Você está na página 1de 10

Republic of the Philippines Department of Justice OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR xxxxxxxxxx

AAA, Complainant, -versusBBB, Respondent. x---------------------------------------x NPS Docket No. xxxxxxxxxx For: Falsification

MEMORANDUM FOR COMPLAINANT COMES NOW Complainant AAA, by her undersigned counsel, and to this Honorable Court, most respectfully submits her Memorandum, and alleges that: Statement of Facts: 1. This is a complaint against Respondent BBB for the crime of Falsification under Article 171 in relation to Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code; 2. Complainant AAA is of legal age, Filipino and with residence and postal address at xxxxxxxxx, Alabang, Muntinlupa City; 3. She is the President of record of ABC Corp., a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of Philippines with principal office address at xxxxxxxxxx (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation); 4. On ____________, the Corporation engaged the services of one BBB (hereinafter referred to as Respondent), a Japanese Citizen, married and presently residing at xxxxxxxxx, Metro Manila as one of the Corporations Japanese interpreters (Annex A of Complainants Complaint-Affidavit); 5. The Corporation then applied for Respondents Alien Registration Permit with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE); 6. On _____________, DOLE issued Alien Employment Permit in favor of Respondent (Annex B of Complaint-Affidavit); 7. However, the Corporation ceased its business operation because of some financial problems. Due to the cessation of its business operation, the Corporation was not able to convert Respondents Temporary Visitors Visa into Pre-Arranged Employee Visa under Sec. 9(g) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, as amended;
1

8. Thereafter, Complainant received information that Respondent was still in the Philippines and was able to convert her Temporary Visitors Visa into a Pre-Arranged Employee Visa under Sec. 9(g) of Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, as amended; 9. Complainant then inquired with the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID) the veracity of said information; 10. On ___________, BID confirmed the fact that Respondent was able to convert her visa status from Temporary Visitors Visa into a PreArranged Employee Visa under Sec. 9(g) of Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, as amended. The BID likewise issued in Complainants favor certified true copies of the following documents: (a) Application Letter dated _____________ for Visa 9(g) Pre-arranged Employee Visa allegedly with Complainants alleged signature as the Corporations Representative; and (b) BID Application Form ______________ with Complainants alleged signature as the Corporations Representative. Copies of said Application Letter and BID Application Form are hereto attached as Annexes A and B, respectively hereof; 11. Upon review of above-mentioned documents, Complainant found out that her signature appearing on subject documents were falsified and/or not authored by her. Statement of the Case 12. Complainant filed on ______________ in Prosecutors Office of ____________ a criminal complaint of Falsification under Article 172 paragraph 1 in relation to Article 171 (Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3) of the Revised Penal Code against BBB (Respondent) for making it appear that Complainant has executed, signed, approved and certified Respondents Application Letter for 9(g) Pre-Arranged Employee Visa and BID Application Form, when in truth and in fact Complainant has NEVER executed, signed, approved nor certified both documents; 13. 14. 15. 16. On _____________, Respondent filed her Counter-Affidavit; On _____________, Complainant filed her Reply-Affidavit; On _____________, Respondent filed her Rejoinder-Affidavit; On _____________, Complainant filed her Surreply-Affidavit;

17. Assistant Provincial Prosecutor xxxxxx required the parties, through their counsels, to file their respective Memoranda; 18. Hence, this Memorandum for Complainant. ISSUES: A. WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT FALSIFIED COMPLAINANTS SIGNATURES IN THE APPLICATION LETTER AND THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION (BID) APPLICATION FORM IN ORDER TO APPLY FOR AND/OR
2

SECURE A 9(G) PRE-ARRANGED EMPLOYEE VISA (9(g) Visa); B. WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT BENEFITED FROM THE FALSIFIED APPLICATION LETTER AND BID APPLICATION FORM IN ORDER TO SECURE A 9(G) PRE-ARRANGED EMPLOYEE VISA; and WHETHER OR NOT THE ELEMENTS OF FALSIFICATION UNDER ARTICLE 172 PARAGRAPH 1 IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 171 PARS. 1, 2 AND 3 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE ARE PRESENT IN THIS CASE. DISCUSSION A. Whether or not Respondent falsified Complainants signatures in the Application Letter and the BID Application Form. 19. In her desperate attempt to persuade this Honorable Office that Respondent did not falsify the signatures (allegedly purporting to be Complainants signature) appearing in the Application Letter and the BID Application Form, Respondent alleged in her Counter-Affidavit that Complainant was the one who executed and/or signed the Application Letter and the BID Application Form and/or that the signatures (allegedly purporting to be Complainants signatures) appearing therein are Complainants genuine and/or authentic signatures because these documents were both notarized before a Notary Public; 20. In her Rejoinder-Affidavit, Respondent alleges that Complainant is deliberately misleading this Honorable Office into believing that Passport Number xxxxxxx is not hers. Respondent seemed to have totally missed the whole point, thus the need to restate her allegations in her Counter-Affidavit: First, it takes more than a mere allegation on the part of the COMPLAINANT to controvert the authenticity of a notarized document This Complaint involves two (2) documents which COMPLAINANT accuses me of falsifying to wit: (a) Application Letter dated for Visa 9 (g) Pre-arranged Employee Visa; and (b) BID Application Form dated 10 March 2011. All these documents are notarized, making the same public in character. COMPLAINANT, in filing this Falsification case, is, in effect, suggesting that the Notary Public before whom these documents were sworn to, was lying when he affixed his signature therein. She is suggesting that the Notary Public was remiss in his duty to verify the true identity of the parties who executed the documents in question. COMPLAINANT would have this Honorable Office believe that her word can easily refute the genuineness of a public document. (Emphasis supplied) 3

C.

21. Crystal clear from above-quoted allegation is Respondents admission that the BID Application Form and Application Letter are genuine public documents for the reason that it was notarized by a Notary Public. Hence, Respondent, in above-quoted allegation, is suggesting that said documents are authentic and/or duly executed and that it takes more than mere allegations on Complainants part to prove that Respondent falsified the same. In other words, Respondent posits the view that the authenticity and due execution of the BID Application Form and the Application Letter can only be rebutted by competent evidence that would belie the fact that it was indeed Respondent falsified said documents; 22. To rebut the presumption of genuineness and/or authenticity of the BID Application Form and Application Letter is to go into the circumstances surrounding the execution of said documents; 23. A close scrutiny and/or examination of the Jurat portions of both the Application Letter and the BID Application Form would readily reveal that Complainant did not execute and/or sign said documents and that it was Respondent who falsified the signatures (allegedly purporting to be Complainants signatures) appearing therein; 24. The Jurat Portion of the BID Application Form clearly states that said document was subscribed and sworn to before the Notary Public by Respondent and that Respondent exhibited to him her Japanese Passport. This clearly matches with Respondents current and valid Japanese Passport which points to the fact that Respondent personally appeared and presented the BID Application Form before the Notary Public and signed the said document in his presence; 25. The Jurat Portion of the same BID Application Form and the Application Letter likewise states that both documents were subscribed and sworn to allegedly by Complainant and that she allegedly exhibited to the Notary Public a Philippine Passport was proof that she was the one who executed and/or signed said documents; 26. The truth is that Complainant was issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) a Philippine Passport but the period of validity of said passport already expired. However, before the expiration of said Philippine Passport or on ____________, Complainant was issued by the DFA, another Philippine Passport with Number xxxxx with a validity period that extends until _________ (Annex A of Complainants ReplyAffidavit); 27. The discrepancies between the purported competent evidence of Complainants identity, i.e. Passport Number xxxxx and her true Passport Number, i.e. xxxxxx issued by the DFA bolters Complainants contention that she did not execute and/or sign the Application Letter and BID Application Form and that she never appeared before the Notary Public and executed and/or signed said documents in his presence; 28. If indeed it was Complainant who executed and/or signed the BID Application Form and the Application Letter on __________, the Notary Public could have secured from her a valid and/or competent evidence of identity, i.e. Philippine Passport with Number xxxxxx in order to ensure that Complainant was the one who executed and/or signed said documents. The fact that what appears in the BID Application Form and
4

Application Letter is her expired passport, i.e. Philippine Passport with number xxxxxxx clearly proves that Complainant did not present said documents before the Notary Public nor execute/sign the same before him; 29. On the contrary, Respondents identity as the one who presented, executed and/or signed the BID Application Form was conclusively ascertained by the Notary Public (through her current and valid Passport with Number xxxxxx). This indubitably shows that it was Respondent BBB who executed and/or signed the BID Application Form and falsified the signatures (allegedly purporting to be Complainants signature) appearing therein; 30. Aside from the irregularities attending the notarization of the Application Letter and the BID Application as Complainant did not personally appear before the Notary Public and execute and/or sign said documents in his presence, Complainant also did not appear during the hearing of Respondents application for 9(g) Visa before the Bureau of Immigration; 31. Moreover, the fact that there was a signature (allegedly purporting to be Complainants signature) appearing in the Application Letter dated ____________ is not sufficient to prove that Complainant was the one who appeared during said hearing and signed said letter. A copy of said application letter is attached hereto as Annex C hereof;
32. A close scrutiny and/or examination of said Application Letter would reveal that the signature appearing therein are not Complainants genuine and/or authentic signature as shown by the Amended Articles of Incorporation1 and By-Laws2 of ABC Corporation (ABC), her Philippine Passport with No. xxxx issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs on _____________ and valid until ____________ 3, Photocopy of my NonProfessional Drivers License with No. xxxxxxx 4 and the respective Certificates of Live Birth of her sons cccc 5 and dddd. Close comparison and visual perception alone would instantly reveal that the signature appearing in said letter as well as the signatures (allegedly purporting to be Complainants signature) appearing in the Application Letter and the BID Application Form6 are two starkly different signatures;

33. To further evade liability and/or make a cover up for her despicable act, Respondent, in her Rejoinder Affidavit, alleged that Complainant engaged the services of DEF (DEF) Law Offices in order to apply for a 9(g) Pre-arranged Employee Visa (9 (g) Visa). Thus: 15. Also, no matter how many times COMPLAINANT denies her authorship of the falsification, one undeniable fact remains- that ABC CORPORATION engaged the services of DEF Law Offices for the processing of my employment papers. In my Counter-Affidavit, I stated that even assuming that herein COMPLAINANT did not personally prepare the contested documents, the fact that the latter engaged the services of DEF Law Offices to assist the CORPORATION in the processing of the work permits of its employees would mean that she had reasonable expectation that DEF Law Offices to assist the
1 2 3 4 5 6

Attached Attached Attached Attached Attached Attached

as as as as as as

Annex Annex Annex Annex Annex Annex

E of the Complaint-Affidavit. F of the Complaint-Affidavit. G of the Complaint-Affidavit. H of the Complaint-Affidavit. I of the Complaint-Affidavit J of the Complaint-Affidavit.

CORPORATION in the processing of the work permits of its employees would mean that she had a reasonable expectation that DEF will take care of everything, to the extent of forging her signature so that the petition/application could push through. Therefore, if there would be any one responsible for this falsification charge, it would be DEF Law Offices, with the express will or tacit approval of COMPLAINANT. It is impossible for the President of a corporation not to know what her lawyers are doing. 7 34. Complainant and/or ABC never engaged the services of DEF Law Offices nor specifically authorized the latter to apply for and/or secure a 9(g) Visa for Respondent. There was no imperative need for ABC to apply for and/or secure a 9(g) Visa for Respondent as the latters services was no longer necessary due to the cessation of ABCs business operations; 35. On the contrary, it was Respondent who engaged the services of DEF Law Offices in order to apply for and/or secure for her benefit a 9(g) Visa. Respondent engaged the services of DEF Law Offices because it was she who paid for the services of DEF Law Offices; 36. It is noteworthy to look at the allegations of Respondent in her Counter-Affidavit, to wit: However, contrary to the terms of the Contract of Employment, the CORPORATION did not pay for the expenses covering the petition/application for AEP. In fact, the CORPORATION engaged the services of DEF LAW OFFICES, managed by Atty. xxxxxxx, to handle the application and/processing of the AEP and the extension of Temporary Visitors Visa for and/on my behalf, for which I have been billed by, and thereafter made payment to, such Law Office, as evidence by the billings statements dated ____________ and _________ and bank deposit receipts for the account of Atty. xxxxxxx dated _________ (in the amount of ________), ________ (in the amount of ________), _________ (in the amount of _______), and ___________ (in the amount of _________). (Emphasis ours).
37. Above-quoted allegation readily reveals that it was Respondent, not Complainant, who engaged the services of DEF Law Offices in order to apply for and/or secure a 9(g) Visa for her benefit. If indeed it was Complainant and/or ABC who engaged the services of DEF law Offices, then why did DEF Law Offices charge Respondent and not the Complainant and/or ABC for the expenses which the latter incurred in handling said application and/or processing of said 9(g) Visa. The Contract of Employment8 between ABC and Respondent explicitly provides that all expenses for the application and/or processing employment permits including a 9(g) Visa was for the account of ABC. If at all it was Complainant and/or ABC who applied for and/or engaged the services of DEF Law Offices to process Respondents application for her 9(g) Visa, DEF Law Offices should have directly billed and/or charged ABC for said expenses;

38. A perusal of the Annexes which Respondent attached in her Counter-Affidavit, i.e. Annex 3-A (Re: Billing for the Application for Alien Employment Permit (AEP) and Extention of Tourist Visa dated
7 8

Pp. 6 of Respondent Mikas Rejoinder-Affidavit. Attached as Annex A of the Complaint-Affidavit.

_________ addressed to Respondent and her husband and Annex 3B (Re: Billing for Immigration Processing dated __________ addressed to xxxxxxxxxxxxx (husband of Respondent) would evidently reveal that it was Respondent, not Complainant and/or ABC, who engaged the services of DEF law Offices for the processing of her working visa and/or employment permits including her 9(g) Visa; 39. Furthermore, Annexes 4-A, 4-B, 4-C and 4-D which Respondent attached in her Counter-Affidavit representing the bank deposit receipts evidencing her payment for the services rendered by DEF Law Offices and which she deposited under the account of Atty. ______________ (one of the partners of DEF Law Offices) likewise clearly establish the indubitable fact that it was Respondent and not Complainant and/or ABC who engaged the services of DEF Law Offices to handle and/or process the application and secure a 9(g) Visa in her behalf; 40. It is also a fact that it was Notary Public who notarized both the BID Application Form and Application Letter where the signatures (allegedly purporting Complainants signature) and the genuine signature of Respondent appear; 41. It is no surprise that Respondent was able to falsify Complainants signatures in the BID Application Form and Application Letter with much confidence as the Notary Public, who notarized both documents is also one of the partners of DEF Law Offices, the law office whose services Respondent availed in order to secure a 9(g) Visa in her behalf. This is clearly shown by the billing statements which Respondent herself attached in her Counter-Affidavit as Annexes 3-A and 3-B wherein the name of the Notary Public appears as one of the partners; 42. Respondent wants this Honorable Office to believe that Complainant was in custody of the original copies of the BID Application Form and the Application Letter because the copies of the BID Application Form and the Application Letter attached in Complainants ComplaintAffidavit are not certified copies issued by the Bureau of Immigration; 43. Contrary to above-mentioned allegation of Respondent, the copies of the Application Letter BID and Application Form which Complainant attached in her Complaint Affidavit are certified true xerox copy of the original issued by the Bureau of Immigration, copies of which with stamp Certified True Xerox at the back of each and every page thereof are attached hereto as Annexes A and B hereof, respectively. Respondent cannot therefore claim that the originals of said documents are in Complainants possession and that she was the one who falsified and/or made use of said documents; 44. Lastly, Complainant includes in this Memorandum her answer on the question of APP Ibuna during the Preliminary Investigation conducted on __________ on how Respondent was able to secure certain documentary requirements for her 9(g) Visa application. Complainant answered that some of the requirements like Mayors Permit and Barangay Permit were readily accessible to Respondent since they were all displayed at the entrance of Corporations office. Also, some of the documents required by DOLE for Respondents Alien Registration Permit are also the documents required for the application of 9(g) visa.

B. Respondent benefited from the falsified Letter and the BID Application Form.

Application

45. In her attempt to evade liability for her despicable act, Respondent alleges that that the 9(g) Visa was secured not for her benefit but for ABC as her employer; 46. To reiterate, prior to the issuance of her 9(g) Visa, ABC had already ceased and/or stopped the operations of the school due to financial reverses, thus the reason why ABC did not anymore apply for the conversion of Respondents Temporary Visitors Visa to 9(g) Visa; 47. However, assuming without necessarily admitting that the 9(g) Visa was issued in favor of Respondent prior to the cessation of ABCs business operations, the indubitable fact remains that Respondent falsified the signatures (allegedly purporting to be Complainants signatures) appearing in the Application Letter and BID Application Form and she derived benefit therefrom by the issuance of 9(g) Visa in her favor; 48. It cannot be denied that Respondent benefited from falsifying Complainants signatures in the BID Application Form and the Application Letter. The issuance of the 9(g) Visa in her favor was the best evidence of benefit that she derived as a result of her reprehensible act of falsifying Complainants signatures in said documents. The fact that said 9(g) Visa was subsequently converted to a Special Retirees Residence Visa is not sufficient to prove that she was not the one who falsified the BID Application Form and the Application Letter. Neither did it belie the fact she benefited from her own act of falsifying Complainants signatures in the BID Application Form and the Application Letter;
49. It is an established rule that when a person has in his possession a falsified document and makes use of the same, the presumption or inference is justified that such person is the forger. 9

50. As Respondent benefited from the falsified Application Letter and the BID Application Form, there is no denying that Respondent, being the holder of said documents and the one who benefited therefrom, is the author of the falsified signatures (allegedly purporting to be my signature) appearing in said documents. C. Whether or not the elements of Falsification under Article 172 paragraph 1 in relation to Article 171 pars. 1, 2 and 3 of the Revised Penal Code are present in this case.

51. The elements of falsification of documents under paragraph 1, Article 172 are: 1) the offender is a private individual or a public officer or employee who did not take advantage of his official position; 2) the offender committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Article 171; and 3) the falsification was committed in a public or official or commercial document10;
52. Falsification under paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
9

Spouses Revelo Villamar and Corazon Penuliar-Villamar, G.R. No. 178652, 08 December 2010

10

Daan v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 163972-77, March 28, 2008, 550 SCRA 233, 247, citing Reyes, Luis B., The Revised Penal Code (1981)

Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister. The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts: 1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric; 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; xxx xxx xxx xxx 53. From the foregoing, it appears that Respondent, a private individual, made it appear that Complainant have executed, signed and approved, on behalf of the Corporation, her Application Letter for 9(g) PreArranged Employee Visa and that she certified to the truthfulness of the facts stated under the BID Application Form, when in truth and in fact, Complainant have NOT executed, signed, approved nor certified both documents; 54. This can be concluded after a thorough examination of Complainants alleged signatures in the subject documents, where it appears that they are NOT her genuine signatures as compared to her genuine signatures appearing on other documents. For purposes of comparison and verification of her authentic signature vis--vis signature appearing on the BID Documents of Respondent, Complainant attached in her Complaint-Affidavit the copies of the following documents: a. Amended Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws of ABC Corp. (Annexes E and F, of Complaint-Affidavit, respectively); Philippine Passport No. xxxxx (Annex G of Affidavit); Complaint-

b. c. d.

Photocopy of Complainants Non-Professional Drivers License No. xxxxxxx (Annex H of Complaint-Affidavit); Certificate of Live Birth of xxxxxxx with No. xxxxxxxx with Complainants signature appearing under Item No. 12 thereof Parent or other informant (Annex I of ComplaintAffidavit); Certificate of Live Birth of xxxxxx with Registry No. xxxxxxx with Complainants signature appearing under Item No. 20 Informant (Annex J of Complaint-Affidavit);

e.

55. The falsification committed by BBB has caused damage and/or prejudice to Complainant and to the Corporation; 56. The foregoing circumstances show that all the elements of the crime are present which would warrant the charging of the offense against Respondent;
9

57. Further, Complainant respectfully manifests that the certified true xerox copies of the 9(g) Commercial Records of Respondent are attached hereto in compliance with APP Ibunas instruction during the Preliminary Investigation conducted on ___________. Please note that the stamp CERTIFIED TRUE XEROX COPY is located at dorsal portion of every page thereof. PRAYER WHEREFORE, Complainant respectfully prays that a criminal complaint for falsification be filed against Respondent as all the elements of falsification under Article 172 par.1 in relation to Article 171 pars. 1, 2 and 3 of the Revised Penal Code are clearly extant in this case. Muntinlupa City for _____________, __ May 20__. xxxxxxxxx Counsel for Complainant Address

10