Sunday, November 29, 2015

FILLING UP FALSE ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL FORMS DOES NOT MEAN FALSIFICATION

FILLING UP FALSE ENTRIES IN OFFICIAL FORMS 
DOES NOT MEAN FALSIFICATION CRIME


The author hereby post this Motion for Reconsideration he wrote for his client accused of falsification and found by the Office of the Ombudsman to be have probable cause of committing the same crime.

In brief, the client admitted she was the one who filled up the false entries in a Senior Citizens Application Form.  But somebody else submitted the same filled-up form to the Office of the Senior Citizens Affairs of Tanauan City, Batangas,

Read how the author argued if only to contribute to the wealth of knowledge among ordinary persons.

The same Motion for Reconsideration is hereby posted:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Republic of the Philippines
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
Agham Road, Diliman, Quezon City 1104




FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE,
Office of the Ombudsman
                                         Complainant,
                                                OMB-C-C-14-0463
                 -versus-                                                               FOR: Violation of RA
                                                                                                         9257 and Art. 172, RPC                                                                                 
EVANGELINA A. FELICIANO,
                                        Respondent.
x----------------------------------------x


Motion for Reconsideration



            Respondent Evangelina A. Feliciano, by the undersigned attorney, respectfully moves the Honorable Office to reconsider its Resolution written by Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer II Genielen S. Nataño-Buban dated July 31, 2015, reviewed by PIAB-B Director Moreno F. Generoso on 2 October 2015 and finally approved by Overall Deputy Ombudsman Mechor Arthur H. Carandang on 27 October 2015.


            The same Resolution was received by the respondent herself on 25 November 2015.


            Hence, the ten (10) days of period within which to file a motion for reconsideration ends on 4 December 2015. 


Hence, a remedy of a motion for reconsideration is still available for the respondent upon the filing of the same today, 1 December 2015.


            Therefore, this motion for reconsideration is timely.


The Grounds
           

In the criminal aspect of this case, the Resolution absolved the respondent from any liability under the Senior Citizen’s law but resolved to have found probable cause that the respondent committed a crime defined under Article 171, paragraph 4, in relation to Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code.


With all due respect, the Office of the Ombudsman did not take into consideration the truth that it has no solid evidence to prove this case once it is filed in court so that the better way is to dismiss the same.



The Discussions



            Before discussing the grounds, let the ruling of the Office be quoted, to wit:


              Finally, respondent’s defense that she cannot be held liable for violation of Article 172 since she did not use the ID cannot be given weight.  Causing actual damage or injury to third person is not necessary for liability under Article 172 to attach.   The law only requires intention to cause damage as an element of the crime of falsification.  It is enough that the narration of facts was made with the wrongful intent of injuring a third person for the act to be covered by law.   Actual use of the ID is therefore not necessary. It is already discussed and shown that respondent was motivated by her desire to avail of the privileges that comes with being a holder of a senior citizen ID.


It is firmly submitted that the Office conclusion is one that does not constitute a solid probable cause that gives the Office of the Ombudsman a good fight to win the case.  If it cannot win, it will only render all the efforts of the prosecution futile.


A look again at the ruling of the Office of the Ombudsman shows the weakness of the evidence to prove the crime of violation of Article 171, paragraph 4, in relation to Article 172.


Based on the ruling of the Office of the Ombudsman written in Page 7 of its Resolution, what are established in the instant case are as follows:


a.      She used the name Evangeline Saliendra Feliciano instead of her maiden name Evangeline Agpi Feliciano or her married name Evangeline Feliciano Simangan;


b.     She indicated in the form that she was born on July 6, 1946 to make it appear that she was already 62 years old at the time she filed the form, when, based on her birth certificate, she was actually born on July 18, 1956, thus, she was only 52 years old then;


c.      While she was still legally married to Roy Gregorio Simangan, she indicated in the registration form that she is single;


d.     Her mother was Catalina Agpi but she wrote in the registration form that her mother was Catalina Saliendra. She purposely falsified the maiden name of her mother to be consistent and to corroborate her entry claiming that her real name is Evangeline Saliendra Feliciano.


One material fact that was not established by the Office of the Ombudsman is WHO SUBMITTED THE FORM FILLED UP BY THE RESPONDENT?


Although it was not established by the Office of the Ombudsman who submitted the same filled-up Senior Citizen Application form to the Office of the Senior Citizens Affairs of Tanauan City, Batangas, it has been repeatedly sworn to by the respondent that she gave the filled-up form to her relative.


The respondent also did not know or did not have any personal knowledge whether it was indeed her relative who submitted the same filled-up Senior Citizens Application Form.  She did not have also any personal knowledge who else aside from her relative who submitted the same form to the Office of the Senior Citizens Affairs of Tanauan City.


In other words, there is no iota of proof that it was the respondent who submitted to the OSCA of Tanauan the same filled-up form.


This failure to establish who submitted the same filled-up form makes the probable cause finding of the Office of the Ombudsman very, very weak.


Why?


It is because if the same filled-up Senior Citizens Application Form was not submitted at all, there is no falsification to speak of.


And if the same filled-up application form was not submitted, then respondent cannot be said to have committed the act of falsification.


Now, there must be a proof that the respondent conspired with somebody to have the same filled-up application form submitted to the OSCA of Tanauan City.


But if that somebody cannot be identified, it cannot be said that the respondent conspired for the submission of the same application form, considering that to prove conspiracy is also a need to submit proof beyond reasonable doubt.


Additionally, it must be stressed that the respondent did not commit the crime of falsification because her acts were limited only to filling up the blank Senior Citizen Application Form and nothing more.  


The one who committed the crime of falsification is the one who actually submitted the same filled-up application form.  And who that someone was is the duty of the Office of the Ombudsman to locate.


Intention to commit falsification cannot be presumed to have been done by the respondent.  This is because she did not submit the same filled-up application form.  If she was the one who submitted the same to the OSCA of Tanauan, that is the time that the presumption of intention to falsify can attach.


Pieces of evidence of no intention to commit falsification are clear and convincing.


First is the fact that the respondent did not and has not used the same Senior Citizen card for her own benefit or enjoyment.  In fact, it was already lost from her desk at her office at the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines (CAAP).


Second is the fact that it is clearer and more reasonable to say that the respondent did not personally submit the filled-up OSCA application form.  The fact that she did not submit the same entitles her to the opinion that she did not have any intention of falsifying the records of OSCA of Tanauan City.


Third, the OSCA of Tanauan did not file the instant case when it is the one whose records have been damaged and not the Field Investigation Office (FIO) of the Ombudsman.


Ergo, it is very clear that there is a very weak evidence for the Office of the Ombudsman prosecutor to prove its case of falsification against the respondent.


At the same time, proceeding with the instant case will render all the efforts a useless exercise.


Additionally, proceeding with the instant case will unjustly cause prejudice to the respondent that will entitle her to a damage suit and an administrative case against all the Ombudsman officials who approved this case against her.



The Prayer



            WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of the Office of the Ombudsman to dismiss the instant complaint for utter lack of probable cause.


            Other reliefs just and equitable are also prayed for.  2 December 2015.



Causing Sabarre Castro Pelagio
Unit 1, 2368 JB Roxas St. corner Leon Guinto St., Malate, Manila
Emails: totocausing@yahoo.comberteni.causing@gmail.com; Tel: +632-3105521

By:


BERTENI CATALUÑA CAUSING, CE
IBP No. 949537 / Manila IV / 06-01-2015
PTR No. 3834103 / Manila / 06-01-2015
Roll No. 60944 / MCLE No. IV -0007338 / 08-10-2012


Cc:

FILED INVESTIGATIONOFFICE (FIO)
Office of the Ombudsman
Agham Road, Diliman, Quezon City








X-----------------------------------------x
Republic of the Philippines          )
City of                                                )SC


VERIFICATION


          I, EVANGELINA FELICIANO y AGPI de SIMANGAN, of legal age, with Office address at Human Resource Management Division, Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines (CAAP), with postal address Mia Road, Pasay City, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, respectfully state and depose that:

            I caused the preparation of the foregoing Position Paper; and

            The contents thereof are true and correct of my personal knowledge and based on authentic records.

            IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I sign this Verification on 2 December 2015 in the City of Manila.




EVANGELINA A. FELICIANO
CAAP ID No. 0244

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on 2 December 2015 in the City of Manila, the affiant exhibiting her evidence of identity written below her name above.

Doc. No.:       ______;
Page No.:      ______;
Book No.:     ______;

Series of 2015.

Post a Comment

Amazon Contextual Product Ads

MAN OF IMPOSSIBLE MISSION