You are on page 1of 4

Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice, Region V


National Prosecution Service
CITY PROSECUTION OFFICE
Sorsogon City, Sorsogon

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES INV______


Complainant ,

-Versus- For: Falsification of public


document
MARGERIE GIGI VALEROSO
Accused
x-------------------------------------------------x

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT
I, MARY GRACE Z. PEGA, after having been duly sworn to in
accordance w/ law hereby depose and state:

1. That I am the School Principal of Abucay Elementary School, Abucay,


Pilar, Sorsogon;

2. That I am filing this COMPLAINT out of my social and legal duty as public
official against MRS. MARGERIE GIGI VALEROSO, Master Teacher II, Abucay
Elementary School, Abucay, Pilar, Sorsogon, for acts of falsification she
committed while in the performance of her duty as a public school teacher;

3. That she committed the following acts of falsification to wit:

a. On September 1, 2014, the respondent signed the logbook for


September 1, 2014, indicating she was present the entire day. The truth of
the matter being that she was absent in the afternoon. A reproduction of
the school logbook w/ the said date is hereto attached and marked as
Annex “A”.

b. On September 2, 2014, the respondent signed the logbook for


September 2, 2014, indicating that she was present the entire day.
However, she was absent the entire day. A reproduction of the school
logbook w/ the said date is hereto appended and marked as Annex “B”.

c. On September 19, 2014, the respondent log out and signed the
logbook around 3 pm but indicated a different time making it appear that
she had retired for the day at a time different from the actual time that she
left. A reproduction of the logbook w/ the said date is hereto attached as
Annex”C”.

d. On September 26, 2014, the respondent signed the logbook for


September 26, 2014 indicating that she was present the entire day.
However, she was absent the entire day. A reproduction of the school
logbook w/ the said date is hereto attached as Annex”D’.

e. On October 1, 2014, the respondent while still conducting classes,


logged out and signed the logbook at 5:20 in the afternoon while Teacher’s
Conference was ongoing w/out permission from the complainant and Dr.
Liliosa Loseriaga Education Program Specialist in Filipino of the Division of
Sorsogon who was present in the school at that time. A reproduction of the
school logbook w/ the said date is hereto attached and marked as
Annex”E”.

f. On October 2, 2014, the respondent logged in at 7:00 but never


returned after signing the logbook. A copy of the School logbook is hereto
appended and marked as Annex”F”.

4. That the acts of dishonesty by the respondent corroborated by Melinda


M. Marinda, and Melanie Lenas who was affirmed that she was absent for
the half day, absent for the whole day or left earlier on the dates indicated
in the School Logbook as regarding the series of acts of falsification
committed by the respondent, a copy of the same is hereto attached as
Annex ”G”.

5. That the respondent claimed compensation for the above stated periods
of time notwithstanding her absence. A copy of her pay slip and payroll are
hereto appended as Annexes “H” and “J”.

6. That the various acts of dishonesty are punishable under Article 171 of
the RPC w/c provides in part:

7. That the elements of falsification of public document under Article 171 of


the RPC are:

a. The offender shall be any public officer, employee or notary

b. That the offender takes advantage of his official position

c. That the offender falsifies a document

8. That the rulings of the Supreme Court relevant on the matter are
instructive:
To convict an accused of the crime of falsification of public or official
document under that provision of law, the following requisites must be
established: (1) the offender makes in a document untruthful statements in
a narration of facts; (2) he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the
facts narrated by him; and (3) the facts narrated by him are absolutely
false.Syquian vs. People, 171 SCRA 223, 230 [1989], citing Cabigas vs. People, 152 SCRA
18 [1987]; Leyson vs. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 134990, April 27, 2000 .

There is authority to the effect that a fourth requisite, i.e., that the act of
falsification was committed to the damage of a third party or with intent to
cause such damage, may be dispensed with as regards falsification of public
or official document. The reason for this is that in falsification of public
document, the principal thing punished is the violation of the public faith
and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed. People vs..
Po Giok To, 96 Phil. 913, 918 [1955].However, the daily time record that a
public official or employee must fill up is a public document which has
characteristics distinct from other public documents. It should contain a
"true and correct report of hours of work performed, record of which was
made daily at the of arrival at and departure from office."Suan vs. Resuello,
65 SCRA 301, 303 [1975].As to its nature and purpose, this Court has said:

“x x x. The evident purpose of requiring government employees to keep a


time record is to show their attendance in office to work and to be paid
accordingly. Closely adhering to the policy of no work no pay, a daily time
record is primarily, if not solely, intended to prevent damage or loss to the
government as would result in instances where it pays an employee for no
work done. The integrity of the daily time record as an official document,
however, remains untarnished if the damage sought to be prevented has
not been produced. X x x (w)hile it is true that a time record is an official
document, it is not criminally falsified if it does not pervert its avowed
purpose as when it does not cause damage to the government. It may be
different in the case of a public document with continuing interest affecting
the public welfare which is naturally damaged if that document is falsified
where the truth is necessary for the safeguard and protection of that
general interest. x x x."Beradio vs., Court of Appeals, supra, at p. 168.
(Italics supplied.)

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is hereby prayed of this


Honorable Office file the necessary criminal case in court for acts
of falsification committed by the respondent.
Other relief and remedies under the circumstances are also
prayed for.

M.H. Del Pilar Street, Sorsogon, November 18, 2014.

MARY GRACE Z. PEGA


Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this


____________________, 2014 at Sorsogon City, Philippines, and
further affiant exhibited to me his Valid Identification Number already
written below his name.

Doc. No. ______:


Page No. ______:
Book No.______:
Series of 2014