Accused's right to be informed of nature, cause

In G.R. No. 186329 and G.R. No. 198598, the Sandiganbayan convicted Alid of falsification of a private document for altering the Philippine Airlines (PAL) Ticket. The Supreme Court disagrees with the conviction for two reasons.

First, a conviction for falsification of a private document under paragraph 2 of Article 172 violates the right of Alid to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him given that his Information charged him only with falsification of documents committed by a public officer under Article 171. Second, for falsifying a commercial document, the penal provision allegedly violated by Alid was paragraph 1, and not paragraph 2, of Article 172.

At the outset, the High Court noted that the appeal of Alid is grounded on two points: (1) that he was not the one who altered the plane ticket; and (2) that he had no intent to cause damage. He has not raised the defense that his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him has been violated. However, an appeal in a criminal case opens the whole matter for the review of any question, including those questions not raised by the parties. In this case, a review is necessary because the conviction was made in violation of the accused's constitutional rights.

One of the fundamental rights of an accused person is the right to be "informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him." This means that the accused may not be convicted of an offense unless it is clearly charged in the Information. Even if the prosecution successfully proves the elements of a crime, the accused may not be convicted thereof, unless that crime is alleged or necessarily included in the Information filed against the latter.

Pursuant to this constitutional right, Section 4, Rule 120 (also known as the variance doctrine) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, commands:

Section 4. Judgment in case of variance between allegation and proof. — When there is variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information and that proved, and the offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved which is included in the offense charged, or of the offense charged which is included in the offense proved.

Therefore, the accused can only be convicted of an offense when it is both charged and proved. If it is not charged, although proved, or if it is proved, although not charged, the accused cannot be convicted thereof. In other words, variance between the allegation contained in the Information and the conviction resulting from trial cannot justify a conviction for either the offense charged or the offense proved unless either is included in the other.

As to when an offense includes or is included in another, Section 5 of Rule 120 provides:

Section 5. When an offense includes or is included in another. — An offense charged necessarily includes the offense proved when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former, as alleged in the complaint or information, constitute the latter. And an offense charged is necessarily included in the offense proved, when the essential ingredients of the former constitute or form a part of those constituting the latter.

Here, it cannot be overlooked that there is a variance between the felony as charged in the Information and as found in the judgment of conviction. Applying the rules, the conviction of Alid for falsification of a private document under paragraph 2, Article 172 is valid only if the elements of that felony constituted the elements of his indictment for falsification by a public officer under Article 171.

Article 171 - the basis of the indictment of Alid - punishes public officers for falsifying a document by making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning. The elements of falsification under this provision are as follows:

1. The offender is a public officer, employee, or a notary public.
2. The offender takes advantage of his or her official position.
3. The offender falsifies a document by committing any of the acts of falsification under Article 171.

Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code contains three punishable acts. It reads:

Art. 172. Falsification by Private Individuals and Use of Falsified Documents. — The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon:

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 of exchange or any other kind of commercial 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 of the acts 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, shall use any of the false documents embraced in the next preceding article or in any of the foregoing subdivisions of this article, shall be punished by the penalty next lower in degree.

Paragraph 2 of Article 172 was the basis of Alid's conviction. Its elements are as follows:

1. The offender committed any of the acts of falsification, except those in Article 171(7).
2. The falsification was committed on a private document.
3. The falsification caused damage or was committed with intent to cause damage to a third party.

Comparing the two provisions and the elements of falsification respectively enumerated therein, it is readily apparent that the two felonies are different. Falsification under paragraph 2 of Article 172 goes beyond the elements of falsification enumerated under Article 171. The former requires additional independent evidence of damage or intention to cause the same to a third person.

Simply put, in Article 171, damage is not an element of the crime; but in paragraph 2 of Article 172, or falsification of a private document, damage is an element necessary for conviction.

Therefore, not all the elements of the crime punished by paragraph 2, Article 172 are included under Article 171. Specifically, the former offense requires the element of damage, which is not a requisite in the latter. Indeed, the Information charging Alid of a felony did not inform him that his alleged falsification caused damage or was committed with intent to cause damage to a third party.

Since Alid was not specifically informed of the complete nature and cause of the accusation against him, he cannot be convicted of falsification of a private document under paragraph 2 of Article 1 72. To convict him therefor, as the Sandiganbayan did, violates the very proscription found in the Constitution and the Rules of Criminal Procedure. On this ground alone, the High Court found that the court a quo erred in its decision.

THE CASE: [G.R. No. 186329, August 02, 2017] DR. FRISCO M. MALABANAN, PETITIONER, V. SANDIGANBAYAN, RESPONDENT.