Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE
Office of the Secretary
Padre Faura St., Ermita, Manila

HENDERDSON S. ALVAREZ,
Complainant-Appellant,

NPS DOC. No. II-07-INV-16J-05083

For: Estafa through falsification of
Commercial Document
- versus -

EDUARDO B. SIAO,
Respondent-Appellee.
x ----------------------------------------------- x

PETITION FOR REVIEW

Complainant-Appellant, HENDERDSON S. ALVAREZ,

through the undersigned counsel, most respectfully submits its
Petition for Review and avers THAT:

NATURE OF THE CASE

1. This is a petition for review of the Resolution 1 dated

December 1, 2016, issued by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of
Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya through the Provincial Prosecutor
Emerson A. Turingan (the preliminary investigation was conducted
by Prosecutor I Gina Lyn R. Rubio, Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya) in the above-captioned
case, the dispositive portion of which provides that:

“IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the

undersigned prosecutor respectfully recommends that,
upon approval of this resolution, the complaint be
dismissed for lack of probable cause”.

1
A certified true copy of the Resolution dated December 1, 2016.
THE PARTIES

2. Appellant, Henderdson S. Alvarez, is of legal age,

Filipino, married and a resident of Mabini St., Prk. 3, Buag, Bambang,
Nueva Vizcaya, where he could be served with summons and other
processes by this Honorable Office.

3. Appellees, Eduardo B. Siao, is of legal age, Filipino,

married and a resident of San Fernando Road, Calaocan, Bambang,
Nueva Vizcaya, where he could be served with summons and
processes by this Honorable Office.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND OF THE CASE

4. Sometime in February 9 & 10, 2011, respectively, Eduardo

Siao issued two trust/delivery receipts numbered 43722 and 234513 to
justify payments of Php20,000.00 and Php196,200.00 worth of
building materials made by the Appellant;

5. Simultaneously with such alleged delivery, Appellant

made cash deposits4 to Appellee for the payments of the same.

6. After verification, appellant found out that the items

enumerated in the trusts/delivery receipts were not actually
delivered by the Appellee. A close scrutiny of the receipts given as
evidence of the delivery will readily show that there was no trustee’s
signature or acknowledgement of receipt of the items provided in
said receipts.

7. Appellant demanded appellee to reimburse or return his

payments made to his “ghost” deliveries but the same fell into deaf
ears as the appellee up to the date of filing the complaint, refused
contumaciously to return Appellants money and altogether decline to
conduct an accounting of the appellants purchases.

8. The appellees act in using false pretenses or fraudulent

acts executed prior or simultaneous to the commission of the fraud
against herein Appellant by falsely pretending to possess power,
influence, or qualification and falsifying a commercial document
(trust/delivery receipt) to achieve the same is probably guilty of the
complex crime of Estafa through Falsification of a Commercial
Document.

2
A copy of the receipts is hereto attached as ANNEX “A”.
3
A copy of the receipts is hereto attached as ANNEX “B”.
4
A copy of the receipt of cash deposit with the signature of Siao appearing therein is hereto attached as
ANNEX “C”.
9. The Appellees in committing this fraudulent act to the
Appellant negligently and recklessly performed his duties and
disregarded and ignored the proviso of the New Civil Code
particularly Article 19 thereof on human relations, which entitles the
Appellant to damges.

10. The Appelles acts of deliberately making untruthful

statements in the narration of facts in his preparation of the
trust/delivery receipts by making it appear that the items provided
therein were actually delivered to the Appellant while the truth and
the fact was that it was not delivered and using the falsified
commercial document in order for the Appellant to be deceived and
part ways with his money is probably guilty of the aforesaid complex
crime.

11. The acts of the Appellee in the commission of the

fraudulent acts abovementioned by the use of a falsified commercial
document constitute the complex crime of Estafa Through
Falsification of Public Document.

12. On December 1, 2016, the assailed Resolution was issued

by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Bayombong, Nueva
Vizcaya.

13. A Motion for Reconsideration was filed by the Appellant

but the same was denied in a Resolution 5 dated March 10, 2017, by
the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Bayombong, Nueva
Vizcaya.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL DATE

14. On December 1, 2016, the Office of the Provincial

Prosecutor issues a Minute Resolution recommending that the
complaint of the Complainant-Appelant be dismissed for lack of
probable cause. Thereafter, on January 23, 2017, the Complainant-
Appellant filed his Motion for Reconsideration6. On March 10, 2017,
the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor issued a Resolution denying
the Motion for Reconsideration, a copy of which was received by the
Complainant-Appellant on April 11, 2017. Hence, Complainant-
Appellant had fifteen (15) days from April 11, 2017 or until April 26,
2017, within which to file his appeal with the Honorable Secretary of
Justice. Hence, this Petition for Review is timely filed.
ISSUE/ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

5
A certified true copy of the Resolution dated March 10, 2017 is hereto attached as ANNEX “D”.
6
A certified true copy of the Motion for Reconsideration is hereto attached as ANNEX “E”.
15. The Honorable Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of
Bayombong Nueva Vizcaya gravely erred in finding that there is no
probable cause for the crime of Estafa through Falsification of
Commercial Document against Eduardo B. Siao.

ARGUMENT/DISCUSSIONS

With all due respect, the

Honorable Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor of
Bayombong Nueva Vizcaya
committed grave errors in the
application of the of the law and
apprehension of the facts and the
evidence relevant to the case
which if duly considered would
lead to the indictment of
Eduardo B. Siao for the crime of
Estafa through Falsification of
Commercial Document.

16. The assailed Resolution in holding that there is no

probable cause for the crime of Estafa through Falsification of
Commercial Document against Eduardo B. Siao held:

For a complex-crime of estafa through falsification

of a commercial document to prosper, all the elements of
both the crimes of estafa and falsification of a commercial
document must exist.

Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the

Revised Penal Code, the following requisites must
concur:

1. The accused made false pretenses or fraudulent

representations as to his power, influence,
qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or
imaginary transactions;
2. The false pretenses or fraudulent representations were
made prior to or simultaneous with the commission of
the fraud;
3. The false pretenses or fraudulent representations
constitute the very cause which induced the offended
party to part with his money or property;
4. That as a result thereof, the offended party suffered
damage.

In this case, respondent did not make any fraudulent

representation as to his power, influence, qualifications,
property, credit, agency, business or imaginary
transactions or other similar deceit. The documents
referred to by the complainant are the Trust/Delivery
Receipt dated February 9, 2011 and the Sales Invoice
dated February 10, 2011. The two documents are different
from each other. The delivery receipt is used to indicate
that the items enumerated therein are delivered and is
typically signed by the receiver to indicate that they have
in fact received the items delivered and have taken
possession of it. On the other hand, a sales invoice serves
as the request of payment by the seller to the buyer. It is
claimed by the complainant that he paid the amounts
indicated in the delivery receipt and the sales invoice
without the items having been actually delivered by Siao.
Hence, Siao falsely represented in the documents that
those items were delivered. However, the complaint is
bereft of an official receipt or collection receipt issued by
the seller to acknowledge the receipt of payment of goods
sold. Further, considering that the delivery receipt dated
February 9, 2011 was not signed by the complainant or
any of his representatives, this should have cautioned
him before he made the payment. The same is true with
the sales invoice dated February 10, 2011. He could have
required that a fully accomplished delivery receipt
pertaining to the said transaction be attached to it as a
basis of Siao’s demand for payment. Complainant has all
the means to verify the contents of those documents with
his own documents or employees before he made the
payment. Hence, the payment was made as a result of his
own mistake or negligence. Furthermore, other than
complainant’s bare allegation that there was no actual
delivery made by the respondent on those items covered
by the subject documents, there is no proof on record that
indeed those items were not delivered.

For the crime of falsification of a public document

penalized under Article 172 (4) of the RPC, the following
requisites must concur:
1. That the offender makes in a public
document/commercial document untruthful
statements in narration of facts;
2. That he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of
the facts narrated by him;
3. The facts narrated by him are absolutely false.

Legal obligation means that there is law requiring

the disclosure of the truth of the facts narrated. In this
case, there is no legal obligation on the part of the
respondent to disclose the truth of the facts stated in the
sales invoice and delivery receipt.

17. With all due respect, the Honorable Office failed to

consider the In its vain attempt to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt, the following evidences were formally
offered by the Prosecution:

18. The Complaint-Affidavit of Fidel R. Mangonon, III

The complaint-affidavit of Mr. Fidel Manuel Reyes Mangonon,

III alleged that on May 12, 2013, complainant was with his son Jason
Francis Cruz Mangonon at the press room of Smart Araneta Center,
Cubao, Quezon City when out of nowhere, accused Edmund Badua,
came raging towards him and throw a heavy punches, which hit
complainant Fidel Manuel Reyes Mangonon, at the right side of his
head. Complainant was confined to a hospital for two nights and one
and half days as he was diagnosed to suffer from post-traumatic back
pain due to muscle and ligaments strain. Complainant alleged that he
was under medication and medical supervision for 15 days and
submitted a Medical Certificate dated May 16, 2013.

19. Supporting Affidavit of Mr. Jason Francis Mangonon

Mr. Jason Francis Mangonon is the son of Complainant Fidel

Manuel Reyes Mangonon. In his supporting affidavit, Mr. Jason
Francis Mangonon alleged that he was with the complainant at the
time and place alleged in the Complaint-Affidavit of his father Mr.
Manuel Reyes Mangonon. He stated that he saw the accused
approached the complainant and throw a heavy punch on the right
head of the complainant. He also stated that he saw the complainant
fell on the floor after receiving the punch from the accused.

20. Incident Report

The Incident Report narrated that on May 30, 2013, private
complainant Fidel Manuel R. Mangonon, III and Starline Security
Guard, Renante L. Dayao, went to the Police Station 7, of Quezon
City Police District, to report the incident that happened inside the
Araneta Colliseum Press Room on May 12, 2013, at around 5:15 in the
afternoon, wherein the accused punched the complainant’s right
head causing injury to the latter. In addition, the complainant
reported that as a result of the punched of the accused, he fell from
his chair causing injury to his right arm.

21. Medical Certificate

The medical certificate states that Mr. Fidel Mangonon

consulted Dr. Benigno A. Agbayani and found to have lumbar
muscle in ligament strain 2 to trauma. Consequently, he is not feet to
work from May 14 to May 23, 2013. The certificate was issued on May
16, 2013.

ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSION

The prosecution evidence is

insufficient to justify a finding of
guilt.

22. The constitutional mandate is to the following effect,

Section 14, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution reads:

xxx

“(2) In all criminal prosecution the accused shall be

presumed innocent until the contrary is proved xxx
xxx.”

23. The constitution being the fundamental and highest law

of the land to which all other statutes, rules, and regulations must
conform. Our Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure restated in its
Rule 115, such mandatory postulate, to wit:

“Section 1. Rights of the accused at the trial.- in all

criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled.

(a) To be presumed innocent until the contrary is

proved beyond reasonable doubt.
xxx xxx.”
24. Time out of mind, our doctrinal laws always adhered to
the rule that the burden of proof rests on the prosecution to establish
the guilt of the accused. The quantum of evidence necessary to justify
a conviction is nothing less than proof beyond reasonable doubt.

25. Perforce, our law on evidence, with specific reference to

section 2 Rule 133, Revised Rules of Court, defined the extent and
meaning of the phrase “proof beyond reasonable doubt”.

“Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt.- In a

criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal,
unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a
degree of proof as, excluding the possibility of error,
produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is
required, or that degree of proof which produces
conviction in an unprejudiced mind.

26. Once again, albeit in effect a supportive and cumulative

consideration in view of the preceding disquisition, the “equipoise
rule” finds application in this case, that is, if the inculpatory facts and
circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which
is consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test
of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction7.

27. Trial courts should put prosecution evidence under

severe testing. Every circumstance or doubt favoring the innocence of
the accused should be taken into consideration. The proof adduced
against an accused individual must survive not only the test of
reason and logic, but, above all that of experience8.

Has the prosecution

unequivocably established the
guilt of the herein movant
beyond the shadow of doubt as
evidentially mandated?

28. We respectfully submit that it has not and has miserably

failed to do so. The manner of commission of the crime for which the
movant is presently indicted, as averred in the information, needed
strong evidence that he –

7
People vs Lagnas, 222 Scra 645 (1993)
8
People vs Cartuano Jr. 255 scra 403 (1996)
“xxx xxx willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack,
assault, and employ personal violence upon the person
of FIDEL MANUEL REYES y MANGONON III. xxx
xxx.”

29. The complaint-affidavit of Mr. Fidel Manuel R.

Mangonon III are merely allegations which are self-serving,
distortion of facts tailored to maliciously and baselessly impute upon
accused Edmund Badua the commission of Less Serious Physical
Injury. The inception of the complaint is tainted with ill motive borne
out of spite.

30. By the very nature of the relation between the

complainant and Mr. Jason Francis C. Mangonon, that of father and
son, the allegations contained in the Supporting Affidavit of Mr.
Jason Francis C. Mangonon is obviously come from the standpoint of
one who is partisan to the Complainant’s malicious cause. These
skewed narrations would definitely not reflect the reality that is the
spuriousness of the Complainant’s allegations.

31. The fact that the certification or the incident report was
filed, and subsequently made, only eighteen (18) days or two (2)
weeks and four (4) days after the alleged incident would casts a
colossal shadow of doubt upon the due execution, authenticity, truth
and veracity of the contents of the Incident Report. In addition,
assuming, without admitting, that the alleged incident did in fact
occur, Complainant, filed and requested that an Incident Report be
made eighteen (18) days after. This act of the Complainant defeats the
urgent nature of reporting the allege occurrence of an assault upon
his person which allegedly, due to the gravity of such an assault,
caused the Complainant to fall off his chair and on to the ground.

32. Assuming, without admitting, that the alleged assault did

in fact occur, the medical certificate issued by Dr. Benigno A.
Agbayani does not correctly reflect what would be considered the
natural consequence and effect of being punched in the head. It is
inconceivable that back strain results from the alleged assault upon
the due execution, authenticity, truth and veracity of the Medical
Certificate and that the results may reasonably be attributed to other
causes foreign and alien to the alleged acts of the accused or to causes
imputable to the complainant himself.

Elements of Less Serious Physical

Injuries Not Established

33. Art. 265 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

“Any person who shall inflict upon another physical
injuries not described [as serious physical injuries] but
which shall incapacitate the offended party for labor for
ten (10) days or more, or shall require medical
attendance for the same period, shall be guilty of less
serious physical injuries and shall suffer the penalty
of arresto mayor”.

34. Based on the law, the elements of the crime of less

serious physical injuries are, namely:

1. That the offender inflicted physical injuries upon

another; and,

2. That the physical injuries inflicted either

incapacitated the victim for labor for 10 days or more, or
the injuries required medical assistance for more than
10 days9.

35. Nothing in the records, however, supports the finding

that the Complainant Fidel Manuel R. Mangonon III was
incapacitated for labor for ten (10) days or more or that she required
medical attention for the same period.

36. Complainants’ Medical Certificates merely shows that he

is just not fit to work from May 14 to May 22, 2013. He is neither
incapacitated for labor for ten (10) days nor requires medical
attention for the same period.

37. Assuming for the sake of argument that the Complainant

is incapacitated to work as a result of the assault, such incapacity
does not reached ten (10) days or more, as his Medical Certificates
ONLY shows eight (8) days or from May 14 up to May 22, 2013.

38. The Medical Certificate the Complainant does not

indicate how many days of medical treatment his injury would need.
The prosecution was, therefore, unable to establish that the injury
sustained by Mr. Fidel Manuel R. Mangonon III falls under less
serious physical injuries absent the requirement that her injury
required medical attention for 10 days or incapacitated him for the
same period.

PRAYER

9
Enrile vs Manalastas, G.R. No. 166414, October 22, 2014
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed
unto the Honorable Court that this Demurrer to Evidence be granted
and that the criminal charge of Serious Physical Injury against the
accused EDMUND BADUA be DISMISSED.

Other reliefs, just and equitable, are likewise prayed for.

Quezon City, Philippines, April 20, 2017.

THE LAW FIRM OF

CASAUAY COLOMA FRANCISCO ESTRELLADO
& ASSOCIATES
Counsel for Petitioners
Suite 300-C Delta Bldg. West Avenue
Corner Quezon Avenue, Quezon City

By:

RICHARD LAGGUI SUYU

IBP OR # 1061212, 01/09/2017 Cagayan Chapter
PTR #6031589, 01/12/2017, City of Manila
Roll of Attorneys No. 64459
MCLE Compliance No. V-0017871, March 3, 2016
Mobile No. 09151928776

NOTICE OF HEARING

HON. RAFAEL R. VILLORDON

Assistant City Prosecutor

THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

Metropolitan Trial Court
Branch 33, Quezon City
Greetings!

Please submit the foregoing Demurrer to Evidence for the

approval and consideration of the Honorable Court on _________at
______.

RICHARD LAGGUI-SUYU

Copy Furnished:

HON. RAFAEL R. VILLORDON

Assistant City Prosecutor
4th Floor, Hall of Justice,
Mayaman Street, Quezon City
1101 Metro Manila

EXPLANATION

Due to lack of personnel, the service of this pleading to parties

was effected through registered mail.

RICHARD LAGGUI SUYU