REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
QUEZON CITY

William Pucci,

Complainant,

-versus- I.S. No. ____________

For Perjury.

Mark W. Daigle,

Respondent.

x------------------------------------------------------------------x

Complaint Affidavit

I, William Pucci, Nationality, of legal age, single, resident of

Anaheim Building, California Garden, Brgy. Mauway,

Mandaluyong City, after having been sworn in accordance with

law, do hereby and depose and state that:

1. On Date of the Execution of the Sworn Statement,

Respondent executed a Sworn Statement (“Statement” for

brevity) before Atty. Edwin G. Engay narrating the incident of

November 26, 2009, which was submitted to the Office of the

Motor Vehicle Concern Center (“OMVCC” for brevity), Camp

Crame, Quezon City.

A copy of Respondent Daigle’s Sworn Statement is attached

hereto and made an integral part hereof as “Annex A.”

 2. In the Statement, Respondent stated that it was the

Complainant and a certain Steven Simore who took his BMW X3

2.0D with plate number XRP-446 (“BMW” for brevity), on

November 26, 2009, the pertinent part of the Statement is as

follows:

“Tanong: Sino-sino ang mga kumuha sa iyong sasakyan?

Makikilala mo ba sila kung sakaling makita mo silang muli?

Sagot: William Pucci/ Steven Simore.”

3. In the Statement, Respondent represented that there

had been no prior transactions between him and the Complainant

involving Respondent’s, the pertinent portion of which is as

follows:

“Tanong: Bago mangyari ang nasabing insidente may

nangyari bang transaksyon na may kinalaman sa sasakyan?

Sagot: None.”

4. The portions of the Statement mentioned in the two

preceding paragraphs are complete and utter lies considering that

the same day the Complainant and the Respondent executed a

Contract of Pledge (“Contract” for brevity) wherein the BMW was

taken as collateral for Respondent’s debt of Sixty Thousand

Dollars ($60,000) to Complainant arising out of the sale of 42

1/2% of On Time Advertising Services. The BMW was not taken

from the Respondent and, in fact, it was given by Respondent to

Complainant in lieu of the Contract, wherein Complainant is

entitled to the possession of the thing pledged the Contract being

one of Pledge.

A copy of the Contract is attached hereto and made an

integral part hereof as “Annex B.”

5. There are four (4) elements that comprise the crime of

Perjury, namely:

a. The accused made a statement under oath on a

material matter;

b. The statement was made before a competent officer,

authorized to receive and administer oaths;

c. The accused made a willful and deliberate assertion

of a falsehood in the statement, and,

d. The sworn statement containing the falsity is

required by law or made for a legal purpose.

6. The assertions made by Respondent in the Statement

constitute the crime of Perjury when the statements are taken

against the elements of the crime, to wit:

a. Considering that the investigation OMVCC focused on

the loss of the BMW, his untruthful statements under

 oath that the Complainant took the BMW and that

there was no prior transactions between Respondent

and Complainant constitute material matter;

b. The statements were made before Atty. Edwin G.

Engcay, a notary public who is authorized to receive

and administer oaths;

c. When taken against the Contract, the Respondent

made a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood

when he said that Complainant took his car and

there was no prior transactions between him and

Complainant; and,

d. The Statement was required to be submitted to

OMVCC to facilitate its investigation.

7. All told, there is definitely probable cause to warrant

the prosecution of Respondent of violation of the crime of Perjury

under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code.

AFFIANT FURTHER SAYETH NAUGHT.

February 9, 2010, Quezon City.

WILLIAM PUCCI
AFFIANT
 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, this 9th day of

February 2010 at Quezon City.

KATA N. GAHAN
ASST. CITY PROSECUTOR

I hereby certify that I have examined the affiant and I am

satisfied that he executed the foregoing voluntarily and freely and

they fully understood its contents.

KATA N. GAHAN
ASST. CITY PROSECUTOR