By Ade S. Fajardo

Senator Marcoleta: “Ito rin po ay pina-notaryo ninyo. Totoo po ba ang notaryong ito?”

Orly Guteza: “Totoo po, your honor.”

That was the simple exchange between the examiner and the witness that segued to questions on the substance of the affidavit that Guteza submitted to the Senate Blue Ribbon committee a month ago.

***

A litigator would have propounded further preliminary questions. Like whose signature it is on top of the name of the notary public.

If the witness says it is the notary’s signature, the examiner would ask why he knew that — and the witness would normally respond that it was signed in his presence. This would establish the fact that the affiant and the notary had actually met, and the affidavit was subscribed and sworn before an authorized officer of the law.

The identification of that signature would normally dispense with the presence of the notary to identify their signature.

***

The Senate hearing was not a judicial proceeding, however. Technical rules of evidence do not apply to legislative inquiries.

Even then, Guteza’s short response in the Senate, i.e., that the notarization of his affidavit was valid, has recently been contradicted by the findings of the executive judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila.

Executive Judge Carolina Sison said notary public Petchie Rose Espera’s signature as it appears on the affidavit was forged. She added that photographic enlargements revealed “significant fundamental differences in handwriting characteristics and habits between the questioned and the standard specimen signatures” of the notary.

***

In short, the notary public did not affix the signature that appears on the affidavit. Her signature is a forgery. Somebody else signed for her.

Since Guteza did not appear before Atty. Espera, his claim before the Blue Ribbon that the notarization is valid is a false statement.

He had knowingly presented an affidavit with a forged signature.

***

Former Congressman and Cabinet Secretary Mike Defensor has been all over town downplaying the import of Judge Sison’s decision.

In gist, Defensor claims that the validity of the notarial signature is a non-issue since the contents of the affidavit were nonetheless affirmed as true by Guteza when he testified in the Senate.

It is Guteza’s testimony that matters.

***

Examples are even provided.

An errand boy who goes to a notary public “under the tree” (many of these hold shop near government offices like city and municipal halls) and pays for the notarization of a deed of sale in behalf of his employer would not normally know the difference between an actual notary public and the latter’s staff or secretary who affixes the notarial seal coupled with the notarial signature.

This example trivializes the notarial process. While the practice may be widespread, it remains patently illegal because presence and oath before the notary is a basic requirement under the rules of notarial practice.

It does not help the cause of justice that prominent persons are toying with the rule of law./WDJ