CrimesAgainstPublicInterestComplaint

3BLegalForms
Atty.MarianJoanneCoPua

Bunoan,Marivic
Gayya,LorenzoLuigi
Lacuesta,PatriciaFaith
Nicdao,Ma.Angelica
Reyes,CristopherJon

REPUBLICOFTHEPHILIPPINES
DEPARTMENTOFJUSTICE
OFFICEOFTHEPROSECUTOR
MANILA
AngelicaNicdao,
Complainant,

Versus

IS#134590FOR

FALSIFICATIONOF
PUBLICDOCUMENT.
LORENZOLUIGIGAYYAandCRISTOPHERREYES.
Respondents,
x------------------------------------x
REPLYAFFIDAVIT
After having been duly sworn in accordance with law, the
complainantherebydeposeandstatethat:
1. IamAngelicaNicdao,Filipino,oflegalagewhomaybeserved
withnoticeandotherprocessesatLot13Block16Shelterville
NovalichesCaloocanCity.
2. Iherebyreiterateandrepleadallthepositionsandargumentsin
myComplaintAffidavit.
3. Inresponsetotheassertionsoftherespondentsasembodiedin
theirCounterAffidavit,thefollowingpointsareadvanced:
a. The CounterAffidavit submitted by the respondents is
based on unsupported assertions and conjectures.Their
affidavitassertedfactsunsupportedbyevidence.Cleary,the
respondentsmerelyconcentratedonevadingtheirliability
bysimplydenyingtheallegationssetforthinthecomplaint
without proffering any material assertions founded on

evidencethatwouldnegatetheexistenceoftheelementsof
thecrimechargedagainstthem.
b. Inaddition,itisclearfromtheirCounterAffidavitthatthe
respondents have misconstrued the gravamen of the
crime ofFalsificationofaPublicDocumentunderArticle
172inrelationtoArticle171(3)oftheRevisedPenalCode.
Thegravamenofthecrimechargedistheactofattributing
to persons who haveparticipated inan act or proceeding
statements other than those in fact made by them. This
meansthatthecrimeisdeemedconsummatedbythemere
act ofmakingitappearthattheoffendedpartyhasmade
statementsinadocumentotherthanthatoriginallystatedby
theoffendedparty.
c. Given the preceding premise, the assertion of the
respondentsinParagraph4(a)oftheirCounterAffidavitis
clearlyimmaterial.There,theyclaimedthattheywerenot
theauthorsofthecrime,sincetheydidnothavefirsthand
access to the vouchers. However, the fact that the
respondents did not have a firsthand access on the said
vouchers would not in any way exculpate them from
liability. Firsthand access to public documents has never
beenanelementtotheoffensecharged.Whetherornotthe
respondents had firsthand access to the documents, the
second element of the crime would still have existed,
becausethemereactoftherespondentsinmakingitappear
that the complainant declared a glaringly higher value of
travelexpenseinhervoucherisalreadysufficienttowarrant
the conclusion that the second elementattributing to
persons who have participated in an act or proceeding
statementsotherthanthoseinfactmadebythemispresent.
4. In Paragraph 4(a) and (b) of their CounterAffidavit, the
respondentsadvancedtheirtheorythattheycouldnothavebeenthe
authorsofthefalsificationduetothefactthattheirfunctionas
disbursingofficersdidnotincludethedutytomake,prepare,or
otherwise intervene in the preparation of the falsified travel
expensevoucher.Thisassertionoftheirsisverymuchcontrary
totheessenceofFalsificationunderArticle172oftheRPC.It
mustbenotedthatthefirstelementofthecrimeoffalsification
under Article172oftheRPCisthattheoffender isaprivate
individual or a public officer or employee who did not take
advantageofhisofficialposition.Thelogicalconclusionthatcan
bededucedfromthiselementisthatthecrimeiscommittedbya

person, a private individual or a public officer, who performed

functionsoractsthatisnotwithinthescopeofhisofficialfunction
orduties.Fromthis,itisdefinitelycogentthattheactchargedas
againsttherespondentsisanactthatisnotwithinthescopeof
their authority.The assertion therefore is inconsequential in
exculpatingtherespondentsfromliability.
5. Furthermore,therespondentsclaimedinParagraph4(b)(3)oftheir
CounterAffidavit that the complaint has failed to prove her
allegations that there was a direct correlation between the
respondentsandherallegedfalsification.
But a reasonable perusal of the allegations and the supporting
documents in the complaint would evidently establish a link
betweentherespondentsandtheactoffalsification.Thecomplaint
affidavitaverredthattherespondentsapproachedthecomplainant
andinducedhertosignavouchercontainingarelativelyhigher
amountoftravelexpensethanwhatshehasactuallyspent.Italso
specifiedthattherespondentsaredisbursingofficersworkingin
the Disbursing Department. Therefore, the facts alleged, as
supported by evidence (Annexes B, C, D, E, F and G of the
ComplaintAffidavit),issufficienttoestablishtheintenttofalsify
onthepartoftherespondents.Itisalsocorrecttoconcludefrom
thefactsallegedthattherespondents,beingdisbursingofficers,
haveready,ifnotfirsthand,accesstothedocuments.Withthese
facts,itisclearthatthecomplainanthasindeedestablishedawell
founded belief that these accused committed the crime of
FalsificationofPublicDocumentsunderArticle172inrelationto
Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code and hence proving a
probablecausesufficienttowarrantthefilingofanInformation
againsttherespondents.
6. InParagraph4(b)(4)andParagraph4(d)oftheirCounterAffidavit,
therespondentsassertedthatitwasIsabelleWilsonwhoordered
therespondentstorelaythemessageofalteringthecomplainants
voucheramount.Thisassertionisundoubtedlycontrarytohuman
experienceandlacksaniotaofsufficientprooftowarrantbelief.
Human experience would dictate that if indeed it was Isabelle
Wilson (who is the Head of the Disbursing Department) who
orderedtherespondentstoconvincethecomplainanttosignthe
voucher, the respondents should have then used the name of
Wilsoninconvincingthecomplainanttosignthevoucher.Itisbut
natural to rely on the strength of the name of a superior in
convincing a cosubordinate to comply with the orders of their
superior.Therespondentshouldhaveatleast,inpersuadingthe
complainant, mentioned the name of Isabelle Wilson. But the

respondentsfailedtodothis,andsuchfailurecouldonlymeanthat
thisallegationisamereafterthoughtonthepartoftherespondents
inordertoevadeliability.
7. Evenassumingforthesakeofargumentthattheabovementioned
allegationisnotamereafterthoughtandnotcontrarytohuman
experience,thiskindofassertioncannotbetakenatitsfacevalue.
Other than the bare assertions of the respondents, no other
supportingdocumentsorproofareattached.Assumingfurtherthat
indeed the respondentsusedthenameof their superior Isabelle
Wilson in persuading the complainant to sign the falsified
document,woulditnotalsobecontrarytohumanexperiencethat
thecomplaintwouldimmediatelygotoIsabelleWilsonherselfto
ask for the status of her voucherwhen in fact the complainant
herself knew from the assertions of the respondents that it is
Isabelle Wilson, the Head of the Disbursing Department, who
orderedhertosignthefraudulentdocument?
8. In Paragraphs 4(c) and 6 of their CounterAffidavit, the
respondentsarguedthatthecomplainantsimplyallegedthatthe
document appears to have been signed by her and does not
necessarily or automatically suggest that it was signed by the
respondents. She merely assumed that it was the respondents
actions, despite the absence of actual, physical and testimonial
evidence and for failing to prove the alleged crime beyond
reasonabledoubt,thecomplaintshouldbedismissed.Withregard
tothis:
a. Itshouldbepointedoutthatunder Paragraph4(f) of my
ComplaintAffidavit, I alleged that I immediately
recognized that the voucher I found was the very same
voucherthatwaspresentedbeforemebyGayyaandReyes.
Clearly,contrarytotheassertionoftherespondents,Ihavea
wellfoundedreasontobelievethatitwasrespondentswho
madethefalsification.
b. But assuming arguendo that the existence of the falsified
document doesnotnecessarilyimplythattherespondents
arethefalsifiers,thisisamatteradefensethatisproperly
threshed out in a fullblown trial. Nevertheless, it bears
stressingthattheallegationsofthecomplaintthattheyare
disbursingofficershavingreadyaccesstothevoucherand
the fact that they convinced the complainant to sign the
disputed documentwarrant a sufficient ground to
engender a wellfounded belief that a crime has been

committed,andthattheaccusedisprobablyguiltythereof
andshouldbeheldfortrial.
c. Probablecause(determinationofwhetherornottheaccused
isprobablyguilty)beingmerelythestandardindetermining
whetherthecasewouldproceedtotrial,theassertionofthe
respondents that the complaint should be dismissed for
failuretoprovetheallegedcrimebeyondreasonabledoubt
ispatentlywrong.
9. All told, the complainant, having clearly established probable
cause that the respondents committed the crime charged, the
complaintshouldbegivenmeritanditisrespectfullyprayedthat
thiscasebeallowedtoproceedtotrial.
INWITNESSWHEREOF,wehavehereuntosetourhandsthis
30 dayofApril2016,inQuezonCity.
th

_________________________
Angelica Nicdao
Complainant/
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, in the city of

Manila, this 2nd day of May, 2016, the affiant exhibiting to me
her Passport issued by Department of Foreign Affairs Manila
on 15th of June 2016 at Roxas Blvd, Manila.

______________________
Marivic Bunoan
Asst. City
Prosecutor
This is to certify that I have personally examined the
herein affiants and that I am satisfied that they voluntarily
executed and understood their statements herein.

______________________
Marivic Bunoan

Asst. City
Prosecutor