RECEIVING COPY

Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Padre Faura Street, Ermita, Manila

CHERRY MARIE S. ARTAIS,

DOMINGO R. SOTAYCO,
CELESTINO R. SOTAYCO,
EDUARDO R. SOTAYCO,
HONORATA R. SOTAYCO – FLORES,
ANITA S. SOTAYCO, and
MARIO R. SOTAYCO,
Complainants-Appellants,

NPS Docket No. III-04-INV-19C-01460

-versus- FOR: Estafa Thru Falsification of Public
Document

ATTORNEY CONRADO P. SAJOR,

GRECELDA SOTAYCO,
GLENN S. SOTAYCO,
JOHN CESS S. SOTAYCO,
MARIA NOEIME P. ESMERALDA, and
NATALIA B. DIZON,
Respondents - Appellees.
x ------------------------------------------------------x

JOINT VERIFIED
PETITION FOR REVIEW
Complainants-Appellants Cherry Marie S. Artais, Domingo R.
Sotayco, Celestino R. Sotayco, Eduardo R. Sotayco, Honorata R.
Sotayco-Flores, Anita S. Sotayco, and Mario R. Sotayco, and to this
Honorable Office respectfully aver as follows:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

It is significant that all the Complainants-Appellants and

Respondents-Appellees in the above-captioned legal controversy
reside in the same Municipality of Marilao, Bulacan. We were
dumbfounded, though, when we received a copy of Respondent-
Appellee Atty. Conrado P. Sajor’s Manifestation and Motion dated 13
November 2019 addressed to the Supreme Court (Annex “A”)1
praying that the administrative complaint we filed against him be
dismissed on the ground that the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
1
Annexes pages 1-3
1 OF 27 | P a g e JOINT PETITION FOR REVIEW
Malolos City, Bulacan had already rendered a resolution dismissing
the above-captioned criminal complaint.

At whatever stretch of imagination, we could not grasp an iota of

reason how it is possible that all of us (Complainants-Appellants
seven in all), though residents of the Municipality of Marilao, Bulacan,
same as Respondents-Appellees failed to receive a copy of the
resolution of the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor Malolos City,
Bulacan in the above-captioned criminal complaint. While
Respondent-Appellee Atty. Conrado P. Sajor, also from the
Municipality of Marilao, Bulacan, was able to receive his copy.

Confused, we then proceeded at the Office of the Provincial

Prosecutor Malolos City and inquired about the resolution in the
hands of Respondent-Appellee Atty. Conrado P. Sajor. Shortly
thereafter or on 27 November 2019, the postman delivered our copy
of the resolution in the above-captioned criminal complainant.

Looking at the present instance, we decided to forego with the

usual motion for reconsideration hoping presumably that we will fare
better at the Office of the Secretary of Justice than before the Office of
the Provincial Prosecutor Malolos City, Bulacan.

I.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL DATES
TIMELINESS OF FILING

1] On 27 November 2019, Complainants-Appellants received a

copy of the 24 July 2019 Resolution (Annex “B”)2 issued by Asst. City
Prosecutor Ma. Clara Dela Cruz duly approved by Provincial
Prosecutor Renato C. Samonte, Jr. from the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor, Malolos City, Bulacan.

2] Under the Section 3 of the 2000 NPS Rule on Appeal

(Department Circular No. 70), Complainants-Appellants have 15 days
from receipt of the 24 July 2019 Resolution to file this Joint Verified
Petition for Review with the Office of the Secretary of Justice or until
12 December 2019. Hence, this Joint Verified Petition is being filed
within the reglementary period.
II.
THE PARTIES

3] Complainants-Appellants are named as follows:

2
Annexes pages 4-9
2 OF 27 | P a g e JOINT PETITION FOR REVIEW
 3.1] Cherry Marie S. Artais, female, of legal age, Filipino
citizen, single, and with residence and postal address at No.
80 Sta. Rosa I, Marilao, Bulacan where processes of this
Honorable Office may be served.

3.2] Domingo R. Sotayco, male, senior citizen, Filipino,

single, and with residence and postal address at No. 149
Westmont Industrial Subdivision, Sta. Rosa I, Marilao,
Bulacan where processes of this Honorable Office may be
served.

3.3] Celestino R. Sotayco, male, senior citizen, Filipino,

married, and with residence and postal address at No. 1028
Sta. Rosa I, Marilao, Bulacan where processes of this
Honorable Office may be served.

3.4] Eduardo R. Sotayco, male, senior citizen, Filipino,

married, and with residence and postal address at No. 296
Sta. Rosa I, Marilao, Bulacan where processes of this
Honorable Office may be served.

3.5] Honorata R. Sotayco – Flores, female, senior

citizen, Filipino, widow, and with residence and postal
address at No. 100 Sta. Rosa I, Marilao, Bulacan where
processes of this Honorable Office may be served.

3.6] Anita S. Sotayco, female, senior citizen, Filipino,

widow, and with residence and postal address at No. 303
Sta. Rosa I, Marilao, Bulacan where processes of this
Honorable Office may be served.

3.7] Mario R. Sotayco, male, senior citizen, Filipino,

widower, and with residence and postal address at No. 1029
Sta. Rosa I, Marilao, Bulacan where processes of this
Honorable Office may be served.

4] Respondents-Appellees are named as follows:

4.1] Grecelda Sotayco, female, widow, presently residing

at Poland Village, Sta. Rosa I, Marilao, Bulacan, hereafter
referred to as “Respondent-Appellee Grecelda” where
processes of this Honorable Office may be served.

4.2] Glenn S. Sotayco, male, single, presently residing at

Poland Village, Sta. Rosa I, Marilao, Bulacan, hereafter

3 OF 27 | P a g e JOINT PETITION FOR REVIEW

 referred to as “Respondent-Appellee Glenn” where
processes of this Honorable Office may be served.

4.3] John Cess S. Sotayco, male, single, presently

residing at Poland Village, Sta. Rosa I, Marilao, Bulacan,
hereafter referred to as “Respondent-Appellee John
Cess” where processes of this Honorable Office may be
served.

4.4] Maria Noeime P. Esmeralda, female, married, with

postal address at Sta. Rosa I, Marilao, Bulacan, hereafter
referred to as “Respondent-Appellee Maria Noeime”
where processes of this Honorable Office may be served.

4.5] Natalia B. Dizon, female, married, with postal

address at Sta. Rosa I, Marilao, Bulacan, hereafter referred
to as “Respondent-Appellee Natalia” where processes of
this Honorable Office may be served.

4.6] Attorney Conrado P. Sajor, male, married, with

office address at Sajor and Sajor Law Offices, McArthur
Highway, Abangan Norte, Marilao, Bulacan, hereafter
referred to as “Respondent-Appellee Atty. Sajor” where
processes of this Honorable Office may be served.

III.
THE FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS

5] Rafaelita R. Sotayco (“Rafaelita”) was the auntie of

Complainant-Appellant Cherry Marie S. Artais and sister of all the
other Complainants-Appellants. She died unmarried and intestate on
13 December 2017 at the age of 73 after a lingering illness.

6] Before her death, Rafaelita was admitted at The Medical

City on 6 December 2014 with the following diagnosis: 3

6.1] Primary diagnosis: Meningioma Tentorium

Meningioma Tentorium are rare tumors located along

the surface of the tentorium cerebella in the brain.
These types of posterior fossa meningiomas can
cause headaches, seizures, and difficulty walking. 4

3
Annexes page 33
4
https://www.mountsinai.org/care/neurosurgery/services/meningiomas/types accessed on 02
December 2019
4 OF 27 | P a g e JOINT PETITION FOR REVIEW
 The most common symptoms include: blurred vision,
headaches, seizures, weakness in arms and legs,
numbness, and speech problems.5

6.2] Secondary diagnosis: Acute Kidney Injury Secondary

to Dehydration

7] On 09 December 2014, Rafaelita underwent surgery

medically termed as Suboccipital Craniotomy 6 and Tumor Excision in
the same hospital.

8] On 20 December 2014, Rafaelita was discharged from

hospital confinement. Her medical condition as shown in The
Medical City’s Discharge Summary/Clinical Abstract7 is as follows:

“2 years PTA, patient was noted to have

progressive blurring of vision on both eyes. This
prompted consult and was assessed to have DM
Retinopathy & Bilateral Senile Cataracts symptom
persisted 9 months PTA. Patient underwent
Phacoemulsification of the left & right eyes which did
not improve symptoms. This time patient also
complained of dizziness and vomiting which
prompted for a cranial CT scan showing cerebellar
mass 3.9 X 3.0CM. Subsequent MRI revealed a 4 X
3.2 X 4.0 posterior medial cerebellar mass probably
meningioma. Patient was then advised surgery.
Hence, admitted.”

9] After Rafaelita died8 unmarried and intestate on 13

December 2017 at the age of 73 after a lingering illness,
Complainants-Appellants talked about with Respondent-Appellee
Grecelda and her two sons (Respondents-Appellees Glenn and John
Cess) the matter of settling extra-judicially the estate of Rafaelita
consisting of the following:

9.1] A parcel of land [Lot 3203-B of the subd. plan Psd-03-

037423 being a portion of Lot 3203, Lolomboy Estate LRC
5
https://www.webmd.com/cancer/brain-cancer/meningioma-causes-symptoms-treatment#1
accessed on 02 December 2019
6
A suboccipital craniotomy is a surgery performed to remove an acoustic neuroma growing from
the nerve responsible for balance and hearing. During surgery, a section of the skull is removed
behind the ear to access the tumor and nerves. The goals of surgery are: first, maintaining facial
nerve function; second, preserving socially useful hearing in the affected ear; and third, removing
the tumor (https://mayfieldclinic.com/pe-acousticsurgery.htm accessed on 03 December 2019)
7
Annexes page 33
8
Annexes page 40
5 OF 27 | P a g e JOINT PETITION FOR REVIEW
 Rec. No.] situated in the Bo. Of Sta. Rosa, Marilao,
Bulacan x x x x containing an area of 250 square meters
with Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-129503 (M);

9.2] Jewelries; and

9.3] Tenants’ rental payment amounting to Php45,000.00

per month in the commercial stalls constructed in the parcel
of land mentioned in sub-paragraph 9.1 above.

10] Unfortunately, the almost one-year of discussion between

Complainants-Appellants and Respondent-Appellee Grecelda and
her two sons (Respondents-Appellees Glenn and John Cess) were
in vain. As a consequence, Complainants-Appellants were left with
no other option but resort, and they in fact resorted, to barangay
mediation/conciliation proceedings.

11] Nevertheless, the numerous barangay

mediation/conciliation proceedings between Complainants-Appellants
and Respondent-Appellee Grecelda and her two sons (Respondents-
Appellees Glenn and John Cess) were unsuccessful due to the
adamant refusal of Respondent-Appellee Grecelda and her two
sons (Respondents-Appellees Glenn and John Cess) to extra-
judicially settle the estate of Deceased Rafaelita.

12] To all of Complainants-Appellants surprised, it was during

the 9 October 2018 barangay mediation/conciliation proceeding 9
that Respondent-Appellee Grecelda and her two sons (Respondents-
Appellees Glenn and John Cess) presented the Kasulatan ng
Pagkakaloob (Deed of Donation) for the first time ever since
Rafaelita died unmarried and intestate on 13 December 2017 to
justify their adamant refusal of extra-judicially settling the estate of
Deceased Rafaelita.
13] Simply stated, Respondent-Appellee Grecelda and her two
sons (Respondents-Appellees Glenn and John Cess) claim
ownership of all parcels of land described in the Kasulatan ng
Pagkakaloob (Deed of Donation) and any improvements thereon.
Pertinent portion of the barangay mediation/conciliation 9 October
2018 minutes of proceeding states as follows:

“Ayon sa panig ni Grecelda Sotayco, may hawak

silang Deed of Donation na nagpapatunay na kay
Cesar Sotayco ipinagkaloob ni Rafaelita Sotayco
ang kanyang naiwang ari-arian at kabuhayan.”

9
Annexes page 41
6 OF 27 | P a g e JOINT PETITION FOR REVIEW
 14] Upon examination of the questioned Kasulatan ng
Pagkakaloob (Deed of Donation)10 by Complainants-Appellants
during the 9 October 2018 barangay mediation/conciliation, the
following were discovered:

14.1] the Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob dated 23 September

2015 was notarized by Respondent-Appellee Atty. Sajor
and therefore a public and/or official document;

14.2] Respondents-Appellees Maria Noeime and Natalia

were the instrumental witnesses. They are tenants in the
commercial stalls constructed in the parcel of land with
Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-129503 (M) mentioned
in sub-paragraph 9.1 whereby they are remitting their
respective monthly rental payments to Respondent-
Appellee Grecelda.

14.3] the Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob states the following:

a] that Rafaelita donated to Cesar R. Sotayco

[deceased spouse of Respondent-Appellee
Grecelda] the Sotayco’s ancestral home located at
Marilao, Bulacan.

b] that Rafaelita donated to Cesar R. Sotayco

[deceased spouse of Respondent-Appellee
Grecelda] two parcels of land described as
follows:

b.1] Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-129503

(M)

A parcel of land [Lot 3203-B of the subd. plan

Psd-03-037423 being a portion of Lot 3203,
Lolomboy Estate LRC Rec. No.] situated in
the Bo. Of Sta. Rosa, Marilao, Bulacan x x x x
containing an area of 250 square meters and
registered in the name Rafaelita.

b.2] Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-482562

(M)

A parcel of land [Lot 3203-A-1 of the subd.

plan Psd-03-099089 being a portion of Lot
3203-A Psd 03-037423 Rec. No.] situated in

10
Annexes pages 34-35
7 OF 27 | P a g e JOINT PETITION FOR REVIEW
 the Bo. Of Sta. Rosa, Marilao, Bulacan x x x x
containing an area of 1,051 square meters.

This parcel of land is registered in the names

of the following:

b.2.1] Cesar R. Sotayco (deceased spouse of

Respondent-Appellee Grecelda);

b.2.2] Rafaelita R. Sotayco;

and the following Complainants-Appellants:

b.2.3] Cherry Marie S. Artais

b.2.4] Domingo R. Sotayco
b.2.5] Celestino R. Sotayco
b.2.6] Eduardo R. Sotayco
b.2.7] Mario R. Sotayco
b.2.8] Honorata R. Sotayco – Flores
b.2.9] Ceferino R. Sotayco, Jr.

15] In the same breath, further examination of the said

Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob (Deed of Donation) revealed that it was
forged and falsified.

16] It bears stressing that a visual comparison of Rafaelita’s

signature (Annex C-1-1 of Complaint Affidavit11) in the questioned
Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob (Deed of Donation) affixed on the bottom
portion and over the typewritten name “RAFAELITA R. SOTAYCO”
on page 1 of said Kasulatan with the signature (Annex D-1 of
Complaint Affidavit12) affixed in Rafaelita’s Senior Citizen
Identification Card and signature (Annex E-1 of Complaint Affidavit)13
affixed in the latter’s PhilHealth Identification Card (Annex E of
Complaint Affidavit)14 reveals the forgery as clear as broad daylight.

17] It would have been physically impossible for Rafaelita to

have executed the questioned Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob (Deed of
Donation) and to have personally subscribed to its authenticity and
validity before Respondent-Appellee Atty. Sajor on 23 September
2015 given Rafaelita’s medical and physical condition.

11
Annexes page34
12
Annexes page 36
13
Annexes page 37
14
Annexes page 37
8 OF 27 | P a g e JOINT PETITION FOR REVIEW
 18] In page no. 11 is a comparative presentation of the
signatures of Rafaelita affixed in the questioned Kasulatan ng
Pagkakaloob, Senior Citizen Identification Card, and PhilHealth
Identification Card.

19] Finally, after the said questioned Kasulatan ng

Pagkakaloob (Deed of Donation) has been forged and falsified,
Respondents-Appellees Grecelda, Glenn, and John Cess, forthwith
took possession-

19.1] of the jewelries of Rafaelita being kept in the

Sotayco’s ancestral home;

19.2] the tenants’ monthly rental payments amounting to

Php45,000.00 per month in the commercial stalls
constructed in the parcel of land with Transfer
Certificate of Title No. T-129503 (M) mentioned in
sub-paragraph 9.1 hereof

which the said Respondents-Appellees subsequently, with intent to

defraud, misappropriated, misapplied and converted to their own
personal use and benefit to the damage and prejudice of
Complainants-Appellants in the amount of TWO MILLION PESOS
(Php2,000,000.00) Philippine currency.

20] Equally telling is that all efforts at the barangay level to

amicably settle the dispute between Complainants-Appellants and
Respondents-Appellees Grecelda Sotayco, Glenn S. Sotayco and
John Cess S. Sotayco were unable to yield positive result. As a
consequence, a Certification to File Action 15 was issued by Kalihim
Narciso J. Sotayco on 17 December 2018. Hence, the above-
captioned criminal complaint.

21] Likewise notable is the fact that on 8 April 2019,

Complainants-Appellants Cherry Marie S. Artais and Mario R.
Sotayco secured another certified true copy of the questioned
Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob (Deed of Donation) from the Malolos
Regional Trial Court).

22] For ease of understanding, below is a comparative

presentation of the questioned Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob (Deed of
Donation) secured by Complainants-Appellants Cherry Marie S.
Artais and Mario R. Sotayco from the Notarial Section of the Malolos

15
Annexes page 32
9 OF 27 | P a g e JOINT PETITION FOR REVIEW
Regional Trial Court on 8 April 2019 and the one offered in evidence
by Respondent-Appellee Atty. Sajor.

NOTES:

A] The 4-paged Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob (Deed of Donation) offered in evidence

by Respondent-Appellee Atty. Sajor could be found in pages 65 to 68 of Annexes.

B] The 3-paged Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob (Deed of Donation) secured by

Complainants-Appellants from and certified by the Notarial Section of the Malolos,
Bulacan Regional Trial Court could be found in pages 54-56 of Annexes.

10 OF 27 | P a g e JOINT PETITION FOR REVIEW

11 OF 27 | P a g e JOINT PETITION FOR REVIEW
 IV.
THE 24 JULY 2019 RESOLUTION RENDERED
BY ASST. CITY PROSEC. MA. CLARA DELA CRUZ
FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL
PROSECUTOR, MALOLOS CITY, BULACAN

23] It is well to note that the finding of Asst. City Prosecutor

Ma. Clara dela Cruz (“ACP Dela Cruz”) that there is no probable
cause to indict Respondents-Appellees for Estafa thru Falsification
of Public Document is based on the following ratiocinations:

23.1] On Forgery16

"It is well settled in this jurisdiction that simply claiming

the signature was a forgery is not evidence, it must be
shown that the person, whose signature appeared on the
document, has no capacity to execute the document or it is
an impossibility for him/her to sign the document."

“The complaint primarily hinges on the contention that

Rafaelita R. Sotayco did not sign or that she has no capacity
to sign the subject “KASULATAN NG PAGKAKALOOB
(Deed of Donation)” on 23rd September 2015. However, the
records show that Rafaelita, though suffering from sickness
and was admitted at Medical City hospital on 06 December
2014, was well and alive at the time of the execution of the
subject deed. Hence, simply implying that Rafaelita was
incapacitated during which time the subject deed was
executed is not sufficient evidence for forgery, which cannot
be presumed based on mere inference.”

23.2] On the Death of Cesar Sotayco17

“Even assuming that the contended deed of donation

executed by Rafaelita in favor of her brother Cesar R.
Sotayco is a product of falsification, the party that benefited
in the said execution is not less than Cesar R. Sotayco
because the properties subject of the deed was conveyed in
his favor. However, it is stretch of imagination to presume
that Cesar’s family members, namely, his wife Grecelda and
sons Glenn and John Cess, authored the same falsified
document considering they were not among those who
received the donation from Rafaelita. Their inclusion was
based on being a successor-in-interest of Cesar Sotayco.

16
Annexes page 8
17
Annexes page 8
12 OF 27 | P a g e JOINT PETITION FOR REVIEW
 Thus, they are not direct beneficiaries of the alleged falsified
deed of donation. Unfortunately, Cesar Sotayco was already
dead. Hence, any cause of action for complainant for the
recovery of the property conveyed by Rafaelita, who was
also deceased, in favor of Cesar could be threshed out in a
civil action.”

24] Complainants-Appellants beg to disagree. Doubtlessly,

SACP Dela Cruz overlooked or glossed over vital circumstances in
the records of this case which rendered the conclusion arrived at in
the assailed 24 July 2019 Resolution leaves much to be desired.

25] Wittingly or not, SACP Dela Cruz’s all-sweeping and

categorical pronouncement that there is no sufficient ground to
engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed by
Respondents-Appellees would make out of this case a sheer travesty
of justice to the great prejudice of Complainants-Appellants.

V.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

A] SACP DELA CRUZ GRAVELY ABUSED HER

AUTHORITY AND DISCRETION WHEN SHE
DISREGARDED THE HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE
EXISTENCE OF TWO KASULATAN NG PAGKAKALOOB
(DEED OF DONATION) BOTH NOTARIZED BY ATTY.
CONRADO P. SAJOR ON 23 SEPTEMBER 2015 AND
THEREAFTER HELD THAT THERE IS NO SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT FALSIFICATION MIGHT HAVE
BEEN COMMITTED AND THAT RESPONDENTS-
APPELLEES MIGHT HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE
THEREFOR.

B] SACP DELA CRUZ GRAVELY ABUSED HER

AUTHORITY AND DISCRETION WHEN SHE MADE A
DETERMINATION BASED ON HER OWN APPRECIATION
OF THE PIECES OF EVIDENCE THAT DONOR
RAFAELITA, THOUGH SUFFERING FROM SICKNESS
AND WAS ADMITTED AT THE MEDICAL CITY HOSPITAL
ON 06 DECEMBER 2014, WAS WELL AND ALIVE AT
THE TIME OF THE EXECUTION OF THE KASULATAN NG
PAGKAKALOOB (DEED OF DONATION).

13 OF 27 | P a g e JOINT PETITION FOR REVIEW

 C] SACP DELA CRUZ GRAVELY ABUSED HER
AUTHORITY AND DISCRETION WHEN SHE
DISREGARDED THE JURISPRUDENTIAL GUIDE THAT
WHEN A PERSON HAS IN HIS POSSESSION A FALSIFIED
DOCUMENT AND MAKES USE OF THE SAME, THE
PRESUMPTION OR INFERENCE IS JUSTIFIED THAT
SUCH PERSON IS THE FORGER.

VI.
DISCUSSION/ARGUMENTS

VI.A] SACP DELA CRUZ GRAVELY ABUSED HER

AUTHORITY AND DISCRETION WHEN SHE
DISREGARDED THE HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE
EXISTENCE OF TWO KASULATAN NG PAGKAKALOOB
(DEEDS OF DONATION) BOTH NOTARIZED BY ATTY.
CONRADO P. SAJOR ON 23 SEPTEMBER 2015 AND
THEREAFTER HELD THAT THERE IS NO SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT FALSIFICATION MIGHT HAVE
BEEN COMMITTED AND THAT RESPONDENTS-
APPELLEES MIGHT HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE
THEREFOR.

26] For reasons only known to SACP Dela Cruz, she turned a
blind eye to the fact and vital circumstance, which is of record, that
there exists two Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob (Deed of Donation), as
follows:

26.1] First is the 3-paged Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob

(Deed of Donation) secured by Complainants-Apellants
from and certified by the Notarial Section of the Malolos
Regional Trial Court and which Kasulatan they offered as
evidence of forgery. This 3-paged Kasulatan allegedly
executed by Donor Rafaelita in favor of Donee Cesar
Sotayco was notarized by Respondent-Appellee Atty. Sajor
on 23 September 2015; and

26.2] Second is the 4-paged Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob

(Deed of Donation) offered as evidence by Respondent-
Appellee Atty. Sajor that the Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob is
not falsified. This 4-paged Kasulatan, also executed
allegedly by Donor Rafaelita in favor of Donee Cesar
14 OF 27 | P a g e JOINT PETITION FOR REVIEW
 Sotayco, was similarly notarized by Respondent-Appellee
Atty. Sajor on 23 September 2015.

27] It bears stressing, the existence alone of two different

Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob (Deed of Donation) is more than sufficient
evidence showing that falsification might have been committed and
that the Respondents-Appellees might have been responsible
therefor.

28] Looking at the present instance, instructive at this point are

the following jurisprudential pronouncements by the Supreme Court:

28.1] Unilever Philippines, Inc. vs. Michael Tan (G.R.

No. 179367, 29 January 2014)

The determination of probable cause needs only to

rest on evidence showing that more likely than not, a
crime has been committed and there is enough reason
to believe that it was committed by the accused xxxx
Its determination, too, does not call for the application
of rules or standards of proof that a judgment of
conviction requires after trial on the merits.

xxxx

It is also important to stress that the determination

of probable cause does not depend on the validity or
merits of a party’s accusation or defense or on the
admissibility or veracity of testimonies presented. As
previously discussed, these matters are better
ventilated during the trial proper of the case.
(Boldfacing supplied for emphasis)

28.2] Sy Tiong Shiou vs. Sy Chim (G.R. No. 174168, 30

March 2009)

The term probable cause does not mean ‘actual

and positive cause’ nor does it import absolute
certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable
belief. Thus a finding of probable cause does not
require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient
evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that it is
believed that the act or omission complained of
constitutes the offense charged. Precisely, there is a
trial for the reception of evidence of the prosecution in

15 OF 27 | P a g e JOINT PETITION FOR REVIEW

 support of the charge. (Boldfacing supplied for
emphasis)
29] At this point, let it be stated that these pieces of
documentary evidence are evidentiary in nature and are better
appreciated in a full-blown trial and not in a preliminary investigation.
These evidentiary matters are beyond the province of a preliminary
investigation because “the duty to determine the authenticity of a
signature rests on the judge who must conduct an independent
examination of the signature itself in order to arrive at a reasonable
conclusion as to its authenticity.” The decision of the Supreme Court
in Shu vs. Dee, et al. (G.R. No. 182573, 23 April 2014) is worth
quoting at length:

The findings of the city prosecutor are not proper in a

preliminary investigation but should be threshed out in a full-
blown trial.
x x x x

In arriving at these conclusions, the city prosecutor already

delved into the merits of the respondents’ defense. This is
contrary to the well-settled rule that the validity and merits of
a party’s defense and accusation, as well as admissibility of
testimonies and evidence, are better ventilated during trial
proper than at the preliminary investigation level. The
allegations adduced by the prosecution will be put to test in a
full-blown trial in which evidence shall be analyzed, weighed,
given credence or disproved. The preliminary investigation is
not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the
parties’ evidence. Simply put, in determining probable cause,
the average man weighs facts and circumstances without
resorting to the rules of evidence that, as a rule, is outside his
technical knowledge.

That the findings of the city prosecutor should be

ventilated in a full-blown trial is highlighted by the reality
that the authenticity of a questioned signature cannot be
determined solely upon its general characteristics, or its
similarities or dissimilarities with the genuine signature.
The duty to determine the authenticity of a signature
rests on the judge who must conduct an independent
examination of the signature itself in order to arrive at a
reasonable conclusion as to its authenticity. Thus, Section
22 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court explicitly authorizes the
court, by itself, to make a comparison of the disputed
handwriting "with writings admitted or treated as genuine by
16 OF 27 | P a g e JOINT PETITION FOR REVIEW
 the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to
be genuine."
Read in this light, the respondents' defense that there
are striking similarities in the specimen signatures they
submitted and those of the questioned deeds is a matter
of evidence whose consideration is proper only in a full-
blown trial. In that proper forum, the respondents can
present evidence to prove their defense and controvert the
questioned documents report; they can raise as issue the
alleged irregularities in the conduct of the examination.
(Boldfacing supplied).

VI.B] SACP DELA CRUZ GRAVELY ABUSED HER

AUTHORITY AND DISCRETION WHEN SHE MADE A
DETERMINATION BASED ON HER OWN APPRECIATION
OF THE PIECES OF EVIDENCE THAT DONOR
RAFAELITA, THOUGH SUFFERING FROM SICKNESS AND
WAS ADMITTED AT THE MEDICAL CITY HOSPITAL ON
06 DECEMBER 2014, WAS WELL AND ALIVE AT THE
TIME OF THE EXECUTION OF THE KASULATAN NG
PAGKAKALOOB (DEED OF DONATION).

30] Needless to state, SACP Dela Cruz is unschooled in the

field of medical science. Therefore, there is want of competence on
her part to pass judgment on a technical matter relating to the
physical, mental, and emotional condition of a septuagenarian like
Rafaelita who suffered from diabetes and portion of her skull was cut
opened.

31] Upon that point, the abuse of discretion is patent in the act
of SACP Dela Cruz holding that Donor Rafaelita, though suffering
from sickness and was admitted at The Medical City on 06 December
2014 was well and alive at the time of the execution of the Kasulatan
ng Pagkakaloob (Deed of Donation), for in so doing, she assumed
the function of the trial judge of calibrating the evidence on record,
done only after a full-blown trial on the merits.

32] Let it be underscored that the fact of whether or not Donor

Rafaelita was well and alive at the time of the execution of the
Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob (Deed of Donation) is evidentiary in
nature. The veracity of which can best be passed upon after trial on
the merits, for it is virtually impossible to ascertain the physical,
mental, and emotional condition of Donor Rafaelita at the time of the
17 OF 27 | P a g e JOINT PETITION FOR REVIEW
alleged execution of the questioned Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob
(Deed of Donation) based solely on the allegations contained in the
opposing pleadings of Complainants-Appellants and Respondents-
Appellees.

33] In fine, the validity and merits of a party’s defense or

accusation, as well as the admissibility of testimonies and evidence,
are better ventilated during trial proper than at the preliminary
investigation level (Lee vs. KBC Bank N.V. [G.R. No. 164673, 15
January 2010]).

34] It is also important to stress that the determination of

probable cause does not depend on the validity or merits of a party’s
accusation or defense or on the admissibility or veracity of
testimonies presented. As previously discussed, these matters are
better ventilated during the trial proper of the case (Unilever vs. Tan
[G.R. No. 179367, 29 January 2014]).

VI.C] SACP DELA CRUZ GRAVELY ABUSED HER

AUTHORITY AND DISCRETION WHEN SHE
DISREGARDED THE JURISPRUDENTIAL GUIDE THAT
WHEN A PERSON HAS IN HIS POSSESSION A FALSIFIED
DOCUMENT AND MAKES USE OF THE SAME, THE
PRESUMPTION OR INFERENCE IS JUSTIFIED THAT
SUCH PERSON IS THE FORGER.

35] It bears reiterating that immediately after the death of

Rafaelita on 13 December 2017, Complainants-Appellants talked
about with Respondent-Appellee Grecelda and her two sons
(Respondents-Appellees Glenn and John Cess) the matter of settling
extra-judicially the estate of Rafaelita.

36] Unfortunately, the months of discussion between

Complainants-Appellants and Respondent-Appellee Grecelda and
her two sons (Respondents-Appellees Glenn and John Cess) proved
unsuccessful due to the adamant refusal of Respondent-Appellee
Grecelda and her two sons (Respondents-Appellees Glenn and John
Cess) to extra-judicially settle the estate of Deceased Rafaelita.

37] To all of Complainants-Appellants surprised, it was during

the 9 October 2018 barangay mediation/conciliation proceeding that
Respondent-Appellee Grecelda and her two sons (Respondents-
Appellees Glenn and John Cess) presented the Kasulatan ng
Pagkakaloob (Deed of Donation) for the first time ever since
18 OF 27 | P a g e JOINT PETITION FOR REVIEW
Rafaelita died unmarried and intestate on 13 December 2017 to
justify their adamant refusal of extra-judicially settling the estate of
Deceased Rafaelita.

38] Telling is the fact that, by concealing or not immediately

divulging to Complainants-Appellants the fact that they are in actual
possession of the questioned Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob (Deed of
Donation), which was notarized by Respondent-Appellee Atty. Sajor
on 23 September 2015, Respondent-Appellee Grecelda and her two
sons (Respondents-Appellees Glenn and John Cess) provided clear
prima facie evidence that they are parties to the falsification of the
Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob (Deed of Donation).

39] At this point, what the Supreme Court said in Spouses

Villamar vs. People of the Philippines 18 augurs well for Complainants-
Appellants, viz:

As held by the Supreme Court in the case of People vs.

Manansala (105 Phil. 1253), it is an established rule that
when a person has in his possession a falsified document
and makes use of the same, the presumption or inference
is justified that such person is the forger.

40] In the same breath, the Supreme Court in Maliwat vs. Court
of Appeals (G.R. No. 107041-42, 15 May 1996) keenly pointed out as
follows:

In the absence of satisfactory explanation, one found in

possession of and who used a forged document is the
forger and therefore guilty of falsification. "If a person had
in his possession a falsified document and he made use of
it, taking advantage of it and profiting thereby, the clear
presumption is that he is the material author of the
falsification.

41] It is significant that after the said Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob

(Deed of Donation) had been falsified, Respondents-Appellees
Grecelda, Glenn and John Cess, forthwith took possession-

41.1] of the jewelries of Rafaelita being kept in the

Sotayco’s ancestral home; and
41.2] the tenants’ monthly rental payments amounting to
Php45,000.00 per month in the commercial stalls

18
G.R No. 178652, 8 December 2010
19 OF 27 | P a g e JOINT PETITION FOR REVIEW
 constructed in the parcel of land with Transfer
Certificate of Title No. T-129503 (M) mentioned in
sub-paragraph 9.1 hereof

which they subsequently, with intent to defraud, misappropriated,

misapplied and converted to their own personal use and benefit to the
damage and prejudice of Complainants-Appellants in the aforesaid
amount of TWO MILLION PESOS (Php2,000,000.00) Philippine
currency.

VII.
CONCLUDING ARGUMENTS

42] It is settled that the absence or presence of conspiracy is

factual in nature and involves evidentiary matters. Hence, the
allegation of conspiracy against respondent is better left ventilated
before the trial court during trial, where respondent can adduce
evidence to prove or disprove its presence.19

43] Applying the jurisprudential principle mentioned above to

this case, the indispensable conclusion is that SACP Dela cruz
gravely abused her authority and discretion when she disregarded it
and concluded that there is no probable cause to indict Respondents-
Appellees for the crime of conspiracy to commit Estafa thru
Falsification of Public Document.

44] Indeed, it is not necessary to join all alleged co-

conspirators in an indictment for conspiracy. If two or more persons
enter into a conspiracy, any act done by any of them pursuant to the
agreement is, in contemplation of law, the act of each of them and
they are jointly responsible therefor. This means that everything said,
written or done by any of the conspirators in execution or furtherance
of the common purpose is deemed to have been said, done, or
written by each of them and it makes no difference whether the actual
actor is alive or dead, sane or insane at the time of trial. The death of
one of two or more conspirators does not prevent the conviction of
the survivor or survivors.20

45] Tested in the light of the above jurisprudential principle, the

hard and indelible truth remains that the death of Cesar Sotayco will
in no way cripple Complainants-Appellants’ criminal complaint lodged
against Respondents-Appellees.

19
People of the Philippines vs. Go (G.R. No. 168539, 25 March 2014)
20
Ibid
20 OF 27 | P a g e JOINT PETITION FOR REVIEW
 46] The same holds true that the following postulation 21 of
SACP Dela Cruz is utter disregard of the settled echoed in
paragraph no. 44 tantamount to grave abuse of discretion, viz:

Even assuming that the contended deed of donation

executed by Rafaelita in favor of her brother Cesar R.
Sotayco is a product of falsification, the party that
benefited in the said execution is not less than Cesar R.
Sotayco because the properties subject of the deed was
conveyed in his favor. However, it is stretch of
imagination to presume that Cesar’s family members,
namely, his wife Grecelda and sons Glenn and John Cess,
authored the same falsified document considering they
were not among those who received the donation from
Rafaelita. Their inclusion was based on being a
successor-in-interest of Cesar Sotayco. Thus, they are not
direct beneficiaries of the alleged falsified deed of
donation. Unfortunately, Cesar Sotayco was already dead.
Hence, any cause of action for complainant for the
recovery of the property conveyed by Rafaelita, who was
also deceased, in favor of Cesar could be threshed out in
a civil action.

47] On a final note, the articulation of the Supreme Court in

SEC vs. Price Richardson Corp. (G.R. No. 197032, 26 July 2017) is
equally enlightening in this connection, viz:

A prosecutor gravely abuses his or her discretion in not

finding probable cause by disregarding or overlooking
evidence that "are sufficient to form a reasonable ground
to believe that the crime ... was committed and that the
respondent was its author." Further, "what is material to a
finding of probable cause is the commission of acts
constituting [the offense], the presence of all its elements
and the reasonable belief, based on evidence, that the
respondent had committed it.

VIII.
SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS

48] The following documents are attached to and form part of

this Joint Petition for Review:

21
Annexes page 8
21 OF 27 | P a g e JOINT PETITION FOR REVIEW
 48.1] Respondent-Appellee Atty. Conrado P. Sajor’s
Manifestation and Motion dated 13 November 2019 filed
with the Supreme Court (Annex “A”);

48.2] Certified photocopy of the 24 July 2019 Resolution

rendered by Asst. City Prosecutor Ma. Clara Dela Cruz
(Annex “B”);

48.3] Certified photocopy of Complaint-Affidavit together

with the certified photocopy of the Investigation Data
Form (Annex “C”);

48.4] Certified photocopy of Consolidated Joint Reply-

Affidavit (Annex “D”);

48.5] Certified photocopy of Counter-Affidavit of

Respondent-Appellee Atty. Conrado P. Sajor (Annex “E”);

48.6] Certified photocopy of Magkasanib na Kontra

Sinumpaang Salaysay ni Maria Noeime P. Esmeralda
and Natalia B. Dizon (Annex “F”);

48.7] Certified photocopy of Magkasanib na Kontra

Sinumpaang Salaysay ni Grecelda S. Sotayco, Glenn S.
Sotayco, at John Cess S. Sotayco (Annex “G”);

48.8] Certified photocopy of Rejoinder-Affidavit of

Respondent-Appellee Atty. Conrado P. Sajor (Annex “H”);

48.9] Affidavit of Service (Annex “I”); and

48.10] Declaration of Completeness as per DOJ Circular

No. 18 s. 2017 (Annex “J”).

PRAYER
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully
prayed of this Honorable Office that the assailed 24 July 2019
Resolution in NPS Docket No. III-04-INV-19C-01460 rendered by
Asst. City Prosecutor Ma. Clara Dela Cruz from the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor, Malolos City, Bulacan be SET ASIDE and a
new one be issued directing the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of
Malolos City, Bulacan to prepare an information indicting
Respondents-Appellees for the crime of Estafa Thru Falsification of
Public Document.

Balagtas, Bulacan for Ermita, Manila, 09 December 2019.

22 OF 27 | P a g e JOINT PETITION FOR REVIEW
 Respectfully Submitted,

CHERRY MARIE S. ARTAIS

DOMINGO R. SOTAYCO

CELESTINO R. SOTAYCO

EDUARDO R. SOTAYCO

HONORATA R. SOTAYCO-FLORES

ANITA S. SOTAYCO

MARIO R. SOTAYCO

Republic of the Philippines)

Balagtas, Bulacan ) s.s.

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

We, Cherry Marie S. Artais, Domingo R. Sotayco, Celestino R.

Sotayco, Eduardo R. Sotayco, Honorata R. Sotayco-Flores, Anita S.
Sotayco, and Mario R. Sotayco under oath, depose and say that:

1] We are the Complainants-Appellants in the above-captioned

Joint Petition for Review;
2] We have caused the preparation of this Joint Petition for
Review and that we have read and understood its contents;

3] The allegations therein are true and correct of our own

personal knowledge and/or based on authentic records;

23 OF 27 | P a g e JOINT PETITION FOR REVIEW

 4] We have commenced a Verified Complaint for Disbarment
against Atty. Conrado P. Sajor docketed as A.C. No. 12526 and such
complaint is presently pending resolution with the Supreme Court;

5] Other than the disbarment complaint mentioned in

paragraph 4, we have not commenced any further action or
proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the
Court of Appeals, or any other court, tribunal or agency;

6] To the best of our knowledge, other than the disbarment

complaint mentioned in paragraph 4, no such other action or
proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or
any other court, tribunal or agency; and

7] If we should thereafter learn that the same or a similar action

or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court,
the Court of Appeals, or any other court, tribunal or agency, we
undertake to report that fact within five (5) days to this Honorable
Office.

CHERRY MARIE S. ARTAIS

DOMINGO R. SOTAYCO

CELESTINO R. SOTAYCO

EDUARDO R. SOTAYCO

HONORATA R. SOTAYCO-FLORES

ANITA S. SOTAYCO

MARIO R. SOTAYCO

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, this 9th day of

December 2019, in Balagtas, Bulacan, Affiants exhibiting to me their respective
proofs of identity, as follows:

COMPETEN
T PROOF IDENTIFICATION ISSUING
NAMES
OF CARD NUMBER OFFICE
IDENTITY
24 OF 27 | P a g e JOINT PETITION FOR REVIEW
CHERRY MARIE 1411-0263A- COMELEC
Voter’s ID Card
S. ARTAIS I0679CSA20000-1 Marilao
DOMINGO R. Unified Multi-
0111-7811188-8 SSS
SOTAYCO Purpose ID
Office of Senior
CELESTINO R. Senior Citizen
0002292 Citizens Affairs -
SOTAYCO ID Card
Marilao
Office of Senior
EDUARDO R. Senior Citizen
0008588 Citizens Affairs -
SOTAYCO ID Card
Marilao
HONORATA S. 1411-0270A- COMELEC
Voter’s ID Card
FLORES K0354HSF20000-3 Marilao
Office of Senior
ANITA S. Senior Citizen
0021262 Citizens Affairs -
SOTAYCO ID Card
Marilao
Office of Senior
MARIO R. Senior Citizen
0011816 Citizens Affairs -
SOTAYCO ID Card
Marilao

Doc. No. :______;

Page No. :______;
Book No. : ______;
Series of 2019.

WRITTEN EXPLANATION

Service of this JOINT PETITION FOR REVIEW to ASST. CITY

PROSEC. MA. CLARA DELA CRUZ, RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES
ATTORNEY CONRADO P. SAJOR, GRECELDA SOTAYCO,
GLENN S. SOTAYCO, JOHN CESS S. SOTAYCO, MARIA NOEIME
P. ESMERALDA, and NATALIA B. DIZON was not done personally
but through registered mail due to lack of manpower to effect
personal service.

CHERRY MARIE S. ARTAIS

DOMINGO R. SOTAYCO

25 OF 27 | P a g e JOINT PETITION FOR REVIEW

 CELESTINO R. SOTAYCO

EDUARDO R. SOTAYCO

HONORATA R. SOTAYCO-FLORES

ANITA S. SOTAYCO

MARIO R. SOTAYCO

Copies Furnished To:

ASST. CITY PROSECUTOR MA. CLARA DELA CRUZ

Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
Provincial Capitol Compound
Malolos City, Bulacan

RR NO. ______________________
MAILED AT: Marilao, Bulacan
MAILED ON: December _____, 2019

ATTY. CONRADO P. SAJOR

Sajor and Sajor Law Offices
McArthur Highway, Abangan Norte
Marilao, Bulacan
RR NO. ______________________
MAILED AT: Marilao, Bulacan
MAILED ON: December ____, 2019

GRECELDA SOTAYCO
GLENN S. SOTAYCO
JOHN CESS S. SOTAYCO
Poland Village, Sta. Rosa I
Marilao, Bulacan

RR NO. ______________________
26 OF 27AT:
MAILED | P Marilao,
a g e Bulacan
JOINT PETITION FOR REVIEW
MAILED ON: December ____, 2019
MARIA NOEIME P. ESMERALDA
Sta. Rosa I, Marilao, Bulacan
RR NO. ______________________
MAILED AT: Marilao, Bulacan
MAILED ON: December ____, 2019

NATALIA B. DIZON
Sta. Rosa I, Marilao, Bulacan
RR NO. ______________________
MAILED AT: Marilao, Bulacan
MAILED ON: December ____, 2019

27 OF 27 | P a g e JOINT PETITION FOR REVIEW