Falsification (Motion For Recon)
Falsification (Motion For Recon)
Falsification (Motion For Recon)
INTRODUCTION.
The subject matter of this motion for reconsideration is theResolution, dated 11 September 2015, issued
by Investigating Assistant City Prosecutor xxx, reviewed by Senior Assistant City Prosecutor xxx, and
approved by Chief City Prosecutor xxx.
2. MATERIAL DATES.
The complainant received via registered mail a copy of the aforecited Resolution on 4 January 2016.
Her 15th day to file this motion for reconsideration expires onJanuary 19, 2016.
3. GROUNDS.
The complainant assigns the following error/ground for this motion for reconsideration:
The questioned Resolution erred in holding, as itssole basis in dismissing the Complaint, that the
proper party-complainant should have been xxx (the employer of the herein complainant) and not
the complainant herself because the Complainant was not the actual issuer of the falsified
Certificate of Employment subject matter of the Complaint but her employer xxx.
4. DISCUSSION.
The complainant submits that the questioned Resolution should be reconsidered and set aside and a new
one be issued indicting the respondent for the crime of Falsification of Private Commercial Document as
charged in the Complaint.
4.1.
x x x.
1.
In April 2015, my husband xxx and I submitted to respondent xxx our Identification
documents, Marriage Contract, and Pay Slips.
Because it was Holy Week, we were unable at that time to submit our Certificates of
Employment and Tax Identification Numbers.
5. I later found out that a fake, falsified and forged Certificate of Employment was
submitted by respondent xxx to XXX BANK as part of the car loan application of xxx.
The XXX BANK verified the document with my employer, xxx, which denied having
issued the Certificate of Employment.
6. Later my employer filed an internal administrative case against me for Falsification,
Dishonesty, and the like on the theory that I caused the issuance of the fake, forged and
falsified Certificate of Employment.
7. I know nothing about such document. The only person who was in a position and who
had the vested interest to prepare the same was the respondent xxx to insure the
approval of the car loan application of xxx, thus, likewise insuring the commissions and
other perks due and owing to respondent xxx by reason of such approval.
8. The criminal act of xxx has endangered my security of tenure in my company and my
name and honor as a citizen.
I now have to face and defend myself against the administrative case filed against me.
9. Enclosed are copies of the following supporting documents:
9.1.
9.2.
9.3.
10. In conclusion, I pray that respondent xxx be indicted for FALSIFICATION AND
FORGERY OF PRIVATE COMMERICAL DOCUMENT, in the interest of justice.
X x x.
4.2.
x x x.
1.
This is a REPLY to the Counter-Affidavit, dated May 20, 2015, of the Respondent.
3. X x x.
4. X x x.
5. The convenient defense of Respondent, aside from DENIAL, is that as an Sales
Executive/Agent of xxx her routine duty was to simply that of a non-thinking ROBOT,
i.e., to receive the documents from the car loan applicant xxx and to forward the
same to XXX BANK for processing and approval.
6.1.
6.2.
6.2.1.
6.2.2.
6.2.3.
6.2.4.
6.2.5.
6.2.6.
6. Annex 1 of the Counter-Affidavit allegedly written and sent via iPad by a certain xxx
(alleged XXX BANK account officer) and allegedly addressed to a certain xxx is
unauthenticated, if not spurious or manufactured, or at the least, self-serving.
6.1.
6.2.
6.3.
7. In fact, if I recall right, sometime on April 1, 2015, Holy Wednesday, when the
Respondent received from me my Identification Card, Marriage Contract, and Pay Slips,
the Respondent even had the temerity to ask me to sign some blank documents.
7.1.
7.2.
She said they were needed by her to insure the speedy approval by XXX BANK of the
car loan of xxx.
I trusted her, and so I complied with her wishes as a professional sales agent of
xxx, even without scrutinizing them.
8. The record of the administrative complaint that was commenced by our Company
against me and which was attached by me to my Complaint-Affidavit was intended by
me as a proof of the painful consequences of the unlawful acts of the Respondent.
8.1.
8.2.
8.3.
4.3.
Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code is reproduced hereinbelow for reference.
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. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original document when no
such original exists, or including in such a copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the
genuine original; or
8. Intercalating 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 .
4.4.
4.5.
PROPER PARTY-COMPLAINANT in a criminal case for falsification and forgery is not limited to the locus
standi or personality of the Employer (who was made by the respondent to appear as having
issued the Certificate of Employmentsubject matter of the complaint).
The injured employee is a proper party-complainant, a real party in interest, and an indispensable
party as a result of the commission by the respondent of the crime that caused such employee pain,
injury, damage, and suffering.
4.6.
It will be noted that under Article 4 of the Rev. Penal Code CRIMINAL LIABILITY is incurred:
(1) By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that
which he intended; and
(2) By any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not
for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or
ineffectual means.
4.7.
Perhaps it is good to review at this juncture who are the persons liable in a criminal complaint by
reproducing hereinbelow Articles 16 to 19 of the same Code.
x x x.
Persons Criminally Liable for Felonies
Article 16. Who are criminally liable. -The following are criminally liable for grave and
less grave felonies:
1. Who are criminally liable. - The following are criminally liable for grave and less grave
felonies:
1. Principals.
2. Accomplices.
3. Accessories.
The following are criminally liable for light felonies:
1. Principals
2. Accomplices.
Article 17. Principals. - The following are considered principals:
1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act;
2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it;
3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without
which it would not have been accomplished.
Article 18. Accomplices. - Accomplices are those persons who, not being included in
article 17, cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous
acts.
Article 19. Accessories. - Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the
commission of the crime, and without having participated therein, either as principals or
4.8.
Is the victim (i.e., herein complainant) a proper party-complainant, a real party-in-interestcomplainant, or an indispensable party-complainant in the commission of a felony which has resulted
in her damage, injury, and suffering?
The answer thereto of the questioned Resolution was in the negative.
The complainant humbly submits that the questioned Resolution is in patent error on this procedural
point.
Technical rules of procedures shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing
a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding. (Sec. 6, Rule 1, Rev. Rules of
Civil Procedure).
The Rules of Civil Procedure is applicable by analogy or in asuppletory character and whenever
practicable and convenient. (Sec. 4, Rule 1, Rules of Civil Procedure).
4.9.
SEC. 2. Parties in interest.A real party in interest is the party who stands to be
benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of
the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be
prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest .
4.10. Secs. 6 to 9 of the same Rules are relevant:
SEC. 6. Permissive joinder of parties.All persons in whom or against whom any right to relief in respect
to or arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly,
severally, or in the alternative, may except as otherwise provided in these Rules, join as plaintiffs or be
joined as defendants in one complaint, where any question of law or fact common to all such
plaintiffs or to all such defendants may arise in the action; but the court may make such orders as
may be just to prevent any plaintiff or defendant from being embarrassed or put to expense in connection
with any proceedings in which he may have no interest. (6)
SEC. 7. Compulsory joinder of indispensable parties.Parties in interest without whom no final
determination can be had of an action shall be joined either s plaintiffs or defendants. (7)
SEC. 8. Necessary party.A necessary party is one who is not indispensable but who ought to be
joined as a party if complete relief is to be accorded as to those already parties, or for a complete
determination or settlement of the claim subject of the action. (8a)
SEC. 9. Non-joinder of necessary parties to be pleaded.Whenever in any pleading in which a claim is
asserted a necessary party is not joined, the pleader shall set forth his name, if known, and shall state
why he is omitted. Should the court find the reason for the omission unmeritorious, it may order the
inclusion of the omitted necessary party if jurisdiction over his person may be obtained.
The failure to comply with the order for his inclusion, without justifiable cause, shall be deemed a waiver
of the claim against such party.
The non-inclusion of a necessary party does not prevent the court from proceeding in the action, and
the judgment rendered therein shall be without prejudice to the rights of such necessary party. (8a, 9a)
X x x.
5. An OFFENDED PARTY in a criminal case, like the herein complainant (who is a real and an actual
aggrieved victim of the effects and results of the falsified Certificate of Employment subject matter of this
case and who was administratively chargedby her employer for the existence and use by the herein
respondent xxx of such falsified Certificate of Employment), is aproper party-in-interest who has the right
to file the criminal complaint and, in the interest of justice, the herein complainantmay not be deprived by
the investigating prosecutor of her right to commence a criminal case to seek relief and redress.
5.1.
In the case of HILARIO P. SORIANO vs. HON. CAESAR A. CASANOVA, et. al., G.R. NO. 163400,
March 31, 2006, it was held that a public crime (like falsification, forgery, estafa, and the like) may be
commenced by the private offended party or by a victim of the crime or by any member of the general
public or byany competent person.
x x x.
Citing the ruling of this Court inEbarle v. Sucaldito, G.R. Nos. L-33628 and L34162, December 29, 1987, 156 SCRA 803, the Court of Appeals correctly held thata
complaint for purposes of preliminary investigation by the
fiscal need not be filed by the offended party. The rule has been that, unless the
offense subject thereof is one that cannot be prosecuted de oficio, the same may be
filed, for preliminary investigation purposes, by any competent person. The crime of
estafa is apublic crime which can be initiated by any competent
person. The witnesses who executed the affidavits based on their personal
knowledge of the acts committed by the petitioner fall within the purview of any
competent person who may institute the complaint for a public crime . X x x.
X x x.
5.2.
Sec. 3, Rule 110 (Prosecution of Offenses) provides that a complaint is a sworn written statement
charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the offended party, any peace officer, or other
public officer charged with the enforcement of the law violated.
The complainant has complied therewith.
5.3.
5.4.
Sec. 12, Rule 110 (Name of the offended party) provides that the complaint or information must state
the name and surname of the person against whom or against whose property the offense was
committed, or any appellation or nickname by which such person has been or is known.
The complainant has complied therewith.
5.5.
Sec. 1, Rule 111, (Institution of criminal and civil actions.provides that when a criminal action is
instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be
deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the
right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
This allows the classification of the herein complainant as a property party, being a private offended party.
There are two (2) private offended parties in a falsification, forgery, or estafa cases: the Employer (e.g.,
xxx ) and the injured Employee (e.g., herein complainant).
Hence, the herein complainant has the locus standi to commence the instant criminal case.
5.6.
The recent case of LEE PUE LIONG A.K.A. PAUL LEE VS. CHUA PUE CHIN LEE, G.R. No. 181658,
August 07, 2013 is instructive.
The Supreme Court in the said case held that the basis of civil liability arising from crime is the
fundamental postulate of our law that [e]very person criminally liable x x x is also civilly liable.
It stated that underlying this legal principle is the traditional theory that when a person commits a crime,
he offends two entities, namely (1) the society in which he lives in or the political entity, called the State,
whose law he has violated; and (2) the individual member of that society whose person, right, honor,
chastity or property was actually or directly injured or damaged by the same punishable act or omission.
The Supreme Court further held that for the recovery of civil liability in the criminal action, the
appearance of a private prosecutor is allowed under Section 16 of Rule 110 which provides that where
the civil action for recovery of civil liability is instituted in the criminal action pursuant to Rule 111, the
offended party may intervene by counsel in the prosecution of the offense.
Furthermore, defining who the offended party is and what are the rights of the offended party, the
Supreme Court held therein:
x x x.
Section 12, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, defines
an offended party as the person against whom or against whose property the offense
was committed. In Garcia v. Court of Appeals, this Court rejected petitioners
theory that it is only the State which is the offended party in public offenses like
bigamy. We explained that from the language of Section 12, Rule 10 of the Rules
of Court, it is reasonable to assume that the offended party in the commission of
a crime, public or private, is the party to whom the offender is civilly liable, and
therefore the private individual to whom the offender is civilly liable is the
offended party.
X x x.
Under Section 16, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the offended
party may also be a private individual whose person, right, house, liberty or
property was actually or directly injured by the same punishable act or omission
of the accused, or that corporate entity which is damaged or injured by the
delictual acts complained of. Such party must be one who has a legal right;
a substantial interest in the subject matter of the action as will entitle him to recourse
under the substantive law, to recourse if the evidence is sufficient or that he has the
legal right to the demand and the accused will be protected by the satisfaction of his
civil liabilities. Such interest must not be a mere expectancy, subordinate or
inconsequential. The interest of the party must be personal; and not one based on a
desire to vindicate the constitutional right of some third and unrelated party. X x x.
X x x.
In Chua v. Court of Appeals, as a result of the complaint-affidavit filed by private
respondent who is also the corporations Treasurer, four counts of falsification of public
documents (Minutes of Annual Stockholders Meeting) was instituted by the City
Prosecutor against petitioner and his wife. After private respondents testimony was
heard during the trial, petitioner moved to exclude her counsels as private prosecutors
on the ground that she failed to allege and prove any civil liability in the case. The MeTC
granted the motion and ordered the exclusion of said private prosecutors. On certiorari
to the RTC, said court reversed the MeTC and ordered the latter to allow the private
prosecutors in the prosecution of the civil aspect of the criminal case. Petitioner filed a
petition for certiorari in the CA which dismissed his petition and affirmed the assailed
RTC ruling.
When the case was elevated to this Court, we sustained the CA in allowing the private
prosecutors to actively participate in the trial of the criminal case. Thus:
X x x.
X x x. Generally, the basis of civil liability arising from crime is the fundamental postulate
that every man criminally liable is also civilly liable. When a person commits a crime he
offends two entities namely (1) the society in which he lives in or the political entity
called the State whose law he has violated; and (2) the individual member of the society
whose person, right, honor, chastity or property has been actually or directly injured or
damaged by the same punishable act or omission. An act or omission is felonious
because it is punishable by law, it gives rise to civil liability not so much because it is a
crime but because it caused damage to another. Additionally, what gives rise to the civil
liability is really the obligation and the moral duty of everyone to repair or make whole
the damage caused to another by reason of his own act or omission, whether done
intentionally or negligently. The indemnity which a person is sentenced to pay forms an
integral part of the penalty imposed by law for the commission of the crime. The civil
action involves the civil liability arising from the offense charged which includes
restitution, reparation of the damage caused, and indemnification for consequential
damages.
Under the Rules, where the civil action for recovery of civil liability is instituted in the
criminal action pursuant to Rule 111, the offended party may intervene by counsel in the
prosecution of the offense. Rule 111(a) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that,
[w]hen a criminal action is instituted, the civil action arising from the offense charged
shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the
civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately, or institutes the civil action prior to
the criminal action.
Private respondent did not waive the civil action, nor did she reserve the right to
institute it separately, nor institute the civil action for damages arising from the offense
charged. Thus, we find that the private prosecutors can intervene in the trial of the
criminal action.
X x x.
5.7.
In fact, in the case of CRISTINA PEREZ vs. HAGONOY RURAL BANK, INC., and HON. COURT OF
APPEALS, G.R. No. 126210. March 9, 2000, the Supreme Court further bolstered the locus standi of an
offended party to file a Rule 65 special civil action for certiorari by holding that the private respondent, as
private complainant, had legal personality to assail the dismissal of the criminal case against the
petitioner on the ground that the order of dismissal was issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
In the said case, the Supreme Court held that "in a special civil action for certiorari filed under Section 1,
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court wherein it is alleged that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction or on other jurisdictional grounds, the rules state that the petition may be
filedby the person aggrieved.
The Supreme Court stated that in such case, the aggrieved parties are the State and the private
offended party or complainant.
It added that the complainant has an interest in the civil aspect of the case so he may file such
special civil actionquestioning the decision or action of the respondent court on jurisdictional grounds
and that in so doing, the complainant should not bring the action in the name of the People of the
Philippines. The action may be prosecuted in (the) name of the said complainant."
It stressed that the private offended party retains the right to bring a special civil action for certiorari in
his own name in criminal proceedings before the courts of law and that it follows, therefore, that if the
private respondent in this case may file a special civil action for certiorari, then with more reason does it
have legal personality to move for a reconsideration of the order of the trial court dismissing the criminal
charges against the petitioner. In fact, as a general rule, a special civil action will not lie unless a motion
for reconsideration is first filed before the respondent tribunal, to allow it an opportunity to correct its
assigned errors.
6. PURE TECHNICALITY. - Please note that the questioned Resolution did not determine the existence or
non-existence of PROBABLE CAUSE.
The questioned Resolution is mysteriously quiet on the matter.
It simply dismissed the Complaint for alleged lack of locus standi of the Complainant.
This is a glaring error of judgment, an abuse of discretion, and an act of gross negligence on the part of
the Investigating Prosecutor.
He should have discussed, resolved and determine the merits or lack of merits (or the substance) of the
Complaint, not only the alleged technical defect of alleged lack of locus standi of the
complainant, considering the presence in the Complaint of substantial evidence to establish probable
cause.
To stress:
The Investigating Prosecutor did not discuss at all the weight and probative value of the
evidence presented in the Complaint.
He evaded and escaped such legal duty by merely relying on the alleged lack of locus standi of the
complainant to conveniently dismiss her Complaint.
7. RELIEF.
WHEREFORE, premises considered and in the interest of justice, the complainant respectfully prays that
the questioned Resolution, dated 11 September 2015, be reconsidered and set aside and a new one be
issued indicting the respondent for the crime ofFalsification and Forgery of Private Commercial
Document as charged in the Complaint.
Further, it is respectfully prayed (a) that the Investigating Assistant City Prosecutor be disqualified from
participating in any manner whatsoever in the resolution of this motion for reconsideration for reasons
of delicadeza and legal ethics and (b) that the Case Record hereof be elevated to the Office of the Chief
City Prosecutor for further review.
Finally, the complainant respectfully prays for such and other reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable
in the premises.
xxx City, January 7, 2016.
Xxxxxxxx
Complainant
Cc:
Xxx
Respondent
c/o xxx
xxx City
Reg. Rec.
Date
File Copy
PO