Anda di halaman 1dari 5




- versus - I. S. No.XV-07-INV-17C-
For: Unjust Vexation, Slander
by Deeds, Slight Physical
Injury, Oral Defamation and




Undersigned respondent, to the Honorable Investigating

Prosecutor, by way of Rejoinder to Complainants Reply,
respectfully states under oath, as follows:

1. That I have already read the reply affidavit of herein


2. That I am reiterating the facts and circumstances of

our defense as narrated in our counter-affidavit.

3. On the outset, respondent would like to emphasize

that most of the narratives of complainant has nothing to do with
this case. Complainant is trying to insert something which is not
part of this case. However, for hes defense against respondent
Torres, complainant is insisting that the facts narrated by
respondent Torres should be omitted in this case since this
Office has no jurisdiction to hear the same. Complainant is
preaching but does not do what he preaches. In fact, he is doing
the otherwise.

4. Nevertheless, I am reiterating that under Article 412

of RA 7160 or the Local Government Code of 1991 states that
No complaint, petition, action or proceeding involving any
matter within the authority of the lupon shall be filed or
instituted directly in court or any other government agency for
adjudication unless there has been a confrontation between the
parties before the lupon chairman (underscoring supplied).

5. Section 408 (c) of the same law likewise states that

offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding one year or
a fine not exceeding Php. 5,000.00 shall be subject to Barangay
conciliation proceedings.

6. Under the law, complaints for Simple Slander and

Unjust Vexation requires that parties residing in the same
Barangay should have first undergone Barangay Conciliation
before initiating any complaint, especially in this Honorable
Office. Nothing appears on the record any Certificate to File
Action issued by the barangay and complainant is likewise
silent whether they have first filed complaints in the Barangay
before initiating a complaint before this Honorable Office.
Hence, as far as the above enumerated charges are concerned,
the Honorable Investigating Prosecutor should recommend the
dismissal of these cases for failure to comply with the provisions
of RA 7160.

7. Complainant insist that he is exempted from

complying with the law on barangay conciliation for the reason
that the Office of the Mayor, the Administration Office of the
Manila City Hall, the Manila Barangay Bureau and a confident
officer opined that if a Punong barangay is involved in a case,
the case should be filed directly to court for proper legal
proceedings. Respondent opined the otherwise.

8. Section 2 of PD 1508 enumerates the only

exemptions of the law :

"SECTION 2. Subject matters for amicable

settlement. - The Lupon of each barangay
shall have authority to bring together
the parties actually residing in the same
city or municipality for amicable
settlement of all disputes except:

(1) Where one party is the government, or

any subdivision or instrumentality thereof;

(2) Where one party is a public officer or

employee, and the dispute relates to the
performance of his official functions;

(3) Offenses punishable by imprisonment

exceeding 30 days, or a fine exceeding

VILLEGAS Rejoinder-Affidavit 2 | P a g e
(4) Offenses were there is no private
offended party;

(5) Such other classes of disputes which

the Prime Minister may in the interest of
justice determine, upon recommendation
of the Minister of Justice and the Minister
of Local Government. ella

"SECTION 3. Venue. Disputes between

or among persons actually residing in the
same barangay shall be brought for
amicable settlement before the Lupon of
said barangay. Those involving actual
residents of different barangays within the
same city or municipality shall be brought
in the barangay where the respondent or
any of the respondents actually resides, at
the election of the complainant. However,
all disputes which involve real property or
any interest therein shall be brought in the
barangay where the real property or any
part thereof is situated.

"The Lupon shall have no authority over


(1) involving parties who actually reside in

barangays of different cities or
municipalities, except where such
barangays adjoin each other; and

(2) involving real property located in

different municipalities."

9. In said enumerations, nowhere can be found that that

if a Punong barangay is involved in a case, the case should be
filed directly to court for proper legal proceedings. Therefore,
the argument of complainant has no leg to stand on.

10. Complainant is saying that he is accusing me for the

crime of Slander. In his complaint, he is accusing me for Slander
by allegedly maliciously joining respondent Torres shouting
defamatory words heard by many people. But what is this
defamatory words that complainant is referring to? Complainant
did not state the particular words that I allegedly uttered but
instead, he cited again some other event which is not part of the
circumstances of this case. Complainant is arrogant by saying
that respondent does not know how the complaint affidavit was

VILLEGAS Rejoinder-Affidavit 3 | P a g e
being done. However, it seems that it is complainant who does
not know what the complaint affidavit should only contain.

11. Also, Complainant is saying that he is accusing me for

the crime of Unjust Vexation, allegedly for what I did during the
court hearing. Complainant said that he is annoyed by my
allegedly facial expression. However, complainant did not state
what kind of facial expression did I do. If he does not want to see
my face then he should have not look at me. On my part, I have
the very right to be in the court room and hear his testimony
since I am a real party in interest therein. Therefore, his
speculative allegations have no basis.

12. Over all, this case filed by complainant is purely for

purposes of harassing my person. His allegations has no basis in
law and in facts, he is practically inserting events that is not part
of the incident. Worst, he filed this case prematurely just for the
purposes of harassing me.

13. The general goal of our criminal law and procedure is

not to send people to the guilty but to do justice especially to the

14. The Supreme Court held that:

The test should be whether

sufficient facts exist which show that, in
bringing the criminal action, complainant
acted without probable cause, defined as
the existence of such facts and
circumstances as would excite the belief in
a reasonable mind that the person charged
and prosecuted in a criminal case is
probably guilty of the crime or

15. The lack of probable cause that indeed the said

offenses were committed by the Respondents is a ground to
dismiss said Complaint for lack of merit.

16. In filing the instant Rejoinder-Affidavit, Undersigned

rely nothing less than the duty of this Honorable Office which is
to secure innocent respondents against hasty, malicious and

1 People vs De Guzman, 250 SCRA 118

2 Limanch-O Hotel and Leasing Corp. and Tiu. G.R. No. 185121,
January 18, 2010.

VILLEGAS Rejoinder-Affidavit 4 | P a g e
oppressive prosecution, and to protect them from an open and
public accusation of a crime and from the personal damage,
injury, trouble, expense and anxiety of a public trial with the
consequent adverse publicity thereof.

17. Thus, when at the outset the evidence offered at

preliminary investigation proves insufficient, the prosecution is
duty-bound to dismiss the complaint-affidavit as a matter of law
and spare the system meant to restore and propagate integrity
in public service from the embarrassment of a careless
accusation of crime as well as the unnecessary expense of a
useless and expensive criminal trial.3

18. I am executing this Rejoinder-Affidavit to attest to the

truth of the above statements of facts, with prayer that the
Investigating Assistant City Prosecutor of the City of Manila to
dismiss the baseless case filed against us.



SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this __ th day of

May 2017. I hereby certify that I have personally examined the
affiant and that I am satisfied that he voluntarily executed and
understood the contents of his affidavit.



3 Sistoza vs. Desierto, et al., GR No. 144784, September 3, 2002

VILLEGAS Rejoinder-Affidavit 5 | P a g e