereby, thepresumption is that he is the material author of the falsification.la The presumptionapplies in cases where the documents are susceptible to falsification while in thecustody of the possessor and having the ease of effecting such falsification, uses it andprofits from it. The use attributed to the accused was when she attached the said birthcertificate to her complaint for violation of RA 9262 against Ernesto.ls There is no profitattributable to the accused by presenting the said document at such time, even assumingfor the sake of argument that the falsification was committed. The birth certificate isproof only of the fact of birth and not the marriage of the parents of the child. ThatMergarette is the child of Quindoza and Ernesto is beyond contest. Accused could nothave used the said document as proof of her marriage with Ernesto, as she even allegedthe contrary, that is, Ernesto was legally married to Balta ^rb

" R"y"., Revised Penal Code, Book ll, 18'h edition, 2Of2,22g.

" Makati shangri-la Hotel and Resort, Inc. v. Harper et al. , G.R. No. 1g999g, August 29,2012.ta People v. Sendaydiego, 81 SCRA 120.

ts Memorandum, 13.

Crim. Case No. 130612People of the Phil. vs. Juliewhyn R. QuindozaDECISION

Secondly, the prosecution is adamant that the accused committed the acts offalsification that verily fall under paragraph 2 of Article 17l by making it appear on thebirth certificate that Ernesto participated in a marriage ceremony that never took place.

The mode of falsification allegedly committed is glaringly erroneous. By causingthe entry of the date and place of marriage in the birth certificate of Mergarette, theaccused could not have made it appear that Ernesto participated in a marriage, whichdid 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 actswhere, in the very document itself, which proves the act or proceeding, a person is madeto appear to have participated in it either by signing his name or affixing his mark orimprint. It may occur for instance had the accused herein, signed the name of Ernesto orcaused Ernesto's name to be signed upon a marriage contract. In jurisprudence, thetrove of similar instances include, having to affix marks of those who did not participatein the making of a payroll had participated therein, or placing the thumb marks of votersopposite their names to prove that they have voted, when in fact they did not.16 No suchcase is extant herein. The accused did not make it appear that Ernesto participated in amarriage which did not take place. The accused cannot be convicted on such ground.

The accused cannot similarly be convicted on another mode of committing thecrime 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 tothe crime under the Revised Penal Code laid out a charge under Article L71 (2) and notl7t (4). While the acts alleged in the Information properly make out a iharge offalsification under Article t7L (2), the evidence of the prosecution did not establish itselements. The act of falsification, if at all, was not proven to have been committed in themanner as alleged in the Information. And, to convict her on a mode not alleged in suchinformation is a travesty of her constitutional right to be informed of the nature andcause of the accusation against her.

ln Andaya v. People of the Philippines, 17 the Supreme Court, citing U.S. v. Karelsenenunciated the purpose of the Inforrnation, thus:

The object of this written accusation was - First. To furnish the accusedwith such a description of the charge against him as will enable him tomake his defense; and second, to avail himself of his conviction oracquittal for protection against a further prosecution for the samecause; and third, to inform the court of the facts alleged, so that it maydecide whether they are sufficient in law to support a conviction, if oneshould be had. fUnited States vs. Cruiksh ank,92 U.S. 542,J In order thatthis requirement may be satisfied, facts must be stated, not conclusionsof law. Every crime is made up of certain acts and inten! these must beset forth in the complaint with reasonable particularity of time, place,names (plaintiff and defendantJ, and circumstances. In shor! thecomplaint must contain a specific allegation of every fact andcircumstances necessary to constitute the crime charged.

It is fundamental that every element constituting the offense must bealleged in the information. The main purpose of requiring the variouselements of a crime to be set out in the information is to enable theaccused to suitably prepare his defense because he is presumed to have

16 Gregorio, Fundamentals of Criminal Law Review, 9th ed., 455,t' G.R. No. 168486, June 27, 2006.

o

Crim. Case No. 130612People of the Phil. vs. )uliewhyn R. QuindozaDECISION

no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense.Theallegations of facts constituting the offense charged are substantialmatters and an accused's right to question his conviction based on factsnot alleged in the information cannot be waived. No matter howconclusive and convincing the evidence of guilt may be, an accusedcannot be convicted of any offense unless it is charged in theinformation on which he is tried or is necessarily included therein.3a Toconvict him of a ground not alleged while he is concentrating hisdefense against the ground alleged would plainly be unfair andunderhanded. The rule is that a variance between the allegation in theinformation and proof adduced during trial shall be fatal to the criminalcase if it is material and prejudicial to the accused so much so that itaffects his substantial rights.ta

More in point, citing Burgos v. Sandiganbayan, in the same case, the SupremeCourt similarly stated that the court cannot convict the accused under another mode ofcommitting a crime different from that alleged in the information without tramplingupon the right ofthe accused to due process, thus:

Similarly, in the case of Burgos v. Sandiganbayan,at we upheld theconstitutional right of the accused to be informed of the accusationagainst him in a case involving a variance between the means ofcommitting the violation of Section 3[e) of R.A. 3019 alleged in theinformation and the means found by the Sandiganb ayani

common and foremost among the issues raised by petitioners is theargument that the Sandiganbayan erred in coirvicting them on a findingof fact that was not alleged in the information. They contend that theinformation charged them with having allowed payment of pB3,B50 toRicardo Castafleda despite being aware and knowing fully well that thesurveying instruments were not actually repaired and renderedfunctional/operational. However, their conviction by theSandiganbayan was based on the finding that the surveying instrumentswere not repaired in accordance with the specifications contained inthe 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 andcause of the accusation against him. An accused cannot be convicted ofan offense unless it is clearly charged in the complaint or information.To convict him of an offense other than that charged in the complaint orinformation would be a violation of this constitutional right. Theimportant end to be accomplished is to describe the act with sufficientcertainty in order that the accused may be appraised of the nature ofthe charge against him and to avoid any possible surprise that may leadto injustice. otherwise, the accused would be left in the unenviable stateof speculating why he is made the object of a prosecution.There is noquestion that the manner of commission alleged in the information andthe act the Sandiganbayan found to have been committed are bothviolations of Section 3[e) of R.A. 3019. Nonetheless, they are and remaintwo different means of execution and, even if reference to Section 3(eJof R.A. 3019 has been made in the information, appellants' conviction x

t)" Citrtion, omitted.

Crim. Case No. 130612People of the Phil. vs. fuliewhyn R. euindozaDECISION

should only be based on that which was charged, or included, in theinformation. otherwise, there would be a violation of theirconstitutional right to be informed of the nature of the accusationagainst them.

In sum, in all criminal prosecutions, the burden of proof is on the prosecution toestablish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.ze It has the duty to proveeach and every element of the crime charged in the information to warrant a finding ofguilt for the said crime or for any other crime necessarily included therein. In theabsence of such stringent proof, the acquittal of the accused must follow.

WHEREFORE, for failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accusedfuliewhynn Quindoza beyond reasonable doubq she is heleby found NOT GUILTY and isACQUITTED of the charge of Falsification of public Document.

SO ORDERED.

IssuED IN CHAMBERS, this 9e day of November 2015, Baguio city.