Republic of the Philippines

1st Judicial Region

Regional Trial Court
Branch 20
Vigan City

Criminal Case No.:___________ September 10, 2023

JOHN MICHAEL DELA CRUZ,

Complainant
Criminal Case No.:___________
-versus- For: Falsification of Public
Documents and the use of
the same

TERESA MARIE REYES,

Defendant

x------------------------------------------------------------------x

RESOLUTION

This resolves the above-entitled complaint filed by John Michael Dela Cruz against
Teresa Marie Reyes.

The salient facts culled from the records are as follows:

Spouses Dela Cruz were the registered owners of a parcel of land situated in Vigan
City, Ilocos Sur.Complainant alleged that on February 10, 2023, Respondent executed a Deed
of Absolute Sale over a parcel of land situated in Vigan City, Ilocos Sur, as covered by
Transfer of title (TCT) No. 136-2017000000 issued by the Registry of Deeds for Ilocos Sur,
Philippines containing an area of Two Hundred Fifty Square Mets (250 sq. m.) particularly
described as Lot: 11436-A-2-B, PSD-11-098653.

The Deed of Absolute Sale for the above-described land and its improvements was
FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (PhP500,000.00) only; the name of spouses Juan
Dela Cruz and Juana Dela Cruz signature appeared to the said execution of the
document. Complainant then alleged that the signatures of the spouses Dela Cruz were
falsified.

Respondent is being charged with falsification of public document and the use of the
same, pursuant to Article 172 paragraph 1, section 1, paragraph 2 relative to falsification by
private individuals and use of falsified documents in relation to Article 171 paragraph 1, nos.
1 and 2 of the Revised Penal Code.

"Article 172. Falsification by private individuals and use of falsified documents.

 xxx

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
xxx

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".

"Article 171. Falsification by public officer, employee; or notary or ecclesiastical minister.

xxx

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 che sensite mritantary to, or
different from, that of
8.Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry,
or official book." (Emphasis ours.)

xxx

Complainant also alleged that upon learning of the fraudulent acts committed by the
Respondent, he confronted them. But despite the persistence in trying to reach out to the
Respondent, he was left with unanswered calls, ignored texts, and pathetic excuses that
inevitably resulted to their non-discourse regarding the matter.

Reyes answered and alleged that the complainant did not have any knowledge about
the transaction that his parents had with her and that the transaction with the late spouses
happened before their passing. Therefore, there is no valid allegation, much less evidence, of
any fact of falsification as the complainant is claiming.

Also after a careful investigation, it was revealed that it was untrue that there were
unanswered calls and ignored text messages as the Complainant does not have the personal
contact number and information to reach the respondent thus do not personally know each
other, different to what the complainant is alleging.

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, by lack of evidence and

insufficient test of the complaint, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the respondent and
against the complainant. The instant complaint is hereby DISMISSED.

All counterclaims and counter-affidavits are similarly dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.

The RTC ruled that there was a valid sale between the Spouses Dela Cruz and
Respondent Reyes. Accordingly, it rejected complainant’s contention that the sale was with
falsification of public document and the use of the same for respondent’s personal gain. The
charge is devoid of both legal and factual bases to sustain probable cause to charge the
respondent in a court of law, and to reiterate that the charge against the respondent was false,
fabricated, and groundless.

On the issue of forgery, the trial court issued that there was no forgery in the instant
case, because the deed of sale was made before their passing, there was no categorical
statement or positive declaration was spoken by any witness that seen somebody other than
Teresa Marie Reyes to have signed, threatened, forced or tricked the Spouses Dela Cruz to
sign the questioned documents. Other reliefs are hereby just and equitable.