Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE REGION III
Office of the City Prosecutor
_____________________

_________________________________
Deputy City Prosecutor

_____________________.,
Complainant,

-vs- NPS Docket No. _____________________

For: _____________________

_____________________,
Respondent.
x--------------------------------------------x

REJOINDER-AFFIDAVIT

I, _____________________, of legal age, Filipino, married to

_____________________, and a resident of _____________________, after having
been sworn to in accordance with law, state that:

1. As Respondent in the above entitled case, I received the Joint Reply

Affidavit dated 08 October 2020 on 14 October 2020.

2. I deny the allegations under Paragraph 1 and 2, sub paragraphs (a)

through (d) of the Reply as follows:

2.1 While the blotter may be a public document, my

communication to the officials must be considered private in nature since it
was not my intention to publicize the matter but only for the purpose of
recording what has transpired. Is it not a right granted to each civilian to
seek protection from the public servants who has the legal duty to do so?

2.2 The blotter entry is not readily open to any person. It is within
the safekeeping and custody of the officials of the barangay. While any one
may request to view its contents, the same must still be upon request and
thus is not immediately available. Unless, of course, it is actually the
persons in custody thereof who publicize those blotter entries, should an
innocent person like me who only sought protection by exercising a right be
made liable?
 2.3 Even assuming, without admitting, that the entry is malicious,
the presumption of malice is done away with when the defamatory
imputation qualifies as privileged communication1.

3. I deny allegations contained under Paragraph 3, as follows:

3.1 Subparagraph is denied for lack of knowledge to form a

sufficient belief as to the truthfulness of the same. Noteworthy is the fact
that no Deed of Sale was actually attached to the Reply. Bueno’s claim of
ownership of Lot 4040-I is unfounded and has no basis. Seeing that there is
no proof of ownership of said lot, the Complainants have actually admitted
that there was indeed encroachment on the said easement. Despite this
actual encroachment, and several Notices coming from the Engineering
Office, Complainants brazenly continued the construction on their property.

3.2 The application of the case of Mercader vs Bardilas is

I.

Brief Factual Background of the Case

4. I am the owner of a parcel of land denominated as Lot 4040-C

located at Poblacion, San Jose Del Monte City, Bulacan, Philippines, covered
by OCT No. 2016000066, a copy is attached marked as Annex “1”. I further
use the improvement erected thereon for my restaurant business;

4.1 Lot 4040-C is a portion of Lot No. 4040 under approved

Subdivision Plan of Lot 4040, Cad-352 (the “Approved Plan”). Copy of
the Approved Plan is attached as Annex “2”.

4.2 In the Approved Plan, adjacent to Lot 4040-C, and actually

surrounding the entire subdivided land are easements of right of way
for the benefit of all adjoining lots denominated as Lot 4040-I, and
connected to Lot 4040-J, and to Lot 4040-K (the “Right of Way”).

5. Sometime October 2019, _____________________, one of the

complainants and owner of Lot 21, a lot immediately beside Lot 4040,
started to erect a commercial building on her land. Unfortunately, a portion
of said building encroached upon the Right of Way, Lot 4040-I, effectively
impeding my use, and other occupants of adjoining lots use, of the right of
way.

6. _____________________ on one hand, is the owner of Lot 4040-D.

1
Brillante vs Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 118757 & 121571, October 19, 2004
7. _____________________ on the other hand, is the sibling of
_____________________, who essentially admitted to having said, to one
_____________________and to _____________________, that he bought
the right of way.

8. To protect my right over said easement, I sent a letter to the Office of

the City Engineer of _____________________, protesting that the on-going
construction on the property of Defendant has encroached the Right of
Way. A copy of said letter is attached marked as Annex “3”.

8.1 As proof to the Office of the City Engineer, I presented the

results of a relocation survey through a letter on 05 February 2020,
copy is attached as Annex “4” to form part hereof.

8.2 Three Notices of Violation were subsequently issued against

Jennifer’s construction for possible boundary/encroachment dispute, a
copy of notice is attached marked as Annex “5” to “5-2”. Despite said
Notices, the construction continued.

9. When I felt that the Office of the City Engineer is unable to address
and realize the urgency of my letter, I filed a complaint at the Office of the
City Vice Mayor trying all available remedies and hoping for a more
immediate action from the said office. A copy of this letter is attach hereto
as Annex “6”.

9.1 The matter was endorsed to the Sangguniang Panglungsod,

copy is attached marked as Annex “6-A”, and later with the
Committee on Housing, Zoning, Subdivision and Land Dispute of the
Sangguniang Panglungsod.

9.2 After failed negotiations due to non-appearance by the

complainants, the Sanggunian issued Resolution No. 2020-606-09 on
01 September 2020 effectively stating that they do not have
jurisdiction over the issue and prodding me to elevate the matter to
the proper courts.

10. In connection with this encroachment issue, I received several

threatening text messages, spanning the period 23 December 2019 to 28
January 2020, including funeral flowers with an attached sash containing
the statement _____________________” Pictures of said flower and text
messages are attached marked as Annex “7.”

11. Fearing for me and my son’s safety, I had the incidents recorded with
the Barangay through a _____________________ On both instances, it was
the Desk Officer who recorded my narrative of what happened and assisted
by the Barangay Chairman in accordance with their sworn duty to do so as
public officials.

12. I filed several follow ups with the concerned offices seeing that the
construction was still on-going despite the obvious
boundary/encroachment dispute, but to no avail.

12.1 It was only recently that resolutions of my complaint letters

were finally addressed.

13. When the enhanced community quarantine was lifted and the
construction once against continued, sometime June 2020, I noticed that
there was an absence of safety nets surrounding the construction. Since my
establishment was directly beside the construction, I was alarmed because
my life and that of my employees were at risk because of the hazardous
construction beside us. Upon consulting with my lawyer, I sent a letter to
the Department of Labor Region 03, notifying them of violation of
construction health and safety protocols. A copy of said letter is attached
marked as Annex “8”.

13.1 In response to my request, DOLE issued a certificate to the

effect that the construction project being done by complainants are
violating several regulations. A copy of the DOLE certificate is
attached as Annex “9” hereof.

14. Upon exhausting all possible remedies to protect my rights over the
right of way, I finally decided to file an administrative case against several
concerned officials including Jennifer and Ariel with the Ombudsman on 16
September 2020, and a civil case against the Jennifer for Abatement of
Nuisance with the Regional Trial Court of Malolos on 17 September 2020.
Copy of said cases are attached hereto marked as Annexes “10” and “11”
respectively.

15. On 21 September 2020, I received a copy of a Subpoena dated 11

September 2020 for NPS Nos. III-15-INV-00408 up to 00410 filed by the
complainants.

II.

I am not guilty of the crimes of 2 counts of Libel,

Slander, or Unjust Vexation

16. I categorically deny the allegation of Ariel that I made libelous

statements under Barangay blotter Entries #107 and #108.
17. When I went to the Barangay, I knew fully well that it was proper for
me to report the threats to my life and to seek protection from authorities.
I believed at that time that whatever was coming my way, I had to state
what I know and the circumstances that surround my present plight
because I might not have another chance to do so.

18. As advised by my counsel, what I did was a qualifiedly privileged

communication and thus fall within the exceptions 2 provided by the law on
libel.

18.1 “In order to prove that a statement falls within the purview of
a qualifiedly privileged communication under Article 354, No. 1, the
following requisites must concur: (1) the person who made the
communication had a legal, moral, or social duty to make the
communication, or at least, had an interest to protect, which interest
may either be his own or of the one to whom it is made; (2) the
communication is addressed to an officer or a board, or superior,
having some interest or duty in the matter, and who has the power to
furnish the protection sought; and (3) the statements in the
communication are made in good faith and without malice.”3

18.2 I made a report to the available Barangay officials, the

Barangay Chairman and the Desk Officer, believing that my life and
that of my family are in danger upon receiving death threats;

18.3 The Barangay officials are duty-bound to record and keep a file
of the report which I made or communicated with them and to
provide the protection if necessary;

18.4 I made the statements in good faith;

19. I sincerely feared for our safety from the time I first received threats
against our lives up till now. Being the mother that I am, I felt the need to
report said incidents not only because I have the legal and moral duty to
report such but also for the purpose of having the same be recorded
officially in the Barangay’s book.

2
Revised Penal Code, ARTICLE 354. Requirement for Publicity. — Every defamatory imputation is
presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is
shown, except in the following cases:
1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or
social duty; and
2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial,
legislative or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement,
report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in
the exercise of their functions.
3
Brillante vs Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118757 & 1571, citing US vs Bustos (13 Phil 690)
20. I wish to reiterate that, during that time, my safety and that of my
family was my priority and thus wanted to convey and put into record all I
know since dead persons can no longer speak.

21. I further deny the allegations contained in the affidavit of

_____________________. I did not try to brag, nor spread, to other people
that it was the complainants who sent the death threats. I am actually
reserving my right to file the appropriate charges against Ronell for saying
what he did.

22. Even assuming, without admitting, that I did announce within our
community that I filed a blotter complaint against
_____________________, _____________________, and
_____________________, this is a matter of fact since the complainants
themselves use the blotter entries #107 and #108 as the basis of their
allegations against me.

22.1 Besides, as _____________________ stated under oath,

sometime February 2020, he came to know of my alleged acts through
his mother. Would not this mean that he himself did not actually see
or read the alleged statements and that he only knew of such
allegations from his mother? Hence, he does not have personal
knowledge.

22.2 For the March 2020 instance, _____________________ also

stated that he personally heard me utter the same statements. The
following appears in Ronell’s affidavit:

“T11: Ano pa ang ibang ginawa ni Imelda kung mayroon pa?

S11: Noong mga huling lingo ng buwan ng Marso, 2020, nang
dumalaw ako sa nanay, narinig kong nagkukuwento si
Imelda sa mga kausap nito, at kanyang ipinagkakalat na
nagpablotter daw siya sa Barangay Poblacion 1 laban
kina _____________________, dahil sa ipinapapatay
siya ng mga ito.”

22.3 This statement is true, as I have stated above, since I indeed

filed a blotter against _____________________, and, as a
consequence, Jennifer, since she was the registered owner of the lot
over which the construction with an issue on encroachment/boundary
dispute is being erected. Isn’t this barangay blotter a qualifiedly
privileged communication?

23. I wish to restate, even if I should sound repetitive, that all these
claims made by the complainants are groundless and unfounded. All they
wish to achieve is to deter from the real issue being dealt with, that is the
dispute over the easement between our properties.

23.1 The fact that the DOLE even stated that their construction
project is violating numerous labor laws would simply show that my
complaints about their irregular safety measures are indeed true.

23.2 Furthermore, it is also noteworthy that even the City Engineer

has cited their construction project not just once but three times!

24. From the foregoing, it is clear that I am innocent of any wrong doing.
If anything, it is actually the complainants who are unjustly annoying or
vexing me by the filing of these complaint which have nothing but air to
stand on.

24.1 Because of this baseless suit which is meant only to harass me,
I have filed a case at the Office of the Ombudsman against our
Barangay Chairman and the complainants on this case. A copy of the
said complaint is attached as Annex “12” to form part hereof.

25. Thus, the Honorable Prosecutor must not allow these baseless
charges which the complainants have wrongly and maliciously imputed
upon my being.

26. For this reason, I modestly ask this Honorable Office to shield me
from the vexation and inconveniences which could arise from the filing of
this case.

27. Finally, I seek that this Honorable Office, in the interest of justice and
fairness, this instant complaint be DISMISSED for utter lack of merit.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ___ day of

______________________ at ________________, Philippines.

_____________________
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this _____ day of

September 2020 in _____________________. I hereby certify that I have
personally examined the affiant and after my queries, I am fully satisfied
that she voluntarily executed and understood her affidavit.
 _____________________
Deputy City Prosecutor