A businesswoman who is sporting two names—Gertrudes M. Ang and Gertrudes M. Simonette, is facing two separate cases for falsification of commercial, public and private documents and estafa, after the city prosecutor's office and the Regional State Prosecutor found probable case to indict her of the crimes charged. Ang and or Simonette, who records show are one and the same, earned the falsification case when Regional State Prosecutor Fernando Gubalane found prima facie evidence against her pertaining to the preparation and execution of documents arising from a mortgaged piece of land as security for a loan amount of P 1 million from the Cooperative Bank of Bohol, Inc.

According to the complainant, Eufronia Estaca Guitan, she personally went to CBBI to conduct her own inquiry on a document she suspected to be falsified. She discovered that the respondents who included the bank manager Julieta Caballo had caused the undue issuance of CBBI Official Receipt No. 190570 thereby making it appear that the remaining balance of the mentioned loan amount was already paid by Ang. The complainant was represented by lawyer Lord Marapao. In another instance, respondent Ang also allegedly falsified a Deed of Absolute Sale by causing it to appear that complainant-appellant sold her piece of land under TCT No. 54295 to the spouses Venancio and Gertrudes Ang. According to complainant she was completely unaware of any sale transaction between her and the Ang couple involving the mentioned parcel of land.

In her defense, Ang pointed out that a criminal case for estafa was already filed against her on the basis of facts constituting the present charges. She argued that the allegations of falsification on her part were in conflict with the mentioned estafa case that alleges complainant-appellant was made to sign the questioned documents without receiving any proceeds therefore. For her part, Caballo alleged that in acting on the supposedly falsified documents, she merely performed her functions as, manager of the bank. The same documents appeared valid to her. She however contended that if fraud was resorted to in the execution of the questioned documents, she was not a part of it. Upon review, the regional state prosecutor found merit in the petition. He said as it has always been in this jurisdiction, the determination of probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt.

It was enough that it was believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged. On estafa filed against same respondent, Neferteri Cristobal, city prosecutor I, recommended an indictment citing that it was apparent on the face of the subject document that the signature appearing above the name of the complainant was indeed hers, considering the similarity thereon with her true signature. According to the same complainant in the falsification case, she alleged that through deceit/fraud/misrepresentation/guile treachery, she was made to sign a Special Power of Attorney authorizing respondent Ang/ Simonetti as her attorney-in-fact to use as collateral for loan and mortgage the said parcel of land. Respondent then allegedly used the Special Power of Attorney in surreptitiously contracting a loan/mortgage with the CRBBI in the amount of P 1 million giving rise to the instant cases.