06-0263-ERA

Document Sample
06-0263-ERA Powered By Docstoc
					                                        Republic of the Philippines
                                         DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
                                     OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
                                              Marikina City
MARIANO DELA CRUZ
     Complainant,

        -versus-                              I.S. NO. 06-0263
                                              FOR: ESTAFA THROUGH FALSIFICATION
DEMETRIO C. MARERO                                   OF PUBLIC DOCUMENT
         Respondent,
x----------------------------------------x

                                             RESOLUTION

   This case is re-assigned to the undersigned Associate Prosecution Attorney
pursuant to the Office of the City Prosecutor, Marikina City, Office Order No. 2007-05
dated August 3, 2007.

   According to the complainant, he and his wife Leta L. Dela Cruz are the owners of
a parcel of land they bought from the respondent which is covered by Transfer
Certificate Title (TCT) No. 330000, now TCT NO. 406800, issued by the Register of Deeds
of Marikina City. Complainant averred that on May 20, 1999 respondent sold the
subject land to Victoria T. Tuparan despite knowing fully well that the same was no
longer his.

    Respondent, on the other hand, vehemently denied the charges against him. He
claimed that sometime on December 21, 1996 he and the complainant, a previous
counsel of the respondent, entered into a contract of Legal Service for filing a
Petition of Issuance of Owner’s Duplicate Copy of OCT No. 4153. On January 23,
1997 the said Petition was filed with the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City assigned
to Branch 72 and is docketed as LRC Case No. 97-1921. While the case was still
pending, the parties herein entered into a Contract of Conditional Deed of Sale part
of the consideration were one (1) condominium in Quezon City and a car.
Respondent further averred that sometime in June 1997, he was personally informed
by the complainant that all the documents presented by the former in the petition
were all fake. Unknown to the respondent, the Regional Trial Court granted his
petition in an order dated March 10, 1997 and a Certificate of Finality was already
issued. Sometime in July 1997, having doubt of the information given to him by the
complainant, respondent personally verified his case with the said Court. He then
discovered of the aforementioned Order and Certificate that were issued. Also, he
learned that the complainant was able to secure the cancellation of OCT No. 4153
and a TCT No. 330000 was issued in their favor by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale
dated May 27, 1997 allegedly executed in their favor by the original owners of the
subject land, Spouses Pedro Sumulong and Cirilia Tapales. Respondent claimed that
no sale was ever executed by him in favor of the complainant and his wife.
Whatever alleged documents presented with the Office of the Register of Deeds
relative to the lot are falsified document.

     In his Reply-Affidavit, complainant averred that respondent executed a Sale of
Real Property involving OCT 4153 that was still registered in the names of Pedro
Sumulong and Cirila Tapales last May 20, 1997. After getting the TCT 330000,
respondent gave the title to complainant in the presence of Adoracion Losloso and
Nestor Aguirre, the duly appointed brokers of the respondent. Complainant gave
the title to Loslose and Aguirre for them to go to Antipolo Assessor’s Office to transfer
-----------------
resolution
i.s. no. 06-0263
page 2
-----------------

the tax declaration of the lot from Pedro Sumulong and Cirilia Tapales to Miniano
and Leta Dela Cruz.

    However, said brokers failed to transfer the tax declaration of the lot because the
lot was already registered in the name of Antipolo Properties, Inc (API). API has full
possession of the lot sold by the respondent to the complainant. Hence, respondent
had not delivered even one square meter of the 9,105 sq. m. lot previously covered
by OCT 4153. Complainant denied the claim of the respondent that he transferred
thirty percent (30%) of the lot areas to Atty. Miniano Dela Cruz as payment of legal
services. Complainant further alleged that the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by
respondent in favor of Victoria Tuparan is void because Atty. Raul Cruz Olpindo, who
notarized the Deed, is not commissioned Notary Public for Marikina City for the year
1999. Also, according to the complainant, after he paid the TWO HUNDRED
THOUSAND PESOS (Php200,000.00) downpayment for the Right of Way, the
respondent executed the Promissory Note for the payment of the balance of FOUR
HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php400,000.00), in the presence of Aguirre and the
complainant. What complainant bought from respondent is a lot covered by OCT
4153, not TCT 4153. In fact, the Register of Deeds of Marikina issued a Certification
dated April 22, 2003 that their Office never issued TCT 4153 in the name of Pedro
Sumulong and Cirilia Tapales. The fake Deed of Absolute Sale dated May 27, 1997 in
the Counter-Affidavit involves TCT 4153, not OCT 4153. Said Deed is without the
signature of Complainant and his wife.

    In the present case, complainant alleged that the respondent falsified a Deed of
Absolute Sale the latter executed in favor of a certain Victoria T. Tuparan. However,
complainant failed to produce the original copy of the said Deed of Sale. Under
Section 3 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, when the subject of inquiry is the contents
of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document
itself. Evidence cannot be received which indicated on its face that it is secondary,
that is, merely substitutionary in its nature, and that the original source of information
is in existence and accessible. Mere photocopies of documents are inadmissible
pursuant to the best evidence rule. In the present complaint, there is nothing in the
records that shows that the original copy was attached or presented for the purpose
of comparison. As the complaint is for falsification of public document, the original
copy of the falsified document must be presented; otherwise, there would be no
basis for its resolution.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the dismissal of the present complaint against
DEMETRIO C. MARERO for Estafa through Falsification of Public Documents under
Article 315 in relation to Article 172 and Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, is
respectfully recommended.

   Marikina City, March 3, 2008.

                                                     ELENA R. AGUILAR
                                               Associate Prosecution Attorney
APPROVED:


   JASON ANTONIO AMANTE
       City Prosecutor
    Copy Furnished:

    Miniano Dela Cruz        Demetria C. Marero
    # 94 General Avenue      Martinez St.,Antipolo City
    Project 8, Quezon City

/ajtc 03-03-08

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:131
posted:8/17/2010
language:English
pages:3