Reoublic of the PliiliPPinePfuni'ciP al Ttial Court in Crtres

iirst Tudicial RegionSecond Branch

Baguio CrtY

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Plaintifl

-aers,'ls-

JULIE$rHYN R. QUINDOZL,Accused.

CRIMINAL CASE NOS. L30612

FOT: FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC

DOCUMENT BY A PRIVATEINDI\rIDUAI

DrCISI()NThepartieshereinarenostrangerstoeachother.Yet,whatrelationstheymay

have had that bound them in the prr, "hu,

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, t .r conlitrirt n..urne the fount of tnit present prosecution for Falsification

of a Public Document.

on June 3, 201.3, the office of the City Prosecutor of Baguio City ()CP-Baguio)

charged the accused luliewhyn R. Qurnd oza (i)uindoza) withthe crime of Falsification of

public Document [V', p.irrrle Individuat uion the complaint of Ernesto Llmas De Los

Santos (Ernesto),committed as follows:

Information

That on or about December 4,1993 ' in the City of Baguio'

Philippines,andwithinthejurisdictionof-thisHonorableCourt,the,boii-ro*rd accused, a private individttal, did then and there,

wittlutty,unlawfullyandjetoniouslyfalsifythecertificateofLiueAirth ii one t,tirgirett Vironica Quindoza De Los Santos, a public

ctocumLnt by sufplying all the entries therein, such as the name of

ERNESTO [terues ogt1s iANT7S, herein private complainant' as

the father of Margarett Veronica Quindoza De Los Santos and as

weil as in partiilar the DATE AND PLACE OF MARRIAGE OF

.PARENTSa'sDecember15,1991atPansol'Laguna'whereintheaccusedmadeandcausedittoappearthatErnestoL,DeLosSantosparticipated in a marriage cereiony when in truth and in fact, the

accise'd knows fully well that they were not married to each other

ancl neither has there been a marriage ceremony wherein the-lt bot!

tooktheirvowsofmatrimony,moreparticularlyonDecemberlS,1991 at Pansol. Laguna and such fatsification was only discovered

byErnestoDeLosSantos,hereinprivatecomplainantsometimeonSeptember23,20llwhentheaccusedfiledacomplaintagainsthim 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.

Accused initially filed a motion to

denied by the court on August B, Z0L3'quash the information, which motion

The accused was then arraigned withwasthe

5

Crim. Case No. 130612 2

P;;;iilfiie ptrit. vs. f uliewhvn R' Quindoza

DECISION

a$sistance of her counsel de parte, Atty. clarence villanueva, and entered a plea of not

guilty to the offense charged. p."-t.iit was set and ensued on May 5' 20t4' In the

interim, a string oi rpp"uiunces of private counsels were entered for the prosecution'

beginning with privite prosecutor Atty. Judith Z. Luiz' She was ioined by Attorneys

Richard Garcia and Rosanne Rarang as iollaborating 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 0cP-Baguio

(Exh A); the Certificate"of Live Birth of Mergirett Veronica Quindoza Delos Santos [Exh

BJ; Certification of No Marriage [Exh CJ; unJ th" Affidavit of Virgil Delos Santos [Exh D)

The defense did not have aiy -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, Z}!4'was amended in the

interest of justice, io include on. Gildu 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 Sant"os, the son of private complainant Ernesto' and

Gerard rolito, the outlet supervisor of the "census Serbilis center" and representative of

the philippine Statistics bffi... Both witnesses executed their respective judicial

affidavits, which comprised their direct testimonies in this case'

The private complainant Ernesto never came forth to testiff 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 i.ttifi"a herein. Virgil stated that in Quindoza's

complaint-Affidavitl for R.A g262,which she filed against Ernesto, Quindoza attached a

Certificate of Live Birthz 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 parent S, as "December L5, 1991 - Pansol, Laguno'"

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 theiocument evidencing such marriage' Virgil

averred further that the entries in the Certificate of Live Birth had one fuliewhynne-

Delos Santos, with a signature "Jdelossanto.s" affixed, as informant. Yet Quindoza herself

alleged in her pleadingi for ItA 9262 thatErnesto's legitimate wife is Baltazar.

On cross-examination, Virgil had no qualms admitting that he' too' is an

illegitimate child of Ernesto. And, tliat at the time of birth of her half-sister Mergarett, he

was only 1-3 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 regisffy documents find their way to their

office and into the Civil Registry System Database and how the public can access these

documents. prefatorily, heiveired 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 i

' E*hibit "A".2

Exhibit "8".

T3Crim. Case No. 130612F;;pie;Ithe pfril-vs. Iuliewhvn R' QuindozaDECISION

gonuineness 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 contraclbetween Ernesto and Baltazar' Tolito clarified that

that there is no ready-rnade printout for a Certificate of No Marriage or CENOMAR

because their office is required to search marriage indices every time a request therefor

is received, if only to ascertain any change in the status of a particular individual' The

CENOMAR3 issued in the name of Private Complainant by the PSAa bears all the

earmarks of authenticity as per his verification. on cross-examination, Tolito counseled

that when a person ,"qu"rt, for a CENOMAR and it appears that the person has a

registered mairiage, the pSa issues an Advisory of Marriage and not a CENOMAR'

After their testimony, the proSeCutiOn'S ExhibitS "A", "B", "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 Viie 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, 1gg3 at the Baguio Medical Center by caesarean section. She was

personally instructed by Ernesto to accompany Quindoza during childbirth and she was

ih".u 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

atout 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 ast<ed the nurse to leave the form to be filled out by Ernesto. Belino then went

home to BPTI and handed the blank Birth Certificate Form to Ernesto before she went to

bed. In the morning, Ernesto handed her back the Birth Certificate form as she was

about to leave for the market, with the specific instruction to bring and submit it to the

hospital. The blank spaces in the form, save for the child's weight at birth, the attendant

the informant and who received the same from the local civil registrar, were, by then,

already filled out with the entries written in pencil. While she did not personally see him

u..o*plirh the form, it was Ernesto, she claims, who filled out the entry on item no.1"Z

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

hauded 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.

t Belino was certain that sometime in 2001, Ernesto was able to obtain a copy of

Mergarett's birth certificate because she secured one for him. Belino recalled that she

' Exhibit "c".o ludicial Affidavit of Gerard Tolitos

See order , September 22,20L4

4

F:'#iStl'ril!"1ili3f" ?"t,.whvn R. Quin d oza

DECISION

was instructed by Ernesto to secure a copy of Mergarett's Birth Certificate for her first

communion.ShedidasinstructedandhandedthecopytoErnesto.6

on cross-examination, Belino said that she was assigned at the front desk of BPTI

sometime in 2001 until 2003. Because Ernesto was their general manager' she usually

did what was asked of her, even when the same was not part of her job' Thus' on

December 4,1gg3, She went to the hospital becau.se Ernesto asked her to accompany

a;';ffi; Sl";;;;" personal relations *itn quittdoza as she was merely introduced to

her by Ernesto as his girlfriend. Belino ,u.rU"d that she handed the blank Birth

certificate form to Ernesto in the evening and it was returned to her the following

morning with the Lntries already filled up.}he admitted, however, that she was neither

with Ernesto nor Quindoza the entire ii.'" f.o* December 4 until December 5' 1993 and

did not see either of them fill up the form. She was unable to recognize the signature

appearing in the birth certificate above the name |uliewhyn Delos Santos' And' while she

was very familiar with the signature of Ernesto, his signature does not appear anywhere

in the birth certificate.T While she claims that she got a copy -9{ 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

ihe alleged she did without making any acknowledgment receipt.

The defense, having no other witness to present and no documentary evidenceto

formally offer, restld theii case. The case was iherefor submitted for decision with the

sole issue of whether or not u..ur.d Quindoza may be held riable for Falsification of a

public Document by a private Individuil under Article L7z in relation to Article L77 (L)

ofthe Revised Penal Code.

FATSIFICATION OF PUBLICDOCUMENT 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,andwithinthejurisdictionofthisHonorableCourt,theaboii-named accused, a private individual, did then and there'

willfulty, untawfully and feloniously falsify the cerfficate of Live

Afrth of one Margarett Veronica Quindoza De Los -Santos'

a public

documLnt by sufplying alt the entries therein, such as the name of

ERNESTO [teues DELOS SANTOS, herein private complainant' as

the father of Margarett Veronica Quindoza De Los Santos qnd as

weli as in particular the DATE AND qLACE OF MARRTAGE 0F

PAfiENfSasDecemberlS,l"ggLatPansol,Laguna'whereintheaccusedmadeandcausedittoappearthatErnestoL.DeLosSantos participated in a marriage ceremony when in truth and

in faci, the accused knows fully well that they were not

mirrie:d to each other and neither has there been a marriage

ceremony wherein they both took their vows of matrimony'

more pirticutarly on December 75, 7997 at Pansol' Laguna

and sich falsification was only discovered by Ernesto De Los

Santos, herein private complainant sometime on September

23, 2077 whenihe accrsud filed a complaint against him and

sheutilizedandintroducedthesoidfalsifiedCertificdt,eofLive

u Judicial Affidavit of Gilda Beleno'

7 TSN, August L0, 2015, 5.

g

Crint. Case No. I3061"FL'J'ii J'6?i rrlii't I r.

"'l i,rl i ewhv n R' Qu in doza

DECISION

Birth as her evidence, to the damage and preiutlice of Ernesto

De Los Sc.ntos'8

Falsification of documents under paragraph 1, Article LTZT in relation to Article

t7llo [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)thattheoffenderisaprivateindividualorapublicofficeroremployeewhodidnottakeadvantageofhisofficialposition;

.r (2) that he committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated

in Article 1'71' of the RPC; and

[3]thatthefalsificationWaScommittedinapublic,officialorcommercial document'11

The accused herein is particularly charged under paragraph 2 of Article 171'

which bears the following requisites:

[1J that the offender caused itperson or persons participated

to appear in a document that a

in an act or Proceeding ; and

[2)thatsttchpersonorpersonsdidnotinfactSoparticipateinthe act or Proceeding'

Assaying the evidence of the prosecutiou to prove the elements of the offense

charged, it has sufficiently proven thit the document subject of the offense is a public

docu]nent and that the aciused herein is a private individual 63,l

t Boldface ours., An. 172- Falsificarion by priv(ite indiyirluals and use of Jalsrfied tloctntenls. - The penalfy of prisiott cort'eccional in its medium and

maximurn periods and a fine of not more than 5'000 pesos shall be imposed upon:

l. Any private inrtiviaua't'wtro'rtoit "u,r,rlit any of the falsiflcations enumerated in the next preceding

article in any public or omciat'alcument or letter of exihurge o, any other kind of commercial document; and

2. Any person who, to the damage of a third party, oi *ittl rir" intent to cause such damage, shall in any

private document comnlit any of the acti of falsification enumerated in the next preceding article'

Any person who shall knowingly introduce in evidence in any judicial proceeding or to the damage of another or

who, with the intent to cause such damage, ,rruti ur" any ofthe thlse-documents etrbraced in the next preceding article or in

any of the tt *g"l"g rrUirlri""r olthis irticle, shall be punished by the penatty next lower in degree'

to aRT. tz1. Falsification 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 official

position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts:

1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwritlng' siSnature or rubric;

2. causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so

participate;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 he a copy of an original document when no such

original exists, or including in such a copy of a statement tont"l.y to, or different from' that of the genuine original; or

g. lntercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official book'

The same penalty shall be imposed upon any ecclesiastical minister who shall commit any of the offenses enumerated in the

preceding paragraphs of this article, with respect to any record or document of such character that its falsification may affect the civil

status of persons.t1

P.nrn.io r. People of the Philippines, 165678, July tl ,2009

Crim. Case No. 130612Fil;i;;?ihe ptrit. vs. Juliewhvn 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.lz Public document. '.* ah. 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 b-v the prosecution,

the remaining query centers on whether falsification was committed and wheth.er the

accused has indeed committed the same by the specific manner alleged in the

information under pr.ugrupt 2 of Article t71r by causing it to appear in a document that

a person, Ernesto, in particular, participated in i marriage - his marriage with Quindoza-

when in fact he did not. More in foint, did Quindoia make it appear in the birth

certificate that frnesto 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 enffy in the

birth certificate of the date and place of marriage of Quindoza and Ernesto is an

apparent falsity because they were never mamied and could not have validly done so as

Erhesto was still married to another' The prosecution's report of marriage proves with

certainty that Ernesto was married to on" Edita Baltazar' Quindoza's allegations in the

pleadings she filed against Ernesto similarly reveal that she knows of the existing

marriage and ackno*[dg"t that Ernesto is legally married to Baltazar' .

The apparent falsity in the birth certificate notwithstanding, the prosecution has

not been aUte to p.orr. Leyond a whisper of doubt that it was the accused who

committed the same, and, more importantly, in the manner as alleged in the information'

Firstoff,theaccusedisallegedtobetheauthorofthefalsification'Theprosecution summons the oft repeateJ 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

frlrifi.ution. The principle is inapplicable to^the-case at bar' The

principle in full, stites that if a person nia n [,t potsession a falsified document and he

made use of it (utttered ii) t'aking advantage- o! it and profiting thereby' the

presumption is th-at he is the *otrliot 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 rhere is no profit

attributable to the accused by presenting the said document at such time, even assuming

for the sake of argument thai the falsification was committed. The birth certificate is

proof only of the Tact of birth and not the marriage of the parents of the child' That

iut".gr."tte 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 ma*ied to Baltazar

b

" R.y"r, Revised Penal Code, Book ll, 18'h edition, 2Ot2,228',t fVf.f,rti Shangri-la Hotel and Resort, lnc. v. Harper et al., G.R. No. 189998, August 29'2012'

'o People v. Sendaydiego, 81 SCRA 120.

's Memorandum, 13.

Crim. Case No. 130612Filpiil-fthtPhil. vs. Juliewhvn R' Quindoza

DECISION

secondly,the prosecution is adamant that the accused committed the acts of

falsification that verily fall under prrrg.rptr 2 of Article L7lby 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 *ariirge 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,ttie Uirtfr 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 docu*lr,t itself, #ni.n proves the act or proceeding, a person is made

to appear to have participated in it eithei by signing his name or affixing his mark or

imprint. It may o..r, for instance had the aciused 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 nameJto pro,o. tt rt tn"y have voted, when in fact they did not'16 No such

case is extant herein. ThL 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 inftrmation. Both the body and the technical name given to

the crime under ttrZ Revised Penal Code laid out a charge under Article L71' (2) and not

77L (4). While the acts alleged in the Information properly make out a charge of

falsification under Article tlt 121, 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 of the accusation against her.'4

ln Andaya v. People of the Philippines, 17 the Supreme Court, citing ll'S' v' Karelsen

enunciated the purposeof thte 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

.ruru; 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. (Uniied States vs. Cruikshank,g2 U.S. 542') In order that

this requirement may be satisfied, facts must be stated, not conclusions

of law. -Eruty

crime ii made up of certain acts and intent; these must be

set forth in the complaint with reasonable particularity of time, place,

names fplaintiff 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

elerients 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

'u Gregorio, Fundamentals of Criminal Law Review, 9th ed', 455'

" G.R. No. 168486, June 27, 2006.

5

Crim. Case No. 13061?F Ltpi .1?i hiii t, i"r. u r. T, I i e w h v n R. Q u i n d o z a

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 iannot 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'34 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 ruiiun." between the allegation in the

information and proof adduced during trial shall be fatal to the criminal

case if it is mateiial and preiudicial to the accused so much so that it

affects his substantial rights'18

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

constitutionai right of the accused to be informed of the accusation

against him in , .rr" involving a variance between the means of

committing the violation of Section 3[e) of R.A' 3019 alleged in the

informationandthemeansfoundbytheSandiganbayan:

Common and foremost among the issues raised by petitioners is the

argument that the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting them on a finding

of fact that was not alleged ii the information. They contend that the

information charged ttr"* with having allowed payment of PB3,850 to

Ricardo CastaRedi 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' *"." 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

..itri,rty in order that the accused may be appraised of the nature of

the chaige 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

qu.itio, that the manner of commission alleged in the information and

t^he act the Sandiganbayan found to have been committed are both

violations of Section 3[e) of R.A. 30]-9. 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

o" Citations omitted.

Crim. Case No. 1Q061rFL';'pi

"1?ihiipr, ir. rt Irl i e w h v n R' Q u in d o z a

DECISION

n.]shouldonlybebasedonthatwhichwascharged,or-included,intheinformation. Otherwise, there would be a violation of their

constitutional right to be informed of the nature of the accusation

against them.

ln sum, in all criminal prosecutions, the burden of gro^gf-is.on ll" prosecution to

establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt'28 It has the duty to prove

each and every element of the crime'cir^ar*.a ,n the information to warrant a finding of

guiltforthesaidcrimeorforanyothercrimenecessarilyincludedtherein.Intheabsence of such stringent proof, the acquittal of the accttsed must follow'

WHEREFORE,forfailureoftheprosecution.toprove.the.gyjl-"ftheaccusedfuliewhynn Quindoza beyond reasonablsdoubt, she is hereby found NoT GUILTY and is

acqurirpo or tne charge of Falsification of Public Document.

SO ORDERED.

IssUED IN CHAMBERS, this 9tt, day of Novemb er 20t5, Baguio City.