Marie Callo-Claridad vs. Philip Ronald P. Esteban and Teodora Alyn Esteban, G.R. No. 191567, March 20, 2013

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
URDANETA CITY, PANGASINAN
MARIANO P. FLORES,
Complainant,
-versus- I-II-INV-20J-00532 TO
I-II-INV-20J-00533
ELPIDIO L. ANDRADA, AND
CANEDIDO BALTAZAR.
Respondents.
xx------------------------------------------------xx
REPLY
(TO: Respondent Elpidio Andrada’s Counter-Affidavit)
COMPLAINANT, by himself, unto this Honorable Office of the City

Prosecutor, and by way of Reply to Respondents’ Joint Counter-Affidavit,
respectfully states the following:
1. In long line cases decided by the Supreme Court, 1 “Probable cause

for purposes of filing a criminal information is defined as such facts
as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has
been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof.
xxx”
2. Further, “A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence

showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed by the
suspects. It need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of
guilt, not on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt,
and definitely not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt.
In determining probable cause, the average man weighs facts and
circumstances without resorting to the calibrations of the rules of
1 Marie Callo-Claridad vs. Philip Ronald P. Esteban and Teodora Alyn Esteban, G.R. No. 191567, March 20, 2013.
evidence of which he has no technical knowledge. He relies on
common sense. What is determined is whether there is sufficient
ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been
committed, and that the accused is probably guilty thereof and
should be held for trial. It does not require an inquiry as to whether
there is sufficient evidence to secure a conviction. (Emphasis
supplied)”2
3. “Apropos thereto, for the public prosecutor to determine if there

exists a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed, and
that the suspect is probably guilty of the same, the elements of the
crime charged should, in all reasonable likelihood, be present. This is
based on the principle that every crime is defined by its elements,
without which there should be, at the most, no criminal offense.3
4. The elements of perjury under Article 183 are:
(a) That the accused made a statement under oath or executed an

affidavit upon a material matter.
(b) That the statement or affidavit was made before a competent

officer, authorized to receive and administer oath.
(c) That in the statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful and
deliberate assertion of a falsehood.
(d) That the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity

is required by law or made for a legal purpose. (emphasis ours) 4
5. In the case at bar, Elpidio executed an affidavit which is duly

administered by the Land Management Inspector who is authorized
to receive and administer oath. Said affidavit is a material matter for
the application of Free Patent of Estelita Delizo. Such affidavit was
used to Estelita’s advantage and in total disregard of the ownership
and possession of the herein complainant. With the use of said
2Eliseo v. Aguilar vs. Department of Justice, PO1 Leo T. Dangupon, 1st Lt. Philip Fortuno, CPL.
Edilberto Abordo, SPO3 Gregardro A. Villar, SPO1 Ramon M. Lara, SPO1 Alex L. Acaylar, and
PO1 Jovannie C. Balicol, G.R. No. 197522, September 11, 2013.
3 Id.
4 Union Bank of the Philippines and Desi Tomas vs. People of the Philippines, G.R.No.
192565, February 28, 2012.
document which is material in the application Estelita’s application
for free patent, Estelita was issued an Original Title under Kaloob na
Patente Blg. 01554619649305;
6. It is very clear that respondent fraudulently and falsely made an

affirmations that “That the said applicant has continuously occupied
and cultivated the land by himself and/or processor in interest since
July 4, 1945, or prior thereto and it is free from claims and conflicts”,
to complainant’s damage and prejudice as one of the heirs of the late
Paulino Toralba6. By making untruthful statement of facts, a Free
Patent Title was issued in favor of Estelita;
7. The contention of Elpidio that the complainant blatantly lied when he

claimed that he is cultivating the contested lot, yet he stated on his
complaint-affidavit that he is a resident of 1418 Penafrancia Street,
Brgy. 682 Zone 74, Paco Manila is misplaced. In the case of Anacleto
C. Mangaser versus Dionisio Ugay (G.R. No. 204926, December 3,
2014, the Honorable Supreme Court ruled that “possession in the
eyes of the law does not mean that a man has to have his feet on
every square meter of ground before it can be said that he is in
possession.”
8. To disprove the allegations made by the complainant on his

complaint-affidavit, once again Elpidio made a false statement on his
counter-affidavit, to wit:
1) “I specifically deny the allegation in Item 1 ( c ) and (k) alleging

that I prepared the Certification of the Office of the Punong
Barangay. xxx” ;
2) Late Demetrio Toralba built a house with strong materials

located at the subject property of the above-mentioned
affidavit; and
3) “The truth is that since 1960s, I have seen and was taught by
other members of our family that Demetrio Toralba is the
owner of the land where his house is built because he inherited
the same from his father. I have not known any other person
claiming ownership of the said land. Moreover, in 2016,
Demetrio Toralba himself asked for barangay conciliation
against complainant for a land dispute. xxx”
5 Please see complainant’s Annex “H” on his complaint-affidavit .
6 Copy of Joint Affidavit of Two Disinterested Persons are hereto attached as Annex “A” .
9. To prove that the above-mentioned contentions of Elpidio are untrue,
herein complainant attached hereto the following documents, to wit:
1) a copy of certification to file action7 prepared by Elpidio in his

capacity as Lupon Secretary (Note: a careful evaluation of said
certification reveals that a barangay conciliation was
happened on April 2018 and the complainant is the person who
asked for barangay conciliation regarding lot dispute);
2) printed pictures of the lot in dispute 8, showing that no house

made with strong materials are constructed therein;
3) Trinidad Fontanilla9 and Fedencia “Piding” Flores-Andrada’s10

Judicial Affidavits, attesting that the complainant and his
predecessor are the only persons who occupied and possessed
the land in dispute before the complainant was illegally
dispossessed by Estelita Delizo.
10.Considering that respondent Elpidio Andrada blatantly lied on

his counter-affidavit, it is the humble opinion of the
undersigned complainant that his defense should not be given
credence;
11.It is worthy to mention that a barangay conciliation was

happened on April 13, 2018 11. While the Joint Affidavit In
Support of Free Patent Application 12 was executed by the
respondents on April 16, 2019 13;
12.Based on the foregoing, Elpidio is very much aware that the

undersigned complainant is claiming rights/ownership over the
lot in dispute;
7 Copy of Certification To File Action is hereto attached as Annex “B” and the date; title of
the case, and the complainant in the said barangay conciliation are highlighted and marked
as Annex “B1, B2, and B3” respectively .
8 Said printed pictures are hereto attached as Annex “C-C “
9 Copy of Trinidad Fontanilla’s Judicial Affidavit is hereto attached as Annex “D” .
10 Copy of Fedencia “Piding” Flores-Andrada’ Judicial Affidavit is hereto attached as Annex
“E”.
11 Previously marked as Annex “B1”.
12 Copy of said affidavit is hereto attached as Annex “F”.
13 The date of said affidavit is highlighted and marked as Annex “F1 .
13.Despite of such knowledge, he still executed an affidavit
stating that the subject property of said affidavit is free from
claims and conflicts;
14.Furthermore, “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.51 Further, the presence or absence of the elements
of the crime is evidentiary in nature and a matter of defense that may
be passed upon only after a full-blown trial on the merits. 14”
15.Considering the above-mentioned arguments, there is a well-

founded belief that a crime has been committed by Respondent
Elpidio Andrada, and that he is probably guilty of Perjury and
Unjust Vexation.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, in view from the forgoing premises, I respectfully

pray to this Honorable Office to file and charge Respondent Elpidio
Andrada with Perjury, and Unjust Vexation as defined and punished
under Articles 183, and Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code of the
Philippines respectively.
Other appropriate reliefs that are just and equitable in light of the
foregoing facts are likewise prayed for.
Respectfully Submitted.
IN WITNESS WHEREFORE, I hereunto affix our signature this ___day of

November 2020, in City of Manila for Urdaneta City, Pangasinan.
MARIANO P. FLORES
Complainant-Affiant
Copy furnished:
14 Forrietrans Manufacturing Corp., Agerico Calaquian, and Alvin Montero vs. Davidoff Et. CIE SA &
Japan Tobacco, Inc., G.R. No. 197482, March 6, 2017.
Elpidio Andrada
Zone 3 Brgy. Labit Proper,
Urdaneta City, Pangasinan
CERTIFICATION
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ___ day of November

2020, in City of Manila for Urdaneta City, Pangasinan. I hereby certify that
I have personally examined the herein Reply and I am satisfied and
convinced that he read and understood the contents of his Reply and that
he executed the same freely and voluntarily.

Marie Callo-Claridad vs. Philip Ronald P. Esteban and Teodora Alyn Esteban, G.R. No. 191567, March 20, 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Marie Callo-Claridad vs. Philip Ronald P. Esteban and Teodora Alyn Esteban, G.R. No. 191567, March 20, 2013

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Marie Callo-Claridad vs. Philip Ronald P. Esteban and Teodora Alyn Esteban, G.R. No. 191567, March 20, 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COMPLAINANT, by himself, unto this Honorable Office of the City

1. In long line cases decided by the Supreme Court, 1 “Probable cause

2. Further, “A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence

3. “Apropos thereto, for the public prosecutor to determine if there

4. The elements of perjury under Article 183 are:

(a) That the accused made a statement under oath or executed an

(b) That the statement or affidavit was made before a competent

(d) That the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity

5. In the case at bar, Elpidio executed an affidavit which is duly

6. It is very clear that respondent fraudulently and falsely made an

7. The contention of Elpidio that the complainant blatantly lied when he

8. To disprove the allegations made by the complainant on his

1) “I specifically deny the allegation in Item 1 ( c ) and (k) alleging

2) Late Demetrio Toralba built a house with strong materials

1) a copy of certification to file action7 prepared by Elpidio in his

2) printed pictures of the lot in dispute 8, showing that no house

3) Trinidad Fontanilla9 and Fedencia “Piding” Flores-Andrada’s10

10.Considering that respondent Elpidio Andrada blatantly lied on

11.It is worthy to mention that a barangay conciliation was

12.Based on the foregoing, Elpidio is very much aware that the

14.Furthermore, “The validity and merits of a party's defense or

15.Considering the above-mentioned arguments, there is a well-

WHEREFORE, in view from the forgoing premises, I respectfully

IN WITNESS WHEREFORE, I hereunto affix our signature this ___day of

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ___ day of November

You might also like