Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

5th Judicial Region
Branch 22
Naga City, Camarines Sur

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff, CR. CASE NO. 12390

-versus-
For: ESTAFA THRU
FALSIFICATION
OF PUBLIC
DOCUMENT
MARLON B. BLANDO,
Accused,

x==========================================================x

INFORMATION

The undersigned Assistant City Prosecutor accused MARLON B. BARBA of

the crime of Estafa thru Falsification of Public Document, defined and penalized under
Article 315, paragraph 2, in relation to Article 172 and Article 48 of the Revised Penal
Code committed as follows:

That on October 26, 2021, in the

City/Municipality of Iriga, Province of Camarines Sur
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
accused MARLON B. BLANDO [hereinafter
“Accused”] misrepresenting himself to be Jose
Nepomuceno, applied for a loan with CBA Bank in the
amount of P 1,200,000.00. A parcel of land located in
Pili, Camarines Sur, covered by Certificate of Title No.
T-100100, in the name of Jose Nepomuceno married to
Lolita Barba was then offered by the accused as
collateral. The accused did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, feloniously falsify the deed of real estate
mortgage and the promissory note corresponding to the
 said loan by forging their signatures when in truth and in
fact they did not so participate, to the damage and
prejudice of the complaining bank and the Spouses
Nepomuceno in the aforesaid sum of P1,200,000.00.

Contrary to law.

Naga City, Philippines, 7th of November 2021.

CHRISTINE B. ASARES
Assistant City Prosecutor

CERTIFICATION AS TO CONDUCT OF
INQUEST

I hereby certify that the accused was lawfully arrested without a warrant and
that, upon being informed of his rights, refused to waive the provisions of Article 125
of the Revised Penal Code and, for this reason, an Inquest was conducted; that based
on the complaint and the evidence presented before me without any countervailing
evidence submitted by the accused, despite opportunity to do so, there is reasonable
ground to believe that the accused has committed the crime of Estafa Thru Falsification
of Public Document and should, thus, be held for said crime; that this information was
with the prior authority of the City Prosecutor.

CHRISTINE B. ASARES
Assistant City Prosecutor

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this 9th day of November 2021

in Naga City, Philippines.

ERWIN A. ANDALUZ
City Prosecutor
 Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
5th Judicial Region
Branch 22
Naga City, Camarines Sur

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff, CR. CASE NO. 12390

-versus-
For: ESTAFA THRU
FALSIFICATION
OF PUBLIC
DOCUMENT
MARLON B. BLANDO,
Accused,

x=================================================================x

MOTION TO QUASH INFORMATION

Accused Marlon B. Blando, by counsel, respectfully moves for the quashal of

the Information dated 7 November 2021 issued by Assistant City Prosecutor Christine
Asares on the following ground:

GROUND

This court is without jurisdiction over the offenses charged.

ARGUMENTS

Defendants are indicted for committing the crime of “Estafa thru Falsification
of Public Document” that is punished under Article 315, paragraph 2, in relation to
Article 172 and Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code; Said provision states that:

“Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). — Any person who shall defraud another by any
of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by: 2nd. The penalty of
 prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the amount of the
fraud is over 6,000 pesos but does not exceed 12,000 pesos;

Art. 172. Falsification by private individual and use of falsified documents. —

The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a
fine of not more than P5,000 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.” [Emphasis and
underscoring supplied.]

Art. 48. Penalty for complex crimes. — When a single act constitutes two or
more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for
committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed,
the same to be applied in its maximum period.”

Defendant, however, most respectfully submit that this Honorable Court lacks
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the offense for the reason that Article 315,
paragraph 2, in relation to Article 172 and Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code that
punishes “Estafa thru Falsification of Public Document” provides an imposable penalty
of 4 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months for amounts of fraud over 40,000 but
does not exceed 1,200,000.

In Wellmed Estafa case, A Quezon City regional trial court dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction the criminal charges filed against the owner and other
officers of WellMed Dialysis Center in connection with alleged fraudulent
claims with state-run Philippine Health Insurance Corporation
(PhilHealth).
 In a resolution released on Monday, RTC Branch 219 Judge Janet
Abergos-Samar granted the motion to quash filed by WellMed co-owner
Dr. Bryan Sy on the 17 counts of a complex crime of estafa through
falsification of public document charges filed against him by the National
Bureau of Investigation (NBI), PhilHealth, whistleblowers Leizel Aileen
De Leon and Edwin Roberto, and other individuals.

"These cases are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over the offenses
charged, without prejudice to refiling before the Metropolitan Trial
Court," Abergos-Samar said.

The judge said the arraignment and pre-trial conference tentatively

scheduled on August 7 were cancelled.

Abergos-Samar said a lower court has jurisdiction over the case because
the amounts which PhilHealth was allegedly defrauded of only ranged
from P5,200 to P39,000 which, under the Revised Penal Code, imposed
jailtime of two months and one day to six months.

Falsification of public or official documents by a private individual carries

a maximum penalty of two years, four months and one day to six years
imprisonment.
The metropolitan trial court has the proper jurisdiction over the case
because the maximum imposable penalty is only 6 years.

Abergos-Samar clarified that the criminal charges were not being

dismissed because the accused were innocent.

"[T]he court emphasizes that the dismissal of these cases has nothing to
do with the guilt or innocence of the accused. The cases are dismissed
because based on the crime charged in the informations, and the applicable
penalty, it is not the Regional Trial Court which has jurisdiction to hear
and decide the cases, but the first level courts or the Metropolitan Trial
Courts. The accused may still be prosecuted, and the cases may still be
filed, before the said courts notwithstanding the dismissal decreed herein,"
the resolution said.

Last June, the Department of Justice (DoJ) has recommended the filing of
charges of the complex crime of estafa through falsification of official
documents against WellMed Dialysis and Laboratory Center personnel
led by Sy.

State prosecutors found probable cause to indict Sy on 17 counts of estafa

and falsification of documents charges over allegations that Philippine
Health Insurance Corp. funds were used for non-existent kidney
treatments.1

1
Court Junks Wellmed estafa case for lack of jurisdiction by the Manila Times written by
Jaime Pilapil, August 5, 2019.
 CONCLUSION

In view of all the foregoing, defendant submit that case should be dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged. As the imposable penalty is 4 months and
1 day to 2 years and 4 months for amounts of fraud over 40,000 but does not exceed
1,200,000, the Regional Trial Court cannot acquire the jurisdiction to try the defendant
for Estafa thru Falsification of Public Document.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed that

the information be quashed, and defendants discharged.

Other relief just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

Naga City, Philippines, 9 November 2021.

COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

CANDY P. CACERES
IBP NO. 123456 NAGA Chapter
PTR No. 123456, Naga, 10-01-2017
Attorney’s Roll No. 09876
MCLE Compliance No. V-0987653

NOTICE OF HEARING:

The CLERK OF COURT

RTC Branch 22
Naga City
Greetings:

Please submit the foregoing pleasing to this Honorable Court for its consideration and
resolution.

Atty. Candy P. Caceres

COPY FURNISHED:

ROEL DIONEDA
Opposing Counsel
 Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
5th Judicial Region
Branch 22
Naga City, Camarines Sur

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff, CR. CASE NO.12390

-versus-
For: ESTAFA THRU
FALSIFICATION
OF PUBLIC
DOCUMENT

MARLON B. BLANDO,
Accused,

x================================================x

PETITION FOR BAIL

ACCUSED, through the undersigned counsel, unto this

Honorable Court, respectfully states:

1. That accused is currently detained at the Bureau of Jail

Management and Penology for the charge of Violation of Article 315,
paragraph 2, in relation to Article 172 and Article 48 of the Revised
Penal Code and has been behind bars since his arrest.;

2. That no bail has been recommended for his temporary release on

the assumption that the evidence of his guilt is strong.

3. That the burden of showing that evidence of guilt is strong rest

upon the prosecution, and unless this fact is satisfactorily shown, the
defendant is entitled to bail as a matter of right;
 WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable
Court that accused MARLON B. BLANDO be allowed to post bail for
his temporary liberty pending trial of the criminal charge against him.

Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.

November 9, 2021; Penafrancia, Naga City.

CACERES LAW OFFICE

25 Magsaysay Avenue, Naga City
Tel No. 0917-1000-123
CLAW@outlook.com

By:

ATTY. CANDY P. CACERES

IBP NO. 123456 NAGA Chapter
PTR No. 123456, Naga, 10-01-2017
Attorney’s Roll No. 09876
MCLE Compliance No. V-0987653
 Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
5th Judicial Region
Branch 22
Naga City, Camarines Sur

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,
CR. CASE NO.12390

-versus- For: ESTAFA THRU

FALSIFICATION OF
PUBLIC DOCUMENT

MARLON B. BLANDO,
Accused,

x===================================================x

PRE-TRIAL BRIEF

DEFENDANT, by counsel, respectfully submits his Pre-

Trial Brief, as follows:

I. WILLINGNESS TO ENTER INTO AN AMICABLE

SETTLEMENT AND POSSIBLE TERMS OF ANY SUCH
SETTLEMENT

1.1 Plaintiff is open to settling this dispute amicably, subject to

a concrete proposal that is fair and reasonable and a reciprocal manifestation
of openness from defendant,

1.2 Pursuant to Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,

plaintiff respectfully submits that the desired terms of any amicable
settlement would involve, first, an admission of amount due and owing to
plaintiff and, second, a schedule of payments.
II. BRIEF STATEMENT OF CLAIMS AND DEFENSES

2.1 Plaintiff claims that defendant misrepresented himself as

Jose Nepomuceno and used Jose Nepomuceno’s property as collateral to
take out a loan from CBA Bank for the amount of P 1,200,000.00.

2.2 Defendant raised as defense that no misrepresentation and

fraud happened as he had a Special Power of Attorney to enter in such
contract.

III. FACTS AND OTHER MATTERS ADMITTED BY THE

PARTIES

3.1 Defendant admits only those facts stated in their Answer, i.e.,
their personal circumstances and the existence of the loan from CBA Bank.

IV. ISSUES TO BE TRIED

4.1 Plaintiff submits that the following issue is subject to proof:

4.1.1 That there was no consent to use the Certificate of
Title No. T-100100 as collateral for the loan;
4.1.2 That there was no Special Power of Attorney
executed in favor of defendant.

4.2 Defendant submits that the following issues are subject to

proof:
4.2.1 That there was a Special Power of attorney
executed and this was witnessed by Hazel Bautista and Hanna Bautista.

V. EVIDENCE

5.1 Plaintiff intends to present the following witness:

5.1.1 Mrs. Lolita Nepomuceno, to establish that the
plaintiff did not execute a Special Power of Attorney and that there was no
authorization to use the Certificate of Title No. T-100100 as collateral for
the loan;
 VI. RESORT TO DISCOVERY

6.1 Considering the relatively simple issues presented, plaintiff

does not intend to avail of discovery at this time;
6.2 Subject, however, to a concrete and reasonable request for
discovery from defendant, plaintiff reserves the right to resort to discovery
before trial.

VII. AVAILABLE TRIAL DATES

December 7, 2021, December 14, 2021, January 7, 2022 and January 14,
2022.

November 9, 2021; Penafrancia, Naga City.

Respectfully submitted.

COUNSEL FOR THE

PLAINTIFF:

CANDY P. CACERES
IBP NO. 123456 NAGA
Chapter

The Clerk of Court

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
5th Judicial Region
Branch 22
Naga City, Camarines Sur

Please submit the foregoing pleading to this Honorable Court for its
consideration and resolution.

Atty. Candy P. Caceres

Copy furnished:

Atty. Roel Dioneda

Magsaysay, Naga City