Facts:

This case involves Maria Fe Cruz Aquino y Velasquez, also known as Ma. Preciosa Cruz Aquino, who was the petitioner in a lawsuit against the People of the Philippines as the respondent. The events surrounding the case began on November 3, 1997, when Aquino, along with her two minor children, applied for U.S. visas at the United States Embassy in Manila, presenting several documents for verification. The documents included Philippine Passports bearing her name and those of her children, a Marriage Contract with Juanito T. Aquino, and Certificates of Live Birth for her children. These documents were flagged for suspicion by Vice Consul Ted Archibal of the U.S. Embassy's Anti-Fraud Unit due to concerns about their authenticity. Upon investigation, it was revealed that these documents did not exist according to the National Statistics Office and the Land Transportation Office. As a result, Aquino was taken into custody by a National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) agent, Mario Gar

...

Facts:

Allegations and Charges

• Seven separate informations were filed against Maria Fe Cruz Aquino y Velasquez before the Regional Trial Court of Manila.
• The charges involved:
• Three counts for making false statements in passport applications (Criminal Case Nos. 97-161311 to 97-161313), and
• Four counts for forging documents and using the forged documents (Criminal Case Nos. 97-161314 to 97-161317) under Republic Act No. 8239 (the Passport Law).
• The allegations detailed that on November 3, 1997:
• Aquino allegedly made false statements in her application for a Philippine passport for herself and her minor children, submitting documents with varying names (“Ma. Preciosa Cruz Aquino”, “Kim Mariel Cruz Aquino”, and “Leonore Coleen Cruz Aquino”).
• She intentionally forged supporting documents—including a marriage contract, birth certificates, and a driver’s license—purportedly to secure the issuance of the passports, which were subsequently used in her application for a U.S. visa.

The Incident and Investigation

• On November 3, 1997, at the U.S. Embassy in Manila:
• Vice Consul Ted Archibal, from the Anti-Fraud Unit, received a tip from the non-immigrant visa section regarding suspicious documents submitted by a female applicant accompanied by two minor children.
• Aquino was identified as the applicant using Philippine passports that bore different names.
• Verification Process:
• Archibal confirmed with the National Statistics Office (NSO) that the marriage contract and other submitted documents (including certificates and driver’s license) did not match the records.
• The Land Transportation Office (LTO) also confirmed that Aquino’s name did not appear in its records for any issued driver’s license.
• Subsequently:
• Archibal reported the matter to Interpol via NBI Agent Mario Garcia, and Aquino was turned over to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for further investigation.
• Aquino was later arraigned on May 19, 1999, where she pleaded “not guilty.”

Court Proceedings and Decisions

• Regional Trial Court (RTC) Proceedings:
• The RTC conducted a joint trial of the cases.
• On March 6, 2009, the RTC found Aquino guilty beyond reasonable doubt on all counts:
• For Criminal Case Nos. 97-161311 to 97-161313 (false statement), she was sentenced to a fine of ₱30,000 and imprisonment of 5 years each.
• For Criminal Case Nos. 97-161314 to 97-161317 (forgery and use thereof), she was sentenced to a fine of ₱75,000 and imprisonment of 8 years each.
• Aquino filed a Motion for Reconsideration on August 26, 2009, which was denied on February 23, 2010.
• Court of Appeals (CA) Proceedings:
• The CA modified the RTC decision by:
• Dismissing Criminal Case Nos. 97-161311 to 97-161313 for lack of territorial jurisdiction, noting that the alleged offenses in these cases supposedly occurred in Pasay City rather than Manila.
• Reducing the penalty for Criminal Case Nos. 97-161314 to 97-161317 to a fine of ₱60,000 and imprisonment of 6 years each.
• The CA held that Aquino was guilty under Section 19, paragraph (c)2 of RA 8239 for “using the forged documents” in her U.S. visa application, even if there existed an error in the designation of the charge.
• Aquino’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the CA decision (filed on September 20, 2013) was eventually denied in the March 19, 2015 Resolution.
• Petition for Review on Certiorari:
• On May 14, 2015, Aquino filed a petition raising multiple issues including alleged due process violations, misdesignation of the offense charged, improper venue, evidentiary shortcomings, and the applicability of the passport law provisions.
• The petition challenged both the substantive finding and the quantum of penalties imposed by the lower courts.

Timeline and Venue Dispute

• A key factual contention was the territorial jurisdiction:
• The CA dismissed three cases based on the proposition that the passport applications (and thus the false statements) were filed in Pasay City, not in Manila where the trial was held.
• Conversely, the use of forged documents was argued to have occurred at the U.S. Embassy in Manila, supporting the Regional Trial Court’s jurisdiction for those counts.
• The incident of arrest and subsequent application for U.S. visas firmly located certain criminal acts in Manila.

Issue:

Due Process and Misdesignation of Charges

• Whether the misdesignation of the offense in the information (i.e., charging under Section 19, paragraph (c)1 versus (c)2) violated the accused’s constitutional right to due process and the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.

Nature of the Offense and Elemental Inquiry

• Whether the factual allegations in the information sufficiently described both the act of forgery and the act of using the forged documents so as to confer liability.
• Whether the error in the designation of the offense was harmless under the variance doctrine.

Territorial Jurisdiction

• Whether the correct venue for the charging of the offenses should have been the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City or Manila, considering where the alleged acts were consummated.

Evidentiary and Authentication Issues

• Whether the use of certificates from the NSO and LTO, which were challenged as hearsay and not authenticated by direct testimony, was proper and sufficient to prove the falsity of the documents.

Appropriate Quantum of Penalties

• Whether the imposition of a straight penalty of six years’ imprisonment (as modified by the CA) was appropriate, particularly in view of the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law which require a maximum and minimum term.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)