I, KAGAWAD xxx, of legal age, married, Filipino, and with postal address at c/o

Barangay Hall, Barangay xxx, xxx Village, xxx, xxx City, under oath, depose and
state:

I am a respondent in the above-mentioned complaint. I am submitting this counteraffidavit to deny, rebut, and controvert the false, malicious, and fabricated
allegations against me stated in the complaint.

I am a senior Kagawad of my community, i.e., Barangay xxx, xxx City, which I have
served with full dedication and selflessness for many years now without any taint of
dishonor, graft, corruption, abuse, malice, dishonesty, or misconduct.

The complainant xxx charges me with the alleged felonies of MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
AND GRAVE COERCION for:

(a) The alleged destruction of her stair which was attached to the perimeter
fence existing between xxx Village (which is a separate Barangay) and xxxSubd.
(which is under Barangay xxx) that separates the lot on which her main house was
located and the lot on which her second house was located, and

(b) The alleged destruction of her second house located on a lot adjoining the main
lot on which her main house was located. It was allegedly valued at P250,000.00.

The true and correct historical facts of the instant case are stated hereinbelow for
the full appreciation of the Honorable Investigating Prosecutor.

The true, lawful and registered owner of the subject real property (which is
described as Lot xxx, Block xxx with an area of xxx square meters and covered
by TCT No. T-xxx issued on xxx 1994 by the Register of Deeds of xxx City) is a
certain xxx, married to xxx, with postal address at Unit xxx, xxx Townhomes, xxx
St., xxx Village, xxx City.

A copy of the said TCT No. xxx is attached hereto as Annex A hereof.

At the lower end thereof appears the digital/computerized authentication of the said
Register of Deeds that it is a true copy of the original thereof.

The complainant and her husband (xxx) were in possession of a fake, spurious or
falsified version of the same TCT No. xxx, which they had used to deceive future
lessees and other persons interested in the subject property by making it appear
that they were the lawful owners thereof.

A photocopy of the said fake, spurious and falsified TCT which bears the registered
owner as xxx, married to xxx, residing at xxx St., xxx Village, xxx City, is
attached as Annex B hereof.

Please note that the falsified and spurious version of the complainants TCTdoes not
bear the official digital/computerized authentication of the Register of Deeds.

Sometime in 2012 the registered owner xxx signed an unnotarized Special Power of
Attorney authorizing his legal representative xxx to sell the property and, in effect,
to insure that the sad property was free from any and all issues and problems, like
the presence of illegal occupants or squatters, as a prelude to the smooth sale
thereof to interested third parties.

Attached is a copy of the said unnotarized SPA, marked as Annex C hereof.

On xxx 2012, the said legal representative, xxx, issued a Letter-Authorizationto the
board and officers of xxx HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, which had jurisdiction over
the subject property, empowering the Association to demolish and remove the
illegally built house of the complainant on the subject property, with the assurance
that the said xxx would shoulder all liabilities or damages arising out of any and all
acts of the Association pursuant to the powers granted to it under the said LetterAuthorization.

A copy of the said Letter-Authorization, dated xxx 2012, is attached as Annex D

hereof.

On xxx 2012, the said legal representative xxx issued, under oath, a follow-up
Authorization reiterating the powers and instructions to the said Association as
previously stated in his Letter-Authorization, dated xxx 2012.

A copy of the said notarized Authorization, dated xxx 2012, is attached asAnnex
E hereof.

The xxx HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION is duly recognized by the Barangay xxx as an

entity. For instance, see the attached Barangay Clearance, dated xxx 2012, issued
by the Chairman of Barangay xxx, Hon. xxx, in re: cutting of obstructive ipil-ipil
trees on the subject property (Lot xxx, Block xxx). It is marked as Annex F hereof.

The stair of the complainant that she had illegally attached to the perimeter
fence separating two (2) barangays -- xxx Village under Brgy. xxx Village, where she
actually lived, and the xxx Subd. under Brgy. xxx -- in order to enable her to access
her illegally-built house located on the subject property in the latter village (Lot xxx,
Block xxx, xxx Subd.), was prohibited by existing city and barangay rules because it
was a great security risk that could be used by criminals and other suspicious
elements to access one village from another village to commit a crime to cause a
disturbance of peace and order or to escape from one village to another village after
committing such a crime or disturbance of peace and order.

For instance, by way of analogy, in xxx City Ordinance No. xxx-02, the City and the
Barangay xxx are very conscious of maintaining orderliness by clearing public
areas, which should include, by spirit and analogy, a perimeter fence of two (2)
adjoining barangays. A copy of the said ordinance is attached as Annex G hereof.
The lawful owner of the subject property, i.e., xxx, acting thru his legal
representative, i.e., xxx, had previously sought in 2012 the mediation and
conciliation assistance of Barangay xxx to persuade the complainant to remove her
illegally-built house on the subject property, even to the point of offering her
a financial assistance, but the complainant unjustly rejected the said offer. There
was an instance in the past where a meeting was held at the Office of the City
Engineer, upon the prodding of the complainant, where the complainant insisted on
her unjust claims, hence, the said meeting produced no positive result.

Going back to the instant complaint, it will be noted that there is no single
allegation therein which shows that I had a clear, direct, personal, and actual
participation in the removal of her stair and the demolition of her illegally built
house.

All her allegations from Question No. 1 to Question No. 7 in her complaint do not
mention or state my alleged direct, actual and personal participate in the felonies
she alleges against me.

The only allegation that the complainant has made to directly implicate me appears
in Question No. 8 where she allegedly talked to me over the phone about her stair
-- an allegation which I vehemently deny, the truth of the matter being that I have
never talked to the complainant over the phone about such matter.

It will be noted that aside from her bare and empty allegations, she has offered no
documentary evidence or supporting statements from credible witnesses to show
my direct, actual, and personal participation in the felonies she alleges against me.

For whatever worth it may be, attached is a copy of the photos of the subject
illegally-built house (a squatters shanty, actually) of the complainant, marked
as Annex H hereof.

Its condition, appearance, and appraisal would never reach the alleged value of
P250,000. Further, it will be noted from the photos that the house was not
destroyed, although it appears that its roof and windows were missing.

1.
As to the charge of malicious mischief, Art. 327 of the Rev. Penal Code
provides that there must be clear and positive proof that the guilty
partydeliberately cause to the property of another any damage not falling within
the terms of the next preceding chapter.
There is no evidence presented by the complainant that I DELIBERATELY CAUSED
DAMAGE to her property.

Article 286 of the Rev. Penal Code provides that the guilty party in a case for grave
coercion must have committed the following act, to wit: any person who, without
authority of law, shall, by means of violence, prevent another from doing something
not prohibited by law, or compel him to do something against his will, whether it be
right or wrong.
There is no positive and convincing evidence on record that I used violence to
prevent the complainant from doing something, or that I used violence to
compel her to do something.

Below are some relevant citations:

FRANCISCO M. LECAROZ and LENLIE LECAROZ, vs.SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 130872, March 25, 1999.

X x x,

From all indications, it is possible that the omission was due to the inadequate
documentation of Red's appointment to and assumption of office, or the result of a
mere clerical error which was later rectified in the succeeding payroll. This however
cannot be confirmed by the evidence at hand. But since a doubt is now created
about the import of such omission, the principle of equipoise should properly
apply. This rule demands that all reasonable doubt intended to demonstrate error
and not a crime should be resolved in favor of the accused. If the inculpatory facts
and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is
consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other with his guilt, then the
evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a
conviction.

X x x.

ROBERTO FERNANDEZ vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, et. al., G.R. No.
138503.September 28, 2000

X x x.
In all criminal cases, mere speculation and probabilities cannot substitute for proof
required to establish the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt. Suspicion no
matter how strong cannot sway judgment.Where there is reasonable doubt as to the
guilt of the accused, he must be acquitted even though his innocence may be
doubted since the constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty
can be overthrown only by proof reasonable doubt. When the guilt of the accused
has not been proven with moral certainty, it is our policy of long standing that the
presumption of innocence of the accused must be favored and his exoneration be
granted as a matter of right.
X x x.

RIGHT TO BE PRESUMED INNOCENT. The innocence of a defendant in a criminal

case is always presumed until the contrary is proven. Where two probabilities arise
from the evidence, the one compatible with the presumption of innocence will be

adopted. Mere suspicion is not enough to take away ones liberty and destroy ones
reputation. Guilt must be proven by proof as clear as daylight, evidence so airtight
that no is left for any reasonable doubt. (PEOPLE vs. BARO, G.R. Nos. 146327-29, 5
June 2002),

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JOEL ELLOREG DE LOS SANTOS, et. al., G.R. No.
126998. September 14, 1999:

x x x. Where the inculpatory circumstances are capable of two or more

explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the
other with his guilt, then the evidence does not meet the test of moral certainty.
Necessarily, a judgment of acquittal must issue.

Xxxx.

Well-settled is the rule that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. To be believed, its evidence must not only proceed from
the mouth of a credible witness but it must also be credible in itself, such that
common experience and observation of mankind lead to the inference of its
probability under the circumstances. Verily, guilt cannot be shown by mere
speculations or even probabilities, whether the offense be malum
prohibitum or malum in se.

xxxx.

Verily, the Court has repeatedly held that where the circumstances shown to exist
yield two (2) or more inferences, one of which is consistent with the presumption of
innocence while the other or others may be compatible with the finding of guilt, the
Court must acquit the accused: for the evidence does not then fulfill the test of
moral certainty and is insufficient to support a judgment of conviction. Indeed, a
corollary to the constitutional presumption of innocence is the rule that the
circumstances of the case must exclude all and each and every hypothesis
consistent with [appellants] innocence. xxxx.

WHEREFORE, in the interest of justice, it is respectfully prayed that the instant

complaint be DISMISSED for lack of merit.

FURTHER, the herein respondent respectfully prays for such and other reliefs as may
be deemed just and equitable in the premises.

xxx City, xxx 2013.

KGD. Xxx
Respondent

SUBSCRIBED and sworn to before me in Las Pinas City on xxx 2013.

Investigating Assistant City Prosecutor

Copy Furnished:

XXX XXX
Complainant
Block xxx, Lot xxx
xxx St., xxx Subd.
Brgy. xxx,
Xxx City