You are on page 1of 6

Republic of Philippines

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN


Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao
Corner Earth and Libra Streets, GSIS Heights, Matina, Davao City

ABCDE
FOUNDATION, INC.,(SADFCI)
Complainant,

-vs- Case No. OMB-M-A-18-0222


For: Violation of Section 5(a) of
R.A. 6713
POPOL
Barangay Captain
Huhuhuhuh, Pagadian City
Respondent.
x---------------------------------x

COUNTER AFFIDAVIT
I, POPOL, Filipino, of legal age, married, resident of Huhuhuhuh,
Pagadian City, and presently the Punong Barangay of Huhuhuhuh, after
having been duly sworn to, in accordance with law, hereby depose and
state: THAT-

1. I received an Order from the Honorable Office of the Ombudsman,


dated 5 June 2018, on 24 July 2018 directing me to submit my
counter-affidavit in connection with the above-captioned case within
ten (10) days from receipt of the same or until 3 August 2018.

2. At the time of the commission of the alleged offense, I was the


Punong Barangay of Huhuhuhuh, receiving an honorarium
amounting to Six Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty Pesos
(P6,720.00) only.

3. It is my humble submission that I could not be held liable for the


violation of section 5(a) of R.A. 6713.

4. Records show that the Office of the Barangay of Huhuhuhuh, had


not officially received the alleged copies of the letter request (Annex
“B-1” and “B-2 in the Verified Complaint) of the Complainant which
were allegedly received on 27 April 2016.
5. That both request letters were for the purpose of securing resolutions
of no objection for the supposed projects of the Complainant from
the Sangguniang Barangay of the same barangay.

6. However, both letters were not officially received by the Office of


the Barangay. As can be gleaned in both letters, the same were
received by Kagawad Emilia S. Naldoza who is a Barangay
Kagawad of the same Barangay.

7. In fact, the letters were not endorsed to the Office of the Barangay so
that it can be acted upon. The non-endorsement of the same by
Kagawad Emilia S. Naldoza was, accordingly, because the person
who delivered the letters to her (Kag. Naldoza), in the person of Mr.
Wilter Noquiao, told Kag. Naldoza that the Office of the Barangay
need not act on the letters, all that Mr. Noquiao needed was that a
barangay official will receive the documents and sign the received
copy of the same. (hereto attached and marked as Annex “1” and “1-
a” is the Affidavit of Kagawad Emilia S. Naldoza, and made as
integral part of this Counter-Affidavit)

8. Record shows, from the official log book of the Office of the
Barangay of Barangay Huhuhuhuh, that this Mr. Noquiao had never
visited to the Office of the Barangay in year 2016. Thus, it would be
impossible for the Office of the Barangay or the Respondent to act
on the alleged letter attached to the verified complaint of the
Complainant or make the necessary reply to the same. (hereto
attached is a certification from the Barangay of Huhuhuhuh as well
as the certified true copies from the official logbook of visitors as
Annexes “2”, “2-a” and “2-b”)

9. Sometime in August 2016, the Sangguniang Barangay came into its


knowledge that Barangay Resolutions of No Objection were issued
in favor of the Complainant by the Sangguniang Barangay of
Huhuhuhuh, Pagadian, bearing both Resolution Nos, 84 S. 2016
dated 7 June 2016. (certified xerox copy of fabricated resolutions 84
s. 2016 secured from Environmental Management Bureau, DENR,
R-9 (EMB-R9from are hereto attached and marked as Annex “3” and
“3-a”)

10.By reason thereof, the Sangguniang Barangay of Huhuhuhuh on its


regular session on 15 August 2016, issued Resolution No. 38, Series
of 2016 vehemently denying the authenticity of Resolution No. 84 S,
2016 and submitted the same to Environmental Management Bureau,
DENR, R-9 (EMB-R9). (Certified Xerox Copy of the Resolution No.
38 Series of 2016 which was submitted to, and secured from EMB-
R9 is hereto attached and marked as Annex “4”)

11.In addition thereto, it was found out that not only the Barangay
Resolutions were falsified but likewise a Certificate of No Objection
which was allegedly issued by the Office of the City Mayor of
Pagadian City dated 19 July 2016. The Office of the City Mayor,
wrote a letter dated 25 August 2016, fervently denying the issuance
of said certification which was submitted and duly received the same
by the Environmental Management Bureau, DENR, R-9 (EMB-R9).
(hereto attached and marked respectively as Annexes “5” and “6” are
Certified Xerox Copies of the falsified Certificate of No Objection
and the letter dated 25 August 2018 were submitted to, and secured
from, EMB-R9)

12.In fact, both the Barangay Resolutions of No Objection No. 84 and


the Certificate of No Objection dated 19 July 2016 were utilized by
the Complainant for their application for the issuance of
Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) from EMB-R9.
Complainant was subsequently issued an ECC by EMB-R9 with
26359565 on 2 August 2016. (hereto attached and marked as
Annexes “7” to “7-g” are copies from the electronic generated ECC
for reference and made part of this Counter-Affidavit)

13.More than a year later, Complainant filed this instant Verified


Complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against the respondent
which was filed on 27 March 2018;

14.Complainant filed a case for Mandamus on 3 April 2018 against the


Sangguniang Barangay of Huhuhuhuh, Pagadian City impleading
herein Respondent, Punong Barangay Popol, as the Sangguniang
Barangay’s representative docketed as 6545 which was eventually
dismissed by the RTC Branch 19, Pagadian City on 24 July 2018 by
virtue of the resolution rendered by the Court, RTC 19, Pagadian
City. (Certified True Xerox Copy from the Original of the petition
secured from Br19, RTC, Pagadian City and the Original Copy of
the Resolution are hereto attached and marked as Annexes “ 8” to
“8-b” and “9” to “9-b”)

15.During the oral arguments on petition for mandamus Complainant


herein (Petitioner in 6545) admitted as can be gleaned in the page
five ( Annex “10-d”) of the attached Transcript of Stenographic
Notes(TSN) during the hearing on 5 June 2018, to quote and
unquote”

“ATTY. PERALTA :“It is admitted, Your Honor, that there


was a fabrication of the Barangay Resolutions and other
documents pertaining to the application of the petitioner for
ECC. However, Your Honor, the Petitioner ABCDE
Foundation, Incorporated is not involved of fabrication of the
documents, Your Honor. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx”

(hereto attached and marked as Annex “10” to “10-j” are the


Original Copy of the TSN)
16. As admitted by the Complainant, in the petition for Mandamus, it
can be understood that Petitioner already utilized the fabricated
barangay resolution of no objection, as well as other pertinent
documents, for their application of ECC with the EMB-R9.

17.Complainant’s utilization of the fabricated resolutions and


certification of no objection was rewarding considering that
Complainant was granted and/or issued an ECC for their supposed
projects in Huhuhuhuh.

18.I am wondering as to the motive of the complainant in filing this


instant case against me before the good office of the Honorable
Ombudsman.

19.The verified complaint filed with the Honorable Office of the


Ombudsman was signed and verified on 6 March 2018 which was
received by the good office on 27 March 2018.

20.On the other hand, the Petition for Mandamus was signed and
verified by the Complainant herein (Petitioner in 6545) on 26 March
2018 and was filed with the Regional Trial Court on 3 April 2018.

21.Both cases, the instant case and the petition for mandamus, were filed
only in early 2018 which is more than a year, or almost two years,
later after the alleged submission of the letter requests of the
Complainant for the issuance of Resolutions of No Objection from
the Sangguniang Barangay.

22.As far as I know, the EMB-R9 was conducting an investigation with


regards to the issuance of the ECC in favor the complainant. I do not
personally know the result of the investigation of the EMB, but
considering the circumstances leading to the filing of this instant case
and the petition for mandamus, maybe the Environmental
Management Bureau, DENR, R-9 revoked or suspended the
26359565 of the Complainant.

23.It would appear that Complainant filed this instant case to harass and
force me and the Sangguniang Barangay of Huhuhuhuh, Pagadian
City to issue resolutions of no objection in favor of the complainant
for its supposed projects in Barangay Huhuhuhuh. Complainant
would not have filed a petition for Mandamus before the Regional
Trial Court if 26359565 of the complainant was not cancelled or
suspended by the EMB-R9.

24.It is my humble submission that I could not be held liable for


violation section 5(a) of R.A. 6713 on the following grounds:
a. The Office of the Barangay or the Sangguniang Barangay of
Huhuhuhuh, Pagadian City could not properly make any actions
or reply with regards to the alleged letter requests because the
same were not submitted nor received by the Office of the
Barangay of Huhuhuhuh, Pagadian City as already discussed in
Paragraph 3 to 7 of this Counter-Affidavit.

b. It appears that the Complainant did not need any actions or reply
concerning its letter requests as can be inferred from the intention
of Mr. Noquiao that what he needed when he gave the letters to
the Kagawad Nodaza was only to sign the received copies of the
letters. It is apparent that in the very first place, there was already
a plan to circumvent the process for the issuance of ECC.

25. How could the Office of the Barangay act on the subject letter
requests if the same were not received by the office?

26. Another matter that I would like to point out is the time of filing of
this instant case before the Office of the Ombudsman, as well as the
petition for Mandamus that were filed early in 2018. How come that
the complainant did file this instant case in year 2018 and not in year
2016 or 2017? Complainant never did make any follow-up letter for
its request despite the fact that the resolutions being prayed for by
herein complainant were essential requisites for its application for
the issuance of ECC.

27.Clearly, Complainant did not need the Office of the Barangay to act
on the letters and the issuance of Barangay Resolutions of No
Objection from the Sangguniang Barangay of Huhuhuhuh, Pagadian
City.

28.It is prayed before the good office of the Honorable Ombudsman that
subpoena duces tecum be issued to the Environmental Management
Bureau, DENR, R-9, Zamboanga City in connection with the
findings of the same with regards to its investigation it conducted
with regards to the 26359565 it issued in favor of herein
Complainant.

29.The said findings of Environmental Management Bureau, DENR, R-


9 with regards to its investigation may enlighten everyone as to what
the motive or purpose of the Complainant in filing this instant case
before the Honorable Office of the Ombudsman, as well as the
petition for mandamus.

30.Both cases were filed in early 2018 which is more than a year later
after the subject matter letters were received by Kag. Noldaza and
despite Complainant having been issued an Environmental
Compliance Certificate with 26359565.
31.Premises considered, it is humbly prayed of the Honorable Office of
the Ombudsman, after full investigation, to dismiss the instant case
against me.

In witness whereof, I hereunto affix my signature this 2nd day of


August 2018, in City, Philippines.

POPOL
Affiant/Respondent

Doc. No. ______


Page No. ______
Book No. ______
Series 2018

COPY FURNISHED: Registry Receipt Nos.