Republic of the Philippines

FIRST JUDICIAL REGION

MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT
OF SAN JUAN-SAN GABRIEL
San Juan, La Union

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

-versus- CRIMINAL CASE NO. 3901

For: Falsification of Public
Document

RUBEN D. TUQUERO,
Accused.
x-----------------------x

COMMENTS/OPPOSITION TO PROSECUTION’S
FORMAL OFFER OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

ACCUSED by the undersigned counsel and unto this

Honorable Court, most respectfully submit this
Comments/Opposition to Prosecution’s Formal Offer of
Documentary Evidence, to wit:

EXHIBITS COMMENTS / OBJECTIONS

A
Civil Registry Form It is being opposed for being
No. 1A, bearing INADMISSIBLE in evidence considering
Registry No.47-19 that it was procured/secured by the
data collector, who is the private
complainant and who used the same as
basis in the filing of this instant case
without the consent of the data subject,
who is Benjamin Toquero; thus violative
of his fundamental right and freedom of
privacy and against self-incrimination
protected under the Philippine
Constitution and existing law on the
subject, R.A. No. 10173, the Data Privacy
Act of 2012, pursuant to sections 4, 12,
Comments and Opposition to Prosecution’s Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence
Page
(PP1v.ofR.9 Toquero)
 and 13 of the same act.

MOREOVER,

a.The data collector, who is the

private complainant had no standing,
neither had the consent of the data
subject to procure and secure the subject
document; therefore, the same was
illegally procured/secured and all
subsequent acts and processes using the
same illegally obtained document such as
in this instant case could not be validly
and legally had;

b.The data collector, who is the

private complainant was never presented
to testify on the documentary evidence
she procured/secured without consent
from the data subject to testify on the
same considering that she used it as
basis in filing this instant case against the
accused; thus depriving herein accused
his right and the opportunity to confront
his accuser; and

c. The data subject, who is Benjamin

Tuquero was never presented to testify on
the documentary evidence being offered
relative to the true and correct
circumstances and fact of his birth as
against the evidence being offered.

FURTHERMORE, even for the sake of

argument, the documentary evidence
being offered does not conclusively prove
that Benjamin Tuquero was born in
Santol, La Union considering the
existence of a Certificate of Live Birth of
Benjamin Tuquero that was forwarded
and filed with the former National
Statistics Office, now the Philippine
Statistics Authority as evidenced by his
Certificate of Live Birth bearing Registry
No. 2010-194 registered before the Local
Civil Registrar’s Office of San Juan, La
Union which was subsequently forwarded
and filed with the Civil Registrar General’s
Office which in turn subsequently provided
the NSO/PSA copy of the Certificate of Live
Birth of Benjamin Tuquero as described);
Comments and Opposition to Prosecution’s Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence
Page
(PP2v.ofR.9 Toquero)
 and the documentary evidence being
offered was never forwarded and filed with
the Civil Registrar General’s Office,
neither was it forwarded/filed with the
former NSO, now the PSA.

Also, the documentary evidence

being offered does not prove that herein
accused willfully supplied a false
information in claiming that his father,
Benjamin Tuquero was born in San Juan,
La Union; neither that the same
documentary evidence proves that herein
accused knew for a fact that his father
was born in Santol, La Union.

B
Certificate of Live It is being opposed for being
Birth of Benjamin INADMISSIBLE in evidence considering
Tuquero issued by that it was procured/secured by the
the Philippine data collector, who is the private
Statistics Office, complainant who is Benjamin Toquero;
bearing Registry No. and used the same as basis in the filing of
2010-194 this instant case against herein accused
without the consent of the data subject,
thus violative of his fundamental right
and freedom of privacy and against self-
incrimination protected under the
Philippine Constitution and existing law
on the subject, R.A. No. 10173, the Data
Privacy Act of 2012, pursuant to sections
4, 12, and 13 of the same act.

MOREOVER,

a. The data collector, who is the

private complainant had no standing,
neither had the consent of the data
subject to procure and secure the subject
document; therefore, the same was
illegally procured/secured and all
subsequent acts and processes using the
same illegally obtained document such as
in this instant case could not be validly
and legally had;

b. The data collector, who is the

private complainant was never presented
to testify on the documentary evidence
she procured/secured without consent

Comments and Opposition to Prosecution’s Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence

Page
(PP3v.ofR.9 Toquero)
 from the data subject to testify on the
same considering that she used it as
basis in filing this instant case against the
accused; thus depriving herein accused
his right and the opportunity to confront
his accuser; and

c. The data subject, who is Benjamin

Tuquero was never presented to testify on
the documentary evidence being offered
relative to the true and correct
circumstances and fact of his birth as
against the evidence being offered.

FURTHERMORE, even for the sake of

argument, the documentary evidence
being offered conclusively proves that
Benjamin Tuquero was born in Talogtog,
San Juan, La Union considering that the
same document evidencing Benjamin
Tuquero’s birth was the same that was
forwarded and filed with the former
National Statistics Office (now Philippine
Statistics Authority) (as evidenced by his
Certificate of Live Birth bearing Registry
No. 2010-194 registered before the Local
Civil Registrar’s Office of San Juan, La
Union which was subsequently forwarded
and filed with the Civil Registrar General’s
Office which in turn subsequently provided
the NSO/PSA copy of the Certificate of Live
Birth of Benjamin Tuquero as described).

In the same context, the

documentary evidence being offered does
not in anyway prove that herein accused
fully knew the truth and fact that his
father was born in Santol, La Union as
alleged by the prosecution; but on the
contrary, the documentary evidence being
offered shows and proves that the father
of the accused was born in San Juan, La
Union.

Also, the documentary evidence

being offered does not prove that herein
accused willfully supplied a false
information in claiming that his father,
Benjamin Tuquero was born in San Juan,
La Union; neither that the same
documentary evidence proves that herein
Comments and Opposition to Prosecution’s Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence
Page
(PP4v.ofR.9 Toquero)
 accused knew for a fact that his father
was born in Santol, La Union.

C
Certificate of Live The documentary evidence as
Birth of Avelina enumerated and being offered in evidence
Tuquero issued by are being opposed for being
the Philippine INADMISSIBLE considering that they
Statistics Office. were procured and secured by the private
complainant (who is the data collector)
D without the consent of the data subjects
Certificate of Live (as enumerated) and used the same in
Birth of Ruben filing this instant case against herein
Tuquero issued by accused; thus violated their fundamental
the Philippine rights and freedom of privacy and against
Statistics Office. self-incrimination (especially to RUBEN
TUQUERO, who is the accused in this
E instant case) protected under the
Certificate of Live Philippine Constitution and under
Birth of Baby Girl existing law on the subject, R. A. No.
Tuquero issued by 10173, the Data Privacy Act of 2012
the Philippine pursuant to sections 4, 12, and 13 of the
Statistics Office. same act.
F MOREOVER,
Certificate of Live
Birth of Agnes a. The data collector, who is the
Tuquero issued by private complainant had no standing;
the Philippine neither had the consent of the data
Statistics Office. subjects to procure and secure the
subject documentary evidence; thus were
illegally procured/secured and all
subsequent acts and processes using the
same illegally obtained documentary
evidence such as in the instant case could
not be had;

b. The data collector, who is the

private complainant was never presented
to testify on the documentary evidence
she procured and secured without
consent of the data subjects to testify on
the same considering that the subject
documents were used as basis in the
filing of this instant case; thus depriving
herein accused his right and the
opportunity to confront his accuser; and

c.
The data subjects (e.g. Avelina,
Baby Girl, and Agnes, all surnamed

Comments and Opposition to Prosecution’s Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence

Page
(PP5v.ofR.9 Toquero)
 Tuquero) were never presented to testify
on the documentary evidence being
offered relative to the true and correct
circumstances and facts of their birth as
against the documentary evidence being
offered.

FURTHERMORE, even for the sake of

argument, the documentary evidence (as
enumerated) being offered do not in
anyway prove conculusively that
Benjamin Tuquero was born in Santol, La
Union considering that there exist on file
with the Philippine Statistics Authority a
Certificate of Live Brth of Benjamin
Tuquero bearing Registry No. 2010-194
listing him to have been born in Talogtog,
San Juan, La Union (the same is actually
the one registered before the Local Civil
Registrar’s Office of San Juan, La Union;
and was subsequently forwarded and filed
with the Civil Registrar General’s Office,
which in turn subsequently provided the
NSO/PSA copy of the Certificate of Live
Birth of Benjamin Tuquero as described)
and the alleged Certificate of Birth of
Benjamin Tuquero listing him to have
been born in Santol, La Union never made
it to the records on file with the Civil
Registrar General’s Office, neither with
the former NSO, now PSA.

Also, the documentary evidence

being offered do not prove that herein
accused willfully supplied a false
information in claiming that his father,
Benjamin Tuquero was born in San Juan,
La Union; neither that the same
documentary evidence prove that herein
accused knew for a fact that his father
was born in Santol, La Union.

G
Marriage Contract The documentary evidence being offered
of Benjamin in evidence is being opposed for being
Tuquero and INADMISSIBLE considering that it was
Carmencita procured and secured by the private
Duclayan issued by complainant (who is the data collector)
the Philippine without the consent of the data subjects

Comments and Opposition to Prosecution’s Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence

Page
(PP6v.ofR.9 Toquero)
Statistics Authority. (as enumerated) and used the same in
filing this instant case against herein
accused and therefore violated their
fundamental rights and freedom of
privacy and against self-incrimination
protected under the Philippine
Constitution and under existing law on
the subject, R. A. No. 10173, the Data
Privacy Act of 2012 pursuant to sections
4, 12, and 13 of the same act.

MOREOVER,

a. The data collector, who is the

private complainant had no standing;
neither had the consent of the data
subjects to procure and secure the
subject documentary evidence; thus were
illegally procured/secured and all
subsequent acts and processes using the
same illegally obtained documentary
evidence such as in the instant case could
not be had;

b. The data collector, who is the

private complainant was never presented
to testify on the documentary evidence
she procured and secured without
consent of the data subjects to testify on
the same considering that the subject
documents were used as basis in the
filing of this instant case against herein
accused; thus depriving herein accused
his right and the opportunity to confront
his accuser; and

d. The data subjects were never

presented to testify on the documentary
evidence being offered relative to the true
and correct circumstances and facts of
their marriage as against the
documentary evidence being offered.

FURTHERMORE, even for the sake of

argument the documentary evidence
being offered do not in anyway prove
conclusively that Benjamin Tuquero was
born in Santol, La Union considering that
there exist on file with the Philippine
Statistics Authority a Certificate of Live
Brth of Benjamin Tuquero bearing
Comments and Opposition to Prosecution’s Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence
Page
(PP7v.ofR.9 Toquero)
 Registry No. 2010-194 listing him to have
been born in Talogtog, San Juan, La
Union (the same is actually the one
registered before the Local Civil Registrar’s
Office of San Juan, La Union; and was
subsequently forwarded and filed with the
Civil Registrar General’s Office, which in
turn subsequently provided the NSO/PSA
copy of the Certificate of Live Birth of
Benjamin Tuquero as described) and the
alleged Certificate of Birth of Benjamin
Tuquero (bearing Registry No. 47-19
listing him to have been born in Santol,
La Union never made it to the records on
file with the Civil Registrar General’s
Office, neither with the former NSO, now
PSA.

Also, the documentary evidence

being offered does not prove that herein
accused willfully supplied a false
information in claiming that his father,
Benjamin Tuquero was born in San Juan,
La Union; neither that the same
documentary evidence proves that herein
accused knew for a fact that his father
was born in Santol, La Union.

Respectfully submitted.

San Fernando City, La Union, October 10, 2019.

MOSUELA, GONZALES & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES

Counsel for the Respondents
NORTESURLU Bldg., Purok 3, Sevilla
San Fernando City, 2500 La Union

By:

JAIME C. GONZALES, JR.

IBP Roll No. 68552, May 29, 2017
IBP O.R. No. 098528, January 4, 2019 (LU Chapter)
PTR No. LU 3411669A, January 4, 2019
MCLE Comp. No. VI-0007263, valid until April 14, 2022

NOTICE

THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

Comments and Opposition to Prosecution’s Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence
Page
(PP8v.ofR.9 Toquero)
MCTC - SAN JUAN, LA UNION

Please submit the foregoing Comments/Opposition to

Prosecution’s Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence for the
kind consideration of the Honorable Court upon receipt hereof.

JAIME C. GONZALES, JR.

Copy Furnished: (via registered mail with return card)

PROS. YVONNE B. LACSINA

Asst. Provincial Prosecutor
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
RTC Compound, Sevilla
San Fernando City, 2500 La Union

EXPLANATION

Due to distance and lack of delivery personnel to effect

personal service, copy of the foregoing pleading will be sent via
registered mail with return card.

JAIME C. GONZALES, JR.

Comments and Opposition to Prosecution’s Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence

Page
(PP9v.ofR.9 Toquero)