REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SANDIGANBAYAN
Quezon City

Sixth Division

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

-versus- Crim. Case No. SB-15-CRM-0095

ROLANDO C. ALONZO, ET.AL.,

Accused.

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

COMMENT TO THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(In re: Honorable Court’s Minute Resolution dated August 22, 2022)

ACCUSED ALISON A. SY, ET AL., through the undersigned counsel and

to this Honorable Court, most respectfully states that:

1. On September 5, 2022, Accused received a copy of the Motion for

Reconsideration of the Prosecution of the same date in relation to
the Minute Resolution of the Honorable Court dated August 22,
2022.

2. Accused is now before the Honorable Court for our Comment as

to the Motion for Reconsideration of the Prosecution, where they
stated that Exhibit 1 for the Accused Sy, Exhibit 1 for Alonzo, and
Exhibit 1 for Cometa (collectively known as Exhibit 1) should not
be admitted as evidence.

3. The Prosecution alleges that Exhibit 1 was not properly

authenticated as there was no representative from Dynatron Asia,
Inc. nor the alleged author, Mr. Florentino A. Serrato was not
 “Comment to the Motion for Reconsideration”
People of the Philippines vs. Rolando C. Alonzo, et al.
Crim. Case No. SB-15-CRM-0095
Page 2 of 6

presented to identify and authenticate the existence of the said

document and that neither of the Accused can be considered as a
competent witness as they did not participate in the preparation
of the said document. They also alleged that the document
cannot be authenticated with any evidence showing its due
execution and authenticity because “there is nothing in the record
that will indicate who is the author of this document. There is no
signature, even a profile of the alleged author.”

4. We would like to reiterate that as stated in paragraph 3 of the

Prosecution’s Motion for Reconsideration, Rule 132, Section 20 of
the Revised Rules of Evidence (ROE) provides the rules before a
private document can be admitted as evidence, thus stating the
said rule:

Section 20. Proof of private document[s] – Before any private

document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due
execution and authenticity must be proved by any of the
following means:

a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written;

b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or
handwriting of the maker; or
c) By other evidence showing its due execution and
authenticity.

Any other private document need only be identified as that

which it is claimed to be. (emphasis supplied)

5. We disprove the theory of the Prosecution that the

abovementioned enumeration in authenticating the feasibility
study is required. As mentioned in our Formal Offer of
Documentary Evidence, we formally offered the Feasibility Study
from Dynatron Asia, Inc. only to prove that Accused engaged its
services to determine the viability of the project in terms of
 “Comment to the Motion for Reconsideration”
People of the Philippines vs. Rolando C. Alonzo, et al.
Crim. Case No. SB-15-CRM-0095
Page 3 of 6

investment, technical concerns, market performance, and

profitability.

6. As such, we are only offering the said feasibility study as which it

is claimed to be: a feasibility study done by Dynatron Asia, Inc.,
when they were engaged by Accused. This is considering that an
observation made by the Honorable Court during the cross-
examination of the Accused that the said Feasibility Study was not
considered by TIDCORP1 and that the study conducted by SGV is
what was considered by TIDCORP2. We also made mention that
the Prosecution was misleading as to what Accused Cometa told
Accused Sy, as the Feasibility Study of Dynatron Asia, Inc. was still
subject to validation3, which was done by the Accused.

7. Thus, there is no need for compliance with the enumerated ways

in Rule 132, Section 20 of the ROE as we are just formally offering
the Feasibility Study from Dynatron Asia, Inc. as what it is claimed
to be and there is no need for proof of its due execution and
authenticity. Therefore, there is no need for any representative
from Dynatron Asia, Inc., nor of the alleged author Florentino A.
Serrato, nor for any of the accused to identify and authenticate
the said feasibility study.

8. Also, we would like to oppose the view of the Prosecutor as

stated in paragraph 7 of their Motion for Reconsideration, where
they cited Lorenzana v. Lelina4, stating “mere photocopies of
documents are inadmissible pursuant to the best evidence rule.”
We’d like to state that the Rules of Evidence was already revised
and Rule 130, Section 4 thereof provides that “An original of a
document is the document itself or any counterpart intended to
have the same effect by a person executing or issuing it” and “A
duplicate is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the

1
Please refer to TSN dated March 15, 2022, page 21
2
Please refer to TSN dated March 15, 2022, page 22
3
Please refer to TSN dated March 15, 2022, page 23
4
G.R. No. 187859, August 17, 2016
 “Comment to the Motion for Reconsideration”
People of the Philippines vs. Rolando C. Alonzo, et al.
Crim. Case No. SB-15-CRM-0095
Page 4 of 6

original or from the same matrix, or by means of photography

including enlargements and miniatures, or by mechanical or
electronic re-recording, or by chemical reproduction. Or by other
equivalent techniques which accurately reproduce the original.”

9. As such, citing a ruling that includes the best evidence rule is

outdated as the Original Document Rule under Rule 130, Section 3
of the ROE is the new and prevalent rule. As a result of the said
amendment, photocopies are now deemed as originals under the
Original Document Rule, and under Rule 130, Section 4 of the
ROE, a duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original
unless (1) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the
original, or (2) in the circumstances, it is unjust or inequitable to
admit the duplicate in lieu of the original.

10. Considering that there is no genuine issue as to the authenticity

as we discussed earlier, and there is no reason that the admission
of the said feasibility study would be in any way unjust or
inequitable under the circumstances, the said feasibility study
should not have any issue as to its admissibility.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the
Motion for Reconsideration of the Prosecution be denied and that the
ruling in the Minor Resolution dated August 22, 2022, be retained.

Other reliefs, just and equitable, are likewise prayed for.

Makati City for Quezon City, September 8, 2022.

GATCHALIAN & CASTRO

Counsel for the Petitioners
5/F Jose Cojuangco & Sons Bldg.
119 Dela Rosa cor. Palanca Sts.,
 “Comment to the Motion for Reconsideration”
People of the Philippines vs. Rolando C. Alonzo, et al.
Crim. Case No. SB-15-CRM-0095
Page 5 of 6

Legaspi Village, Makati City

Metro Manila
Telephone Nos. 892-03-01 to 02
Fax No. 818-2220

By:

ROMARICO I. GATCHALIAN
PTR No. 8855459/01.06.22/Makati City
IBP No. 172340/01.06.22/Cavite
ROLL No. 35839
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0026204
23 May 2019; Makati City
Tel. Nos. 892-03-01 to 02
Fax No. 818-22-20
mayko.gatchalian@gatchaliancastro.com

WILLIAM KYLE C. SANTOS

PTR No. 9042514/06.17.2022/Makati
IBP No. 224951/05.26.2022 /Muntinlupa
Roll No. 79548
Admitted to the BAR in 2022
Tel. Nos. 8 892-0301 to 02
Fax No. 818-22-20
william.santos@gatchaliancastro.com

KATHY MAY T. ELNAS

PTR No. 9433091/07.25.2022/Makati
IBP No. 222949/05.19.2022 /Quezon City
Roll No. 80352
Admitted to the BAR in 2022
Tel. Nos. 8 892-0301 to 02
 “Comment to the Motion for Reconsideration”
People of the Philippines vs. Rolando C. Alonzo, et al.
Crim. Case No. SB-15-CRM-0095
Page 6 of 6

Fax No. 818-22-20

kathy.elnas@gatchaliancastro.com

Copy furnished:

OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR

4th Floor, Ombudsman Building,
Office of the Ombudsman,
Agham Road, Diliman, Quezon City

BERNARDO PLACIDO CHAN & LASAM LAW OFFICES

Counsel for the Accused Rolando C. Alonzo
Unit 2303-2304, 139 Corporate Center
139 Valero St., Salcedo Village
Makati City 1227, Metro Manila

J.L. ANASTACIO, CPA & ASSOCIATES

Counsel for Accused Teresita C. Cometa
Unit B6 L22 Villa Felisa,
Alabang-Zapote Road, Pamplona II
Las Pinas City, Metro Manila