5 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PADRE FAURA, MANILA VICENTE C. CATUCOD, Complainant-Appellant, - versus -CASE NO. _____________________ (NPS DOCKET NO. VIII-11A-INV-12K-0049 FOR: FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS, ETC.) LOURDES MAGLOYUAN CALLEJA and PRAXEDES M. PERNITO, Respondents. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x REPLY (TO “COMMENT” OF RESPONDENT LOURDES MAGLOYUAN CALLEJA DATED 30 JULY 2013) COMPLAINANT-APPELLANT VICENTE C. CATUCOD, by way of “REPLY” to the “COMMENT” of RESPONDENT LOURDES MAGLOYUAN CALLEJA dated 30 JULY 2013 (copy received today), most respectfully states that: 1. Anent paragraph 1 of the COMMENT, the instant Complaint was filed not to “pressure” or “harass” anybody but was filed pursuant to existing laws and jurisprudence by an individual trying to seek justice after he, his wife, and his son were maliciously accused of “forcible entry” by Respondent Calleja. As already stated in earlier pleadings, Respondent Calleja filed the “forcible entry” case before the MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT OF CAPUL - SAN VICENTE in Northern Samar despite her full knowledge that the alleged “entry” was not “forcible” since it was duly authorized by no less than her eldest brother, RUBEN H. MAGLOYUAN (please see ANNEX C-8 of the Petition), acting as “Administrator” of the property involved. The property in question does not belong exclusively to Respondent Calleja’s family because no such evidence exists in government records and, per the latest Tax Declaration, the still undivided/unpartitioned property remains in the name of MANUEL BANDAL, an ancestor and predecessor-in-interest of Complainant-Appellant’s wife, ANICETA PELITO DUGAN-CATUCOD, who is by law considered as a co-owner thereof. No “forcible entry” case will succeed against a co-owner, except perhaps when a manufactured evidence is introduced in court.. 2. Anent paragraph 2, the allegation that the “Complainant-Appellant twisted” the “factual circumstances that surround the case” “in order to create a false accusation against Respondent” is not only self-serving but malicious. Contra factum non argumentum (“Against the facts there can be no argument”). The “genuine documents” that were altered were the above mentioned Minutes (please see Annexes C-2 and C-3 of the Petition) and the Summons (please see Annex D-7 of the Petition), issued, respectively, by Respondent PERNITO and Barangay Chairman ANECITO M. BLASQUILLO in their capacities as public officers/employees. As already pointed out in the Petition, the Respondents are liable for “FALSIFICATION” under paragraphs 2 and 5 of Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) because they caused “to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate” when they included in the assailed Minutes the person of “Ryan” (referring to RYAN CATUCOD) who was not present during the fictitious “9:00 A.M” Barangay Mediation Hearing. He was then still “out of town” as clearly indicated on the face of the Summons itself which was altered via a crudely done superimposition to reflect that the hearing was at “9: A.M.” instead of 3:00 P.M. It is humbly submitted that the Public Prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the Complaint outright instead of calling for a “clarificatory hearing” to ask the herein Respondents and Barangay Chairman Blasquillo the true story behind such discrepancies. The clarificatory hearing would have afforded the Public Prosecutor the chance to ask Respondent Pernito germane questions like (a) why did she execute on 24 September 2012 an Affidavit (please see Annex C-12 of the Petition) stating that it was Respondent Calleja who “ordered” her to write or manufacture the now assailed Minutes which she labeled as “not the real Minutes” of the hearing?, (b) why did she issue a “CERTIFICATION” on 23 September 2012 (please see Annex C-8 of the Petition) stating therein that “per record on the minutes of the conciliation/mediation held on January 21, 2012” it was RUBEN H. MAGLOYUAN, Respondent Calleja’s brother, “who gave the authorization/consent to Ryan D. Catucod’s family to construct a building x x x due to the fact that they have the right to do so?,” (c) why on earth did she execute another Affidavit on 28 December 2012 (please see Annex D-2) contradicting her 24 September 2012 Affidavit?, (d) why on earth did she issue two sets of “certified true copies” of Minutes when only one hearing took place?, (e) and other probing relevant questions which an impartial and judicious Public Prosecutor would have asked. Likewise, Respondent Calleja could have been asked if it is true that she “ordered” Respondent Pernito to manufacture the assailed Minutes. Barangay Chairman Blasquillo could have been asked if RYAN CATUCOD was present during the hearing or why did he state in his Affidavit dated 24 September 2012 (please see Annex C-11 of the Petition) that he “distinctly heard” RUBEN MAGLOYUAN during the hearing that it was the latter who authorized the construction of a house on a portion of the property in question. It would not be unreasonable for the Complainant-Appellant and this Honorable Office to now ask why on earth was the Complaint dismissed outright before any impartial, judicious, and meaningful preliminary investigation was conducted considering that the presence alone of Respondent Pernito’s two conflicting Affidavits, punishable under the Revised Penal Code, would already have triggered the suspicion that something was amiss and that a deeper probe is a must. 3. Anent paragraph 3, the allegations that (a) the assailed Minutes is “the real Minutes” inasmuch as it “appear(s) and is written in the logbook of the Barangay,” (b) that “it is further attested by the Brgy. Captain that the same is genuine and thus not altered,” (c) “(t)here is then no reason for anyone to state or even allege that the said document is falsified as the very persons responsible for its preparation and safekeeping have already certified as to its correctness, genuineness and authenticity,” and, (d) that the “Complainant-Appellant is just making up a story in order to create a false charge against Respondent in order to cower her into abiding by their wishes so as they can successfully grab the land belonging to Respondent’s family” are all lame and feeble attempts to confuse and muddle up the real issues presented in the instant Petition because, as already stated, (a) Respondent Pernito herself stated in her 24 September 2012 Affidavit that the assailed Minutes “is not the real Minutes” but was only “ordered” by Respondent Calleja, (b) that the assailed Minutes was manufactured and was just made to appear on or was inserted into the Barangay Logbook and certified to as genuine precisely for the purpose of introducing the same as evidence in court to bolster Respondent Calleja’s “forcible entry” case considering that said Minutes does not contain the fatal (to the success of the “forcible entry” case) statement of RUBEN H. MAGLOYUAN during the hearing that it was he who authorized the “construction of the house” or the “entry,” (c) that the assailed Minutes made it appear that RYAN CATUCOD was present during the hearing when the truth is that he was not present, (d) that there can only be one “Minutes” for one hearing which was conducted at “3:00 P.M.” of 21 January 2013, as certified to by Respondent Pernito herself (please see Annexes C-5, C-6, and C-7 of the Petition) and not at “9:00 A.M.” of said date, (d) that the issue of the validity of the recantation of Respondent Pernito is not for the Public Prosecutor to pass upon but is better left to the sound discretion of the courts, (e) that the Complainant-Appellant is not “making up a story in order to create a false charge against Respondent” because evidence on record cannot not tell a lie, (f) that it was never the intention of the Complainant-Appellant to “grab the land belonging to Respondent’s family” or to anybody because “land grabbing” is an unlawful act, (g) the issue of whether or not the “land” being referred to really belongs exclusively to the Respondent’s family is yet to be determined by the courts, (h) that the Complainant-Appellant’s wife is also a co-owner of the “land” referred to and Respondent Calleja could not accuse her family of having committed “forcible entry,” and, (i) that the instant Complaint was filed solely in the interest of justice and fair play. 4. Anent paragraph 4, it is not true that Respondent Pernito “was only made to sign” her 24 September 2012 Affidavit and “was never even able to read the same.” Respondent Pernito is of sound mind. She will not be appointed as a Barangay Secretary if she does not have a full command of her faculties. Any sane or normal individual will not believe her claim that she just signed the Affidavit without even reading it. She should, as they say, “TELL THAT TO THE MARINES!” Before she signed her 24 September 2012 Affidavit, Respondent sought an audience with the Complainant-Appellant at the Capul Agro-Industrial School (CAIS) Compound to explain what really happened and to apologize for what she did. She eventually confessed that it was Respondent Calleja who ordered her to manufacture the now assailed Minutes. This confession was freely and voluntarily given in the presence of not less than five (5) persons. The signing of the Affidavit was likewise free and voluntary. Her subsequent “categorical” statement that Respondent Calleja “did not order her to write the statements in the Minutes” is a highly self-serving and a belated alibi concocted by her handlers to free herself and her co-conspirator, Respondent Calleja, from criminal liability. 5. Anent paragraph 5, and as stated earlier, the documents that were falsified and altered were the assailed Minutes and the Summons. There was falsification punishable under paragraphs 2 and 5 of Article 171 of the RPC because the assailed Minutes made it appear that RYAN CATUCOD was present during the “9:00 A.M.” hearing when in fact he was not because he was still “out of town,” and this assailed Minutes and altered Summons were introduced in evidence by Respondent Calleja, with the consent of her legal counsel. Further, two conflicting sworn statements are not allowed under the RPC provisions on perjury. 6. Anent paragraph 6, and as stated earlier, a cursory examination of the Summons will indubitably show that there had been a crude superimposition of “9 A.M.” on “3:P.M.” This superimposition was intended to dovetail with the manufactured assailed Minutes. The attestation by Respondent Pernito is also a lame and feeble attempt to exculpate herself from liability considering that she had already stated in her 24 September 2012 Affidavit that the assailed Minutes is “not the real Minutes.” 7. Anent paragraph 7, and as stated earlier, the Public Prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion when she dismissed the case outright despite clear and convincing evidence which would warrant a finding of “probable cause.” PRAYER WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Office that the assailed Resolution be REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one entered finding probable cause against the RESPONDENTS. Other measures of relief just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. 5 August 2013, Capul, Northern Samar for Manila. VICENTE C. CATUCOD Complainant-Appellant COPY FURNISHED: ATTY. ROLANDO P. DUBONBGCO Counsel for Respondent Lourdes Magloyuan Calleja Acazo Apartments, Magsaysay Extension, Brgy. Rawis, Calbayog City HON. ROSARIO FIGUERAS DIAZ Provincial Prosecutor, Northern Samar LOURDES MAGLOYUAN CALLEJA NIA ROAD, BRGY. 82, MARASBARAS, TACLOBAN CITY PRAXEDES M. PERNITO ALFONSO ST., BRGY. 3, POBLACION CAPUL, NORTHERN SAMAR EXPLANATION Copies of this REPLY were sent to concerned parties via Registered Mail due to distance and lack of manpower resources to effect a personal service. VICENTE C. CATUCOD
Posted on: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 15:16:58 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015