Reply Sample

Republic of the Philippines
Department of Justice
NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE
OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTION OF RIZAL
TAYTAY, RIZAL
ADELINA CALDERON-BARGAS,
Complainant,
- Versus - NPS NO. XV=121-INV.-19B-00668-69

For: Grave Threats and Grave Coercion
And Violation of Mun. Ord. No. 01, S 97.
RECHIE PONTERAS,
Respondent,
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Republic of the Philippines)

Taytay, Rizal )
x--------------------------------x
REPLY
(To the respondent’s Counter Affidavit and
to his witness’ Judicial-Affidavit)
I, ADELINA CALDERON-BARGAS, of legal age, after having been sworn

in accordance with the law, and by way of reply to the Respondent’s Counter
Affidavit and the affidavit of his witness, Agnes Paladin most respectfully states
that:
1. That respondent Richie Ponteras admitted in his counter affidavit that he

constructed a perimeter fence made of barbed wire and cyclone wire to
protect the interest of the alleged owner from professional squatters and
other trespassers who used their property without the consent of the owner;
It must be emphasized however that the private complainant is not a
professional squatter but an adjoining owner of the subject property which
has been using the fenced road which was built the complainant and her
predecessors since time immemorial;
2. Pursuant to the Kautusang Pambayan Blg. 01, Serye 97, copy of which is
attached hereto as Annex “1” prohibits the closure of an access road to
adjoining Lot Owners;
3. There is no basis in the allegations that the filing of the instant complaint
is merely to influence the civil case pending before the RTC of Morong,
Rizal; Likewise, the fencing of the road does not in any way made to
establish their right as it was made to deny the complainant access to her
adjoining property particularly Lot 106, 107 and 108;
4. Nothing was destroyed (winasak) as stated in the counter affidavit “Bakit
ninyo naman pinutol ito”
5. Prior incidents of fencing which was photographed and submitted to the
RTC case would show that respondent with the help of armed men used
force and intimidation in building fence;
Page 1 of 2
6. The Grave Threat was committed against witness Rolando Timoteo, Jr.
the bare denial of the respondent deserves scant consideration against the
positive assertion of the witnesses and the mute evidence which the
photograph of the fence on the road of about five (5) meters. Clearly, the
intention of the respondent is to deprive the adjoining lot owner, the
undersigned complainant;
7. The undersigned vehemently denies and is hurting in the unkind word
“Nagkukumwari” and even referring to her previous position which has
been protected through 28 years of service. Her only concern is the access
to her property and the other residents who are now suffering and had to
climb cliffs to reach the Marcos Highway. As earlier stated during the
preliminary investigation, a resident died and the family and sympathizers
suffered aggravating the grief of the loss of a love one;
8. On the affidavit of witness Agnes Paladin, the same has no basis in law
and in fact. The RTC Court stated that the parties, BF Gen. and the
undersigned has yet to established their respective rights. However, it is
evident that the land that BF Gen. claim is under the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program coverage even before the Foreclosure
proceedings on Lot 2 which was used as SURETY on the Mortgage of a
property of Lourdes Belisario;
9. Agnes Paladin is incompetent and has no rights to testify as she was not
present before, during, and after the commission of the offense charged.
Her legal opinion are matters of evidence that should be left to the proper
court. She has not witnessed nor seen the fence on the road and was not
present when the respondent and the complainant’s witnesses were
threatened;
10.The “land owner” of Lot 2 is the government by virtue of its Department
of Agrarian Reform Coverage;
11.Respondent Pontiras did not deny building the fence and is now covered
by the protection of the BF Gen. consequently probable cause exists to file
a complaint as charge against him for Grave Threats and Grave Coercion
that he committed to accomplish the fencing and the violation of Municipal
Ordinance No. 01, series of 1997 and should be directed to immediately
removed the fence on the road subject of this case.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hands this 10 th day of May 2019
in Taytay, Rizal.
ADELINA CALDERON-BARGAS
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 10th day of May 2019

in Taytay, Rizal. This further to certify that I personally examined the affiant
and I am satisfied that she voluntarily executed and understood her affidavit.
BREND VIRGILIO VERGARA

Assistant Provincial Prosecutor
Page 2 of 2

Reply Sample

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reply Sample

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reply Sample

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

- Versus - NPS NO. XV=121-INV.-19B-00668-69

Republic of the Philippines)

I, ADELINA CALDERON-BARGAS, of legal age, after having been sworn

1. That respondent Richie Ponteras admitted in his counter affidavit that he

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 10th day of May 2019

BREND VIRGILIO VERGARA

You might also like