Office of The City Prosecutor: Judicial Counter-Affidavit

Republic of the Philippines
Office of the City Prosecutor

Iligan City
MAURINE M. LAYUG,
Complainant, NPS DOCKET NO.:
X-08-INV-19C-00147
- versus - FOR: VIOLATION OF RA 9262
MARLOW B. MAGALLANES
Respondent.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
JUDICIAL COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT
---------------------------------------------
NAME OF WITNESS: MARLOW M. MAGALLANES

CITY ADDRESS: Blk. 2 Lot 9, Floraville 5 Subdivision,
Brgy. Luinab, Iligan City
OCCUPATION: SALESMAN
NAME OF EXAMINER: ATTY. EMMANUEL C. SALIBAY

PLACE OF EXAMINATION: Salibay Law Office
28 Champaca Rd., San Miguel
Village, Pala-o, Iligan City
---------------------------------------------
R e p u b l i c o f t h e P h i l i p p i n e s)
C i t y o f I l i g a n ) Sc.
x-- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
1. Q Sir, are you aware that all your statements in this Judicial
Affidavit are under oath and any falsehood can give rise
to prosecution of perjury?
A Yes, sir.
2. Q Are you willing to proceed to give your free and voluntary

statement in this examination?
A Yes, sir.
3. Q Do you swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?
A Yes, sir.
Page 2
4. Q Will you please state your name and other personal

circumstances?
A I am MARLOW BINGAT MAGALLANES, 47 years old,

Filipino, married to MARIA CHRISTY MAE MARIQUIT
MAGALLANES, works as a salesman and a resident of
Blk. 2, Lot 9, Floraville 5, Brgy. Luinab, Iligan City, sir.
5. Q What is your purpose in executing this Judicial Counter-

Affidavit?
A To refute the charges filed by Complainant MAUREEN M.

LAYUG a.k.a MAURINE L. HARTLEY, 49 years old,
married to DAVID WAYNE HARTLEY, and a resident of
Heaven Scent, Prk. 1, Tibanga Highway, Brgy. Tibanga,
Iligan City in the case docketed as IS No. X-08-INV-19C-
00147 for violation of RA No. 9262 before the City
Prosecutor’s Office, Iligan City, sir.
6. Q What can you say about the charges filed against you by
the aforesaid complainant?
A I did not do such acts that would constitute violation of RA

No. 9262. Said charges are untruthful. I know she filed
this case to extort money from me to finance her case for
annulment of marriage. The complaint should be
dismissed as the gravamen of the offense for violation of
said special law is absent as we have no more existing
relationship marital or otherwise so to speak, sir
7. Q Can you recall having received a copy of the subpoena

dated July 23. 2019 from the Office of the City
Prosecutor’s Office for you to appear in the said office on
July 29, 2019, Iligan City?
A Yes, sir.
8. Q When did you receive the subpoena?
A On Friday, July 26, 2019 at 2 o’clock in the afternoon. My

wife Christy picked up the subpoena at the City
Prosecutor’s Office which she handed over to me, sir.
9. Q What happened after you received the subpoena?
A I read the affidavit complaint and comply with the

requirement to appear during the clarificatory hearing set
on July 29, 2019 at 2 PM and there I asked Prosecutor
Jasmin C. Guiuo-Diaz to give me 10 days from July 29,
2019 to submit my counter-affidavit which she granted,
sir.
10. Q Do you have a copy of her affidavit complaint?
A Yes, here it is, sir.
11. Q There are allegations re the circumstances of the

complainant and in Paragraph No. 1 of this complaint-
affidavit, what can you say about this?
A I partially admit the allegation therein pertaining to my

personal circumstance only but deny as to the rest
thereof, sir.
12. Q What is the reason for your denial?
A She deceived the Honorable City Prosecutor’s Office

when she claimed that I am her husband and she still
carried my surname Magallanes when in truth and in fact
she is not my wife anymore as our marriage on March 22,
1992 was severed and terminated by reason of the
Divorce Decree she initiated in Civil Case No. 2006-40
dated December 7, 2006 issued by the 4th Shari’a Circuit
Court, 4th Shari’a Judicial District, Iligan City which issued
a Certificate of Divorce and the corresponding
Certification from Office of the Clerk of Court and Circuit
Registrar. The decision was duly annotated in the
marriage contract as certified to and issued by the
Philippine Statistics Office. In addition, she also
contracted a subsequent marriage with her longtime
American lover, a certain David Wayne Hartley, on July
21, 2008. I did not violate any provision of RA 9262, sir.
13. Q You said that the 4th Shari’a Circuit Court issued a
Certificate of Divorce while the Office of the Clerk of Court
and Circuit Registrar issued a Certification, do you have
any document to show the same?
A Yes, here they are, sir.
14. Q We are marking this Certificate of Divorce as Annex “1”,

while the Certification from Office of the Clerk of Court
and Circuit Registrar as Annex “2”, do you confirm our
action?
A Yes, sir.
MANIFESTATION: We are respectfully marking as Annex
“1” this Certificate of Divorce while Annex “2” this
Certification from Office of the Clerk of Court and Circuit
Registrar.
15. Q You said that the Decision of Divorce was duly annotated
in your marriage contract as certified to and issued by the
Philippine Statistics Office, do you have any document to
show the same?
A Yes, here is a two (2) page PSA authenticated Marriage

Contract with annotation of the Decision in the left margin
of the document, sir.
16. Q We are marking this authenticated Marriage Contract with

annotation as Annex “3” and “3-A” , do you confirm our
action?
A Yes, sir.

“3” this authenticated Marriage Contract with annotation of
Divorce Decree while Annex “3-a” the second page thereof.
17. Q You said that she contracted a subsequent marriage with

her longtime American lover, a certain David Wayne
Hartley on July 21, 2008, do you have any document to
show the same?
A Yes, here is the Certification issued by the PSA and their

family pictures, sir.
18. Q We are marking this Certification issued by the Philippine

Statistics Office re the Subsequent Marriage of the
Complainant as Annex “4” and their family pictures of
the complainant with her husband and children as
Annexes “5” and “5-A”, do you confirm our action?
A Yes, sir.

“4” this Certification issued by the PSA dated February 28,
2019 and the family pictures of the complainant as Annex
“5” and “5-A”.
19. Q You mentioned that she initiated this divorce, do you have
A Yes, here is complainant’s letter dated August 3, 2006

which she signed as Maurine Hartley addressed to me
pleading for me to place my signature and thumb mark in
the Divorce Paper and thereafter returned to her in the
address she gave, sir.
20. Q We are marking complainant’s letter dated August 3,

2006 as Annex “6”, do you confirm our action?
A Yes, sir.

“6” the Complainant’s letter dated August 3, 2006 she
signed as Maurine Hartley.
21. Q There is an allegation in Paragraph No. 2 of this

complaint affidavit, what can you say about this?
A I partially admit the allegations in paragraph 2 and deny

as to the paternity of the fourth child Manuel Kent Layug
as evidenced by the name itself that does not carry my
surname coupled with the fact that the complainant was
engaged in extra-marital affairs with men prior to the
Divorce Decree. In fact, complainant had even a child
with her paramour a certain Marvin from Manila and their
names were combined (Mauren and Marvin) to christened
Mevin, their child, which she admitted to me on 2003
when complainant and I met at her Laundry Shop at
Philcoa, Quezon City, sir.
22. Q There is an allegation in another Paragraph Numbered 2

of this complaint affidavit, what can you say about this?
A I vehemently deny the allegations contained in another

paragraph numbered 2 in the complaint, truth being that I
did not verbally or physically abuse her and I did not use
any illegal substance in my entire life and there is no
medical or any court record to prove the same. The
allegations are mere product of the fertile imagination of
the complainant to impute criminal acts and discredit my
person when she was the one who physically and verbally
abused me which compelled me to flee to avoid physical
harm she inflected in my person because we lived in the
family house of the complainant where she has three
brothers and male cousins in their compound who would
maul me if I inflict the slightest harm or verbal insult
against her person, sir.

A I partially admit the allegations contained in paragraph 3
of the complaint, that I returned to keep the family intact
but her allegations that I verbally abuse her is a plain lie
as it I who suffered verbal abuse from her whenever I
could not gave her money as she always demanded that I
provide her more money. In fact during the preliminary
hearing at the Prosecutor’s office she could even name
me names such as “Bogo” and “Buang” in front of the
Hearing Prosecutor. In addition thereto, she continued her
illicit affair with other men which led to our separation. I
admit we have three (3) children who carried my
surname, the rest are product of her extramarital affairs,
sir.

A I do not have sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to

the truth of the allegation contained in Paragraph No. 4,
sir. We have no phone at that time and I have not yet
know nor met my wife Christy at that time. I have no
fourth child with the complainant, sir.

A I vehemently deny the allegations, sir. Truth being that

mentioned in the next preceding answer and the
allegations in paragraph 5 is a mere product of the fertile
imagination of the complainant which she invented to
make it appear that I am a lawbreaker when in truth and
in fact no such thing had transpired in the place and date
she mentioned which she could not fully identify and,
granting without permitting, that I was caught in the act of
doing said crime why, in heaven, did she not have it
blottered in the police records of Cagayan de Oro when
she claimed a policeman arrived the duty of which is to
record the crime and commence manhunt if not file the
appropriate case against me in court. There was no police
record or case filed because there was no incident that
transpired on January 7, 1998 involving me and my now
wife Christy Mae Mariquit Magallanes, sir.

A I vehemently deny the allegations, sir. Truth being that, I

never cease to support the needs of my children. I paid
for their sustenance and schooling. I always gave
monetary allowance to my children aside from paying
their tuition fees. Everytime I gave them money they even
cautioned me not to tell their mother about the money
they received for if the complainant would know she
would confiscate their money and spend it for her vices.
The children would not finish their education without my
full support. They are now beyond the age of
emancipation and they have lucrative jobs of their own to
support themselves, sir.
26. Q There are related allegations in Paragraph No. 7, 8, 9, 10

and 11 of this complaint affidavit, what can you say about
this?
A I partially admit the allegations contained in Paragraph

No. 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 of the complaint as to the birth of
my child with my wife Maria Christy Mae and our marriage
in 2001 but deny as to the rest thereof, sir. Truth is
complaiant and I had a constant communication as I
never ceased to send support to my children. I even
visited her in her Laundry Shop at Quezon City as I have
stated earlier and she even told me she had a child with
the said Marvin from Manila and their names were
combined (Mauren and Marvin) to christened their child
Mevin. I always managed to send monetary support for
my children. My wife Christy has been fully supportive
and even encouraged me never to forget my obligation to
my children with the complainant, sir.
27. Q There is an allegation in Paragraph No. 12, of this

A I vehemently deny the allegations contained in Paragraph

No. 12 of the complaint, sir. Truth being that we always
have communication and I even find precious time for my
children and also complainant always communicated to
me. I continued to support my children’s sustenance and
educational need as I did not abandon my responsibility
as a father. We always have contact with my children.
Complainant has been fully aware of my whereabouts as
born by the letter she sent to me [Annex “6”]. In fact, she
had been living with Mr. David Hartley. She even signed
her name as Mrs. Hartley in the letter, sir.
28. Q There are allegations in Paragraph No. 13 and 14, of this


No. 13 and 14 of the complaint, sir. Truth being that we
always have communication with my children as born by
the pictures and FB Chats we had and the request sent
by my children asking for monetary support and I never
missed my precious dates with my children. I always send
messages to my children, sir.
29. Q You mentioned that you have pictures and FB Chats with
your children, do you have any document to show the
same?
A Yes, here are the pictures and FB Communication I ahd

with my children, sir.
30. Q We are marking these pictures as Annexes “7” and

submarkings and the FB Chats as Annexes “8” and
submarkings, do you confirm our action?
A Yes, sir.
MANIFESTATION: We are respectfully marking as

Annexes “7” and submarkings and the FB Chats as
Annexes “8” and submarkings.


No. 15 and 16 of the complaint, sir. Truth being that since
our divorce complainant’s family and my family became
good friends. In 2011, complainant, her mother and her
American husband even visited my residence at
Flordiville Subdivsion at Luinab, IliganCity. To show glad
tidings, she and her husband even donated building
materials for my house renovation, sir.
32. Q What else had happened between you and the

complainant, if any?
A In the same year, 2011, complainant and her husband

invited me and my wife Christy to visit their newly
constructed residence at Isabel Village, Pala-o, Iligan City
to view her mansion with beautiful swimming pool.
Because we had a pleasant association then we even
accepted the invitation and visited their beautiful
residence. My children with the complainant had been
very close with my wife Christy. They visited Christy at
her office at Rhine Marketing in Pala-o. Christy had been
very good to Milcah and Micah and she even gave them
money whenever requested. The complainant even
purchased at Rhine Marketing through my wife Christy a
new aircon unit for their mansion, sir.

No. 16 of the complaint, sir. Truth being that I am did not
in any manner violated any provision of RA 9262 contrary
to the allegation of complainant. We are no longer
married. Granting without permitting that I have any
monetary liability as claimed by complainant, it is basically
civil and not criminal in nature and the case should be
dismissed, sir.
34. Q If that is the case why did the complainant filed this
criminal complaint against you??
A The only reason is to force me to finance her filing of

annulment of our marriage, sir. She declared before the
Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay Luinab that our
divorce was not recognized by the US Embassy and she
cannot enter the US as the wife of Mr. Hartley. He told
everybody that our divorce is fake when in fact she was
the one who initiated its petition. Then and there she
demanded that I finance the annulment of marriage which
she needed for her to enter the US with her husband. I
declined because I am convinced that the divorce decree
is valid and subsisting. It is not my problem anymore if the
same was denied cognizance by the US Embassy. If ever
I would concede to her request, that would be collusion
and her petition for annulment will surely be denied and
my money would be wasted for nothing. Out of her
desperation she created this hiatus, demanded money
and put me and my family in humiliation, sir.
35. Q Now, what do you want?
A The charges be dismissed for there is no prima facie

evidence to indict me violating Section 5(i) RA 9262 as
the truth is, I was the victim of the scheme and
manipulation of the complainant. She even deceived the
Honorable Office of the City Prosecutor and committed
perjury claiming she is my legal wife and make it appear
that our marriage was still subsisting when in fact it has
long been severed and terminated by virtue of the Divorce
Decision [Annex “1”, “2” and “3” ] she withheld, sir.
36. Q: Due to the actuations of the Complainant in filing you this

case what do you feel?
A: I felt humiliated, my reputation had been besmirched, I
have sleepless nights thinking of the actuations of
complainant who filed this case, sir.
37. Q Do you swear that everything you have stated herein are
true and correct?
A Yes I am executing this judicial affidavit to attest to the

truth of all the foregoing facts and to appraise the proper
authorities of my testimony and I further warrant that the
copies of the documents attached to this judicial affidavit
are faithful copies of the original, sir.
38. Q Do you have anything more to say?
A None as of the moment, sir.
MARLOW BINGAT MAGALLANES

Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 5th day of August 2019 at the
City of Iligan, Philippines. Affiant personally appeared who has satisfactorily proven to
me his identity through his Unified Multi-Purpose ID with CRN_______________,
personally known to me and to me known to be the same person who executed the
foregoing which she voluntarily signed in my presence for the purpose stated therein.
Atty. Emmanuel C. Salibay

Doc. No. 5557 Page No. 58 Notary Public
Book No. VII Series of 2016 Until December 31, 2016
IBP Life Member No. 08289
PTR No. 6665056 January 8, 2016
Both issued in Iligan City
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0000316, July 15, 2016
Attorney’s Roll No. 48931
TIN No. 166-615-120
Page 23
SWORN ATTESTATION
I, ATTY. EMMANUEL C. SALIBAY, of legal age, married, Filipino
and with office address at 28 Champaca Rd. San Miguel Village,
Pala-o, Iligan City, after having been duly sworn to an oath in
accordance with law states that:
I am the counsel of record for the respondent of the above-

entitled case;
I personally conducted the foregoing judicial affidavit of the

respondent and inform her that she is under oath, and that he may be
liable for false testimony or perjury if he is not telling the truth;
I hereby certify that I faithfully recorded the questions I asked

and the corresponding answers that the affiant gave, after encoding
and reading it in English and translating the same in Cebuano dialect
which she understood; and,
Neither I nor any person then present had coach the

respondent regarding her answers in this judicial affidavit.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affix my signature

this 15th day of November 2016 at Iligan City.
ATTY. EMMANUEL C. SALIBAY

Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 15th day of November 2016 at

the City of Iligan, Philippines. Affiant exhibited to me his valid Integrated Bar of the
Philippines ID under Lifetime Member No. 08289.
Assistant City Prosecutor
Copy furnished: By Personal Service Received by: ___________
Maurene Layug Hartley

Purok 1, Tibanga Highway
9200 Iligan City

Iligan City
INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES,
INC., represented by Atty.
ROBERTO C. PADILLA
Complainants, NPS NO. INV-16J-00656
FOR: ESTAFA under
- versus - Article 315 PAR. 1 (b)
and par.2 (a), RPC
JOSEFINA B. MABANTA
Respondent.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
The Administrative Clerk

Hall of Justice, Iligan City
Greetings!
Please submit the foregoing judicial counter-affidavit of Josefina

B. Mabanta, respondent in the above-entitled case with the judicial
affidavit of her witness for the consideration and resolution of the
Honorable Investigating Prosecutor Jasmin Guiuo-Diaz, Prosecutor
II.
City of Iligan, November 16, 2016.

Counsel for Josefina B. Mabanta
Salibay Law Office
28 Champca Rd., San Miguel Village, Pala-o,
Iligan City 9200 PHILIPPINES
IBP Lifetime Member No. 08289
PTR No. 6665056 January 8, 2016 (Iligan City)
MCLE Compliance No.VI-0000316, July 15, 2016
Attorney's Roll No. 48,931 - May 3, 2004

Atty. Roberto C. Padilla
Padilla, Ulindang and Partners
3rd Floor, Padilla Bldg., A Bonifacio Ave.,
Saray, 9200 Iligan City
Iligan City
ROBERTO C. PADILLA
FOR: ESTAFA under
and par.2 (a), RPC
JOSEFINA B. MABANTA
Respondent.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
---------------------------------------------
NAME OF WITNESS: JOSEFINA B. MABANTA

CITY ADDRESS: Zone 3-B, Del Carmen, Iligan City
OCCUPATION: GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE

---------------------------------------------
x-- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
1. Q Madame, are you aware that all your statement in this

Judicial Affidavit are under oath and any falsehoods can
give rise to prosecution of perjury?
A Yes, sir.
statement in this investigation?
A Yes, sir.
A Yes, sir.
Page 2

circumstances?
A I am JOSEFINA B. MABANTA, 61 years old, Filipino,

widow, a regular employee of the City Social Welfare and
Development Office, Iligan City and a resident of Zone 3-
B, Brgy. Del Carmen, Iligan City, sir.

Affidavit?
A To refute the charges filed by Complainants Industrial

Enterprises, Inc. represented by Atty. Roberto C. Padilla,
sir.
complainants Industrial Enterprises, Inc. [IEI, for brevity]
represented by Atty. Roberto C. Padilla [ Atty. Padilla, for
brevity]?
A I did not do such acts that would constitute estafa. Said

charges are untruthful. I know he filed this case to force
me to commit a crime of simulation of deed of
conveyance by signing with my co-heirs instrument of
donation instead of sale. The complaint should be
dismissed, sir

dated October 26, 2016 from the Office of the City
Prosecutor’s Office, Iligan City?
A Yes, sir.
A On November 3, 2016 at 2 o’clock in the afternoon

delivered to me in my office at the CSWD, sir.
9. Q Do you have a copy of his affidavit complaint?

A I admit the allegation it being the personal circumstances

of the complainants, sir.
Page 3

A I admit, it being my personal circumstance, sir.


sir.
13. Q In Paragraph No. 4 of this complaint, they alleged that

through promise and representation, you induced
complainants to purchase certain parcels of land relying
that upon receipt of the payment you shall execute an
extrajudicial settlement of the estate of your late husband
James Mabanta with Deed of Donation in favor of the
LGU of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte, what can you say
about this, if any?
A I vehemently deny the allegations, sir.
14. Q What is your reason denying the allegation, if any?
A It was Atty. Padilla who deceived me. I and my co-heirs

sold the land to IEI in good faith. I never promised to
donate as we never intended to donate portions of our
realties to any person real or juridical. It is morally and
legally erroneous to simulate donation when I know fully
well that we conveyed the property by way of sale as
claimed by complainants themselves in the same
paragraph No. 4 of the complaint. I am not insane to
donate the realty. It is ridiculous, sir.
15. Q Why is it ridiculous to donate?
A It is contrary to logic and common sense as truth is,

during the series of negotiations sometime in February of
2013, Mayor Arnado, Atty. Padilla and I agreed that IEI
would buy the land and IEI will donate the land to LGU
Kauswagan. It is incomprehensible to think that one who
valued her land so much would donate to any entity when
the end beneficiary is a multi-billion coal fired power plant,
which moved heaven and earth to construct their plant in
Kauswagan. Clearly, Atty. Padilla deceived me by
schemes and manipulation so that I and my co-heirs
Page 4
could sign acknowledgment receipts he prepared for me

to sell my land at the cheapest unreasonable price and
then use the said receipts to compel me to execute a
donation instead of sale so that they can evade paying
capital gains tax in violation of the Tax Code, sir.
16. Q You stated that you were the one tricked by schemes and
manipulation of the complainant, why?
A Complainant Atty. Padilla did not make good his promise

to draft the document “extra-judicial partition with deed of
sale” that was supposed to be executed by me and my
heirs for the transfer of ownership of portions of realties
embraced by several titles as what we really had orally
agreed upon sometime in February 2013 but instead,
while handing checks of payment, he duped me and my
children to sign documents he prepared without
explaining the contents and giving to me copies for
reference in contravention of the contract of sale. He
induced ne to commit a crime by signing simulated
document. I am the victim, sir.
17. Q How and when did you find that you are the victim?
A When I read the demand letter form Atty. Padilla dated

September 5, 2016 which is marked as Annex “1” in his
complaint, I depressed to discover, for the first time, the
nature of the acknowledgment receipts he made me sign
on March 2015 and the other on May 2015. By reading
the document dated March 2013, I realized that it is not a
contract of sale but a contract of donation while the
document dated May 2013 is an optional guarantee of
Deed of Donation and/or Deed of Sale contrary to the
agreement I discussed with Mayor Rommel Arnado
sometime in the February of 2013, sir
18. Q What had happened sometime in February 2013?

A Sometime in February 2013, Mayor Rommel Arnado of
Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte approached me and told me
that the LGU urgently needed a land suitable for
relocation of 200 families that would be affected by the
construction of a multi billion coal power plant in Lapayan,
Kauswagan Lanao del Norte and he asked me to sell
portions of my properties they were eyeing located at
Page 5
Lapayan, Kauswagan Lanao del Norte belonging to the

Mabanta’s family because the property is strategically
located near the highway and could accommodate more
or less 200 families living in an area owned by
complainant Industrial Enterprises, Inc. (IEI) so that a
power plant can start the ground work, sir.
19. Q What was your reply, if any?
A I told him that I our land was not for sale because the
titles were still registered in our predecessors’ and my
deceased husband’s names aside from the fact that it
was income generating because of the many coconut and
fruit trees. Its income was the reason all my children
became professionals, sir.
20. Q What else had happen, if any?
A I also told him that the heirs of Mabantas were still liable
to pay estate taxes of more than a million pesos as
assessed by the BIR sometime in 2012, sir.
21. Q What was Mayor Arnado’s reaction, if any?
A He said that he was still very interested to buy the land,

sir.
A I told him I will think it over and consult my children, sir.
23. Q What happened after that, if any?
A After our initial meeting, Mayor Arnado phoned me again

several times like a suitor convincing me to sell the land
because he will take care of everything as he made a
deal with IEI and will pay the selling price and shoulder
the expenses including estate tax for the transfer.
24. Q What was your reaction, if any?
A I told him I still have to re-consult my children because

they were actually against selling the property at
unreasonably low price because a multi billion GN Coal
Power Plant shall eventually benefit, sir.
Page 6
25. Q What was his reaction, if any?
A Mayor Arnado again persisted and persuaded me to

convince my children to sell it at P28.00 per square meter
because it is an agricultural land and the project will bring
great benefit and development in the entire municipality
and the province of Lanao del Norte, sir.
26. Q What happened next, if any?
A I consulted my children, sir.
27. Q After consulting your children, what did you do next?
A When Mayor Arnado called me again, I told him that my

co-heirs agreed to sell portions of our properties at
P500.00 per square meter on the condition that the
value of 800 full grown coconuts trees and 400 full grown
fruit tress affected shall be paid and plus the value of the
coconuts and fruit trees considering its suitability, the
capacity of the buyer and their urgent need for its use,, sir
28. Q What was his reply?
A He told me to meet him with the representative of IEI at

his office at Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte for final
meeting, sir.
A I went to his office in sometime in March 2013 and there

Mayor Arnado introduced me to complainant Atty. Padilla
representative of IEI.
A Negotiation ensued. I reiterated my previous statements

and I told them I would sell portion of the land at P500 per
square meter plus value of trees affected and buyer pays
the taxes and transfer expenses, sir
31. Q You said you would sell the land at P500 per square
meter, what was their reply, if any?
A They both begged for me to sell it at P28.00 per square

meter as IEI would take care of everything, prepare the
Extrajudicial Settlement of Estates with Deed of Sale,
Page 7
process the relocation survey and titling plus pay us the

value of the coconuts and fruit trees affected at prevailing
rate, sir.
A Thinking that the transaction is stress free and would

redound to the benefit of the residents, generate
employment and improve Barangay Lapayan and the
Municipality of Kauswagan, I was convinced to agree, sir.
.
33. Q What else had happened, if any?
A I heard the mayor and complainant agree between

themselves that IEI shall buy the land and thereafter IEI
will donate what they bought to the LGU Kauswagan, sir.
A They told me to come to the office of Atty. Padilla on

March 15, 2013 for the payment and signing of the
Extrajudicial Partition with Deed of Absolute Sale of
Portions of our property and let my co-heirs sign, sir.
35. Q What happened on March 15, 2013, if any?
A I, together with my daughter Ginia Marlafe, went to

complainant Atty. Padilla’s office, sir
36. Q Who were in his office, if any?
A The complainant Atty. Padilla, Mayor Arnado, Ginia

Marlafe and I were inside the office, sir
37. Q What happened inside his office, if any?

A In the presence of Mayor Rommel Arnado, complainant
Padilla gave us these three BDO checks [Annex “D”,
“E” and “F”] in the total amount of Eight Hundred Eighty
Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Eight Pesos
(P889,588.00) for the payment of the portions of the
properties covered by TCT No. T-21051, TCT No. T-
6,066, TCT no. T-6,067, sir.
38. Q What represents the three checks, if any?
Page 8
A Payment for the sale to IEI of [1] an area of 9,482

square meters realty embraced by TCT No. T-21051
registered under the name of my daughter Ginia Marlafe
D. Mabanta; [2] payment for a portion consisting of
10,110 square meters only out of the 42,860 square
meters leaving us an area of 32,750 square meters
thereof in the land embraced by TCT No. T-6,067; [3]
payment for a portion of 12,179 square meters only out
of 42,862 square meters leaving us an area of 20,683
square meter of the land embraced by TCT No. T-6,066
registered under Eusebio, Domingo, Miguel and Primo all
surnames Molo which were already sold by virtue of a
Deed of Sale of Registered land to James Mabanta, sir.
39. Q After giving you the checks, what happened next, if any?
A I was surprised because complainant compelled Ginia

Marlafe to sign a Deed of Donation to LGU Kauswagan
for the entire realty embraced by TCT No. T-21,051
registered in her name instead of a Deed of Sale to IEI.
He then compelled me to sign as witness. Then Atty.
Padilla also asked us to quickly sign a receipt he already
prepared which he immediately hid after signing, sir.
40. Q What did you do, if any?
A I asked Atty. Padilla and Mayor Arnado why a Deed of

Donation was prepared instead of Deed of Sale and I
politely requested him to change it into a Deed of Sale, sir
41. Q What was their reaction, if any?
A Complainant told me it was alright to do it so that IEI will

escape paying the Capital Gains Tax and he assured me
there would be no legal problem in the future, sir.
42. Q Did Atty. Padilla explained to you the content of the
acknowledgment receipt you signed?
A No sir, although he is a lawyer he never explained to us

the contents of the documents.
43. Q What receipt are you referring to, if any?
Page 9
A This acknowledgment receipt [Annex “B”] bearing the

amount of Eight Hundred Eighty Nine Thousand Five
Hundred and Eighty Eight Pesos (P889,588.00), sir
44. Q What did you do next, if any?
A As I only received the checks so I asked for a duplicate

copy of the documents, sir.
45. Q What was his reply, if any?
A Atty. Padilla told me he would give them after he had

them notarized but until now I did not received the
notarized duplicate copies of the Deed of Donation or the
receipts, sir.
A I then turned over to Complainant Padilla the copies of tax

declarations, the Original Owner’s Duplicate Copy of
Titles TCT No. T-21,051, TCT No. T-6,066, TCT No. T-
6,067, including TCT No. T-69 and the Deed of Sale of
Registered Land of the Molos to James Mabanta covered
by said TCT-T6, sir.
47. Q Why did you turn over to him the original titles of the four
parcels of land?
A So he may use them as reference for the drafting of the

Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Deed of
Sale, believing in good faith he would return them to me
once he finished the processing except for TCT No. T-
21,051 as all the land embraced therein were subject of
the sale, sir.

A I was issued a handwritten receipt of the titles dated
March 15, 2013 by his secretary, sir
49. Q You said you handed him the titles of four (4) parcels of
land, do you have machine copies of the titles to show the
same, if any?
A Yes, here are the photocopies of Titles TCT No. T-

6,066, TCT No. T-6,067, TCT No. T-69 and TCT No. T-
21,051, sir.
Page 10
50. Q We are marking photocopies of TCT No. T-6,066 as

Annex “1” and “1-A”; TCT No. T-6,067 as Annex “2”
and “2-A”, TCT No. T-69 as Annex “3”,“3-A”, “3-B”,“3-
C”; and TCT No. T-21,051 as Annex “4” and “4-A”, do
you confirm our action?
A Yes, sir.
MANIFESTATION: We are respectfully marking photocopies

as Annex “1” and “1-A” the title TCT No. T-6,066; as
Annex “2” and “2-A” the Title TCT No. T-6,067; as Annex
“3” , “3-A” ”,“3-B”, “3-C”, the title TCT No. T-69; and as
Annex “4” and “4-A the title TCT No. T-21,051.
51. Q You said that you were issued a handwritten receipt of

titles by his secretary do you have any document to show
the same?
52. Q We are marking this handwritten receipt as Annex “5”,

do you confirm our action?
A Yes, sir.

“5” this handwritten receipt.
A I deposited all the checks in the bank for safekeeping

pending transfer of properties, sir.
54. Q On May 20, 2013, what had happened, if any?
A I went back to the office of Atty. Padilla, sir

55. Q What did you do there, if any?
A I requested for copy of Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate

with Deed of Sale so that the heirs can then sign for
speedy processing of separate titles but complainant told
me he would request his co-lawyers in the office to draft
the document of sale, sir.

Page 11
A He gave me another check [Annex “G”] bearing the

amount of P309,988.00 for payment by the IEI of the
portion of the realty embraced by TCT No. T-69 for an
area consisting of 11,071 square meters out of the
66,434 square meter leaving us 55,363 square meters
thereof which I also deposited thereafter in the bank for
safekeeping pending transfer, sir.
57. Q After giving you the check, what happened next, if any?
A He asked me to sign this acknowledgment receipt he

prepared dated May 20, 2016 [Annex “C”] representing
payment of the portion of the property covered by TCT
No. T-69. The acknowledgment receipt is attached in his
affidavit complaint, sir.
A As I became suspicious, I read the content of the

document and found the words “I hereby guarantee that
the corresponding Extrajudicial Settlement with Deed
of Donation and/or Deed of Sale will be executed by
myself and my children, etc” appeared instead of Deed
of Sale only and no Donation, so I asked him why as I
refused to sign fearing I would be liable for tax evasion as
I knew fully well the transaction is purely a contract of
sale, sir.
59. Q What was his answer, if any?
A He assured me it was alright and that a draft of a deed of

sale and not donation was on the way, sir
60. Q With his assurance what did you do, if any?

A I signed this acknowledgment receipt [Annex “C”]
because he made me believe he was an honorable man,
sir.
61. Q What then had happened, if any?
A Complainant referred me to Atty. Junella Limpangog, his

law partner, whom he entrusted with drafting deed of sale.
So I provided her with documents and for several
meetings I provided her information and details of my
family, but no document of sale was made, sir
Page 12
A I went back again to complainant Atty. Padila who then

referred me to Atty. Eduardo Ulindang in the same office
to continue with what Atty, Limpangog started, but several
meetings in his office, no extrajudicial settlement with
deed of sale was prepared, sir.
A I made several follow ups with Atty. Padilla and we met

at Iliganon Restaurant at Pala-o, Iligan City sometime in
the first quarter of 2015. Present were Mr. Orlando
Claveria, assistant Legal Officer of ACEHI (GN Power)
and my land caretaker, Mr. Wenceslao M. Alaya-ay.
Again, in unequivocal terms I demanded from the lawyer
the deed of sale for signing and also the subdivision
survey and sketch plan with technical description of all the
titles for me to know the new metes and bounds of the
property which was already used by the IEI but he gave
me nothing, sir.
A I appeared in his law office several times since 2013 until

the end of 2015 but no document was made and he
instead insisted that I should sign an Extrajudicial
Settlement of Estate with Deed of Donation to LGU
Kauswagan so that IEI will not pay the capital gains tax of
which I refused as the contract was pure deed of sale and
besides I wouldn’t care because it’s the buyer’s
responsibility as agreed orally, sir.

A I began to worry as several months had already passed
and on December 2014, the resettlement houses inside
our undivided lands were completed and some of the
relocated settlers encroached, intruded and pillage our
land stealing our coconut and fruit from trees, and used
our property as garbage disposal area and I am still
paying the property taxes of the entire realty despite
portions thereof being already sold because of failure of
complainants to separate theirs, sir.
Page 13
A Accompanied by my assistant Wenceslao Alaya-ay, I

made personal follow-ups with Mayor Arnado in his office
and also in his house to ask his help to compel Atty.
Padilla to release the draft of the Extra-Judicial Partition
with Deed of Sale for us to sign so that all would be
settled and the transfer can expeditiously settle our
ownership and we can have the separate titles, sketch
maps, the technical description because we still have not
ascertain the new boundaries of our properties, sir.
67. Q What was Mayor Arnado’s reply, if any?
A He told me “AYAW KABALAKA, AKO NA BAHALA KANG

ATTY. PADILLA, JOSIE!” [Do not worry, I will take care of
Atty. Padilla, Josie], sir
A I phoned Mayor Arnado again to make follow ups and he

told me he phoned Atty. Padilla several times but the
latter did not mind his call, sir.
69. Q In paragraph No. 12 of his complaint he alleged that on

July 15, 2015 you borrowed from him the original copy of
TCT No. T-6,067 and TCT No. T-69 evidenced by
Acknowledgement Receipt, (Annex “H”) on the pretext
that you will use them to support your application for a
tourist visa in Europe with a promise to return the same
once the purpose is served, what can you say about this?
A True, I requested to borrow from him two (2) titles TCT

No. T-69 and TCT 6,067 on July 15, 2015 but his
statement that I used them for travel purposes is wrong
because he knew that I borrowed the titles to secure a
copy of Certificate Authorizing Registration from the BIR
because I made ACEHI paid the Estate Tax of all the
properties of the Late James, Felicisimo and Marcela all
surnamed Mabanta amounting to an aggregate tax of
P1,192, 715.80 and said titles were needed as we
execute Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estates of the Late
James Mabanta as GN Power bought an area of 3,850
square meters in the lot covered by OCT No. 6524 titled
under the names of the heirs of Teodolo Mabanta, sir.
Page 14
70. Q You said that you used the titles to pay the estate tax and
secure Certificate Authorizing Registration from the BIR,
do you have any document to show the same?
A Yes, here are the two (2) pages Mabanta Estate Tax and
Other Taxes Computations and three (3) Certificates
Authorizing Registration from the BIR issued on
November 5, 2015, sir.
71. Q We are marking this Mabanta Estate Tax and Other

Taxes Computations as Annex “6” and “6-A”, do you
confirm our action?
A Yes, sir.

Annexes “6” and “6-A” this Mabanta Estate Tax and Other
Taxes Computations.
72. Q We are marking these three (3) Certificates Authorizing

Registration from the BIR as Annexes “7” to “9”, do you
confirm our action?
A Yes, sir.

Annexes “7” to “9” these Certificates Authorizing
Registration.
73. Q You said that you have executed Extrajudicial Settlement

of the Estates of the Late James Mabanta, do you have
A Yes, here are three Extrajudicial Settlement of the
Estates of the Late James Mabanta for TCT No. T-69,
TCT No.T-6,066 and TCT No.T-6,067, sir.
74. Q Where and when did you execute this document?
A Before Notary Public Atty. Warren Lim on October 7,

2016, sir.
75. Q We are marking this document as Annexes “10”, “10-

A”, Annexes “11”, “11-A” and Annexes “12”, “12-
A”do you confirm our action?
A Yes, sir.
Page 15

Annexes “10”, “10-A”, Annexes “11”, “11-A” and
Annexes “12”, “12-A” this Extrajudicial Settlement of the
Estate of the Late James Mabanta.
76. Q Why did you execute these documents?
A Because Atty. Padilla did nothing to process the

documents since March 2013 to July 2015. We needed to
pay the estate tax for the property bought by GN Power at
much greater price that included taxes, sir.
77. Q In Paragraph No. 13 of his complaint he alleged that he

acceded to your request to borrow TCT No. T-6,067 and
TCT No. T-69 because earlier on 6 August 2014, you
borrowed from him the original copy of TCT No. T-6,067
and returned the same on November 18, 2014 (Annex
“I”), what can you say about this?
A True, I borrowed from him the original copy of TCT No.

T-6,067 and returned the same on November 18, 2014.
This is actually the only instance that I borrowed the title
to support my visa application and travel abroad as borne
by the records on the inclusive dates of August to
November 2014, sir.
78. Q Do you have any records to show you applied visa for
travel abroad on said inclusive dates of August to
November 2014?
A Yes, sir. Here is the Letter of the General Manager of

Ephesus Travel and Tours dated July 18, 2014 with the
itinerary of travel on inclusive dates October 15 to
October 30, 2014 addressed to the Consular Section of
the Embassy of the Republic of Italy dated sir .
79. Q We are marking this Letter dated July 18, 2014 with the
October 30, 2014 as Annexes “13” and “13-A”, do you
confirm our action?
A Yes, sir.

Annexes “13” and “13-A” this Letter of the General
Manager of Ephesus Travel and Tours dated July 18, 2014
with the itinerary of travel.
Page 16

complaint affidavit alleging that you refuse to execute an
with deed of donation, what can you say about this, if
any?
A I refused because it is wrong. The fact that I received

payment on March 15, 2013 and May 20, 2013 clearly
shows that the transaction is a pure contract of sale and
not a donation. God knows we never donated the land to
IEI or to the LGU of Kauswagan. My refusal is justified for
to sign deed of donation is preposterous, sir. It would be
falsehood if we would execute his wish because the
transaction is a contract of sale as evidenced by money I
received. It is the duty of complainants to prepare an
Extrajudicial Partition with Deed of Sale based on our
agreement but they never do it. Complainants wanted to
evade paying the BIR capital gains tax that is why they
invented ways and forced us to be their accessories by
filing this case, sir.
81. Q There is an allegation in Paragraph No. 14 that you refuse

to return to him the titles, what can you say about this, if
any?
I vehemently deny it. It is noteworthy that I and co-heirs

still owns a large chunk of 108,795 square meters of the
remaining portion of the said 3 titles as only 42,842
square meters were sold to IEI. Therefore I have every
right to exercise possession of the original copies of the
titles being the administrator of the Heirs of Mabanta
pending process of transfer by IEI. As I already stated, we
still needed the titles to secure CAR from the BIR and to
execute Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate
until I received on September 8, 2016 his demand letter
[Annex “J”] as he attached copies therein copies of
Acknowledgment Receipts that I discovered and realized
for the first time what I actually signed were not
Acknowledgment Receipts but documents stating I will
execute a Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate
with Deed of Donation contrary to our oral agreement.
82. Q Was there any agreement for you to turn over to him the
original duplicate copies of the titles of the three parcels
of land, if any?
Page 17
There was no written agreement for me to surrender to

Atty. Padilla the original owners’ copy of the titles TCT
No. T-6,066, TCT No. T-6,067 and TCT No. T-69. It was
in good faith that I give him the original duplicate copy of
the titles so that complainant can prepare the necessary
Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Deed of Sale and
the annotation after which he will give me back the three
(3) titles. Complainant deceived me, sir.
83. Q Is that the only instance you were aware of the contents
of the documents you were made to sign by the
complainant?
A There is another incident that happened on October 7,

2016, sir.
84. Q What happened on said date?
A On October 7, 2016, Orlando Claveria, Assistant Legal

Officer of ACEHI(GN Power, Manila) came to my office at
the CSWD in Saray, Iligan City because of the urgent
need to transfer portions of the properties and he
requested me to sign the draft of Extrajudicial Settlement
of Estate with Deed of Donation Atty. Padilla prepared
and he also gave me the copy of the Deed of Donation
signed by my daughter still not notarized. He also told me
that Atty. Padilla would file a case if I will not sign, sir.
85. Q What was your reaction?
A I was so frustrated. I even told him that it was a sale not

donation and why should I be made to sign Extrajudicial
Settlement of Estate with Deed of Donation when it is a
sale. I could not sign it because I will be liable for making
it appear as a donation instead of sale as evidenced by
the Acknowledgment Receipts dated March blank, 2015
representing full payments by IEI for the purchased
portions of our properties, sir.
86. Q What else had happened during your meeting with Mr.
Claveria, if any?
A I discovered that Complainant IEI did not do anything to

process the sale as shown by the not notarized and
undated Deed of Donation Ginia Marlafe signed despite
lapse of considerable time and contrary to the claim of
Page 18
Atty. Padilla, the Acknowledgment Receipts were not

notarized. The day in the Receipt bearing March, 2015 is
blank in contrast with the receipt complainant attached in
his affidavit which was printed with number 15 in
handwriting. The Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate is not
only contrary to our agreement but also has no technical
description as to delineate the metes and bounds of the
property bought, sir.
87. Q You said that you were given documents by Orlando

Claveria, Assistant Legal Officer of ACEHI/GN Power
Manila, do you have copies of said documents?
A Yes, sir. Here is the are the unnotarized and undated

Deed of Donation signed by Ginia Marlafe, the
Acknowledgment Receipt and the draft of Extrajudicial
Settlement of Estate with Deed of Donation, sir .
88. Q We are marking these unnotarized and undated Deed of

Donation signed by Ginia Marlafe Annexes “14”, “14-A”,
“14-B”, the Acknowledgment Receipt as Annex “15” and
the draft of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Deed of
Donation as Annexes “16”, “16-A”, “16-B” and “16-C”,
A Yes, sir.

Annexes “14”, “14-A”, “14-B” the unnotarized and
undated Deed of Donation signed by Ginia Marlafe; as
Annex “15” the Acknowledgment Receipt; and, as
Annexes 16”, “16-A”, “16-B” and “16-C” the draft of
Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Deed of Donation.
89. Q There are an allegations in Paragraph 15, 16 and 17 and
in the final paragraph of the affidavit complaint that
accuses you of swindling or estafa, what can you say
about this, if any?
A Complainant Padilla’s allegation is malicious and

preposterous for reasons I already stated. I am hurt. This
is what I get for helping them relocate 200 families by
selling our land at the cheapest price. sir
90. Q Why is the allegation malicious and preposterous?
Page 19
A It is malicious and preposterous because I am still the

one of the owners of said two (2) titles as only small
fractions thereof and not the whole realties embraced by
said titles were sold by me and my co-heirs to
complainant IEI. The Owner’s Duplicate Copy of TCT
6,066 registered under Eusebio, Domingo and Miguel and
Primo all surnames Molo including its Deed of Sale of
Registered land to James Mabanta are still in the
possession of Atty. Padilla. Second, There was no
agreement to the effect that I will surrender and give to
him the titles and he would automatically become the
owner thereof as to do so is absurd. It is still incumbent
upon me to exercise my ownership to keep the original
duplicate copy of the titles. I only lend to him the titles on
March 15, 2013 on the belief that being the lawyer of IEI,
he will facilitate the drafting of the document of Extra-
Judicial Partition with Deed of Sale and cause the survey
and subdivision of the realty. The IEI would shoulder the
expenses pursuant to our oral agreement with Mayor
Rommel Arnado the realty being sold in a very minimal
price. They very well know that it is a contract of Sale, sir
91. Q What else, if any?
A I was even surprised he insisted that I would execute

Deed of Donation he drafted in favor of the Municipality of
Kauswagan. I refused to do such a deception because
the transaction is really a sale to the IEI and not a
donation to the Municipality. It would deprive the
government of revenue. He duped me being a non-lawyer
into signing hastily a document he prepared contrary to
what we verbally agreed upon to sign an extrajudicial
partition with deed of sale not deed of donation, to do so I
can be criminally charged by the government of tax
evasion and fraud. The agreement made by and between
IEI, AC Energy and its partner GN Power Kauswagan
Ltd., Co. clearly shows that they will purchase certain
parcels of land including portion of our realties for
relocation site. It is I who have been swindled if I execute
a Deed of Donation as never was there any agreement
that would show that the transaction is a Donation. More
than three (3) years had elapsed but one of the titles just
sleep in the hands of complainant Padilla. He never have
have the documents of sale prepared nor he gave me
copy of the technical description of the subdivided portion,
sir
Page 20
A Complainant IEI took possession of the land without

specifying the exact site of the purchase realties being
undetermined. Complainants cut 800 full grown coconut
trees and 400 other full grown fruit trees without paying
the values of the said trees without our permission or the
barangay and the Dar Office. A quarterly harvest of the
coconuts would yield P30,000 while the fruits trees would
yield P20,000. Complainant never even bothered to give
me the technical description despite knowing they only
bought 42,842 square meters portion of the realties and
it leaves us with 108,795 square meters remaining
portion of the said three (3) titles, sir.
93. Q In the Paragraph (a) of their wherefore portion

complainants alleged that you employed deceit and false
pretenses in order to appropriate for your own personal
use and benefit the amounts representing the selling price
of Parcels 2, 3 and 4 of the property in the aggregate
amount of P934,089.00, what can you say about this?
A Contrary to their allegations, I neither have the intent to

defraud the complainants nor appropriate for myself and
for my own benefit the amount of the selling price of
Parcels 2, 3, 4 of the portions of the properties we sold to
IEI in the aggregate amount of P934,080.00 for the total
area of 33,360 square meters at P28.00 per square
meters as truth is we never touched, used or divided
among ourselves as co-owners the proceeds of the
aforesaid sale as said amount was deposited in the bank
for safekeeping pending actual transfer of ownership of
the portion of our properties sold to complainants, sir.
94. Q You said that you deposited the amount for safekeeping
pending actual transfer of ownership of the portions of
your properties sold to complainants, do you have any
document to prove the same?
A Yes, here is the Bank Certification of Deposit issued by

BPI dated November 19, 2016, sir.
95. Q We are marking this Bank Certification of Deposit as

Annex “17”, do you confirm our action?
A Yes, sir.
Page 21

“17” the Bank Certification of Deposit.

evidence to indict me of the crime of Estafa under Article
315 par. 1 (b) and par. 2 (a) as the truth is, I was the
victim of the scheme and manipulation of the
complainants, sir.
97. Q Because of this case, what else do you want, if any?
A By filing this maliciouscase, the complainants shall pay

me and my co-owners the amount of P2,500 per full
grown seasoned coconut tree and P2,000 per full grown
fruit bearing tree they cut. Refund me the value of the
Estate Tax I already paid because of their failure to do it.
And in the alternative, the contract we entered be
cancelled including the Deed of Donation signed by my
daughter there being a breach to our agreement. IEI shall
return to me and my children the whole properties as I am
willing to refund the purchase price. To return to me the
Title TCT No. T-6,066 registered under Eusebio, Domingo
and Miguel and Primo all surnames Molo which were
already sold by virtue of a Deed of Sale of Registered
land to James Mabanta which are still in the possession
of complainant. If it be continued they will pay me P1,500
per square meters value of the 33,360 square meters
they occupied., sir.

complainant who filed this case. For selling the land and
helping LGU Kauswagan I only earned headaches and
stress from this malicious case, sir.
true and correct?

Page 22
JOSEFINA B. MABANTA
Affiant

the City of Iligan, Philippines. Affiant personally appeared who has satisfactorily proven
to me her identity through her Unified Multi-Purpose ID with CRN 006-0113-6976-3,

PTR No. 6665056 January 8, 2016
TIN No. 166-615-120
Page 23
SWORN ATTESTATION


entitled case;





Affiant

Republic of the P h i l i p p i n e s)
x-- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
DEFENSE WITNESS
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT
---------------------------------------------
NAME OF WITNESS: WENCESLAO M. ALAYA-AY

CITY ADDRESS: Fortaliza St., Cocogrove, Zone 8,
Barangay Poblacion, Iligan City
OCCUPATION: Property Caretaker
NAME OF LAWYER: ATTY. EMMANUEL C. SALIBAY

---------------------------------------------
1. Q Are you willing to give your free and voluntary statement

and swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but
the truth in this investigation?
A Yes, sir.
2. Q Do you know that you will be charged for perjury if you

give false testimony?
A Yes, sir.

circumstances?
A I am WENCESLAO M. ALAYA-AY, 66 years old,
Filipino, widower, and a resident of Fortaliza St.,
Cocogrove, Zone 8, Brgy. Poblacion, Iligan City, sir.
4. Q What is your purpose in executing this Judicial Affidavit?
A To support respondent JOSEFINA MABANTA in her

defense against the complainants’ charges against her for
Estafa under Article 315 par. 1 (b) and par. 2 (a), sir.
5. Q Do you know respondent JOSEFINA MABANTA?
A Yes, sir.
Page 2
6. Q Why do you know her?
A I am his property caretaker since 2014 and I always

accompanied her when she had important meetings or
transactions regarding the land under my care, sir.
7. Q Do you know the complainant Industrial Enterprises. Inc.

(IEI)?
A Yes, sir. IEI is the company duly represented by Atty.

Roberto Padilla who bought from Respondent Josefina
Mabanta and her co-heirs in the Estate of the Late James
Mabanta portions of three (3) parcels of land and the
other one (1) entire parcel of land registered under the
name of her daughter Ginia Marlafe Mabanta , sir.
8. Q Why do you know that IEI bought portions of land from

from Josefina Mabanta and her co-owners?
A Josefina Mabanta told me about the sale of the portion of

the property she and her co-heirs owned to IEI, sir.
9. Q Why did Josefina sold portion of said property to IEI, if

you know?
A It is to be used as relocation sites of 200 families affected

by the construction of a multi-billion coal power plant at
Lapayan, Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte and I also heard it
from Mayor Rommel Arnado, sir.
10. Q What is the purpose why respondent Josefina made

follow-ups, if any?
A She made follow-ups to request the mayor to compel Atty.
Padilla to expedite transfer process and secure the
Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Deed of Sale.
A I accompanied respondent when she met complainant

Atty. Padilla and Orlando Claveria, Assistant Legal Officer
of ACEHI(GN Power, Manila) at Iliganon Restaurant at
Pala-o, Iligan City sometime in 2015, sir.
12. Q What happened at the Iliganon Restaurant, if any?
Page 3
A Josefina asked Atty. Padilla to gave her the Extrajudicial

Settlement with Deed of Sale but Atty. Padilla just
ignored her demand, sir.
13. Q What else did you do next, if any?
A I also accompanied respondent Josefina as she made

follow-ups with Mayor Arnado in his municipal office and
even went to his house to ask his help to compel Atty.
Padilla to release the prepared Extra-Judicial Partition
with Deed of Sale for her and her co-heirs to sign, sir.
14. Q What did the Mayor say, if any?
A I heard Mayor Arnado told her “AYAW KABALAKA, AKO

NA BAHALA KANG ATTY. PADILLA, JOSIE!” [Do not
worry, I will take care of Atty. Padilla, Josie], sir
15. Q In complainant’s affidavit-complaint Respondent

Josephine was charged with Estafa because she
borrowed the original duplicate copies of titles No. TCT
No. T-6,067 and TCT No. 69 but she refused to return the
titles complainant Padilla and she did not Execute
Extrajudicial Partition with Deed of Donation as alleged,
what can you say about the charges?
A The allegation is malicious and has no basis and it is an

injustice, sir.
16. Q Why?
A Atty. Padilla deceived respondent Josefina because the
transaction they entered is a contract of sale and not
donation, sir.
A I personally know that Respondent Josefina borrowed the

titles to secure Certificates Authorizing Registration from
the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) because she made
ACEHI pay the Estate Taxes of all the properties of the
Late James, Felicisimo and Marcela all surnamed
Mabanta and titles she borrowed for Atty. Padilla were
needed to execute an Extrajudicial Settlement of the
Estate of the Late James Mabanta as GN Power also
bought 3,850 square meters lot in OCT No. 6524 titled
Page 4
18. Q Why did she fail to return the titles?
A She still needs the titles because the processing was not
yet finished, sir. I am even the one who follow up the
processing. Another reason is that Josefina was
compelled to process the settlement of estate because
Atty. Padilla failed to process the transfer. As owner,
Respondent Josefina still has the right to hold the titles
because portions only of the titles were sold and not the
entire property embraced by the title. Therefore,
Respondent Josefina cannot be charged with estafa, sir.
19. Q Do you affirm to the truthfulness of your testimony?
A Yes, sir

this 14th day of November, 2016 at Iligan City
WENCESLAO M. ALAYA-AY
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 14th day of November 2016 at the
City of Iligan, Philippines. Affiant personally appeared who has satisfactorily proven to me his
identity through his Senior Citizen ID No. 1650 issued on May 17, 2010 at Iligan City,
Philippines, personally known to me and to me known to be the same person who executed the
foregoing which he voluntarily signed in my presence for the purpose stated therein.

PTR No. 6665056 January 8, 2016
TIN No. 166-615-120
Page 5
SWORN ATTESTATION
I, ATTY. EMMANUEL C, SALIBAY, of legal age, married, Filipino

I personally conducted the examination of affiant and inform

him that he is under oath, and that he may be liable for false
testimony or perjury if he is not telling the truth;
I have faithfully recorded the questions I asked and the answers

of the witness, after encoding and reading it in English and translating
the same in Cebuano dialect which he understood; and,
Neither I nor any other person then present had coached the
witness regarding his answers in this judicial affidavit.


Counsel for the Respondent

the City of Iligan, Philippines. Affiant exhibiting to me his Integrated Bar of the
Page 4
yet finished, sir. Another reason is that respondent
Josefina was compelled to process the settlement of
estate because Atty. Padilla failed to process the transfer.
As owner, Respondent Josefina still has the right to hold
the titles because portions only of the titles were sold and
not the entire property embraced by the title. Therefore,
A Yes, sir

Affiant
identity through his Senior Citizen ID No. 1650 issued on May 17, 2010 at Lasi, Siquijor,

PTR No. 6665056 January 8, 2016
TIN No. 166-615-120
Department of Justice
Iligan City
ROBERTO C. PADILLA
FOR: ESTAFA under
and par.2 (a), RPC
JOSEFINA B. MABANTA
Respondent.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO FILE COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT
Comes now the respondent by counsel to the Honorable City

Prosecutor most respectfully alleges that:
1 — The respondent received a Subpoena dated October 26,

2016 from this Honorable Office on November 3, 2016 at 5 in the
afternoon;
2 — The Honorable Investigating Prosecutor Jasmin Guiuo-
Diaz required respondent to submit counter-affidavit and affidavits of
witnesses within 10 days from November 3, 2016 or until November
14, 2016 since the 10th day falls on a holiday;
2. Respondent hired the services of the undersigned counsel in

order that a proper pleading could be filed;
3 — Due to equally important legal works counsel fall short of

time to assist respondent in preparing intelligent judicial counter-
affidavit, submission of evidences and affidavit of witnesses for her
defense;
Page 2
4— The undersigned is requesting that an extension of time

for at least 10 days from today or until November 24, 2016, be
afforded so that responsive pleading be submitted;
5 — This motion is not designed to delay the proceedings as

respondent is determined to prove her innocence and she has
meritorious grounds to rebut the complaint but only for the reason
abovementioned.
WHEREFORE, counsel respectfully prays that a last extension

of 10 days from today, or until November 24, 2016 to submit judicial
counter-affidavit and judicial affidavit of witnesses be afforded to
respondent.

Counsel For Respondent
PTR No. 6665056 January 08, 2016
TIN No. 166-615-120
Page 3
Notice of Hearing

Greeting:
Please submit the forgoing motion for approval by the Honorable Jasmin Guiuo-
Diaz, Prosecutor II immediately upon receipt sans oral arguments.
EMMANUEL C. SALIBAY
Counsel for Respondent

Greeting:
Please take due notice that the undersigned counsel shall submit the forgoing
motion for approval by the Honorable Jasmin Guiuo-Diaz, City Prosecutor II
immediately upon receipt without oral arguments.
EMMANUEL C. SALIBAY

Iligan City
ROBERTO C. PADILLA
FOR: ESTAFA under
and par.2 (a), RPC
JOSEFINA B. MABANTA
Respondent.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
MOTION FOR EXTENSION
Respondents, thru counsel, alleges that:
1 — She received a Subpoena dated October 26,

2016 from this Honorable Office on November 3, 2016 at
5 in the afternoon;
2 — The Honorable Investigating Prosecutor
Jasmin Guiuo-Diaz required respondent to submit
counter-affidavit within 10 days from November 3, 2016 or
until November 14, 2016 since the 10th day falls on a
holiday;
3 — Respondent hired the services of the

undersigned counsel but due to equally important legal
works counsel fall short of time to assist respondent in
preparing intelligent judicial counter-affidavit for her
defense;
4 — Counsel needs an extension of 10 (10) days

form today or until November 24, 2016 to submit counter-
affidavit;
Page 2
5 — That this motion is not designed to delay the

proceedings as respondent is determined to prove her
innocence and she has meritorious grounds to rebut the
complaint.
WHEREFORE, counsel respectfully prays that he be granted a

last extension of 10 days from today, or until November 24, 2016 to
submit counter-affidavit.

PTR No. 6665056 January 08, 2016
TIN No. 166-615-120
Page 3
Notice of Hearing

Greeting:
EMMANUEL C. SALIBAY

Greeting:
EMMANUEL C. SALIBAY

Iligan City
ROBERTO C. PADILLA
FOR: ESTAFA under
and par.2 (a), RPC
JOSEFINA B. MABANTA
Respondent.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

5 in the afternoon;
holiday;

defense;

affidavit;
Page 2

complaint.


PTR No. 6665056 January 08, 2016
TIN No. 166-615-120
Page 3
Notice of Hearing

Greeting:
EMMANUEL C. SALIBAY

Greeting:
EMMANUEL C. SALIBAY
Contract Of Legal Services

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
This Contract of Legal Services is made and entered into by and between:
JOSEFINA B. MABANTA
of legal age, Filipino and a resident of Zone 3-B, Brgy. Del Carmen, Iligan City
Hereinafter referred to as CLIENT,
- AND -

With office address at
SALIBAY Law Office
#28 Champaca Road, san Miguel Village, Pala-o,Iligan City
Hereinafter referred to as COUNSEL
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS the CLIENT desires to engage the legal services of COUNSEL being
Respondent in the case for Estafa under Article 315 par. 1 (b) and par. 2 (a) filed by
Industrial enterprises, Inc., represented by Atty. Roberto C. Padilla before the Office of
the City Prosecutor Iligan City and for the recovery of her property under onerous sale
and the latter is willing to render such services,
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants between

the parties, they have agreed as follows:
(1) Counsel shall assume and perform all legal services required for the client as
respondent in the aforesaid case and at the aforesaid venue;
(2) For and in consideration of the said services, the client shall pay an
Acceptance Fee of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P100,000.00). The amount
of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) shall be tendered upon the execution of
this instrument the balance of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) shall be paid
upon the submission of the Judicial Counter-Affidavit to the Prosecution Office. The
Acceptance Fee shall include any case for recovery of the realties;
(3) For each appearance of counsel in any hearing the client shall pay ONE
THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000.00) whether the case is called, heard or postponed.
(4) In any other cases relative hereto that may be filed, all other expenses such as
but not limited to filing and docketing fees, sheriff’s fees, transcript of stenographic
notes, photocopying of documents, mailing expenses, shall be for the account of the
client upon presentment of the proper notice or statement of account by the undersigned.
(5) The counsel shall get TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT (25%) of whatever

amount, royalty and property recovered as Attorney’s Fee in the case for the recovery of
the properties involved.
Page 2 of Two Pages
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto affixed their signature this
25th Day of October 2016 at Iligan City, Philippines.
JOSEFINA B. MABANTA
Clients
EMMANUEL C. SALIBAY
Counsel
Signed in the Presence of:
___________________ ____________________
Acknowledgment
C i t y o f I l i g a n) Sc.
x- - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - x
BEFORE ME, a Notary Public in and for the City of Iligan and Lanao del Norte, Philippines,
this__th day of October 2016, personally appeared the following
NAME GOV. ISSUED ID SERIAL NO. EXPIRY DATE
JOSEFINA B. MABANTA Unified Multi-Purpose ID CRN 006-0113-697b-3 none
EMMANUEL C. SALIBAY LTO Prof Driver’s License No. M02-00-046902 2018-04-15
known to me and to me known to be the same persons who executed the foregoing Contract of Legal
Services which they voluntarily signed in my presence for the purpose stated therein and who
acknowledged to me that the same is their own free and voluntary act and deed. This instrument consists of
two pages and signed by the parties and their instrumental witnesses in the left margin of the first page and
in the body of the second page.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my notarial seal on
the date and place above written.
Notary Public

Iligan City
ROBERTO C. PADILLA
FOR: ESTAFA under
and par.2 (a), RPC
JOSEFINA B. MABANTA
Respondent.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
REJOINDER JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT

TO COMPLAINANTS’ REPLY
dated February 20, 2017
---------------------------------------------
NAME OF AFFIANT: JOSEFINA B. MABANTA


---------------------------------------------
x-- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
1. Q Madame, are you aware that all your statements in this

Judicial Affidavit are under oath and any falsehood can
A Yes, sir.

statement?
A Yes, sir.
Page 2
A Yes, sir.

circumstances?

5. Q What is your purpose in executing this Rejoinder Judicial -

Affidavit?
A To comment on the Reply of Complainant dated February

20, 2017, sir.
6. Q Do you have a copy of the Reply you mentioned?
7. Q When did you receive your copies?
A On February 21, 2017, after it was personally handed to

me by the staff of Salibay Law Office, sir.
8. Q Have you read the contents of the document?
A Yes, sir.
11. Q There is an allegation in Paragraph No. 1 of this Reply,

what is your comment, if any?
A IEI indeed has the obligation to donate and I am not

confused. It is the truth and bare fact that IEI bought
portion of our properties. It is but logical that I and my co-
heirs should execute a corresponding document of sale. It
is not my obligation to donate that property which I
already sold. It would tantamount to double transaction if I
do otherwise. What is proper is for IEI after buying the
property from the heirs of the late James Mabanta should
thereafter donate the same to third person, in this case
Page 3
the LGU Kauswagan. I am certain that the transaction
between me and IEI is taxable. It is not my concern if the
complainant argued that a donation to LGU is not taxable
pursuant to RA 7279 because I still am in my right senses
and sound mind to know that the transaction is truly a
sale not a donation. Complainant’s assertion that
“Respondent should have no gripe to complain since she
was paid in full” is absurd. This is the very reason that I
have to complain because portion of our properties was
purchased and paid in full. The payment is taxable. It was
complainant who renege his obligation to expeditiously
draft the Extrajudicial Partition with Deed of Sale, sir.

A I already rebut the same in my previous judicial affidavit.,

sir. I have the right to implead the exceptions to the
general rules of the legal provision when my right is
violated. The two (2) acknowledgment receipts prepared
by Atty. Padilla only protected his interest without regard
to double transaction that I would incur by donating the
same property subject of a sale in violation of Article 172
of the RPC aside from the fact that it never embodied the
true intent for me to only sell portion my realty, sir. The
same acknowledgement receipts even failed to
particularly described the metes and bounds of the
property to be conveyed. There is not even any statement
in those documents that obliged me to give the title to
Atty. Padilla as the fact and the truth remains that I am
still entitled to its possession being only portions thereof
were sold. I am certain that the other purpose of the
preliminary investigation is to shield the innocence from
malicious imputation and prevent unnecessary
prosecution, sir.

A I already stated that we signed under duress by the

schemes employed by Mayor Arnado and Atty. Padilla in
the latter’s Law Office, sir. I have to reiterate that I am
most certain that the transaction between me and IEI is
taxable. It is not my concern if the complainant argued
Page 4
that a donation to LGU is not taxable pursuant to RA 7279
because I still am in my right senses and sound mind to
know that the transaction is truly a sale to IEI and not a
donation to LGU. Nobody can coerce me thru threat and
intimidation to donate against my will. The concerted
action of complainant and Mayor Arnado is punishable
under Article 286 of the Revised Penal Code and the
Honorable Asst. Prosecutor Jasmine C. Guiou-Diaz is
accurate in her findings, sir.

and complainant alleges that they cannot be held liable
for grave coercion, there being no violence employed,
A Atty. Padilla and Mayor Arnado are liable for Grave

Coercion under Article 286 of the revised Penal Code, sir.
Violence is a not only inflicted in the physical but also thru
emotional and psychological means. I suffered
tremendously upon receipt of the demand letter
complainant sent me dated September 5, 2016 on
September 8, 2016 (Annex “J”) telling me to he will “file
the consequent criminal and administrative cases before
the Office of the Ombudsman” if I fail to return the two (2)
titles to him and execute Extrajudicial Settlement with
Deed of Donation. It is as if I have no more rights to hold
the title of my properties even if only a minimal portion
thereof was sold. I was coerced to execute a donation
even if I know fully well that the transaction is sale. I have
greatly suffered sleepless nights and wounded feelings.
Atty. Padilla kept harassing me and texted me by phone
threatening to file aforesaid case and the instant one
when in fact they are the ones liable for their malicious
acts. It can never be denied that complainants already
entered and took possession of my properties since 2014,
how could I be charged with Estafa, sir? In fact, IEI is still
liable to pay me the value of all the coco and fruit trees
cut, sir.
15. Q Do you have a hard copy of the cellphone messages, if

any?
Page 5
16. Q We are marking this hard copy of the conversation as
Annex “1-Rejoinder to Complainants Reply”, do you
confirm our action?
A Yes, sir.

“1-Rejoinder to Complainants Reply” this cellphone
conversation.
17. Q There is an allegation in Paragraph No. 4 (Repeated

Number) of this Reply, what is your comment, if any?
A While it is true that the summary of text messages he

cited are matters of defense that must be threshed out
and sustained by proof during trial but I would assert that
it is a civil action and not in criminal trial for estafa as the
same text conversation showed that I am not remiss with
my duty and I committed no crime of estafa. The same
would substantiate my defense of innocence against
complainant’s allegation in this complaint. Being still the
owner of the large portion of the properties covered by the
two titles in my possession, I am not stripped of my
ownership and still has the right to hold the title until the
complainants complied with their duty to prepare the
proper document of sale for me to find out the exact
metes and bounds of the portion conveyed. I already lost
my trust with the complainant lawyer, sir. I have to protect
mine and my co-heirs’ interest in the title or I may end up
with nothing considering the fraudulent and malicious
maneuver against me employed by Atty. Padilla and
Mayor Arnado, sir.

A The same affidavit he mentioned proves that the

transaction between me and IEI is really a sale, sir. The
public knows that I sold portion of our properties to IEI. I
did not donate any property to LGU Kauswagan, sir.
true and correct?
A Yes, sir.
Page 6
JOSEFINA B. MABANTA
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 24th day of February 2017 at


Book No. VIII Series of 2017 Until December 31, 2018
PTR No. 7239271 January 3, 2017
TIN No. 166-615-120
Page 7
SWORN ATTESTATION


entitled case;
I personally conducted the foregoing rejoinder judicial affidavit

and inform her that she is under oath, and that he may be liable for
false testimony or perjury if he is not telling the truth;



this 27th day of February 2017 at Iligan City.

Affiant


Iligan City
ROBERTO C. PADILLA
FOR: ESTAFA under
and par.2 (a), RPC
JOSEFINA B. MABANTA
Respondent.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

Greetings!
Please submit the foregoing Rejoinder to Complainants Reply in the

above-entitled case for the consideration and resolution of the Honorable Inquest
Prosecutor and/or the Honorable City Prosecutor Eduardo B. Cueto.
Respectfully submitted for resolution of the Honorable City Prosecutor.
City of Iligan, February 27, 2017.
EMMANUEL C. SALIBAY
Salibay Law Office

Iligan City
ROBERTO C. PADILLA
FOR: ESTAFA under
and par.2 (a), RPC
JOSEFINA B. MABANTA
Respondent.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

Greetings!
Please submit the foregoing JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT TO

COMMENT/OPPOSE COMPLAINANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND MOTION TO RECUSE ASST. CITY PROSECUTOR JASMINE C. GUIOU-
DIAZ WITH COUNTER-COMPLAINT for GRAVE COERCION in the above-
entitled case for the consideration and resolution of the Honorable Inquest
Prosecutor Jasmine C. Guiou-Diaz and/or the Honorable City Prosecutor
Eduardo B. Cueto.
The aforementioned judicial affidavit to comment/oppose set forth

circumstances which we submit constitutes a crime of GRAVE COERCION
defined and penalized under Article 286 of the Revised Penal Code committed
by herein complainant Atty. Roberto C. Padilla and Mayor Rommel C. Arnado of
Kauswagan Lanao del Norte.
Respectfully submitted for resolution of the Honorable City Prosecutor.
City of Iligan, February 16, 2017.
EMMANUEL C. SALIBAY
Salibay Law Office


Iligan City
ROBERTO C. PADILLA
FOR: ESTAFA under
and par.2 (a), RPC
JOSEFINA B. MABANTA
Respondent.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT
TO COMMENT/OPPOSE COMPLAINANTS’
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND
MOTION TO RECUSE ASST. CITY PROSECUTOR
JASMINE C. GUIOU-DIAZ
WITH COUNTER-COMPLAINT
for GRAVE COERCION
---------------------------------------------
NAME OF AFFIANT: JOSEFINA B. MABANTA


---------------------------------------------
x-- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
1. Q Madame, are you aware that all your statements in this

Judicial Affidavit are under oath and any falsehood can
A Yes, sir.
Page 2

statement?
A Yes, sir.
A Yes, sir.

circumstances?

5. Q What is your purpose in executing this Judicial -Affidavit?
A To comment and oppose the motion for reconsideration

and the motion to recuse Asst. City Prosecutor Jasmin C.
Guiou-Diaz both dated February 4, 2014 in the case
docketed as NPS Nos. 08-INV-16J-00656, and to file
herein counter complaint for grave coercion against
complainant Atty. Roberto C. Padilla and Mayor Rommel
Arnado of the Municipality of Kauswagan Lanao del
Norte, sir.
6. Q Do you have copies of the motions you mentioned?
7. Q when did you receive your copies?
A On February 6, 2016, sir.
8. Q Here is a copy of complainants’ motion to recuse Asst.

City Prosecutor Jasmin C. Guiou-Diaz, what can you say
about this?
A I vehemently oppose, sir
9. Q What is your reason for opposing the motion, if any?
A Said motion is unwarranted, sir.

10. Q Why did you say so?
Page 3
A Is a resolution adverse to complainant promulgated by

inquest prosecutor of which complainant is unconvinced a
ground to inhibit her? Certainly not, sir. The Honorable
Assistant Prosecutor Jasmin C. Guiou-Diaz resolved the
complaint carefully and comprehensively with integrity,
independence, competence, and impartiality. Never have
I exerted any pressure nor influence the honorable
assistant prosecutor but she was firmly guided by facts,
law and jurisprudence in resolving the complaint against
complainants.
11. Q There is an allegation in Paragraph No. 3 of this Motion to

Recuse Honorable Assistant Prosecutor Jasmin C.
Guiou-Diaz, what can you say about this?
A The said statement is inconsistent, sir.
12. Q What is your comment, if any?
A The claim of Complainant Atty. Roberto Padilla that “this

case involves almost a billion dollar power plant project
affecting 300 squatter families in Kauswagan, Lanao del
Norte, whose transfer of the ownership of the residential
houses donated to them by complainant will be
hampered” negated his claim as it is obviously an
apparent admission that complainant has the obligation to
donate. It is but logical that IEI can also donate the
portion of the properties it bought from me and my co-
heirs. I have no obligation to donate any property to any
entity when the same has been subject of a sale to the
IEI, and to do otherwise is seriously coercing me to
violate Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code. The
Honorable Asst. Prosecutor Guiou-Diaz is accurate, sir.
13. Q What do you want?
A I pray that the Hon. City Prosecutor will refuse to recuse

Honorable Assistant Prosecutor Jasmin C. Guiou-Diaz
and deny said motion or, in the alternative, include her in
the panel of prosecutors to resolve the MR and eventually
deny the same as I never committed estafa, sir.
14. Q Here is a copy of complainants’ motion for

reconsideration, what can you say about this?
Page 4
A Said motion is tainted with malice and full of

inconsistencies. I vehemently oppose the said motion and
I hereby adopt the findings in the resolution of the
complaint promulgated on January 3, 2017 by the Hon.
Assistant Prosecutor Jasmin C. Guiou-Diaz to form part of
my herein argument, sir.
15. Q What are your arguments, if any?
A To reiterate the contents of my previous judicial affidavits,

I again re-emphasize that the due execution of the
acknowledgment receipts used by complainant as basis
for his complaint and to compel me to execute a deed of
donation was vehemently contested by me and in fact I
attacked it by insisting for a production of a deed of sale,
sir.
A The acknowledgment receipts that I signed and that of my

children did not express the true intent and agreement
between us. It is ambiguous. It speaks of a purchase of
my property by IEI yet what Mayor Arnado and Atty.
Padilla wanted was a donation to the LGU aside from the
fact that said acknowledgment receipts are ready made
document prepared by Atty. Padilla which he presented
with manipulation to me and my children for signing in his
Law Office. The assertion of Atty. Padilla in claiming that
the inquest prosecutor clearly show an apparent attempt
to distort substantive rules to favor me citing parol
evidence rule is erroneous, sir.
17. Q While it is true that Sec. 9, Rule 130 of the rules of Court
provides that “Parol Evidence Rule forbids any addition to
or contradiction of the terms of a written instrument,
however a party may present evidence to modify, explain
or add to the terms of written agreement if he puts an
issue in his pleading: a) an intrinsic ambiguity, mistake
or imperfection in the written agreement; b)The
failure of the written agreement to express the true
intent and agreement of the parties thereto; c)The
validity of the written agreement,
Will you agree, madame?

A Yes, sir.
Page 5
18. Q Why?
A It is very clear that the acknowledgment receipts are

ambiguous and imperfect as they failed to express the
true intent of the transaction that transpired between me
and IEI. The acknowledgment receipts, manufactured by
author Atty. Padilla according to his and the Mayor’s wish
and design not in accordance with what we have
previously agreed, are unilateral declarations. Atty.
Padilla did not even include in said receipts he prepared
that I would surrender to him the titles of the properties.
Never was it written that if I fail to return I will be liable for
estafa. It was purely good faith on my part to lend him the
titles even if it was not necessary as only minimal
fractions thereof were sold consisting of of 42,842 square
meters leaving us a large portion of 108,795 square
meters of the propeties so that he could immediately
initiate the processing of documents and the surveying of
the area, etc. It was also good faith on my part to borrow
the two (2) titles from him to facilitate my transaction of
sale with ACEHI, not the GNPK, Ltd, Co., the power plant
as alleged by complainant Padilla. I intended to return it
as soon as it is needed for the processing of the
documents of sale. I lent to atty. Padilla the four titles for
him to make the proper Extrajudicial Partition with Deed
of Sale and not to appropriate the titles for himself or for
whatever reason. No need for the complainant to file
against me this complaint but he only have to prepare the
deed of sale to IEI and all will be settled, sir.
19. Q Do you mean, you still have interest in the titles under the
possession of complainant?
A Yes, sir. To note, TCT-6066 titled in the name of Eusebio,

Primo, Miguel, Domingo all surnamed Molo conveyed to
James T. Mabanta, my late husband, was among the
titles I lent to Atty. Padilla. We still owned 20,683 square
meters of the same as IEI only bought only a hectare,
more or less, of the property under said title. Atty. Padilla
did nothing since 2013 to present to process the transfer
of the property.
20. Q Complainant contended that you hoodwinked the power

plant to pay the taxes of the estate of your late husband
what can you say about this, if any?
Page 6
A The contention of the complaint that I hoodwinked the

power plant to pay the taxes of the estate of my late
husband in the amount of PHP939,856.11 and the Power
plant paid taxes so I could transfer title of the property to
the LGU by way of donation is misleading. It is not the
power plant but the AC energy Holdings Inc. (ACEHI).
The said transaction is different and distinct from the
transaction we have with the complainant IEI. IEI bought
portions of our properties but did not process the
document of sale. ACEHI, another corporation bought a
different portion in our properties at a higher price and
paid the estate tax as it assumes the responsibility in
accordance with our agreement but the processing of
documents was halted because Atty. Padilla is taking
custody the other titles of our properties and refused to
give it back to me for the processing of documents, sir.
21. Q Complainant contended that you well aware of the

covenant that you will execute a deed of donation in favor
of the LGU as evidenced by a deed of donation executed
by your daughter in favorr of the LGU, what can you say
about this, if any?
A I disagree, sir. My daughter Ginia Marlafe Mabanta have

signed the Deed of Donation and witnessed by the me
because of the promised (of course not written) by Mayor
Arnado and Atty. Padilla that there is no problem to sign
Deed of Donation although IEI clearly purchased the
property in her name evidenced by the purchased money
paid by Atty. Padilla. Mayor Arnado also accepted the
donation when he knew it was sale and not donation, for
reason to avoid payment of taxes. It is remarkable that
the Deed of Donation signed by my daughter and me is
not signed in the presence of a notary public and until
present it is un-notarized.
22. Q Complainant Padilla stated that you had an avaricious

desire for more money what comment do you have, if
any?
A Atty. Roberto Padilla is totally wrong in saying that I had

an avaricious desire for more money. I and my children
are heirs to the realties of Felicisimo, Marcela and James
all surnamed Mabanta. In addition, I also have personal
properties located in Iligan City. All of my five children
were professionals and some are gainfully employed in
Page 7
government and private institution locally and abroad. I

am holding a supervisory position in the LGU of Iligan
City and my earning is sufficient. My family lives
modestly. My family in Libertad Kauswagan Lanao del
Norte are economically sufficient. There’s no need for me
to have more money since we have it. It is also a lie that I
wanted and demanded more money from IEI and the
power plant (GNKauswagan Ltd. Co.). In the meeting held
at Iliganon restaurant at Pala-o, Iligan City in 2015,
present was me, Atty. Roberto C. Padilla, and Orlando
Claveria, Assistant Legal Officer of ACEHI-GNPower
Manila and not GNPKauswagan Ltd. Co. (the power
plant). Since 2013 up to 2015, due to the many
complaints lodged by the relocated families in Liberty
heights, Libertad Kauswagan Lanao del Norte, ACEHI-
GNPower Manila conducted an investigation to know the
situation of the project and the situation of the relocated
families. I aired that up to that moment, there was no
extrajudicial settlement and Deed of sale prepared by
Atty. Padilla, for signing of respondent and her children.
There was no subdivision plan and sketch plan with
technical description of all the four (4) titles for the
respondents to know the new metes and bounds of the
property. Atty. Padilla just kept his silence and walked out
when the concerns was not given due action. Atty. Padilla
IEI representative was very silent and not done any
documents on the respondents request for extrajudicial
settlement with the Deed of sale when in fact four (4) titles
were in his hands. Atty. Padilla even threatened me to
return to him the two titles or else he will charged me of
estafa. I and my children have all the rights to take hold of
the land titles because more than ten hectares (10) still
belonged to me and my children and only four (4)
hectares more or less was bought by IEI.
23. Q Appended in the Motion for Reconsideration is an affidavit

executed by Mayor Rommel C. Arnado, what can you say
about this?
A Paragraph 1 to 6 of his affidavit is admitted, sir. However,

I take exception and deny the rest of the statements for
being deceiving, sir.
24. Q What is your comment?
Page 8
A I only agreed to sell portions of our properties to IEI but

never to donate it to LGU Kauswagan. The letter Mayor
Arnado he gave to the relocated family said that IEI will
donate the land to the municipality. The contention of
Mayor Arnado that the agreement is above board is
preposterous as it is not honest and it tries to deceive the
Republic. Granting arguendo that there was such an
agreement, the same is a form of deceit. The Republic is
prejudiced as crystal, I received from IEI monetary
consideration for conveyance of my property. The people
of Libertad, Kauswagan Lanao del Norte were fully aware
that IEI bought portion of our properties from me and my
co-heirs. The people were fully aware that it is not I and
my coheirs but IEI who would donate the property the
company bought from me to the LGU Kauswagan. The
LGU Kauswagan would in turn donate it to the informal
settlers affected by the construction of the coal-fired
power plant as publicly announced by said mayor during
his campaign speeches in aforesaid locality. The
transaction of sale between me and IEI, a private
corporation, is by all means, subject to tax of any form.
This transaction of sale is not covered by RA 7279
because it is a simple sale between me and my coheirs
and a private corporation, not the LGU. Hence, inducing
me to commit deceitful act by signing deed of donation to
the LGU is a form of grave coercion punishable under Art.
286 of the Revised Penal Code. To support my claim I am
presenting the Affidavit of Witnesses Daniel D. Aurita,
Maria Eunalyn A. Interone, Mericon Palanca and Agustina
R. Abrogueña to form part of my statements, sir.
25. Q You said that you present the affidavit of your witnesses
where is your document, if any?
26. Q We are marking this Affidavit of Witnesses as Annex “A-

Opposition to A-2-Opposition”, do you confirm our
action?
A Yes, sir.

“A-Opposition to A-2-Opposition” this Affidavit of witness.
27. Q What else can you comment, if any?
Page 9
A Mayor Arnado, in his series of text messages during our

cellphone conversation with his cellphone number
09173147836, clearly pronounced it and confirm the
transaction as sale. If only what transpired is donation of
IEI to LGU Kauswagan perhaps the same will be covered
from tax exemption in accordance with RA 7279.
28. Q Do you have a hard copy of your cellphone conversation,

if any?
29. Q We are marking this hard copy of the conversation as

Annex “B-Opposition to B-3-Opposition”, do you
confirm our action?
A Yes, sir.

“B-Opposition to B-3-Opposition” this cellphone
conversation.
30. Q Mayor Arnado in his affidavit stated that you cannot claim
that you were asked to donate to the LGU to evade
payment of taxes and that you refused and still refuses to
execute the agreed donation to the LGU, what can you
say about this?
A It is preposterous, sir. I have to reiterate that I was

convinced by the Mayor of Kauswagan Lanao del Norte,
the father of the people residing in said municipality of
which Libertad (Lapayan) belonged, for me to sell my
portion of my land to IEI. During our series of negotiation,
I saw him as a person of dignity, respected, honorable,
and influential, holding the highest position of the
municipality and whose word is regarded as authority.
While it is true that there was no written agreement, yet
not even in my objective mind, that the words, the verbal
agreements between me and Mayor Arnado will be
discredited by him because I regarded the mayor as a
gentleman and a man of honor. Mayor Arnado and Atty.
Padilla’s words that IEI will pay me the purchase price
and I would execute a Extrajudicial Partition with Deed of
Sale and all the cost of the survey, the subdivision,
transfer and titling of the portions of TCT-69, TCT-6066,
TCT 6067, and TCT-21051, the properties IEI bought,
pay me the cost of coconut trees and other fruit trees
Page 10
affected and it would be IEI’s responsibility to convey the

purchased property to the LGU. These agreement turned
out to be mere lies. Both deceived me to make me agree
for the price of P 28.00 per square meter because the
agreement was not put in writing.
31. Q what else, if any?
A It bears stressing that the issue is not a local government

doing some social housing project for people affected not
by calamity, natural disasters or any governmental project
but by the construction of a multi-billion coal power plant
that forced informal settlers to vacate their place of living
since 1970s. More so, it is the construction of the huge
power plant that forced the mayor to act as agent to
negotiate and convince me to sell my property even if I
never wanted to and do not need to as the produce of the
land is more sufficient than selling it at a lower price of
P28 per square meter which will significantly benefit a
multi-billion power plant that spend P57 million for the
relocation site, sir.
32. Q What is your comment regarding the actuation of the

municipal mayor, if any?
A It is worth noting that it is not LGU’s primary concern to

transfer affected residents in the construction of a
privately owned potentially pollutant coal power plant but
the sole responsibility of the IEI and the coal power plant
according to their 65-35 percentage sharing agreement
and as mandated by RA 7279. For the town mayor to
personally enter in the picture of negotiating for the IEI or
for the power plant is dubious. For the mayor to use his
authority and influence in coercing respondent to execute
a donation instead of sale in congruity with their verbal
agreement evidenced by series of text messages defies
logic and common sense. By allowing himself to
undermine the truth of the transaction to appear the same
as donation to the LGU instead of sale to IEI which is
taxable, Mayor Arnado, in cohort with Atty. Padilla,
committed the crime of grave coercion (Art. 286) for me to
violate Article 172 of the RPC. The act of the mayor is a
badge of corruption defined under the anti-graft and
corrupt practices act (RA 3019).
Page 11
33. Q Complainant claim that you renege your duty to process

conveyance of your property, what is your comment, if
any?
A I reiterate and emphasize that am still waiting for the

complainant to prepare the draft of the Extrajudicial
Settlement with Deed of Sale or a Deed of Sale only
because I already have the property Extra judicially
Settled by failure of complainants to honor the agreement
since 2013. Keeping my titles is an exercise of a right as
owner as only comparatively minimal portions thereof was
sold aside from the fact that Atty. Padilla is also in
possession of the other titles since 2013. If complainant
Padilla does his duty and prepare a deed of sale, the
dilemma will be easily solved and the title will be
surrendered for subdivision, sir.
34. Q By their actuations, what did you feel, if any?
A I felt very disgusted and so disappointed by the actuations

of Atty. Padilla and Mayor Arnado. This transaction is a
mess, sir.
35. Q Why?
A Instead of honoring the words that made me sell portion

of my properties for a stubborn price, I am put to bad light
by this complaint when it is, in fact, Atty. Padilla who
renege his duty to make the proper document being a
lawyer and violates his lawyer’s oath to do no falsehood
nor consent to its commission; and, for Mayor Arnado to
break his words, the promise of an honorable man. They
are both coercing me to impliedly violate Article 172 of the
Revised Penal Code by executing a deed of donation,
when they knew fully well that the transaction is sale, sir.
36. Q What do you want?
A I am praying that the Honorable City Prosecutor will deny

complainants’ motion for reconsideration and to charge
complainant Atty. Roberto Padilla and Mayor Rommel
Arnado with Grave Coercion as defined under Article 286
of the Revised Penal Code, sir.
37. Q Why do you want to charge them with grave coercion?
Page 12
A Because by means of threat or intimidation both conspire

to compel me to do something against my will, whether it
be right or wrong.
true and correct?
A Yes, sir.
JOSEFINA B. MABANTA
Affiant


Book No. VIII Series of 2017 Until December 31, 2018
PTR No. 7239271 January 3, 2017
TIN No. 166-615-120
Page 13
SWORN ATTESTATION


entitled case;




this 16th day of February 2017 at Iligan City.

Affiant



Iligan City
ROBERTO C. PADILLA
FOR: ESTAFA under
and par.2 (a), RPC
JOSEFINA B. MABANTA
Respondent.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

Greetings!
Please submit the foregoing rejoinder counter-affidavit to

complainant’s reply in the above-entitled case for the consideration
and resolution of the Honorable Investigating Prosecutor Jasmin
Guiuo-Diaz, Prosecutor II.
City of Iligan, December 7, 2016.

Salibay Law Office


Iligan City
ROBERTO C. PADILLA
FOR: ESTAFA under
and par.2 (a), RPC
JOSEFINA B. MABANTA
Respondent.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
REJOINDER JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT TO

COMPLAINANT’S REPLY
---------------------------------------------


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

A Yes, sir.

A Yes, sir.
A Yes, sir.
Page 2
circumstances?

5. Q What is your purpose in executing this Judicial -Affidavit?
A To refute the allegations of the complainants in their reply

that I received by mail on December 12, 2016, sir.
6. Q Do you have a copy of complainant’s reply?

what can you say about this?
A I admit, sir
8. Q There is an allegation in Paragraph No. 2 of this reply,

A I deny the allegations, sir.
9. Q What is your reason for denying the allegation, if any?
A I deny the averment. While it is true that I possess

educational attainment yet my training is for social work to
be soft hearted and trusting not deciphering legal
documents as I am not a lawyer who can thoroughly
understand the contents of that legal document. Being the
lawyer Atty. Padilla should have explained to me the
contents of said acknowledgment receipt after he made
us signed hastily, but he did not. He never gave us a copy
of the receipts for me to bring home and study the
contents thoroughly. A social worker is quite different from
a lawyer in heart and in mind. I trusted him but he tricked
me, sir.

Page 3
11. Q What is your reason for denying the allegation, if any?
A The two acknowledgment receipts attached to his

demand letter when reviewed show that the “Extrajudicial
Settlement with Deed of Donation and/or Deed of Sale”
was only for TCT-69 as born by the second
Acknowledgment Receipt dated May 20, 2013 [Annex C]
while the first Acknowledgment Receipts dated March 15,
2013 [Annex B] for TCT No. T-21051, TCT No. T-6,066,
TCT no. T-6,067 was for “Extrajudicial Settlement with
Deed of Donation”. The complainant used scheme that is
why when Orly Claveria, Legal Assistant of ACEHI
presented the draft of Extrajudicial Settlement with Deed
of Donation [Annex 16] we refused to sign because we
verbally agreed to sign a Document of Sale. We received
the purchase money but why would complainant insist on
a Deed of Donation when we insisted on Deed of Sale?
His assertion that he give us option is deceiving. The truth
is complainant forced us to execute a donation contrary to
common sense and logic aside from violating provisions
of the NIRC and the same Revised Penal Code (Art. 172).

A I admit with qualification, sir.
13. Q What is your reason, if any?
A While it is true that I agreed to sell it for P28.00 per

square meter but I was induced because we also agreed
that complainants would prepare and process the
documents of sale and pay all the expenses for transfer
because the total amount they paid as purchase price
would not even suffice to pay for the estate tax, capital
gains tax, documentary stamp tax, transfer and other
taxes that would cost more than a million as I told them;

Page 4
A I borrowed from him the original copy of TCT No. T-6,067

on August 6, 2014. This is actually the only instance that I
borrowed the title to support my visa application and
travel abroad as borne by the records of my travel on the
inclusive dates of August to November 2014. I returned
the same on November 18, 2014 [ANNEX “I”]. I did not
deceive complainant because he knew that I requested to
borrow from him two (2) titles TCT No. T-69 and TCT
6,067 on July 15, 2015. This not for travel purposes as I
already traveled but this was to secure a copy of
Certificate Authorizing Registration from the BIR because
ACEHI granted my request to pay the whole Estate Tax
of all the properties of the Late James, Felicisimo and
Marcela all surnamed Mabanta including portions of the
properties complainants bought, sir.

A I admit with qualification, sir.
A I am still waiting for the complainant to give the draft of

the Extrajudicial Settlement with Deed of Sale or only a
Deed of Sale because we already have the property Extra
judicially Settled because of complainants’ unreasonable
delay to make the Extrajudicial Settlement with Deed of
Sale since 2013. Though I deposited the checks in my
account and we are free to dispose the money because
complainants already entered, developed and used the
property but we choose not use the funds considering the
fact that there is still no actual legal transfer for want of a
deed of conveyance. We have considered the money as
funds in trust. Receiving the money is also a proof that
the transaction is a sale not a donation, sir.
true and correct?
A Yes, sir.
Page 5
JOSEFINA B. MABANTA
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 7th day of December 2016 at


PTR No. 6665056 January 8, 2016
TIN No. 166-615-120
Page 6
SWORN ATTESTATION


entitled case;




th
this 7 day of December 2016 at Iligan City.

Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 7th day of December 2016 at the
City of Iligan, Philippines. Affiant exhibited to me his valid Integrated Bar of the

Iligan City
ROBERTO C. PADILLA
FOR: ESTAFA under
and par.2 (a), RPC
JOSEFINA B. MABANTA
Respondent.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

Greetings!
Please submit the foregoing judicial counter-affidavit of Josefina

B. Mabanta, respondent in the above-entitled case with the judicial
affidavit of her witness for the consideration and resolution of the
Honorable Investigating Prosecutor Jasmin Guiuo-Diaz, Prosecutor
II.

Salibay Law Office


Iligan City
ROBERTO C. PADILLA
FOR: ESTAFA under
and par.2 (a), RPC
JOSEFINA B. MABANTA
Respondent.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
---------------------------------------------


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

A Yes, sir.

A Yes, sir.
A Yes, sir.
Page 2

circumstances?


Affidavit?
A To refute the charges filed by Complainants Industrial
Enterprises, Inc. represented by Atty. Roberto C. Padilla,
sir.
complainants Industrial Enterprises, Inc. [IEI, for brevity]
represented by Atty. Roberto C. Padilla [ Atty. Padilla, for
brevity]?
A I did not do such acts that would constitute estafa. Said

charges are untruthful. I know he filed this case to force
me to commit a crime of simulation of deed of
conveyance by signing with my co-heirs instrument of
donation instead of sale. The complaint should be
dismissed, sir

dated October 26, 2016 from the Office of the City
Prosecutor’s Office, Iligan City?
A Yes, sir.
A On November 3, 2016 at 2 o’clock in the afternoon

delivered to me in my office at the CSWD, sir.
9. Q Do you have a copy of his affidavit complaint?

A I admit the allegation it being the personal circumstances

of the complainants, sir.
Page 3

A I admit, it being my personal circumstance, sir.


sir.
13. Q In Paragraph No. 4 of this complaint, they alleged that
through promise and representation, you induced
complainants to purchase certain parcels of land relying
that upon receipt of the payment you shall execute an
James Mabanta with Deed of Donation in favor of the
LGU of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte, what can you say
about this, if any?
14. Q What is your reason denying the allegation, if any?
A It was Atty. Padilla who deceived me. I and my co-heirs

sold the land to IEI in good faith. I never promised to
donate as we never intended to donate portions of our
realties to any person real or juridical. It is morally and
legally erroneous to simulate donation when I know fully
well that we conveyed the property by way of sale as
claimed by complainants themselves in the same
paragraph No. 4 of the complaint. I am not insane to
donate the realty. It is ridiculous, sir.
15. Q Why is it ridiculous to donate?
A It is contrary to logic and common sense as truth is,

during the series of negotiations sometime in February of
2013, Mayor Arnado, Atty. Padilla and I agreed that IEI
would buy the land and IEI will donate the land to LGU
Kauswagan. It is incomprehensible to think that one who
valued her land so much would donate to any entity when
the end beneficiary is a multi-billion coal fired power plant,
which moved heaven and earth to construct their plant in
Kauswagan. Clearly, Atty. Padilla deceived me by
schemes and manipulation so that I and my co-heirs
Page 4
could sign acknowledgment receipts he prepared for me

to sell my land at the cheapest unreasonable price and
then use the said receipts to compel me to execute a
donation instead of sale so that they can evade paying
capital gains tax in violation of the Tax Code, sir.
16. Q You stated that you were the one tricked by schemes and
manipulation of the complainant, why?
A Complainant Atty. Padilla did not make good his promise
to draft the document “extra-judicial partition with deed of
sale” that was supposed to be executed by me and my
heirs for the transfer of ownership of portions of realties
embraced by several titles as what we really had orally
agreed upon sometime in February 2013 but instead,
while handing checks of payment, he duped me and my
children to sign documents he prepared without
explaining the contents and giving to me copies for
reference in contravention of the contract of sale. He
induced ne to commit a crime by signing simulated
document. I am the victim, sir.
17. Q How and when did you find that you are the victim?
A When I read the demand letter form Atty. Padilla dated

September 5, 2016 which is marked as Annex “1” in his
complaint, I depressed to discover, for the first time, the
nature of the acknowledgment receipts he made me sign
on March 2015 and the other on May 2015. By reading
the document dated March 2013, I realized that it is not a
contract of sale but a contract of donation while the
document dated May 2013 is an optional guarantee of
Deed of Donation and/or Deed of Sale contrary to the
agreement I discussed with Mayor Rommel Arnado
sometime in the February of 2013, sir
18. Q What had happened sometime in February 2013?
A Sometime in February 2013, Mayor Rommel Arnado of

Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte approached me and told me
that the LGU urgently needed a land suitable for
relocation of 200 families that would be affected by the
construction of a multi billion coal power plant in Lapayan,
Kauswagan Lanao del Norte and he asked me to sell
portions of my properties they were eyeing located at
Page 5
Lapayan, Kauswagan Lanao del Norte belonging to the

Mabanta’s family because the property is strategically
located near the highway and could accommodate more
or less 200 families living in an area owned by
complainant Industrial Enterprises, Inc. (IEI) so that a
power plant can start the ground work, sir.

A I told him that I our land was not for sale because the
titles were still registered in our predecessors’ and my
deceased husband’s names aside from the fact that it
was income generating because of the many coconut and
fruit trees. Its income was the reason all my children
became professionals, sir.
20. Q What else had happen, if any?
A I also told him that the heirs of Mabantas were still liable
to pay estate taxes of more than a million pesos as
assessed by the BIR sometime in 2012, sir.
21. Q What was Mayor Arnado’s reaction, if any?
A He said that he was still very interested to buy the land,

sir.
A I told him I will think it over and consult my children, sir.
23. Q What happened after that, if any?
A After our initial meeting, Mayor Arnado phoned me again

several times like a suitor convincing me to sell the land
because he will take care of everything as he made a
deal with IEI and will pay the selling price and shoulder
the expenses including estate tax for the transfer.
A I told him I still have to re-consult my children because

they were actually against selling the property at
unreasonably low price because a multi billion GN Coal
Power Plant shall eventually benefit, sir.
Page 6
25. Q What was his reaction, if any?
A Mayor Arnado again persisted and persuaded me to

convince my children to sell it at P28.00 per square meter
because it is an agricultural land and the project will bring
great benefit and development in the entire municipality
and the province of Lanao del Norte, sir.

A I consulted my children, sir.
27. Q After consulting your children, what did you do next?
A When Mayor Arnado called me again, I told him that my

co-heirs agreed to sell portions of our properties at
P500.00 per square meter on the condition that the
value of 800 full grown coconuts trees and 400 full grown
fruit tress affected shall be paid and plus the value of the
coconuts and fruit trees considering its suitability, the
capacity of the buyer and their urgent need for its use,, sir
28. Q What was his reply?
A He told me to meet him with the representative of IEI at

his office at Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte for final
meeting, sir.
A I went to his office in sometime in March 2013 and there

Mayor Arnado introduced me to complainant Atty. Padilla
representative of IEI.
A Negotiation ensued. I reiterated my previous statements

and I told them I would sell portion of the land at P500 per
square meter plus value of trees affected and buyer pays
the taxes and transfer expenses, sir
31. Q You said you would sell the land at P500 per square
meter, what was their reply, if any?
A They both begged for me to sell it at P28.00 per square

meter as IEI would take care of everything, prepare the
Extrajudicial Settlement of Estates with Deed of Sale,
Page 7
process the relocation survey and titling plus pay us the

value of the coconuts and fruit trees affected at prevailing
rate, sir.
A Thinking that the transaction is stress free and would

redound to the benefit of the residents, generate
employment and improve Barangay Lapayan and the
Municipality of Kauswagan, I was convinced to agree, sir.
.
33. Q What else had happened, if any?
A I heard the mayor and complainant agree between

themselves that IEI shall buy the land and thereafter IEI
will donate what they bought to the LGU Kauswagan, sir.
A They told me to come to the office of Atty. Padilla on

March 15, 2013 for the payment and signing of the
Extrajudicial Partition with Deed of Absolute Sale of
Portions of our property and let my co-heirs sign, sir.
35. Q What happened on March 15, 2013, if any?
A I, together with my daughter Ginia Marlafe, went to

complainant Atty. Padilla’s office, sir
36. Q Who were in his office, if any?
A The complainant Atty. Padilla, Mayor Arnado, Ginia

Marlafe and I were inside the office, sir
37. Q What happened inside his office, if any?
A In the presence of Mayor Rommel Arnado, complainant

Padilla gave us these three BDO checks [Annex “D”,
“E” and “F”] in the total amount of Eight Hundred Eighty
Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Eight Pesos
(P889,588.00) for the payment of the portions of the
properties covered by TCT No. T-21051, TCT No. T-
6,066, TCT no. T-6,067, sir.
38. Q What represents the three checks, if any?
Page 8
A Payment for the sale to IEI of [1] an area of 9,482

square meters realty embraced by TCT No. T-21051
registered under the name of my daughter Ginia Marlafe
D. Mabanta; [2] payment for a portion consisting of
10,110 square meters only out of the 42,860 square
meters leaving us an area of 32,750 square meters
thereof in the land embraced by TCT No. T-6,067; [3]
payment for a portion of 12,179 square meters only out
of 42,862 square meters leaving us an area of 20,683
square meter of the land embraced by TCT No. T-6,066
registered under Eusebio, Domingo, Miguel and Primo all
surnames Molo which were already sold by virtue of a
Deed of Sale of Registered land to James Mabanta, sir.
39. Q After giving you the checks, what happened next, if any?
A I was surprised because complainant compelled Ginia

Marlafe to sign a Deed of Donation to LGU Kauswagan
for the entire realty embraced by TCT No. T-21,051
registered in her name instead of a Deed of Sale to IEI.
He then compelled me to sign as witness. Then Atty.
Padilla also asked us to quickly sign a receipt he already
prepared which he immediately hid after signing, sir.
A I asked Atty. Padilla and Mayor Arnado why a Deed of

Donation was prepared instead of Deed of Sale and I
politely requested him to change it into a Deed of Sale, sir
41. Q What was their reaction, if any?
A Complainant told me it was alright to do it so that IEI will

escape paying the Capital Gains Tax and he assured me
there would be no legal problem in the future, sir.
42. Q Did Atty. Padilla explained to you the content of the

acknowledgment receipt you signed?
A No sir, although he is a lawyer he never explained to us

the contents of the documents.
43. Q What receipt are you referring to, if any?
Page 9
A This acknowledgment receipt [Annex “B”] bearing the

amount of Eight Hundred Eighty Nine Thousand Five
Hundred and Eighty Eight Pesos (P889,588.00), sir
A As I only received the checks so I asked for a duplicate

copy of the documents, sir.
45. Q What was his reply, if any?
A Atty. Padilla told me he would give them after he had

them notarized but until now I did not received the
notarized duplicate copies of the Deed of Donation or the
receipts, sir.
A I then turned over to Complainant Padilla the copies of tax

declarations, the Original Owner’s Duplicate Copy of
Titles TCT No. T-21,051, TCT No. T-6,066, TCT No. T-
6,067, including TCT No. T-69 and the Deed of Sale of
Registered Land of the Molos to James Mabanta covered
by said TCT-T6, sir.
47. Q Why did you turn over to him the original titles of the four
parcels of land?
A So he may use them as reference for the drafting of the

Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Deed of
Sale, believing in good faith he would return them to me
once he finished the processing except for TCT No. T-
21,051 as all the land embraced therein were subject of
the sale, sir.
A I was issued a handwritten receipt of the titles dated

March 15, 2013 by his secretary, sir
49. Q You said you handed him the titles of four (4) parcels of
land, do you have machine copies of the titles to show the
same, if any?
A Yes, here are the photocopies of Titles TCT No. T-

6,066, TCT No. T-6,067, TCT No. T-69 and TCT No. T-
21,051, sir.
Page 10
50. Q We are marking photocopies of TCT No. T-6,066 as

Annex “1” and “1-A”; TCT No. T-6,067 as Annex “2”
and “2-A”, TCT No. T-69 as Annex “3”,“3-A”, “3-B”,“3-
C”; and TCT No. T-21,051 as Annex “4” and “4-A”, do
you confirm our action?
A Yes, sir.
MANIFESTATION: We are respectfully marking photocopies
as Annex “1” and “1-A” the title TCT No. T-6,066; as
Annex “2” and “2-A” the Title TCT No. T-6,067; as Annex
“3” , “3-A” ”,“3-B”, “3-C”, the title TCT No. T-69; and as
Annex “4” and “4-A the title TCT No. T-21,051.
51. Q You said that you were issued a handwritten receipt of

titles by his secretary do you have any document to show
the same?
52. Q We are marking this handwritten receipt as Annex “5”,

A Yes, sir.

“5” this handwritten receipt.
A I deposited all the checks in the bank for safekeeping

pending transfer of properties, sir.
54. Q On May 20, 2013, what had happened, if any?
A I went back to the office of Atty. Padilla, sir
55. Q What did you do there, if any?
A I requested for copy of Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate

with Deed of Sale so that the heirs can then sign for
speedy processing of separate titles but complainant told
me he would request his co-lawyers in the office to draft
the document of sale, sir.

Page 11
A He gave me another check [Annex “G”] bearing the

amount of P309,988.00 for payment by the IEI of the
portion of the realty embraced by TCT No. T-69 for an
area consisting of 11,071 square meters out of the
66,434 square meter leaving us 55,363 square meters
thereof which I also deposited thereafter in the bank for
safekeeping pending transfer, sir.
57. Q After giving you the check, what happened next, if any?
A He asked me to sign this acknowledgment receipt he
prepared dated May 20, 2016 [Annex “C”] representing
payment of the portion of the property covered by TCT
No. T-69. The acknowledgment receipt is attached in his
affidavit complaint, sir.
A As I became suspicious, I read the content of the

document and found the words “I hereby guarantee that
the corresponding Extrajudicial Settlement with Deed
of Donation and/or Deed of Sale will be executed by
myself and my children, etc” appeared instead of Deed
of Sale only and no Donation, so I asked him why as I
refused to sign fearing I would be liable for tax evasion as
I knew fully well the transaction is purely a contract of
sale, sir.
59. Q What was his answer, if any?
A He assured me it was alright and that a draft of a deed of

sale and not donation was on the way, sir
60. Q With his assurance what did you do, if any?
A I signed this acknowledgment receipt [Annex “C”]

because he made me believe he was an honorable man,
sir.
61. Q What then had happened, if any?
A Complainant referred me to Atty. Junella Limpangog, his

law partner, whom he entrusted with drafting deed of sale.
So I provided her with documents and for several
meetings I provided her information and details of my
family, but no document of sale was made, sir
Page 12
A I went back again to complainant Atty. Padila who then

referred me to Atty. Eduardo Ulindang in the same office
to continue with what Atty, Limpangog started, but several
meetings in his office, no extrajudicial settlement with
deed of sale was prepared, sir.

A I made several follow ups with Atty. Padilla and we met
at Iliganon Restaurant at Pala-o, Iligan City sometime in
the first quarter of 2015. Present were Mr. Orlando
Claveria, assistant Legal Officer of ACEHI (GN Power)
and my land caretaker, Mr. Wenceslao M. Alaya-ay.
Again, in unequivocal terms I demanded from the lawyer
the deed of sale for signing and also the subdivision
survey and sketch plan with technical description of all the
titles for me to know the new metes and bounds of the
property which was already used by the IEI but he gave
me nothing, sir.
A I appeared in his law office several times since 2013 until

the end of 2015 but no document was made and he
instead insisted that I should sign an Extrajudicial
Settlement of Estate with Deed of Donation to LGU
Kauswagan so that IEI will not pay the capital gains tax of
which I refused as the contract was pure deed of sale and
besides I wouldn’t care because it’s the buyer’s
responsibility as agreed orally, sir.
A I began to worry as several months had already passed

and on December 2014, the resettlement houses inside
our undivided lands were completed and some of the
relocated settlers encroached, intruded and pillage our
land stealing our coconut and fruit from trees, and used
our property as garbage disposal area and I am still
paying the property taxes of the entire realty despite
portions thereof being already sold because of failure of
complainants to separate theirs, sir.
Page 13
A Accompanied by my assistant Wenceslao Alaya-ay, I

made personal follow-ups with Mayor Arnado in his office
and also in his house to ask his help to compel Atty.
Padilla to release the draft of the Extra-Judicial Partition
with Deed of Sale for us to sign so that all would be
settled and the transfer can expeditiously settle our
ownership and we can have the separate titles, sketch
maps, the technical description because we still have not
ascertain the new boundaries of our properties, sir.
67. Q What was Mayor Arnado’s reply, if any?
A He told me “AYAW KABALAKA, AKO NA BAHALA KANG

ATTY. PADILLA, JOSIE!” [Do not worry, I will take care of
Atty. Padilla, Josie], sir
A I phoned Mayor Arnado again to make follow ups and he

told me he phoned Atty. Padilla several times but the
latter did not mind his call, sir.
69. Q In paragraph No. 12 of his complaint he alleged that on

July 15, 2015 you borrowed from him the original copy of
TCT No. T-6,067 and TCT No. T-69 evidenced by
Acknowledgement Receipt, (Annex “H”) on the pretext
that you will use them to support your application for a
tourist visa in Europe with a promise to return the same
once the purpose is served, what can you say about this?
A True, I requested to borrow from him two (2) titles TCT

No. T-69 and TCT 6,067 on July 15, 2015 but his
statement that I used them for travel purposes is wrong
because he knew that I borrowed the titles to secure a
copy of Certificate Authorizing Registration from the BIR
because I made ACEHI paid the Estate Tax of all the
properties of the Late James, Felicisimo and Marcela all
surnamed Mabanta amounting to an aggregate tax of
P1,192, 715.80 and said titles were needed as we
execute Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estates of the Late
James Mabanta as GN Power bought an area of 3,850
square meters in the lot covered by OCT No. 6524 titled
Page 14
70. Q You said that you used the titles to pay the estate tax and
secure Certificate Authorizing Registration from the BIR,
do you have any document to show the same?
A Yes, here are the two (2) pages Mabanta Estate Tax and
Other Taxes Computations and three (3) Certificates
Authorizing Registration from the BIR issued on
November 5, 2015, sir.
71. Q We are marking this Mabanta Estate Tax and Other
Taxes Computations as Annex “6” and “6-A”, do you
confirm our action?
A Yes, sir.

Annexes “6” and “6-A” this Mabanta Estate Tax and Other
Taxes Computations.
72. Q We are marking these three (3) Certificates Authorizing

Registration from the BIR as Annexes “7” to “9”, do you
confirm our action?
A Yes, sir.

Annexes “7” to “9” these Certificates Authorizing
Registration.
73. Q You said that you have executed Extrajudicial Settlement

of the Estates of the Late James Mabanta, do you have
A Yes, here are three Extrajudicial Settlement of the

Estates of the Late James Mabanta for TCT No. T-69,
TCT No.T-6,066 and TCT No.T-6,067, sir.
74. Q Where and when did you execute this document?
A Before Notary Public Atty. Warren Lim on October 7,

2016, sir.
75. Q We are marking this document as Annexes “10”, “10-

A”, Annexes “11”, “11-A” and Annexes “12”, “12-
A”do you confirm our action?
A Yes, sir.
Page 15

Annexes “10”, “10-A”, Annexes “11”, “11-A” and
Annexes “12”, “12-A” this Extrajudicial Settlement of the
Estate of the Late James Mabanta.
76. Q Why did you execute these documents?
A Because Atty. Padilla did nothing to process the

documents since March 2013 to July 2015. We needed to
pay the estate tax for the property bought by GN Power at
much greater price that included taxes, sir.
77. Q In Paragraph No. 13 of his complaint he alleged that he

acceded to your request to borrow TCT No. T-6,067 and
TCT No. T-69 because earlier on 6 August 2014, you
borrowed from him the original copy of TCT No. T-6,067
and returned the same on November 18, 2014 (Annex
“I”), what can you say about this?
A True, I borrowed from him the original copy of TCT No.

T-6,067 and returned the same on November 18, 2014.
This is actually the only instance that I borrowed the title
to support my visa application and travel abroad as borne
by the records on the inclusive dates of August to
November 2014, sir.
78. Q Do you have any records to show you applied visa for
travel abroad on said inclusive dates of August to
November 2014?
A Yes, sir. Here is the Letter of the General Manager of

Ephesus Travel and Tours dated July 18, 2014 with the
October 30, 2014 addressed to the Consular Section of
the Embassy of the Republic of Italy dated sir .
79. Q We are marking this Letter dated July 18, 2014 with the
October 30, 2014 as Annexes “13” and “13-A”, do you
confirm our action?
A Yes, sir.

Annexes “13” and “13-A” this Letter of the General
Manager of Ephesus Travel and Tours dated July 18, 2014
with the itinerary of travel.
Page 16

complaint affidavit alleging that you refuse to execute an
with deed of donation, what can you say about this, if
any?
A I refused because it is wrong. The fact that I received

payment on March 15, 2013 and May 20, 2013 clearly
shows that the transaction is a pure contract of sale and
not a donation. God knows we never donated the land to
IEI or to the LGU of Kauswagan. My refusal is justified for
to sign deed of donation is preposterous, sir. It would be
falsehood if we would execute his wish because the
transaction is a contract of sale as evidenced by money I
received. It is the duty of complainants to prepare an
Extrajudicial Partition with Deed of Sale based on our
agreement but they never do it. Complainants wanted to
evade paying the BIR capital gains tax that is why they
invented ways and forced us to be their accessories by
filing this case, sir.
81. Q There is an allegation in Paragraph No. 14 that you refuse

to return to him the titles, what can you say about this, if
any?
I vehemently deny it. It is noteworthy that I and co-heirs

still owns a large chunk of 108,795 square meters of the
remaining portion of the said 3 titles as only 42,842
square meters were sold to IEI. Therefore I have every
right to exercise possession of the original copies of the
titles being the administrator of the Heirs of Mabanta
pending process of transfer by IEI. As I already stated, we
still needed the titles to secure CAR from the BIR and to
execute Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate
until I received on September 8, 2016 his demand letter
[Annex “J”] as he attached copies therein copies of
Acknowledgment Receipts that I discovered and realized
for the first time what I actually signed were not
Acknowledgment Receipts but documents stating I will
execute a Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate
with Deed of Donation contrary to our oral agreement.
82. Q Was there any agreement for you to turn over to him the
original duplicate copies of the titles of the three parcels
of land, if any?
Page 17
There was no written agreement for me to surrender to

Atty. Padilla the original owners’ copy of the titles TCT
No. T-6,066, TCT No. T-6,067 and TCT No. T-69. It was
in good faith that I give him the original duplicate copy of
the titles so that complainant can prepare the necessary
Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Deed of Sale and
the annotation after which he will give me back the three
(3) titles. Complainant deceived me, sir.
83. Q Is that the only instance you were aware of the contents
of the documents you were made to sign by the
complainant?
A There is another incident that happened on October 7,

2016, sir.
84. Q What happened on said date?
A On October 7, 2016, Orlando Claveria, Assistant Legal

Officer of ACEHI(GN Power, Manila) came to my office at
the CSWD in Saray, Iligan City because of the urgent
need to transfer portions of the properties and he
requested me to sign the draft of Extrajudicial Settlement
of Estate with Deed of Donation Atty. Padilla prepared
and he also gave me the copy of the Deed of Donation
signed by my daughter still not notarized. He also told me
that Atty. Padilla would file a case if I will not sign, sir.
85. Q What was your reaction?
A I was so frustrated. I even told him that it was a sale not

donation and why should I be made to sign Extrajudicial
Settlement of Estate with Deed of Donation when it is a
sale. I could not sign it because I will be liable for making
it appear as a donation instead of sale as evidenced by
the Acknowledgment Receipts dated March blank, 2015
representing full payments by IEI for the purchased
portions of our properties, sir.
86. Q What else had happened during your meeting with Mr.
Claveria, if any?
A I discovered that Complainant IEI did not do anything to

process the sale as shown by the not notarized and
undated Deed of Donation Ginia Marlafe signed despite
lapse of considerable time and contrary to the claim of
Page 18
Atty. Padilla, the Acknowledgment Receipts were not

notarized. The day in the Receipt bearing March, 2015 is
blank in contrast with the receipt complainant attached in
his affidavit which was printed with number 15 in
handwriting. The Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate is not
only contrary to our agreement but also has no technical
description as to delineate the metes and bounds of the
property bought, sir.
87. Q You said that you were given documents by Orlando
Claveria, Assistant Legal Officer of ACEHI/GN Power
Manila, do you have copies of said documents?
A Yes, sir. Here is the are the unnotarized and undated

Deed of Donation signed by Ginia Marlafe, the
Acknowledgment Receipt and the draft of Extrajudicial
Settlement of Estate with Deed of Donation, sir .
88. Q We are marking these unnotarized and undated Deed of

Donation signed by Ginia Marlafe Annexes “14”, “14-A”,
“14-B”, the Acknowledgment Receipt as Annex “15” and
the draft of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Deed of
Donation as Annexes “16”, “16-A”, “16-B” and “16-C”,
A Yes, sir.

Annexes “14”, “14-A”, “14-B” the unnotarized and
undated Deed of Donation signed by Ginia Marlafe; as
Annex “15” the Acknowledgment Receipt; and, as
Annexes 16”, “16-A”, “16-B” and “16-C” the draft of
Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Deed of Donation.
89. Q There are an allegations in Paragraph 15, 16 and 17 and

in the final paragraph of the affidavit complaint that
accuses you of swindling or estafa, what can you say
about this, if any?
A Complainant Padilla’s allegation is malicious and

preposterous for reasons I already stated. I am hurt. This
is what I get for helping them relocate 200 families by
selling our land at the cheapest price. sir
90. Q Why is the allegation malicious and preposterous?
Page 19
A It is malicious and preposterous because I am still the

one of the owners of said two (2) titles as only small
fractions thereof and not the whole realties embraced by
said titles were sold by me and my co-heirs to
complainant IEI. The Owner’s Duplicate Copy of TCT
6,066 registered under Eusebio, Domingo and Miguel and
Primo all surnames Molo including its Deed of Sale of
Registered land to James Mabanta are still in the
possession of Atty. Padilla. Second, There was no
agreement to the effect that I will surrender and give to
him the titles and he would automatically become the
owner thereof as to do so is absurd. It is still incumbent
upon me to exercise my ownership to keep the original
duplicate copy of the titles. I only lend to him the titles on
March 15, 2013 on the belief that being the lawyer of IEI,
he will facilitate the drafting of the document of Extra-
Judicial Partition with Deed of Sale and cause the survey
and subdivision of the realty. The IEI would shoulder the
expenses pursuant to our oral agreement with Mayor
Rommel Arnado the realty being sold in a very minimal
price. They very well know that it is a contract of Sale, sir
A I was even surprised he insisted that I would execute

Deed of Donation he drafted in favor of the Municipality of
Kauswagan. I refused to do such a deception because
the transaction is really a sale to the IEI and not a
donation to the Municipality. It would deprive the
government of revenue. He duped me being a non-lawyer
into signing hastily a document he prepared contrary to
what we verbally agreed upon to sign an extrajudicial
partition with deed of sale not deed of donation, to do so I
can be criminally charged by the government of tax
evasion and fraud. The agreement made by and between
IEI, AC Energy and its partner GN Power Kauswagan
Ltd., Co. clearly shows that they will purchase certain
parcels of land including portion of our realties for
relocation site. It is I who have been swindled if I execute
a Deed of Donation as never was there any agreement
that would show that the transaction is a Donation. More
than three (3) years had elapsed but one of the titles just
sleep in the hands of complainant Padilla. He never have
have the documents of sale prepared nor he gave me
copy of the technical description of the subdivided portion,
sir
Page 20
A Complainant IEI took possession of the land without

specifying the exact site of the purchase realties being
undetermined. Complainants cut 800 full grown coconut
trees and 400 other full grown fruit trees without paying
the values of the said trees without our permission or the
barangay and the Dar Office. A quarterly harvest of the
coconuts would yield P30,000 while the fruits trees would
yield P20,000. Complainant never even bothered to give
me the technical description despite knowing they only
bought 42,842 square meters portion of the realties and
it leaves us with 108,795 square meters remaining
portion of the said three (3) titles, sir.
93. Q In the Paragraph (a) of their wherefore portion

complainants alleged that you employed deceit and false
pretenses in order to appropriate for your own personal
use and benefit the amounts representing the selling price
of Parcels 2, 3 and 4 of the property in the aggregate
amount of P934,089.00, what can you say about this?
A Contrary to their allegations, I neither have the intent to

defraud the complainants nor appropriate for myself and
for my own benefit the amount of the selling price of
Parcels 2, 3, 4 of the portions of the properties we sold to
IEI in the aggregate amount of P934,080.00 for the total
area of 33,360 square meters at P28.00 per square
meters as truth is we never touched, used or divided
among ourselves as co-owners the proceeds of the
aforesaid sale as said amount was deposited in the bank
for safekeeping pending actual transfer of ownership of
the portion of our properties sold to complainants, sir.
94. Q You said that you deposited the amount for safekeeping
pending actual transfer of ownership of the portions of
your properties sold to complainants, do you have any
document to prove the same?
A Yes, here is the Bank Certification of Deposit issued by

BPI dated November 19, 2016, sir.
95. Q We are marking this Bank Certification of Deposit as

Annex “17”, do you confirm our action?
A Yes, sir.
Page 21

“17” the Bank Certification of Deposit.

evidence to indict me of the crime of Estafa under Article
315 par. 1 (b) and par. 2 (a) as the truth is, I was the
victim of the scheme and manipulation of the
complainants, sir.
97. Q Because of this case, what else do you want, if any?
A By filing this maliciouscase, the complainants shall pay

me and my co-owners the amount of P2,500 per full
grown seasoned coconut tree and P2,000 per full grown
fruit bearing tree they cut. Refund me the value of the
Estate Tax I already paid because of their failure to do it.
And in the alternative, the contract we entered be
cancelled including the Deed of Donation signed by my
daughter there being a breach to our agreement. IEI shall
return to me and my children the whole properties as I am
willing to refund the purchase price. To return to me the
Title TCT No. T-6,066 registered under Eusebio, Domingo
and Miguel and Primo all surnames Molo which were
already sold by virtue of a Deed of Sale of Registered
land to James Mabanta which are still in the possession
of complainant. If it be continued they will pay me P1,500
per square meters value of the 33,360 square meters
they occupied., sir.


complainant who filed this case. For selling the land and
helping LGU Kauswagan I only earned headaches and
stress from this malicious case, sir.
true and correct?

Page 22
JOSEFINA B. MABANTA
Affiant

PTR No. 6665056 January 8, 2016
TIN No. 166-615-120
Page 23
SWORN ATTESTATION


entitled case;




Affiant


x-- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
DEFENSE WITNESS
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT
---------------------------------------------
NAME OF WITNESS: WENCESLAO M. ALAYA-AY

CITY ADDRESS: Fortaliza St., Cocogrove, Zone 8,
Barangay Poblacion, Iligan City
OCCUPATION: Property Caretaker
---------------------------------------------
1. Q Are you willing to give your free and voluntary statement

and swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but
the truth in this investigation?
A Yes, sir.
2. Q Do you know that you will be charged for perjury if you

give false testimony?
A Yes, sir.

circumstances?
A I am WENCESLAO M. ALAYA-AY, 66 years old,

Filipino, widower, and a resident of Fortaliza St.,
Cocogrove, Zone 8, Brgy. Poblacion, Iligan City, sir.
A To support respondent JOSEFINA MABANTA in her

defense against the complainants’ charges against her for
Estafa under Article 315 par. 1 (b) and par. 2 (a), sir.
5. Q Do you know respondent JOSEFINA MABANTA?
A Yes, sir.
Page 2
6. Q Why do you know her?
A I am his property caretaker since 2014 and I always

accompanied her when she had important meetings or
transactions regarding the land under my care, sir.
7. Q Do you know the complainant Industrial Enterprises. Inc.

(IEI)?
A Yes, sir. IEI is the company duly represented by Atty.
Roberto Padilla who bought from Respondent Josefina
Mabanta and her co-heirs in the Estate of the Late James
Mabanta portions of three (3) parcels of land and the
other one (1) entire parcel of land registered under the
name of her daughter Ginia Marlafe Mabanta , sir.
8. Q Why do you know that IEI bought portions of land from

from Josefina Mabanta and her co-owners?
A Josefina Mabanta told me about the sale of the portion of

the property she and her co-heirs owned to IEI, sir.
9. Q Why did Josefina sold portion of said property to IEI, if

you know?
A It is to be used as relocation sites of 200 families affected

by the construction of a multi-billion coal power plant at
Lapayan, Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte and I also heard it
from Mayor Rommel Arnado, sir.
10. Q What is the purpose why respondent Josefina made

follow-ups, if any?
A She made follow-ups to request the mayor to compel Atty.

Padilla to expedite transfer process and secure the
Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Deed of Sale.
A I accompanied respondent when she met complainant

Atty. Padilla and Orlando Claveria, Assistant Legal Officer
of ACEHI(GN Power, Manila) at Iliganon Restaurant at
Pala-o, Iligan City sometime in 2015, sir.
12. Q What happened at the Iliganon Restaurant, if any?
Page 3
A Josefina asked Atty. Padilla to gave her the Extrajudicial

Settlement with Deed of Sale but Atty. Padilla just
ignored her demand, sir.
13. Q What else did you do next, if any?
A I also accompanied respondent Josefina as she made

follow-ups with Mayor Arnado in his municipal office and
even went to his house to ask his help to compel Atty.
Padilla to release the prepared Extra-Judicial Partition
with Deed of Sale for her and her co-heirs to sign, sir.
14. Q What did the Mayor say, if any?
A I heard Mayor Arnado told her “AYAW KABALAKA, AKO

NA BAHALA KANG ATTY. PADILLA, JOSIE!” [Do not
worry, I will take care of Atty. Padilla, Josie], sir
15. Q In complainant’s affidavit-complaint Respondent

Josephine was charged with Estafa because she
borrowed the original duplicate copies of titles No. TCT
No. T-6,067 and TCT No. 69 but she refused to return the
titles complainant Padilla and she did not Execute
Extrajudicial Partition with Deed of Donation as alleged,
what can you say about the charges?
A The allegation is malicious and has no basis and it is an

injustice, sir.
16. Q Why?
A Atty. Padilla deceived respondent Josefina because the

transaction they entered is a contract of sale and not
donation, sir.
A I personally know that Respondent Josefina borrowed the

titles to secure Certificates Authorizing Registration from
the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) because she made
ACEHI pay the Estate Taxes of all the properties of the
Late James, Felicisimo and Marcela all surnamed
Mabanta and titles she borrowed for Atty. Padilla were
needed to execute an Extrajudicial Settlement of the
Estate of the Late James Mabanta as GN Power also
bought 3,850 square meters lot in OCT No. 6524 titled
Page 4
yet finished, sir. I am even the one who follow up the
processing. Another reason is that Josefina was
compelled to process the settlement of estate because
Atty. Padilla failed to process the transfer. As owner,
Respondent Josefina still has the right to hold the titles
because portions only of the titles were sold and not the
entire property embraced by the title. Therefore,
A Yes, sir

Affiant
identity through his Senior Citizen ID No. 1650 issued on May 17, 2010 at Iligan City,

PTR No. 6665056 January 8, 2016
TIN No. 166-615-120
Page 5
SWORN ATTESTATION
I, ATTY. EMMANUEL C, SALIBAY, of legal age, married, Filipino

I personally conducted the examination of affiant and inform
him that he is under oath, and that he may be liable for false
testimony or perjury if he is not telling the truth;
I have faithfully recorded the questions I asked and the answers

of the witness, after encoding and reading it in English and translating
the same in Cebuano dialect which he understood; and,
Neither I nor any other person then present had coached the
witness regarding his answers in this judicial affidavit.


Counsel for the Respondent

the City of Iligan, Philippines. Affiant exhibiting to me his Integrated Bar of the
Page 4
yet finished, sir. Another reason is that respondent
Josefina was compelled to process the settlement of
estate because Atty. Padilla failed to process the transfer.
As owner, Respondent Josefina still has the right to hold
the titles because portions only of the titles were sold and
not the entire property embraced by the title. Therefore,

A Yes, sir

Affiant
identity through his Senior Citizen ID No. 1650 issued on May 17, 2010 at Lasi, Siquijor,

PTR No. 6665056 January 8, 2016
TIN No. 166-615-120
Iligan City
ROBERTO C. PADILLA
FOR: ESTAFA under
and par.2 (a), RPC
JOSEFINA B. MABANTA
Respondent.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO FILE COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT
Comes now the respondent by counsel to the Honorable City

Prosecutor most respectfully alleges that:
1 — The respondent received a Subpoena dated October 26,

2016 from this Honorable Office on November 3, 2016 at 5 in the
afternoon;
2 — The Honorable Investigating Prosecutor Jasmin Guiuo-

Diaz required respondent to submit counter-affidavit and affidavits of
witnesses within 10 days from November 3, 2016 or until November
14, 2016 since the 10th day falls on a holiday;
2. Respondent hired the services of the undersigned counsel in

order that a proper pleading could be filed;
3 — Due to equally important legal works counsel fall short of

time to assist respondent in preparing intelligent judicial counter-
affidavit, submission of evidences and affidavit of witnesses for her
defense;
Page 2
4— The undersigned is requesting that an extension of time

for at least 10 days from today or until November 24, 2016, be
afforded so that responsive pleading be submitted;
5 — This motion is not designed to delay the proceedings as
respondent is determined to prove her innocence and she has
meritorious grounds to rebut the complaint but only for the reason
abovementioned.
WHEREFORE, counsel respectfully prays that a last extension

of 10 days from today, or until November 24, 2016 to submit judicial
counter-affidavit and judicial affidavit of witnesses be afforded to
respondent.

PTR No. 6665056 January 08, 2016
TIN No. 166-615-120
Page 3
Notice of Hearing

Greeting:
EMMANUEL C. SALIBAY

Greeting:
EMMANUEL C. SALIBAY

Iligan City
ROBERTO C. PADILLA
FOR: ESTAFA under
and par.2 (a), RPC
JOSEFINA B. MABANTA
Respondent.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

5 in the afternoon;

holiday;

defense;

affidavit;
Page 2

complaint.

PTR No. 6665056 January 08, 2016
TIN No. 166-615-120
Page 3
Notice of Hearing

Greeting:
EMMANUEL C. SALIBAY

Greeting:
EMMANUEL C. SALIBAY

Iligan City
ROBERTO C. PADILLA
FOR: ESTAFA under
and par.2 (a), RPC
JOSEFINA B. MABANTA
Respondent.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

5 in the afternoon;

holiday;

defense;

affidavit;
Page 2

complaint.


PTR No. 6665056 January 08, 2016
TIN No. 166-615-120
Page 3
Notice of Hearing

Greeting:
EMMANUEL C. SALIBAY

Greeting:
EMMANUEL C. SALIBAY

JOSEFINA B. MABANTA
- AND -
SALIBAY Law Office
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS the CLIENT desires to engage the legal services of COUNSEL being
Respondent in the case for Estafa under Article 315 par. 1 (b) and par. 2 (a) filed by
Industrial enterprises, Inc., represented by Atty. Roberto C. Padilla before the Office of
the City Prosecutor Iligan City and for the recovery of her property under onerous sale
and the latter is willing to render such services,
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants between

the parties, they have agreed as follows:
(1) Counsel shall assume and perform all legal services required for the client as
respondent in the aforesaid case and at the aforesaid venue;
Acceptance Fee of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P100,000.00). The amount
of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) shall be tendered upon the execution of
this instrument the balance of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) shall be paid
upon the submission of the Judicial Counter-Affidavit to the Prosecution Office. The
Acceptance Fee shall include any case for recovery of the realties;
(3) For each appearance of counsel in any hearing the client shall pay ONE
THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000.00) whether the case is called, heard or postponed.
(4) In any other cases relative hereto that may be filed, all other expenses such as
but not limited to filing and docketing fees, sheriff’s fees, transcript of stenographic
notes, photocopying of documents, mailing expenses, shall be for the account of the
client upon presentment of the proper notice or statement of account by the undersigned.

amount, royalty and property recovered as Attorney’s Fee in the case for the recovery of
the properties involved.
Page 2 of Two Pages
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto affixed their signature this
th
25 Day of October 2016 at Iligan City, Philippines.
JOSEFINA B. MABANTA
Clients
EMMANUEL C. SALIBAY
Counsel
Signed in the Presence of:
___________________ ____________________
Acknowledgment
C i t y o f I l i g a n) Sc.
x- - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - x
BEFORE ME, a Notary Public in and for the City of Iligan and Lanao del Norte, Philippines,
this__th day of October 2016, personally appeared the following
NAME GOV. ISSUED ID SERIAL NO. EXPIRY DATE
JOSEFINA B. MABANTA Unified Multi-Purpose ID CRN 006-0113-697b-3 none
EMMANUEL C. SALIBAY LTO Prof Driver’s License No. M02-00-046902 2018-04-15
known to me and to me known to be the same persons who executed the foregoing Contract of Legal
Services which they voluntarily signed in my presence for the purpose stated therein and who
acknowledged to me that the same is their own free and voluntary act and deed. This instrument consists of
two pages and signed by the parties and their instrumental witnesses in the left margin of the first page and
in the body of the second page.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my notarial seal on
the date and place above written.
Notary Public
Coconuts per harvest quarterly: P30,000
Fruits trees will income P20,000
Article 315 Estafa is committed any

person who shall defraud another by any
of the following means:
Paragraph 1. With unfaithfulness or

abuse of confidence, namely:
(b) By misappropriating or converting, to
the prejudice of another, money, goods,
or any other personal property received
by the offender in trust or on
commission, or for administration, or
under any other obligation involving the
duty to make delivery of or to return the
same, even though such obligation be
totally or partially guaranteed by a bond;
or by denying having received such
money, goods, or other property.
Paragraph 2. By means of any of the
following pretenses or fraudulent acts
executed prior to or simultaneously with
the commission of fraud:
(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely
pretending to possess power, influence,
qualifications, [property, credit, agency,
business or imaginary transactions, or by
means of other similar deceits.
x-- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
DEFENSE WITNESS
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT
---------------------------------------------
NAME OF WITNESS: MARIO B. DECENA

CITY ADDRESS: Barangay San Roque, Iligan City
OCCUPATION: Media Practioner

---------------------------------------------
1. Q Are you willing to give your free and voluntary statement and
swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
in this investigation?
A Yes, sir.
2. Q Do you know that you will be charged for perjury if you give
false testimony?
A Yes, sir.

circumstances?
A I am MARIO B. DECENA, 50 years old, Filipino, married and

a resident of Barangay San Roque, Iligan City, sir.
A To support the allegations in the complaint of Complainant

CHRISTOPHER COOPER against MARILOU AMBOS,
CAIRODEN MANIRI and MITCH GONZALES for violation of
RA 10175 otherwise known as the Anti-cybercrime Act of
2012, sir.
4. Q Do you know Christopher Cooper?
A Yes, sir?;
Page 2
5. Q Why do you know him?
A He is my friend since 2004
6. Q Do you know MARILOU AMBOS?
A No , sir.
7. Q Do you know CAIRODEN MANIRI?
A No, sir.
8. Q Do you know MITCH GONZALES?
A No sir, but Christopher Cooper told me Mitch Gonzales is the

person whom I know only as JOHANS GALLARETA, a friend
in my FACEBOOK account, sir.
9. Q You stated that according to Christopher Cooper, Mitch

Gonzales is the person whom you know only as JOHANS
GALLARETA is a friend in your FB account, why?
A When I invited her as FB Friend because her profile looked

familiar, she accepted me, sir.
A She asked me in the FB if I know the landline number of the

NBI in Iligan City, sir.
A I asked her why, sir.
A In the latter part, she send me the message that she wanted
to file a case against Christopher Cooper?
13. Q What did you do if any?
A I asked her in the FB, why. sir
A She told me Christopher maligned her, Marilou Ambus, in the

FB?
Page 3

A I asked her if she is really JOHANS GALLARETA, sir.
16. Q Why did you asked her?
A Because the profile appearing in the FB is that of Johans

Gallareta and not of Marilou Ambus, sir.
17. Q What was her reply, if any?
A She is Johans Gallareta, sir
A Being a member of the press and as a former Deputy

Intelligence Officer of the Bantay Bayan Foundation, Inc. who
personally know Christopher, I exerted every effort in the
course of our conversation to extract the motive of her
impersonation until she posted in the same account the image
and name of Christopher Cooper, sir.
A I reported the matter to my friend Christopher Cooper for

verification, sir.
A Christopher Cooper told me it was Mitch Gonzales as said

person and Johans Gallareta are one and the same using
bogus FB account, sir.
20. Q Do you have IT records of your conversation, if any?
A I have both hard and soft copy, sir.
A Yes, sir

Page 4
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affix my signature this 7th

day of July at Iligan City
MARIO B. DECENA
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 7th day of July at the City of Iligan,
Philippines. Affiant personally appeared who has satisfactorily proven to me his identity through
his Love Radio Media ID No. 04-033, personally known to me and to me known to be the same
person who executed the foregoing which he voluntarily signed in my presence for the purpose
stated therein.

PTR No. 6665056 January 08, 2016
MCLE Compliance No. V-0000894, October 11, 2013
TIN No. 166-615-120
History of the Case

Estafa Case – Counter Affidavit
History:
Sometime in 2013, Mayor Rommel Arnado, Mayor of

Kauswagan lanao del Norte approached the respondent of
the case, told her, he Mayor Arnado needed a land where to
relocate the families living near the seashore of Libertad,
commonly known as Lapayan, barangay of kauswagan.
Further, he Mayor Arnado told me that a power plant will rise
soon in Lapayan which he told would bring employment to
the people of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte and the income
of the municipality will soar high and the municipality of
Kauswagan will prosper and developed so with the adjacent
places.
Mayor Arnado asked the respondent if respondent can
sell portions of the land located in Lapayan belonging to the
Mabanta’s family because the property was near the
highway and can accommodate more or less 200 families for
relocation. Mayor Arnado further told the respondent the
urgent need of the land to relocate the families living in the
area owned by Marinduque Mining Company, known to be
requestered by the government and was bought by Industrial
enterprises, Inc (IEI) so that a power plant can start the
ground work.
Mayor Arnado introduced the respondent to Industrial
Enterprises Inc (IEI) represented by Atty. Robert Padilla. The
introduction was done in the office of Mayor Rommel Arnado
in Kauswagan Lanao del Norte. Negotiation of the land
started. Respondent at first did not offer to sell the land due
to reason that the land was still titled to the deceased
owners and not yet transferred to the living heirs. Before the
thought of selling the land, the respondent went to the
Bureau of Internal Revenue, Iligan City to assessed the
estate, inheritance taxes and other taxes of the land owned
by the Mabanta in Kauswagan lanao del Norte, for her
intention to transfer the title to the living heirs. The taxes was
peg at 1.2 million more or less depending on how many
years the owners are dead.
Many times, the respondent was called by Mayor Arnado
to accept to sell the land to Industrial enterprises Inc.
represented by Atty. Robert Padilla and in return the
Industrial Enterprises Inc. thru the its representative Atty.
Padilla will donate the land to the Municipality of
Kauswagan..
The respondent thought that selling some portion of the
property in Lapayan and the benefits the residents of the
place will get, and the employment it will generate and
income of the barangay lapayan and the Municipality of
kauswagan will get, development of the area will surely be
great and improved to the maximum.
The respondent will sell the land at P 500.00 per square
meter. However Mayor Arnado told the respondent, the
value of the land , since it was an agricultural land is very
minimal. Further it is for the good of the people and the
municipality of Kauswagan, Mayor Arnado asked if
respondent can sell it at a lower price at P 28.00 per square
meter.
Respondent thought the good it brought to the people and
the municipality, and with open heart, accepted the priced at
P 28.00 per square meter, a very very low priced without
thinking that a multi billion power plant will be built in the
area. Respondent, agreed on the price at P28.00 per square
meter with the condition and agreement that documents
such as Extrajudicial Settlement and Deed of Sale and other
documents will be made by Industrial Enterprises Inc. and
the payment of estate tax, inheritance tax and other taxes for
that matter will be shouldered and paid by Industrial
Enterprises represented by Atty. Robert Padilla and will be
one to donate to Municipal Government of Kauswagan
through mayor Rommel Arnado and not the respondent
Josefina.
On October 22, respondent received from the Office of the

Prosecutor , ESTAFA case filed by Industrial Enterprises Inc.
represented by Atty. Roberto C. Padilla
1. Extrajudicial Settlement for T- 69 - Land area – 66,

434 sq. m registered in the name of Felisaicimo
Mabanta married to Marcela Tan, abundio Mabanta,
Valeriano married to Romana Barquilla and Amal
Mabanta
2. Extrajudicial Settlement for T- 6067 titled to James
Mabanta
with land area , 42860 sq.m.
3. Extrajudicial Settlement for T-6066 titled to Eusebio
Molo married to Remedios P.
Molo, Domingo Molo married to Rosalina P. Molo,
Miguel Molo married to
Susana M. Molo and primo molo married to Pilar Molo
with land 42862 sq.m.
All three (3) extrajudicial settlement for T-69, T-6067

and T-6066 was notarized by Atty. Warren Lim, on October
7, 2016.(Annex 1,2,3)
Respondent caused the preparation of the Extrajudicial
Settlement of the late James Mabanta since for almost three
(3) years , Industrial Enterprises Inc, thru its representative
Atty. Robert Padilla did not do as what was agreed verbally
during
the negotiation period in 2013 together with Mayor Rommel
Arnado.
No date was reflected in acknowledgment receipt of P

889, 588.00 pesos received by the respondent in March
2013, however, the letter received by respondent on
September 5, 2016, requiring her to return the original
owners copy of T- 69 and T-6067 , the date March 15, 2013
was already reflected.( Annex 4, 5).
Two of respondent children, Christine Mae B. Mabanta

and Alvin B. Mabanta, did not affix their signatures, despite
the respondent vehemently clamor to wait for her two
children to sign, IEI representative Atty. Robert Padilla,
forced respondent to received the payment. The
acknowledgement receipt was not notarized nor witnesses.
Atty Robert Padilla, representative of IEI made respondent
signed in haste and without explaining to respondent the
effect of the documents respondent signed, as the
respondent is not an attorney and have known little
knowledge of the implication of the law.
In the case of Ginia Marlafe B. Mabanta, owner of TCT-

21051, respondent daughter, Industrial Enterprises Inc.
representative Atty. Robert Padilla, made in advance the
Deed of Donation and let her signed without giving
explanation to respondent’s daughter for her to understand
the what she is signing nor Mayor Rommel Arnado, of
Kauswagan Lanao del Norte and the implication it brought
since the same TCT-21051, is bought by IEI represented by
Atty. Robert Padilla. Respondent cannot otherwise but to
signed as witness.
The given copy of the Deed of Donation prepared by IEI

thru Atty. Robert Padilla signed by Ginia Marlafe Mabanta,
respondent daughter was not notarized and no date
reflected when it was signed. (Annex 6).
Regarding TCT – 6066 registered in the name of

Eusebio, Domingo, Miguel, and Primo all surnamed Molo,
and TCT-6067 registered in the name Late James Mabanta,
acknowledgement receipt no. 2 & 3, IEI thru Atty. Robert
Padilla, that respondent Josefina, will execute the
extrajudicial settlement with Deed of Donation, however, IEI
thru Atty. Robert Padilla, have made the extrajudicial
settlement of Estate with Deed of Donation in 2014, (Annex
7) that received on October 7, 2016
Respondent in her right mind, will never execute a deed

of donation because she sold it to Industrial Enterprises at P
28.00 per square meter, in a very very low priced. Industrial
Enterprises Inc. thru Atty. Robert Padilla, the buyer, is the
rightful person to donate it to the Municipal Government of
kauswagan Lanao del Norte and not my client, Josefina as
what was being agreed during the negotiation period in early
2013.
Respondent has the right to demand the buyer to pay

taxes to BIR, to the municipality of kauswagan, since the
price of the land was very minimal. The buyer, Industrial
Enterprises, Inc. previous owner of vast tract of land in
kauswagan lanao del Norte, represented by Atty. Robert
Padilla cannot pay the taxes (estate tax and other taxes) as
required by the government, is a great dishonor to the
company (additional statement)
Industrial Enterprises Inc. is in the position to pay

for the estate , transfer tax and other taxes required by
BIR and land taxes from Kauswagan municipality as IEI
owned a vast estate consisting of 100 hectares. Sixty
(60) hectares was sold to AC Energy Holding Inc, IEI will
share with AC Energy and its partner in Kauswagan,
called GN Power Kauswagan Ltd Co. the cost of
relocating the informal settlers at the rate 65-35 for IEI
and power plant ( Annex complaint affidavit no.4)
Respondent believe that her donation to the

Municipality of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte, will cause her
more damages or even another estafa case because the
property was sold to IEI thru Atty. Padilla and same property
she will donate to the Municipality of
Kauswagan, lanao del Norte.
On July 15, 2015, Respondent borrowed TCT – 6067

and TCT – 69, with the hope to transfer TCT – 6067 to
son James B. Mabanta and TCT – 69 to son Peter Alfred
B. Mabanta as this was the will of the deceased father
James Mabanta.
Estate tax, transfer tax, inheritance tax and other taxes
was paid by GNPower since a parcel of land, OCT No. P-
6,523 consisting of 3,850 sq. m titled to the heirs of
Teodulo Mabanta was bought by GNPower.
Respondent, as one of the heirs and head of the family,

has the right to keep the original owners copy of TCT-6066,
TCT – 6067 and TCT- 69. She has to keep it safe for the
other heirs future use. IEI thru Atty. Robert Padilla was given
a Xerox copy of the three(3) original owner’s copy. (Annex
8,9)
TCT -69 , has an area of 66,434 sq. m. IEI thru its
representative Atty. Robert Padilla,
only bought 11,071 sq.m, Mabanta’s family still
owned 55,363 sq.m.
TCT – 6067 has an area of 42,860 sq.m. IEI thru Atty.
Padilla, only bought 10,110 sq.m.
James Mabanta’s heir still owned 32,750 sq.m.
TCT – 6066 has an area of 42,862 sq.m. Only 12,179 sq.m
was bought by IEI thru Atty.
Robert Padilla. Mabanta’s heir still owned
30,683 sq.m.
Industrial Enterprise Inc. thru Atty. Robert Padilla held

the original owner’s copy of TCT – 6066 and other
documents such deed of sale of the Eusebio, Domingo,
Primo and Miguel all surnamed molo, and that the title
should be given back to respondent Josefina B. Mabanta, as
still owned 30,683 sq.m. from the said land. The heirs of
deceased Pedro Liquit, one of the heirs of Conception
Virtudazo Liquit, half sister of deceased Felicisimo
Mabanta, owned 10,000 sq. m in TCT- 6066.
Industrial Enterprise Inc. represented by Atty.

Padilla, wanted the IEI bought property, be donated to
the Kauswagan Municipality and Atty. Padilla wanted to
return to him the original owners copy of the land TCT –
6067 and TCT – 69 by the respondent.
The TCT – 69, TCT – 6066 and TCT 6067, all original
owner’s copy was in IEI representative, Atty. Robert
Padilla’s possession.
TCT – 6066 since 2013 to 2016, almost 3 years and for
TCT – 69 and TCT – 6067 from 2013 to 2015, almost 3
years.
There were no extrajudicial settlement of the late James
Mabanta made or any documents so that the bought
land will be given to the buyer.
Respondent asked IEI to furnish her a copy of the

technical description or approved survey plan. As this
documents are needed to establish boundaries of both
properties bought by IEI and the remaining portion of the
Mabanta’s property. Up to this time, respondent request was
placed into deaf ears.
Respondent travel to Europe was in 2014 not in 2015

contrary to Atty. Robert Padilla’s statement ( Annex )
It was never respondent Josefina false pretense to

execute an extrajudicial settlement of the estate of
James Mabanta, with Deed of Donation.
Before respondent agreed to the amount of P 28.00 per
square meter, the agreement on the sale of portions of
land of mabanta’s property between Mayor Rommel
Arnado, the respondent and IEI representative, Atty.
Robert Padilla was that , IEI will make the necessary
documents specially the Extrajudicial settlement of late
James Mabanta, Deed of Sale and to pay the estate tax,
transfer tax, documentary and others taxes required by
the law and not Extrajudicial settlement with Deed of
Donation.
Respondent after the payment of the 4 parcels of

land, turned over four (4) original owners titles, TCT- 69,
TCT – 6066, original copy of deed of sale of Domingo
Molo, Eusebio Molo, Primo Molo, Miguel Molo along with
the original copy of deed of sale of Domingo, Eusebio,
Primo, Miguel all surnamed molo, TCT-6067 and T-
21,051 registered to Ginia Marlafe Mabanta. ( Annex )
After the receipt of the payment, in March 2013,

respondent was made to come to Padilla law office to
provide information needed for the drafting of the
extrajudicial settlement and Deed of Sale and other
documents.
Respondent met Atty. Junella Limpangog. She was

assigned by Atty. Padilla to work on the documents. For
several meetings with Atty. Junella Limpangog,
respondents was providing all needed information of the
family of Felicisimo mabanta, Marcela Mabanta, James
Mabanta, relatives and blood relationship among others,
in the end, no documents was made .
Respondent Josefina was then referred to Atty.

Eduardo Ulindang, one of Atty. Padilla partner in the law
office, to continue what Atty. Junella Limpangog started.
Once again respondent provided the information and
details of her family. Several times she met Atty.
Ulindang at Atty. Padilla’s office, still no extrajudicial
settlement and deed of sale was made.
Atty. Robert Padilla made respondent to believe

that an extrajudicial settlement and deed of sale will be
prepared by his lawyers partner. Respondent appeared
in his law office several times but no extrajudicial
settlement with Deed of Sale was done.
Days, months, years have passed, 2013 to 2015 for

TCT – 69 and TCT- 6067 , almost three(3) years no
extrajudicial settlement of late James Mabanta and Deed
of Sale was made. For TCT – 6066, since 2013 to 2016,
almost 4 years in the hands of Atty. Padilla, no
extrajudicial settle with deed of sale was made.
Respondent many times came to the municipal

office in Kauswagan and to the house of Mayor Arnado
for the needed help to compel Atty. Padilla to
make/prepare the long awaited extrajudicial settlement
with Deed of Sale for her signature and her children.
Mayor Arnado told the respondent that he already called
Atty. Padilla many times but Atty. Padilla did not mine
his call.
The respondent came again to request mayor

Arnado, to ask Atty. Padilla of the extrajudicial partition
with deed of sale. More than two (2) years have passed
since the land was sold and still no documents was
prepared. Mayor Arnado told respondent that maybe the
delay was caused by the change of documents from
Deed of Sale to Deed of Donation for the respondent’s
signature and her children.
Respondent told Mayor Arnado, she and her family will
never sign the deed of donation since the property was
bought by IEI and IEI should be the one to donate it to
the Municipality of Kauswagan and not the respondent
nor her children.
Mayor Arnado promised to call Atty. Padilla about the
extrajudicial documents but mayor Arnado’s plead was
not heard. No documents was prepared.
Respondent became uneasy and wondering, it too long
to prepare the extrajudicial settlement and deed of sale.
Mr. Orlando Claveria of GNPower, Manila came to

schedule meeting with Atty. Padilla and the respondent
regarding the extrajudicial settlement and Deed of Sale.
We met in ILiganon restaurant in Palao this city. Atty.
Padilla said, respondent signed it, which the respondent
vehemently denied.
Respondent said that documents such as

extrajudicial settlement and deed of sale need to be
signed respondents children as they are also heirs of
late James Mabanta, their father. She cannot remember
signing documents without her children also affixing
their signature for TCT – 69, TCT – 6067 and TCT -6066.
The documents respondent signed was

acknowledgement receipt of the payment of the land
totaled to P 1, 199,576.00 for the 4,1842 square meters
at P 28.00 per square meters lot and with nos. 2& 3 of
the same acknowledgment receipt was for the
respondent to execute the extrajudicial settlement of the
late James Mabanta with deed of donation for TCT –
6066 and TCT – 6067 and for TCT – 69 for extrajudicial
settlement with deed of donation/deed of sale and for
her and her five children signature.
Atty. Robert Padilla, did not only comply with the

verbal agreement made between the respondent, Mayor
Arnado and himself before the sale of the land but also
tricked respondent into signing the acknowledgment
receipt with a conflicting statement. Respondent sold
the land, accepted the payment and will have to execute
the extrajudicial settlement with Deed of Donation to the
municipality of kauswagan thru Mayor Rommel Arnado .
Atty. Padilla did not explained to the respondent the
contents of the documents, as she is not a lawyer. (
ignorance of the law excuses no one, comment)
Respondent was compelled to seek legal

assistance to make the Extrajudicial Settlement of the
late James Mabanta since Atty. Robert Padilla did not do
it.(Annex a,b,c)
Respondent did not employ deceit, nor trickery and

malice. The land was sold in a very very low price, at
P28.00 per square as compared to other land owners
who also sell their lands to GNPower in a high price, ( a
Mr. Alde Tan, deceased James Mabanta first cousin who
owned land in Baraason, KLN beside respondent owned
land) and tenants residing in tacub ( a Mr. Abejuela )
who are asked for bigger remuneration as tenants, while
respondent sold it in a very low price because in her
heart and mind, she would like to help the people and
the municipality of Kauswagan prosper. A multi-billion
worth power plant to rise in Lapayan, Kauswagan Lanao
del Norte would bring more jobs, employment and
business and economic growth to the place, if
respondent agree to sell portion of the land belonging to
Mabanta’s family which was suited for housing
settlement as it is near the national road, near the
elementary and high school, accessible to
transportation and other facilities to Industrial
Enterprises Inc. thru Atty. Robert Padilla . She did agree
to sell 42,842 square meters( more than four hectares )
as relocation area of the informal settlers where the
power plant will rise with some conditions. Needed
documents such as extrajudicial settlement with deed of
sale, payment of taxes at BIR and any other documents
needed.
Respondent has the right to take hold of the

original owners title because she and
her children have remaining portions of TCT – 69, TCT -
6066 and TCT- 6067 much
bigger that the sold portions. As the head of the family,
she has to take care of all the
their land holdings, to keep it safe for her children. The
fact that respondent
surrendered all original owners copy to Atty. Padilla
from the year 2013 until 2015
for TCT- 69 and TCT- 6067 and for TCT -6066 until to
date, is still in the possession of Atty Padilla is not
deceitful, false pretences and malice.
IEI representative Atty. Robert Padilla has not done
something to cause the making
of necessary documents to prove that the property
belonged to IEI or to anybody else.
IEI representative, Atty. Robert Padilla wanted the

original owners copy given back to him but then he
wanted the land to be donated by respondent to the
Municipal government of Kauswagan thru Mayor
Rommel Arnado. Respondent should give the title to the
Mayor of Kauswagan KLN instead to Atty. Robert
Padilla. ( May or may not be included)
Respondent needed the original owners copy of

TCT – 69 and TCT-6067. She went and see personally
Atty. Robert Padilla at his office. Respondent with kind
heart asked to have the two titles and explained to him
the reason that respondent needed the two titles for
transfer of said land titles to heir James B. Mabanta and
heir Peter Alfred Mabanta.
GNPower in 2013 bought 3,850 square meters lot, OCT
no. 6523 titled to the heirs of Teodulo Mabanta . The lot
was located at the seaside of barangay Lapayan where
the power plant will be constructed.
GNPower thru its representative Orlando Claveria

was then working on the transfer of OCT no. 6523 to
GNPower. The estate tax, documentary tax, transfer tax
and other taxes was paid by GNPower so that The
Certificate Authorizing(CAR) Registration, it is for
transaction involving transfer of Real and personal
properties finally was issued by the Bureau of Internal
Revenue on November 5, 2015 in Iligan City ( Annexes
, , , ). With the issued CAR, transfer of properties
of dead owners to its heir can be done without paying in
big amount for estate tax though has to pay other taxes
required by BIR. Extrajudicial settlement of the late
James Mabanta, is thus required.
The damages incurred by IEI, the power plant is not
a damaged caused by the respondent but the
irresponsible and corrupt mind of IEI representative
Atty. Robert Padilla. For almost 3 years the original titles
was in his hands nothing was done.
IEI thru Atty. Robert Padilla, constructed the

houses and other amenities in the area when there is no
deed of sale contracted between the seller and the
buyer, no approved subdivision plan. And copy of the
technical description of the land was not given to the
owner for her and her heirs to make sure they do not go
beyond what they intent to buy.
IEI thru Atty. Robert Padilla, cut off around 400

coconut trees without the permit from the owner, from
the barangay officials and from the DAR office. Without
the deed of sale, respondent Josefina Mabanta and her
children was still the owner of the land.
The ESTAFA case filed by Atty. Robert Padilla

against my client, respondent Josefina Mabanta was
baseless and shamed (PAGPAKAULAW) the
respondent who with generous heart offered her more
than four hectares of land at a very very low price of P
28.00 per square, for a multi-billion power plant to be
established/built in the area, selling a prime lot, more or
less 500 meters away from the national road, near the
elementary and high school , accessible to
transportation of any kind , for relocation of squatters at
the seaside areas of barangay Lapayan is filed for
ESTAFA.
IEI thru the representation of Atty. Robert Padilla

wanted it donated by respondent for reason that they do
not want to spend money in paying taxes as required by
the government especially BIR and the municipality of
kauswagan Lanao del Norte. A multi- million company
like Industrial Enterprises, Inc. not willing to pay the
government and have compromised a government
employee, my client, her obligations to help find income
for the government, and is tagged as estafa – dor.
Respondent, Josefina B. Mabanta and her children
will returned the amount of P 934,080, paid by IEI thru
Atty. Robert Padilla and will possess back the subject
land to the owner, Josefina B.Mabanta and her children.
The money was deposited at the Bank of Phil. Island. (
Annex ).
IEI thru Atty. Robert Padilla, would not return to the

owner the lot, they can buy it at P 1,500.00 per square
meter, this our prayer and IEI to pay the damages done
to the respondent in the amount of P
______________________. ( Atty. Named the price).
History of the Case

History:

places.
sequestered by the government and was bought by
Industrial enterprises, Inc (IEI) so that a power plant can
start the ground work.


Kauswagan..


meter.

P 28.00 per square meter, a very low priced without thinking
that a multi-billion power plant will be built in the area.
Respondent, agreed on the price at P28.00 per square
Josefina.


Mabanta
Mabanta
All three (3) extrajudicial settlement for T-69, T-6067 and T-

6066 was notarized by Atty. Warren Lim, on October 7,
2016.(Annex 1,2,3)

during
Arnado.
No date was reflected in acknowledgment receipt of P 889,

588.00 pesos received by the respondent in March 2013,
however, the letter received by respondent on September 5,
2016, requiring her to return the original owners copy of T-
69 and T-6067 , the date March 15, 2013 was already
reflected.( Annex 4, 5).
Two of respondent children, Christine Mae B. Mabanta and

Alvin B. Mabanta, did not affix their signatures, despite the
respondent vehemently clamor to wait for her two children to
sign, IEI representative Atty. Robert Padilla, forced
respondent to received the payment. The acknowledgement
receipt was not notarized nor witnessed. Atty Robert Padilla,
representative of IEI made respondent signed in haste and
without explaining to respondent the effect of the documents
respondent signed, as the respondent is not an attorney and
have known little knowledge of the implication of the law.

signed as witness.



2013.

Padilla cannot pay the taxes (estate tax and other taxes ) as
company.

more damaged or even another estafa case because the

and TCT – 69, with the hope to transfer TCT – 6067 to son
James B. Mabanta and TCT – 69 to son Peter Alfred B.
Mabanta as this the will of the deceased father James
Mabanta.

was paid by GNPower since a parcel of land, TCT
consisting of sq. m titled to Mabanta was bought
by GNPower.

8,9)
owned 55,363 sq.m.
Robert Padilla. Mabanta’s heir still owned 30,683 sq.m.

Industrial Enterprise Inc. thru Atty. Robert Padilla held the
original owner’s copy of TCT – 6066 and other documents
such deed of sale of the Eusebio, Domingo, Primo and
Miguel all surnamed molo, and that the title should be given
back to respondent Josefina B. Mabanta, as still owned
30,683 sq.m. She demanded atty. It has been three years
Padilla that the title be returned to her but the latter refused.
Industrial Enterprise Inc. represented by Atty. Padilla,

wanted the bought property by IEI, donated to the
Kauswagan Municipality and Atty. Padilla wanted to return to
him the original owners copy of the land by the respondent.
owner’s copy was in his possession. TCT – 6066 since 2013
to 2016, almost 3 years and for TCT – 69 and TCT – 6067
from 2013 to 2015, almost 3 years. There noextrajudicial
settlement of the late James Mabanta made or any
document so that the bought land will be given to the rightful
owner.

technical description or survey plan. As this documents is
needed to establish boundaries of both property bought by
IEI and the remaining portion of the Mabanta’s property. Up
tp this time, respondent request was placed into deaf ears.

Next part will be encoded tomorrow

History of the Case
History:

places.
requestered by the government and was bought by Industrial
enterprises, Inc (IEI) so that a power plant can start the
ground work.
Kauswagan..
meter.
P 28.00 per square meter, a very very low priced without
thinking that a multi billion power plant will be built in the
area. Respondent, agreed on the price at P28.00 per square
Josefina.


Mabanta
Mabanta
All three (3) extrajudicial settlement for T-69, T-6067

and T-6066 was notarized by Atty. Warren Lim, on October
7, 2016.(Annex 1,2,3)

during
Arnado.
No date was reflected in acknowledgment receipt of P

889, 588.00 pesos received by the respondent in March
2013, however, the letter received by respondent on
September 5, 2016, requiring her to return the original
owners copy of T- 69 and T-6067 , the date March 15, 2013
was already reflected.( Annex 4, 5).
Two of respondent children, Christine Mae B. Mabanta

and Alvin B. Mabanta, did not affix their signatures, despite
the respondent vehemently clamor to wait for her two
children to sign, IEI representative Atty. Robert Padilla,
forced respondent to received the payment. The
acknowledgement receipt was not notarized nor witnesses.
Atty Robert Padilla, representative of IEI made respondent
signed in haste and without explaining to respondent the
effect of the documents respondent signed, as the
respondent is not an attorney and have known little
knowledge of the implication of the law.

signed as witness.



2013.

Padilla cannot pay the taxes (estate tax and other taxes) as
company (additional statement)
Industrial Enterprises Inc. is in the position to pay

for the estate , transfer tax and other taxes required by
BIR and land taxes from Kauswagan municipality as IEI
owned a vast estate consisting of 100 hectares. Sixty
(60) hectares was sold to AC Energy Holding Inc, IEI will
share with AC Energy and its partner in Kauswagan,
called GN Power Kauswagan Ltd Co. the cost of
relocating the informal settlers at the rate 65-35 for IEI
and power plant ( Annex complaint affidavit no.4)

more damages or even another estafa case because the

and TCT – 69, with the hope to transfer TCT – 6067 to
son James B. Mabanta and TCT – 69 to son Peter Alfred
B. Mabanta as this was the will of the deceased father
James Mabanta.
was paid by GNPower since a parcel of land, OCT No. P-
6,523 consisting of 3,850 sq. m titled to the heirs of
Teodulo Mabanta was bought by GNPower.

8,9)
owned 55,363 sq.m.
Robert Padilla. Mabanta’s heir still owned
30,683 sq.m.
Industrial Enterprise Inc. thru Atty. Robert Padilla held

the original owner’s copy of TCT – 6066 and other
documents such deed of sale of the Eusebio, Domingo,
Primo and Miguel all surnamed molo, and that the title
should be given back to respondent Josefina B. Mabanta, as
still owned 30,683 sq.m. from the said land. The heirs of
deceased Pedro Liquit, one of the heirs of Conception
Virtudazo Liquit, half sister of deceased Felicisimo
Mabanta, owned 10,000 sq. m in TCT- 6066.
Industrial Enterprise Inc. represented by Atty.

Padilla, wanted the IEI bought property, be donated to
the Kauswagan Municipality and Atty. Padilla wanted to
return to him the original owners copy of the land TCT –
6067 and TCT – 69 by the respondent.
owner’s copy was in IEI representative, Atty. Robert
Padilla’s possession.
TCT – 6066 since 2013 to 2016, almost 3 years and for
TCT – 69 and TCT – 6067 from 2013 to 2015, almost 3
years.
There were no extrajudicial settlement of the late James
Mabanta made or any documents so that the bought
land will be given to the buyer.

technical description or approved survey plan. As this
documents are needed to establish boundaries of both
properties bought by IEI and the remaining portion of the
Mabanta’s property. Up to this time, respondent request was
placed into deaf ears.

It was never respondent Josefina false pretense to

execute an extrajudicial settlement of the estate of
James Mabanta, with Deed of Donation.
Before respondent agreed to the amount of P 28.00 per
square meter, the agreement on the sale of portions of
land of mabanta’s property between Mayor Rommel
Arnado, the respondent and IEI representative, Atty.
Robert Padilla was that , IEI will make the necessary
documents specially the Extrajudicial settlement of late
James Mabanta, Deed of Sale and to pay the estate tax,
transfer tax, documentary and others taxes required by
the law and not Extrajudicial settlement with Deed of
Donation.
Respondent after the payment of the 4 parcels of
land, turned over four (4) original owners titles, TCT- 69,
TCT – 6066, original copy of deed of sale of Domingo
Molo, Eusebio Molo, Primo Molo, Miguel Molo along with
the original copy of deed of sale of Domingo, Eusebio,
Primo, Miguel all surnamed molo, TCT-6067 and T-
21,051 registered to Ginia Marlafe Mabanta. ( Annex )
After the receipt of the payment, in March 2013,

respondent was made to come to Padilla law office to
provide information needed for the drafting of the
extrajudicial settlement and Deed of Sale and other
documents.
Respondent met Atty. Junella Limpangog. She was

assigned by Atty. Padilla to work on the documents. For
several meetings with Atty. Junella Limpangog,
respondents was providing all needed information of the
family of Felicisimo mabanta, Marcela Mabanta, James
Mabanta, relatives and blood relationship among others,
in the end, no documents was made .
Respondent Josefina was then referred to Atty.

Eduardo Ulindang, one of Atty. Padilla partner in the law
office, to continue what Atty. Junella Limpangog started.
Once again respondent provided the information and
details of her family. Several times she met Atty.
Ulindang at Atty. Padilla’s office, still no extrajudicial
settlement and deed of sale was made.
Atty. Robert Padilla made respondent to believe

that an extrajudicial settlement and deed of sale will be
prepared by his lawyers partner. Respondent appeared
in his law office several times but no extrajudicial
settlement with Deed of Sale was done.
Days, months, years have passed, 2013 to 2015 for

TCT – 69 and TCT- 6067 , almost three(3) years no
extrajudicial settlement of late James Mabanta and Deed
of Sale was made. For TCT – 6066, since 2013 to 2016,
almost 4 years in the hands of Atty. Padilla, no
extrajudicial settle with deed of sale was made.
Respondent many times came to the municipal
office in Kauswagan and to the house of Mayor Arnado
for the needed help to compel Atty. Padilla to
make/prepare the long awaited extrajudicial settlement
with Deed of Sale for her signature and her children.
Mayor Arnado told the respondent that he already called
Atty. Padilla many times but Atty. Padilla did not mine
his call.
The respondent came again to request mayor

Arnado, to ask Atty. Padilla of the extrajudicial partition
with deed of sale. More than two (2) years have passed
since the land was sold and still no documents was
prepared. Mayor Arnado told respondent that maybe the
delay was caused by the change of documents from
Deed of Sale to Deed of Donation for the respondent’s
signature and her children.
Respondent told Mayor Arnado, she and her family will
never sign the deed of donation since the property was
bought by IEI and IEI should be the one to donate it to
the Municipality of Kauswagan and not the respondent
nor her children.
Mayor Arnado promised to call Atty. Padilla about the
extrajudicial documents but mayor Arnado’s plead was
not heard. No documents was prepared.
Respondent became uneasy and wondering, it too long
to prepare the extrajudicial settlement and deed of sale.
Mr. Orlando Claveria of GNPower, Manila came to

schedule meeting with Atty. Padilla and the respondent
regarding the extrajudicial settlement and Deed of Sale.
We met in ILiganon restaurant in Palao this city. Atty.
Padilla said, respondent signed it, which the respondent
vehemently denied.
Respondent said that documents such as

extrajudicial settlement and deed of sale need to be
signed respondents children as they are also heirs of
late James Mabanta, their father. She cannot remember
signing documents without her children also affixing
their signature for TCT – 69, TCT – 6067 and TCT -6066.
The documents respondent signed was

acknowledgement receipt of the payment of the land
totaled to P 1, 199,576.00 for the 4,1842 square meters
at P 28.00 per square meters lot and with nos. 2& 3 of
the same acknowledgment receipt was for the
respondent to execute the extrajudicial settlement of the
late James Mabanta with deed of donation for TCT –
6066 and TCT – 6067 and for TCT – 69 for extrajudicial
settlement with deed of donation/deed of sale and for
her and her five children signature.
Atty. Robert Padilla, did not only comply with the

verbal agreement made between the respondent, Mayor
Arnado and himself before the sale of the land but also
tricked respondent into signing the acknowledgment
receipt with a conflicting statement. Respondent sold
the land, accepted the payment and will have to execute
the extrajudicial settlement with Deed of Donation to the
municipality of kauswagan thru Mayor Rommel Arnado .
Atty. Padilla did not explained to the respondent the
contents of the documents, as she is not a lawyer. (
ignorance of the law excuses no one, comment)
Respondent was compelled to seek legal

assistance to make the Extrajudicial Settlement of the
late James Mabanta since Atty. Robert Padilla did not do
it.(Annex a,b,c)
Respondent did not employ deceit, nor trickery and

malice. The land was sold in a very very low price, at
P28.00 per square as compared to other land owners
who also sell their lands to GNPower in a high price, ( a
Mr. Alde Tan, deceased James Mabanta first cousin who
owned land in Baraason, KLN beside respondent owned
land) and tenants residing in tacub ( a Mr. Abejuela )
who are asked for bigger remuneration as tenants, while
respondent sold it in a very low price because in her
heart and mind, she would like to help the people and
the municipality of Kauswagan prosper. A multi-billion
worth power plant to rise in Lapayan, Kauswagan Lanao
del Norte would bring more jobs, employment and
business and economic growth to the place, if
respondent agree to sell portion of the land belonging to
Mabanta’s family which was suited for housing
settlement as it is near the national road, near the
elementary and high school, accessible to
transportation and other facilities to Industrial
Enterprises Inc. thru Atty. Robert Padilla . She did agree
to sell 42,842 square meters( more than four hectares )
as relocation area of the informal settlers where the
power plant will rise with some conditions. Needed
documents such as extrajudicial settlement with deed of
sale, payment of taxes at BIR and any other documents
needed.
Respondent has the right to take hold of the

original owners title because she and
her children have remaining portions of TCT – 69, TCT -
6066 and TCT- 6067 much
bigger that the sold portions. As the head of the family,
she has to take care of all the
their land holdings, to keep it safe for her children. The
fact that respondent
surrendered all original owners copy to Atty. Padilla
from the year 2013 until 2015
for TCT- 69 and TCT- 6067 and for TCT -6066 until to
date, is still in the possession of Atty Padilla is not
deceitful, false pretences and malice.
IEI representative Atty. Robert Padilla has not done
something to cause the making
of necessary documents to prove that the property
belonged to IEI or to anybody else.
IEI representative, Atty. Robert Padilla wanted the

original owners copy given back to him but then he
wanted the land to be donated by respondent to the
Municipal government of Kauswagan thru Mayor
Rommel Arnado. Respondent should give the title to the
Mayor of Kauswagan KLN instead to Atty. Robert
Padilla. ( May or may not be included)
Respondent needed the original owners copy of

TCT – 69 and TCT-6067. She went and see personally
Atty. Robert Padilla at his office. Respondent with kind
heart asked to have the two titles and explained to him
the reason that respondent needed the two titles for
transfer of said land titles to heir James B. Mabanta and
heir Peter Alfred Mabanta.
GNPower in 2013 bought 3,850 square meters lot, OCT
no. 6523 titled to the heirs of Teodulo Mabanta . The lot
was located at the seaside of barangay Lapayan where
the power plant will be constructed.
GNPower thru its representative Orlando Claveria
was then working on the transfer of OCT no. 6523 to
GNPower. The estate tax, documentary tax, transfer tax
and other taxes was paid by GNPower so that The
Certificate Authorizing(CAR) Registration, it is for
transaction involving transfer of Real and personal
properties finally was issued by the Bureau of Internal
Revenue on November 5, 2015 in Iligan City ( Annexes
, , , ). With the issued CAR, transfer of properties
of dead owners to its heir can be done without paying in
big amount for estate tax though has to pay other taxes
required by BIR. Extrajudicial settlement of the late
James Mabanta, is thus required.
The damages incurred by IEI, the power plant is not

a damaged caused by the respondent but the
irresponsible and corrupt mind of IEI representative
Atty. Robert Padilla. For almost 3 years the original titles
was in his hands nothing was done.
IEI thru Atty. Robert Padilla, constructed the

houses and other amenities in the area when there is no
deed of sale contracted between the seller and the
buyer, no approved subdivision plan. And copy of the
technical description of the land was not given to the
owner for her and her heirs to make sure they do not go
beyond what they intent to buy.
IEI thru Atty. Robert Padilla, cut off around 400

coconut trees without the permit from the owner, from
the barangay officials and from the DAR office. Without
the deed of sale, respondent Josefina Mabanta and her
children was still the owner of the land.
The ESTAFA case filed by Atty. Robert Padilla

against my client, respondent Josefina Mabanta was
baseless and shamed (PAGPAKAULAW) the
respondent who with generous heart offered her more
than four hectares of land at a very very low price of P
28.00 per square, for a multi-billion power plant to be
established/built in the area, selling a prime lot, more or
less 500 meters away from the national road, near the
elementary and high school , accessible to
transportation of any kind , for relocation of squatters at
the seaside areas of barangay Lapayan is filed for
ESTAFA.
IEI thru the representation of Atty. Robert Padilla

wanted it be donated by respondent for reason that they
do not want to spend money in paying taxes as required
by the government especially BIR and the municipality
of kauswagan Lanao del Norte. A multi- million company
like Industrial Enterprises, Inc. not willing to pay the
government and have compromised a government
employee, my client, her obligations to help find income
for the government, and is tagged as estafa – dor.
Respondent, Josefina B. Mabanta and her children

will returned the amount of P 934,080, paid by IEI thru
Atty. Robert Padilla and will possess back the subject
land to the owner, Josefina B.Mabanta and her children.
The money was deposited at the Bank of Phil. Island. (
Annex ).
IEI thru Atty. Robert Padilla, would not return to the

owner the lot, they can buy it at P 1,500.00 per square
meter, this our prayer and IEI to pay the damages done
to the respondent in the amount of P
______________________. ( Atty. Named the price).

Court of Appeals
Mindanao Station
Cagayan de Oro City
Twenty-Second Division
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CA - G. R. NO. CR. 10672

Plaintiff-Appellee,
RTC- ILIGAN CITY- BR. I
Criminal Case Nos.764; 788;
- versus - 796;801;812;813;846 to
855;
896 to 915
ALICIA V. ALVIA,
Accused-Appellant.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - x
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
The accused to the Honorable Court moving for the reconsideration of the
decision of the Honorable Court promulgated on August 26, 2005 a copy of
which counsel received on September 7, 2005 most respectfully submits that:
BETWEEN THE CASES BEFORE THE SANDIGANBAYAN AND

THOSE BEFORE THIS HONORABLE COURT, THERE IS IDENTITY OF
PARTIES, CAUSES OF ACTION, EVIDENCE PRESENTED AND FACTUAL
CIRCUMSTANCES (Pages 2 to 5)
II
CONCLUSIVENESS OF JUDGMENT PRECLUDES THE HONORABLE

COURT OF APPEALS FROM RESOLVING ISSUES IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED
CASE WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN AJUDICATED BY THE
SANDIGANBAYAN IN CRIMINAL CASES NOS. 268-302 and 377-420
(Pages 6 to 9) and these are:
a – The admissibility and probative value of the July 12,

1975 “Sworn Statement” of the accused (Exhibit B at the Regional
Trial Court or Exhibit E-33 at the Sandiganbayan) (Pages 7 to 8)
b – The probative value of all of the withdrawal slips

(Exhibits “O” to “YY” as testified to by Emmanuel Guzman; (Pages
8 to 9)
III
THE RESOLUTION OF THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

ENTERED ON JULY 20, 1994 DENYING THE ACCUSED’ MOTION TO
DISMISS IS INTERLOCUTORY AND DID NOT CONSTITUTE A FINAL
RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUE OF ESTOPPEL BY VERDICT OR
CONCLUSIVENESS OF JUDGMENT (Pages 9 to 10)
IV
THE RESOLUTION OF JUNE 20, 1994 IS BASED ON A CLEARLY

ERRONEOUS PREMISE SUCH THAT IT CONSTITUTES GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OFJURISDICTION (Page 11)
-2-
DISCUSSION
BETWEEN THE CASES BEFORE THE SANDIGANBAYAN

AND THOSE BEFORE THIS HONORABLE COURT, THERE IS
IDENTITY OF PARTIES, CAUSES OF ACTION, EVIDENCE
PRESENTED AND FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES (Pages 2 to 5)
Identity of Parties
There is identify of parties between the cases docketed as Criminal Cases
Nos. 268-302; 377-430 for Qualified Theft adjudicated on April 26, 1993 by the
Sandiganbayan entitled “People of the Phiÿÿÿÿÿÿes verÿÿs Alicia V. ÿÿvia” and
the above entitled asÿÿÿÿÿÿccused is the same Alicia V. Alvÿÿÿÿÿÿhe
complaining witness or private complainant is also the same, the Philippine
National Bank
Identity of Issues
The cases on appeal before this Honorable Court is all for qualified theft
which are the same charges lodged against the accused before the
Sandiganbayan in the criminal cases cited above. The issues resolved by the
Honorable Sandiganbayan in its decision of April 26, 1993 (A copy of the
decision is appended to the Brief for the Accused as Annex “1”) are”
(1) The admissibility and probative value of the extra-judicial confession of

Alice Alvia dated July 12, 1975 (Exhibit E-33) discussed on pages 38 to 43 of
said decision promulgated on April 26, 1993;
(2) The admissibility and probative value of the testimony of the

handwriting Examiner, Mr. Emmanuel Guzman on the various withdrawal slips
discussed on pages 44 to 50 of said decision of April 26, 1993;
(3) The admissibility and probative value of the “Dacion en Pago”
Which are exactly the very same issues resolved by the Honorable Court
of Appeals in its decision of August 26, 2005 stated in said decision as follows:
“In fine, the issues to be resolved by this Court are 1)

Whether the evidence (i.e., Sworn Statement, Dacion en Pago and
Withdrawal slips) of the prosecution was sufficient to convict Alvia
of the offenses charged; and 2) Whether the principle of estoppel
by verdict or bar by prior judgment by reason of the Decision of the
Sandiganbayan is applicable in this case at bar.
-3-
Thus it is respectfully submitted that there exists identity of party and
causes of action as between the cases already decided by the Sandiganbayan
on April 26, 1993 and whose decision is final and the cases pending before this
Honorable Court such that the principle of estoppel by verdict and
conclusiveness of judgment will apply to the cases now on appeal.

The Alleged Offenses Occurred Within the Same Time Frame
Additionally it may be pointed that all of the cases filed against the
accused, as teller of the Philippine National Bank, Iligan City i.e., the above-
entitled before the Honorable Court of Appeals and those before the
Sandiganbayan took place within the time frame from 1970 to 1974.
At the Sandiganbayan the earliest act attributed to the accused is on July
1, 1970 as alleged in Criminal Case No. 411 involving P500.00. The latest is
June 19, 1974 as alleged in Criminal case No. 274 involving P5,000.00 (Pages 2
to 3, Sandiganbayan decision in Criminal Cases Nos. 268 to 302; 377-420
promulgated on April 26, 1993 which is Annex 1 to the brief for the accused)
Before the Honorable Court of Appeals, the earliest act for which the
accused stands charged supposedly happened on August 26, 1970 in Criminal
Case No. 909 involving P500.00 and the latest is June 22, 1974 as alleged in
Criminal case No. 908 (Pages 2 to 4, Decision of the Court of Appeals
promulgated on august 26, 2005 in CA-G.R. CR. NO. 10672
Thus the cases before the Sandiganbayan and the Honorable Court of
Appeals are for the time frame from 1970 up to 1974 when the accused was a
teller of the Philippine National Bank at Iligan City.
Identical Informations Filed Against the Accused.
The informations against the accused before the Sandiganbayan and the
Regional Trial Court are practically word for word copies of each other except for
the amount involved and date alleged. Thus in its decision promulgated on April
26, 1993 the Sandiganbayan quoted one information of which the rest is similar:
-4-
“Accused ALICIA V. ALVIA, teller of the Philppine National

Bank at Iligan City, stands charged of Seventy-nine (79) counts of
Qualified Theft. The Information in the first case, Criminal Case No.
268, is reproduced hereunder:
“That on or about October 5, 1972, in the City of Iligan,

Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said
Alicia V. Alvia, being then and there an employee as receiving and
paying teller of the Philippine National Bank, Iligan Branch, Iligan
City and as such employee having access to the funds of the said
bank and records of savings account deposits therein, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with grave abuse of
confidence reposed on her by her employer, the said Philippine
National Bank, Iligan Branch, Iligan City, with intent of gain and
without consent of the said Philippine National Bank, Iligan Branch,
Iligan City, take steal and carry away the sum of ONE THOUSAND
( P1,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency, from the funds of the
said Philippine National Bank, Iligan Branch, Iligan City, to the
damage and prejudice of the said bank in the aforesaid sum of
ONE THOUSAND (1,000.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency.
Contrary to and in violation of Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, as

Amended, in relation to Article 309 of the said Revised Penal Code.”
The other Information’s filed against her are substantially

similar and couched in identical terms, except for the date of the
commission of the crime and the amount involved or stolen.”
(Emphasis supplied)
This Honorable Court in its decision of August 26, 2005 in the appealed
Criminal Case Nos.764; 788; 796;801;812;813;846 to 855; 896 to 915 stated
that:
The Information in the first case, Crim. Case No. 764, Alleges:
“That on or about October 10, 1972, in the City of Iligan,

Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said
Alicia V. Alvia, being then and there an employee as receiving and
paying teller of the Philippine National Bank, Iligan Branch, Iligan
City and as such employee having access to the funds of the said
bank and records of savings account deposits therein, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with grave abuse of
confidence reposed on her by her employer, the said Philippine
National Bank, Iligan Branch, Iligan City, with intent of gain and
without consent of the said Philippine National Bank, Iligan Branch,
Iligan City, take steal and carry away the sum of ONE THOUSAND
EIGHT HUNDRED FORTY ( P1,840.00) PESOS, Philippine
Currency, from the funds of the said Philippine National Bank, Iligan
Branch, Iligan City, to the damage and prejudice of the said bank in
the aforesaid sum of ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED FORTY
(1,840.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency.
Contrary to and in violation of Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, as

Amended, in relation to Article 309 of the said Revised Penal Code.”
For brevity, the other Informations (35 counts), being

substantially the same in all respects except for the amount taken
and its date of commission, are instead hereunder graphically
presented as follows: xxx xxx (Emphasis ours)
-5-
A comparison of the informations against the accused both before the
Sandiganbayan and before the Regional Trial Court and hence before the
Honorable Court of Appeals quoted above show that they are practically word for
word copies of each other except for the amount and the dates therein.
Identical Evidence Presented
The same evidence both oral and documentary were presented by the
prosecution before the Regional Trial Court and the Sandiganbayan i.e., the
“Sworn Statement” of July 12, 1975, the ”dacion en pago” and the withdrawal
slips (except for the amount and dates). The persons identifying the said
documents are the same, Atty. Godofredo Rubin and Pedro Espiritu Jr., for the
“extrajudicial confession and “dacion en pago”.
The handwriting examiner whose opinion was taken on the withdrawal
slips was the same Mr. Emmanuel Guzman and the standard of comparisons he
used in his examination are the same. The withdrawal slips are likewise similar
except for the date and the amount involved. He was the one who examined the
withdrawal slips submitted as exhibits before the Sandiganbayan and the
Regional Trial Court.
Submission
From the above, it is most respectfully submitted that the principle of
conclusiveness of judgment applies as there exists identify of parties and causes
of action as between Criminal Cases Nos. 268-302; 377-430 for Qualified Theft
entitled “People of the Philippines versus Alicia V. Alvia” adjudicated in favor of
the accused by the Sandiganbayan on April 26, 1993 and the above entitled.
As mentioned above it is the same evidence both oral and documentary
which was presented by the prosecution against the accused in the cases before
the Sandiganbayan and those at the Regional Trial Court of Lanao del Norte.
On this score it is respectfully submitted that the decision of this
Honorable Court promulgated on August 26, 2005 should be reconsidered and
another promulgated acquitting the accused of all charges.
-6-
II
CONCLUSIVENESS OF JUDGMENT PRECLUDES THE HONORABLE
COURT OF APPEALS FROM RESOLVING ISSUES IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED
CASE WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN AJUDICATED BY THE
SANDIGANBAYAN IN CRIMINAL CASES NOS. 268-302 and 377-420
(Pages 6 to 9) and these are:
From the above, there being identity of parties and issues between the
cases before the Honorable Sandiganbayan and those before the Honorable
Court of Appeals the latter Court is barred by the principles of estoppel by verdict
or conclusiveness of judgment from resolving the very same issues already
adjudicated by the Sandiganbayan in its decision of April 26, 1993:
In the case en banc of Calalang v. Register of Deeds of

Quezon City (231 SCRA 88, 99-100 [1994]), the Court explained
the concept of conclusiveness of judgment viz.; “xxx
conclusiveness of judgment - states that a fact or question which
was in issue in a former suit and was there judicially passed
upon and determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, is
conclusively settled by the judgment therein as far as the
parties to that action and person in privity with them are
concerned and cannot be again litigated in any future action
between such parties or their privies, in the same court or any
other court of concurrent jurisdiction on either the same or
different cause of action, while the judgment remains
unreversed by proper authority. It has been held that in order
that a judgment in one action can be conclusive as to a particular
matter in another action between the same parties or their privies, it
is essential that the issue be identical. If a particular point or
question is in issue in the second action, and the judgment
will depend on the determination of that particular point or
question, a former judgment between the same parties or their
privies will be final and conclusive in the second if the same
point or question was in issue and adjudicated in the first suit.
Identity of cause of action is not required only by identity of
issues. “ (En Banc, Intestate Estate of the late Don Mariano San
Pedro vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103727, San Pedro v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 106496, December 18, 1996, emphasis
supplied)
The doctrine res judicata actually embraces 2 different

concepts: (1) bar by former judgment and (2) conclusiveness of
judgment. The second concept - conclusiveness of judgment -
states that a fact or question which was in issue in a former suit and
was there judicially passed upon and determined by a court of
competent jurisdiction, is conclusively settled by the judgment
therein as far as the parties to that action and persons in privity with
them are concerned and cannot be again litigated in any future
action between such parties or their privies, in the same court or
any other court of concurrent jurisdiction on either the same or
different causes of action, while the judgment remains unreversed
by proper authority. It has been held that in order that a
judgment in one action can be
-7-
conclusive as to a particular matter in another action between the
same parties or their privies, it is essential that the issue be
identical. If a particular point or question is in issue in the
second action, and the judgment will depend on the
determination of that particular point or question, a former
judgment between the same parties or their privies will be final
and conclusive in the second if that point or question was in
issue and adjudicated in the first suit. Identity of cause of
action is not required but merely identity of issues. (Citations
Omitted.) (En Banc Resolution, Justice Melo, Calalang vs. Register
of Deeds of Quezon City G.R. No. 76265; De Leon v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 83280, March 11, 1994, emphasis ours)
Whatever is once irrevocably established as the controlling

legal rule or decision between the same parties in the same case
continues to be the law of the case so long as the facts on which
such decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case
before the court. (Mangoma vs. Court of Appeals, et. al., G.R.
99375 February 4, 1995)
Of the three (3) issues mentioned by the Sandiganbayan and the
Honorable Court of Appeals both agreed that one, that of the dacion en pago, is
not admissible and has no probative value to convict the accused.
The two issues which the Sandiganbayan and the Honorable Court of
Appeals arrived at entirely different conclusions are with reference to the (1)
“Sworn Statement” of the accused dated July 12, 1975 (Exhibit B at the Regional
Trial Court and Exhibit E-33 at the Sandiganbayan) and the (2) withdrawal slips
as testified to by the Handwriting Examiner, Emmanuel Guzman.
It is submitted that the findings of the Sandiganbayan cannot be changed
or modified by the Honorable Court of Appeals by virtue of the principle of
estoppel by verdict and conclusiveness of judgment . This two will be discussed
below.
a – The admissibility and probative value of the July 12,

1975 “Sworn Statement” of the accused (Exhibit B at the Regional
Trial Court or Exhibit E-33 at the Sandiganbayan) (Pages 7 to 8)
It is submitted that the Honorable Court of Appeals may no longer dwell
upon the admissibility and probative value of the “Swon Statement” of the
accused Alicia V. Alvia dated July 12, 1975 as this has already been determined
by the Sandiganbayan (Pages 37 to 43, Annex 1) as inadmissible.
-8-
The Sandiganbayan has ruled that the said “extrajudicial confession of the
accused is inadmissible having been taken without the benefit of counsel in
violation of Section 20, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution and in conformity with
the decision of the Supreme Court in People vs. Pineda and Garcia, G.R. No.
72400, January 15, 1988; People vs. Guarnes, G.R. No. 65175, April 15, 1988;
People vs. Newman and Tolentino, G.R. No. 45354, July 26, 1988)
The conclusion of this Honorable Court in its decision of August 26, 2005
(Pages 13 and 14) which is diametrically opposed to that of the Sandiganbayan
and which considered the extrajudicial confession of the accused as admissible
should therefore be set aside.
b – the probative value of all of the withdrawal slips (Exhibits

“O” to “YY” as testified to by Emmanuel Guzman; (Pages 8 to 9)
On the basis of estoppel by verdict or conclusiveness of judgment, it is
also respectfully submitted that the Honorable Court of Appeals may no longer
conclude that the withdrawal slips as testified to by Document Examiner
Emmanuel Guzman is admissible to show the guilt of the accused.
On this point the Honorable Sandiganbayan made a thorough and
intensive examination and determination of this issue and held that the
withdrawal slips do not prove the guilt of the accused and the testimony of the
handwriting expert, Mr. Emmanuel Guzman is not persuasive enough to convict
since:
(1) The standards used by the handwriting examiner were

not proven to be those of the accused (Page 44, Annex 1);
(2) The standard handwriting of the accused used for

comparison with the entries in the withdrawal slips were written on
November 20 and 23, 1962 while the entries in the withdrawal slips
were written sometime between 1971 and 1974, or about nine to
twelve years later. As such the standards used could not be the
best basis for comparison. (Page 45, Annex 1)
(3) Certain identifying features in the handwritings of the
accused turned out to be non-identifying at all because instead of
being executed in a uniform or similar manner, they were duly
shown by defense counsel, Atty. Voltaire Rovira, to have been
made in different ways; (Pages 45 to 46, Annex 1)
-9-
(4) the report of the handwriting examiner even failed to

mention the type of writing instrument used in the standard and
questioned documents despite the fact that this aspect ought to be
touched in a scientific document examination, for it cannot be
denied that the impressions made by a pen as distinguished from a
ballpen, differs as to the varying widths of the strokes, depending
on how the pen is held and the direction of the stroke, whereas, a
ballpen would create a uniform width since the ballpoint merely rolls
on thewriting surface, no matter how the ballpen is held and
regardless of the direction of the stroke. (Tsn pp. 22-23, July 17,
1987) (Pages 46 to 47, Annex 1)
(5) We should not also lose sight of the fact that conclusions
derived from a handwriting examination merely constitutes opinion
evidence and sadly, even among experts in this field, there could
be disagreements; (Page 47, Annex 1)
(6) Despite the fact that the withdrawals of money from the
PNB were made on the basis of depositors’ signatures appearing in
the withdrawal slips, no attempt was made to prove that said
signatures were forged by the accused. In fact, the expert ventured
to say that it is possible that said signatures could be genuine
(Pages 47 to 49, Annex 1)
(7) Finally, the expert witness himself was candid enough to

admit that the one who wrote the signatures appearing in the
questioned documents could have been another person or
somebody other than the one who wrote the entries appearing in
the standard and questioned documents. (Pages 49 to 51, Annex
1)
The opinion of the Honorable Court of Appeals in its decision of August
26, 2005 (Pages 13 and 14) relative to the said withdrawal slips and the
testimony of Mr. Emmanuel Guzman being completely opposed to that of the
final judgment of the Sandiganbayan the latter should prevail.,
It is thus respectfully submitted that the decision of August 26, 2005 be
reconsidered and another promulgated acquitting the accused.
III
THE RESOLUTION OF THE HONORABLE COURT OF

APPEALS ENTERED ON JULY 20, 1994 DENYING THE
ACCUSED’ MOTION TO DISMISS IS INTERLOCUTORY AND DID
NOT CONSTITUTE A FINAL RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUE OF
ESTOPPEL BY VERDICT OR CONCLUSIVENESS OF
JUDGMENT (Pages 9 to 10)
The Honorable Court of Appeals in its decision of August 26, 2005 held
that its Resolution of June 20, 1994 still holds and that the issue of estoppel by
verdict and conclusiveness of judgment does not apply in the case at bar.
- 10 –
In the first place the resolution of June 20, 1994 itself states that at that
stage of the appeal, the motion to dismiss must be denied. Further, the Court of
Appeals said that upon the suggestion of the Solicitor General, the findings of the
Sandiganbayan may be pleaded in appellants brief to support “her bid for
acquittal on appeal” (This she did by appending as Annex 1 a copy of the
decision of the Sandiganbayan to her brief.)
It is respectfully submitted that the conclusions of the Court of Appeals in
its Resolution of June 20, 1994 is not a final order. It does not constitute res
judicata as would justify the Honorable Court in holding in its decision of August
26, 2005 that the ruling in the said June 20, 1994 still holds true. It has been
held:
The essential requisites of res judicata are: (1) the former

judgment must have become final, (2) it must have been rendered
by a court of competent jurisdiction over the subject matter and the
parties; (3) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must
be, as between the first and second actions, identity of parties, of
subject matter, and of causes of action. Res judicata extends only
to the facts and conditions as they existed at the time the judgment
was rendered and to the legal rights and relations of the parties
fixed by the facts so determined. When new facts or conditions
intervene before the second suit, furnishing a new basis for the
claims and defenses of the parties, the issues are no longer the
same; hence, the former judgment cannot be pleaded as a bar to
the subsequent action. Nor is the rule applicable to rights, claims
or demands, although growing out of the same subject matter, but
which constitute a separate or distinct causes of action, and which
were not put in issue in the former action. (Justice Davide, Jr.,
Caina v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114393, December 15, 1994)
As the resolution of the Honorable Court of Appeals of June 20, 1994 is
merely interlocutory, the same should not serve as a basis for holding that the
principle of estoppel by verdict and conclusiveness of judgment does not apply

to the case at bar. Also, the said Resolution of June 20, 1994 does not address
the issue of the “Sworn Sltatement” and the withdrawal slips.
On this score it is respectfully submitted that the decision of August 26,
2005 should be reconsidered and another be had holding that the principle of
estoppel by verdict and conclusiveness of judgment already resolved the issue of
the “extrajudicial confession” and the withdrawal slips in favor of the acquittal of
the accused and thus should be followed by the Court of Appeals.
- 11 -
IV
FURTHERMORE THE RESOLUTION OF JUNE 20, 1994 IS

BASED ON AN OBVIOUSLY ERRONEOUS PREMISE SUCH
THAT IT CONSTITUTES GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
AMOUNTING TO LACK OFJURISDICTION (Page 11)
In the resolution of June 20, 1994, the Honorable Court of Appeals made
the following statement:
“It might be noted, moreover, that the cases in the Regional

Trial Court of Lanao (Br.1) were decided ahead of the cases in the
Sandiganbayan. For more reason, the principle of estoppel by prior
judgment invoked by the accused is, to our mind, not applicable in
the present circumstances.” (Page 16, Decision, emphasis ours)
This is a very inappropriate pronouncement. What constitutes estoppel by
verdict and/or conclusiveness of judgment is not whether a decision is “ahead”
but whether there exists a “final” judgment or order on the same issues
between the same parties. While the decision of the Regional Trial Court was
“ahead”, it was not a final judgment and is not res judicata. On the other hand the
decision of the Sandiganbayan may not be “ahead” but it is final thus its
resolution of the very same issues between the same parties constitutes
conclusiveness of judgment.
In sum it is respectfully submitted that the resolution of the factual and
legal issues in the decision of the Sandiganbayan promulgated on April 26, 1993
in the cases against the accused herein constitute estoppel by verdict or

conclusiveness of judgment as to the very same issues in the cases at bar. The
legal effect of this principle is that the findings of the Sandiganbayan binds this
Honorable Court of Appeals as to the very same issues pending before it.
In view of the above it is respectfully submitted that the June 20, 1994
resolution of the Honorable Court of Appeals constitutes grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction which must be rectified in the
resolution of the forgoing motion for reconsideration.
- 12 -
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that the decision dated
August 26, 2005 in the above-entitled case be reconsidered and another
promulgated setting aside the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Lanao del
Norte, Branch 01 dated March 12, 1990 appealed herein entitled “People of the
Philippines versus Alicia Alvia” Criminal Cases Nos. 764, 788, 796, 809, 812,
813, 846-855, and 896-915 and acquitting the accused of all charges filed
against her.
The accused prays for such other and further relief as may be just and
equitable in the premises.
City of Iligan, (for Cagayan de Oro City), September 22, 2005.
VOLTAIRE I. ROVIRA
Counsel for the Accused
0042 San Miguel Street
Iligan City 9200
PTR No. 0348280 Jan 07, 2005
IBP No. 599122 Dec. 29, 2004
Attorney’s Roll No. 17,239
February 23, 1962
Certification and Justification for Service by Registered Mail

The undersigned counsel hereby certify that the forgoing motion for
reconsideration was served upon adverse counsel, The Solicitor General at 134
Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City by registered as indicated in the
affidavit of service below as personal service is impractical since his office is
1,500 kilometers away from Iligan where counsel for the petitioner holds office.
Filing is likewise by registered mail because personal filing with the Honorable
Court of Appeals is impractical due to its being 90 kilometers away from Iligan
City.
City of Iligan, September 22, 2005.
VOLTAIRE I. ROVIRA
Iligan City 9200
- 13 -
Notice of Hearing
The Clerk of Court

Court of Appeals
Twenty-second Division
Mindanao Station
Cagayan de Oro City
Greeting:
Please set the forgoing motion for reconsideration for resolution by the
Honorable Court of Appeals as soon as the same may be proper.
VOLTAIRE I. ROVIRA
No. 0042, San Miguel Street
Iligan City
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

134 Amorsolo Street
Legaspi Village
Makati City
Greeting:
motion for reconsideration for resolution by the Honorable Court of Appeals as soon as
the same may be proper.
VOLTAIRE I. ROVIRA
No. 0042, San Miguel Street
Iligan City
- 14 -
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
Republic of the Philippines )

C I t y o f I l I g a n ) S.S.
I, Ulla C. Orbe, secretary of the Rovira Law Offices, Iligan City, after being duly
sworn, depose and say:
That on September 22, 2005 I served a copy of the following pleading/paper:
Nature of Pleading/Paper
Motion for Reconsideration in CA G.R. CR NO. 10672 entitled People of the

Philippines versus Alicia V. Alvia, pursuant to Sections 3, 4, 5, and 10 Rule 13 of the Rules of
Court as follows:
By registered mail upon the Solicitor General’s Office which is 1,500 kilometers
away from Iligan City where counsel for the accused holds office at 0042 San Miguel
Street, Iligan City and personal service is impractical as well as the City Prosecutor of
Iligan whose office is out of the way.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

134 Amorsolo Street
Legaspi Village
Makati City
By depositing a copy on September 22, 2005 at the Iligan City Post Office at Roxas
Avenue Iligan City as evidenced by Registry Receipt No. _______ which is attached to
the original hereof and the number of which is indicated after the name of the addressees
in the other copies hereof, and with instructions to the postmaster to return the mail to the
sender after ten (10) days if undelivered.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto affix my signature this September 22,

2005 at the City of Iligan, Philippines.
ULLA ORBE
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED and sworn to before me this September 22, 2005 at the City of
Iligan, affiant Ulla T. Orbe with CTC No. 22682595 issued on February 1, 2004 at Iligan
City
EMMANUEL C. SALIBAY
Doc. No. ____ Notary Public
Page No. ____ Until December 31, 2005
Book No. I Iligan City 9200
Series of 2005 IBP No. 615514, April 28, 2004
PTR No. 9995179 May 7, 2004
May 3, 2004
Accordingly, We reject the sworn statement of the accused and it now

behooves hits Court to ascertain whether there exists other evidence to sustain a
conviction. (Page 43, Decision, Sandiganbayan Annex 1)
tness the same
Documents the same
Complaining witness PNB the same

Accused alvia the same
Period covered by informations the same time frame from – to –
Rovira Law Offices

Iligan City
Tel. Nos. (063) 221-2774, (063) 221-3997
Fax: (063) 221-6424
Atty. Voltaire I. Rovira
Atty. Cherry T. Sumaoy
June 5, 2012
THE HONORABLE EDUARDO B. CUETO

City Prosecutor
Ozamis City
SIR:
Appended hereto is the subscribed statement of BUENAVENTURA C.

ALIPIO, of legal age, married, businessman, and a resident of B. Andrada
Avenue, Andrada Heights Subdivision, Del Carmen, Iligan City.
The aforementioned affidavit-complaint set forth circumstances which we
submit constitutes two counts of the crime of ESATAFA defined and penalized
under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code committed by Dr. JONATHAN M.
GAID, of legal age, Filipino, businessman and proprietor of GQ Electrical Sales
and Services with address at P/3, Base Camp, Maramag, Bukidnon.
It is requested that a proper proceedings be had so that in due course the

appropriate criminal charges may be filed against said person as the evidence
may warrant.
City of Iligan.
Respectfully yours,

Counsel for the Complainant
Iligan City 9200
PTR No. 4208818 January 12, 2012
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0000052, October 27, 2010
TIN No. 166-615-120

JOSEFINA B. MABANTA
- AND -

SALIBAY Law Office
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS the CLIENT desires to engage the legal services of

COUNSEL being Respondent in the case for Estafa under Article 315 par. 1 (b)
and par. 2 (a) filed by Industrial enterprises, Inc., represented by Atty. Roberto C.
Padilla before the Office of the City Prosecutor Iligan City and for the recovery of
her property under onerous sale and the latter is willing to render such services,
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants

between the parties, they have agreed as follows:
(1) Counsel shall assume and perform all legal services required for the
client as respondent in the aforesaid case and at the aforesaid venue;
Acceptance Fee of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P100,000.00). The
amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) shall be tendered upon the
execution of this instrument the balance of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS
(P50,000.00) shall be paid upon the submission of the Judicial Counter-Affidavit
to the Prosecution Office. The Acceptance Fee shall include any case for
recovery of the realties;
(3) For each appearance of counsel in any hearing the client shall pay
ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000.00) whether the case is called, heard or
postponed.
(4) In any other cases relative hereto that may be filed, all other expenses
such as but not limited to filing and docketing fees, sheriff’s fees, transcript of
stenographic notes, photocopying of documents, mailing expenses, shall be for
the account of the client upon presentment of the proper notice or statement of
account by the undersigned.

and all amount, royalty and property recovered as Attorney’s Fee in the
settlement of the case or for the recovery of the properties involved.
COMPUTATION OF ATTORNEY’S FEE:
TWENTY FIVE [25%] PERCENT
Area Purchased: 42,842 Sq. Meter.
Amount per Sq. Meter: P158
AGGREGATE AMOUNT IN THE COMPROMISE:

Total Amount of Purchase: P6,769,036.00
Attorney’s Fee [25%]: P1,692,259.00

_____________ ________________
JOSEFINA B. MABANTA ATTY. EMMANUEL C. SALIBAY
--------------------------
COMPUTATION OF ATTORNEY’S FEE:
TWENTY FIVE [25%] PERCENT
AGGREGATE AMOUNT IN THE COMPROMISE:

Attorney’s Fee [25%]: P1,692,259.00
_____________ ________________
JOSEFINA B. MABANTA ATTY. EMMANUEL C. SALIBAY
AMOUNT RECOVERED:
MONEY PAID BY IEI TO THE MABANTA: P1,199,576.00
NET AMOUNT TO BE RECEIVED: P5,076,777.00
AMOUNT GAINED IN THE COMPROMISE: P5,569,460.00
OUTCOME OF THE COMPROMISE: P3,877,201.00
COMPUTATION OF NOTARIAL FEE:
DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE

FIVE [5%] PERCENT

Notarial Fee [5%]: P338,451.80
DEED OF DONATION
FIVE [5%] PERCENT
Notarial Fee [5%]: P338,451.80
Attorney’s Fee [25%]: P1,692, 259.00

DOAS Notarial Fee [5%]: P 338,451.80
DOD Notarial Fee [5%]: P 338,451.80
P2,369,162.60

Office of The City Prosecutor: Judicial Counter-Affidavit

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

Office of The City Prosecutor: Judicial Counter-Affidavit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

Office of the City Prosecutor

NAME OF WITNESS: MARLOW M. MAGALLANES

NAME OF EXAMINER: ATTY. EMMANUEL C. SALIBAY

2. Q Are you willing to proceed to give your free and voluntary

4. Q Will you please state your name and other personal

A I am MARLOW BINGAT MAGALLANES, 47 years old,

5. Q What is your purpose in executing this Judicial Counter-

A To refute the charges filed by Complainant MAUREEN M.

A I did not do such acts that would constitute violation of RA

7. Q Can you recall having received a copy of the subpoena

8. Q When did you receive the subpoena?

A On Friday, July 26, 2019 at 2 o’clock in the afternoon. My

9. Q What happened after you received the subpoena?

A I read the affidavit complaint and comply with the

10. Q Do you have a copy of her affidavit complaint?

A Yes, here it is, sir.

11. Q There are allegations re the circumstances of the

A I partially admit the allegation therein pertaining to my

12. Q What is the reason for your denial?

A She deceived the Honorable City Prosecutor’s Office

A Yes, here they are, sir.

14. Q We are marking this Certificate of Divorce as Annex “1”,

A Yes, here is a two (2) page PSA authenticated Marriage

16. Q We are marking this authenticated Marriage Contract with

MANIFESTATION: We are respectfully marking as Annex

17. Q You said that she contracted a subsequent marriage with

A Yes, here is the Certification issued by the PSA and their

18. Q We are marking this Certification issued by the Philippine

MANIFESTATION: We are respectfully marking as Annex

A Yes, here is complainant’s letter dated August 3, 2006

20. Q We are marking complainant’s letter dated August 3,

MANIFESTATION: We are respectfully marking as Annex

21. Q There is an allegation in Paragraph No. 2 of this

A I partially admit the allegations in paragraph 2 and deny

22. Q There is an allegation in another Paragraph Numbered 2

A I vehemently deny the allegations contained in another

23. Q There is an allegation in Paragraph No. 3 of this

24. Q There is an allegation in Paragraph No. 4 of this

A I do not have sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to

25. Q There is an allegation in Paragraph No. 5 of this

A I vehemently deny the allegations, sir. Truth being that

25. Q There is an allegation in Paragraph No. 6 of this

A I vehemently deny the allegations, sir. Truth being that, I

26. Q There are related allegations in Paragraph No. 7, 8, 9, 10

A I partially admit the allegations contained in Paragraph

27. Q There is an allegation in Paragraph No. 12, of this

A I vehemently deny the allegations contained in Paragraph

28. Q There are allegations in Paragraph No. 13 and 14, of this

A I vehemently deny the allegations contained in Paragraph

A Yes, here are the pictures and FB Communication I ahd

30. Q We are marking these pictures as Annexes “7” and

MANIFESTATION: We are respectfully marking as

31. Q There is an allegation in Paragraph No. 15, of this

A I vehemently deny the allegations contained in Paragraph

32. Q What else had happened between you and the

A In the same year, 2011, complainant and her husband

A I vehemently deny the allegations contained in Paragraph

A The only reason is to force me to finance her filing of

35. Q Now, what do you want?

A The charges be dismissed for there is no prima facie

36. Q: Due to the actuations of the Complainant in filing you this

A Yes I am executing this judicial affidavit to attest to the