REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )

MALOLOS CITY, BULACAN ) s.s.

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

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT

WE, the following COMPLAINANTS:

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;

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;

CELESTINO R. SOTAYCO, male, senior citizen, Filipino,

married, and with residence and postal address at No. 1028 Sta.
Rosa I, Marilao, Bulacan;

EDUARDO R. SOTAYCO, male, senior citizen, Filipino,

married, and with residence and postal address at No. 296 Sta. Rosa
I, Marilao, Bulacan;

HONORATA R. SOTAYCO – FLORES, female, senior

citizen, Filipino, widow, and with residence and postal address at No.
100 Sta. Rosa I, Marilao, Bulacan;

ANITA S. SOTAYCO, female, senior citizen, Filipino, widow,

and with residence and postal address at No. 303 Sta. Rosa I,
Marilao, Bulacan; and

Mario R. Sotayco, male, senior citizen, Filipino, widower, and

with residence and postal address at No. 1029 Sta. Rosa I, Marilao,
Bulacan,

after having been sworn to in accordance with law, depose and say
that:

1] All efforts at the barangay level to amicably settle the

dispute between COMPLAINANTS and Respondents Grecelda
Sotayco, Glenn S. Sotayco and John Cess S. Sotayco were unable to
yield positive result. Hence, a Certification to File Action (Annex A)
was issued by Kalihim Narciso J. Sotayco on 17 December 2018.

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT (ESTAFA:FALSIFICATION) 1 of 19
 2] We are instituting this criminal complaint against the
following RESPONDENTS who are all of legal ages, Filipino citizens,
and with their respective residence and postal addresses indicated
after their respective names where subpoenas may be served by this
Honorable Office for purposes of preliminary investigation:

2.1] Grecelda Sotayco, female, widow, presently residing

at Poland Village, Sta. Rosa I, Marilao, Bulacan, hereafter
referred to as “Respondent Grecelda;”

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

Poland Village, Sta. Rosa I, Marilao, Bulacan, hereafter
referred to as “Respondent Glenn;”

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

residing at Poland Village, Sta. Rosa I, Marilao, Bulacan,
hereafter referred to as “Respondent John Cess;”

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

postal address at Sta. Rosa I, Marilao, Bulacan, hereafter
referred to as “Respondent Maria Noeime;”

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

address at Sta. Rosa I, Marilao, Bulacan, hereafter referred
to as “Respondent Natalia;” and

2.6] 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 Atty. Sajor.”

THE CRIMES AS DEFINED UNDER

THE REVISED PENAL CODE
AND THE RESPECTIVE ELEMENTS

3] This criminal complaint is being filed to charge the

RESPONDENTS named in paragraph 3 above of COMPLEX CRIME
OF ESTAFA THRU FALSIFICATION OF A PUBLIC DOCUMENT
defined and penalized under Article 318 (paragraph 1) of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC) in relation to Article 172 (paragraph 1) of
the RPC.

ARTICLE 172 REVISED PENAL CODE

4] The provisions of Article 172 RPC read as follows:

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT (ESTAFA:FALSIFICATION) 2 of 19
 Article 172. Falsification by private individual
and use of falsified documents. - The penalty of
prision correccional in its medium and maximum
periods and a fine of not more than P5,000 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

NOTE: Under paragraph 2 of Article 171, a person

may commit falsification of a public document by
causing it to appear in a document that a person or
persons participated in an act or proceeding, when
such person or persons did not, in fact, so participate
in the act or proceeding.

5] Essentially, the elements of the crime of Falsification of

Public Document under Article 172 (1) of the RPC are:

5.1] that the offender is a private individual;

5.2] that the offender committed any of the acts of

falsification enumerated under Article 171; and

5.3] that the act of falsification is committed in a public

document.1

ARTICLE 318 REVISED PENAL CODE

6] The provisions of Article 318 RPC read as follows:

Article 318. Other Deceits. - The penalty of arresto

mayor and a fine of not less than the amount of the
damage caused and not more than twice such amount
shall be imposed upon any person who shall defraud
or damage another by any other deceit not mentioned
in the preceding articles of this chapter.

7] In Osorio vs. People of the Philippines2, the Supreme Court

enumerated the essential elements for an accused to be held
1 Obando vs. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 138696, 7 July 2010)

2 G.R. No. 207711, 2 July 2018

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT (ESTAFA:FALSIFICATION) 3 of 19
criminally liable under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code.
Pertinent portion of the decision reads as follows:

Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code is broad in

application. It is intended as a catch-all provision to
cover all other kinds of deceit not falling under
Articles 315, 316 and 317 of the Revised Penal
Code.

For an accused to be held criminally liable under

Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code, the following
elements must exist:

A] The accused makes a false pretense, fraudulent

act or pretense other than those in Articles 315, 316,
and 317;

B] Such false pretense, fraudulent act or pretense

must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously
with the commission of the fraud; and

C] As a result the offended party suffered damage or

prejudice.

THE FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS

On or about 23 September 2015, and for sometime prior or

subsequent thereto, in the Municipality of Marilao, Province of
Bulacan, Philippines Respondent Grecelda, Respondent Glenn,
Respondent John Cess, Respondent Maria Noeime, and
Respondent Natalia, being then private individuals, and Respondent
Atty. Sajor, a Notary Public, conspiring and confederating together,
and mutually helping each other, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously defraud COMPLAINANTS by committing
Estafa thru Falsification of Public/Official Document, in the following
manner:

8] Respondent Grecelda, Respondent Glenn, Respondent

John Cess, Respondent Maria Noeime, Respondent Natalia and
Respondent Atty. Sajor with intent to defraud and cause damage
forged and falsified a document denominated as Kasulatan ng
Pagkakaloob (Deed of Donation) dated 23 September 2015 duly
notarized by Respondent Atty. Sajor and therefore a public and/or
official document, by stating in said Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob (Deed
of Deed) the following:

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT (ESTAFA:FALSIFICATION) 4 of 19
 8.1] that Rafaelita R. Sotayco [sister of COMPLAINANTS]
donated to Cesar R. Sotayco [deceased spouse of
Respondent Grecelda] two parcels of land described as
follows:

8.1.1] 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.

Registered in the name Rafaelita R. Sotayco (alleged

donor whose signature in the Kasulatan ng
Pagkakaloob [Deed of Donation] is a forgery)

8.1.2] 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 the Bo. Of Sta. Rosa,
Marilao, Bulacan x x x x containing an area of 1,051
square meters.

Registered in the names of the Sotayco siblings

named as follows:

a] Cherry Marie S. Artais,

b] Domingo R. Sotayco,
c] Celestino R. Sotayco,
d] Eduardo R. Sotayco,
e] Mario R. Sotayco,
f] Honorata R. Sotayco – Flores,
g] Ceferino R. Sotayco, Jr.,
h] Cesar R. Sotayco (deceased spouse of
Respondent Grecelda), and
i] Rafaelita R. Sotayco (alleged donor whose
signature in the Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob [Deed of
Donation] is a forgery)

8.2] that Rafaelita R. Sotayco [sister of COMPLAINANTS],

donated to Cesar R. Sotayco [deceased spouse of
Respondent Grecelda] the Sotayco’s ancestral home
located at Marilao, Bulacan.

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT (ESTAFA:FALSIFICATION) 5 of 19
 9] Thereafter, causing to be feigned, simulated and
counterfeited the signature of the said Rafaelita R. Sotayco appearing
on the bottom portion and over the typewritten name “RAFAELITA R.
SOTAYCO” on page 1 of said Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob (Deed of
Donation) dated 23 September 2015 duly notarized by Respondent
Atty. Sajor.

10] Thus, making it appear, as it did appear, that the said

Rafaelita R. Sotayco had in fact donated the properties mentioned in
sub-paragraph nos. 8.1 and 8.2 hereof to Cesar R. Sotayco –
deceased spouse of Respondent Grecelda.

11] Furthermore, causing it to appear that the said Rafaelita R.

Sotayco participated and intervened in the signing of said Kasulatan
ng Pagkakaloob (Deed of Donation) dated 23 September 2015
notarized by Respondent Atty. Sajor when in truth and in fact as the
RESPONDENTS named in paragraph 2 hereof well knew, such was
not the case in that the said Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob (Deed of
Donation) is an outright forgery.

12] Finally, after the said Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob (Deed of

Donation) has been forged and falsified in the manner above set
forth, Respondent Grecelda, Respondent Glenn and Respondent
John Cess, forthwith took possession -

12.1] of the jewelries of Rafaelita R. Sotayco being kept

in the Sotayco’s ancestral home; and

12.2] 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 8.1.1 hereof

which the said Respondent Grecelda, Respondent Glenn and

Respondent John Cess subsequently, with intent to defraud,
misappropriated, misapplied and converted to their own personal use
and benefit to the damage and prejudice of COMPLAINANTS in the
aforesaid amount of TWO MILLION PESOS (Php2,000,000.00)
Philippine currency.

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT (ESTAFA:FALSIFICATION) 6 of 19
 INDIVIDUAL OVERT ACTS OF THE
ABOVE-NAMED RESPONDENTS
IN THIS CONSPIRACY

13] Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code provides that there is a

conspiracy "when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it." Well-
settled is the rule that when there is a conspiracy, the act of one is
considered the act of all the conspirators, and a conspirator may be
held liable as a principal even if he did not participate in the actual
commission of every act constituting the offense.3

14] Relevantly, in People of the Philippines vs. Peralta, et. al.4,

the Supreme Court elaborated on the principle of criminal conspiracy
and its ramifications in this manner:

Doctrine. A conspiracy exists when two or more

persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it x x x.

Once an express or implied conspiracy is proved, all

of the conspirators are liable as co-principals
regardless of the extent and character of their
respective active participation in the commission of
the crime or crimes perpetrated in furtherance of the
conspiracy because in contemplation of law the act of
one is the act of all. The foregoing rule is anchored
on the sound principle that "when two or more
persons unite to accomplish a criminal object,
whether through the physical volition of one, or all,
proceeding severally or collectively, each individual
whose evil will actively contributes to the wrong-doing
is in law responsible for the whole, the same as
though performed by himself alone." Although it is
axiomatic that no one is liable for acts other than his
own, "when two or more persons agree or conspire to
commit a crime, each is responsible for all the acts of
the others, done in furtherance of the agreement or
conspiracy x x x"

Verily, the moment it is established that the

malefactors conspired and confederated in the

3 Valdez vs. People of the Philippines (G.R. Nos. 75896-99 [5 May 1989])

4 G.R. No. L-19069, 29 October 1968

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT (ESTAFA:FALSIFICATION) 7 of 19
 commission of the felony proved, collective liability of
the accused conspirators attaches by reason of the
conspiracy, and the court shall not speculate nor
even investigate as to the actual degree of
participation of each of the perpetrators present at
the scene of the crime. Of course, as to any
conspirator who was remote from the situs of
aggression, he could be drawn within the enveloping
ambit of the conspiracy if it be proved that through his
moral ascendancy over the rest of the conspirators
the latter were moved or impelled to carry out the
conspiracy.

In fine, the convergence of the wills of the

conspirators in the scheming and execution of the
crime amply justifies the imputation to all of them the
act of any one of them. It is in this light that
conspiracy is generally viewed not as a separate
indictable offense, but a rule for collectivizing criminal
liability.

RESPONDENT GRECELDA
RESPONDENT GLENN
RESPONDENT JOHN CESS

15] It would have been physically and legally impossible for

Rafaelita R. Sotayco (“Rafaelita”) to have executed the questioned
Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob (Deed of Donation) and to have
personally subscribed to its authenticity and validity before
Respondent Atty. Sajor on 23 September 2015 given Rafaelita’s
medical condition (Annex B-1) which led to an operation medically
termed as suboccipital craniotomy and tumor excision (Annex B-2) on
9 December 2014 (Annex B-3).

16] Rafaelita’s medical condition as shown in The Medical

City’s Discharge Summary/Clinical Abstract (attached hereto as
Annex B) 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

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT (ESTAFA:FALSIFICATION) 8 of 19
 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.”

17] It bears emphasis how obvious that the purported signature

of Rafaelita in the questioned Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob (Deed of
Donation) dated 23 September 2015 notarized by Respondent Atty.
Sajor (Annex C-1-4) was not genuine signature on the basis of visual
comparison alone.

18] A visual comparison of Rafaelita’s signature (Annex C-1-1)

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

Copies of the two-paged Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob (Deed of

Donation) is hereto attached as Annex C and C-1, Rafaelita’s Senior
Citizen Identification Card hereto attached as Annex D, and
Rafaelita’s PhilHealth Identification Card hereto attached as Annex
E.

In page no. 10 is a comparative presentation of the signatures

of Rafaelita affixed in the Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob, Senior Citizen
Identification Card, and PhilHealth Identification Card (Note:
comparative presentation attached hereto and marked as Annex F).

19] At this point, let it be stated that the original copy of the
questioned Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob (Deed of Donation) notarized
by Respondent Sajor is in the possession of Respondent Grecelda.
The same having been executed in her family’s favor. Clearly,
Respondent Grecelda and her two sons (Respondents Glenn and
John Cess) are the ones who are chiefly benefiting from the falsified
document.

20] Elsewise stated, Respondent Grecelda in cahoots with her

two sons (Respondents Glenn and John Cess) with intent to defraud,
is continuously misappropriating, misapplying and converting to their
own personal use and benefit the -

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT (ESTAFA:FALSIFICATION) 9 of 19
COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT (ESTAFA:FALSIFICATION) 10 of 19
 20.1] tenants’ rental 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 8.1.1 hereof; and

20.2] heirloom jewelries owned by Rafaelita R. Sotayco

which based on the 19 October 2018 minutes (Annex G
and G-1) of the barangay mediation/conciliation proceeding
between COMPLAINANTS and Respondent Grecelda and
her two sons (Respondents John Cess and Glenn), these
were all sold already by Respondent Grecelda by her own
admission. Pertinent portion of the 19 October 2018
minutes of barangay mediation/conciliation proceedings
reads as follows:

“Ukol sa sinasabing alahas ni Rafaelita Sotayco, sinabi ni

Grecelda na ito ay kanyang naibenta upang gamitin sa
pagpapagamot ni Rafaelita.”

All of the above to the damage and prejudice of

COMPLAINANTS.

21] At this point, the doctrinal declaration of the Supreme Court

in Spouses Villamar vs. People of the Philippines5 is instructive, as
follows:

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.

22] 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."

5 G.R. No. 178652, 8 December 2010

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT (ESTAFA:FALSIFICATION) 11 of 19
RESPONDENT MARIA NOEIME
RESPONDENT NATALIA

23] Respondents Maria Noeime and Natalia are the two

instrumental witnesses in the forged Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob
(Deed of Donation) notarized by Respondent Sajor on 23 September
2015. They are also tenants in the commercial stalls constructed in
the parcel of land with Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-129503 (M)
mentioned in sub-paragraph 8.1.1 whereby they are remitting their
respective monthly rental payments to Respondent Grecelda.

24] According to the Supreme Court, "Instrumental witness, as

define by Escriche in his Diccionario Razonado de Legislacion y
Jurisprudencia, Vol. 4, p. 1115, is one who takes part in the execution
of an instrument or writing."6

25] As stated in paragraph 15, it would have been physically

and legally impossible for Rafaelita R. Sotayco (“Rafaelita”) to have
executed the alleged Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob (Deed of Donation)
and to have personally subscribed to its authenticity and validity
before Respondent Atty. Sajor on 23 September 2015 given her
medical condition.

26] Additionally, the glaring disparity in the signatures of

Rafaelita in her Senior Citizen ID card and PhilHealth ID card as
compared with her signature in the Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob (Deed
of Donation) is immensely visible to the naked eye.

27] Nevertheless, Respondents Maria Noeime and Natalia

caused it to appear that Rafaelita participated and intervened in the
signing of said Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob (Deed of Donation) dated
23 September 2015 in the presence of Respondent Atty. Sajor as
shown by their respective signatures (Annexes C-1-2 and C-1-3) in
the said Kasulatan as instrumental witnesses when in truth and in
fact they well knew such was not the case.

28] Simply stated, they stood as instrumental witnesses to the

following falsities:

28.1] that Rafaelita signed the questioned Kasulatan ng

Pagkakaloob (Deed of Donation) in the presence of
Respondent Atty. Sajor on 23 September 2015; and

6The Matter of the Probate of the Last Will and Testament of Jose Venzon, Valentina Cuevas vs.
Pilar Achachoso (G.R. No. L-3497, 18 May 1951)
COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT (ESTAFA:FALSIFICATION) 12 of 19
 28.2] That they affixed their respective signatures as well
in the said Kasulatan in the presence both of Respondent
Atty. Sajor and Rafaelita on 23 September 2015.

RESPONDENT ATTY. SAJOR

29] A cursory examination of the questioned Kasulatan ng

Pagkakaloob (Deed of Donation) readily reveals the following fatal
flaws:

29.1] The forged signature of Rafaelita is conspicuous to

the naked eye as earlier explained in paragraphs 15 to 18.

29.2] It was notarized by Respondent Atty. Sajor on 23

September 2015 (Annex C-1-4) without the respective
competent proofs of identity of Rafaelita (alleged donor)
and Cesar R. Sotayco (alleged donee and deceased
spouse of Respondent Grecelda). Thus, Respondent Atty.
Sajor palpably foreclosed any opportunity to ascertain if the
purported signatures of Rafaelita (alleged donor) and
Cesar R. Sotayco (alleged donee and deceased spouse of
Respondent Grecelda) appearing in the questioned
Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob (Deed of Donation) belonged to
them.

29.3] The signatures of the two instrumental witnesses,

Respondents Maria Noeime and Natalia, do not appear on
page no. 1 of the questioned Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob
(Deed of Donation). This runs counter to the
Acknowledgement of the questioned Kasulatan ng
Pagkakaloob (Deed of Donation) pertinent portion of which
states as follows:

“Ang kasulatang ito ay nauukol sa Kasunduan sa

Pagkakaloob binubuo ng dalawang (2) pahina,
kabilang na ang pahinang ito, nilagdaan ng mga
kinauukulan pati na ang kanyang mga saksi sa
lahat at bawat pahina nito.”

29.4 The signatures of Rafaelita (alleged donor) and Cesar

R. Sotayco (alleged donee and deceased spouse of
Respondent Grecelda) do not appear on page no. 2 of the
questioned Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob (Deed of Donation).
This runs counter to the Acknowledgement of the
questioned Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob (Deed of Donation)

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT (ESTAFA:FALSIFICATION) 13 of 19
 pertinent portion of which states as follows:

“Ang kasulatang ito ay nauukol sa Kasunduan sa

Pagkakaloob binubuo ng dalawang (2) pahina,
kabilang na ang pahinang ito, nilagdaan ng mga
kinauukulan pati na ang kanyang mga saksi sa
lahat at bawat pahina nito.”

29.5] The documentary identification of the two

instrumental witnesses to the questioned Kasulatan ng
Pagkakaloob (Deed of Donation), Respondents Maria
Noeime and Natalia, is nowhere to be found in the said
Kasulatan.

It bears emphasis that Rule II, Sec. 12 of the 2004

Rules on Notarial Practice now requires a party to the
instrument to present competent evidence of identity. Sec.
12 provides:

“Sec. 12. Competent Evidence of Identity. The

phrase competent evidence of identity refers to the
identification of an individual based on:

(a) at least one current identification document

issued by an official agency bearing the photograph
and signature of the individual, such as but not
limited to, passport, drivers license, Professional
Regulations Commission ID, National Bureau of
Investigation clearance, police clearance, postal ID,
voters ID, Barangay certification, Government
Service Insurance System (GSIS) e-card, Social
Security System (SSS) card, Philhealth card, senior
citizen card, Overseas Workers Welfare
Administration (OWWA) ID, OFW ID, seamans
book, alien certificate of registration/immigrant
certificate of registration, government office ID,
certificate from the National Council for the Welfare
of Disabled Persons (NCWDP), Department of
Social Welfare and Development certification [as
amended by A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC dated February
19, 2008]; or

(b) the oath or affirmation of one credible witness

not privy to the instrument, document or transaction
who is personally known to the notary public and
who personally knows the individual, or of two

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT (ESTAFA:FALSIFICATION) 14 of 19
 credible witnesses neither of whom is privy to
the instrument, document or transaction who
each personally knows the individual and shows
to the notary public documentary identification
(boldfacing supplied for emphasis).”

30] It is worth emphasizing that Respondent Atty. Sajor was

admitted to the Philippine Bar in 1997. So that his decades-long legal
practice is mute testimony that he deliberately and consciously
violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. He cannot feign
ignorance on the criminal design of his co-Respondents neither could
he claim good faith when he notarized the questioned Kasulatan ng
Pagkakaloob (Deed of Donation) on 23 September 2015.

31] It is worth noting that aforesaid act of notarization by

Respondent Atty. Sajor, laid the groundwork and paved the way for
Respondent Grecelda and her two sons (Respondents Glenn and
John Cess) for the commission of their criminal design against, and
consequent damage to, COMPLAINANTS.

32] It is settled jurisprudence, to the point of being elementary

that –

Lawyers commissioned as notaries public are

mandated to discharge with fidelity the duties of their
offices, such duties being dictated by public policy
and impressed with public interest. It must be
remembered that notarization is not a routinary,
meaningless act, for notarization converts a private
document to a public instrument, making it admissible
in evidence without the necessity of preliminary proof
of its authenticity and due execution. A notarized
document is by law entitled to full credit upon its face
and it is for this reason that notaries public must
observe the basic requirements in notarizing
documents. Otherwise, the confidence of the public
on notorized documents will be eroded.7

7 Dela Cruz, et. al. vs. Atty. Jose R. Dimaano, Jr. (A.C. No. 7781, 12 September 2008)

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT (ESTAFA:FALSIFICATION) 15 of 19
 33] Indeed, as keenly pointed out by the Supreme Court8 -

The function of a notary public is, among others,

to guard against any illegal or immoral
arrangements. By affixing his notarial seal on the
instrument, he converted the Deed of Absolute Sale,
from a private document into a public document. In
doing so, respondent, in effect, proclaimed to the
world that (1) all the parties therein personally
appeared before him; (2) they are all personally
known to him; (3) they were the same persons who
executed the instruments; (4) he inquired into the
voluntariness of execution of the instrument; and (5)
they acknowledged personally before him that they
voluntarily and freely executed the same. As a lawyer
commissioned to be a notary public, respondent is
mandated to discharge his sacred duties with faithful
observance and utmost respect for the legal
solemnity of an oath in an acknowledgment or jurat.
Simply put, such responsibility is incumbent upon him
(Boldfacing supplied for emphasis).

MEDIATION/CONCILIATION PROCEEDINGS
AT THE BARANGAY

34] After Rafaelita R. Sotayco (“Rafaelita”) died unmarried and

intestate on 13 December 2017 (copy of Death Certificate attached
hereto as Annex H), COMPLAINANTS talked about with
Respondents Grecelda and her two sons (Respondents Glenn and
John Cess) the matter of settling extra-judicially the estate of
Rafaelita consisting of the following:

34.1] 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
with Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-129503 (M);

34.2] Jewelries; and

34.3] Tenants’ rental payment amounting to Php45,000.00

per month in the commercial stalls constructed in the parcel
of land mentioned in sub-paragraph 12.2 hereof.

8 Atty. Miniano B. dela Cruz vs. Atty. Alejandro P. Zabala (A.C. No. 6294, 17 November 2004)

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT (ESTAFA:FALSIFICATION) 16 of 19
 35] Unfortunately, the almost one-year of discussion between
COMPLAINANTS and Respondents Grecelda and her two sons
(Respondents Glenn and John Cess) were in vain. As a
consequence, COMPLAINANTS were left with no other option but
resort, and they in fact resorted, to barangay mediation/conciliation
proceedings.

36] Similarly, the numerous barangay mediation/conciliation

proceedings between COMPLAINANTS and Respondents Grecelda
and her two sons (Respondents Glenn and John Cess) were
unsuccessful due to the adamant refusal of Respondents Grecelda
and her two sons (Respondents Glenn and John Cess) to extra-
judicially settle the estate of Deceased Rafaelita.

37] To all of COMPLAINANTS surprised, it was during the 9

October 2018 barangay mediation/conciliation proceeding (copy of
minutes attached as Annexes I, I-1, I-1-1) that Respondents Grecelda
and her two sons (Respondents Glenn and John Cess) presented the
forged 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. Simply stated,
Respondents Grecelda and her two sons (Respondents Glenn and
John Cess) claim ownership of all parcels of land described in the
forged 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 Sotayco9 inpinagkaloob ni Rafaelita Sotayco
ang kanyang naiwang ari-arian at kabuhayan.”

38] COMPLAINANTS were further surprised and upset when

they read in the forged Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob (Deed of
Donation) that even the co-owned parcel of land with Transfer
Certificate of Title No. T-482562 (M) containing an area of 1,051
square meters was also donated (copy of TCT No. 482562 (M)
attached hereto as Annex J).

9 Alleged done and deceased spouse of Respondent Grecelda

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT (ESTAFA:FALSIFICATION) 17 of 19
 The co-owned parcel of land with Transfer Certificate of Title
No. T-482562 (M) containing an area of 1,051 square meters is
registered in the names of the Sotayco siblings named as follows:

a] Cherry Marie S. Artais,

b] Domingo R. Sotayco,
c] Celestino R. Sotayco,
d] Eduardo R. Sotayco,
e] Mario R. Sotayco,
f] Honorata R. Sotayco – Flores,
g] Ceferino R. Sotayco, Jr.,
h] Cesar R. Sotayco (deceased spouse of Respondent
Grecelda), and
i] Rafaelita R. Sotayco (alleged donor whose signature in the
Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob [Deed of Donation] is a forgery)

We are executing this Complaint-Affidavit to cause the

indictment of RESPONDENTS for committing the COMPLEX CRIME
OF ESTAFA THROUGH FALSIFICATION OF A PUBLIC
DOCUMENT defined and penalized under Article 318 (paragraph 1)
of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) in relation to Article 172 (paragraph
1) of the RPC.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, We affixed our signatures this

th
____ day of March in the City of Malolos, Province of Bulacan,
Philippines.

MARIO R. SOTAYCO CELESTINO R. SOTAYCO

Affiant Affiant

CHERRY MARIE S. ARTAIS EDUARDO R. SOTAYCO

Affiant Affiant

DOMINGO R. SOTAYCO ANITA S. SOTAYCO

Affiant Affiant

HONORATA R. SOTAYCO – FLORES

Affiant

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT (ESTAFA:FALSIFICATION) 18 of 19
 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, this _____th day
of March 2019 in the City of Malolos, Province of Bulacan,
Philippines.

_____________________
Asst. Provincial Prosecutor

CERTIFICATION
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have personally examined the
Affiants and I am satisfied that they voluntarily executed and
understood the allegations contained in the Complaint-Affidavit which
according to them are true and correct based on their personal
knowledge and available authentic records.

_____________________
Asst. Provincial Prosecutor

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT (ESTAFA:FALSIFICATION) 19 of 19