Alice Guo (real name: Guo Hua Ping) at the Senate of the Philippines on October 8, 2024.
MANILA, Philippines — Dismissed Bamban Mayor Alice Guo (real name: Guo Hua Ping) cannot be held liable for the notary issue on her counter-affidavit for the human trafficking case as she was already outside the country when it was notarized, her camp argued Tuesday.
Guo’s legal counsel, Atty. Stephen David, made the pronouncement after submitting a counter-affidavit seeking to dismiss the perjury and falsification charges against Guo in a preliminary investigation hearing held at the Department of Justice in Manila.
“Our defense is that she shouldn’t be sued for falsification or perjury,” David said in Filipino in a chance interview with reporters.
“First of all, she was not here. So what would her participation be in the notarization?” he added.
READ: NBI files perjury raps vs lawyer who notarized Guo reply
When asked about Guo’s assistants admitting that she instructed them to have the document notarized, David said Guo’s order does not mean she personally committed the falsification.
“What is needed there is the act that she falsified the notarization herself,” he explained in Filipino.
David also insisted that the document, which the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) previously deduced to have been signed by a different person, was “pre-signed” by Guo before she fled to Jakarta, Indonesia.
READ: Alice Guo’s counter-affidavit signed by someone else – NBI
He explained that the counter-affidavit should not have been notarized in the first place if Guo herself was not present to sign the document in front of the lawyer or the notary public.
“So I don’t see any falsification there because she is the one who signed it. Now, who we should question is the one who notarized it,” he added.
Asked for his opinion on whether Guo should be held liable for the notarization error, David responded “no.”
“I cannot comment on that since it’s sub judice,” he added. “But on the part of the affiant, the mayor, she wasn’t there. How would you say that she faced the lawyer? So you cannot make her liable.”
Meanwhile, in the 18-page counter-affidavit filed against the perjury and falsification charges, Guo denied all accusations against her and insisted that “there is no probable cause” to indict her in the cases.
“Respectfully, there is no enough evidence to prove that I actually committed any of these crimes imputed against me. In fact, one can surmise that the purpose of the repetitive allegations in this Complaint is simply to vex, annoy and harass me,” said Guo in her counter-affidavit.
“Respectfully, this criminal Complaint is purely a malicious suit and simply a clear attempt to satisfy the sentiments of some in order to say that various cases are filed against me,” she added.
According to Guo, she cannot be held liable for falsification of public documents as there was no evidence that she conspired with the lawyer who notarized her document.
“What is incumbent here is that I did not falsify any document. Neither did I use my influence nor take advantage of my position as in this case, I am an ordinary private person who has no knowledge of the rules of notary public. As a private ordinary individual, it is improper and unfair to assume that I know of the duties and processes to be adopted by a notary public,” she said.
Meanwhile, for the perjury charge, Guo argued the same, stating that none of the elements of perjury were present in the allegations against her.
The said elements are as follows: that the accused made a statement under oath or executed an affidavit upon a material matter; that the statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer, authorized to receive and administer oath; that in that statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood; and that the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law or made for a legal purpose.
“Complainants failed to show how I committed each element of the crime nor did they present any evidence showing that I actually committed any acts,” said Guo.
She then questioned the NBI’s investigation of her signature pointing out that since it was a unilateral forensic examination, it violated her right to due process; that it was “self-serving”; and that the authenticity of the examination itself was “highly questionable.
Guo maintained that it was her who pre-signed the subject counter-affidavit, adding that she should not be faulted for the misdemeanor of the notary public who notarized the document.
“I respectfully submit that there is no probable cause in this instant cases to indict me for the crimes, more so, under the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines or that any crime at all has been committed,” Guo said in the counter-affidavit.
The cases stemmed from Guo’s counter-affidavit which was filed days after a qualified trafficking complaint was submitted against her for resolution on August 6.
Guo’s counter-affidavit was signed on August 14 by lawyer Elmer Galicia, almost a month after she had left the Philippines in July.
The NBI then filed complaints of perjury, falsification, and obstruction of justice against Guo and Galicia as well as four other individuals.
