REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

SAN JOSE DEL MONTE )

BULACAN ) S.S.

AFFIDAVIT COMPLAINT

I, MARIE LYRA OAING, of legal age, Filipino, and a resident of Phase

G, Blk. 8, Lot 35 Francisco Homes, City of San Jose del Monte, Bulacan
after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, hereby depose
and states that:

1. I am filing a complaint for ESTAFA THROUGH FALSIFICATION

OF A PRIVATE DOCUMENT against JOSEFINO S. PINGOL legal age and a
resident of No. 39, Taal, City of Malolos , Bulacan where he may be served
with summons and other processes of this court. Respondent falsified
several documents to the detriment of the Village Montessori School and
Colleges.

The facts of the case, are as follows:

Village Montessori School and Colleges is an educational

Institution owned and managed by the complainant Marie Lyra
Lizardo – Oaing. She may be served with summons, notices and
other processes of this office at Ph-D Blk 1 Lot 1 Francisco Homes,
Barangay Mulawin , San Jose Del Monte City.

The respondent Josefino S. Pingol is the Academic Coordinator

and Educational Consultant of the school since 2017;

That in 2019, Village Montessori School and Colleges expanded

its operations by applying for additional courses for colleges; The
College Dean- Mr. Josefino S. Pingol was in charge of submitting and
complying with requirements of the Commission on Higher
Education for College status. At the onset, the school was granted
college status with the input of a college course.

Again at the start of year, the school, filed its second

application for five (5) more college courses. The respondent Mr.
Pingol is still the academic coordinator and the College Dean, as the
compliance officer, he was responsible in gathering documents for
submission relative to the filing of the application for additional
courses.
 On March 25, 2021 complainant was surprised to be called upon
by the Commission on Higher Education Supervisor – Ms. Anna
Rodessa Calma. Complainant informed the respondent Pingol that
the CHED was calling the school, thinking that the call should be
directed to the respondent Pingol who is the College Dean. After
informing Respondent, complainant waited for an update.

On March 31, 2021, complainant was called upon via zoom

meeting. The complainant was present while respondent Mr. Pingol
was on stand-by in case information is needed. The meeting was
brief as it lasted only for five minutes because their other
supervisors were still in another meeting with CHED Officer -in-
Charge. Hence the zoom meeting re-scheduled. Complainant
became suspicious as if something was wrong.

On April 5, 2021, the CHED scheduled a zoom meeting with the

private complainant alone. The issue was with respect to the
contract of Mr. Reynaldo Santos. Mr. Reynaldo Santos was referred
to the respondent for the position of Head Teacher of the BS
Computer Information System. According to the CHED, the
contract of MR. Santos appeared to be forged. One of the
Supervisor of the CHED who knew Mr. Santos, personally called him
up and was able to confirm that the contracts sent via electronic
filing were all a forgery. She was informed by CHED that the
compliance documents submitted to them were all a forgery. The
contracts were not signed by the head teachers, program chairs and
faculty.

That upon consultation with the CHED, complainant was told that
the signatures on the compliance documents were made to appear
as if they were signed by only one person because the signatures
have only one stroke. Also the complainant’s signatures were
digitally attached without her knowledge and the notary attached
was also super imposed. Complainant was advised that the teachers
did not sign any of the contracts. Private complainant was told that
the following documents were forged by the respondent to wit:

1. Contract with the Teachers, all signatures are all forged are
hereto attached as Exhibit “A”;

2. Super imposed the Notarial Seal of a Notary Public hereto

attached as Exhibit “B”;
 3. Transcript of Records and Certificate with Diploma from FEU
appearing that respondent has a Doctorate Degree in
Education hereto attached as Exhibit “C”;

2. That because of said development, private complainant

deferred the application of the additional courses and conducted her own
investigation.

3. Further investigation showed that respondent Pingol also

faked his credentials when he submitted to the school a copy of his
transcript of records from the Far Eastern University. Upon verification
with the school electronically, the school responded declaring that Josefino
Pingol is not listed among the students of FEU Graduate School and that
the document did not originate from their office.

4. That in a meeting with the Faculty of the school, class adviser

of ABM Ford reported that there was a certain student who was listed in
the student directory in the Senior High but never attended her class. The
student was Misato de Leon Uriu. This was also observed by other
teachers. All of them encountered the name of Misato De Leon Uriu, but
never saw her attend class for the school year 2017-2018, 2018-2019.
That at the end of the school year, respondent Mr. Pingol instructed all of
them to give a final grade to the said student. HE also gave orders to one
of the teachers, office staff to include the name of the student Misato de
Leon Uriu in the Learner’s Information System. Nobody questioned the
instructions as it was under pain of insubordination to respondent Pingol
he being their over-all Academic Director and Dean.

5. That the falsification committed by the respondent Pingol

caused damage and prejudice to the private complainant. He placed the
integrity and the name of the school at risk by submitting to the
Commission on Higher Education, falsified documents. At a time when the
school is upgrading its level, he embarrassed the school by his acts.

6. The acts being complained of are penalized under Art. 172 of

the Revised Penal Code which states as follows:

Article 172. Falsification by private individuals and use of falsified

documents. - The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods and a fine of not more than 5,000 pesos shall be
imposed upon:
 1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the
falsifications enumerated in the next preceding article in any
public or official document or letter of exchange or any other
kind of commercial document; and

2. Any person who, to the damage of a third party, or with

the intent to cause such damage, shall in any private document
commit any of the acts of falsification enumerated in the next
preceding article.

3. Any person who shall knowingly introduce in evidence in

any judicial proceeding or to the damage of another or who,
with the intent to cause such damage, shall use any of the false
documents embraced in the next preceding article, or in any of
the foregoing subdivisions of this article, shall be punished by
the penalty next lower in degree.

7. The elements of the crime of falsification of private document

(Art. 172 (2) are:

That the offender committed any of the acts of falsification, except

those in paragraph 7, enumerated in Art. 171. That the falsification
was committed in any private document.

That the falsification caused damage to a third party or at least the

falsification was committed with intent to cause such damage.

8. Likewise, I am charging respondent Josefino Pingol for estafa

under Article 315 par. of the Revised Penal Code. By reason of the said
unlawful acts of respondent Pingol, he has committed ESTAFA through
Falsification of Private Document. “Estafa is generally committed when (a)
the respondent defrauded another by abuse of confidence, or by means of
deceit, and (b) the offended party or a third party suffered damage or
prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation.”

9. “Deceit is the false representation of a matter of fact, whether

by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment
of that which should have been disclosed which deceives or is intended to
deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury.”

10. The elements of estafa obtain in this case when Respondent

Pingol by falsely representing that the compliance for additional courses
submitted to the CHED were in order. But respondent Pingol forged all of
the signatures as well as the notary of the compliance documents.
Likewise he counterfeited his post graduate credential, making it appear
that he has the credential to be promoted to the position as Dean.
Through these, respondent was able to obtain a sizeable salary to the
damage and prejudice of the private complainant. Once in possession of
the amount, respondent thereafter with intent to gain misappropriated the
same. Clearly, respondent employed deceit in order to take hold of the
money, misappropriated and converted it to his own personal use and
benefit, and these resulted to the damage and prejudice of the private
complainant. Also because of his misrepresentation he was able to
commit the falsification when he made it appear that a student Misato de
Leon Uriu graduated from the Village Montessori School, the school owned
by the private complainant.

11. That the commission of falsification of the school’s compliance

documents is a violation of the crime of Falsification of a Private
document. And the fraudulent representation in his post graduate degree
is a violation penalized as estafa through Falsification. Facts show that
respondent could not have committed the illegal acts without falsifying his
post graduate credentials. The falsification there was, therefore, a
necessary means to commit estafa, and falsification was already
consummated even before the falsified documents were used to defraud
the private complainant. Thereafter, probable cause exist for Falsification
of Private Document and a complex crime of Estafa through Falsification
of Private Document .

I am executing this Complaint-Affidavit to prove the truth and

veracity of the aforecited facts for the purpose of filing a criminal
complaint for Falsification of Private Document and Estafa through
Falsification of Private Documents against Josefino Pingol.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ___ day

of _________ 2021 at San Jose del Monte, Bulacan.

MARIE LYRA LIZARDO-OAING

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ____th day of ____

2021 at City of San Jose Del Monte. I hereby certify that I have personally
examined the affiant and that I am satisfied that she has voluntarily
executed and has fully understood the contents of her affidavit- complaint.

ASST. CITY PROSECUTOR