Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
Pasay City

OSIAS M. BIBAS and ROSE ANN

M. BIBAS,
Complainants,

-versus- I.S. No. __________________

FOR: PERJURY, FALSIFICATION
AND USE OF FALSIFIED
DOCUMENTS

ROZEL M. BIBAS,
Respondent.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT

We, OSIAS M. BIBAS, JR. and ROSE ANN M. BIBAS, both of legal ages,
Filipino and residents of ____________________________, after having been duly
sworn to in accordance with law, depose and state that:

1. We are the complainants in the above-captioned case and are filing

a criminal complaint for PERJURY, FALSIFICATION and USE OF FALSIFIED
DOCUMENTS.

2. Respondent ROZEL M. MAGCALAYO-BIBAS (Rosel), of legal age,

Filipino and a resident of 2523 Pasig Line Street, Sta. Ana, Manila, where she
may be served with summons, subpoena and processes of this Honorable
Office.

3. On 08 May 2014, respondent Rozel executed an Affidavit of Self-

Adjudication entered in the Notarial Registry of Atty. Ricardo C. Neri of the City
of Manila as Doc. No. 487; Page No. 98; Book No. I; Series of 2014.

A copy of this Affidavit of Self-Adjudication is hereto attached and made

an integral part hereof as Annex A.

4. In the said Affidavit of Self-Adjudication, she is claiming to be the

sole and only heir of OSIAS B. BIBAS who died on 5 March 2014 and
adjudicating unto herself the parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of
Title No. 002-2013002571.

A photocopy of TCT No. 002-2013002571 is hereto attached and made

an integral part hereof as Annex B.

5. By reason of the said Affidavit of Self-Adjudication, the TCT No.

002-2013002571 was cancelled and a new TCT No. 002-2014003628 was
issued by the Registry of Deeds of the City of Manila in the name of respondent
Rozel.
 A copy of the TCT No. 002-2014003628 is hereto attached and made an
integral part hereof as Annex C.

6. At the outset, it must be pointed out that this TCT No. 002-
2013002571 originally came from TCT No. 249946 registered under the name
of Osias B. Bibas and his wife Ma. Lily Molina Bibas. However, the title over
the said parcel of land was transferred by OSIAS B. BIBAS his name married
to Rozel M. Bibas by virtue of an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication executed by
Osias B. Bibas on 26 February 2013.

A copy each of the TCT No. 249946 as well as the Affidavit of Self-
Adjudication of Osias B. bibas are hereto attached and made integral parts
hereof as Annexes D and E, respectively.

7. Respondent Rozel, in executing the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication

(annex A), committed PERJURY because she categorically declared that she
is the sole and only heir of Osias B. Bibas and that the latter has no creditor.

8. It must stressed that herein complainants OSIAS JR. and ROSE

ANN together with Ma. Theresa M. Bibas had filed a Petition with the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 26 of Manila which is entitled In the matter of the
Petition for the Settlement of the Intestate Estate of Osias Bibas, Ma.
Theresa M. Bibas, Osias M. Bibas, Jr., and Rose Ann M. Bibas, petitioners,
versus Rozel M. Bibas, Oppositor and docketed as SP. PRO. NO. 14131713.

A copy of the Petition dated 10 April 2014 is hereto attached and made
an integral part hereof as Annex F.

9. Respondent Rozel is actively participating and opposing the said

Petition for settlement of estate.

10. Thus, she cannot feign ignorance that she does not know of the
existence of the said Petition and further claim to be the sole and only heir of
Osias B. Bibas.

11. It must likewise be stressed that the said Petition was filed with
the Regional Trial Court on 23 April 2014

12. Moreover, the supporting documents that she introduced and

submitted to the Registry of Deeds of Manila, particularly the Verified Petition
for Withdrawal/Cancellation of Adverse Claim (Petition for Withdrawal)
and the Verification (Verification) are FALSIFIED.

A copy each of the Verified Petition for Withdrawal/Cancellation of

Adverse Claim and the Verification are hereto attached and made integral part
hereof as Annex G and H, respectively.

13. We categorically deny having executed and signed those

documents (annexes G and H).

14. It appears that our respective signatures were electronically copied

from the Verification of the Petition for Settlement of Estate that we filed with
the Regional Trial Court of Manila.
 15. Further verification with the Office of the Clerk of Court of the
Regional Trial Court of Manila revealed that the said Petition for Withdrawal
(Annex G) and the Verification (Annex H) submitted to the Registry of Deeds
of Manila by respondent Rozel do not exist as evidenced by the Certification
issued by the said Office of the Clerk of Court.

A copy of the Certification dated ________ is hereto attached and made an

integral part hereof as Annex I.

16. Under the circumstances obtaining, it is crystal clear that

respondent Rozel committed the crimes of PERJURY, FALSIFICATION AND
USE OF FALSIFIED DOCUMENT in transferring the title of the real property
subject of our Petition for Settlement of the Intestate Estate of Osias B. Bibas
with the Regional Trial Court of Manila.

17. The offense of Perjury as defined in Article 183 of the Revised

Penal Code is the willful and corrupt assertion of a falsehood under oath or
affirmation administered by authority of law on a material matter. The said
article provides:

ART. 183. False testimony in other cases and perjury in solemn

affirmation. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period
to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed
upon any person who, knowingly making untruthful statements
and not being included in the provisions of the next preceding
articles, shall testify under oath, or to make an affidavit, upon any
material matter before a competent person authorized to
administer an oath in cases in which the law so requires.

Any person who, in the case of solemn affirmation made in lieu of

an oath, shall commit any of the falsehood mentioned in this and
the three preceding articles of this section, shall suffer the
respective penalties provided therein.

18. Moreover, respondent Rozel should likewise be indicted for

falsification under Article 172 in relation to Article 171 of the Revised
Penal Code for making it appear that We executed a Petition for
withdrawal/Cancellation of Adverse Claim and a Verification which she used as
to Support her Affidavit of Self-Adjudication and the transfer of the title of the
real property to her name.

Pertinently, Articles 171 and 172 of the Revised Penal Code provide that:

Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or

notary or ecclesiastic minister. The penalty of prision
mayor and a fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos shall be imposed
upon any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking
advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by
committing any of the following acts:

1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or

rubric;
 2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any
act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate;

3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or

proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them;

4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;

5. Altering true dates;

6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine

document which changes its meaning;

7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to

be a copy of an original document when no such original
exists, or including in such a copy a statement contrary to, or
different from, that of the genuine original; or

8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the

issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official book.

The same penalty shall be imposed upon any

ecclesiastical minister who shall commit any of the offenses
enumerated in the preceding paragraphs of this article, with
respect to any record or document of such character that its
falsification may affect the civil status of persons.

Art. 172. Falsification by private individual and use of

falsified documents. The penalty of prision correccional in
its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than
P5,000 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.chanrobles virtual law library

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. (underscoring
supplied)

19. Pursuant to the above-quoted provisions of the Penal Code, a

private individual may be held liable for falsification under Article 172 if he
shall commit any of the falsifications enumerated in the next preceding article
in any public or official document.

20. We are executing this Complaint-Affidavit to attest to the truth of

the foregoing facts and to institute the filing of a criminal complaint against
ROZEL M. Bibas for PRERJURY, FALSIFICATION and use of FALSIFIED
DOCUMENTS.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands this __th day of
April 2016 in the City of Manila.

OSIAS M. BIBAS , JR. ROSE ANN M. BIBAS

Affiant Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ____ day of _______ at

Manila City.

I FURTHER CERTIFY that I have personally examined the herein

affiants and that I am convinced that they voluntarily executed and understood
the contents of this Counter Affidavit.