Acting Cebu City Prosecutor Jo-ana Marie Desuyo charged Cebu-based businessman Mark Y. Yu with perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code over false statements in an affidavit accusing two prosecutors of corruption.
The Cebu City Regional Trial Court Branch 23 received the case on Aug. 24, 2026, setting bail at P18,000 following an investigation into Yu's claims of a P50,000 payment for favorable case resolutions.
Prosecutor Gandhi Truya filed the perjury complaint after the Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the original criminal and administrative complaints against the prosecutors due to a lack of evidence of conversations or bribery.
A CEBU-BASED businessman has been charged with perjury over statements he made in an affidavit accusing two Cebu City prosecutors of involvement in an alleged P50,000 payment in exchange for favorable action on cases he had filed.
Acting Cebu City Prosecutor Jo-ana Marie Desuyo found enough evidence to charge Mark Y. Yu with perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code.
The Cebu City Regional Trial Court Branch 23 received the case on Aug. 24, 2026. Bail was set at P18,000.
The charge stemmed from an affidavit Yu submitted with complaints against then-Cebu City prosecutor Liceria Lofranco-Rabillas and Prosecutor Gandhi Truya before the Office of the Ombudsman for the Visayas.
In her decision, Desuyo said Yu’s allegations “have the material effect or tendency to influence the Office of the Ombudsman in the determination of the complainant’s (Truya) liability for grave misconduct and the existence for violation of Republic Act 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).”
Desuyo further said that Yu’s “assertion is a complete falsity and was made with criminal intent and bad faith and malice” against Truya, who filed the perjury complaint against Yu.
Alleged false claims
Yu had accused Truya and Lofranco-Rabillas of violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and committing grave misconduct.
The charge sheet alleged that Yu falsely claimed Truya told him Lofranco-Rabillas had ordered the dismissal of cases involving Yu’s former business partner, Brezhnev Tero, because Tero was backed by a powerful and influential person.
Yu also claimed Truya advised him to befriend and support Lofranco-Rabillas to keep outside parties from interfering in his future cases.
In his affidavit, Yu said he encountered Truya at the Cebu Provincial Capitol parking lot in February 2018. Truya allegedly gave him Lofranco-Rabillas’ bank account details and told him to deposit about P50,000 for her expenses at an event in Bohol.
Yu said he deposited P50,000 into the account on March 7, 2018 and later showed the deposit slip to Truya, who allegedly kept it.
He also alleged that Truya and Tero were batchmates at the University of San Carlos Boys’ High School and that their connection explained why his cases against Tero were dismissed.
Ombudsman complaint
Yu filed his complaint with the Ombudsman on Dec. 17, 2020, after several cases he brought before the Cebu City Prosecutor’s Office were dismissed.
He accused Lofranco-Rabillas and Truya of extortion and using their positions to favor certain people.
In resolutions dated May 17, 2022, the Ombudsman initially found probable cause to charge both prosecutors with one count of indirect bribery. It also found Truya guilty of simple misconduct and suspended him for one month without pay.
Lofranco-Rabillas was found guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and suspended for three months without pay.
Both prosecutors later sought to reverse the Ombudsman’s ruling by filing a motion for reconsideration.
Truya denied giving Yu the bank account details. He also said an injury from a bicycle accident would have prevented him from meeting Yu at the Capitol during the period cited in the complaint.
Lofranco-Rabillas, for her part, denied receiving money from Yu or knowing about the alleged deposit. She also denied that she was scheduled to attend an event in Bohol during the period cited by Yu.
Charges dismissed
In a joint order dated June 21, 2024, the Ombudsman granted Truya’s motion for reconsideration and dismissed the criminal and administrative complaints against him.
The anti-graft office partially granted Lofranco-Rabillas’ motion by dismissing the indirect bribery complaint against her.
“There is no record of any conversation between complainant Yu and respondent Lofranco-Rabillas or respondent Truya pertaining to the said amount,” the Ombudsman said.
“To hold that there is a probable cause for indirect bribery only because there is a bank slip evidencing deposit on a public officer’s account would open the floodgates to fabricated charges made by disgruntled individuals,” it added.
However, the Ombudsman upheld Lofranco-Rabillas’ administrative liability because she admitted going to Yu’s residence after office hours on Sept. 11, 2018, to administer an oath for his wife’s affidavit of desistance.
In her counter-affidavit, Lofranco-Rabillas said she acted in good faith because Yu’s wife was immunocompromised and could not leave the house.
“Such act… tarnished the image and reputation of her office. It gave the appearance that [she] was favoring certain people and giving undue privilege, especially considering that the verification and notarization could have been done by a private lawyer or by other prosecutors at the office and during office hours,” the Ombudsman said. / KAL