Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
National Prosecution Service
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
El Salvador City, Misamis Oriental

BARANGAY COUNCIL OF NPS NO.: X-14-INV-17B-00009

BARANGAY SINALOC, EL
SALVADOR CITY rep. by
ROLAND L. ANG, Barangay
Chairman , FOR: Malversation through
Falsification of Public Document
Complainant,

-versus-

JULIE ANN DIANGO y

INTERONE
Respondent.
X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - /

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Respondent, by counsel unto the Honorable Prosecutor most

respectfully moves for the reconsideration of its Resolution dated
30th day of June 2017, which was received on 7th day of July 2017
and respectfully submitting the following arguments:

1. That, while the determination of probable cause is within the

discretion of the Honorable Prosecutor, it must be exercised
in a cautious manner to secure the innocent against hasty,
malicious and oppressive complaint and to protect the
respondent from an open and public accusation of a crime,
from trouble, expenses and anxiety of a public trial.
Considering the gravity of the accusations the respondent
 pleads for reinvestigation and reconsideration of the
complaint;

2. That it is clear that the signatures of the complainant

appearing in the documents attached in the complaint are
his own signatures. Thus, by merely looking at the
documents it can be deduced even by the naked eye that
the signatures are genuine and authentic;

3. That, with respect to the checks, it is irrational to claim that

the signatures of the complainant on the checks are forged
or falsified considering the fact that the same had to
undergo verification process of the bank for scrutiny;

4. That considering the number of checks and the series of

transactions, experience dictates that it is impossible for the
bank or the verification officer to overlook the possibility of
forgery;

5. That the documents attached in the counter-affidavit,

specifically Annexes 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, and 12, were not
appreciated. The documents are Punong Barangay
Certifications (PBC) which are signed by the Punong
Barangay and Barangay Treasurer and further notarized by a
notary public. Such documents enumerate the number of
checks issued in a particular month. The documents would
imply that the signatures of the complainant are genuine
and authentic. To challenge the authenticity of those
signatures would carry with it the irregularities in notarizing
the documents. In other words, it is impractical for the
complainant to question the checks which he himself sworn
for their authenticity, more so, before a notary public;

6. That considering the extensive procedure (as embodied in

the counter-affidavit) in preparing the documents and
procuring the number of signatories in using a government
funds, it is impossible that the respondent could manipulate
the alleged infractions without being caught. Moreover, such
 transactions were subjected to inspection by the
Commission on Audit which in turn have issued a clearance
in favor of the respondent;
7. That the evidence presented to support the allegation that
the respondent pocketed the remaining amount of Php
10,000.00 (out of Php 19,000.00) on LBP Check No.
00223957 dated June 22, 2015 would not warrant that the
respondent presumably used the funds. The complainant
simply attached in the complaint the copy of the Check,
Disbursement Voucher and Abstract of Canvass without
attaching the Official Receipt of the payment made for the
services incurred. The respondent is certain that she
acquired an official receipt upon payment to Tatay Sound
System but cannot show evidence thereto because the
official receipt is in the possession of the barangay.

Moreover, the amount was used for the payment of sound

system in charter day celebration for one week (as appeared
in canvass) contrary to the accusation of the barangay
secretary Agnes Quiacao in her Affidavit that the funds were
used in dance contest prizes.

Furthermore, the Abstract of Canvass was signed by several

persons; the Barangay Chairman, the BAC Chairman and
other three members. It is absurd to say that the event did
not occur, if so, the signatories would have questioned the
misdeeds far earlier than the date when this complaint was
instituted.

8. That the witnesses, who individually executed an affidavit

and alleged therein that their signatures were forged in the
payrolls, are obviously acted in concert to oppress the
respondent. This is manifested with the fact that there is
some sort of similarity or uniformity as to the questions
asked, how they answered the questions in their affidavit
and the dates of execution. Nevertheless, the fact that the
laborers or recipients of the funds or amounts affixed their
signatures in the payroll will constitute as proof that they
 have received it. The signatures appearing on the payrolls
would suggest that the funds were delivered to the payees
and the respondent did not appropriate the funds for herself.
How can the respondent appropriate the funds for her
benefit if it can be inferred by looking at the payrolls that
the payees have received the amounts. Appropriation is
essential in Malversation. Again, a mere look of the
documents even without the help of experts or being
subjected for calligraphy test would suggest that the
signatures are genuine and authentic.

In addition, the one executing an affidavit cannot bind

another person for his declaration. It can be observed in the
affidavits of the witnesses that they include other persons
appearing in the payroll in alleging that the signatures were
forged. The affiant is not in a possession to determine
whether the signatures of other laborers are forged or not,
unless they actually saw the mechanical act of forging the
signature. An example of this is, among others, the Answer
of Rogelio Payot in question no. 6 of his affidavit, “she
forged my signature, signature of the foreman, and
signatures of nine laborers”. The affidavit of Mr. Payot did
not state that he actually saw the respondent forging the
signatures of the foreman and laborers. This kind of
stipulation should not be given consideration in the
complaint and the declaration should not bind to other
persons;

9. Assuming arguendo that the respondent forged the

signatures of the laborers and used or pocketed their
salaries, the amount to be considered in charging
Malversation should be the amount of their respective
salaries appearing in the payroll that they have denied.
Thus:
a. Since Julio T. Buna declared in his affidavit that he did
not sign in the Payroll No. 15-10-103 (September 7 to
25, 2015), then, only Php 5,250.00 out of Php
49,750.00 should be considered in charging the
 respondent because it is the only amount due to Julio
T. Buna;
b. Since Alicia D. Catiil declared in her affidavit that she
did not sign in the Payroll No. 15-11-115 (November 4
to 26, 2015), then, only Php 6,300.00 out of Php
48,750.00 should be considered in charging the
respondent because it is the only amount due to Alicia
D. Catiil;
c. Since Rogelio Payot declared in his affidavit that he did
not sign in Payroll No. 16-08-061 (August 1 to 19,
2016), then, only Php 3,750.00 out of Php 42,750,00
should be considered in charging the respondent
because it is the only amount due to Rogelio Payot.
It must be observed however that in the affidavit
of Rogelio Payot, he attacked the signatures appearing
in the payroll of August 1 to 19, 2016 but the
“Manifestation” refers to July 2016 Payroll;
d. Since Dexter Deblois declared in his affidavit that he
did not sign in Payroll No. 16-07-053 (July 2016), only
Php 2,000.00 out of Php 22,800.00 should be
considered in charging the respondent because it is the
only amount due to Dexter Deblois;
e. Since Rito M. Bacadon declared in his affidavit that he
did not sign in the payroll dated August 8 to 26, 2016,
then, only Php 5,250.00 out of Php 46,500.00 should
be considered in charging the respondent because it is
the amount due to Rito Bacadon.

10. That the allegations that the respondent used for herself
the funds appearing in check nos. 0002239679 and
0002769005 are also not true. In support of the allegations
the complainant adduced the Checks, Disbursement
Vouchers, Purchase Request, Purchase Order, Abstract of
Canvass and Barangay Resolution No. 8-s-2016. Again, the
signatures are authentic in these documents; the respondent
was the one who prepared them and assisted in the signing
by the persons in interest. In the Abstract of Canvass alone
where signatures of the Barangay Captain, BAC Chairman
 and three BAC members are required, it is illogical therefore
to say that their signatures were forged or the supposed
activity did not actually occur.

11. That it is not within the grasp of Noemi L. Rita to actually

know or say whether or not the catering services were
incurred during Non-Communicable Disease Risk
Assessment Day at Sinaloc Health Center. Noemi L. Rita is a
treasurer of El Salvador Alternative Learning System-Multi-
Purpose Cooperative, it is impossible for her to witness the
activities in Sinaloc Health Center because of the distance of
the two establishments. Similarly, Noemi Rita cannot witness
the occurrence or non-occurrence of PhilHealth Profiling;

12. That, assuming without admitting, the assertions of Noemi

Rita in her affidavit that the respondent secured the official
receipts by paying the former only 4% of Php 18,000.00 and
5% of Php 45,750.00 were true, she should have also been
indicted in the complaint. The complainant declined to indict
Noemi Rita while it is very clear in her affidavit that she
made an extra-judicial confession of issuing receipts to
transactions which allegedly did not occur. This is unusual.
She should have been charged as accomplice in this case;

13. That it is not true that the respondent pocketed the amount
appearing in Check No. 0002769006 Php 20,296.57. The
members of CVO have received the uniforms on June 1,
2016 contrary to the allegation of Bonifacio M. Mangayan.
This is manifested in a document signed by the CVO
members after receiving the uniforms. Copy of such
document is hereto attached and marked as Annex “1”.

14. That assuming without admitting that the respondent

committed the felonious acts complained of, the complainant
should likewise have been indicted, being a public official in
custody of the barangay funds. Thus, one of the elements of
the crime of Malversation is “that the accused appropriated,
took, misappropriated or consented or, through
 abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to
take them”. Here, the complainant is guilty of negligence.
The felonious acts would not have occurred had the
complainant exercised diligence in the administration of the
barangay affairs. Instead, he is always in the mahjong
parlors and cockpit arena and hereby imputing his
negligence to others. Again, I was present when the signing
of the documents occurred as I was the one who assisted
the complainant while he was affixing his signature.
Perhaps, the complainant did not remember or refuses to
remember of having signed the checks and the other
documents;

15. That the complainant did not include in his complaint some
relevant documents relating to the questioned checks such
as but not limited to Purchase Request, Request for
Quotation, Inspection and Acceptance Report and Original
Official Receipts. He was selective in presenting the
documents. The documents would have been helpful in
determining the innocence of the respondent but the
complainant refrained to include them knowing that it is
prejudicial to his malevolent complaints;

16. That the respondent wanted to secure a copy of other

public documents pertaining to the checks, but she failed to
do so because she thought that the complainant would not
allow her. The complainant did not even allow the
respondent to come or enter in the Barangay Hall. Also, the
City Accounting’s Office refused to provide a copy of such
documents because they do not want to get involved in the
circumstance;

17. That the complainant and the witnesses are in conspiracy

in bringing the complaint without bearing in mind the
inconvenience, expense and stress of the respondent
especially that she has no job and has children with ages 4
and 2 years old. This is despite the fact that the respondent
 went to the house of the complainant to ask for forgiveness
for whatever wrong that she might have done against him.

WHEREFORE, premises considered it is most respectfully

prayed for unto this the Honorable Prosecutor that the questioned
Resolution be reconsidered and eventually drop the complaint
thereon.

Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, July 11, 2017

MERLIN P. CAIÑA & ASSOCIATES

Counsel for the Respondent
2/F Consortium Building
Corrales Extension, Cagayan de Oro City
Mobile No. 09268261008
Landline Phone number (088) 880-3822
Email Address: mpc_lawoffice@yahoo.com

DAN PATRICK S. GARCIA

IBP (OR) 006271; May 20, 2017
PTR No. 3486397; May 29, 2017, CDOC
TIN NO. 934-402-974; Roll No. 66957
Email Address: danpatzsabiogarcia@gmail.com