Professional Documents
Culture Documents
GLORIA KALAW
Complainant,
XV-06-INV-14F-00719
versus FOR: GRAVE THREATS AND
UNJUST VEXATION
BALTAZAR VILLARIEZ
Respondent.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
Mandaluyong City
03 September 2014.
Sgd.
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL:
BERNARDINO R. CAMBA
Deputy City Prosecutor
APPROVED:
PREFATORY STATEMENT
ISSUE
DISCUSSIONS
It is worthy to note the case of Kilosbayan Inc. et. Al. versus Comelec et.al.1
the Supreme Court held that:
In the case at bar, nothing in the facts and circumstances would lead a
reasonably discreet prudent man to believe that Grave Threats was committed
against the herein complainant by the respondent. Likewise, procedural matters
were not properly observed in this case.
The pertinent provisions of the Local Government Code provides that cases
where the imposable penalty does not exceed one year imprisonment such as the
case at bar must undergo the mandatory Barangay Conciliation Proceeding in the
Barangay where the Respondent resides before the complaint may be filed before
this Honorable Office. The Complainant fails to observe such requirement of the
law.
It can be gleaned from the records that no certification to file action was
issued by Barangay Addition Hills, the barangay where Respondent is a bona fide
resident.
Both complainant and respondent are residents of the same city, the City of
Mandaluyong, though of different barangays. Mrs. Gloria Kalaw is a resident of
413 Dr. Fernandez St., Brgy. Highway Hills, Mandaluyong City while respondent
is a resident of #2814 Blk. 11 Welfareville Compound, Brgy. Addition Hills, of the
same city. In this regard, Complainant must have obtained a Certificate for file
Action from Barangay Addition Hills consistent with the provision of the Local
Government which provides that:
The absence of the Certificate to file Action from the proper Barangay is fatal to
the cause of the Complainant since the same law provides 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 office for adjudication, unless there has been a
confrontation between the parties before the lupon chairman or the
pangkat, and that no conciliation or settlement has been reached as
certified by the lupon secretary or pangkat secretary as attested to by the
lupon or pangkat chairman or unless the settlement has been repudiated by
the parties thereto.2
The fact that complainant was able to secure a certificate to file action from
Barangay Highway Hills, will not cure the defect since the law specifically
mandates that the confrontation must be before the barangay where the respondent
resides. To allow the complainant to obtain the necessary certificate from the
barangay wherever she pleases is detrimental to the welfare of the Respondent. We
cannot allow the complainant to look for a friendly forum to obtain a favorable
result. Further, the act of Complainant of not exploring the possibility of amicable
settlement in the said barangay but insisting the immediate issuance of a certificate
to file action in her favor is a clear disregard to the noble purpose of the
Katarungang Pambarangay Law. Indeed, we must not allow the complainant to
disrespect the clear mandate of the law.
Thus, for failure of complainant to obtain a Certificate to file action from the
proper barangay, it consequently follows that an information must not be filed in
court but the case must referred to barangay Addition Hills to give the parties the
opportunity to settle their differences and to achieve the noble purposes of
Katarungang Pambarangay Law which is to unclog court dockets as well as to
prevent the deterioration of the quality of justice. In one case, the Supreme Court
had the occasion to highlight the importance of the arbitration before barangay
courts and the necessary consequence of non-observance thereof.
In the case at bar, nothing in the facts and circumstances would lead a
reasonably discreet prudent man to believe that Grave Threats was committed
against the herein complainant by the respondent.
In this case, it is the complainant who has the burden of proof to support his
charged by adducing sufficient and convincing evidence, but unfortunately, she
failed to do so. It is worth stressing that it was the complainant who had the
intention of committing a wrong against herein respondent since she is the one who
started the provocation against the respondent by unauthorizingly taking pictures
of the latters son.
The case of grave threats filed against respondent is founded upon the bare
and self-serving claim of complainant and her witness who happened to be her
live-in partner.
The Honorable Prosecutor who issued the assailed resolution stated that the
bare denial of the respondent cannot prevail over the positive and straightforward
asseveration of the complainant.
4 G.R. No. 111416 September 26, 1994 FELICIDAD UY, petitioner, vs.HON. MAXIMO C. CONTRERAS
We respectfully submit that the denial of herein respondent is not bare
but corroborated by a witness who is independent and uninterested in the
outcome of this case in the person of one Deliege Talagan.
Aside from the fact that the witness of complainant is not credible, the claim
itself of Complainant that he was threatened by the Accused is not worthy of belief.
While complainant claims that she trembled in fear due to the threats made
by the Accused, her action contradicts the same for the following reasons.
3. The witness of respondent must be given more credence since she is not
related whatsoever to the former and she is not interested to the outcome of this
case unlike the witness of complainant who happened to be her live-in partner.
4. The testimony itself of the respondent is doubtful. She had the courage to
file a complaint against complainant for allegedly uttering invective words at her
yet she never bother to complain or at least report the alleged attempt of
respondent to overrun her using the latters tricycle.
5. The complainant is clearly moved by ill motive, hatred and is out there to
harass and cause injustice to the respondent. At the onset, it was mentioned that
there are disputes in the tricycle line to which respondent belongs. Several cases
involving personalities in the said tricycle line are also pending before this
Honorable Office. It just so happened that complainant and respondent do not
share the same side in the controversies in their tricycle line. The Honorable Office
must not let itself be used as an instrument to cause an injustice at the guise of
obtaining justice.
While it is true that we encourage people to come out who are victim of
injustice, this Office should not close its EYES nor to be deaf to the many report of
false complaint/charges of innocent person for extortion and blackmail and in some
instance to satisfy their hidden personal animosity x xx to respondent. This Office
should be vigilant and alert to recognize trumped up charges lest on innocent man
on the basis of fabricated allegation be made to suffer the unusually severe penalty
for the crime charged by the people who are extremely obsessed to put persons
behind bars.
I am of the opinion that it is a legal tenet that bare allegations
unsubstantiated by evidence are not equivalent to proof. In this case, it is the
Complainant who has the burden of proof to support his charged by adducing
sufficient and convincing evidence, but unfortunately, she failed to do so.
In truth and in fact, if there is anybody here who should have a reason to sue,
it could only be the herein respondent/movant, for having been unfairly
accused/charged by the complainant. This incident has caused irreparable damages
and injuries to my persons. Respondent suffered serious anxiety and sleepless
nights.
In the case at bar, there were no relevant facts and circumstances which
would lead a discreet and prudent man to believe that Grave Threats were
committed by the herein respondent.
It is for the above stated reasons that the movant would like to request to this
Honorable Office to reconsider its resolution.Since this Honorable Office is a
temple of justice, the herein respondent still hope against hope, that this motion for
reconsideration will be entertained and eventually granted in the interest of justice.
PRAYER
by:
VERIFICATION
I have caused the preparation of the herein Motion for Reconsideration and
the same is true to the best of my knowledge and based on authentic records;
BALTAZAR VILLARIEZ
BALTAZAR VILLARIEZ
Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2014
COPY FURNISHED:
Mandaluyong CPO
GLORIA KALAW October _______, 2014
No. 413 Dr. Fernandez St., Reg. Rec. No._________
Brgy. Highway Hills,
Mandaluyong City
EXPLANATION
BALTAZAR VILLARIEZ