Sample motion for reconsideration prepared by our law office in a criminal complaint for falsification that was dismissed by an investigating prosecutor. For legal research purposes of our readers/followers.
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
THE
UNDERSIGNED COMPLAINANT respectfully states:
1. INTRODUCTION.
The subject matter of this
motion for reconsideration is the Resolution,
dated 11 September 2015, issued by Investigating Assistant City Prosecutor xxx,
reviewed by Senior Assistant City Prosecutor xxx, and approved by Chief City
Prosecutor xxx.
2. MATERIAL DATES.
The complainant received via
registered mail a copy of the aforecited Resolution on 4 January 2016.
Her 15th day to
file this motion for reconsideration expires on January 19, 2016.
3. GROUNDS.
The complainant assigns the
following error/ground for this motion for reconsideration:
The questioned Resolution erred in holding, as its sole basis in dismissing the Complaint, that the proper
party-complainant should have been xxx (the employer of the herein complainant) and not the complainant
herself because the Complainant was not
the actual issuer of the falsified Certificate of Employment subject matter of
the Complaint but her employer xxx.
4. DISCUSSION.
The complainant submits that
the questioned Resolution should be reconsidered and set aside and a new one be
issued indicting the respondent for the crime of Falsification of Private Commercial Document as charged in the
Complaint.
4.1.
Complaint.
– As a refresher, the Complaint for FALSIFICATION AND FORGERY is reproduced
hereinbelow:
“x
x x.
1.
This
is a case for FALSIFICATION and FORGERY against the respondent x x x of legal
age and with business address at x x x City,
where summons may be served.
2.
Respondent
x x x is a Sales Executive of x x xx..
She
handled the account of my sister-in-law x x xx who wanted to buy a xxx car.
3.
Upon
advice of xxx, xxx made me and my husband xxx, a younger brother of xxx, as the
latter’s co-makers in the car loan application of xxx with XXX BANK, the
financing arm of xxx.
4.
In April 2015, my husband xxx and I submitted
to respondent xxx our Identification documents, Marriage Contract, and Pay
Slips.
Because
it was Holy Week, we were unable at that time to submit our Certificates of
Employment and Tax Identification Numbers.
5.
I
later found out that a fake, falsified and forged Certificate of Employment was
submitted by respondent xxx to XXX BANK as part of the car loan application of xxx.
The
XXX BANK verified the document with my employer, xxx, which denied having
issued the Certificate of Employment.
6.
Later
my employer filed an internal administrative case against me for Falsification,
Dishonesty, and the like on the theory that I caused the issuance of the fake,
forged and falsified Certificate of Employment.
7.
I
know nothing about such document. The only person who was in a position and who
had the vested interest to prepare the same was the respondent xxx to insure
the approval of the car loan application of xxx, thus, likewise insuring the
commissions and other perks due and owing to respondent xxx by reason of such
approval.
8.
The
criminal act of xxx has endangered my security of tenure in my company and my
name and honor as a citizen.
I
now have to face and defend myself against the administrative case filed
against me.
9.
Enclosed
are copies of the following supporting documents:
9.1.
Annex “A” - Affidavit, dated April 18,
2015, of xxx.
She
is scheduled to leave abroad this month as an overseas Filipino worker in xxx.
9.2.
Annex “B” - MEMORANDUM, dated April 14,
2015, issued by xxx to
me.
It
orders me to explain why I should not be dismissed from the service.
It
contains as an annex thereof a copy of the fake, forged and falsified
Certificate of Employment.
9.3.
Annex “C” - My Demand Letter, dated
April 18. 2015,
to respondent xxx.
It
demands a formal apology from respondent xxx, for the record.
10. In conclusion, I pray that respondent xxx
be indicted for FALSIFICATION AND FORGERY OF PRIVATE COMMERICAL DOCUMENT, in
the interest of justice.
X x x.”
4.2.
By way of refresher, the REPLY-AFFIDAVIT of the
Complainant is reproduced hereinbelow:
“x
x x.
1.
This
is a REPLY to the Counter-Affidavit, dated May 20, 2015, of the Respondent.
2.
At
the outset, I stress that my criminal complaint is based on PERSONAL
KNOWLEDGE, CREDIBLE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, and COMMON SENSE.
2.1.
It
is not based on INSINUATION or SPECULATION.
3.
X
x x.
4.
X
x x.
5.
The
convenient defense of Respondent, aside
from DENIAL, is that as an Sales Executive/Agent of xxx her
routine duty was to simply that of a
non-thinking ROBOT, i.e., to receive
the documents from the car loan applicant xxx and to forward the same to XXX BANK for processing and approval.
6.1.
This is not true.
6.2.
Respondent
was in FULL CONTROL of the different xxx in-house processes, to wit:
6.2.1.
Consolidation
of all loan documents
6.2.2.
Review
of the completeness thereof
6.2.3.
Consultations
with her Supervisor in case of issues Respondent could not handle/resolve alone
6.2.4.
Safekeeping
of the documents
6.2.5.
Control
of the documents and the in-house process of assessment thereof prior to
referral to XXX BANK
6.2.6.
Transmittal
of the consolidated and assessed documents to XXX BANK as approved by her
Supervisor.
6.
Annex “1” of the Counter-Affidavit allegedly
written and sent via iPad by a certain xxx (alleged XXX BANK account
officer) and allegedly addressed to a
certain xxx is unauthenticated, if not spurious or manufactured, or at the
least, self-serving.
6.1.
It is not even under oath.
6.2.
The unknown xxx was not even presented
as a witness before this Office with his own Affidavit sworn to before the
Investigating Prosecutor to affirm the alleged contents thereof.
6.3.
His Company ID Card was not even
photocopied and attached to the Counter-Affidavit.
7.
In
fact, if I recall right, sometime on April 1, 2015, Holy Wednesday, when the
Respondent received from me my Identification Card, Marriage Contract, and Pay
Slips, the Respondent even had the
temerity to ask me to sign some blank documents.
7.1.
She
said they were needed by her to insure the speedy approval by XXX BANK of the
car loan of xxx.
7.2.
I trusted her, and so I complied with her wishes as
a professional sales agent of xxx, even
without scrutinizing them.
8.
The
record of the administrative complaint that was commenced by our Company
against me and which was attached by me to my Complaint-Affidavit was intended
by me as a proof of the painful
consequences of the unlawful acts of the Respondent.
8.1.
Yes,
it is not a proof of
Falsification.
8.2.
But
it is a corroborating proof of my
truthful theory that because of the unlawful and wrongful act of the
Respondent, my security of tenure and
honor as a citizen has been placed in jeopardy.
8.3.
I
am now forced to face and suffer the shame,
pain, expense, and tediousness of the administrative case against me -- all
because of the said act of the Respondent.
9.
The
jurisprudence cited by the Respondent in her Counter-Affidavit are irrelevant
or inapplicable. See Par. 4 thereof.
9.1.
“Colorable truth” is not an issue here.
9.2.
It is a matter of evidence or defense
that is proper during the trial stage before the trial court and after an
indictment.
9.3.
The
same foregoing reason applies to the other defenses raised in the
Counter-Affidavit, to wit:
9.3.1.
“Perversion of truth”
9.3.2.
“Intent
of injuring a third person”
9.3.3.
“Animated
by a desire to do wrong”
10. “Presumption
of innocence” is not a defense to destroy “probable cause”, if one is present.
10.1.
If
there is probable cause, “presumption of innocence” is a matter of defense/evidence that is proper only during trial and after indictment.
11.
The
Respondent thus has no basis/reason to apply/invoke the Cabahug and the Salonga
doctrines. See the Prayer Part of her Counter-Affidavit.
11.1.
The Investigating Prosecutor has the full prerogative to determine probable
cause based on the evidence, whether it be direct,
indirect, physical, autoptic, documentary, circumstantial, of judicial notice,
and backed up by common sense or the natural course of events.
12. In conclusion, I humbly pray that respondent xxx
be indicted for FALSIFICATION AND FORGERY OF PRIVATE COMMERICAL DOCUMENT, or
such other felonies or offenses as may be warranted by the record and the
evidence, in the interest of justice.
X
x x.”
4.3.
Article
171 of the Revised Penal Code is reproduced hereinbelow for reference.
Article 171. Falsification by public
officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister. -
The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed 5,000 pesos shall be
imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official
position, shall falsify a
document by committing any of the following acts:
1. Counterfeiting
or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric;
2. Causing it to
appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did
not in fact so participate;
3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or
proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them;
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
5. Altering true dates;
6. Making any
alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning;
7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to
be a copy of an original document when no such original exists, or including in
such a copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original;
or
8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the
issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official book.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any ecclesiastical
minister who shall commit any of the offenses enumerated in the preceding
paragraphs of this article, with respect to any record or document of such
character that its falsification may affect the civil status of persons.
4.4.
Article
172 of the same Code is reproduced hereinbelow, for reference:
Article 172. Falsification by private individuals and use of falsified documents. -
The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a
fine of not more than 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon:
1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the
falsifications enumerated in the next preceding article in any public or official document or letter of
exchange or any other kind of
commercial document; and
2. Any person who, to
the damage of a third party, or with the intent to cause such damage,
shall in any private document
commit any of the acts of falsification enumerated in the next preceding
article.
Any person who shall knowingly introduce in evidence in any
judicial proceeding or to the damage of another or who, with the intent to
cause such damage, shall use any of the false documents embraced in the next
preceding article, or in any of the foregoing subdivisions of this article,
shall be punished by the penalty next lower in degree.
4.5.
PROPER PARTY-COMPLAINANT in a criminal case for
falsification and forgery is not limited to the locus standi or personality of the Employer (who was made by the
respondent to appear as having issued
the Certificate of Employment subject
matter of the complaint).
The injured employee is a proper
party-complainant, a real party in interest, and an indispensable party as
a result of the commission by the respondent of the crime that caused such
employee pain, injury, damage, and suffering.
4.6.
It will be noted that under Article 4 of the Rev. Penal Code CRIMINAL LIABILITY is incurred:
(1)
By any person committing a felony
(delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he
intended; and
(2)
By any person performing an act
which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the
inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of
inadequate or ineffectual means.
4.7.
Perhaps it is good to review at this juncture who are the persons liable in a criminal
complaint by reproducing hereinbelow Articles
16 to 19 of the same Code.
“x x x.
Persons Criminally Liable for Felonies
Article 16. Who
are criminally liable. - The following are criminally liable for grave and less grave felonies:
1. Who are criminally liable. - The following are criminally liable for
grave and less grave felonies:
1. Principals.
2. Accomplices.
3. Accessories.
The following are criminally liable for light felonies:
1. Principals
2. Accomplices.
Article 17. Principals.
- The following are considered principals:
1. Those who take a direct
part in the execution of the act;
2. Those who directly force or
induce others to commit it;
3. Those who cooperate in the
commission of the offense by another act without which it would not
have been accomplished.
Article 18. Accomplices.
- Accomplices are those persons who, not being included in article 17, cooperate in the execution of the
offense by previous or simultaneous acts.
Article 19. Accessories.
- Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the
crime, and without having participated therein, either as principals or
accomplices, take part subsequent to
its commission in any of the following manners:
1. By profiting themselves or
assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.
2. By concealing or destroying
the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in order
to prevent its discovery.
3. By harboring,
concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principal of the crime,
provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or whenever the
author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to
take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of
some other crime.
X x x.”
4.8.
Is the
victim (i.e., herein complainant) a
proper party-complainant, a real party-in-interest-complainant, or an
indispensable party-complainant in the commission of a felony which has
resulted in her damage, injury, and suffering?
The answer thereto of the questioned Resolution was in the negative.
The complainant humbly submits that the questioned Resolution is in
patent error on this procedural point.
Technical rules of procedures
“shall be liberally construed in
order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.”
(Sec. 6, Rule 1, Rev. Rules of Civil
Procedure).
The Rules of Civil Procedure is
applicable “by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever practicable and convenient.” (Sec. 4, Rule 1, Rules of Civil Procedure).
4.9.
Sec. 2,
Rule 2, Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
SEC. 2. Parties in interest.—A real party in interest is the
party who stands to be benefited or
injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these
Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real
party in interest.
4.10.
Secs. 6 to
9 of the same Rules are relevant:
SEC.
6. Permissive joinder of parties.—All
persons in whom or against whom any right to relief in respect to or arising
out of the same transaction or series of transactions is alleged to exist,
whether jointly, severally, or in the alternative, may except as otherwise
provided in these Rules, join as
plaintiffs or be joined as defendants in one complaint, where any question of
law or fact common to all such plaintiffs or to all such defendants may arise
in the action; but the court may make such orders as may be just to
prevent any plaintiff or defendant from being embarrassed or put to expense in
connection with any proceedings in which he may have no interest. (6)
SEC.
7. Compulsory joinder of
indispensable parties.—Parties in
interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action shall be joined either s plaintiffs or
defendants. (7)
SEC.
8. Necessary party.—A necessary
party is one who is not
indispensable but who ought to be joined as a party if complete relief is to be
accorded as to those already parties, or for a complete determination
or settlement of the claim subject of the action. (8a)
SEC.
9. Non-joinder of necessary parties
to be pleaded.—Whenever in any pleading in which a claim is asserted a necessary party is not joined,
the pleader shall set forth his name, if known, and shall state why he is
omitted. Should the court find the
reason for the omission unmeritorious, it
may order the inclusion of the omitted necessary party if jurisdiction
over his person may be obtained.
The
failure to comply with the order for his inclusion, without justifiable cause,
shall be deemed a waiver of the claim against such party.
The
non-inclusion of a necessary party does
not prevent the court from proceeding in the action, and the judgment
rendered therein shall be without prejudice to the rights of such necessary
party. (8a, 9a)
X x x.”
5.
An OFFENDED PARTY in a criminal case, like the
herein complainant (who is a real and an
actual aggrieved victim of the effects and results of the falsified
Certificate of Employment subject matter of this case and who was administratively charged by her
employer for the existence and use by the herein respondent xxx of such
falsified Certificate of Employment), is a proper
party-in-interest who has the right
to file the criminal complaint and, in
the interest of justice, the herein complainant may not be deprived by the investigating prosecutor of her right to commence a criminal case to seek
relief and redress.
5.1.
In the case of HILARIO P. SORIANO vs. HON.
CAESAR A. CASANOVA, et. al., G.R. NO. 163400, March 31, 2006, it was held that a public crime (like falsification,
forgery, estafa, and the like) may be commenced by the private offended
party or by a victim of the crime or by any member of the general public or by “any competent person”.
“x
x x.
Citing
the ruling of this Court in Ebarle
v. Sucaldito, G.R. Nos. L-33628 and
L-34162, December
29, 1987 , 156 SCRA 803, the Court of Appeals correctly held that a complaint for purposes of preliminary
investigation by the
fiscal need not be filed by the offended party. The rule has been that, unless the offense
subject thereof is one that cannot be prosecuted de oficio, the same may be filed, for preliminary investigation
purposes, by any competent person. The crime of estafa is a public crime which can be initiated by “any competent
person.” The witnesses
who executed the affidavits based on their personal knowledge of the acts
committed by the petitioner fall within the purview of “any competent person” who may
institute the complaint for a public crime. X x x.
X
x x.”
5.2.
Sec. 3,
Rule 110 (Prosecution of Offenses) provides that “a complaint is a sworn
written statement charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the offended party, any peace officer, or other public
officer charged with the enforcement of the law violated.”
The complainant has complied therewith.
5.3.
Sec.6, Rule 110 (Sufficiency of complaint or
information) provides that “a
complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused; the designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of
as constituting the offense; the name
of the offended party; the approximate
date of the commission of the offense; and the place where the offense was committed.”
The complainant has complied therewith.
5.4.
Sec. 12, Rule 110 (Name of the offended party) provides that “the complaint or
information must state the name and
surname of the person against whom or against whose property the offense was
committed, or any appellation or nickname by which such person has been
or is known.”
The complainant has complied therewith.
5.5.
Sec. 1,
Rule 111, (Institution of criminal and civil actions.—provides that
“when a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the
recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed
instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil
action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil
action prior to the criminal action”.
This allows the classification of the
herein complainant as a property party, being a private offended party.
There are two (2) private offended parties
in a falsification, forgery, or estafa cases: the Employer (e.g., xxx ) and the injured
Employee (e.g., herein complainant).
Hence, the herein complainant has the locus standi to commence the instant
criminal case.
5.6.
The
recent case of LEE PUE LIONG A.K.A. PAUL LEE
VS. CHUA PUE CHIN LEE, G.R. No. 181658, August 07, 2013 is instructive.
The
Supreme Court in the said case held that the basis of civil liability arising from crime is the fundamental
postulate of our law that “[e]very person criminally liable x x x is also
civilly liable.”
It stated that “underlying this legal principle is
the traditional theory that when a person commits a crime, he offends two
entities, namely (1) the society in which he lives in or the political entity,
called the State, whose law he has violated; and (2) the individual member of
that society whose person, right, honor, chastity or property was actually or
directly injured or damaged by the same punishable act or omission.”
The Supreme Court further held that “for the
recovery of civil liability in the criminal action, the appearance of a private
prosecutor is allowed under Section 16 of Rule 110 which provides that “where
the civil action for recovery of civil liability is instituted in the criminal
action pursuant to Rule 111, the offended party may intervene by counsel in the
prosecution of the offense.”
Furthermore, defining
who the “offended party” is and “what are the rights of the offended party”, the
Supreme Court held therein:
“x x x.
Section 12,
Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, defines an
offended party as “the person against whom or against whose property the
offense was committed.” In Garcia v. Court of Appeals, this Court
rejected petitioner’s theory that it is only the State which is the offended
party in public offenses like bigamy. We explained that from the language of
Section 12, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court, it is reasonable to assume that the
offended party in the commission of a crime, public or private, is the party to
whom the offender is civilly liable, and therefore the private individual to
whom the offender is civilly liable is the offended party.
X x x.
Under Section 16, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure, the offended party may also be a private individual
whose person, right, house, liberty or property was actually or directly
injured by the same punishable act or omission of the accused, or that
corporate entity which is damaged or injured by the delictual acts complained
of. Such party must be one who has a legal right; a substantial
interest in the subject matter of the action as will entitle him to
recourse under the substantive law, to recourse if the evidence is sufficient
or that he has the legal right to the demand and the accused will be protected
by the satisfaction of his civil liabilities. Such interest must not be a mere
expectancy, subordinate or inconsequential. The interest of the party must be
personal; and not one based on a desire to vindicate the constitutional right
of some third and unrelated party. X x x.
X x x.
In Chua v. Court of Appeals, as a result
of the complaint-affidavit filed by private respondent who is also the
corporation’s Treasurer, four counts of falsification
of public documents (Minutes of Annual Stockholder’s Meeting) was
instituted by the City Prosecutor against petitioner and his wife. After
private respondent’s testimony was heard during the trial, petitioner moved to
exclude her counsels as private prosecutors on the ground that she failed to
allege and prove any civil liability in the case. The MeTC granted the motion
and ordered the exclusion of said private prosecutors. On certiorari to the
RTC, said court reversed the MeTC and ordered the latter to allow the private
prosecutors in the prosecution of the civil aspect of the criminal case.
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari in the CA which dismissed his
petition and affirmed the assailed RTC ruling.
When the case was elevated to this Court, we
sustained the CA in allowing the private prosecutors to actively participate in
the trial of the criminal case. Thus:
X x x.
X x x. Generally, the basis of civil liability
arising from crime is the fundamental postulate that every man criminally
liable is also civilly liable. When a person commits a crime he offends two
entities namely (1) the society in which he lives in or the political entity
called the State whose law he has violated; and (2) the individual member of
the society whose person, right, honor, chastity or property has been actually
or directly injured or damaged by the same punishable act or omission. An act
or omission is felonious because it is punishable by law, it gives rise to
civil liability not so much because it is a crime but because it caused damage
to another. Additionally, what gives rise to the civil liability is really the
obligation and the moral duty of everyone to repair or make whole the damage
caused to another by reason of his own act or omission, whether done
intentionally or negligently. The indemnity which a person is sentenced to pay
forms an integral part of the penalty imposed by law for the commission of the
crime. The civil action involves the civil liability arising from the offense
charged which includes restitution, reparation of the damage caused, and
indemnification for consequential damages.
Under the Rules, where the civil action for recovery
of civil liability is instituted in the criminal action pursuant to Rule 111,
the offended party may intervene by counsel in the prosecution of the offense.
Rule 111(a) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that, “[w]hen a
criminal action is instituted, the civil action arising from the offense
charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended
party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately,
or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.”
Private respondent did not waive the civil action, nor did she reserve the right to institute it separately, nor institute the civil action for
damages arising from the offense charged. Thus, we find that the
private prosecutors can intervene in the trial of the criminal action.
X x x.”
5.7.
In fact, in the case of CRISTINA PEREZ vs. HAGONOY
RURAL BANK, INC., and HON. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 126210. March 9,
2000, the Supreme Court further
bolstered the locus standi of an
offended party to file a Rule 65 special civil action for certiorari by holding
that “the private respondent, as private complainant, had legal
personality to assail the dismissal of the criminal case against the petitioner
on the ground that the order of dismissal was issued with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.”
In the said case, the Supreme Court held that "in a special civil
action for certiorari filed under Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
wherein it is alleged that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction or on other jurisdictional grounds, the rules
state that the petition may be filed by
the person aggrieved.”
The Supreme Court stated that “in
such case, the aggrieved parties are
the State and the private offended party or complainant.”
It added that “the complainant has
an interest in the civil aspect of the case so he may file such special civil
action questioning the decision or action of the respondent court on
jurisdictional grounds” and that “in so doing, the complainant should not
bring the action in the name of the People of the Philippines. The action may
be prosecuted in (the) name of the said complainant."
It stressed that “the private offended party retains the right to bring a
special civil action for certiorari in his own name in
criminal proceedings before the courts of law” and that “it follows, therefore,
that if the private respondent in this case may file a special civil action
for certiorari, then with more reason does it have legal personality
to move for a reconsideration of the order of the trial court dismissing the
criminal charges against the petitioner. In fact, as a general rule, a special
civil action will not lie unless a motion for reconsideration is first filed
before the respondent tribunal, to allow it an opportunity to correct its
assigned errors.”
6.
PURE
TECHNICALITY. - Please note that the questioned Resolution did not
determine the existence or non-existence
of PROBABLE CAUSE.
The questioned Resolution is mysteriously quiet
on the matter.
It simply dismissed the Complaint for
alleged lack of locus standi of the
Complainant.
This is a glaring error of judgment, an
abuse of discretion, and an act of gross negligence on the part of the
Investigating Prosecutor.
He should have discussed, resolved and
determine the merits or lack of merits (or the substance) of the Complaint, not
only the alleged technical defect of
alleged lack of locus standi of the
complainant, considering the presence
in the Complaint of substantial evidence
to establish probable cause.
To
stress:
The Investigating Prosecutor did not
discuss at all the weight and probative
value of the evidence presented in the Complaint.
He evaded
and escaped such legal duty by merely relying on the alleged lack of locus standi of the complainant to
conveniently dismiss her Complaint.
7. RELIEF.
WHEREFORE, premises considered and in the interest of justice, the
complainant respectfully prays that the questioned Resolution, dated 11 September 2015, be reconsidered and set aside
and a new one be issued indicting the respondent for the crime of Falsification and Forgery of Private
Commercial Document as charged in the Complaint.
Further, it is respectfully
prayed (a) that the Investigating Assistant City Prosecutor be disqualified from participating in any
manner whatsoever in the resolution of this motion for reconsideration for
reasons of delicadeza and legal
ethics and (b) that the Case Record hereof be elevated to the Office of the Chief City Prosecutor for further review.
Finally, the complainant
respectfully prays for such and other reliefs as may be deemed just and
equitable in the premises.
xxx City, January 7, 2016.
X x x x x x x x
Complainant
Cc:
Xxx
Respondent
c/o xxx
xxx City
Reg.
Rec.
Date PO
File Copy