REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
PASIG CITY

JAIME ESCALL
Complainant,

NPS DOCKET NO. ________________

-versus- For: Perjury under Art. 183 of the
Revised Penal Code as amended

ALFREDO J. ESCALL
Respondent.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(to the RESOLUTION 19 DECEMBER 2023)
COMES NOW, Complainant JAIME ESCALL through the undersigned
counsel, unto this Honorable Office, respectfully move for the Reconsideration
of its Resolution dated 19 December 2023 and in support thereof, states that:

1. On 22 February 2024, Complainant Jaime Escall was informed by his

family that a Resolution from this Honorable Office was received. He
thereafter,informed the undersigned of the instant Resolution.

2. In the said Resolution, this Honorable Office dismissed the case for
Insufficiency of evidence. The dispositive portion of the said Resolution,
to wit:

“WHEREFORE, it is resolved that the complaint for perjury

filed against ALFREDO J. ESCALL be DISMISSED for
insufficiency of evidence.”

3. The Honorable Prosecutor, in dismissing the complaint for Perjury the

Honorable Prosecutor held that the evidence is not sufficient to
engender a well-founded belief that a crime of perjury was committed or
that the respondent Alfredo J. Escall is probably guilty thereof.

1
 4. In support of the decision, the Honorable Prosecutor opined that there
is no showing, that the respondent made a deliberate and willful
assertion of falsehood. Furthermore, it was held that by the time that the
time when the respondent made the statement and verified petition, the
notarial will allegedly executed by Esperanza was not yet declared to be
authentic or valid by a probate court.

5. In conclusion, the Honorable Prosecutor held that if at all, this complaint

was prematurely filed considering that the notarial will was not yet
approved by the probate court.

With all due respect, we beg to disagree.

6. The dismissal of the instant case was anchored on the evaluation of the
investigating prosecutor that the will has not yet been probated.

7. With all due respect, the instant case does not delved on whether or not
the said will is valid. Rather, it is merely concerned on the question of
whether or not the said Will exists.

8. It is undisputed that the Will existed and that the Respondent has
knowledge of such existence. Thus, to state that that ““late ESPERANZA
N. ESCALL died intestate” is a clear and deliberate assertion of falsehood;
a material matter in the said Petition so as to enable the Respondent to
file for a Judicial Partition instead of respecting the wishes of the late
Esperanza Escall as stated in her Will through its probate.

9. As clearly provided in Section 74 of the New Civil Code, which provides

that:

Section 1. Extrajudicial settlement by agreement between heirs. —

If the decedent left no will and no debts and the heirs are all of
age, or the minors are represented by their judicial or legal
representatives duly authorized for the purpose, the parties may
without securing letters of administration, divide the estate among
themselves as they see fit by means of a public instrument filed in
the office of the register of deeds, and should they disagree, they
may do so in an ordinary action of partition. If there is only one
heir, he may adjudicate to himself the entire estate by means of an
affidavit filled in the office of the register of deeds. The parties to
an extrajudicial settlement, whether by public instrument or by
stipulation in a pending action for partition, or the sole heir who
adjudicates the entire estate to himself by means of an affidavit
2
 shall file, simultaneously with and as a condition precedent to the
filing of the public instrument, or stipulation in the action for
partition, or of the affidavit in the office of the register of deeds, a
bond with the said register of deeds, in an amount equivalent to
the value of the personal property involved as certified to under
oath by the parties concerned and conditioned upon the payment
of any just claim that may be filed under section 4 of this rule. It
shall be presumed that the decedent left no debts if no creditor
files a petition for letters of administration within two (2) years
after the death of the decedent. (emphasis supplied)

10. Thus the concealment of the fact that there exists a Will by stating that
the “decedent dies intestate” is a deliberate and willful assertion of
falsehood. Considering that the Will, in fact, exists. Whether the same is
valid or not is immaterial.

11.To reiterate, the elements of Perjury are as follows:

a) that the accused made a statement under oath or executed an

affidavit upon a material matter;

b) that the statement or affidavit was made before a competent

officer, authorized to receive and administer oath;

c) that in the statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful

and deliberate assertion of a falsehood; and

d) that the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is

required by law or made for a legal purpose. 1 (emphasis
supplied)

12. To stress, the statement made by the Respondent in the Petition, “3.
The late ESPERANZA N. ESCALL died intestate, leaving the following
properties, located in different places in the Philippines, the gross market
value of which does not exceed FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY EIGHT THOUSAND
SIX HUNDRED FORTY PESOS (₽458,640.00), to wit: xx” – does not revolve
on the authenticity of the will. Only as to the question of whether there
is or there is no Will.

13. The existence of the Will alone suffices the requirement that the
decedent died “testate”. Whether the Will is valid or not does not negate
the fact that the Decedent died Testate. Therefore, to say that the
1
People of the Philippines vs. Bautista, C.A., 40 O.G. 2491.
3
 Decedent died Intestate despite the knowledge of the Respondent of the
existence of the Will, clearly shows a deliberate assertion of falsehood,
which is the a very act being punished under Article 183 of the Revised
Penal Code.

14. Furthermore, malice is clearly established. Had the Respondent stated

the truth that the Esperanza Escall died with a Will, he would have no
ground for the filing of judicial partition as judicial partition demands first
and foremost the requirement that the decedent should have died
leaving no will.

15.The Complainant humbly submits that the Preliminary Investigation is

not trial on the merits. There is no rule that a Will must be probated first
before someone who stated under oath that the Decedent died intestate
despite his knowledge of its existence can be charged of the crime of
perjury. The probate of the Will has no bearing on the falsehood stated.

16. In the case of Estrada vs. Ombudsman, et al (G.R. No. 212140-41,

January 21, 2015) the Court stated :

It should be underscored that the conduct of a preliminary

investigation is only for the determination of probable cause,
and "probable cause merely implies probability of guilt and
should be determined in a summary manner. xxx

A preliminary investigation is defined as an inquiry or proceeding

for the purpose of determining whether there is sufficient
ground to engender a well founded belief that a crime
cognizable by the Regional Trial Court has been committed and
that the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be
held for trial. The quantum of evidence now required in
preliminary investigation is such evidence sufficient to
"engender a well founded belief" as to the fact of the
commission of a crime and the respondent's probable guilt
thereof. A preliminary investigation is not the occasion for the
full and exhaustive display of the parties’ evidence; it is for the
presentation of such evidence only as may engender a well-
grounded belief that an offense has been committed and that
the accused is probably guilty thereof. We are in accord with
the state prosecutor’s findings in the case at bar that there exists
prima facie evidence of petitioner’s involvement in the
commission of the crime, it being sufficiently supported by the
evidence presented and the facts obtaining therein 2. (emphasis
4
 supplied)

17. Considering that the Complainant presented evidence and affidavit of

witnesses in establishing the elements for the violation of the said
offense, we humbly submit that there is sufficient evidence to engender
a well found belief that indeed the crime was committed.

18.All told, all the elements of the crime for the violation of Article 172 of
the Revised Penal Code and violation of Act 3702 were all present in the
instant case.

19. In Brinegar v. US, 338 US 160 [1949], the Supreme Court held that while
probable cause demands more than "bare suspicion," it requires "less
than evidence which would justify conviction." A finding of probable
cause merely binds over the suspect to stand trial. It is not a
pronouncement of guilt.3" It has been said time and again that a
preliminary investigation is not properly a trial or any part thereof but is
merely preparatory thereto, its only purpose being to determine
whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable
cause to believe the accused guilty thereof.

20.Hence, finding that the complaint with its annexes evidence are sufficient
for the finding of probable cause in the filing of the instant complaint,
Complainant respectfully moves for the Reconsideration of the above
Resolution of this Honorable Office dated 19 December 2023.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Resolution dated 19

December 2023 be reversed and set aside and a new Resolution be
issued finding probable cause against Respondent ALFREDO J. ESCALL
for the violation of Art. 183 of the Revised Penal Code as amended.

Other relief just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

Makati City for Pasig City. 01 March 2024.

SUAREZ ODONIO LAW OFFICES

Unit 1612 Cityland Condominium 10 Tower 1,
H.V. Dela Costa Street, Salcedo Village,
2
G.R. No. 212140-41, Estrada vs. Ombudsman, et al , January 21, 2015
3
Brinegar v. US, 338 US 160 [1949
5
 Makati City, Metro Manila.
Tel. No. 02-8-296-0895

MARCIAL GERALD C. SUAREZ III

Roll Number 73635
IBP No. 392452, 03 January 2024, Makati Chapter
PTR No. 10074936; 03 January 2024, Makati City
MCLE Compliance No. VII-0027887, April 14, 2025
Email Address: gerald@solaw.ph

JENARA G. ODONIO
Roll Number 73795
IBP No. 395843, January 03, 2024, Makati Chapter
PTR No.10074934, January 03, 2024, Makati City
MCLE Compliance No. VII-0021455, April 14, 2025
E-Mail Add: Jenara@solaw.ph

KRISTINE FAYE C. GUARIN

Roll Number 76801
IBP No. 392065, January 03, 2024, Quezon City Chapter
PTR No. 10074935, January 03, 2024, Makati City
MCLE Compliance Board Resolution No. 1 series of 2008
Admitted to the Bar: 06 May 2022
(initial compliance will end on 14 April 2025)
E-Mail Add: kristinefayeguarin@gmail.com

EMRICO M. CABAHUG
Roll Number 83642
IBP No. 380749, December 29, 2023, Manila City Chapter III
PTR No. 10074937, January 03, 2024, Makati City
MCLE Compliance Board Resolution No. 1 series of 2008
Admitted to the Bar: 13 June 2022
(initial compliance will end on 14 April 2025)
E-Mail Add: emricocabahug@gmail.com

COPY FURNISHED:
6
ALFREDO J. ESCALL
(Respondent)
No. 25B FORTUNE ST.,
EAST FAIRVIEWQUEZON CITY

EXPLANATION

The foregoing is served to the copy furnished parties by way of Registered Mail due to time
constraint and lack of available personnel to effect personal service.

JENARA G. ODONIO

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

7
CITY OF ________ ) S. S.

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION

I, JAIME ESCALL, of legal age, Filipino, after having been duly sworn to in
accordance with law, do hereby depose and state that:

1.0 I am the Complainant in the above-entitled case.

2.0 I have caused the preparation and filing of this Motion for
Reconsideration
3.0 The allegations thereof contained are true and correct based on my
personal knowledge and/or authentic documents.
4.0 This Motion for Reconsideration is not intended to harass, cause
unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation.
5.0 The factual allegations of this Motion for Reconsideration have
evidentiary support or if specifically identified, will likewise have
evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for discovery.
6.0 I have not commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same
issues in any other court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the
best of my knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending before
any Court, Office, Commission or Tribunal.
7.0 Should I thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has
been filed or is pending, I shall report that fact within five (5) calendar
days therefrom to this Honorable Office.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this _____day of

________________ 20___ in ________________.

JAIME ESCALL
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _____ day of

________________ 2024 affiant exhibiting to me:
JAIME ESCALL ID_______________________
Doc. No.____________:
Page No. ___________:
Book No. ___________:
Series of 20___

8
9
1