EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Case: Estafa Through Falsification Of Public Document

Complainant: Mary Rose De Claro-Sinag
Respondents: Marcelo Balba, Rolando DLP. Montecillo
Status: Pending Petition for Review (DOJ)

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Sometime in the year 2013, respondent-appellant Montecillo met

respondent Balba. At that time respondent-appellant was looking for a
property where he can hold business. Balba then offered for sale to
respondent-appellant a certain property located in Dayap Itaas, Laurel,
Batangas, provided that respondent-appellant would advance money for the
processing, follow-up, and procurement of the corresponding title and the
segregation of the same from the other claimants and buyers.

Respondent-appellant was shown by Balba the original documents of

the property and from which documents respondent-appellant learned that
the property was registered to one Romeo De Claro whom respondent-
appellant never had the opportunity of meeting. Respondent-appellant was
only in close communication with respondent Balba who acted as agent of
Romeo De Claro in all transactions pertaining to the property.

Having become truly interested in buying the subject property,

respondent-appellant agreed to the offer of Balba and asked the latter to
give him a list of items and amounts of expected expenses per item so that
respondent-appellant could prepare the money. Balba provided the list of
possible expenses and suggested that the tax delinquency of the property
must be settled first with the Municipal Assessore Office of Laurel, Batangas.

Respondent-appellant agreed and advanced the amount of Php

190,000.00 for the settlement of real property taxes of the subject property
incurred for the last ten (10) years. All the while, Balba assured respondent-
appellant that the cash advances for all expenses shall be credited to the
purchase price of the property.

On numerous occasions thereafter, Balba received from respondent-

appellant various amounts of money to be used for relocation survey,
approval of subdivision plan, transfer taxes, documentary stamp tax, notarial
fees, payment for registration fees with the Register of Deeds, and other
incidental expenses.

After some time, after releasing to respondent Balba more than Three
Million Pesos (Php 3,000,000.00), the latter presented to respondent-
appellant Montecillo the Certificate of Title under the name of Romeo De
Claro with respect to the subject property together with the identification
cards of Romeo De Claro and his wife Rosalinda De Claro. Respondent Balba
assured respondent-appellant that the corresponding Deed of Sale shall be
executed by the Spouses De Claro. True enough, a duly notarized Deed of
Absolute Sale executed by Spouses De Claro was presented by respondent
Balba to respondent-appellant Montecillo.

Respondent-appellant, being a buyer in good faith, was however

greatly surprised when he received notice about the complaint filed by
complainant Mary Rose De Claro-Sinag claiming, among others, that the
Deed of Absolute Sale executed by her parents was falsified and accusing
respondent-appellant Montecillo and respondent Balba of having committed
estafa through falsification of public document.

In finding the existence of probable cause against respondent-

appellant, the city prosecutor reasoned out that respondent-appellant
admitted having dealt with respondent Balba only and never met the
registered owners/sellers of the property and as such cannot be considered
as a buyer in good faith. According to the city prosecutor, buyers should
exercise utmost prudence in purchasing properties under the principle of
caveat emptor.

At first glance, it can be gleaned that the discussion of the liability of

respondent-appellant focused on the civil liabilities of the respondent-
appellant by reason of his lack of care or imprudence in not requiring from
respondent Balba the latterss authority to sell the property. It requires a bit
of a stretch of ones imagination how respondent-appellants negligence
could lead to a finding of probable cause for an intentional offense.

It is submitted that a finding of negligence on the part of respondent-

appellant in his dealing with respondent Balba is inconsistent with the finding
of probable cause for an intentional offense of estafa through falsification of
public document. The lack of care or respondent-appellant, if at all, could
only lead to civil liabilities and not to criminal prosecution.

CONCLUSION:

From the evidence submitted by the parties in the instant case, it can be
concluded that such evidence are not enough for a finding of probable cause
against respondent-appellant Rolando DLP. Montecillo. As such, the resolution of
the Office of the City Prosecutor of Tanauan City should be REVERSED and SET
ASIDE in so far as respondent-appellant Montecillo is concerned.