REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Office of the Regional State Prosecutor

NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE
San Fernando City, La Union

GRACE BORGOA INSIGNE,

DIOSDADO V. BORGOA,
OSBOURNE V. BORGOA,
IMELDA BORGOA RIVERA,
and ARISTOTLE V. BORGOA,
Respondents-Appellants

-versus-
NPS Docket No. I-06-INV-17A-00011
ABRA VALLEY COLLEGES,
INC., represented by its President,
FRANCIS BORGOA,
Complainant-Appellee,

MOTION TO DISMISS THE PETITION FOR REVIEW

COMPLAINANT-APPELLEE ABRA VALLEY COLLEGES, through the
undersigned Counsel, and unto this Honorable Office, respectfully avers

BY WAY OF COMPLIANCE

1. In compliance with Department Circular No. 018 issued by the

Department of Justice on March 8, 2017, pertaining to the Rule on Electronic Filing
of Petitions for Review, undersigned Counsel for Complainant-Appellee Abra
Valley Colleges [represented by Francis Borgoa] hereby submits along with this
Motion to Dismiss, a Compact Disc [CD-ROM] containing the digital / electronic
copy of this Motion to Dismiss.

BY WAY OF MOTION

2. The Petition for Review lodged by Grace Borgoa Insigne, Diosdado

Borgoa, Osbourne Borgoa, Imelda Borgoa Rivera and Aristotle Borgoa
should be dismissed outright because it was put forward without the requisite
accompanying compact disc and thus it is deemed to have not been filed pursuant
to Section 2 of Department Order No. 018 which clearly provides that "[n]o petition
shall be docketed and deemed filed without the accompanying CD".

3. Moreover, any action by Petitioner's to seek relaxation of the rules

should not be given any consideration in view of Section 5 of the same Department
Order No. 018 which emphasizes that the requirements are "MANDATORY" and
non-compliance constitutes "a ground for the dismissal of the petition for review".

1
 4. And since the Petition for Review isunder the lawconsidered
unfiled and the 15-day appeal period has long lapsed, it follows that the assailed
Resolution of the Abra Provincial Prosecutor is already final, executory, and
irreversible. In other words, the said Resolution is already immutable and
unalterable; it can no longer be disturbed, altered, or modifiedand all issues it
pertained to are deemed resolved and permanently laid to rest.1

5. Now even assuming, without admitting and for purposes of argument,

that the Petition for Review may be given due course, it should still be denied
outright because the Provincial Prosecutor did not commit any reversible error.
There is more than sufficient proof to support the indictment, prosecution, and
eventual incarceration of Respondents Grace Borgoa Insigne, Diosdado Borgoa,
Osbourne Borgoa, Imelda Borgoa Rivera and Aristotle Borgoa for Falsification
in violation of Article 172 in relation to Article 171 of Act No. 3815 otherwise
known as the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines as Amended, and such other
appropriate criminal cases.

6. In addition, the Petition for Review / Appeal is already immaterial

because the Respondents have already been criminally charged for Falsification
by Private Individual and Use of Falsified Document before the Municipal Trial
Court of Bangued, Abra under Criminal Cases Numbered 8609 and 8610. The
standing rule is that once a criminal complaint or an information is filed in court,
any disposition or dismissal of the case rests within the jurisdiction, competence,
and discretion of the Trial Court.2

7. In the case at bar, Respondents expressly acknowledged in their

Counter-Affidavit that they were the ones who had indeed procured the subject
documentsparticularly the faux Certification supposedly made by Jocelyn
Bernal as well as the series of bogus "receipts". Such admission is very important
inasmuch as it demonstrates their culpability for the felonies they are presently
being accused of. This is in light of the salutary rule that "the admissions of parties
charged with a crime, deliberately made, are always admissible to show their
guilt."3 Admissions are binding on the party who made them and cannot be
contradicted absent any showing that it was made through palpable mistake.4 In
United States v. Ching Po,5 the Supreme Court took the occasion to make the
following elucidations

1 A final order is one which disposes of the whole subject matter or terminates a proceeding or action;

leaving nothing to be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined. It is conclusive on the
matters or issues directly or determined therein and on all issues that could have been raised in relation
thereto. See Republic of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan [Fourth Division] et al, G.R. No. 152375, December
16, 2011 and Angelina Pahila-Garrido v. Eliza M. Tortogo et al, G.R. No. 156358, August 17, 2011. See also for
reference Spouses Maria Butiong and Francisco Villafria substituted by Dr. Ruel Villafria v. Ma. Gracia Rioza
Plaza and Ma. Fe Rioza Alaras, G.R. No. 187524, August 05, 2015; Alberto Lasala v. National Food Authority,
G.R. No. 171582, August 19, 2015; Ram's Studio and Photographic Equipment, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 400
Phil. 542, 550
2 See Nilo Hipos, Sr. v. Hon. Judge Teodoro Bay, G.R. Nos. 174813-15, March 17, 2009; Mario Crespo
v. Hon. Judge Leodegario Mogul, G.R. No. L-53373, June 30, 1987.

3 See People of the Philippines v. Baltazar Lacao and David Lacao, G.R. No. L-32078, September 30,
1974; People of the Philippines v. Salik Magomawal, 63 SCRA 106; People of the Philippines v. Hernane, 75
Phil. 554. See also People of the Philippine v. Francisco, 74 SCRA 158, where it was held that the declaration
of an accused expressly acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged may be given in evidence against him,
where it is voluntary.
4 See Delfin, et al. v. Billones, et al., G. R. No. 146550, March 17, 2006.
5 G. R. No. 7707, December 6, 1912, 23 Phil. 578.

2
 With reference to the admissibility of the admissions and
declarations of a defendant charged with a crime, the rule seems to
be that the declarations made by a defendant or by a third party,
by his authority, if relevant, are admissible against him. If the
defendant has made statements constituting an admission of the
facts charged in the complaint, or relevant to the charges in the
complaint they are admissible against him. [Commonwealth v.
Sanborn, 116 Mass., 61; People vs. Bosworth, 64 Hun (N. Y.), 72;
People v. Cassidy, 133 N. Y., 612; State v. Behrman, 114 N. C., 797.]

The foregoing rule is based upon the presumption that no man

would declare anything against himself, unless such declarations
were true. A man's acts, conduct, and declarations, wherever made,
provided they be voluntary, are admissible against him, for the
reason that it is fair to presume that they correspond with the truth,
and it is his fault if they do not. [Truby v. Sevbert, 12 Pa. St., 101, 104.]

8. In People of the Philippines v. Pedro Gonzales,6 the Supreme Court

pronounced

The rule is that the deliberate admissions of a party charged with

a crime are always admissible to show his guilt [People vs.
Hernane, 75 Phil. 554]. A judgment of conviction, based on the
admission of the accused, as confirmed by complainant's
testimony, stands on solid ground [People v. Banayad, 86 Phil. 259].

9. It is highly unfair and unwarranted for Respondents to cast aspersions

on Jocelyn Bernal and even to impute to her the commission of a crime. Jocelyn
Bernal should not be faulted for telling the truth. She did notand could not have
made a certification in favor of the Respondentsbecause aside from there being
no material benefit in doing so, Respondents are not really shareholders of Abra
Valley Colleges, Inc. All she did was tell the truth; and Respondents plain denials
made in a desperate attempt at casting doubt on the genuine accusations hurled
against them cannot overcome the unequivocal and positive declaration of Jocelyn
Bernal herself who has already personally appeared before the Honorable Office
of the Provincial Prosecutor to confirm that the Certification did not originate
from her and that the signature appearing therein was likewise not affixed by her.
Affirmative declarations prevail over the bare denials of the Accused which are
self-serving negative defenses. And if at all, it is the Respondents who should
incarcerated for perjury and falsification.

10. Whenever persons have in their possession a falsified document which

they then used and continue to use to their advantage and benefit, they are deemed
to be the ones who created it.7 The legal presumption that the possessor sand users
of falsified documents are presumed to be the authors thereof is applicable in this
case. Respondents definitely reaped gains through their use of the faux
Certification supposedly made by Jocelyn Bernal as well as the series of bogus
"receipts" allegedly serving as proof of having supposedly purchased shares of
stock from Abra Valley Colleges. It was on the basis of these documents that they
sought and thereupon obtained a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court in G.

6 G.R. No. L-33926, July 31, 1974, 58 SCRA 265.

7 See People of the Philippines v. Jose Go et al, G.R. No. 191015, August 6, 2014.

3
R. No. 204089 [Grace Borgoa Insigne et al v. Abra Valley Colleges, Inc. et al].
They are in fact raring to utilize them again in support of their stance in Special
Civil Action Case No. 2070 [Grace Borgoa Insigne et al v. Abra Valley Colleges
and Francis Borgoa] pending before Branch 1 of the Regional Trial Court of
Bangued, Abra.

11. Respondents even went to the extent of contending that there is a need
to have the subject documents studied by an expertparticularly Questioned
Documents Examiner. But it is our respectful submission that there is no actual
need for this especially in light of Respondents express acknowledgement in their
Counter-Affidavit that they were the ones who had indeed produced the subject
documents. Such admission is very important inasmuch as it demonstrates their
culpability for the felonies they are presently being accused of. This is in light of
the salutary rule that "admissions of parties charged with a crime, deliberately
made, are always admissible to show their guilt." 8

12. Respondents' desperate assertion anent the supposed truth of the

information contained in the "Certification" and the series of "Receipts" with
respect to being their purported stock holders of Abra Valley Colleges, Inc., is
belied by the fact that they do not have stock certificates in their respective names.
The best proof that shares had been purchased and acquired are Certificates of
Stock. If Respondents had really paid for their supposed shares of stock, then
corresponding Certificates of Stock should have already been issued in their
names. Section 64 of the Corporation Code prohibits the issuance of certificate of
stock to a subscriber who has not paid "the full amount of his subscription together
with interest and expenses". The alleged receipts purportedly issued on "August
8, 1986" were obviously fabricated by the Respondents to give a semblance of
authenticity to their false claim of being shareholders of Abra Valley Colleges. A
close inspection of each one of these would bear out that the alleged payments
were indicated on receipt forms that were specifically designed for the educational
services business of AVC and not for official corporate transactions.

13. Distorting the truthespecially in the performance of duty and in

connection with official corporate proceedings constitute dishonesty, grave
misconduct, falsification and a host of other serious transgressions that merit
punishments to the fullest extent provided by law.

14. Respondents have proven that they are willing to lie, manipulate facts,
and go against morals in an effort to prevail in this present action lodged against
them. This is a moral outrage. By their actions they gravely disregarded the value
of honesty. They rejected the fact that the demand of truth takes a strong public
manifestation beyond the private and social dimensions. They forgot that fidelity
to the truth is one of their primary duties as citizens.

15. By putting forward and affirming false documents and making it appear
that they participated in certain corporate acts where they did not so participate
resulting in undue damage and prejudice to Abra Valley Colleges, Inc.,

8 See People of the Philippines v. Baltazar Lacao and David Lacao, G.R. No. L-32078, September 30,
1974; People of the Philippines v. Salik Magomawal, 63 SCRA 106; People of the Philippines v. Hernane, 75
Phil. 554. See also People of the Philippine v. Francisco, 74 SCRA 158, where it was held that the declaration
of an accused expressly acknowledging his guilt of the offense charged may be given in evidence against him,
where it is voluntary.

4
Respondents should most definitely be indicted, tried and jailed for falsification,
issuance and use of false certification.

16. Whatever other contentions Respondents may have, if any, regarding

their purported innocence are matters of defense best threshed out during the
course of a trial where evidence shall be analysed, weighed, given credence or
disproved.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, and in interest of justice, it is

respectfully prayed that the Petition for Review / Appeal filed by Respondents
GRACE BORGOA INSIGNE, DIOSDADO V. BORGOA, OSBOURNE V.
BORGOA, IMELDA BORGOA RIVERA and, ARISTOTLE V. BORGOA
be denied for having been filed out of time, for violation of the rules, and for utter
lack of merit.

Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

Bangued, Abra, October 24, 2017.

ATTY. MELISSA LIM QUITAN-CORPUZ

Counsel for Complainant-Appellee
Attorneys Roll No: 53494; 04-27-07; Manila
IBP No. 1056775 01.03.2017 Baguio City
PTR No. 2946050 01.03.2017 Baguio City
MCLE Compliance No.VI-0001315; 11.04.2016
202 2/F Otek Business Centre
13 Otek Street, Baguio City 2600

Copy furnished via Registered Mail

ATTY. CEASAR G. ORACION

ATTY. FERDINAND E. LIMOS
Oracion Barlis & Associates
Newtown Plaza Hotel
No. 42 Claro M. Recto Street
Baguio City