Counter

Republic of the Philippines
Department of Justice
OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR
Hall of Justice
Pagadian City
----------------------------------------------
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, IS Case No. IX-09-INV-17A-00062

Plaintiff,
-versus- -for-
JELVIN MAGARAO, HOMICIDE

Respondent,
x-------------------/
Counter-Affidavit
I, JILBEN VILLABETO MAGARAO, Filipino of legal age,
married, and resident of Poblacion, Margosatubig, Zamboanga del
Sur, after having been sworn in accordance with law, depose and
say:
1. I am charged for Homicide in the above-complaint;
2. A priori, I am a court employee stationed at the 6th Municipal

Circuit Trial Court of DINAS-SAN MIGUEL-LAPUYAN
under the Honorable Maria Teresa R. Pangilinan;
3. I deny having committed the crime as charged. The fact is, I

was more of a victim in the January 21, 2017 incident as I
only acted in self-defense if only to preserve my life and limb
which during the time was at the verge of instant death;
4. The law on self-defense embodied in our penal system finds

justification in man’s natural instinct to protect, repel, and save
his person or rights from impending danger or peril. It is
based on the impulse of self-preservation born to man and
part of his nature as a human being (Castañares vs. Court of
Appeals, 92 SCRA 567);
5. And I interpose this defense in my behalf- though mindful

that, just like alibi, this defense is weak;
6. The facts and circumstances of the case is narrated as
follows, viz:
7. I was at Liangan, Kaabatan, Vincenzo Sagun, Zamboanga del

Sur if only to buy some fish at or about 2:45 in the afternoon.
My cellular phone ran out of load and I decided to walk
towards a store nearby if only to buy some;
8. A soon as I was approaching the store keeper, the victim

who was then drinking at the premises immediately stood
up, pushed me and said: ASTIG KA BA!
9. I was very much surprised of what he did and I said in low

voice: TAGA KORTE KO BAY PALIT LANG KO LOAD (I
am from the court, I would just buy load);
10. He again pushed me and said: WAY KORTE KORTE SA

AKO- AMO NING BALWARTE! (I do not mind any court, you
are in our jurisdiction!)
11. Suddenly, I heard a voice coming from my back saying:

LAKAW NA LANG BAY MADISGRASYA KA ANA
MUSUGAL JUD NA. (You just leave as you would be harmed-
he would really gamble.)
12. I left without even able to see the man who was telling it to
me. But while getting away I heard the victim’s voice again
saying: WA JUD KA KAILA NAKO BA! (So, you don’t really
know me!)
13. I looked back at him and much to my surprise he drew a

handgun from his waist and immediately pointed it to me
using both hands. I grabbed then pushed his hands
upwards and the handgun fired twice: BANG! BANG! After
which, we grappled for the possession of the hand gun and
then I heard a third gunshot: BANG! I then noticed that he
was screaming while falling down. Without much ado, I ran
for my life and left on board my motorcycle which was just
parked nearby.
14. I did not intend to harm anyone in going to Liangan that
day. Much more, I did not intend to harm anyone when I
walked to the store to have some load. I never expected to be
in trouble that day. Indeed, a man is occasionally subdued by
a morbid phenomenon which constrained him to do wrong-
despite it is contrary to his volition;
15. The requisites of self-defense are: 1) unlawful aggression; 2)

reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel or prevent it,
and 3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
defending himself (People vs. Aliben, 398 SCRA 255);
First Requisite
16. Admittedly, I was attacked by the victim. The attack was

confirmed by Witness CRICER C. GORDOVA who affirmed
that they were already drunk at or about 3:00 o’clock in the
afternoon. The peril to my life therefore, was not only
imminent but actual (People vs. Cabical, 403 SCRA 268);
17. I just walked away with my back but he followed me.

Godspeed, I was able to look back and saw him drew the
handgun- grabbing then pushing his hands upwards which
was truly a gamble if only to save my life and limb that
moment;
18. Peril to one’s limb includes peril to the safety of one’s

person from physical injuries. An attack with fist blows may
imperil one’s safety from physical injuries. Such an attack is
unlawful aggression (People vs. Montalba, 56 SCRA 443).
Much more, an attack with a handgun;
19. Unlawful aggression contemplates an actual, sudden and

unexpected attack on the life and limb of a person or an
imminent danger thereof (Santos vs. Court of Appeals, 415
SCRA 384);
Second Requisite
20. Reasonable necessity of the means employed does not imply

material commensurability between the means of attack and
defense. What the law requires is the rational equivalence, in
the consideration of which will enter as principal factors the
emergency, the imminent danger to which the person
attacked is exposed, and the instinct, more than reason, that
moves or impels the defense, and the proportionateness
thereof does not depend upon the harm done, but rests upon
the imminent danger of such injury (People vs. Encomienda, 46
SCRA 522);
21. Perfect equality between the weapon used by the one

defending and of the aggressor is not required, because the
person assaulted does not have sufficient tranquility of mind
to think, to calculate and to choose which weapon to use (People
vs. Padua, CA, 40 OG, 998);
22. With much more reason, for someone like me who was just
bringing along a cellular phone when I was attacked without
any weapon to be used in defending myself. I grew up
knowing no enmity as I was truly a Christian. I work in a
court of law- though how lowly my position may be;
23. Well-settled, the person defending himself cannot be

expected to think clearly so as to control his blow. The
killing of the unlawful aggressor may still be justified as
long as the mortal wounds are inflicted at the time when the
elements of complete self-defense are still present (Brownell
vs. People, 38 Michigan, 732, cited in People vs. Sumicad, 56
Phil 647);
24. With much more reason, when death occurred after

grappling for the possession of a gun which was even
owned by the victim. It was either me or he who could be
dead during the happenstance;
Third Requisite
25. I just walked towards the store to buy some load. I did not
disturb them drinking. I am also thin by body built. My
physical presence would surely not raise victim’s ire- if only
he was in his right mind. I did not provoke him in any way;
26. Even granting in arguendo that I engaged him in a verbal

altercation, still jurisprudence says: to engage in a verbal
argument cannot be considered sufficient provocation
(Comment, Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, 13th
Edition, page 183, citing a Decision of the Supreme Court of
Spain dated October 5, 1877);
27.The three (3) requisites of self-defense are therefore present in
my case;
28. Murder is the unlawful killing of any person which is not

parricide or infanticide, provided that any of the following
circumstances is present: 1) with treachery; 2) in consideration
of a price, reward or promise; 3) by means of inundation, etc.; 4) on
occasion of any calamity; 5) with evident premeditation and 5)
cruelty (Article 248, Revised Penal Code);
29. The death of the victim was not attended by any of these
qualifying circumstances. For sure, my meeting with the
victim and his companions was only incidental. My act in
going to the store was lawful. My act of leaving if only to
evade from trouble was also lawful. My act of looking back
after hearing him saying: WALA JUD DIAY KA KAILA
NAKO was also lawful. My act too, in grabbing and pushing
his hands up if only to save my life and limb from an
impending dead was also lawful. If he died as a consequence
thereof then my act was legally justified;
30. Actus me envitu factus non est meus actus- An act done by me
against my will is not my act. What I have done, was truly
what I was supposed to do- given the situation to which I
was in.
31. That I am executing this Counter-Affidavit to establish the

fact that I am more of victim than a culprit in the present
charges and that, if at all, I was justified in killing the victim.
As such, I am not criminally or civilly liable. The victim was
admittedly drunk. Witness Gordova was also admittedly
drunk. They began drinking at 1:00 0’clock in the afternoon.
The incident took place at 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon;
32. They come to the Honorable Office to seek for justice- but
justice cannot be served by prosecuting an innocent person.
They tried to script a version that I drew the gun; I gave two
(2) warning shots then I shot at the victim despite the latter
was already raising his hands in surrender;
33. Giving two (2) warning shots, even if true, negates any intent
to kill. Why should I shot twice to the air if I intended to kill
the victim? This is no teleserye.
34. The Honorable Prosecutor has the solemn duty to conduct a
cautious and thorough examination of the Complaint in
order that my rights to liberty under the Bill of Rights would
not be prejudiced.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this

24th day of March 2017 at Pagadian City, Philippines.
JILBEN VILLABETO MAGARAO

Respondent
SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this 24th day of

March 2017 at Pagadian City, Philippines.
Doc No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2017
Copy furnished:
ANALIZA R. MORANTE Registry Receipt _____

Purok Mapailubon
Liangan, Kabatan, Vincenzo Sagun
Zamboanga del Sur
CERTIFICATION
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have personally examined and interviewed

the Respondent and I am convinced that he executed the Counter-Affidavit
freely and voluntarily.
FERDINAND MAS PABLO

Hall of Justice
Pagadian City
----------------------------------------------
ABUNOR MALIDO, IS Case No. IX-09-INV-17K-00557

Plaintiff,
-versus- -for-
MODIN ABU ALIAS KOMUD, FRUSTRATED MURDER

Respondent,
x-------------------/
Counter-Affidavit
I, MODEN C. ABU, Filipino of legal age, married, and resident
of Poblacion, Dinas, Zamboanga del Sur, after having been sworn
in accordance with law, depose and say:
1. I am charged for Frustrated Murder in the above-

complaint;
2. A priori, I am a civilian volunteer in the Anti-Drug

Campaign of the Local Government Unit of Dinas,
Zamboanga del Sur;
3. Consequent thereto, Complainant was arrested on

December 15, 2016 for Violation of RA 9165 (Criminal Case
No. 15-132). Also, Complainant is a High Value Target
(HVT) in the Province of Zamboanga del Sur. Otherwise
put, I was instrumental in his arrest;
4. I deny having committed the crime as charged. I did not

shoot him on October 1, 2017 at or about 6:30 in the
evening. The fact is, the one narrated in the Police Blotter
as well as the Spot Report on the shooting of the victim
that: he was shot at the back of his body with the used
of an unidentified caliber of firearm, by an unidentified
person wearing a black mask. Attached is a copy of the
Extract of the Police Blotter and Spot Report on Shooting
Incident of the Municipal Police Station of Dinas, Zamboanga
del Sur marked as Annexes “1” and “2”;
5. His assailant was therefore unidentified. The assailant was
using a black mask. How would Complainant identify him? If
at all, I am just a fall guy. He pinpointed at me as his
assailant inasmuch as I was instrumental in his arrest on
December 15, 2016;
6. He said he said: when I turned around, I saw the face of Mr.

Modin Abu aka “Kumod”. This statement is more
imaginary than real. This statement cannot overturn the
presumption of regularity that is accorded the police
report on the shooting incident that the assailant was
unidentified as he was wearing a black mask;
7. His’ was no more than a suspicion that the assailant could

be me. Yet, suspicion cannot sustain my prosecution;
8. Also, the charge should have been Attempted Murder or

Attempted Homicide only as a reading of paragraph 2 of
the Affidavit-Complaint is to the effect that: And when I
turned around, I saw the face of Mr. Modin Abu aka “Kumod”
and he is wearing a white T-shirt and carrying a long firearm
and then he wanted to shoot me again but his firearm did
not fire anymore and then he immediately ran towards the
darkness and vanished in my sight;
9. The phrase “he wanted to shoot me again but his firearm

did not fire anymore” implies that the assailant was not
able to perform all the acts of execution which would
produce the felony as a consequence- which makes up a
frustrated felony;
10. If at all, the assailant only commenced the commission of

a felony directly by overt acts, and have not as yet
perform all the acts of execution which should produce
the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than
his own spontaneous desistance- as his firearm did not
fire anymore;
11. Before the assailant ran towards the darkness, he knew

for a fact that he was not able to kill Complainant as he
even attempted to shoot him again- but his firearm did
not fire anymore;
12. Consummated felonies, as well as well as those which
are frustrated and attempted, are punishable. A felony is
consummated when all the elements necessary for its
execution and accomplishment are present; and it is
frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of
execution which would produce the felony as a
consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by
reason of causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator. There is an attempt when the offender
commences the commission of a felony directly by overt
acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which
should produce the felony by reason of some cause or
accident other than his own spontaneous desistance
(Article 6, Revised Penal Code).
13. The elements of frustrated felony are:
1. The offender performs all the acts of execution;
2. All the acts performed would produce the felony as a

consequence;
3. But the felony is not produced;
4. By reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.

(People v. Orita, G.R. No. 88724, April 3, 1990).
14. Elements 1 and 2 are not present;
15. In a similar case, the Supreme Court ruled, that the

felony is only at its attempted stage when the accused
fired four (4) successive shots at the offended party while
the latter was fleeing to escape from his assailants and to
save his life. Not having hit the offended party, either
because of his poor aim or because his intended victim
succeeded dodging the shots, It said that the accused
failed to perform all the acts of execution by reason of
cause other than his spontaneous desistance (People v.
Kalalo, 59 Phil 715).
16. In the present Complaint, the assailant failed to perform

all the acts of execution by reason of the fact that his
firearm did not fire anymore;
17. That I am executing this Counter-Affidavit to establish
the fact that I am not guilty of the crime as charged as the
assailant was not identified as he was using a black mask.
Also, the crime charge should have been Attempted
Murder or Attempted Homicide only.
18. Complainant came to the Honorable Office to seek for

justice- but justice cannot be served by prosecuting an
innocent person. He tried to script that I was his assailant
but the police report states the contrary.
19. The Honorable Prosecutor has the solemn duty to

conduct a cautious and thorough examination of the
Complaint in order that my rights to liberty under the Bill
of Rights would not be prejudiced.

24th day
of January 2018 at Pagadian City, Philippines.
MUDEN C. ABU
Respondent

January 2018 at Pagadian City, Philippines.
Doc No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2018
Copy furnished:
ABUNOR C. MALIDO Registry Receipt _____

Purok 3, Barangay Benuatan
Dinas, Zamboanga del Sur
CERTIFICATION

FERDINAND MAS PABLO
Article 6- Consummated felonies, as well as well as those which are

frustrated and attempted, are punishable. A felony is consummated when all
the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present; and
it is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which
would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not
produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a

felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution
which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other
than his own spontaneous desistance.
Elements of frustrated felony
5. The offender performs all the acts of execution;

6. All the acts performed would produce the felony as a
consequence;
7. But the felony is not produced;
8. By reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.
(People v. Orita, G.R. No. 88724, April 3, 1990).
In People v. Kalalo, 59 Phil 715, where the accused fired four (4)
successive shots at the offended party while the latter was fleeing to escape
from his assailants and to save his life. Not having hit the offended party,
either because of his poor aim or because his intended victim succeeded
dodging the shots, the accused failed to perform all the acts of execution y
reason of cause other than his spontaneous desistance.

OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
Pasig City
----------------------------------------------
IRIS T. LALIS, IS Case No. XV-14-INV-17L-02318

Plaintiff,
-versus- -for-
KLEISDIN DEMONI, RA 9262

Respondent,
x-------------------/
Counter-Affidavit
I, KLEISDIN N. DEMONI, Filipino of legal age, single and
resident of Upper Lumboy, Tuburan, Pagadian City, after having
been sworn in accordance with law, depose and say:
1. I am charged for Violation of RA 9262;
2. A priori, I was not able to come to the Office of the City

Prosecutor of Pasig as mandated by the Subpoena on
January 8 and 15, 2018 due to manifest distance. Also, my
counsel was so much occupied with drug cases making it
impossible for him to meet the scheduled time. My apology
then for submitting this Counter-Affidavit by LBC-Air
Cargo, the fastest carrier to and fro Pagadian City;
3. A reading of the Affidavit-Complaint (Reklamong-Salaysay)

is to the effect that the physical confrontations by and
between us were committed in four (4) different places,
namely: Cagayan de Oro City, Pasig City, Aloran, Misamis
Occidental and Kibawe, Bukidnon;
4. Given the different places of incident involved, I will just

answer the allegations of physical confrontation which
transpired in Pasig City i.e. paragraphs 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17
and 18 of the Affidavit-Complaint which the Honorable
Office has prosecutorial jurisdiction;
5. I was born and reared in the province. My parents are

conservative. They usually frown upon millennial ways of
life. As such, I sensed that they did not like the ways
manifested by Complainant. In the province, we always give
importance to parental observations;
6. Our ordeal began when Complainant got pregnant. True, I

suspect that I might not be the author of the child. She was
no longer pure and unchaste when I got her. Even then, I
accepted the child truly as mine. I even gave the child my
name- without any mental reservation;
7. The root of our ordeal on January 1, 2017 was her

unwarranted pressure for me to marry her despite my
explanation that I still have to appease my parents and then
go through with the preparations. My lawyer also advised
me not to marry yet until my RA 9262 case in Pagadian City
is settled. Apparently, it would not be settled as my
relationship to Complainant was the root cause why my first
girlfriend dragged me to the case;
8. My lawyer even advised me to go home to my parents first

while the case is pending if only not to add injury to the
frustrations of my first girlfriend- na pinalitan nga ni Irish. My
lawyer even prevented Complainant from attending my
court hearings as it would not help but complicate the case;
9. Yet, Complainant insisted and threatened me that if I am

afraid of my first girlfriend and my first case, I have to be
afraid of her more. Worse, she even ignited my first girlfriend
to proceed with the case and even promised her financial
help. She connived with her so to speak;
10. Thus, the case remained pending still. True to her word, this
case is now filed before the Office of the City Prosecutor.
Worse, this was filed too far from my province;
11. The alleged physical harm and damage to property were

just scripted. The inclusion of my attempt against the life
and limb of our child is merely to add spice to the case. It is
making the script more convincing. I did not do what she
alleged. I did not and would never harm my child- not even
any other children on the streets;
12. Whatever was broken or damaged, were just effects of her

physical attacks against me- which regrettably does not
constitute a crime under RA 9262. I was not born and reared
into this world to harm any one woman- much more
Complainant who is the mother of my first born;
13. Very importantly, paragraph 16 of the Affidavit-Complaint is

to the effect that: na matapos ang aming pag-uusap sa
Barangay ay humingi sa akin ng tawad ang respondent at
sinabing hindi na raw nya uulitin ang kanyang ginawang
pananakit sa akin. Dahil sa mahal ko siya at inakalang
magbabago na siya, pinatawad ko at doon ay nagpatuloy
akong nakisama sa kanya dahil magkakaanak na kami;
14. Otherwise put, Complainant had already forgiven me as to

the alleged physical confrontation which transpired on
January 1, 2017. Well-settled, condonation extinguishes a
crime;
15.And, so it must be in the present case;
16. By way of reference, our child is not living with

Complainant in Pasig City. She left her with her parents in
Aloran, Misamis Occidental. She is taken-cared of by a
certain Tita Saja- to whom I regularly send some financial
support- so meager it may be. Attached, are few of my
Palawan and MLhuillier Receipts of Remittance marked as
Annexes “1”, “2”, “3”, “4”, “5” & “6” to negate her allegation
of non-support in paragraph 31 of the Affidavit-Complaint;
17. The Supreme Court in Allado & Mendoza vs. Honorable

Roberto C. Diokno & PACC (G.R. No. 113630, May 5, 1994),
declared, videlicet:
“The sovereign power has the inherent right to protect

itself and its people from vicious acts which endanger the
proper administration of justice; hence, the State has every
right to prosecute and punish violators of the law. But
this does not confer a license for pointless assaults on its
citizens.
The right of the State to prosecute is not a carte blanche

for government agents to defy and disregard the rights of
its citizens under the constitution. Confinement, regardless
of duration, is too high a price to pay for reckless and
impulsive prosecution.”
So, this joint counter-affidavit is humbly submitted with an

aphorism: JUSTICE IS THE ULTIMATE SHADOW OF THE LAW-
OFTEN IT SHINES, THOUGH SOMETIMES IT DARKENS, but
for now let justice be done, though the heaven may fall.

15th day of January 2018 at Pagadian City, Philippines.
KLEISDIN N. DEMONI
Respondent

Doc No. 14
Page No.03
Book No.XXXIII
Series of 2018
Copy furnished:
IRISH T. LALIS Registry Receipt _____

Bilang 3, Silver Street,
Munting Bahayan, Pinagbuhatan,
Pasig City
CERTIFICATION

FERDINAND MAS PABLO

Hall of Justice
Pagadian City
----------------------------------------------
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, IS Case No. IX-09-INV-17F-00319

Plaintiff,
-versus- -for-
ELKI ANN LOPEZ, FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE

ERTHYL MAY LOPEZ
& MARY ANN CABILES,
Respondent,
x-------------------/
Counter-Affidavit
I, ELKE ANN A.LOPEZ, Filipino of legal age, single, and
resident of Igat, Margosatubig, Zamboanga del Sur, after having
1. I am charged for Frustrated Homicide in the above-

complaint;

was more of a victim in the June 26, 2017 incident as I only
acted in self-defense if only to preserve my life and limb
which during the time was at the verge of being harmed;
3. The law on self-defense embodied in our penal system finds

4. And I interpose this defense in my behalf- though mindful


follows, viz:
6. I was infront of our house at Purok Orchids, Igat,

Margosatubig, Zamboanga del Sur, sweeping and burning
dry leaves at or about 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon of June
26, 2017;
7. Complainant’s house is just few steps away from our house.

Yet, she has to pass by our house before reaching hers. Both
of our houses are just along the road in going to and fro our
respective houses;
8. True, she was riding a motorcycle at or about 5:00 o’clock in

the afternoon. Surprisingly, before the motorcycle could pass
by me, I heard her shouting, “NGANONG GAATANG-
ATANG MAN KA DIHA, GUSTO KA UG
BUGNO?”(Why are you way-laying, do you want a fight?)
9. Then and there, I noticed that she suddenly fell down from
the motorcycle. Seeing her that way, I said: DA!
NAGABAAN! (Gaba means curse);
10. Then and there, she stood up and attacked me. She held my
head and pushed me. I had to defend myself and thus we
were thrown to the ground. We fought as spiders fighting-
grabbing and pulling each other’s hair;
11. After which, I noticed my sister, ERTHYL MAY and MARY

CABILES separating us.
12. I did not intend to harm anyone that very afternoon. The
day was so peaceful and calm. Much more, I never expected
to be in trouble that day. Indeed, a man is occasionally
subdued by a morbid phenomenon which constrained him
to do wrong- despite it is contrary to his volition;

First Requisite
14. I was attacked by the Complainant. The peril to my life
therefore, was not only imminent but actual (People vs. Cabical,
403 SCRA 268);

unlawful aggression (People vs. Montalba, 56 SCRA 443).
Much more, an attack with a handgun;

SCRA 384);
Second Requisite

SCRA 522);

Phil 647);
19. With much more reason, when injuries were consequently

sustained after both parties fought by grabbing and pulling
each other’s hair on the ground. It was either me or he who
could be physically injured during the happenstance;
Third Requisite
20. I was just sweeping and burning dry leaves infront of our
house that fateful afternoon. My presence there was natural
as I was infront of our house- not hers. My presence would
surely not raise Complainant’s ire- if only she was in her
right mind. I did not provoke her in any way;
21. Even admitting that I said: DA NAGABAAN- which could

have provoked her, yet, I only said so as a natural reaction as
she shouted at me- NGANO GAATANG-ATANG MAN KA
DIHA, GUSTO KA UG BUGNO!;
22. There was actually an oral altercation between us.

Jurisprudence says: to engage in a verbal argument cannot
be considered sufficient provocation (Comment, Luis B.
Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, 13th Edition, page 183, citing
a Decision of the Supreme Court of Spain dated October 5, 1877);
23.The three (3) requisites of self-defense are therefore present in

my case;
The crime charged is overkill
24. That the crime of Frustrated Homicide was overkill. It was

just made if only to avoid passing through the Office of the
Barangay Captain or the Lupon. The Medical Certificate is
clear, that her injury only requires three (3) days medical
attendance. Complainant was only prescribed to take
Ibuprofen i.e. for muscular pain.
25. I am executing this Counter-Affidavit to establish the fact

that I am more of victim than a culprit in the subject
incident. If at all, I was justified in causing her injuries, if
there were any.

20th day
of July 2017 at Pagadian City, Philippines.
ELKE ANN A. LOPEZ

Respondent
July 2017 at Pagadian City, Philippines.
Doc No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2017
Copy furnished:
Hon. GERALYN G. ALVAREZ Registry Receipt _____

Purok Orchids
IGAT, Margosatubig, Zamboanga del Sur

Hall of Justice
Pagadian City
----------------------------------------------
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, IS Case No. IX-09-INV-17E-00261

Plaintiff,
-versus- -for-
IAN LOQUILLANO, ROBBERY

Respondent,
x-------------------/
Counter-Affidavit
I, CLYDE IAN LOQUILLANO, Filipino of legal age,
married, and a resident of Purok 3, Balong-Balong, Pitogo,
Zamboanga del Sur, after having been sworn in accordance with
law, depose and say:
1. I am charged for robbery for having allegedly taken the

chainsaw of one Paterno B. Romo atr gun point on May
22, 2017 at or about 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon;
2. I deny having committed the crime as charged. I am just a

fall guy so to speak.
3. Though alibi is the weakest defense, I still depose and say:

that on May 22, 2017 in the morning i.e. from 8:00 o’clock
to 12:00 o’clock noon, I was at the pahina (community
service) of the 4P’s at Balong-Balong, Pitogo, Zamboanga
del Sur, together with some other twenty-one 21 4P’s
beneficiaries;
4. I went to the house of Roy E. Loquillo at noontime and

had my lunch there as he celebrated a child’s birthday;
5. I also went to the house of Eliseo Etang at or about 1:00

o’clock in the afternoon to attend the wedding of his son,
Ruel. I went home late in the afternoon. I was so drunk
then;
6. Given my activities on that fateful day, it was physically

impossible for me to be at San Isidro, Pitogo, Zamboanga
del Sur at or about 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon- taking
the chain saw of one Paterno B. Romo at gun point;
7. Also, Paterno B. Romo and his witness, Bengie E. Bayawa

stated that the person who took the chain saw was
wearing bonnet. The identity of the robber was therefore
doubtful. For sure, it was never me;

that I am innocent of the crime as charged.


right to prosecute and punish violators of the law. But
this does not confer a license for pointless assaults on its
citizens. The right of the State to prosecute is not a carte
blanche for government agents to defy and disregard the
rights of its citizens under the constitution. Confinement,
regardless of duration, is too high a price to pay for reckless
and impulsive prosecution.”
So, this joint counter-affidavit is humbly submitted with an

aphorism: JUSTICE IS THE ULTIMATE SHADOW OF THE LAW-
OFTEN IT SHINES, THOUGH SOMETIMES IT DARKENS, but
for now let justice be done, though the heaven may fall.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 6th

day of August 2017 at Pagadian City, Philippines.
CLYDE IAN LOQUILLANO

Respondent
August 2017 at Pagadian City, Philippines.
Doc No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2017
Copy furnished:
PATERNO B. ROMO Registry Receipt _____

PUROK 1, San Isidro
Pitogo, Zamboanga del Sur

Hall of Justice
Pagadian City
----------------------------------------------

Plaintiff,
-versus- -for-

Respondent,
x-------------------/
Affidavit
I, ROY E. LOQUILLANO, Filipino of legal age, married,
and a resident of Balong-Balong, Pitogo, Zamboanga del Sur, after
having been sworn in accordance with law, depose and say:
1. I hereby affirm under oath that CLYDE IAN LOQUILLANO

was in my house from 12:00 o’clock noon to 1:00 o’clock in
the afternoon of May 22, 2017. He dined with my family as
we were celebrating a child’s birthday;
2. I believe and so hold that it was physically impossible for

him to be at San Isidro, Pitogo, Zamboanga del Sur at or
about 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon of May 22, 2017 given his
physical presence at my house from 12:00 o’clock noon to
1:00 o’clock in the afternoon;

that Clyde Ian Loquillano is innocent of the crime as
charged.

ROY E. LOQUILLANO
Affiant
Doc No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2017
Copy furnished:

PUROK 1, San Isidro

Hall of Justice
Pagadian City
----------------------------------------------

Plaintiff,
-versus- -for-

Respondent,
x-------------------/
Affidavit
I, ELISEO ETANG, Filipino of legal age, married, and a
resident of Balong-Balong, Pitogo, Zamboanga del Sur, after having
1. I hereby affirm under oath that CLYDE IAN

LOQUILLANO was in my house from 1:00 o’clock in the
afternoon to 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon of May 22, 2017.
He was in the house as it was the wedding of my son,
Ruel;
2. I believe and so hold that it was physically impossible for

him to be at San Isidro, Pitogo, Zamboanga del Sur at or
about 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon of May 22, 2017 given
his physical presence at my house from 1:00 o’clock to
5:00 o’clock in the afternoon;

that Clyde Ian Loquillano is innocent of the crime as
charged.

ELISEO ETANG
Affiant
Doc No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2017
Copy furnished:

PUROK 1, San Isidro
Hall of Justice
Pagadian City
----------------------------------------------
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, IS Case No. IX-09-INV-17F-00319

Plaintiff,
-versus- -for-
ELKI ANN LOPEZ, FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE

ERTHYL MAY LOPEZ
& MARY ANN CABILES,
Respondent,
x-------------------/
Joint Counter-Affidavit
WE, ERTHYL MAY A. LOPEZ and MARY CABILES, both
Filipinos of legal age, single, and residents of Igat, Margosatubig,
1. We are charged for Frustrated Homicide in the above-

complaint;
2. We deny having committed the crime as charged. The fact is

that we only separated Complainant and ELKE ANN A.
LOPEZ who were fighting on the ground in front of our
house. We did not participate in the fight. We did not even
know the cause of the fight;

follows, viz:
4. We were seated at a table inside the house. We were

separating the malungay leaves from its trunk (gahagpat mi ug
kamungggay) which we would cook with fresh bulinaw;
5. Suddenly, we noticed some noise coming from the road

infront of the house. We did not mind it at first, as we knew
that ELKE ANN was sweeping and burning some leaves
outside. We even sensed the smoke;
6. Yet, we heard some female voices coming from the road.
Thus, we stood up and went out. We were then sudden
seeing ELKE ANN and Complainant grappling with each
other on the ground;
7. We then shouted for help- TABANG! TABANG!
8. Then and there we separated them. And, then we noticed

some neighbors and relatives coming.
9. We are executing this Counter-Affidavit to establish the fact

that we were not parties to the fight between Complainant
and ELKE ANN. We just saw them fighting. We shouted for
help to alarm our neighbors and we separated them.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands this

20th day
of July 2017 at Pagadian City, Philippines.
ERTHYL A. LOPEZ MARY CABILES

Respondent Respondent

Doc No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2017
Copy furnished:
Hon. GERALYN G. ALVAREZ Registry Receipt _____

Purok Orchids
IGAT, Margosatubig, Zamboanga del Sur
CERTIFICATION

FERDINAND MAS PABLO

Municipal Trial Court in Cities
9th JUDICIAL REGION
Branch 3
Zamboanga City
----------------------------------------------
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRIM CASES NOS. 52910, 52916

Plaintiff, 52919 to 52921, 52923 to 52925
-versus- -for-
OWEN VALEROS OSEA, VIOLATION OF BP 22

Accused,
x-------------------/

Plaintiff, 52939, 52941, 52943, 52944, 52947,
52948, 52949, 52954
-versus- -for-
VIRGINIA DIAZ OSEA, VIOLATION OF BP 22

Accused,
x-------------------/
We, OWEN VALEROS OSEA and VIRGINIA DIAZ OSEA,
both Filipinos of legal age, husband and wife and residents of
Cornelian St. Nesoricom Village, Magdaup, Ipil, Zamboanga
Sibugay, after having been sworn in accordance with law, depose
and say, that:
1. We are the accused in the present criminal cases;
2. We humbly deny having violated Batas Pambansa Bilang 22

otherwise known as the Anti-Bouncing Checks Law;
3. We also deny having obtained a cash loan of P 1,000,000.00

from the private complainant. If at all, I and my wife,
Virginia D. Osea only had an aggregate cash loan from her
in the sum of P 300,000 received in small fractions from
November 2011 until June of 2013;
4. From our liquidated summary of check payments and cash
remittances, we have already paid private complainant a
total sum of P 1,074,828.66. Evidence of these check
payments and cash remittances will be presented and
marked during the preliminary conference of these cases for
lack of time to reproduce them;
5. I, OWEN VALEROS OSEA, is charged for having issued

twenty-six (26) worthless checks- eight (8) of which are the
subject of these present cases, viz:
Check No. Date Issued Date Dishonored
PS 0007978 August 30, 2013 August 20, 2013

PS 0007980 October 30, 2013 December 18, 2013
PS 0008257 December 22, 2013 April 14, 2016
PS 0008258 January 22, 2014 August 01, 2014
PS 0008259 February 20, 2014 August 01, 2014
PS 0008260 March 22, 2014 September 29, 2014
6. I, VIRGINIA DIAZ OSEA, is charged for having issued

thirty (30) worthless checks- ten (10) of which are the subject
of these present cases, viz:
AB3272819 July 23, 2013 August 30, 2013

AB3271715 August 07, 2013 August 30, 2013
AB3271718 September 20, 2013 October 29, 2013
AB3272835 September 26, 2013 October 29, 2013
AB3271720 October 20, 2013 October 29, 2013
AB3272822 October 23, 2013 October 29, 2013
AB3271721 November 07, 2013 November 26, 2013
AB3272838 December 26, 2013 April 14, 2014
7. Recordedly, our PS Bank Account against which these checks

were drawn was already closed even prior to their issuance.
Also, our Allied Bank Account against which these checks
were drawn was already closed even prior to their issuance;
8. Attached are copies of the following PS Bank Checks, viz:
PS 0007988 May 28, 2013 July 15, 2013

PS 0008264 June 02, 2013 July 15, 2016
PS 0003962 June 20, 2013 July 15, 2016
PS 0008263 June 22, 2013 July 15, 2013
9. Also, attached are copies of the following Allied Bank

Checks, viz:
AB3271711 June 07, 2013 June 10, 2013

AB3272831 May 26, 2013 July 15, 2013
AB3264161 June 12, 2013 July 15, 2013
AB3271712 June 20, 2013 July 15, 2013
AB3272818 June 23, 2013 July 15, 2013
10. These checks were issued to the private complainant even

prior to the checks subject of the present cases. These checks
were already dishonored when they were presented for
payment on June 10, 2013 and July 15, 2013, respectively on
the common reason: ACCOUNT CLOSED;
11. Otherwise put, the private complainant was already fully

aware that as of June 10, 2013 our Allied Bank Account was
already closed. Also, as of July 15, 2013, the private
complainant confirmed that our Allied Bank Account was
indeed closed. Also, as of July 15, 2013, the private
complainant was already fully aware that our PS Bank
Account was already closed;
12. She has therefore no reason to expect that these checks would
be honored by the drawee banks when she would deposit or
present them for payment;
13. Otherwise put, the private complainant received these checks

only as evidence of the balance of our cash loan, if there be
any;
14. Given the dishonor of the previous checks which were
drawn against the same accounts on the reason: ACCOUNT
CLOSED, the private complainant had no reason to expect
that all these checks which were drawn subsequently would
still be funded- account closed na nga;
15. Also, we personally told the private complainant in

November of 2011 that we do not have sufficient funds in
our checking accounts with PS Bank and Allied Bank and
that, if at all, we would only issue checks if only to make
good her self-imposed condition before releasing a cash loan;
16. Well-settled, there is no violation of the Batas Pambansa

Bilang 22 if the Complainant was actually told by the drawer
that he has no sufficient funds in the bank (Lee vs. CA, 448
SCRA 445);
17. In the present cases, the private complainant already knew

that our previous checks were already dishonored by reason
of ACCOUNT CLOSED- an imprimatur that the subject
checks were no longer or could no longer be funded;
18. Moreover, the following checks were negotiated by way of

deposit into the account of the private complainant beyond
the ninety (90)- day period- negating our liabilities under BP
22, viz:

PS 0008258 January 22, 2014 August 01, 2014
PS 0008259 February 20, 2014 August 01, 2014
AB3272838 December 26, 2013 April 14, 2014;
19. Also, we have in several occasions replaced, redeemed or

exchanged previous bouncing checks with cash- proof of
which would be presented and marked during the
preliminary conference of the present cases;
20. In People vs. Juliano, 448 SCRA 370, the Supreme Court
opined that: the fact that the accused no longer deposited the
amount necessary to cover the first check within the
required period cannot be considered prima facie evidence of
deceit against her, for the complainant’s own act of
accepting the replacement checks and surrendering the first
check to the accused meant she was no longer holding the
accused liable;
21. Given the foregoing depositions, we humbly believe that

the present cases are yet premature for litigation. There is still
a pressing need for us and the private complainant to submit
our respective statements of accounts to a court-appointed
accountant to reconcile them in a way of settling our
accounts- once and for all;
22. The Honorable City Prosecutor believed private

complainant’s story. More so, that we were not able to submit
our counter-affidavit before him. Even then, the Honorable
City Prosecutor had the solemn duty to conduct a cautious
and thorough examination of the Complaint in order that
our rights to liberty under the Bill of Rights would not have
been prejudiced. There were fifty six (56) checks involved.
Most checks were presented for payment beyond the ninety
(90) - day period. Also, the dishonor of the first check was, on
its face, dishonored on the reason ACCOUNT CLOSED.
These should have been considered in the resolution of the
complaint. Not all checks should have landed in court.


right to prosecute and punish violators of the law. But this
does not confer a license for pointless assaults on its citizens.
The right of the State to prosecute is not a carte blanche for
government agents to defy and disregard the rights of its
citizens under the constitution. Confinement, regardless of
duration, is too high a price to pay for reckless and impulsive
prosecution.”
24. So, this joint counter-affidavit is humbly submitted with an
aphorism: JUSTICE IS THE ULTIMATE SHADOW OF THE
LAW- OFTEN IT SHINES, THOUGH SOMETIMES IT
DARKENS, but for now let justice be done, though the
heaven may fall. A fervent prayer that the present cases be
heard with compassion.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set my hands this

15th day of September 2016 at Pagadian City, Philippines.
OWEN VALEROS OSEA

Accused
VIRGINIA DIAZ OSEA

Accused

September 2016 at Pagadian City, Philippines, affiants showing
two (2) valid identification cards, each, depicting their recent
photos and customary signatures.
Doc No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2016
Copy furnished:
Pros RICARDO G. CABARRON LBC air Cargo ______

City Prosecutor’s Office
BULWAGAN NG KATARUNGAN
Zamboanga City
MYRNA S. LIM/Atty. ARIEL C. NUNAG LBC Air Cargo ______

Burgos corner Barua Street
Tetuan, Zamboanga City

9th JUDICIAL REGION
Branch 2
Pagadian City
----------------------------------------------
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRIM CASES NO. 17537

Plaintiff,
-versus- -for-
JOSEPHINE CAANG, VIOLATION OF BP 22

Accused,
x-------------------/
Counter-Affidavit
I, JOSEPHINE P. CAANG, Filipino of legal age, married and a
resident of Napolan, Pagadian City, after having been sworn in
accordance with law, depose and say, that:
1. I am the accused in the present criminal case;
2. I humbly deny having violated Batas Pambansa Bilang 22

3. I issued the subject check, Allied Bank Check No. 0029846

dated June 15, 2014 on May 15, 2014 to guaranty a cash loan
in the sum of P 60,000.00;
4. The agreement was for me to issue a postdated check to be

dated a month after i.e. June 15, 2014 in the sum of P
70,000.00- which would cover the amount of loan of P
60,000.00 and the interest of P 10,000.00;
5. On June 14, 2014 i.e. a day before the date of the check, I paid
the private complainant the sum of P 70,000.00 in cash. The
payment is evidenced by a private document with the
following entry:
June 14, 2014

Receive the amount of P 70,000.00 or Seventy
Thousand Pesos only from Josephine P. Caang us full
payment and with Check No. 0029846 us garantor, receive to
Virginia Revil.
(Sgd) VIRGINIA REVIL
A copy of the receipt is hereto attached marked as Annex

“1”;
6. No matter how poorly written or worded, the private

document is clear that a cash amount of P 70,000.00 was
received by a certain Virginia Revil from me on June 14, 2014
as full payment for Check No. 0029846- which is the very
check subject of the present criminal case;
7. Regrettably, I was not able to get back the subject check from
the private complainant when I paid her in cash. But she
promised to return the check;
8. Also, the check was presented for payment appearingly on

July 22, 2015 i.e. beyond the 90-day period within which a
drawer has to maintain a sufficient sum with the drawee
bank to cover its amount. In fact, the word “stale” is evident
on the face of the subject check itself;
9. Also, I already told the private complainant that at the time I

issued the check my account with the drawee bank was
already closed. Otherwise put, the private complainant was
already fully aware that as of May 15, 2014, my Allied Bank
10. She has therefore no reason to expect that the subject check
would be honored by the drawee bank when she would
deposit or present it for payment;

SCRA 445);
12. The Honorable City Prosecutor had the solemn duty to
conduct a cautious and thorough examination of the
Complaint in order that my rights to liberty under the Bill of
Rights would not have been prejudiced. I attached the
private document evidencing payment of the sum of the
check in my counter-affidavit. The subject check was on its
face presented for payment beyond the elemental 90-day
period. But the prosecutor chose to have the subject check
land in court;


prosecution.”
14. So, this counter-affidavit is humbly submitted with an

heaven may fall. A fervent prayer that the present case be
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 3rd

day of February 2017 at Pagadian City, Philippines.
JOSEPHINE P. CAANG
Accused
SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this 3rd day of
February 2017 at Pagadian City, Philippines, affiant showing two
(2) valid identification cards, depicting her recent photos and
customary signatures.
Doc No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2017
Copy furnished:
ACP GERALDINE L. ARIOSA-ENDRALIN Received ______

Pagadian City
9th JUDICIAL REGION
Branch 1
Pagadian City
----------------------------------------------
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRIM CASES NO. 17576

Plaintiff,
-versus- -for-
JOSEPHINE CAANG, VIOLATION OF BP 22

Accused,
x-------------------/
Counter-Affidavit
I, JOSEPHINE P. CAANG, Filipino of legal age, married and a
resident of Napolan, Pagadian City, after having been sworn in
1. I am the accused in the present criminal case;

2. I humbly deny having violated Batas Pambansa Bilang 22
3. I issued the subject check, Allied Bank Check No. 0060411

dated July 16, 2014 to guaranty an already existing loan with
the Complainant in the sum of P 100,000.00 with an agreed
interest of 10 percent per month;
4. The agreement was for me to issue a postdated check to be

dated 2 months after i.e. July 16, 2014 in the sum of P
120,000.00- which would cover the amount of loan of P
100,000.00 and the interest of P 20,000.00 for two (2) months;
5. The wife of the private complainant is a close friend of mine.

She knew for a fact that I do not have sufficient fund in the
bank. She personally knew that I only use my checks to
guaranty cash loans for use in my financing business. That
was even the reason why the private complainant was
admittedly hesitant to grant me a cash loan- knowing that my
checks are worthless;
6. Also, at the time of issue, I already told the private

complainant that I do not have sufficient fund in my account
with the drawee bank. I told him that I only have a minimal
deposit of P 2,000.00 in said account. Otherwise put, the
private complainant was already fully aware that the check
would be dishonored if presented for payment;
7. He has therefore no reason to expect that the subject check

would be honored by the drawee bank when he would
deposit or present it for payment. Yet, he presented it for
payment with the end in view to sue me for Estafa and
Violation of BP 22 if only to pressure me to make good the
payment of the cash loan;

SCRA 445);
9. Recordedly, I already paid him P 50,000.00 at the Barangay

Level as evidenced by the Acknowledgement Receipt as
hereto attached- showing my willingness to make good the
payment of my cash loan;


prosecution.”
11. So, this counter-affidavit is humbly submitted with an

heaven may fall. A fervent prayer that the present case be

day of March 2017 at Pagadian City, Philippines.
JOSEPHINE P. CAANG
Accused

March 2017 at Pagadian City, Philippines, affiant showing two (2)
valid identification cards, depicting her recent photos and
customary signatures.
Doc No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2017
Copy furnished:
Pros. Lea Mae Arcayos Received ______

Pagadian City
9th JUDICIAL REGION
Branch 2
Zamboanga City
----------------------------------------------

Plaintiff, 52913, 52915 & 52926
-versus- -for-
OWEN VALEROS OSEA, VIOLATION OF BP 22

Accused,
x-------------------/

Plaintiff, & 52934
-versus- -for-
VIRGINIA DIAZ OSEA, VIOLATION OF BP 22

Accused,
x-------------------/
We, OWEN VALEROS OSEA and VIRGINIA DIAZ OSEA,
both Filipinos of legal age, husband and wife and residents of
Cornelian St. Nesoricom Village, Magdaup, Ipil, Zamboanga
and say, that:
1. We are the accused in the present criminal cases;
2. We humbly deny having violated Batas Pambansa Bilang 22

3. We also deny having obtained a cash loan of P 1,000,000.00

from the private complainant. If at all, I and my wife,
Virginia D. Osea only had an aggregate cash loan from her
in the sum of P 300,000 received in small fractions from
November 2011 until June of 2013;
4. From our liquidated summary of check payments and cash
remittances, we have already paid private complainant a
total sum of P 1,074,828.66. Evidence of these check
payments and cash remittances will be presented and
marked during the preliminary conference of these cases for
lack of time to reproduce them;
5. I, OWEN VALEROS OSEA, is charged for having issued

twenty-six (26) worthless checks- eight (8) of which are the
subject of these present cases, viz:
PS 0008265 July 2, 2013 July 15, 2013

PS 0003963 July 20, 2013 August 30, 2013
PS 0007992 September 28, 2013 December 08, 2013
PS 0008255 October 22, 2013 December 18, 2013
PS 0008261 April 22, 2014 October 22, 2014
6. I, VIRGINIA DIAZ OSEA, is charged for having issued

thirty (30) worthless checks- ten (10) of which are the subject
of these present cases, viz:
AB3272841 July 28, 2013 August 30, 2013

AB3272833 July 26, 2013 August 30, 2013
AB3271716 August 29, 2016 August 30, 2013
7. Recordedly, our PS Bank Account against which these checks

were drawn was already closed even prior to their issuance.
Also, our Allied Bank Account against which these checks
were drawn was already closed even prior to their issuance;
8. Attached are copies of the following PS Bank Checks, viz:
PS 0007988 May 28, 2013 July 15, 2013

PS 0008264 June 02, 2013 July 15, 2016
PS 0003962 June 20, 2013 July 15, 2016
PS 0008263 June 22, 2013 July 15, 2013
9. Also, attached are copies of the following Allied Bank
Checks, viz:
AB3271711 June 07, 2013 June 10, 2013

AB3272831 May 26, 2013 July 15, 2013
AB3264161 June 12, 2013 July 15, 2013
AB3271712 June 20, 2013 July 15, 2013
AB3272818 June 23, 2013 July 15, 2013
10. These checks were issued to the private complainant even

prior to the checks subject of the present cases. These checks
were already dishonored when they were presented for
payment on June 10, 2013 and July 15, 2013, respectively on
the common reason: ACCOUNT CLOSED;
11. Otherwise put, the private complainant was already fully

aware that as of June 10, 2013 our Allied Bank Account was
already closed. Also, as of July 15, 2013, the private
complainant confirmed that our Allied Bank Account was
indeed closed. Also, as of July 15, 2013, the private
complainant was already fully aware that our PS Bank
12. She has therefore no reason to expect that these checks would
be honored by the drawee banks when she would deposit or
present them for payment;
13. Otherwise put, the private complainant received these checks

only as evidence of the balance of our cash loan, if there be
any;
14. Given the dishonor of the previous checks which were

drawn against the same accounts on the reason: ACCOUNT
CLOSED, the private complainant had no reason to expect
that all these checks which were drawn subsequently would
still be funded- account closed na nga;
15. Also, we personally told the private complainant in

November of 2011 that we do not have sufficient funds in
our checking accounts with PS Bank and Allied Bank and
that, if at all, we would only issue checks if only to make
good her self-imposed condition before releasing a cash loan;
SCRA 445);
17. In the present cases, the private complainant already knew

that our previous checks were already dishonored by reason
of ACCOUNT CLOSED- an imprimatur that the subject
checks were no longer or could no longer be funded;
18. Moreover, the following check was negotiated by way of

deposit into the account of the private complainant beyond
the ninety (90)- day period- negating our liability under BP
22, viz:
PS 0008261 April 22, 2014 October 22, 2014
19. Also, we have in several occasions replaced, redeemed or

exchanged previous bouncing checks with cash- proof of
which would be presented and marked during the
preliminary conference of the present cases;
20. In People vs. Juliano, 448 SCRA 370, the Supreme Court
opined that: the fact that the accused no longer deposited the
amount necessary to cover the first check within the
required period cannot be considered prima facie evidence of
deceit against her, for the complainant’s own act of
accepting the replacement checks and surrendering the first
check to the accused meant she was no longer holding the
accused liable;
21. Given the foregoing depositions, we humbly believe that

the present cases are yet premature for litigation. There is still
a pressing need for us and the private complainant to submit
our respective statements of accounts to a court-appointed
accountant to reconcile them in a way of settling our
accounts- once and for all;
22. The Honorable City Prosecutor believed private
complainant’s story. More so, that we were not able to submit
our counter-affidavit before him. Even then, the Honorable
City Prosecutor had the solemn duty to conduct a cautious
and thorough examination of the Complaint in order that
our rights to liberty under the Bill of Rights would not have
been prejudiced. There were fifty six (56) checks involved.
Most checks were presented for payment beyond the ninety
(90) - day period. Also, the dishonor of the first check was, on
its face, dishonored on the reason ACCOUNT CLOSED.
These should have been considered in the resolution of the
complaint. Not all checks should have landed in court.


prosecution.”

heaven may fall. A fervent prayer that the present cases be
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set my hands this

15th day of September 2016 at Pagadian City, Philippines.
OWEN VALEROS OSEA
Accused
VIRGINIA DIAZ OSEA

Accused

September 2016 at Pagadian City, Philippines, affiants showing
two (2) valid identification cards, each, depicting their recent
photos and customary signatures.
Doc No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2016
Copy furnished:
Pros RICARDO G. CABARRON LBC air Cargo ______

BULWAGAN NG KATARUNGAN
Zamboanga City
MYRNA S. LIM/Atty. ARIEL C. NUNAG LBC Air Cargo ______

Burgos corner Barua Street
Tetuan, Zamboanga City
OF LANAO DEL SUR
Hall of Justice
City Hall Complex, Bangon, Marawi City
----------------------------------------------
FAHAD S. DIANGKA, NPS-RXIV-04-INV-ISF-00080

Complainant,
-versus- -for-
NORDINA MACAAGUIR SARIP, et. al. MULTIPLE ATTEMPTED

Respondents, MURDER
x-------------------/
Counter-Affidavit
I, TAHA GURO SARIP, Filipino of legal age, married and
resident of Pualas, Lanao del Sur, after having been sworn in
1. I am charged for Multiple Attempted Murder in the above-

complaint;

was not a part of the arm conflict by and between the groups
of Complainant Fahad S. Diangka and Tony Polayagan
Tanog- who were reportedly engaged in a firefight on April
21, 2015 at or about 8:45 in the morning at Sitio Macaager,
Barangay Pindulunan, Ganassi, Lanao del Sur;
3. A priori, the Spot Report released by the Ganassi Municipal

Police Station is to the effect that: a firefight ensued around
8:45 in the morning of April 21, 2015 at Sitio Macaager,
Barangay Pindulunan, Ganassi, Lanao del Sur between the
group of Fahad S. Diangka and family of Tony Polayagan
Tanog led by Basary Saripada Tanog. Investigation
conducted revealed that Basary Saripada Tanog harassed
the house of Fahad S. Diangka (Annex “A” of the Affidavit-
Complaint);
4. Also, the Progress Report issued by the same police station is

to the effect that: Please be informed that a firefight ensued
around 8:45 in the morning of April 21, 2015 at Sitio
Macaager, Barangay Pindulunan, Ganassi, Lanao del Sur
between the group of Fahad S. Diangka and Basary
Saripada Tanog and ceased around 9:40 in the morning of
April 21, 2015;
5. Needless to state, I am the Sultan of Pualas- by royalty. Not

only that, I am also the Chancellor of the Mindanao State
University-Buug Campus, Buug, Zamboanga Sibugay- a too
exalted position both in the community and academe. I am
even considered to be appointed to the highest position of
University President- if Allah shall choose at too close a
future;
6. Also, I am both related to the Tanogs and the Diangkas. The

Diangka’s are even nearer to me by line. Why they included
me in the list of their alleged aggressors bewildered me up
to this point in time;
7. If only I was present on the occasion of the firefight by and

between the group of Fahad S. Diangka and Tony
Polayagan Tanog and/or Basary Saripada Tanog- my name
should have been known to the responding elements of the
Ganassi Municipal Police Station. More appropriately, the
Police Spot Report and Progress Report should have been
couched as- a firefight ensued around 8:45 in the morning of
April 21, 2015 at Sitio Macaager, Barangay Pindulunan,
Ganassi, Lanao del Sur between the group of Fahad S.
Diangka and Sultan Taha Guro Sarip- inasmuch as I am the
Sultan of Pualas- who is always expected to lead a fight
involving my sultanate and its constituents;
8. Or, at the very least, the police Spot Report and Progress
Report could have mentioned my name this way: the
firefight ensued in the presence of Sultan Taha Guro Sarip
of Pualas;
9. The fact is: it was not so mentioned. And this is an

imprimatur that I nor even my shadow or soul – was never
noticed or seen at the scene of the firefight;
10. If only I was noticed or seen- the fact will speak as thunder
in the reams of Ganassi and the wheels of Lanao del Sur. The
Sultan of Pualas- joining a fight of lowly men and women;
11. I was in my Chancellor’s pad at the MSU-Buug Campus on

April 20, 2015. I just arrived from Marawi City, then. At or
about 6:00 o’clock in the afternoon, I learned from my Chief
Security that he received a forwarded text from a relative that
Tony Polayagan Tanog was requesting for re-enforcement
as he planned to attack the Diangka’s at Sitio Macaager,
Pindulunan, Ganassi, Lanao del Sur- by way of reprisal to his
flagging down at gun point while he was riding his Isuzu D
Max SUV at or about 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon by Fahad
S. Diangka and his group. This saddened me much as I am
the Sultan of Pualas and the Tanog’s are constituents of
mine;
12. Also, my brother, Alibaser Guro Sarip is the Sultan of

Pindulunan- and the Diangka’s are his constituents. So, did
then and there, I called up my brother and asked of him to
advice Tony Polayagan Tanog to abort his plan in attacking
the Diangka’s;
13. Godspeed, through my brother, Sultan Alibaser, I was able to

reach Tony Polayagan Tanog thru cellular phone and that I
was able to convince him to abort his plans. In fact, Tony
Polayagan Tanog told me that he was already at Macaager
National High School when I called up. Thus- Tony
Polayagan Tanog withdrew from Macaager;
14. Allegedly, Basary Saripada Tanog- the father of the rape-

victim, who was referred to as Basco in the Affidavit-
Complaint went to Sitio Macaager to visit the MILF Camp
early morning of April 21, 2015 to verify as to the requested
assistance earlier made by Tony Polayagan Tanog of the
possible identification and capture of the rape-suspect;
15. All out I thought that there would no longer be any

firefight. So, I was already able to pass my night in slumber
at the Chancellor’s pad that night;
16. The following day, April 21, 2015 at or about 7:00 o’clock in
the morning, I decided to go to Barangay Pindulunan to see
my brother, Sultan Alibaser to possibly iron-out the dispute.
I had to wait a bit for the office to open at 8:00 o’clock so I
could sign some ready official documents before I would
leave;
17. Before I could have signed any one document in the office,
my Campus Chief Security, Casanodin Sarip informed me
that he received a call that the firefight already ensued by
and between the group Basary Saripada Tanog and the
group of Fahad S. Diangka;
18. Did then and there, I called my brother, Sultan Alibaser- on

how to remedy the situation. But he told me that “nagbarilan
na, wala na tayong magagawa”;
19. With all good faith and fidelity, I was not at the scene of the
firefight. I was several miles away- at the Chancellor’s pad of
the MSU-Campus in Buug, Zamboanga Sibugay. I tried to
prevent the happenstance- but my effort was not good
enough;
20. My inclusion as party-respondent is a matter of shock. My

inclusion is apparently scripted and ill-willed. I have to be
included so that at least one or two (2) of the respondents
occupy an exalted position in the government so that- the
claim for damages for the house and Ford Expedition
Wagon will be well-addressed and the possibility of
negotiation for the monetary settlement of this case will
always be possible;
21. But why must Complainant include innocent men? If theirs

is vendetta- why get it from us? Justice therefore will never be
served if I be prosecuted for a crime that a sultan and a
chancellor will never choose to do- in exchange for what he
had after a rigorous struggle from proverbial bottom to the
majestic seat of an academic head and a sultanate;
22. A reading of the Affidavit-Complaint is to the effect that the

listing of respondents was indiscriminately made. There was
no mention as to how each one participated in the harassment
and/or firefight;
23. There was also no mention as to who among the

Complainant or his witnesses noticed or saw me on the
occasion of the harassment or firefight. Complainant was
just contented in stating that: we saw the above-respondents
around in our place fully armed with assorted high-
powered firearms;
24. The statement is very indiscriminate. They saw us all in

their place fully armed. Again, I am the Sultan of Pualas and
the Chancellor of the MSU-Buug Campus. The position of
University President is not farfetched - given my dedication
to public service. Why would I join the group of Basary
Saripada Tanog in a firefight? The reason of which firefight-
I was never personally part of;
25. Just like co-respondent Nordina Macaaguir Sarip, I also do

not possess the grandeur of the ages to carry a high-powered
firearm, harassed people and then engage in a firefight
against them. I am one of those few Muslim-Filipinos who
believe and so hold that the pen of a scholar is mightier
than the sword of a martyr. I did stand by this principle.
And I have been carrying my pen instead of my sword since
then;
26. True, my defense is humbly alibi. Alibi is inherently weak

(People vs. Avendaño, 396 SCRA 159). Even then, alibi as a
defense is only weak, if the accused is positively
identified. Thus, positive identification destroys the defense
of alibi and renders it impotent, especially where such
identification is credible and categorical (People vs. Casitas,
Jr., 397 SCRA 382);
27. From the Affidavit-complaint, it is crystal clear that I was not

positively identified. The Spot Report and Progress Report
did not also mention my name. Thus, my identity, if at all,
was simply forced and imagined. In so doing, my defense of
alibi- can well be taken to exclude me from the scourge of
the present charge;
28. Also, denial and alibi may be weak but the judges and
prosecutors should not at once look at them with disfavor
(People vs. Lapitaje, 397 SCRA 674).
29. Also, Murder is the unlawful killing of any person which is

not parricide or infanticide, provided that any of the
following circumstances is present: 1) with treachery; 2) in
consideration of a price, reward or promise; 3) by means of
inundation, etc.; 4) on occasion of any calamity; 5) with evident
premeditation and 5) cruelty (Article 248, Revised Penal Code);
30. Attempted Murder as a crime also requires the same

circumstances;
31. The alleged attack on the house of Complainant Fahad S.

Diangka was not attended by any of these qualifying
circumstances. The alleged attack, if it be true, was already
expected by the complainant inasmuch as there was a hostile
confrontation by and between them immediately prior to the
reported attack anchored on the flagging down at gun point
of the vehicle of Tony Polayagan Tanog by Complainant and
his group;
32. Given the incident, Complainant should have been already

on his guard to await at the portals of his house for a
possible attack by Tony Polayagan Tanog and his group in
reprisal for his flagging down at gun point;
33. There was no treachery attendant to the attack to make it a

case of Attempted Murder. The essence of treachery is the
sudden and unexpected attack without the slightest
provocation on the part of the person being attacked (People
vs. Bustamante, 397 SCRA 382). In the instance, the attack was
expected as there was reason for a reprisal;
34. There is no treachery when an altercation preceded the

attack. (People vs. Velaga, 199 SCRA 518). In the instance, there
was not only an altercation but a flagging down at gun
point;
35. Neither is the circumstance attendant where the attack was

frontal, indicating that the victim was not at totally without
opportunity to defend himself, and all surrounding
circumstances indicate that the attack was the result of a
rash and impetuous impulse of the moment rather than
from a deliberate act of the will (People vs. Tugbo, 196 SCRA
133);
36. In the instance, Complainant and his group were also heavily
armed. They even engaged in a firefight for an hour without
having been overcome;
37. There is no treachery where the commission of the crime was

preceded shortly before by a boxing incident and the victim and
his companions had all the opportunity to insure their safety
immediately before the attack (People vs. Gupo, 190 SCRA 7).
In the instance, there was more than just a boxing incident-
there was gun toting so to speak- complainant should have
expected the worst after then;
38. There is no treachery when the assault upon the deceased was
preceded by a heated exchange of words between the accused and
the deceased. It cannot be said that the deceased was caught
completely by surprise when the accused took up arms
against him (People vs. Rillorta, 180 SCRA 102);
39. There were therefore no unlawful aggressors in the present

firefight. There was just a duel- by and between the groups.
Both were at fault. Thus-the rule of in pari delicto must
necessarily apply. The law must leave them were they are.
As such, the case must be dismissed.
40. So, this counter-affidavit with a closing syllogism: justice is

the ultimate shadow of the law. Often it shines, sometimes
it darkens. For now, let justice be done though the heavens
may fall;

that I was never a part of the arm conflict by and between
Complainant Fahad S. Diangka and Tony Polayagan Tanog
and/or Basary Saripada Tanog and that I was not present at
the scene of the firefight on April 21, 2015. As such, I am not
criminally or civilly liable.

__th of __________ 2015 at Marawi City, Philippines.
TAHA GURO SARIP

Respondent
SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this __th day of

__________ 2015 at Marawi City, Philippines.
Copy furnished:
FAHAD S. DIANGKA Registry Receipt No. _____

Sitio Macaager, Barangay Pindulunan
Ganassi, Lanao del Sur
OF LANAO DEL SUR
Hall of Justice
----------------------------------------------

Complainant,
-versus- -for-

Respondents, MURDER
x-------------------/
Counter-Affidavit
I, NORDINA MACAAGUIR SARIP, Filipino of legal age,
married and resident of Pualas, Lanao del Sur, after having been
sworn in accordance with law, depose and say, that:

complaint;

was not a part of the arm conflict by and between the groups
of Complainant Fahad S. Diangka and Tony Polayagan
Tanog- who were reportedly engaged in a firefight on April
21, 2015 at or about 8:45 in the morning at Sitio Macaager,
Barangay Pindulunan, Ganassi, Lanao del Sur;
3. A priori, the Spot Report released by the Ganassi Municipal

Police Station is to the effect that: a firefight ensued around
8:45 in the morning of April 21, 2015 at Sitio Macaager,
Barangay Pindulunan, Ganassi, Lanao del Sur between the
group of Fahad S. Diangka and family of Tony Polayagan
Tanog led by Basary Saripada Tanog. Investigation
conducted revealed that Basary Saripada Tanog harassed
the house of Fahad S. Diangka (Annex “A” of the Affidavit-
Complaint);
4. Also, the Progress Report issued by the same police station is

to the effect that: Please be informed that a firefight ensued
around 8:45 in the morning of April 21, 2015 at Sitio
Macaager, Barangay Pindulunan, Ganassi, Lanao del Sur
between the group of Fahad S. Diangka and Basary
Saripada Tanog and ceased around 9:40 in the morning of
April 21, 2015;
5. Needless to state, I am occupying the exalted position of

Assistant Division Superintendent of Schools of Lanao del
Sur II. As such, I am expectedly known to both the community
and academe;
6. If only I was present on the occasion of the firefight by and

between the group of Fahad S. Diangka and Tony Polayagan
Tanog and/or Basary Saripada Tanog- my name should have
been known to the responding elements of the Ganassi
Municipal Police Station. More appropriately, the Police Spot
Report and Progress Report should have been couched as- a
firefight ensued around 8:45 in the morning of April 21, 2015
at Sitio Macaager, Barangay Pindulunan, Ganassi, Lanao del
Sur between the group of Fahad S. Diangka and Assistant
Superintendent Nordina Macaaguir Sarip- inasmuch as I am
occupying a position higher than the positions of Tony
Polayagan Tanog and Basary Saripada Tanog. Or, at the very
least, the police Spot Report and Progress Report could have
mentioned my name this way: the firefight ensued in the
presence of Assistant Division Superintendent Nordina
Macaaguir Sarip;
7. The fact is: it was not so mentioned. And this is a convincing

imprimatur that I was not noticed or seen at the scene of
the firefight. And this was so because, on April 20, 21, 22, 23
and 24 of 2015, I was attending a Dep-ED Strategic
Planning Workshop at the Pinacle Hotel and Suites, Davao
City re: Implementation Review for S.Y. 2014-2015 and
Prioritization of S.Y. 2015-2016;
8. Attached, please find for the following documentary

evidence, videlicet:
a. Regional Memorandum Order No. 217 from the

Office of the Dep-ED Regional Secretary (Annex 1) to
the effect that a Strategic Planning Workshop was
conducted on April 20-24, 2015 at the Pinacle Hotel
and Suites, Davao City;
b. List of Participants (Annex 2) to the effect that I am a

participant thereof being the Assistant Division
Superintendent of Lanao del Sur II;
c. Attendance Sheet for April 20, 2015 (Annex 3) to the

effect that I was present at the workshop on April
20, 2015;
d. Attendance Sheet for April 21, 2015 (Annex 4) to the

effect that I was present at the workshop on April
21, 2015- the fateful day when the firefight
reportedly ensued at Sitio Macaager, Barangay
Pindulunan, Ganassi, Lanao del Sur;
e. A group picture taken at the workshop (Annex 5),

depicting myself in full smiles- negating any moral
or psychological participation in the firefight
ensuing on that very day;
f. Plane Boarding Pass (Annex 6) to the effect that on
April 24, 2015, I boarded a commercial plane from
Davao City to Cagayan de Oro City after the
conclusion of the workshop;
9. These documentary exhibits taken together will establish my

physical absence from the scene of the firefight on April 21,
2015 at or about 8:45 in the morning. My inclusion therefore
as party-respondent is apparently scripted and ill-willed. I
have to be included so that at least one or two (2) of the
respondents occupy an exalted position in the government
so that- the claim for damages for the house and Ford
Expedition Wagon will be well-addressed and the possibility
of negotiation for the monetary settlement of this case will
always be at hand;
10. A reading of the Affidavit-Complaint is to the effect that the

listing of respondents was indiscriminately made. There was
no mention as to how each one participated in the harassment
and/or firefight. There was also no mention as to who among
the complainant or his witnesses noticed or saw me on the
occasion of the harassment or firefight. Complainant was
just contented in stating that: we saw the above-respondents
around in our place fully armed with assorted high-
powered firearms;
11. The statement is very indiscriminate. They saw us all in

their place fully armed. Again, I am the Assistant Division
Superintendent of Dep-ED Lanao del Sur II. Soon, I may fill-
in the position of Division Superintendent of Schools as the
incumbent is soon to retire from the service. The position of
Dep-ED Regional Director is not farfetched- given my
dedication to government service. Why would I join the
group of Tony Polayagan Tanog and/or Basary Saripada
Tanog in a firefight? The reason of which firefight that I was
never personally part of;
12. A cursory glance of the picture enclosed herein (Annex 4) is

to the effect that I do not possess the grandeur of the ages to
carry a high-powered firearm, harassed people and then
engage in a firefight against them. I am one of those few
Muslim-Filipinos who believe and so hold that the pen of a
scholar is mightier than the sword of a martyr. And I did
stand by this principle;
13. True, my defense is humbly alibi. Alibi is inherently weak

(People vs. Avendaño, 396 SCRA 159). Even then, alibi as a
defense is only weak, if the accused is positively
identified. Thus, positive identification destroys the defense
of alibi and renders it impotent, especially where such
identification is credible and categorical (People vs. Casitas,
Jr., 397 SCRA 382);
14. From the Affidavit-complaint, it is crystal clear that I was not

positively identified. The Spot Report and Progress Report
did not also mention my name. Thus, my identity, if at all,
was simply forced and imagined. In so doing, my defense of
alibi- can well be taken to exclude me from the scourge of
the present charge;
15. Also, denial and alibi may be weak but the judges and
prosecutors should not at once look at them with disfavor
(People vs. Lapitaje, 397 SCRA 674).
16. So, this counter-affidavit with a closing syllogism: tell me

not in mournful numbers. Life is but an empty dream. For
the soul is dead and that slumbers and things are not what
they seem.

that I was never a part of the arm conflict by and between
Complainant Fahad S. Diangka and Tony Polayagan Tanog
and/or Basary Saripada Tanog and that I was not present at
the scene of the firefight on April 21, 2015. As such, I am not

NORDINA MACAAGUIR SARIP

Respondent
Copy furnished:

CERTIFICATION

with COUNTER-CHARGE, freely and voluntarily.
FERDINAND MAS PABLO

19. The alleged attack on the house of Complainant Fahad S.

Diangka was not attended by any of these qualifying
circumstances. The alleged attack, if it be true, was already
expected by the complainant inasmuch as there was a hostile
confrontation by and between them immediately prior to the
reported attack anchored on the flagging down at gun point
of the vehicle of Tony Polayagan Tanog by Complainant;
20. Given the predicament, Complainant should have been

already on his guard to await at the portals of his house for a
possible attack by Tony Polayagan Tanog and his group in
reprisal for the flagging down at gun point;
21. There was no treachery attendant to the attack to make it a

case of Attempted Murder. The essence of treachery is the
sudden and unexpected attack without the slightest
provocation on the part of the person being attacked (People
vs. Bustamante, 397 SCRA 382). In the instance, the attack was
expected as there was reason for a reprisal;

attack. (People vs. Velaga, 199 SCRA 518). In the instance, there
was not only an altercation but a flagging down at gun
point;

133). In the instance, Complainant and his group were also
heavily armed. They even engaged in a firefight for an hour
without having been overcome;

immediately before the attack (People vs. Gupo, 190 SCRA 7);
26.That I am executing this Counter-Affidavit to establish the

fact that I was never a part of the arm conflict by and
between Complainant Fahad S. Diangka and Tony
Polayagan Tanog and/or Basary Saripada Tanog and that I
was not present at eh scene of the firefight on April 21, 2015.
As such, I am not criminally or civilly liable.
27. That using this counter-affidavit and the counter-affidavits

of my co-respondents, ANTHONY F. BULETIC and RUEL
D. FLORES, I do hereby charge JOSEPH VILLAMORA
BATERNA and DANNON CARMONA BAUTISTA for
ATTEMPTED MURDER/ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE.

__th of November 2014 at Pagadian City, Philippines.
JENNIFER F. BULETIC
Respondent

November 2014 at Pagadian City, Philippines.
Doc No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2014
Copy furnished:
JOSEPH V. BATERNA Registry Receipt _____

Purok Madasigon, Pag-asa
Dumalinao, Zamboanga del Sur
CERTIFICATION
FERDINAND MAS PABLO

OF LANAO DEL SUR
Hall of Justice
----------------------------------------------

Complainant,
-versus- -for-

Respondents, MURDER
x-------------------/
Counter-Affidavit
I, TONY POLAYAGAN TANOG, Filipino of legal age,

complaint;
2. I deny having committed the crime as charged. That I was
more of a victim than a culprit in the present case;
3. As incumbent Municipal Mayor of Pualas, Lanao del Sur, I

found it expedient to find for a peaceful means in the
settlement of the rape incident which was reported to me by
one of my close constituents- BASARY SARIPADA
TANOG. According to him, her daughter was raped while
walking in confidence at a dark street of Sitio Macaager,
Pindulunan, Lanao del Sur;
4. As a Maranao by blood and substance, I personally knew

how it meant for a father to hear that a daughter became a
victim of such a disrespectful act- committed within a
Muslim community as Macaager;
5. Thus, I found it expedient to seek refuge from Kumander

Kids- a MILF Officer who is known of his charisma and
enthusiasm in settling disputes. I visited him at or about 3:30
o’clock in the afternoon of April 20, 2015 at the MILF Camp
at Sitio Macaager;
6. After breaking bread, I personally recommended of him to

facilitate the capture of the rape-suspect and to bring him to
the open. I vouched to Kumander Kids that if ever the rape-
suspect is captured, I would take the cudgel of convincing
Basary to agree to a settlement- if only to prevent bloodshed
which is usual to Maranaos;
7. We finished our meeting at or about 4:45 in the afternoon of

that day. And thus, we left for Pualas boarding my ISUZU-
DMax vehicle;
8. Surprisingly, we were flagged down at gunpoint by

Complainant FAHAD S. DIANGKA who is commonly
known as Kumander Cayamora and his armed group while
getting out of Macaager at or about 5:00 o’clock in the
afternoon;
9. I was not able to move that fateful moment. If at all, I was
only able to ask Allah to protect us. Godspeed, we ended up
safe and we were able to go home to Pualas;
10. As a Maranao, I decided to attack the Diangka’s at Macaager.

I even sought for family support to effect the attack. Even
then, thru the intervention of respected politicians, military
officers and community leaders, more particularly Sultan
Taha G. Sarip of Pualas and his brother Sultan Alibaser G.
Sarip of Pindulunan, I aborted my plan to attack the
Diangkas;
11. I instead reported to my office at the SB Office of Pualas to

ease myself from the present anxieties, early on April 21,
2015- where I met some community leaders whom I invited
to talk for possible settlement of the dispute in the event that
the rape-suspect is captured. A copy of my Certificate of
Attendance is hereto attached as Annex “1”;
12. Otherwise put, I did not attack the Diangkas at Sitio

Macaager, Pindulunan, though I decided to attack them after
having been flagged down at gunpoint- which attack is
expected of every Maranao at the instance of maratabat;
13. Unknowingly, Basary and his group proceeded instead to

Sitio Macaager at or about 6:00 o’clock in the morning of
April 21, 2015, if only to visit Kumander Kids and to verify
for any development of the requested capture of the rape-
suspect;
14. At or about 8:45 in the morning of April 21, 2015, I just

learned that the group of Basary was waylaid and ambushed
by Complainant Fahad S. Diangka and his group while the
former was passing by the road near his house while getting
out of Macaager form the MILF Camp;
15. Basary and his group were thus compelled to fire back in
defense of themselves. So, a firefight ensued at or about 8:45
in the morning of April 21, 2015;
16. Consequently, the house of Complainant Fahad S. Diangka

was hit by bullets on the occasion of the firefight- as he and
his group were positioned parallel to his house;
17. I therefore seek refuge on the PNP Spot Report released by
the Ganassi Municipal Police Station which was couched this
wise: a firefight ensued around 8:45 in the morning of April
21, 2015 at Sitio Macaager, Barangay Pindulunan, Ganassi,
Lanao del Sur between the group of Fahad S. Diangka and
family of Tony Polayagan Tanog led by Basary Saripada
Tanog. Investigation conducted revealed that Basary
Saripada Tanog harassed the house of Fahad S. Diangka
(Annex “A” of the Affidavit-Complaint);
18. A reading of the same is to effect that I was not seen at

Macaager. If at all, my name was only mentioned as the
responding police who knew that I was flagged down at
gunpoint by Complainant Fahad S. Diangka and his group
just a day before, presumed that I was the one who attacked;
9. Even then, the PNP Progress Report is already couched this

wise: Please be informed that a firefight ensued around 8:45
in the morning of April 21, 2015 at Sitio Macaager, Barangay
Pindulunan, Ganassi, Lanao del Sur between the group of
Fahad S. Diangka and Basary Saripada Tanog and ceased
around 9:40 in the morning of April 21, 2015;
10. Apparently, my name was already excluded in the Progress

Report. If at all, it was only Basary Saripada Tanog who was
mentioned. Otherwise put, the Progress Report is an
imprimatur that the firefight was only between the group of
Complainant Fahad S. Diangka and Basary Saripada Tanog.
Inasmuch as my name was deleted in the Progress Report,
suffice to say, that the responding police corrected themselves
in erroneously mentioning my name in the Spot Report,
which was released earlier. A report which was issued later
in time, prevails;

that I was more of a victim in the present case. I was a victim
of flagging down at gunpoint where I could have lost my life
had it not been for the timely intervention of Allah- the
compassionate and the merciful. And, that I was not present
during the firefight on April 21, 2015 at or about 8:45 in the
morning. As such, I am not criminally or civilly liable.

TONY POLAYAGAN TANOG

Respondent

Copy furnished:


Pagadian City
----------------------------------------------
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, I.S. CASE NO. IX-09-INV-15G-00329

Plaintiff, IX-09-INV-15G-00330
IX-09-INV-15G-00331
-versus- -for-
PO3 NELSON P. DELEONIO, JR., DIRECTASSAULT, ETC.

Respondent,
x-------------------/
Counter-Affidavit
WITH COUNTER-CHARGE
I, PO3 NELSON P. DELEONIO, JR., Filipino of legal age,
married and resident of Margosatubig, Zamboanga del Sur, after
having been sworn in accordance with law, depose and say, that:
1. I am charged for Direct Assault, Attempted Murder and

Grave Threats;
2. I deny having committed the crimes as charged. That I
was more of a victim than a culprit in the incident
obtaining;
3. Noteworthy, on July 8, 2015, the PNP Provincial Command

conducted an administrative investigation on the July 5,
2015 incident. On the occasion thereof, PO3 Andrie Lyn P.
Golbin submitted her Affidavit while PO1 John Cleo R.
Cordero and PO1 Juna Claire R. Cordero submitted their
Joint Affidavit. Copies of these affidavits are hereto attached as
Annexes “1” and “2”;
4. These affidavits were executed and issued independently

and in pursuance to the directive of the Provincial
Command to determine whether or not there is a need to
prosecute Complainant SPO2 Allan Oraño Lapiz and
myself administratively for Grave Misconduct and
Conduct Unbecoming of Police Officers and Gentlemen;
5. After the administrative investigation, the Provincial

Command chose to skulk the incident in silence if only to
protect and save as from the scourge of administrative
discipline;
6. This may be the reason why, Complainant who wanted to

make a big deal of the incident chose to file the present
charges scripting the incident in a manner that will make
of him just slightly lower than an angel never of a devil;
7. I choose to seek refuge in the Affidavit of PO3 Andrie Lyn

P. Golbin, this wise:
“That I was at the Municipal Station the following day,

July 5, 2015 in the morning more particularly inside the
radio room. That while inside the radio room doing some
computer works, I heard PO3 Nelson P. Deleonio, Jr.
saying: FIRST, IMO MAN KUNO KONG PA-
EXPLAINUN NGA DIRI MAN KO ANANG BUNTAG
SAYO, INGUN DILI MADAYUN? That I immediately
stood up to get out of the radio room to see what was
happening, and while going out, I heard SPO2 Allan O.
Lapiz saying: UNSA MAN JUD GUSTO NIMO? That at
or about the same time, I saw him drew his 9mm caliber
pistol and aimed it at PO3 Deleonio who in turn stepped
backward and kicked SPO2 Lapiz and then and there
drew his 9mm pistol and aimed at SPO2 Lapiz. That I
immediately rushed towards PO3 Deleonio together with
PO1 Juna Claire R. Cordero, pacified him, and grabbed
his 9mm caliber pistol. That PO1 John Cleo R. Cordero
pacified SPO2 Lapiz and grabbed his 9mm caliber pistol.”
8. That also, I choose to seek refuge in the Joint Affidavit of

PO1 John Cleo R. Cordero and PO1 Juna Claire R.
Cordero, in this wise:
“That at or about 9:35 in the morning of that day, while

we were at the kitchen of the station, we heard SPO3
Lapiz saying: UNSA MAN JUD DIAY GUSTO
NIMO? That we also heard PO3 Deleonio saying:
UNSA MAN JUD GUSTO NIMO FIRST? That I, John
Cleo R. Cordero rushed towards them and I saw SPO2
Lapiz pointing his 9mm caliber pistol unto PO3
Deleonio. That PO3 Deleonio kicked SPO3 Lapiz and
drew his 9mm caliber pistol and pointed it at SPO2
Lapiz. That on the other breath, I, PO1 Juna Claire R.
Cordero also rushed towards them and I saw SPO2
Lapiz and PO3 Deleonio pointing their respective 9mm
caliber pistol against each other. That I, PO1 John Cleo
R. Cordero grabbed the 9mm caliber pistol of SPO3
Lapiz while I, PO1 Juna Claire R. Cordero together
with PO3 Andrie Lyn P. Golbin, grabbed the 9mm
caliber pistol of PO3 Deleonio.”
9. These police officers were present during the incident.

They gave their testimony and in fact were made to
submit their affidavits during the administrative
investigation at the Provincial Command. They have no
motive or reason to perjure. They were called by the
Provincial Command because they were present during
the incident. They just narrated what they actually heard
and saw during the incident, no more, no less;
10. PO3 Golbin only heard me saying: FIRST, IMO MAN

KUNO KONG PA-EXPLAINUN NGA DIRI MAN KO
ANANG BUNTAG SAYO, INGUN DILI MADAYUN?
She also heard SPO3 Lapiz saying: UNSA MAN JUD
DIAY GUSTO NIMO?
11. She also saw SPO2 Lapiz drew his 9mm caliber pistol
and aimed it at me. She also saw me stepped backward
and then kicked SPO2 Lapiz. She also saw me drew my
9mm caliber pistol and aimed it at SPO2 Lapiz;
12. Otherwise put, she heard me calling SPO2 as FIRST- a call

impressing honor and respect to a superior officer and
that I was only asking why would I be made to answer
when I was present;
13. PO3 Golbin did not hear me, saying: UNSA MAN KA
BRO. GAHI MAN KAAYO KA, IMO MAN KO EPA-
EXPLAIN NGA NAA MAN KO ATONG SABADO,
UNSA MAN ISOG KA? The phrase “ATONG SABADO”
is scripted inasmuch as the incident took place the
following day. The phrase should have been
“GAHAPON”;
14. She also did not hear me, saying: UNSA MAN KA
ASTIG MAN KAAYO KA, FUCK YOU, UNSA MAN
ISOG KA, FUCK YOU, GAGO KA!
15. Much more, she did not hear me saying: AH GAHI

GYUD DIAY KA, UNSA MAY IMONG GUSTO,
BIRAHAN TAKA? PATYON TAKA;
16. Also, PO1 Cleo R. Cordero and PO1 Juna Claire R.

Cordero heard SPO2 Lapiz, saying: UNSA MAN JUD
GUSTO NIMO? They also heard me saying: UNSA
MAN JUD GUSTO NIMO FIRST?
17. Again, I still used the word FIRST in addressing SPO2

Lapiz. Simply put, given the happenstance, I still
addressed him, FIRST;
18. Also, PO1 John Cleo R. Cordero saw SPO2 Lapiz

pointing his 9mm caliber pistol on me before he saw me
kicking SPO2 Lapiz and then drawing my 9mm caliber
pistol and aimed it at him;
19. Given the facts obtaining, suffice it to say, that I did not
assault SPO2 Lapiz, an agent of a person in authority. I
also did not threaten him as I just uttered the words:
FIRST, IMO MAN KUNO KONG PA EXPLAINUN
NGA DIRI MAN KO ANANG BUNTAG SAYO
INGUN DILI MADAYUN? and UNSA MAN JUD DIAY
GUSTO NIMO FIRST?
On Direct Assault
20. Our jurisprudence is to the effect that: When the persons

in authority or their agents descended to matters which
are private in nature, an attack made by one against the
other is not direct assault (People vs. Yosoya, C.A.-G.R. No.
85522-R, May 26, 1955 cited in Luis B. Reyes, Revised
Penal Code, Book II, Fifteenth Edition, pages 130-131);
21. In the following cases, the person in authority or his

agent is considered not in the performance of his official
duties xxx
XXX when the offender and the offended party, who are
both persons in authority or their agents, descend to
matters which are private in nature, the principle of
authority is not violated (People vs. Yosoya, supra);
22. Moreover, a person in the heat of anger cannot be said to

have the intention of defying the authorities. In direct
assault, the offended party must have the intention of
defying the authorities (People vs. Baesa, C.A., 55 O.G.
10295-10296 cited in Luis B. Reyes, Revised Penal Code,
Book II, Fifteenth Edition, page 133);
On Attempted Murder
23. Granting arguendo that I pointed my 9mm caliber pistol

on SPO2 Lapiz, I cannot be charged for Attempted
Murder inasmuch as I did not commence the execution of
the crime of murder directly by overt acts;
24. If indeed, I did so, there was no treachery attendant to the

attack to make it a case of Attempted Murder. The
essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack
without the slightest provocation on the part of the
person being attacked (People vs. Bustamante, 397 SCRA
382);

attack. (People vs. Velaga, 199 SCRA 518). In the instance,
there was such an altercation- UNSA MAN JUD DIAY
GUSTO NIMO?
26. Neither is the circumstance attendant where the attack

was frontal, indicating that the victim was not at totally
without opportunity to defend himself, and all
surrounding circumstances indicate that the attack was
the result of a rash and impetuous impulse of the moment
rather than from a deliberate act of the will (People vs.
Tugbo, 196 SCRA 133);
On Grave Threats
27. The third form of threats for which I was charged i.e
Grave Threats not subject to a condition when I allegedly
said: AH GAHI GYUD DIAY KA, UNSA MAY IMONG
GUSTO BIRAHAN TIKA? PATYON TAKA is not serious
and deliberate;
28.The third form of threats are those made with the

deliberate purpose of creating in the mind of the person
threatened the belief that the threats will be carried into
effect (US vs. Paguirigan, 14 Phil 453, cited in Luis B.
Reyes, Revised Penal Code, Book II, Fifteenth Edition,
page 576);
29. If it be true that I did utter: AH GAHI GYUD DIAY KA,

UNSA MAY IMONG GUSTO BIRAHAN TIKA?
PATYON TAKA is not deliberate as in fact SPO2 Lapiz is
also a police officer and was also armed with a 9mm
pistol during the time;
30. Also, the threat should not be made at the heat of anger
because such threat is punished under Article 285
paragraph 2 (Other light threats);
31. Threats made in connection with the commission of other

crimes, are absorbed by the latter (US vs. Sevilla, 1 Phil
143, cited in Luis B. Reyes, Revised Penal Code, Book II,
Fifteenth Edition, page 579);
By way of Counter-charge
32. As soon as SPO2 Lapiz drew his 9mm caliber pistol, he

immediately shot me- by squeezing its trigger. Godspeed,
it did not fire. I was able to kick him and drew my 9mm
caliber pistol and aimed it at him to prevent him from
shooting me again. If his 9mm caliber pistol did not fail to
fire, I should have been dead;
33.There is therefore cause to counter-charge him for

Attempted Homicide as he commenced the execution of
the crime of homicide directly by overt act i.e. shooting
me but did not consummate it by reason of the non-firing
of his 9mm caliber pistol;
34. That I am executing this Counter-Affidavit if only to

exonerate me from the present charges as I was more of a
victim in the incident which gave rise to the filing thereof.
I further execute this Counter-Affidavit by way of
Counter-charge against SPO2 ALLAN ORAÑO LAPIZ
for the crime of Attempted Homicide.

17thof August 2015 at Pagadian City, Philippines.
PO3 NELSON P. DELEONIO, JR.

Respondent
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that I have personally examined the

Respondent and I am convinced that he executed the foregoing
Counter-Affidavit with Counter-charge freely and voluntarily.
Copy furnished:
SPO2 Allan Oraño Lapiz Registry Receipt No. _____

Margosatubig, Zamboanga del Sur

OF LANAO DEL SUR
Hall of Justice
----------------------------------------------
TONY POLAYAGAN TANOG,

JALANE POLOYAGAN,
TATA SARIPADA, and-
HAIF TANOG;
Complainants,
-versus- -for-
FAHAD S. DIANGKA, et. al. ATTEMPTED MURDER/

Respondents, GRAVE THREATS/
GRAVE COERCION
x-------------------/
Complaint-Affidavit
I, TONY POLAYAGAN TANOG, Filipino of legal age,
1. I am the incumbent Municipal Vice Mayor of Pualas, Lanao

del Sur;
2. As incumbent Municipal Mayor of Pualas, Lanao del Sur, I

found it expedient to find for a peaceful means in the
settlement of the rape incident which was reported to me by
one of my close constituents- BASARY SARIPADA
TANOG. According to him, her daughter was raped while
walking in confidence at a dark street of Sitio Macaager,
Pindulunan, Lanao del Sur;
3. As a Maranao by blood and substance, I personally knew

how it meant for a father to hear that a daughter became a
victim of such a disrespectful act- committed within a
Muslim community as Macaager;
4. Thus, I found it expedient to seek refuge from Kumander

Kids- a respected MILF Officer who is known of his charisma
and enthusiasm in settling disputes. I visited him at or about
3:30 o’clock in the afternoon of April 20, 2015 at the MILF
Camp at Sitio Macaager;
5. After breaking bread, I personally recommended of him to

facilitate the capture of the rape-suspect and to bring him to
the open. I vouched to Kumander Kids that if ever the rape-
suspect is captured, I would take the cudgel of convincing
Basary to agree to a settlement- if only to prevent bloodshed
which is usual to Maranaos;
6. We finished our meeting at or about 4:45 in the afternoon of

that day. And thus, together with Jalane Poloyagan, Tata
Saripada and Haif Tanog, I drove back for Pualas boarding
my ISUZU-DMax vehicle, colored Maroon with Plate
Number 8831;
7. Surprisingly, while we were passing through a public road,
at or about twenty (20) meters from the house of FAHAD S.
DIANGKA, who is commonly known as Kumander
Cayamora, at or about 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon of the
same day, April 20, 2015, I saw the same Fahad S. Diangka in
full battle gear aiming his M-16-Armalite Rifle at us. I also
noticed a .45 pistol tucked at his waste;
8. Together with him, I also saw PANGANDAG M.

MAGOLAMA, JUNAID SARIP DIANGKA, JUNAHAR
SARIP DIANGKA, RAMIL D. SARIP, ALANDONI TANOG,
MANGONTAWAR M. MAGOLAMA, DALIDIGAN
DIANGKA, ARSANIE M. MAGOLAMA, AMINOLA D.
TOCALO, AMRODIN BATUA and AMIL M. SARIP in full
battle gear carrying M-16, M-14 and AK 47 Rifles aiming
their firearms towards us;
9. I was able to identify them inasmuch I was just staring at

them while they were standing before us- helplessly caught
blank inside my motor vehicle;
10. I was not able to move that fateful moment. If at all, I was
only able to stop my motor vehicle- just waiting what would
happen next. I was not even able to say a word to my
companions- Jalane Poloyagan, Tata Saripada and Haif
Tanog. If at all, I was only able to ask Allah to protect us;
11. Fahad and his group approached us with their guns aimed
at us. When they were already at a distance of ten (10)
meters from us, I heard Fahad shouting in Maranao dialect
which implies: “ANONG KARAPATAN MONG
MAKIALAM SA TERITORYO KO. DUMAAN KA MUNA
SA AKIN BAGO KA PUPUNTA SA IBA! HINDI KAYO
MAKAKALABAS NG BUHAY!
12. I also heard several shouts- mostly female voices;
13. Afterwhich, I noticed somebody shouting from behind.

Godspeed, I saw Kumander Kids coming to our aid. Thus, I
immediately told my companions-Jalane, Tata and Haif in
Maranao dialect which meant “Labas tayo”;
14. We hurriedly left the scene of the incident and we settled

ourselves at Macaager National High School;
15. I am executing this Complaint-Affidavit to prosecute
FAHAD S. DIANGKA, PANGANDAG M. MAGOLAMA,
JUNAID SARIP DIANGKA, JUNAHAR SARIP DIANGKA,
RAMIL D. SARIP, ALANDONI TANOG,
TOCALO, AMRODIN BATUA and AMIL M. SARIP for
ATTEMPTED MURDER- for commencing the execution of
the act of murdering us directly by overt acts; for GRAVE
THREATS- for flagging us down at gunpoint; and for
GRAVE COERCION- for preventing us from passing by a
public road.

TONY POLAYAGAN TANOG

Complainant

CERTIFICATION
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I have personally examined the

affiant and I am convinced that he executed the Complaint-
Affidavit, freely and voluntarily and that he understood the
contents thereof.
OF LANAO DEL SUR
Hall of Justice
----------------------------------------------
TONY POLAYAGAN TANOG,

JALANE POLOYAGAN,
TATA SARIPADA, and-
HAIF TANOG;
Complainants,
-versus- -for-
FAHAD S. DIANGKA, et. al. ATTEMPTED MURDER/

Respondents, GRAVE THREATS/
GRAVE COERCION
x-------------------/
Joint Complaint-Affidavit
WE, JALANE POLOYAGAN, TATA SARIPADA and HAIF
TANOG, all Filipinos of legal age, married and residents of Pualas,
Lanao del Sur, after having been sworn in accordance with law,
depose and say, that:
1. We were together with Vice-Mayor TONY POLOYAGAN

TANOG, the incumbent Municipal Vice Mayor of Pualas,
Lanao del Sur on April 20, 2015 when he visited the MILF
Camp at Macaager, Pindulunan, Lanao del Sur;
2. Vice-Mayor Tanog had a meeting with Kumander Kids

relative to the identification and capture of the person who
raped the daughter of Basary Saripada Tanog;
3. They finished their meeting at or about 4:45 in the afternoon

of that day. And thus, we drove back for Pualas boarding his
ISUZU-DMax vehicle, colored Maroon with Plate Number
8831;
4. While we were passing through a public road, at or about

twenty (20) meters from the house of FAHAD S. DIANGKA,
who is commonly known as Kumander Cayamora, at or
about 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon of the same day, April 20,
2015, we saw the same Fahad S. Diangka in full battle gear
aiming his M-16-Armalite Rifle at us. We also noticed a .45
pistol tucked at his waste;
5. Together with him, we also saw PANGANDAG M.

TOCALO, AMRODIN BATUA and AMIL M. SARIP in full
battle gear carrying M-16, M-14 and AK 47 Rifles aiming
their firearms towards us;
6. We were able to identify them inasmuch as we continuously

stared at them while they were standing before us while we
were helplessly caught blank inside Vice-Mayor Tanog’s
motor vehicle;
7. We were not even able to move that fateful moment. If at all,
Vice-Mayor Tanog was only able to stop the motor vehicle.
We were just painstakingly waiting what would happen to
us. He was not even able to say a word to us- on what to do
given the circumstance. If at all, we were only able to wish
that Allah would protect us;
8. Fahad and his group approached us with their guns aimed

at us. When they were already at a distance of ten (10)
meters from us, we heard Fahad shouting in Maranao dialect
which implies: “ANONG KARAPATAN MONG
MAKIALAM SA TERITORYO KO. DUMAAN KA MUNA
SA AKIN BAGO KA PUPUNTA SA IBA! HINDI KAYO
MAKAKALABAS NG BUHAY!
9. I also heard several shouts- mostly female voices;
10. Afterwhich, we heard somebody shouting from behind.

Godspeed, we saw Kumander Kids coming to our aid. We
then heard Vice-Mayor Tanog telling us in Maranao dialect
which implies “Labas tayo”;
11. We hurriedly left the scene of the incident and we settled

ourselves at Macaager National High School;
12. We are executing this Joint Complaint-Affidavit to

prosecute FAHAD S. DIANGKA, PANGANDAG M.
TOCALO, AMRODIN BATUA and AMIL M. SARIP for
Attempted Murder, for commencing the execution of the act
of murder directly by overt acts; for GRAVE THREATS, for
flagging us down at gunpoint; and for GRAVE COERCION
for preventing us from passing by a public road.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands

this __th of __________ 2015 at Marawi City, Philippines.
JALANE POLOYAGAN TATA SARIPADA

Complainant Complainant
HAIF TANOG
Complainant

CERTIFICATION
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I have personally examined the

affiants and I am convinced that they executed the Joint
Complaint-Affidavit, freely and voluntarily and that they fully
understood the contents thereof.
OF LANAO DEL SUR
Hall of Justice
----------------------------------------------

Complainant,
-versus- -for-

Respondents, MURDER
x-------------------/
Counter-Affidavit
I, BAITO SARIP, Filipino of legal age, married and resident of
Pualas, Lanao del Sur, after having been sworn in accordance with
law, depose and say, that:

complaint;
2. I deny having committed the crime as charged. I am just a

too lowly man without any anger or madness in the heart. I
am just a personal errand to Chancellor TAHA G. SARIP, the
incumbent Chancellor of MSU-Buug, Zamboanga Sibugay
Campus;
3. My works include serving him coffee, preparing and/or

cooking his breakfast meal, washing and cleaning his service
vehicle and other errand works which include emergency
carpentry and plumbing works at his Chancellor’s pad;
4. My inclusion as a party-respondent in the case is a surprise.

Why me of all people? Except for my personal relationship
to Chancellor Sarip, I cannot find any other reason why
should my name be included;
5. Even up to this point in time, I still entertain in mind that the
Complainant might have referred to some other person. Be
that as it may, I have to answer the accusation;
6. I was at the MSU-Buug Campus on April 20 and 21, 2015

doing my routinary errand works for Chancellor Sarip. I was
even present when the Campus Chief Security, Casanodin
Sarip informed him that he received a text message from a
relative that Vice-Mayor Tanog was requesting for support if
only to attack the Diangkas at Sitio Macaager;
7. I was also present when Chancellor Sarip called his brother

Sultan Alibaser of Pindulunan to advise Vice-Mayor Tanog to
abort his plan to attack the Diangkas and that I was also
present the following morning, April 21, 2015 when the
same Chief Security, Casanodin Sarip informed Chancellor
Sarip that the firefight already ensued between the group of
Complainant Fahad S. Diangka and Basary Saripada Sarip;
8. If at all, my inclusion was only based on the presumption

that inasmuch as I am the personal errand of Chancellor
Sarip, I could be one of those men who was with Basary
Saripada Tanog who engaged in a firefight with the
Diangkas. But the fact is, I was not;
9. I am not working for Vice-Mayor Tanog. I am not also

working for Basary Saripada Tanog. If at all, I am working
with Chancellor Sarip. As such, I could never be among those
men who engaged in a firefight with the Diangkas on April
21, 2015 at Sitio Macaager;
10. Otherwise put, inasmuch as my employer, Chancellor Sarip

is in the MSU-Buug Campus on April 21, 2015,so must I;

that there appears to be no reason why should I be included
as party-respondent in the case. I am too lowly a man-
harmless as such. Complainant Fahad may come to me for
coffee- and I will serve him but never shall I engage him in a
firefight.
BAITO SARIP
Respondent

Copy furnished:

OF LANAO DEL SUR
Hall of Justice
----------------------------------------------

Complainant,
-versus- -for-

Respondents, MURDER
x-------------------/
Counter-Affidavit
I, CASANODIN SARIP, Filipino of legal age, married and

complaint;
2. I deny having committed the crime as charged. I am the

incumbent Chief Security Officer of the Mindanao State
University-Buug Zamboanga Sibugay. As such, I was on my
official tour on duty on April 21, 2015 when the firefight
ensued by and between the group of Complainant Fahad S.
Diangka and Basary Saripada Tanog;
3. My inclusion as a party-respondent in the case is a surprise.

Why me of all people? Except for my consanguine
relationship to Chancellor Sarip- I do not see any reason
why my name was included in the complaint;
4. How could Complainant Fahad see me, when I was at the

MSU-Buug Campus on the fateful day of the firefight;
5. Thus, I still entertain in mind that the Complainant could
have referred to some other person. Be that as it may, I have
to answer the accusation;
6. I was at the MSU-Buug Campus on April 20 and 21, 2015

doing my routinary duties as Chief Security. We are in alert
status inasmuch as Accused Ricky Samonte, whom we
prosecuted for indiscriminate firing of the MSU-Campus
Guard House was already issued Warrant of Arrest by the
local court. He is yet at large as of the present point in time;
7. Needless to state, Accused Ricky Samonte is notoriously

dangerous inasmuch as he had been facing several criminal
charges in court since then. And, that he was heard saying
that: he will attack us at any one time. Thus, I could not leave
the campus, despite I could have wanted so;
8. I was the one who informed Chancellor Sarip that Vice-

Mayor Tony Polayagan Tanog of Pualas was requesting for
support if only to attack the Diangkas at Sitio Macaager;
9. I was also present when Chancellor Sarip called his brother

Sultan Alibaser of Pindulunan to advise Vice-Mayor Tanog to
abort his plan to attack the Diangkas and that I was even the
one who informed Chancellor Sarip on April 21, 2015 in the
morning that a firefight already ensued between the group
of Complainant Fahad S. Diangka and Basary Saripada Sarip;
10. If at all, my inclusion was only based on the presumption

that inasmuch as I am the Chief Security of the MSU-Buug
Campus of which Chancellor Sarip is Chancellor, I could be
one of those men who were with Basary Saripada Tanog
who engaged in a firefight with the Diangkas. But the fact is,
I was not;
11. I am not working for Vice-Mayor Tanog. I am not also

working for Basary Saripada Tanog. If at all, I am working
with the MSU-Buug Campus, not just as an ordinary
watchman but as a Chief Security Officer, as such. Thus, I
could never be among those men who engaged in a firefight
with the Diangkas on April 21, 2015 at Sitio Macaager as, if at
all, they could be the support armed group of Basary
Saripada Tanog. And, I am not a member of this armed
group- never was and never were;

that there appears to be no reason why should I be included
as party-respondent in the case. I am a security officer. As
such, I am expected to be a protector of lives and limbs, not
otherwise.

CASANODIN SARIP
Respondent

Copy furnished:

OF LANAO DEL SUR
Hall of Justice
----------------------------------------------

Complainant,
-versus- -for-

Respondents, MURDER
x-------------------/
Counter-Affidavit
I, BASARY SARIPADA TANOG (a.k.a. Basir Tanog), Filipino
of legal age, married and resident of Pualas, Lanao del Sur, after
having been sworn in accordance with law, depose and say, that:
10.I am charged for Multiple Attempted Murder in the above-

complaint;
11.I deny having committed the crime as charged. In fact, I was

more of a victim than a culprit in the present case;
12.My daughter was mercilessly raped while walking in

confidence at a dark street of Sitio Macaager, Pindulunan,
Lanao del Sur;
13.As a Maranao by blood and substance, I could not help but

dribble my palm saying that if only I would know who the
malefactor is, I would chop him into pieces. But then, there
was no such suspect;
14.I then sought refuge with Vice-Mayor Tanog of Pualas if only

to find means to at least identify the malefactor. Vice-Mayor
Tanog did not hesitate to make good his assistance. He thus,
volunteered to visit the MILF Camp to ask help from
Kumander Kids;
15.Allegedly, Vice-Mayor Tanog was flagged down at gunpoint

by Complainant Fahad S. Diangka who is locally known as
Kumander Cayamora and his armed group while on his way
home from the MILF Camp at or about 5:00 o’clock in the
afternoon of April 20, 2015. Though Vice-Mayor Tanog had a
plan for reprisal, the plan was aborted at the instance of
political, military and traditional interventions;
16.I was not a part of the enmity by and between Vice-Mayor

Tanog and Complainant Fahad. My daughter was raped and I
was just finding for means to identify the malefactor for
justice sake. To my mind, Vice-Mayor Tanog could not help
me any further inasmuch as it would already be dangerous
for him to set foot at Sitio Macaager. Thus, I decided to go to
Sitio Macaager with few companions if only to personally
visit Kumander Kids at the MILF Camp;
17.We were then boarded at a private vehicle. In entering Sitio

Macaager, we passed through a road beneath the creek
heading to the MILF Camp. True, I was able to talk with
Kumander Kids. He thus advised me not to initiate any one
trouble inasmuch as the government is still busy reviewing
the BBL and any trouble occurring at or near the camp
would boomerang to the BBL;
18.I thus committed to Kumander Kids that if ever the

malefactor is identified and captured, I would just file the
necessary charges in court without need of putting the law
into my own hands;
19. We then left the camp with a lighter heart- as I already felt
some chances that the malefactor would soon be identified
and captured;
20.Surprisingly, while passing through a road seemingly near the

house of Complainant Fahad in getting out of Sitio
Macaaager, we were waylaid and suddenly ambushed or
fired at by Complainant Fahad and his group;
21. We had to jump out of the vehicle and to fire back if only to
save our very lives. Thus, a firefight ensued by and between
us that lasted for quite some time. Godspeed, not one was
harmed among us;
22. We thus left Sitio Macaager after the incident. To my mind,

Complainant Fahad could have mistaken me as Vice-Mayor
Tanog- whom he could have expected to attack by way of
reprisal by reason of his flagging him down at gunpoint a
day before;
23. Otherwise put, the firefight, the damages to the house, to

the vehicle and the like are only the natural consequences of
Complainant Fahad’s own folly in ambushing us;
24. Attempted Murder is committed when an offender begins

the commission of a felony directly by overt acts but does
not perform all the acts of execution which should produce
the felony as a consequence by reason of some causes or
accident other than his own spontaneous desistance;
25. In the present case, I did not begin the commission of murder
in any way. I was waylaid and ambushed and, if at all, was
only compelled to fire back in defense of myself;
26. Complainant just played Pontius Pilate in the ensuing

firefight. He did file a case ahead of me- if only to make me
the culprit and him the victim. He also, pre-empted that Vice-
Mayor Tanog might file a case against him for the flagging
down at gunpoint- so, he did the filing ahead;
27. Known is the doctrinaire concept he who comes to equity

must come with clean hands. Fahad’s hands are never
clean. They are tainted with blood and steel;

that I was more of a victim than a culprit in the present case.
I was a victim of an ambush or a sudden attack by gun fires
commenced by no less Complainant Fahad himself. I could
have lost my life had it not been for the timely intervention
of Allah- the compassionate and the merciful. As such, I am not
BASARY SARIPADA TANOG

Respondent

Copy furnished:

The defense of the accused is humbly alibi. Alibi is inherently
weak, unless corroborated by disinterested witnesses (People vs.
Avendaño, 396 SCRA 159). Alibi cannot prosper if it is mainly by the
accused and his relatives and not by credible persons (People vs.
Besmonte, 397 SCRA 674).
The identification is therefore tainted with reasonable doubts. There

are therefore whispers of doubt that he was not truly identified. There
was therefore no positive identification. Alibi as a defense is only
weak, if the accused is positively identified. Thus, positive
identification destroys the defense of alibi and renders it impotent,
especially where such identification is credible and categorical (People
vs. Casitas, Jr., 397 SCRA 382). To the mind of the accused, he was
not positively identified by Witnesses Porsuelo and Pancho in the
present charge. If at all, the identity was simply forced and imagined.
Also, denial and alibi may be weak but courts should
not at once look at them with disfavor (People vs. Lapitaje, 397
SCRA 674).
KAGAWARAN NG KATARUNGAN
Manila
NBI-PAGDO, NPS NO. XVI-INV-14E-00140

Complainant,
- versus -for-
MANUEL K. AMALILIO, et. al. SYNDICATED ESTAFA

Respondents.
X------------------------------------------/
Counter-Affidavit
I, DHURWEN DURON WENCESLAO, Filipino of legal
age, married and a resident of Balangasan District, Pagadian City,
after having been sworn in accordance with law, depose and say,
THAT:
1. I am charged for being in-charge of depositing

the money of investors to the depository banks
of AMAN Futures Group Philippines, Inc.- a task
that makes of me no more than any one ordinary
employee of the corporation- whose
participation is not that of a conspirator but of
one lowly peasant who desires to earn if only to
survive the rigors of life;
2. Also, the complaint is to the effect that: there is

an allegation that he was able to save a large
amount of money due to non-deposit of the same
when the corporation ceased operation. This
office is still conducting investigation with
regard to the veracity of the allegation;
3. Apparently, therefore, I am charged based only
on a suspicion that I was able to save a large
amount of money- which suspicion is yet under
investigation;
4. The phrase “innocent employees or workers in good

faith” squarely applies to me without fear or
favor;
5. My parents were close family friends of Spouses

Fernando R. Luna and Nimfa C. Luna, the chief
operators of the investment trading in Kawit;
6. Jobless for quite some time, I applied and/or

volunteered for possible casual employment
with Spouses Luna;
7. As close acquaintance and family friend of the

spouses, they accommodated me for a casual
employment sans any job order or contract of
employment on March 10, 2012;
8. There was also no fixed salary or wage for the

engagement, except for a promise that I be given
bi-monthly allowance ranging from Two Thousand
Pesos (P2,000.00) to Five Thousand Pesos
(P5,000.00);
9. Aside from this, there was also a promise for a

possible Christmas Vacation at Boracay or
Hongkong by December, 2012;
10. I was not given any fixed or specific assignment.

I simply worked upon direct instructions or
orders from Spouses Luna;
11. My workload included but was not limited to
computer encoding and programming; receiving
and recording of investments; issuance of
receipts on investments, facilitating cash out of
investments; and doing any other personal and
official errands for Spouses Luna;
12. Our employment was only inspired by the

altruistic feeling that we directly work with
Spouses Luna- who during the investment
trading days were truly looked- up and seen
with respect and honor- they were no less than
majestic, so to speak;
13. Our employment was also inspired by the

expressions of gratitude and thanksgivings of our
friends, neighbors and relatives, during cash-
outs;
14. Otherwise put, if a friend, a neighbor or relative

cashes-out, we received impressive requerdos
most of which were food stuffs, communication
gadgets and personal paraphernalia;
15. Ab initio- I never had any knowledge or

information as to the planned deception, fraud or
scam behind the investment trading in Kawit. All
out I believed, that we were doing a legitimate
and truly pro-poor and pro-marginalized business
enterprise;
16. More so, that the investing public included

prominent businessmen, politicians, judges,
prosecutors, lawyers, law enforcers, doctors, priests,
clergies, pastors, ministers and lay men and women-
including the rich and the famous;
17. Simply put, I believed on the legitimacy and
propriety of the investment trading where I was
utilized no less than as an axe that cuts; a knife
that wounds and a hammer that nails- no more
no less. If only I knew, if only I have known early
on that I was after all working for the wicked and
the uneven hands, I should not have in the first
place, applied or volunteered for casual
employment- despite I truly needed it;
18. Earnestly, I worked from 7:00 o’clock in the

morning (or even earlier) until 5:00 o’clock in the
afternoon (or even beyond)- with all good faith
and fidelity;
19. I should not therefore be considered as criminals

or scoundrels. My parents too- failed to get back
their investments- and they are now living as
rats as even our residential house at Pagadian
City was demolished to the ground by Moro
investors;
20. Well-settled, for one (1) to be criminal- he must

have FREEDOM to distinguish between right and
wrong; he must have INTELLIGENCE to
comprehend and understand the consequence of
his acts; and he must have INTENT to commit the
crime as charged. Absent any one of these would
make him no criminal;
21. Known is the doctrinaire concept: Actus non facit

reum nesi mensit rea – the act of a man is not
criminal unless his intentions were so criminal;
22. The incorporators could have a designed and

planed deception in mind from inception but
never have I known of this designed and
planned deception;
23. Simply put, though the investment trading came
out to be fraudulent, I never had known and
never have I noticed of the badges of fraud.
Though the investment trading was after all
deceitful- I never had in mind any intention to
deceive anyone investor- much more, my own
friends, neighbors and relatives – including my
very ownself. Deceit is indispensable in ESTAFA.
And it must be in the present charge;
24. Conspiracy exists when two (2) or more persons

come to an agreement and decide on the
commission of the felony (PP vs Acosta, 396
SCRA 348). For sure, I was never a part of any
agreement to defraud- much more of a decision
to put into effect such fraud;
25. The elements of conspiracy are :
1. Two (2) or more persons come to an agreement;
2. The agreement concerned the commission of a

felony; and-
3. The execution of felony was decided upon;
26. Conspiracy presupposes capacity of the parties

to the conspiracy- to discern what is right from
what is wrong (PP vs. Jesus , 448 SCRA 116). For
sure, I was never in the position of discerning
what lies behind the smiling face and loving
touches of Manuel K. Amalilio- I simply believed
on him beyond the whisper of any doubt. As
such, I simply have been negligent all thru out
the AMAN days- my eyes were blinded; my mind
was locked up and my hands were handcuffed. It was
truly a scam;
27. Negligence is incompatible with conspiracy-
because negligence denotes the absence of intent
while conspiracy- involves a meeting of the
minds to commit a crime (Crisostomo vs
Sandiganbayan, 456 SCRA 45). Our minds had
never met to perpetuate the resultant crime of
syndicated ESTAFA;
28. Also, mere knowledge, acquiescence to or agreement

to cooperate, is not enough to constitute one as
party to a conspiracy, absent any active
participation in the commission of the crime,
with a view to the furtherance of the common
design and purpose – conspiracy transcends
companionship (People vs. Patano, 399 SCRA 90);
29. Mere suspicion, speculation, relationship,

association and companionship do not prove
conspiracy. The sea of suspicion has no shore
and the court that embarks upon it is without
rudder or compass (People vs. Patano, 399 SCRA
90);
30. Conspiracy comes to life at the very instance the

plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit
and forthwith to pursue it actually (People vs.
Felipe, 418 SCRA 146). I never had agreed with
Spouses Luna to defraud anyone- I simply had
worked in good faith and had made good what I
was instructed or ordered to do;
31. Except for the general presumption that as a

work- horse of Spouses Luna- I was already a
part of the scam, there appears to be no other
piece of proof where it could be deduced that I
had knowledge or notice of the scam;
32. A lonesome gardener who works in a vampire’s
house is no vampire. With much more reason
that one who religiously works with AMAN is
not necessarily a scammer or swindler;
33. Imputed or constructive notice cannot be relied

on to support a charge of direct, personal
conspiracy to the fraud (Preferred Home
Specialties, Inc. vs. CA, 478 SCRA 387);
34. In one case, the Supreme Court opined that

mere presence when the check was issued does
not necessarily lead to an inference of
concurrence with a criminal design to issue a bad
check (People vs. Jose, 448 SCRA 116). The mere
fact that I was at Kawit almost all through- out
the AMAN days does not lead to an inference
that I concurred with any criminal intent which
AMAN had in mind. Otherwise put, I am no co-
conspirator but simply, an innocent employee or
worker in good faith;
35. JUSTICE IS THE ULTIMATE SHADOW OF

THE LAW- OFTEN IT SHINES, THOUGH
SOMETIMES IT DARKENS, but for now let
justice be done, though the heaven may fall;
36. I am executing this counter-affidavit to establish

the fact that I did not, from inception, intend to
commit so grave a wrong when I applied and
volunteered for employment with Spouses
FERNANDO and NIMFA LUNA- it cannot be
gainsaid therefore that I am a party to the pre-
designed investment fraud and damages caused.
__th day of ____________2015 at Manila, Philippines.
DHURWEN DURON WENCESLAO

Respondent
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this __th day of

____________, 2015 at Manila, Philippines.
Manila
Agent JOEY B. MORAN/ NPS NO. XVI-INV-166-00249

NBI-PAGADIAN DISTRICT OFFICE,
Complainant,
- versus -for-

Respondents.
X------------------------------------------/
Counter-Affidavit
I, DHURWEN DURON WENCESLAO, Filipino of legal
age, married and a resident of Balangasan District, Pagadian City,
THAT:
1. I am charged for being in-charge of depositing the

money of investors to the depository banks of
AMAN Futures Group Philippines, Inc.- a task that
makes of me no more than any one ordinary
employee of the corporation- whose participation is
not that of a conspirator but of one lowly peasant
who desires to earn if only to survive the rigors of
life;
2. Also, the complaint is to the effect that: I facilitated

investment transactions by accepting and releasing
money for some investors;
3. Apparently, therefore, I am charged as an employee

of the AMAN futures Group, Philippines, Inc.
4. The phrase “innocent employees or workers in good

faith” squarely applies to me without fear or favor;
5. My parents were close family friends of Spouses


volunteered for possible casual employment with
Spouses Luna;
7. As close acquaintance and family friend of the

spouses, they accommodated me for a casual
employment on March 10, 2012;

engagement, except for a promise that I be given bi-
monthly allowance ranging from Two Thousand Pesos
(P2,000.00) to Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00);
9. I was not given any fixed or specific assignment. I

simply worked upon direct instructions or orders
from Spouses Luna;
10. My workload included but was not limited to

and recording of investments; issuance of receipts
on investments, facilitating cash out of investments;
and doing any other personal and official errands
for Spouses Luna;

altruistic feeling that we directly worked with
Spouses Luna- who during the investment trading
days were truly looked- up and seen with respect
and honor- they were no less than majestic, so to
speak;

friends, neighbors and relatives, during cash-outs;

cashes-out, we received impressive requerdos most
of which were food stuffs, communication gadgets and
personal paraphernalia;

scam behind the investment trading in Kawit. All out
I believed, that we were doing a legitimate and
truly pro-poor and pro-marginalized business
enterprise;

16. Simply put, I believed on the legitimacy and

propriety of the investment trading where I was
utilized no less than as an axe that cuts; a knife that
wounds and a hammer that nails- no more no less.
If only I knew, if only I have known early on that I was
after all working for the wicked and the uneven
hands, I should not have in the first place, applied
or volunteered for casual employment- despite I
truly needed it;

afternoon (or even beyond)- with all good faith and
fidelity;
18. I should not therefore be considered as criminals or

scoundrels. My parents too- failed to get back their
investments- and they are now living as rats as even
our residential house at Pagadian City was
demolished to the ground by Moro investors;
19. Well-settled, for one (1) to be criminal- he must have

FREEDOM to distinguish between right and wrong; he
must have INTELLIGENCE to comprehend and
understand the consequence of his acts; and he
must have INTENT to commit the crime as charged.
Absent any one of these would make him no
criminal;
reum nesi mensit rea – the act of a man is not criminal
unless his intentions were so criminal;
21. The incorporators could have a designed and planed

deception in mind from inception but never have I
known of this designed and planned deception;
22. Simply put, though the investment trading came out

to be fraudulent, I never had known and never have
I noticed of the badges of fraud. Though the
investment trading was after all deceitful- I never
had in mind any intention to deceive anyone
investor- much more, my own friends, neighbors and
relatives – including my very ownself. Deceit is
indispensable in ESTAFA. And it must be in the
present charge;

commission of the felony (PP vs Acosta, 396 SCRA
348). For sure, I was never a part of any agreement
to defraud- much more of a decision to put into
effect such fraud;
a. Two (2) or more persons come to an agreement;
b. The agreement concerned the commission of a felony;

and-
c. The execution of felony was decided upon;
25. Conspiracy presupposes capacity of the parties to

the conspiracy- to discern what is right from what is
wrong (PP vs. Jesus , 448 SCRA 116). For sure, I was
never in the position of discerning what lies behind
the smiling face and loving touches of Manuel K.
Amalilio- I simply believed on him beyond the
whisper of any doubt. As such, I simply have been
negligent all thru out the AMAN days- my eyes were
blinded; my mind was locked up and my hands were
handcuffed. It was truly a scam;

while conspiracy- involves a meeting of the minds
to commit a crime (Crisostomo vs Sandiganbayan, 456
SCRA 45). Our minds had never met to perpetuate
the resultant crime of syndicated ESTAFA;
27. Also, mere knowledge, acquiescence to or agreement to

cooperate, is not enough to constitute one as party to
a conspiracy, absent any active participation in the
commission of the crime, with a view to the
furtherance of the common design and purpose –
conspiracy transcends companionship (People vs.
Patano, 399 SCRA 90);

conspiracy. The sea of suspicion has no shore and
the court that embarks upon it is without rudder or
compass (People vs. Patano, 399 SCRA 90);

and forthwith to pursue it actually (People vs. Felipe,
418 SCRA 146). I never had agreed with Spouses
Luna to defraud anyone- I simply had worked in
good faith and had made good what I was
instructed or ordered to do;
30. Except for the general presumption that as a work-
horse of Spouses Luna- I was already a part of the
scam, there appears to be no other piece of proof
where it could be deduced that I had knowledge or
notice of the scam;

house is no vampire. With much more reason that
one who religiously works with AMAN is not
necessarily a scammer or swindler;
32. Imputed or constructive notice cannot be relied on

to support a charge of direct, personal conspiracy to
the fraud (Preferred Home Specialties, Inc. vs. CA, 478
SCRA 387);
33. In one case, the Supreme Court opined that mere

presence when the check was issued does not
necessarily lead to an inference of concurrence with
a criminal design to issue a bad check (People vs.
Jose, 448 SCRA 116);
34. Sequitur, the mere fact that I was working at

AMAN-Kawit does not lead to an inference that I
concurred with any criminal intent which AMAN
had in mind. Otherwise put, I am no co-conspirator
but simply, an innocent employee or worker in good
faith;
35. JUSTICE IS THE ULTIMATE SHADOW OF THE

LAW- OFTEN IT SHINES, THOUGH SOMETIMES
IT DARKENS, but for now let justice be done,
though the heaven may fall;

the fact that I did not, from inception, intend to
commit so grave a wrong when I applied and
volunteered for employment with Spouses
gainsaid therefore that I am a party to the pre-

20th day of February 2017 at Manila, Philippines.
DHURWEN DURON WENCESLAO

Respondent
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this __th day of

February 2017 at Manila, Philippines.
Pagadian City
PCI RESTY E. SORIANO, I.S. NO. IX-09-INV-15H-00413

Complainant,
- versus -for-
SHIR ANN H. GONZAGA, VIOLATION OF RA 9165 &

Respondent, VIOLATION OF RA 10591
X------------------------------------------/
Counter-Affidavit
(WITH MOTION FOR EXCLUSION
AS PARTY-RESPONDENT)
I, SHIR ANN H. GONZAGA, Filipino of legal age, married

and a resident of Picanan, Kumalarang, Zamboanga del Sur, after
having been sworn in accordance with law, depose and say,
THAT:
1. I am charged for Violation of RA 9165 and RA

10591, after our Fishpond House No. 2 was
searched by elements of the CIDG, etc.
2. The Affidavit of Arrest and Seizure (Annex “1”) is to

the effect that: during the search, I, (SPO1 Dotillos)
able to discover fourteen (14) live ammunitions of
caliber .45 pistol inside the room particularly at the
wooden box (baul), then the assorted used foils
placed in the plastic box, with two (2) scissors,
twenty-five (25) lighters, then two (2) wallets, five
(5) live ammos of M16 rifle and four (4) transparent
plastic sachets, all placed at the wooden (sic)
hanging elevated area in the room;
3. Apparently, the word shabu does not follow the

phrase “four (4) transparent plastic sachets”. I believe
and so hold that the omission of the word shabu is
fatal;
4. The Case Report (Annex “2”) is also to the effect

that: during the conduct of the search at house Nr.
2, owned by Mr. & Mrs. Lemon and Shir Ann
Gonzaga with house occupant present identified as
Mrs. Shir Ann Huelar Gonzaga @ Cherry Ann, the
team discovered evidence(s) inside the room
(owned by Mr. & Mrs. Lemon & Shir Ann
Gonzaga), such as fourteen (14) live ammos of
caliber .45 pistol, assorted used foils, two (2)
scissors, twenty- five (25) pieces lighters, two (2)
wallets containing legal documents and one (1)
thousand pesos, five (5) live ammunitions of 7.72
mm & fifteen (15) live ammos of M16 rifle;
5. Apparently, the four (4) transparent plastic sachets

were not mentioned. I believe and so hold that the
omission is fatal;
6. Also, my name was only referred to in the Affidavit

of Arrest and Seizure as Mr. & Mrs. Lemon and Shir
Ann Gonzaga and as an occupant of the house.
Otherwise put, my name only appears as a wife of
the owner of the house, Lemon D. Gonzaga and the
occupant thereof. Normally, a wife, much more a
Filipino wife stays in the house of her husband
(Article 68 of the Family Code);
7. Also, the name CHERRY ANN H. GONZAGA in

the search warrants only refers to me as an owner of
the houses to be searched, no more, no less. The
Search Warrants (Annexes “3” & “4”) too, are to the
effect that: there are good and sufficient reasons to
believe that Lemon D. Gonzaga and his companions
have in their possession and control the following
firearms, to wit: xxx and, there are good and
sufficient reasons to believe that Lemon D. Gonzaga
and his companions have in their possession and
control the illegal drugs, locally known as shabu
xxx;
8. I humbly believe and so hold that my name is not

included or is not meant to be included in the
phrase “Lemon D. Gonzaga and his companions”.
The phrase apparently referred to my husband
Lemon- his fishpond escorts and his companions in
pot sessions of shabu, if there be any- not me as a wife
whose physical presence in the house is more of an
obligation- than a mere companion;
9. Very importantly, my husband Lemon and I are

staying at House No. 3. The CIDG could have
noticed that of House No. 3 is the only house
among the five (5) houses which is provided with
an air-condition unit. Recordedly, nothing was taken
at House No. 3 where we are physically dwelling
and staying while at the fishpond farm;
10. Also, the CIDG should have recalled that House No.
2 was closed during the search and seizure.
Needless to state, as a wife, I was often cautioned by
my husband, Lemon to warn our fishpond workers
not to enter this house. And casually, I did warn
them;
11. Otherwise put, whatever is kept inside this room is

already personal to Lemon. Inasmuch as he is
already dead- the issue will bewilder the living for
the rest of our lives. Although mindful of Lemon’s
extreme addiction to drugs- his reasons behind are
now finally sealed in silence;
12. I am not a drug user, never was and never will. I
am just a wife and a mother, as such. He is now
lying in estate at a funeral home while I am en-
jailed. I have not even seen his corpse yet, and I was
not even allowed to cry over it;
13. The result of the laboratory examination of my

urine sample will speak for itself. My urine
sample was negative as to the presence of THC
Metabolites (Marijuana) and Methamphetamine
(shabu). The laboratory chemistry report (Annex “5”)
is reflective of this;
14. The ammunitions and other warfare accessories are

owned by my husband, Lemon. He truly needed
them in his fishpond undertakings. Every fishpond
operator is a gun holder. Otherwise put, not a single
prawn may be harvested of a fishpond farm if one
does not have any one firearm. Lemon’s possession
of non-automatic firearms as a Garand and shotgun
was harmless. It was purely for personal safety and
security. Our fishpond farms were so situated too
far from any one community. They were so much
isolated so to speak. He must be armed to protect us
at the very least;
15. My husband, Lemon is now dead. As such, he could

no longer be charged in court. Instead, I am
prosecuted for a crime that was supposedly his. Is
prosecuting a wife a part of her spousal obligations?
If it is so, how many innocent wives will be
prosecuted and en-jailed?

criminal;
17. Conspiracy cannot also be considered to indict me

for a crime that is supposedly my husband’s.
Conspiracy exists when two (2) or more persons
348). For sure, I never had a pot session with my
husband. Also, I was not even privileged to hold or
enjoy any one of his firearms and/or even just his
ammunitions. Is it not that possession is the holding
of a thing and the enjoyment of a right?

wrong (PP vs. Jesus , 448 SCRA 116). For sure, I was
never in the position of discerning how Lemon got
the shabu he was using. Also, I was never in the
position of discerning if his firearms were so
licensed. I am just a wife- my eyes were blinded; my
mind was locked up and my hands were handcuffed;


one who just lives and dwells with drug-user, is not
necessarily a drug-user;

Jose, 448 SCRA 116). The mere fact that I have been
living with Lemon does not lead to an inference that
I concurred with his vices and his need to possess
any one firearm. Otherwise put, I am no co-
conspirator but simply, an innocent spouse or partner
in good faith;


the fact that my only fault was to have married
Lemon and to have committed to love and cherish
him for a lifetime. Such a lifetime has already ended.
25. I therefore respectfully move that I be excluded as

party-respondent in the case.

1st day of September 2015 at Pagadian City, Philippines.
SHIR ANN H. GONZAGA

Respondent
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 1st day of
day of September 2015 at Pagadian City, Philippines.
Doc No. 606

Page No. 121
Book No. XXIX
Series of 2015
Copy furnished:
PSI RESTY E. SORIANO Registry Receipt ________

PNP-CIDG Office
Camp Abelon,
Pagadian City
Hall of Justice
Pagadian City
----------------------------------------------
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, IS Case No. IX-09-INV-14J-000560

Plaintiff,
-versus- -for-
JENNIFER F. BULETIC, MURDER, etc.

ANTHONY F. BULETIC
& RUEL D. FLORES,
Respondents,
x-------------------/
Counter-Affidavit
I, JENNIFER F. BULETIC, Filipino of legal age, married, and
resident of Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte, after having been
sworn in accordance with law, depose and say:
29.That I am charged for Murder and Multiple Frustrated

Murder in the above-complaint;
30.That I deny having committed the crime or crimes as

charged. The fact is, I am more of a victim in the October 5,
2014 incident as I only acted in self-defense if only to
preserve my life and limb which during the time was at the
verge of instant death;
31.The law on self-defense embodied in our penal system finds

32.And I interpose this defense in my behalf- though mindful

33.The facts and circumstances of the case is narrated as

follows, viz:
34.Together with Anthony F. Buletic and Ruel D. Flores, I went

to the alleged Videoke Bar. We then ordered a bottle of Beer
Grande. Without having consumed the first bottle, I sensed
that I had no more sufficient load to contact my wife who
was then at our home place, Sindangan, Zamboanga del
Norte;
35.I then went out of the Videoke Bar to find for a loading
station nearby. True, I was able to get some load;
36.I then walked back to the Video Bar. I was texting my wife
while walking which caused me to almost bumped Joseph
Villamora Baterna (Joseph for brevity). Joseph was then
walking from opposite direction with Jonathan A. Baterna
(Jonathan for brevity) and Dannon C. Bautista (Dannon for
brevity). I do not personally know them to date;
37.This incident angered the three (3) and thus I was pushed
suddenly by Joseph and thereby identifying himself as
Barangay Tanod and told me: “Unsa man nangita ka ug
gubot?”- Are you looking for trouble?
38. I then answered: “Wala man nong, gapaload lang ko ug sorry

kaayo hapit ta magbangga”- No, I just bought some load and
sorry for almost bumping you;
39. Jonathan immediately shouted at me: “Unsa man pasiga-siga

ka diri- amo ra ba ning balwarte bay!”- Are you playing
notorious- this is our territory;
40. I then answered him: “Dili man bay, sundalo ko.”- No, I am a
soldier;
41. Then and there, Dannon immediately attacked me with his

fist. I could not fight back as I am already physically
handicapped inasmuch as I already underwent a major
surgical operation. Thus, I just moved back trying to evade
form his blows. Even then several punches hit my face;
42. Then and there, Jonathan struck me with a hard object at the
back portion of my head which caused me to fall down;
43. As I was falling down, I saw Jonathan holding a piece of

wood which was similar in size with a baseball bat- and I
heard Joseph shouting-“Tiwasi Tan, Tiwasi!” – Finish him;
44. I also heard somebody shouting, “Ayaw, Buletic na, Buletic

na!”- Don’t, he is a Buletic;
45. I remembered that I had a short handgun tucked at my

waist, and left with no other recourse - I got it, cocked it and
shot Jonathan;
46. After a little while, I tried to stand up and left the place
where I fell down;
47. I was able to hide myself at a bushy place nearby- and I

found the need of calling my immediate superior at 101st
Brigade who advised me to wait as they would fetch me;
48. True, I was fetched by companions at dawn already and I
was brought to 101st Brigade at Piñan, Zambooanga del
Norte. I was then treated at the Dipolog Medical Center in
the afternoon of October 6, 2014. A copy of the medical
certificate is hereto attached and marked as Annex “1”;
49. Also, copies of pictures depicting the injuries that I sustained

during the incident are hereto attached marked as Annexes
“2”; “3” and “4”;

First Requisite
51. Admittedly, I was attacked by Dannon with his fist. Jonathan

also struck me with a hard object. The peril to my life
therefore, was not only imminent but actual (People vs. Cabical,
403 SCRA 268);
52. I already fell down and was at the mercy of my aggressors.

If I did not shot Jonathan, he would surely hit me with the
piece of wood he was holding- and I could have been dead;

unlawful aggression (People vs. Montalba, 56 SCRA 443);

SCRA 384);
Second Requisite

SCRA 522);
56. Perfect equality between the weapon used by the one

defending and of the aggressor is not required, because the
person assaulted does not have sufficient tranquility of mind
to think, to calculate and to choose which weapon to use (People
vs. Padua, CA, 40 OG, 998);
57. The short handgun which was tucked at my waist was the
only weapon that I could use if only to repel or prevent
Jonathan’s striking me with a piece of wood which was
similar in size with a baseball bat. As such, was capable of
causing my instant death;

Phil 647);
59. And if it was necessary for the accused to use his revolver,
he could hardly, under the circumstances, be expected take
deliberate and careful aim so as to strike a point less
vulnerable than the body of his assailant (US vs. Mack, 8 Phil
701; US vs. Domen, 37 Phil 57);
60. The use of my short handgun was therefore reasonable under

the facts obtaining;
Third Requisite
61. The provocation must be sufficient. It should be
proportionate to the act of aggression and adequate to stir
the aggressor to its commission (People vs. Alconga, 78 Phil
366);
62. Thus, to engage in a verbal argument cannot be considered

sufficient provocation (Comment, Luis B. Reyes, The Revised
Penal Code, 13th Edition, page 183, citing a Decision of the
Supreme Court of Spain dated October 5, 1877);
63. I only almost bumped Joseph while walking back towards

the Videoke Bar. I already explained and asked for sorry. I
even informed them that I am soldier, thinking that by
saying so, they might be appeased. But they were not.
Instead, Dannon suddenly attacked me with his fist;
64. There was therefore no sufficient provocation coming from

me to justify or warrant Dannon’s attack;
65. The three (3) requisites of self-defense are therefore present in

the my case;

67. The death of Jonathan was not attended by any of these

qualifying circumstances. For sure, my meeting with
Jonathan and his companions was only incidental;
68. The only possible qualifying circumstances from the way

the Complaint-Affidavits were coached is 1) treachery and/or
2) abuse of superior strength;
Treachery
69. Treachery is only present when two (2) conditions concur:

(1) that the means, methods, forms of execution employed
gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself
or to retaliate; (2) that such means, methods and forms of
execution were deliberately and consciously adopted by the
accused without danger to his person (Luces vs. People, 395
SCRA 524);
70. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack

without the slightest provocation on the part of the person
being attacked (People vs. Bustamante, 397 SCRA 382);
71. In my case, I was attacked by Dannon with his fist and I was
struck by Jonathan with a hard object and he stood still to
strike me with a piece of wood which was similar in size
with a baseball bat;
72. The suddenness of the attack does not, of itself, suffice to

support a finding of alevosia, even if the purpose was to kill,
so long as the decision was made all of a sudden and the
victim’s helpless position was accidental (People vs. Lebreo,
200 SCRA 11);

attack; and the meeting of the victim and the assailant was
only accidental (People vs. Velaga, 199 SCRA 518);
74. In my case, our meeting was purely accidental as we just

met while I was walking back to the Videoke Bar;

133);
76. My shooting of Jonathan was my only available recourse to

defend myself at that precise moment;
77. The mode of attack must be thought by the offender, and
must not spring from the unexpected turn of events (People
vs. Dauz, CA, 40 OG, Sup. 11,107);
78. My shooting of Jonathan was not thought but was a mere

consequence of their sudden attack;
79. Also, the Private Complainants and their witnesses affirmed

that the shooting was preceded by an oral altercation and a
boxing incident;
80. There is no treachery when shooting was preceded by a

heated discussion (People vs. Gonzales, 76 Phil 473);

immediately before the attack (People vs. Gupo, 190 SCRA 7);
83. Treachery is not present when the victim, before being

attacked, had heated argument with one of the malefactors which
must have placed him on guard, aside from standing face to
face with them so that the initial assault was not sudden or
unforeseen (People vs. Macalino, 177 SCRA 102);
Abuse of Superior Strength
84. To take advantage of superior strength means to use

purposely excessive force out of proportion to the means of
defense available to the person attacked (People vs. Delim,
396 SCRA 386);
85. This aggravating circumstance does not apply when a

quarrel arose unexpectedly and the fatal blow was struck at a
time the aggressor and his victim were engaged against each
other as man to man (US vs. Badines, 4 Phil 594);
86. Also, when there is an allegation of treachery, superior
strength is absorbed (People vs. Liston, 179 SCRA 415);
87. I believe and so hold therefore that the only crime that may
be filed against me is HOMICIDE, in the absence of any
qualifying circumstance to qualify the killing of Jonathan A.
Baterna to MURDER;
88. Also, the charges of Multiple Frustrated Murder may

properly be dismissed for being scripted, baseless and sham.
The private complainants just wanted to make a criminal out
of me if only to justify their attempt to kill me on the fateful
night of October 5, 2014- which I never freely did;
89. Actus me envitu factus non est meus actus- An act done by me
against my will is not my act. What I have done, was truly
what I was supposed to do- given the situation to which I
was in.
90. That I am executing this Counter-Affidavit to establish the

fact that I am more of victim than a culprit in the present
charges and that, if at all, I was justified in killing Jonathan
A. Baterna. As such, I am not criminally or civilly liable.
91. That using this counter-affidavit and the counter-affidavits

of my co-respondents, ANTHONY F. BULETIC and RUEL
D. FLORES, I do hereby charge JOSEPH VILLAMORA
BATERNA and DANNON CARMONA BAUTISTA for
ATTEMPTED MURDER/ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE.

JENNIFER F. BULETIC
Respondent

Doc No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2014
Copy furnished:

CERTIFICATION

FERDINAND MAS PABLO

Hall of Justice
Pagadian City
----------------------------------------------

Plaintiff,
-versus- -for-

ANTHONY F. BULETIC
& RUEL D. FLORES,
Respondents,
x-------------------/
Counter-Affidavit
I, ANTHONY F. BULETIC, Filipino of legal age, married, a
graduate of BS Industrial Education and President of Purok Durian,
Pinig, Dumalinao, Zamboanga del Sur, after having been sworn in
accordance with law, depose and say:
1. I am included as party-respondent in the present charge;
2. I deny having any participation in the October 5, 2014

incident;
3. True, I was together with my younger brother, Jennifer F.

Buletic and my cousin, Ruel D. Flores at the alleged Videoke
Bar on the fateful night. We thus, ordered a bottle of Beer
Grande;
4. Without having consumed the first bottle, Jennifer left to buy

some load from a loading station nearby;
5. I was then drinking with Ruel D. Flores while Jennifer was

out;
6. After some time, Ruel L. Pagas approached our table and

then and there told me something, which I did not
understand if only to consider the noise from the videoke;
7. I just nodded to Ruel L. Pagas, though I did not understand

what he said;
8. What surprised me was the fact that my cousin, Ruel D.

Flores suddenly stood up and rushed outside;
9. Afterwhich, I heard the voice of my counsin, Ruel D. Flores

shouting: Ayaw, Buletic na! Buletic na!
10. I stood up and rushed outside and then and there, I saw my
cousin, Rule D. Flores attacked and boxed by Dannon C.
Bautista. Regrettably, I also saw my brother, Jennifer lying at
the ground;
11. I was about to rush towards them if only to help my

brother, Jennifer, but before I could have done so, I heard
gunshots;
12. Out of fear, I left and rushed towards our house. I was not
even able to take home my driven tricycle.
13. Surprisingly, I was included as party-respondent in the

present charge. A reading of the Affidavit-Complaints is to
the effect that, if at all, I was included solely on the suspicion
that I could have participated in the incident inasmuch as my
tricycle was left at the scene of the crime;
14. If at all, the private complainants scripted me to have

conspired with my brother, Jennifer in the shooting of
Jonathan A. Baterna. Godspeed, the private complainants
knew very well that I was not an actor in the unexpected
incident. I even blamed myself, even up to this point in time,
why I rushed home instead of coming to the aid of my
brother, Jennifer who was mercilessly attacked and mauled;
15. Conspiracy exists when two (2) or more persons come to an

agreement and decide on the commission of the felony (PP
vs Acosta, 396 SCRA 348). For sure, we were never part of any
agreement to engage in a heated discussion much more to
engage in a fight;
16. We were only at the Video Bar to drink some beer if only to
treat my brother, Jennifer who just came to visit our father,
who just arrived from Perpetual Soccour Hospital in Cebu
City. I never expected that the night would end up that way;
17. Also, mere knowledge, acquiescence to or agreement to cooperate,

is not enough to constitute one as party to a conspiracy,
absent any active participation in the commission of the
crime, with a view to the furtherance of the common design
and purpose – conspiracy transcends companionship (People
vs. Patano, 399 SCRA 90);
18. In my case, I did not have any knowledge as to what was

happening outside of the Videoke Bar. If only I did not hear
my cousin, Ruel D. Flores shouting, I should not have even
gone outside of the Videoke Bar and I should not have even
seen anything;
19. Mere suspicion, speculation, relationship, association and
companionship do not prove conspiracy. The sea of
suspicion has no shore and the court that embarks upon it is
without rudder or compass (People vs. Patano, 399 SCRA 90);
20. My being a brother and a companion of my brother, Jennifer

will not make me liable to his shooting of Jonathan A.
Baterna if only to protect, repel and save himself from an
actual peril to his life and limb;
21. In one case, the Supreme Court opined that mere presence
when the check was issued does not necessarily lead to an
inference of concurrence with a criminal design to issue a
bad check (People vs. Jose, 448 SCRA 116). The mere fact that
I was present at the Videoke Bar does not lead to an inference
that I have any participation in the fateful incident;
22. JUSTICE IS THE ULTIMATE SHADOW OF THE LAW-

OFTEN IT SHINES, THOUGH SOMETIMES IT DARKENS,
but for now let justice be done, though the heaven may fall;
23. I am executing this counter-affidavit to establish the fact that

I was not a participant in the October 5, 2014 incident which
resulted to the death of Jonathan A. Baterna.

ANTHONY F. BULETIC
Respondent

Doc No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2014
Copy furnished:

CERTIFICATION

FERDINAND MAS PABLO

Hall of Justice
Ozamiz City
----------------------------------------------
IAN MARK TIO, NPS Case No. X-II-INV-14K-00275

Complainants,
-versus- -for-
SPOUSES FRANCIS A. GUMANSING, ESTAFA (3 COUNTS)

& GLOWINDA A. GUMANSING
Respondents,
x-------------------/
WE, FRANCIS A. GUMANSING & GLOWINDA A.
GUMANSING, Filipinos of legal age, husband and wife and a
resident of Bliss, Buug, Zamboanga Sibugay, after having been
1. We are the party-respondents in the present charges;
2. We humbly deny having violated Article 315 paragraph 1 (b)

of the Revised Penal Code nor Presidential Decree No. 115
otherwise known as the Trust Receipt Law of 1973;
3. A priori, we did know that our business transactions with

Complainant were trust receipt transactions. If at all, we
fairly believed that our business transactions were purchases
on credit. In fact, we issued checks to guarantee our
purchases on credit;
4. A reading of Section 2 of PD 115 is to the effect that the Trust

Receipt Law is intended to 1) encourage and promote the use of
trust receipts as an additional and convenient aid to commerce and
trade; 2) to provide for the regulation of trust receipt transactions
in order to assure the protection of the rights and enforcement of
obligations of the parties involved therein; and- 3) to declare the
misuse or misappropriation of goods, documents or instruments
released under trust receipts as a criminal offense punishable
under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code;
5. A trust receipt transaction is defined by Section 4 of the same

decree as any transaction by and between a person referred
to as the entruster who owns or holds absolute title or
security interests over certain specified goods, documents or
instruments, who releases the same to the possession of a
person referred to as the entrustee upon the latter’s execution
and delivery to the entruster of a signed document called a
“trust receipt” wherein the entrustee binds himself to hold the
goods, documents or instruments in trust for the entruster
and to sell or otherwise dispose of the goods, documents or
instruments with the obligation to turn over to the entruster
the proceeds thereof or to return the same goods, documents
or instruments if not sold or disposed of;
6. In the present charges, the “trust receipt” nature of the

transaction was not made known to us. We were made to
believe that ours were purchases on credit. Also, we did not
execute any trust receipt nor did we deliver any one trust
receipt to Complainant. A reading of the trust receipts as he
attached to his Complaint-Affidavit is to the effect that these
trust receipts were contained in an already prepared and
printed document with heading: IMT MEATSHOP- a
contract of adhesion so to speak;
7. Any person not learned in law, could not identify the same
as trust receipts. Any one person will mistake them as mere
invoices or delivery receipts. Also, the stipulation “received
in trust from IMT Meatshop, Ozamis City (Trustor) xxx”
was written on the lower portion and was written so thinly
in very small fonts. Apparently, the trust receipt was only use
as a ploy to assure the prosecution of any one customer or
client of Complainant who comes to him to purchase on
credit in the event that he will fail to make good his
payments of the goods so purchased on credit;
8. We did not also sign the three (3) trust receipts as our
purchase on credit transactions with Complainant were not
made personally by us but by through our driver or through
an errand who normally acknowledged and signed delivery
receipts- not trust receipts. Recordedly, the three (3) trust
receipts were not signed by us as we only dealt with
Complainant by electronic call or text messages. We did not
personally meet in these transactions, so to speak;
9. The First Trust Receipt was signed by a certain Alselmo

Pandan as Trustee. The Second Trust Receipt was also signed
by him on the space which was intended for the signature of
the Trustor. The space intended for the signature of the
Trustee was only filled in with RHR 210. And, the Third Trust
Receipt was signed by a certain Haiton on the space which
was intended for the signature of the Trustor. The space
intended for the signature of the Trustee was left blank;
10. The requisite elements of execution and delivery of the

trust receipts are not present in the present charges;
11. Be that as it may, the First Trust Receipt dated February 19,
2014 numbering 001906 in the sum of P 5,950.00 was covered
by Allied Bank Check No. 0000283937. This check was paid
and debited from our Checking Account on May 2, 2014, as
evidenced by a machine copy of our passbook highlighted as
Entry No. 17, viz:
Date : May 2, 2014

Check No. : 0000283937
Payee : IMT Farm
Amount : P 5,950.00;
A machine copy of the inclusive page of the passbook is hereto

attached and marked as Annex “1”;
12. Also, the Second Trust Receipt dated March 13, 2014
numbering 001879 was covered by two (2) Allied Bank
Checks, namely: 1) Check No. 0000283975 in the sum of P
108,000.00 and 2) Check No. 0000283976 in the sum of P
108,000.00. These checks were paid and debited from our
Checking Account on April 30, 2014 and May 2, 2014,
respectively, as evidenced by machine copies of our passbook
highlighted as Entries Nos. 19 and 4, respectively, viz:
Date : April 30, 2014

Check No. : 0000283975
Payee : IMT Farm
Amount : P 108,000.00; and-
Date : May 2, 2014

Check No. : 0000283976
Payee : IMT Farm
Amount : P 108,000.00;
Machine copies of the inclusive pages of the passbook are hereto

attached and marked as Annexes “2” and “3”;
13. A reading of the Second Trust Receipt is to the effect that

the total amount contained thereon is P 216,000.00. Also, the
total amount of the two (2) Checks as mentioned above i.e. at
P 108,000.00 each is also P 216,000.00. Mathematically, the
product of P 108,000.00 plus P 108,000.00 is P 216,000.00.
Suffice it to say therefore, that the Second Trust Receipt was
already paid and/or settled;
14. The Third Trust Receipt dated March 24, 2014 appears
suspicious. It contains wiped-out erasures. The due date is
left vacant. Thus it is worded this wise: xxx the products
thereof to be surrendered and delivered to the Trustor on or before
________, without necessity of demand;
15. This runs afoul the formal requirement prescribed by Section

5 of Presidential Decree No. 115 that the Trust Receipt must
contain an undertaking on the part of the entrustee a) to hold
in trust for the entrustor the goods, documents or
instruments therein described; b) to dispose them in the
manner provided for in the trust receipt; and, c) to turn over
the proceeds of the sale of the goods, documents or
instruments to the entruster or to return the goods,
documents or instruments in the event of their non-sale
within the period specified therein;
16. Sequitur, the date within which the entrustee must return the
goods, documents or instruments in the event of their non-
sale must perforce be indicated. And, it was not so indicated
in the Third Trust Receipt. The same trust receipt therefore
cannot warrant our prosecution for Violation of Presidential
Decree 115;
17. Be that as it may, the amount of the Third Trust Receipt is P

173,500.00. Recordedly, we have already paid unto
Complainant the following sums of money, goods or services,
viz:
17.1. P 50,000.00, by way of Fund Transfer to

Complainant’s Account on June 9, 2014, as
evidenced by the Request for Fund Transfer as
hereto attached and marked as Annex “4”;
17.2. P 211,600.00, by way of Trucking Services as

evidenced by the Breakdown of Trucking
Services as hereto attached and marked as Annex
“5”;
17.3. P 118,543.20, by way of delivery of dressed
chicken, etc. as evidenced by our Sales Invoice
dated August 30, 2014 as hereto attached and
marked as Annex “6”;
17.4. P 50,000.00, by way of Check No. AAA 0318251

dated October 25, 2014 and which was paid and
debited from our account on November 19, 2014
as evidenced by the inclusive page of our
passbook highlighted as Entry No. 16. A machine
copy of Check No. AAA 0318251 is hereto attached
and marked as Annex “7”. Also, a machine copy of
the inclusive page of our passbook is hereto attached
as Annex “8”;

dated November 25, 2014 and which was paid
and debited from our account on November 26,
2014 as evidenced by the inclusive page of our
copy of Check No. AAA 0318251 is hereto attached
and marked as Annex “9”. Also, a machine copy of
the inclusive page of our passbook is hereto attached
as Annex “10”;

dated November 30, 2014 and which was paid
and debited from our account on December 1,
2014 as evidenced by the inclusive page of our
copy of the inclusive page of our passbook is hereto
18. Mathematically, as of date, we have a compensable total

payment of P 563,343.20. As such, the Third Trust Receipt
dated March 24, 2014 in the sum of P 173,500.00 is already
deemed paid by way of compensation. Compensation is a
recognized mode of extinguishment of an obligation in our
jurisdiction;
19. More than these, we have also issued Check No. AAA
0318253 in the sum of P 50,000.00 unto Complainant
postdated to December 25, 2014, by way of additional
payment;
20. Given the foregoing compensable payments in money, goods

or services, we humbly believe that the present charges are
yet premature for filing. There is therefore a dire need for us
and Complainant to appear and personally meet before the
Honorable City Prosecutor if only to reconcile our respective
business records in a way of settling the present charges-
once and for all;
21. There is just a business misunderstanding between us

occasioned by our Sale of Fertilizers at Molave, Zamboanga
del Sur, which Complainant believe and so hold to be an
unfair intrusion unto his business territorial jurisdiction. It
just happened that we had sufficient stocks of fertilizers which we
ought to dispose at a lesser price than those of his;
22. The Honorable City Prosecutor might believe

Complainant’s story. More so, that he is charging us for a
special offense of Violation of PD 115. Even then, the
Honorable City Prosecutor has the solemn duty to conduct a
cautious and thorough examination of the Complaint and
the trust receipts before him in order that our rights to
liberty under the Bill of Rights will not be prejudiced;


prosecution.”

heaven may fall. A fervent prayer that the present charges be
dismissed, if the Honorable City Prosecutor shall see fit.

10th of December 2014 at Pagadian City, Philippines.
FRANCIS A. GUMANSING
Respondent
GLOWINDA A. GUMANSING
Respondent

December 2014 at Pagadian City, Philippines, Respondents
showing two (2) valid identification cards, each, depicting their
recent photos and customary signatures.
Doc No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2014
Copy furnished:
IAN MARK TIO Registry Receipt _____

Gango Highway
Ozamis City
CERTIFICATION

the Respondents and I am convinced that they executed the Joint Counter-
Affidavit freely and voluntarily.
FERDINAND MAS PABLO

9th JUDICIAL REGION
Branch 3
Zamboanga City
----------------------------------------------

Plaintiff, 52919 to 52921, 52923 to 52925
-versus- -for-
OWEN VALERSO OSEA, VIOLATION OF BP 22

Accused,
x-------------------/
Counter-Affidavit
WE, FRANCIS A. GUMANSING & GLOWINDA A.
GUMANSING, Filipinos of legal age, husband and wife and a
resident of Bliss, Buug, Zamboanga Sibugay, after having been
25.We are the party-respondents in the present charges;
26.We humbly deny having violated Article 315 paragraph 1 (b)

of the Revised Penal Code nor Presidential Decree No. 115
27.A priori, we did know that our business transactions with

Complainant were trust receipt transactions. If at all, we
fairly believed that our business transactions were purchases
on credit. In fact, we issued checks to guarantee our
purchases on credit;
28.A reading of Section 2 of PD 115 is to the effect that the Trust

29.A trust receipt transaction is defined by Section 4 of the same
security interests over certain specified goods, documents or
instruments, who releases the same to the possession of a
person referred to as the entrustee upon the latter’s execution
and delivery to the entruster of a signed document called a
“trust receipt” wherein the entrustee binds himself to hold the
goods, documents or instruments in trust for the entruster
and to sell or otherwise dispose of the goods, documents or
instruments with the obligation to turn over to the entruster
the proceeds thereof or to return the same goods, documents
or instruments if not sold or disposed of;
30.In the present charges, the “trust receipt” nature of the

transaction was not made known to us. We were made to
believe that ours were purchases on credit. Also, we did not
execute any trust receipt nor did we deliver any one trust
receipt to Complainant. A reading of the trust receipts as he
attached to his Complaint-Affidavit is to the effect that these
trust receipts were contained in an already prepared and
printed document with heading: IMT MEATSHOP- a
contract of adhesion so to speak;
31.Any person not learned in law, could not identify the same
as trust receipts. Any one person will mistake them as mere
invoices or delivery receipts. Also, the stipulation “received
in trust from IMT Meatshop, Ozamis City (Trustor) xxx”
was written on the lower portion and was written so thinly
in very small fonts. Apparently, the trust receipt was only use
as a ploy to assure the prosecution of any one customer or
client of Complainant who comes to him to purchase on
credit in the event that he will fail to make good his
payments of the goods so purchased on credit;
32.We did not also sign the three (3) trust receipts as our
purchase on credit transactions with Complainant were not
made personally by us but by through our driver or through
an errand who normally acknowledged and signed delivery
receipts- not trust receipts. Recordedly, the three (3) trust
receipts were not signed by us as we only dealt with
Complainant by electronic call or text messages. We did not
personally meet in these transactions, so to speak;
33.The First Trust Receipt was signed by a certain Alselmo
Pandan as Trustee. The Second Trust Receipt was also signed
by him on the space which was intended for the signature of
the Trustor. The space intended for the signature of the
Trustee was only filled in with RHR 210. And, the Third Trust
Receipt was signed by a certain Haiton on the space which
was intended for the signature of the Trustor. The space
intended for the signature of the Trustee was left blank;
34. The requisite elements of execution and delivery of the

trust receipts are not present in the present charges;
35. Be that as it may, the First Trust Receipt dated February 19,
2014 numbering 001906 in the sum of P 5,950.00 was covered
by Allied Bank Check No. 0000283937. This check was paid
and debited from our Checking Account on May 2, 2014, as
evidenced by a machine copy of our passbook highlighted as
Entry No. 17, viz:
Date : May 2, 2014

Check No. : 0000283937
Payee : IMT Farm
Amount : P 5,950.00;
A machine copy of the inclusive page of the passbook is hereto

36. Also, the Second Trust Receipt dated March 13, 2014
numbering 001879 was covered by two (2) Allied Bank
Checks, namely: 1) Check No. 0000283975 in the sum of P
108,000.00 and 2) Check No. 0000283976 in the sum of P
108,000.00. These checks were paid and debited from our
Checking Account on April 30, 2014 and May 2, 2014,
respectively, as evidenced by machine copies of our passbook
highlighted as Entries Nos. 19 and 4, respectively, viz:
Date : April 30, 2014

Check No. : 0000283975
Payee : IMT Farm
Amount : P 108,000.00; and-
Date : May 2, 2014
Check No. : 0000283976
Payee : IMT Farm
Amount : P 108,000.00;
Machine copies of the inclusive pages of the passbook are hereto

attached and marked as Annexes “2” and “3”;
37. A reading of the Second Trust Receipt is to the effect that

the total amount contained thereon is P 216,000.00. Also, the
total amount of the two (2) Checks as mentioned above i.e. at
P 108,000.00 each is also P 216,000.00. Mathematically, the
product of P 108,000.00 plus P 108,000.00 is P 216,000.00.
Suffice it to say therefore, that the Second Trust Receipt was
already paid and/or settled;
38. The Third Trust Receipt dated March 24, 2014 appears
suspicious. It contains wiped-out erasures. The due date is
left vacant. Thus it is worded this wise: xxx the products
thereof to be surrendered and delivered to the Trustor on or before
________, without necessity of demand;
39. This runs afoul the formal requirement prescribed by Section

5 of Presidential Decree No. 115 that the Trust Receipt must
contain an undertaking on the part of the entrustee a) to hold
in trust for the entrustor the goods, documents or
instruments therein described; b) to dispose them in the
manner provided for in the trust receipt; and, c) to turn over
the proceeds of the sale of the goods, documents or
instruments to the entruster or to return the goods,
documents or instruments in the event of their non-sale
within the period specified therein;
40. Sequitur, the date within which the entrustee must return the
goods, documents or instruments in the event of their non-
sale must perforce be indicated. And, it was not so indicated
in the Third Trust Receipt. The same trust receipt therefore
cannot warrant our prosecution for Violation of Presidential
Decree 115;
41. Be that as it may, the amount of the Third Trust Receipt is P
173,500.00. Recordedly, we have already paid unto
Complainant the following sums of money, goods or services,
viz:
a. P 50,000.00, by way of Fund Transfer to Complainant’s

Account on June 9, 2014, as evidenced by the Request
for Fund Transfer as hereto attached and marked as Annex
“4”;
b. P 211,600.00, by way of Trucking Services as evidenced

by the Breakdown of Trucking Services as hereto
c. P 118,543.20, by way of delivery of dressed chicken,

etc. as evidenced by our Sales Invoice dated August 30,
2014 as hereto attached and marked as Annex “6”;
d. P 50,000.00, by way of Check No. AAA 0318251 dated

October 25, 2014 and which was paid and debited from
our account on November 19, 2014 as evidenced by the
inclusive page of our passbook highlighted as Entry No.
16. A machine copy of Check No. AAA 0318251 is hereto
attached and marked as Annex “7”. Also, a machine copy of
the inclusive page of our passbook is hereto attached as
Annex “8”;
e. P 50,000.00, by way of Check No. AAA 0318252 dated

November 25, 2014 and which was paid and debited
from our account on November 26, 2014 as evidenced
by the inclusive page of our passbook highlighted as
Entry No. 8. A machine copy of Check No. AAA 0318251
is hereto attached and marked as Annex “9”. Also, a
machine copy of the inclusive page of our passbook is hereto
attached as Annex “10”;
f. P 83,200.00, by way of Check No. AAA 0318277 dated

November 30, 2014 and which was paid and debited
from our account on December 1, 2014 as evidenced by
the inclusive page of our passbook highlighted as
Entry No. 13. A machine copy of the inclusive page of our
passbook is hereto attached and marked as Annex “11”;
42. Mathematically, as of date, we have a compensable total
payment of P 563,343.20. As such, the Third Trust Receipt
dated March 24, 2014 in the sum of P 173,500.00 is already
deemed paid by way of compensation. Compensation is a
recognized mode of extinguishment of an obligation in our
jurisdiction;
43. More than these, we have also issued Check No. AAA
0318253 in the sum of P 50,000.00 unto Complainant
postdated to December 25, 2014, by way of additional
payment;
44. Given the foregoing compensable payments in money, goods

or services, we humbly believe that the present charges are
yet premature for filing. There is therefore a dire need for us
and Complainant to appear and personally meet before the
Honorable City Prosecutor if only to reconcile our respective
business records in a way of settling the present charges-
once and for all;
45. There is just a business misunderstanding between us

occasioned by our Sale of Fertilizers at Molave, Zamboanga
del Sur, which Complainant believe and so hold to be an
unfair intrusion unto his business territorial jurisdiction. It
just happened that we had sufficient stocks of fertilizers which we
ought to dispose at a lesser price than those of his;
46. The Honorable City Prosecutor might believe

Complainant’s story. More so, that he is charging us for a
special offense of Violation of PD 115. Even then, the
Honorable City Prosecutor has the solemn duty to conduct a
cautious and thorough examination of the Complaint and
the trust receipts before him in order that our rights to
liberty under the Bill of Rights will not be prejudiced;


prosecution.”

heaven may fall. A fervent prayer that the present charges be
dismissed, if the Honorable City Prosecutor shall see fit.

FRANCIS A. GUMANSING
Respondent
GLOWINDA A. GUMANSING
Respondent

December 2014 at Pagadian City, Philippines, Respondents
showing two (2) valid identification cards, each, depicting their
Doc No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2014
Copy furnished:
IAN MARK TIO Registry Receipt _____

Gango Highway
Ozamis City
CERTIFICATION

the Respondents and I am convinced that they executed the Joint Counter-
Affidavit freely and voluntarily.
FERDINAND MAS PABLO

Imelda Sub-Office
Imelda, Zamboanga Sibugay
----------------------------------------------
SARLITA R. LAGAS, NPS Case No. X-08-INV-16G-396

Complainants,
-versus- -for-
MARY AN GAROCHO & ESTAFA

SONIA B. EMORECHA,
Respondents,
x-------------------/
Counter-Affidavit
I, SONIA B. EMORECHA, Filipino of legal age, married and a
resident of Labrador, Buug, Zamboanga Sibugay, after having
been sworn in accordance with law, depose and say, that:
1. I am one of the Respondents in the present charge;
2. I humbly deny having violated Article 315 paragraph 1 (b) of

the Revised Penal Code nor Presidential Decree No. 115
3. A priori, I am an incumbent Municipal Councilor (SB
Member) of Buug, Zamboanga Sibugay. Expectedly, I could
not refuse guaranteeing debts of my cherished constituents.
The transaction involved in this case is a classic example of
those;
4. A reading of Section 2 of PD 115 is to the effect that the Trust

5. A trust receipt transaction is defined by Section 4 of the same

security interests over certain specified goods who releases
the same to the possession of a person referred to as the
entrustee upon the latter’s execution and delivery to the
entruster of a signed document called a “trust receipt”
wherein the entrustee binds himself to hold the goods in trust
for the entruster and to sell or otherwise dispose of the goods
with the obligation to turn over to the entruster the proceeds
thereof or to return the same goods, if not sold or disposed
of;
6. Simply put, a trust receipt transaction requires a release of

specific goods to the possession of a person called an
entrustee. A trust receipt is executed before the specific
goods are released. Meaning, a trust receipt is executed in
exchange of the specific goods. In the present transaction-
the bags of rice of rice;
7. Even then, a reading of the Trust Receipt dated November 11,

2014 is to the effect that there was actually no release of any
one bag of rice. It was only an accounting of the rice
previously taken in the amount of P 48,750.00 whereby
Respondent Mary An Garocho made a payment of P
45,000.00, leaving a balance of P 3,750.00. Thus-
50 bags of rice P 48,750.00
Less P 45,000.00
Balance P 3,750.00;
8. Though my signature appears in the Trust Receipt as Trustee,

there was actually no trust receipt transaction but a mere
acknowledgement of the balance of P 3,750.00 by Respondent
Garocho and a guarantee on my part of the balance of P
3,750.00. Otherwise put, I only guaranteed the payment by
Respondent Garocho of the balance of P 3,750.00. This is very
clear from the trust receipt itself;
9. We did not receive the bags of rice mentioned thereon. We

only undertook to pay or make good the balance of P
3,750.00. Please see Exhibit “A” for reference;
10. Also, a reading of the Trust Receipt dated December 6, 2014

is to the effect that, I was not a party thereof. My signature
does not appear thereon. Honestly, I was not a party to the
releases made on that date. Res ipsa loquitur. The trust receipt
speaks for itself;
11. The present charge is ill-motivated. Complainant just

wanted to make me pay the releases made to Respondent
Garocho- after finding the latter incapable of paying the
amounts involved. She felt that by joining me as party-
respondent will make it easier for her to collect the amounts
involved. But the law cannot allow this kind of a
happenstance- Ang utang ni Juan kay Juan!
12. In the first trust receipt, I only guaranteed the payment by

Respondent Garocho of the balance of P 3,750.00. If at all, my
liability was that of a guarantor- which is civil in nature;
13. Also, I was not a party to the second trust receipt. As such, I
am not liable in whatever capacity thereon;
14. The Honorable Prosecutor might believe Complainant’s

story. More so, that she is charging me for a special offense of
Violation of PD 115. Even then, the Honorable Prosecutor has
the solemn duty to conduct a cautious and thorough
examination of the Complaint and the trust receipts before
him in order that my rights to liberty under the Bill of Rights
will not be prejudiced;

prosecution.”

heaven may fall. A fervent prayer that I be exonerated in the
present charge.

SONIA B. EMORECHA
Respondent

August 2016 at Pagadian City, Philippines, Respondent Emorecha
showing two (2) valid identification cards, each, depicting her
Doc No. 240

Page No. 48
Book No.XXX
Series of 2016
Copy furnished:
SARLITA R. LAGAS Registry Receipt _____
Poblacion, Buug, Zamboanga Sibugay
CERTIFICATION

the Respondent and I am convinced that she executed her Counter-Affidavit
FERDINAND MAS PABLO

Commission on Human Rights
ZAMBOANGA DEL SUR SUB-OFFICE
Pagadian City
----------------------------------------------
ANNABEL B. NAON, CHR Case No. IX-2016-0329

Complainant,
-versus- -for-
MYLENE SAMSON, VIOLATION OF RA 7610

Respondent,
x-------------------/
Counter-Affidavit
I, MYLENE SAMSON, Filipino of legal age, married and a
resident of Nazareth, Buenavista, Pagadian City, after having been
sworn in accordance with law, depose and say: that:
1. I am the Respondent in the present charge;
2. I humbly deny having violated Section 10 (a) RA 7610

otherwise known as Anti-Child Abuse Law;
3. A priori, I am just a lowly wife of a fireman- whose

movement is only limited within the four corners of our
too humble a home;
4. What transpired between my husband, STEVE C.
SAMSON and ALLAN B. NAON was never intended. It
just came as a consequence of human folly- a natural
response to stimuli;
5. We were dining at or about 8:30 o’clock in the evening of

April 13, 2016. While doing so, we heard a hard object fell
into our roof. We just ignored it at first. Yet, a second hard
object fell into our roof. We then suspected that we were
being stoned;
6. My husband went out of the porch if only to check what

was going on. I prevented him but he was too fast in
getting out. I then continued eating;
7. After a little while, I heard a woman murmuring so loud

from a neighbor’s house. I then went out to check it. I
then noticed that it was our neighbor, ANNABEL B.
NAON who was shouting at my husband;
8. Annabel’s husband, Allan B. Naon suddenly appeared on

the scene murmuring and pointing his fingers against my
husband. A heated altercation then ensued- until I saw
Allan attacked my husband with his fist. A fist fight then
ensued between them;
9. I appended a copy of the Counter-Affidavit of my

husband, STEVE C. SAMSON in the criminal case which
was initiated against him by Allan, B. Naon as Annex “1”-
if only to narrate what actually transpired between them;
10. I also appended a copy of the Affidavit of Francisco D.

del Pozo- an eye-witness to the incident which was
submitted in the criminal case marked as Annex “2”- if
only to corroborate my husband’s narration;
11. As a woman- I could not help but shout if only to invite

our neighbors to separate them. Yet, I saw Antoinette B.
Naon throwing stones against my husband’s back. Thus, I
went down and pulled her away from my husband. It
was then too impractical for me to ask Antoinette of her
age before I could have pulled her away;
12. I no longer have noticed what happened to Antoinette
after I pulled her as Annabel grabbed and pulled my hair
so hard causing me to be thrown to the ground. I then
heard Annabel shouting at Antoinette: “Labaya! Labaya!
13. Allan B. Naon- in his Affidavit-Complaint in the criminal

case stated, viz: On April 13, 2016 at or around 8:30 in the
evening, while I was outside my residence, FO3 Steve
Samson approached me and angrily said “PISO RA KA,
DIES KO”. I replied to him: UNSAY PROBLEMA NIMO?
He said: NAAY NANGLABAY UG BATO NAMO. I said:
AMBOT KINSAY NAGLABAY KAY NANGAON MAN
MI. He then said: UNSAY GUSTO NIMO? I retorted:
IKAW UNSA GUSTO NIMO? A copy of his Affidavit-
Complaint is hereto attached as Annex “3”;
14. Also, Alma B. Cantillas- in her supporting affidavit,

stated as follows, viz: On April 13, 2016, at around 8:30 in
the evening, I was talking to my cousin, Allan Naon y
Bangcolot and a little later he left and went home.
Moments later, I saw FO3 Steve Samson approaching my
cousin’s house who seems to be looking for someone. I
then heard from the wife of Allan asking: BHE, NAA SI
TEBAN UNSA IYANG GILILI? I then heard Steve and
Allan arguing and shouting at each other and because of
the commotion, I waved and shouted at Allan’s wife and
tried to tell her: ANNABEL, SI ALLAN UF SI STEVE! A
copy of her Affidavit of Witness is hereto attached as Annex
“4”;
15. Now, in her Affidavit-Complaint, Annabel B. Naon stated,

viz: Paragraph 3. While Allan was still at the house of
Alma, our neighbor Steve Samson was standing near our
gate and angrily looking towards our house. I called the
attention of Steve and asked him politely: UNSA IMONG
GILANTAW DIHA STEVE? Steve in harsh voice
arrogantly replied: KAY NAGANU MAHADLOK KA
MAHILIS IMUNG BALAY KUNG LANTAWUN? I then
immediately called Allan. Steve just stayed and
positioned himself on the road in front of our gate.
16. In the ordinary parlance: Sugod pa lang bot-bot na! (Her
opening statements were already lies.) How much more,
for the following statements;
17. Otherwise put, I never intended to do wrong when I went

down and pulled Antoinette B. Naon away from my
husband. I only did so by impulse of blood and if only to
prevent her from throwing stones against my husband. If
I did so- I did it in the name of love. Love has always a
place in equity- as it knows no bound, no hurt nor tear nor
pity. It only feels and understands;
18. Also, the present charge is a classic example of forum-

shopping. Finding a better rendezvous in another forum.
As Digong said: human rights must not be used to prevent
progress and development;
19. Can there be human rights violations between lowly and

ordinary people?
20. The Honorable Office might believe Complainant’s story.

More so, that she is charging me for a special offense of
Violation of RA 7610. Even then, the Honorable Director
has the solemn duty to conduct a cautious and thorough
examination of the Complaint before him in order that
my rights to liberty under the Bill of Rights will not be
prejudiced;


prosecution.”
22. So, this joint counter-affidavit is humbly submitted with
an aphorism: JUSTICE IS THE ULTIMATE SHADOW OF
THE LAW- OFTEN IT SHINES, THOUGH SOMETIMES
IT DARKENS, but for now let justice be done, though the
heaven may fall. A fervent prayer that I be exonerated in
the present charge.

15th day of August 2016 at Pagadian City, Philippines.
MYLENE SAMSON
Respondent

Doc No. 241

Page No. 48
Book No.XXX
Series of 2016
CERTIFICATION

the Respondent and I am convinced that she executed her Counter-Affidavit
FERDINAND MAS PABLO
Copy furnished:
ANABEL B. NAON Registry Receipt _____

Purok 3, Nazareth,
Buenavista, Pagadian City
Hall of Justice
Pagadian City
----------------------------------------------

Plaintiff,
-versus- -for-

ANTHONY F. BULETIC
& RUEL D. FLORES,
Respondents,
x-------------------/
Counter-Affidavit
I, RUEL D. FLORES, Filipino of legal age, single, a graduate of
BS Nursing and a resident of Tugas, Balangasan, Pagadian City,
after having been sworn in accordance with law, depose and say:
1. I am included as party-respondent in the present charge;

2. I deny having any participation in the October 5, 2014
incident. In fact, I was more of a victim than a culprit in the
incident;
3. True, I was together with my cousins, Jennifer F. Buletic and

Anthony F. Buletic at the alleged Videoke Bar on the fateful
night. We thus, ordered a bottle of Beer Grande;
4. Without having consumed the first bottle, Jennifer left to buy

some load from a loading station nearby;
5. I was then drinking with Anthony while Jennifer was out;
6. After some time, Ruel L. Pagas approached our table and

then and there told Anthony: “Adtoa imong manghud kay
galalis ug si Joseph Baterna”;
7. Then and there I went out of the Videoke Bar and I saw my
cousin, Jennifer being attacked by Dannon C. Bautista with
his fist flows and I also saw Jonathan A. Baterna struck him
with a piece of wood which is similar in size with a baseball
bat;
8. I thus, shouted: Ayaw Buletic Na! Buletic Na!
9. I then rushed towards them if only to pacify them but I was

met with the fist blows of Dannon C. Bautista and I was hit
so hard at my lower jaw and other parts of my body;
10. Sensing that he was too big and robust compared to me and
that they were also many other men rushing towards our
direction, I decided to run and thus, he chased me;
11. While running, I heard gun shots. All out I thought, my

cousin, Jennifer could have been dead;
12. In the following morning, I learned that Jonathan was

rushed to the hospital as he was shot.
13. Surprisingly, I was included as party-respondent in the

present charge. They scripted me to be a conspirator of my
cousin, Jennifer in the shooting of Jonathan A. Baterna;
14. Conspiracy exists when two (2) or more persons come to an
agreement and decide on the commission of the felony (PP
vs Acosta, 396 SCRA 348). For sure, we were never part of any
agreement to engage in a heated discussion much more to
engage in a fight;
15. We were only at the Video Bar to drink some beer if only to
treat my cousin, Jennifer who just came to visit his father,
who just arrived from Perpetual Soccour Hospital in Cebu
City. I never expected that the night would end up that way;
16. Also, mere knowledge, acquiescence to or agreement to cooperate,

is not enough to constitute one as party to a conspiracy,
absent any active participation in the commission of the
crime, with a view to the furtherance of the common design
and purpose – conspiracy transcends companionship (People
vs. Patano, 399 SCRA 90);
17. In my case, I did not have any knowledge as to what was

happening outside of the Videoke Bar. If only Ruel L. Pagas
did not enter the Videoke Bar to tell Anthony that Jennifer
had a heated altercation with Joseph V. Baterna, I should not
have even gone outside of the Videoke Bar and I should not
have even seen anything;
18. Mere suspicion, speculation, relationship, association and

companionship do not prove conspiracy. The sea of
suspicion has no shore and the court that embarks upon it is
without rudder or compass (People vs. Patano, 399 SCRA 90);
19. My being a cousin and a companion to Jennifer will not

make me liable to his shooting of Jonathan A. Baterna if only
to protect, repel and save himself from an actual peril to his
life and limb;
20. In one case, the Supreme Court opined that mere presence
when the check was issued does not necessarily lead to an
inference of concurrence with a criminal design to issue a
bad check (People vs. Jose, 448 SCRA 116). The mere fact that
I was present at the Videoke Bar does not lead to an inference
that I have any participation in the fateful incident;
21. JUSTICE IS THE ULTIMATE SHADOW OF THE LAW-
OFTEN IT SHINES, THOUGH SOMETIMES IT DARKENS,
but for now let justice be done, though the heaven may fall;

I was more of a victim than a culprit in the October 5, 2014
incident which resulted to the death of Jonathan A. Baterna.

RUEL D. FLORES
Respondent

Doc No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2014
Copy furnished:

CERTIFICATION

FERDINAND MAS PABLO

IMELDA SUB-OFFICE
----------------------------------------------
RONIE CARGASON y AGUSTINO, NPS No. IX-08-INV-14L-00628

Complainant,
-versus- -for-
JONNA GARNEZO y PAGASIAN, ESTAFA

Respondent,
x-------------------/
Counter-Affidavit
I, JONNA PAGASIAN GARNEZO, Filipino of legal age,
married and a resident of Purok 3, Labrador, Buug, Zamboanga
and say:
1. I am the party-respondent in the present charge;
2. I admit having applied for a personal loan with

Complainant on March 10, 23 and 27, 2013 if only to finance
my too small a rice field;
3. Yet, the aggregate amount involved is only P 15,000.00 i.e. P

5,000.00 on March 10, 2013; P 5,000.00 on March 23, 2013 and
P 5,000.00 on March 27, 2013, contrary to Complainant’s
statement that the aggregate amount is P 25,000.00. The
aggregate amount is corroborated by no less than
complainant’s witness, Purita Angcon who stated in her
Affidavit that: wherein the debtor owed to Ronnie the total
amount of P 15,000.00 and promised to pay the debt after
harvest of her planted rice;
4. True, I promised to pay after harvest season. Even then, I was

not able to make a good harvest the immediately following
harvest season by reason of heavy rain and flash floods. But
I was able to give him the agreed interest by way of giving
him palay. If at all, I was already able to give him eleven half-
sacks of palay to date;
5. Because of my failure to pay him the aggregate amount of P

15,000.00, he summoned me before the Barangay Captain of
Labrador, Buug, Zamboanga Sibugay on March 14, 2014;
6. Inasmuch as my personal loan was not covered by any

promissory note, he required of me to sign an agreement
before the Barangay Captain affirming my loan at P 15,000.00
to be paid in the last week of October, 2014- a harvest
season;
7. Admittedly, I was able to pay him P 10,000.00, more
particularly on September 18, 2014- without waiting for the
last week of October 2014;
8. This is affirmed by him in his narration before the PNP

Station, viz:
“xxx on September 18, 2014, the debtor paid me the amount

of Ten Thousand Pesos (P 10,000.00) as her initial payment.
Since then, she did not pay her balance xxx.”
9. If at all, my outstanding obligation to him is only P 5,000.00

plus the proportionate interest by way of palay;
10. My only fault was not to have paid him the balance of P
5,000.00- and he is prosecuting me for that;
11. I regret not having paid him the balance as of date. The
reason is purely lack of funds to do so. But I do not intend
not to pay him;
12. But our constitution does not allow imprisonment at the

guise of non-payment of debt. I therefore claim for justice as a
common tao.

I am not a Estafador- I just failed to make good the payment
of the balance of a monetary obligation.

JONNA P. GARNEZO
Respondent

December 2014 at Pagadian City, Philippines.
Doc No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2014
Copy furnished:
RONIE A. CARGASON Registry Receipt _____

Purok 3, Talairan,
Buug, Zamboanga Sibugay
CERTIFICATION

FERDINAND MAS PABLO

IMELDA SUB-OFFICE
----------------------------------------------
MARILOU ARCEDE, NPS No. IX-08-INV-14L-00657

Complainant,
-versus- -for-
MARIVIC MONTALES Y AUGIS, ESTAFA

Respondent,
x-------------------/
Counter-Affidavit
I, MARIVIC A. MONTALES, Filipino of legal age, married and
a resident of Purok 1, Labrador, Buug, Zamboanga Sibugay, after
1. I am the party-respondent in the present charge;
2. I admit having entered into a lease contract with Complainant

Marilou Arcede covering my 3/4 –hectare parcel of
agricultural land;
3. If at all, our agreement was simply for me to give her 25

sacks of palay each and every harvest by way of rent and that
if I fail to give her the agreed 25 sacks of rice, she will take
possession of my agricultural land. This presupposes
however, that I must have a good harvest if only to make
good my delivery to her of the agreed 25 sacks of rice;
4. Honestly, I never had a good harvest after the first harvest

where I was able to make good the delivery of the agreed 25
sack of rice. Otherwise put, my subsequent harvests were
truly a failure;
5. I really endeavored to make good the delivery of the agreed

25 sacks of rice but I failed to do so for reasons which are not
within my control i.e. my failure in my farming activity;
6. I should have delivered unto her the agreed 25 sacks of rice

if only I had good harvests. Regrettably, I did not have so;
7. Given the predicament, I told Complainant Marilou Arcede

to take possession of my agricultural land and do the
cultivation herself as agreed. Even then, Complainant
demanded me instead to pay her the sum of P 50,000.00,
which I can never do as of the present point in time;
8. If my failure to make good the agreed 25 sacks of rice and

my failure to make good the sum of P 50,000.00 by reason of
financial incapacity may warrant my incarceration- I cannot
do otherwise but to suffer the consequence of my poverty;
9. Even then, our constitution does not allow imprisonment at
the guise of non-payment of debt or non-payment of rent. I
therefore claim for justice as a common tao.

I am not a Estafador- I just failed to make good an agreed
rent.

29thof January 2015 at Pagadian City, Philippines.
MARIVIC A. MONTALES
Respondent

Doc No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2015
Copy furnished:
MARILOU P. ARCEDE Registry Receipt _____

Purok 3-A, Bliss,

Hall of Justice
Pagadian City
----------------------------------------------

Plaintiff,
-versus- -for-

ANTHONY F. BULETIC
& RUEL D. FLORES,
Respondents,
x-------------------/
Affidavit of a Witness
I, RUEL L. PAGAS, Filipino of legal age, married and a
resident of Purok Buli, Pinig, Dumalinao, Zamboanga del Sur,
after having been sworn in accordance with law, depose and say:
1. I was at the public market of Barangay Pag-asa, Dumalinao,

Zamboanga del Sur at or about 7:00 pm. drinking a bottle of
Redhorse Beer at a store thereby;
2. After some time, I saw Jennifer F. Buletic passing by thus, I

greeted him by saying: “Shot Dong”. Jennifer replied: “Dili ko
Dong” – No, Dong;
3. I then asked: “Asa si Nong Jun Dong?”- Where is Nong Jun

(referringto Anthony F. Buletic). Jennifer then replied: “Naa
didto sa pikas Dong” – At the other store;
4. I went out after a little while, and this time I saw Jennifer
having a heated discussion with Joseph V. Baterna. I also
saw Jonathan A. Baterna and Dannon C. Baustista walking
towards them;
5. I was worried of the situation so, I found it expedient to go

to the Videoke Bar to find for Anthony F. Buletic if only to
inform him of the situation;
6. Godspeed, I found Anthony inside and I immediately went

near him and told him: “Adtoa ang imong manghud kay galalis
ug si Joseph Baterna”- Go to your younger brother as he is
having an oral altercation with Joseph Baterna;
7. Anthony then nodded. Afterwhich, I went out of the Videoke

Bar and this time I saw Dannon C. Bautista attacked Jennifer
with fist blow. I also saw Jonathan A. Baterna struck Jennifer
at the back portion of his head which caused Jennifer to fall
down;
8. Shocked of what I saw, I left the premises and while leaving

the premises I heard gunshots.
9. I am executing this affidavit to establish the fact that I saw
Jennifer having a heated discussion with Joseph V. Baterna. I
saw Dannon C. Baustista attacked Jennifer with fist blow. I
saw Jonathan A. Baterna struck Jennifer at the back portion
of his head which caused him to fall down.

RUEL L. PAGAS
Affiant

Doc No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2014
CERTIFICATION

the affiant and I am convinced that he executed this Affidavit freely and
voluntarily.
FERDINAND MAS PABLO

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
City Prosecution Office
Pagadian City
CLYDE R. RONDRIQUE, NPS NO. IX-05-INV-12J-00183

EDGAR B. BONGALOS, et. al NPS NO. IX-05-INV-12J-00187
Complainants, NPS NO. IX-05-INV-12J-00189
NPS NO. IX-05-INV-12J-00190
- versus -for-
MANUEL K. AMALILIO aka ESTAFA (committed in

“AMAN”, FERNANDO R. large scale)
LUNA, et. al
Respondents.
X------------------------------------------/
We, DHURWEN D. WENCESLAO, Filipino of legal age,
married and a resident of Ballesteros Village, Balangasan, Pagadian
City; MARIONE PAUL V. PANER (a.k.a. MARIONE TAN
PANER), Filipino of legal age, single and a resident of Corner
Datoc-Sabate Streets, San Jose District, Pagadian City; and CONNIE
FLOR GRACE L. PANER, Filipino of legal age, married and a
resident of Corner Datoc-Sabate Streets, San Jose District, Pagadian
City, after having been sworn in accordance with law, depose and
say, THAT:
26.We are listed among the co-conspirators in the
above criminal complaints for the crime of Estafa-
committed in a large scale;
27.We jointly and severally deny conspiring and

confederating with the incorporators of AMAN
FUTURES GROUP PHILIPPINES, INC., namely:
Manuel K. Amalilio, Fernando R. Luna, Lelian Lim
Gan, Eduard L. Lim, Wilanie L. Fuentes, Naezelle
M. Rodriguez, Lurix B. Lopez and Isagani S. Laluna
in committing the turned-out investment fraud at
Kawit, Pagadian City;
28.The phrase “innocent employees or workers in good

faith” squarely applies to us without fear or favor;
29.Our parents were close family friends of Spouses

30.Jobless for quite some time, we applied and/or

volunteered for possible casual employment with
Spouses Luna;
31.As close acquaintances and family friends of the

spouses, they accommodated us for casual
employment;
32.There was also no fixed salary or wage for the
engagement, except for a promise that we be
given bi-monthly allowances ranging from Two

Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) to Five Thousand Pesos
(P5,000.00);
33.Aside from this, there was also a promise for a

possible Christmas Vacation at Boracay or Hongkong
come December, 2012;
34.There was likewise a built-in expectation to at least

own a car at a future time;
35. I, DHURWEN D. WENCESLAO, was engaged on

March 10, 2012; I, MARIONE PAUL V. PANER,
was engaged on June 27, 2012; and I, CONNIE
GRACE FLOR L. PANER, was engaged on June 27,
2012;
36. We were not given fixed or specific assignments.

We simply worked upon direct instructions or
orders from Spouses Luna;
37. Nowhere in our employment period that we

received instructions or orders directly from
Manuel K. Amalilio, Lelian Lim Gan, Eduard L.
Lim, Wilanie L. Fuentes, Naezelle M. Rodriguez,
Lurix B. Lopez and Isagani S. Laluna;
38. We also have not met them in any conference or

meeting- except for Manuel K. Amalilio whom we
saw for at least two (2) times on the occasion of his
visits to Kawit;
39. Our workload included but not was not limited to

and recording of investments; issuance of receipts
on investments, facilitating cash out of investments;
and doing any other personal and official errands
for Spouses Luna;

altruistic feeling that we directly work with Spouses
Luna- who during the investment trading days
were truly looked- up and seen with respect and
honor- they were no less than majestic, so to speak;

friends, neighbors and relatives, during cash-outs;

cashes-out, we received impressive requerdos most
of which were food stuffs, communication gadgets and
personal paraphernalia;
43. Ab initio- we never had any knowledge or

scam behind the investment trading in Kawit. All out
we believed, that we were doing a legitimate and
truly pro-poor and pro-marginalized business
enterprise;

45. Simply put, we believed on the legitimacy and

propriety of the investment trading where we were
utilized no less than as an axe that cuts; a knife that
wounds and a hammer that nails- no more no less.
If only we knew, if only we have known early on that
we were after all working for the wicked and the
uneven hands, we should not have in the first place,
applied or volunteered for casual employment-
despite we truly needed it;
46. Earnestly, we worked from 7:00 o’clock in the

afternoon (or even beyond)- with all good faith and
fidelity;
47. We should not therefore be considered as criminals

or scoundrels- we too were victims of the scam.
Needless to state, our parents too- failed to get back
their investments- these include our personal
investments- which we nobly earned by sweat and
toil;

criminal;

reum nesi mensit rea – the act of a man is not criminal
unless his intentions were so criminal;
50. Nevertheless, we are charged as co-conspirators of

the incorporators of AMAN FUTURES GROUP
PHILLIPINES, INC. which necessarily implies that-
when conspiracy is established- their act would be
our act- The act of one is the act of all;
51. The fact remains, the incorporators could have a
designed and planed deception in mind from
inception but never have we known of this
designed and planned deception;
52. Simply put, though the investment trading came out

to be fraudulent, we never had known and never
have we noticed of the badges of fraud. Though the
investment trading was after all deceitful- we never
had in mind any intention to deceive anyone
investor- much more, our own friends, neighbors
and relatives – including our very own selves. Deceit is
indispensable in ESTAFA. And it must be in the
present charges;

348). For sure, we were never part of any agreement
to defraud- much more of a decision to put into
effect such fraud;
37.Two (2) or more persons come to an agreement;
38.The agreement concerned the commission of a felony;

and-
39.The execution of felony was decided upon;

wrong (PP vs. Jesus , 448 SCRA 116). For sure, we
were never in the position of discerning what lies
behind the smiling face and loving touches of
Manuel K. Amalilio- we simply believed on him
beyond the whisper of any doubt. As such, we
simply have been negligent all thru out the AMAN
days- our eyes were blinded; our minds were locked up
and our hands were handcuffed. It was truly a scam;

while conspiracy- involves a meeting of the minds
to commit a crime (Crisostomo vs Sandiganbayan, 456
SCRA 45). Our minds had never met to perpetuate
the resultant crime of syndicated ESTAFA;



and forthwith to pursue it actually (People vs. Felipe,
418 SCRA 146). We never had agreed with Spouses
Luna to defraud anyone- we simply had worked in
good faith and had made good what we were
instructed or ordered to do;
60. Except for the general presumption that as work-

horses of Spouses Luna- we were already part of the
scam, there appears to be no other piece of proof
where it could be deduced that we had knowledge
or notice of the scam;

one who religiously works with AMAN is not
necessarily a scammer or swindler;
62. Imputed or constructive notice cannot be relied on

to support a charge of direct, personal conspiracy to
the fraud (Preferred Home Specialties, Inc. vs. CA, 478
SCRA 387);

Jose, 448 SCRA 116). The mere fact that we were at
Kawit almost all through- out the AMAN days does
not lead to an inference that we concurred with any
criminal intent which AMAN had in mind.
Otherwise put, we are no co-conspirators but
simply, innocent employees or workers in good faith;
64. If in the end, we be deemed co-conspirators by the

Office of the Prosecutor, then we be prosecuted and
incarcerated for sure- while AMALILIO and the
rests of the incorporators of AMAN GROUP
PHILIPPINES, INC. will be free;

66. We are executing this counter-affidavit to establish

the fact that we did not from inception, intend to
commit so grave a wrong when we applied and
volunteered our employment to Spouses
gainsaid therefore that we were parties to the pre-

this 27th day of November, 2012 at Manila, Philippines.
DHURWEN D. WENCESLAO MARIONE PAUL V. PANER

CONNIE GRACE FLOR L. PANER

Respondent
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 27th day of

November, 2012 at Manila, Philippines.
Doc No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2012

Bulwagan ng Katarungan
Arch. Hayes St. Cagayan de Oro City
-------------------------------------------------------------
P/INSP ALLAN ENERIA et. al., NPS NO. X-06-INV-14D-1872

Complainants;
-versus- -for-
JO EDWARD F. YECYEC and VIOLATION OF RA 4136

JAMES L. YECYEC (Land Transportation and
Respondents; Traffic Code)
x------------------------------------/
PSINSP GLENN FAUSTINO, NPS NO. X-06-INV-14D-1979

Complainant; to 1983
-versus- -for-
JO EDWARD F. YECYEC and SEC 12 RA 6539/CARNAPPING

JAMES L. YECYEC PD 1612/BP 43/ART. 172 RPC
Respondents;
x------------------------------------/
PSINSP GLENN FAUSTINO, NPS NO. X-06-INV-14D-1979

Complainant; to 1983
-versus- -for-
JO EDWARD F. YECYEC and SEC 12 RA 6539/CARNAPPING

JAMES L. YECYEC PD 1612/BP 43/ART. 172 RPC
Respondents;
x------------------------------------/
We, Atty. JO EDWARD F. YECYEC, Filipino of legal age,
single, and a resident of Bañadero, Ozamiz City and JAMES L.
YECYEC, Filipino of legal age, married and a resident of Santa
Maria, Pagadian City, after having been sworn in accordance with
law, depose and say, THAT:
1. We are charged for at least six (6) offenses,

namely:
a) Violation of RA 4136 re: no current sticker on
front plate and windshield;
b) Violation of Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972;
c) Violation of PD 1612 re: Anti-Fencing Law;
d) Violation of Section 12 of RA 6539 re:

tampered engine and chassis numbers;
e) Violation of BP 23 re: illegal transfer of plate;

and-
f) Violation of Article 172 of the Revised Penal

Code re: falsification by private individuals
and use of falsified documents;
2. We jointly and severally deny the charges. The

subject motor vehicle was not carnapped by us but
was purchased by us in good faith and for value;
3. The history of how we owned and possessed the

subject motor vehicle is narrated as follows, viz:
a. I, JAMES L. YECYEC, while scouting for

surplus heavy equipment sometime in
December of 2006 at the stock yard of Cebu
City, as then Municipal Mayor of Pitogo,
Zamboanga del Sur, incidentally met some
sales agents of businessmen who were
engaged in direct-importation of TOYOTA
Special Utility Vehicles (SUV);
b. Accordingly, their principals were engaged in

direct-importation and sale of SUVs at a much
cheaper price compared to those displayed in-
house at Toyota Centers;
c. I did not hesitate to give my mobile number

to these sales agents as I was desirous of
buying one come June of 2007;
d. As early as January 2007, one of these sales
agents called me up thru my mobile number.
He thus informed me that several units of
Toyota-Fortuner were available for sale;
e. I thus inquired if he could send me some

pictures as well as brochures reflecting the
mechanics in buying one;
f. The sales agent volunteered to visit me in my

home place, Pitogo, Zamboanga del Sur. And
so we did meet. Honestly, I forgot his first
name but his family seemed Mugot;
g. He showed me the pictures of at least six (6)

units of cellophane-covered SUV’s. This
included the subject motor vehicle, a metallic-
brown colored unit which attracted me and
my wife much;
h. We then agreed on the probable price and we

agreed to meet at Cagayan de Oro City, where
he committed to facilitate my application for a
car loan with RCBC;
i. True, the price was at least P 200,000.00 lower

than a unit sold in-house;
j. There was also an agreement that we would

have the commitment of the RCBC first on the
would-be approval of my car-loan before the
sale would be finalized;
k. Aside from the Certificate of Registration (CR)

and the Official Receipt (OR), the sales agent
provided me with the following documents,
viz:
a. The BILL OF LADING (Annex 1) by and

between the shipper- Soi Santisuk of
Singapore and the consignee, Joyce Tan of
Gemsville, Cebu City. The description of
the subject motor vehicle was reflected
thereon. The Engine Number is 1KD-
9774678 and the Chassis Number is
MROFZ59G801698538. To my mind, the
subject motor vehicle was truly an
imported item;
b. The GATE PASS (Annex 2) issued by the

Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA)
to the consignee, Joyce Tan. The
description of the subject motor vehicle is
reflected thereon. The Engine Number is
1KD-9774678 and the Chassis Number is
MROFZ59G801698538. Also, the amount of
custom duties, taxes and other charges is
reflected thereon. To my mind, the subject
motor vehicle was indeed a clean imported
item;
c. The TRANSMITTAL LETTER (Annex 3)

issued by the Deputy Collector for
Assessment of the Bureau of Customs,
District XIII, Subic addressed to the Chief
of the Warrant & Motor Vehicles Office,
Bureau of Customs, Manila. The consignee
is Joyce Tan. The description of the subject
motor vehicle is reflected thereon. The
Engine Number is 1KD-9774678 and the
Chassis Number is MROFZ59G801698538.
Also, the amount of custom duties, taxes
and other charges is reflected thereon. To
my mind, the subject motor vehicle was
indeed a clean imported item;
d. The CERTIFICATE OF PAYMENT (Annex

4) issued by the Bureau of Customs. The
payor is Joyce Tan. The description of the
subject motor vehicle is reflected thereon.
The Engine Number is 1KD-9774678 and
the Chassis Number is
MROFZ59G801698538. Also, the amount of
custom duties, taxes and other charges is
reflected thereon. To my mind, the subject
motor vehicle was indeed a clean imported
item;
e. The OFFICIAL RECEIPT numbering
42188589 (Annex 5) issued by the Bureau of
Customs, Subic. The payor is Joyce Tan.
The amount paid is also reflected thereon.
To my mind, the subject motor vehicle was
indeed a clean imported item;
f. The SPECIAL BANK RECEIPT (SBR)

(Annex 6) numbering 62447984 issued by
the Philippine National Police, Camp
Crame. The applicant-payor is Joyce Tan.
The amount paid is also reflected thereon.
To my mind, the subject motor vehicle was
cleared by the PNP National Command. As
such, was not a hot item;
g. The PNP MOTOR VEHICLE CLEARANCE

CERTIFICATE (Annex 7) issued by the
TMG National Headquarters. The
registered owner is reflected thereon as
Joyce Tan. Also, the description of the
subject motor vehicle is reflected thereon.
MROFZ59G801698538. The plate number
is also reflected to as YEH 550. To my
mind, the subject motor vehicle was
cleared by the TMG National
Headquarters. As such, was not a hot item;
h. The MACRO-ETCHING CERTIFICATE

issued by PNP Crime Laboratory, Camp
Crame (Annex 8). The owner is reflected
thereon as Joyce Tan. Also, the description
of the subject motor vehicle is reflected to
thereon.

MROFZ59G801698538. The plate number
is also reflected thereon as YEH 550. The
conclusion was “the engine and chassis
numbers of the subject motor vehicle are
found NOT TAMPERED”;
What else, do I need to believe that the

subject motor vehicle is a clean imported
item and is not a hot car?
l. What else do I need then to believe and so

hold that what I was buying was a clean
imported item?
m. I then bought the subject motor vehicle in

good faith and for value on March 19, 2007 at
Cagayan de Oro City. It was a dream- coming
true for me and my family to own an SUV. All
out I believe, that the price I paid out of my
hard-earned money was truly worth it- and
that the subject motor vehicle would be ours
and ours alone all thru the years;
n. But then fate belied my belief. The subject

motor vehicle when driven by my son, co-
respondent Atty. JO EDWARD F. YECYEC-
who had just passed the Bar Examinations
and who if at all was driving it with full good
faith and honestly at Cagayan de Oro if only
to find for a humble space for a law office
thereat to commence his first step to court
litigation caused both of us the trauma
occasioned by the present charges;
o. Repeatedly, I bought the motor vehicle in good

faith and for value. A Deed of Sale (Annex 9)
was executed in replica of the purchase. The
original Certificate of Registration i.e. CR No.
4810674-1 (Annex 10) and OR No. 434216016
(Annex 11) were attached to the Deed of Sale
What else do I need? I have to ask again and
again;
40.Well-settled, the right of an innocent purchaser for

value must be respected and protected, even if the
seller obtained his title by fraud. The remedy of the
person prejudiced is to bring an action for damages
against those who caused or employed the fraud
(Francisco vs. Veloso, G.R. No. 102737, August 21,
1996, 75 SCAD 303);
41.In Spouses Romulo and Sally Eduarte vs. Court of

Appeals, G.R. No. 105944, February 9, 1996, 68
SCAD 179, it was said that the rights of an innocent
purchaser and for value must be respected and
protected notwithstanding the fraud employed by
the seller in securing his title (Co vs. CA, 196 SCRA
705).
42.One dealing with a registered parcel of land

(registered motor vehicle) need not go beyond the
certificate of title (Certificate of Registration) as he is
charged with notice only of burdens which are
noted on the face of the certificate of title (Certificate
of Registration) (Union Bank vs. Ong, 491 SCRA 581);
43.I, JAMES L. YECYEC carefully examined the rights

and prerogatives of the registered owner, Joyce Tan
to dispose of the subject motor vehicle;
44.I was shown and in fact was given copies of the

documents enumerated above. All these documents
were public ones. They thus enjoy the presumption
of regularity as to genuineness and due execution;
45.I was likewise shown proofs of importation. Much

more, proofs of payment of the prescribed customs
duties, taxes and other charges on imported items;
46.More than these, no less the RCBC (Annex 12), a

banking institution with men of might to appraise
and/or inspect motor vehicles- applied for financing,
found Joyce Tan’s documents regular, valid and
subsisting;
47.Who is a purchaser in good faith? A purchaser in

good faith is one who buys the property of another
without notice that some other person has a right to
or interest in such property and pays a full and fair
price for the same at the time of such purchase or
before he has notice of the claim or interest of some
other person in the property (Co vs. CA, 196 SCRA
705).
48. If the property sold is registered land (motor vehicle

analogously), the purchaser in good faith has a right
to rely on the certificate of title and is under no duty
to go beyond it to look for flaw (Spouses Nuguid vs.
CA, G.R. No. 77423, March 13, 1989);
49. To sum up, we did not violate RA 4136 as the

stickers which were required to be posted at the
front plate and at the windshield were not available
or provided for by the Land Transportation Office
(LTO) upon renewal of registration. This is a
national phenomenon that LTO fell short of these
stickers. Simply put, it was not our fault then if
stickers which were not there in the first place were
not posted;
50. We did not tamper the engine and the chassis

numbers as the engine and chassis numbers of the
subject motor vehicle were continuously identical
from the time it was imported from Singapore up to
the time that it was finally registered by the Land
Transportation Office of Toledo City;
51. If the engine and chassis numbers were indeed

tampered, they were not tampered by us but by its
registered owner, Joyce Tan, from whom I bought
the subject motor vehicle with Engine No. 1KD-
9774678 and Chassis No. MROFZ59G801698538 in
good faith and for value;
52. We did not change or transfer its plate. Its plate

number, YEH 550 was already reflected in the PNP
Motor Vehicle Clearance Certificate (Annex 7) and
Macro-etching Certificate (Annex 8), which were
issued prior to our purchase of the subject motor
vehicle. As the Deed of Sale speaks, THE SALE IS
ON AS IS WHERE IS BASIS;
53. Also, we did not violate the Anti-Fencing Law as
we did not buy a stolen or a carnapped motor vehicle
but a clean and cleared imported one. Fencing is the
act of buying, with intent to gain, an article, item,
object or anything of value which he knows, or
should be known to have been derived from the
proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft;
54. From the narrations above, it is crystal clear that we

did not know of any flaw in the title or right of
Joyce Tan over the subject motor vehicle prior or
simultaneous to our purchase of the same. The
subject motor vehicle, a cellophane-sealed item
when we bought it, could not be known by us to be
a robbed or stolen item;
55. We cannot also be charged of Violation of Article

172 of the Revised Penal Code as all the documents,
which are suspected to be fake or falsified were
already in place when we bought the subject motor
vehicle. The falsification, if there be any was done
before or prior to our purchase of the motor vehicle
covered by the fake or falsified documents;
56. We cannot also be charged of using falsified

documents as the presumption that the user is the
falsifier cannot be applied against us, as the falsifier,
if there was any was the registered owner, Joyce
Tan- not us. Also, in our hands, these documents
enjoy the presumption of regularity as to
genuineness and due execution;
57. Observably, the restored chassis number is

misplaced as the macro-etching result was that the
Chassis Number MROFZ59G801698538 was
tampered, as follows, viz:
The 4th digit F is supposedly Y;
The 9th digit 8 is supposedly 1;

58. Resultantly, the Chassis Number as restored by the

PNP Crime Laboratory, after the conduct of the
macro-etching is MROYZ59G100008969. This is
erroneous inasmuch as the 13th digit which is 9 was
found not tampered. Thus, the restored Chassis
Number should be MROYZ59G100098969;
59. Inasmuch as the Chassis Number of the carnapped

motor vehicle of RENE D. ROSELL, which is subject
of a nationwide alarm is MROYZ59G100008969,
suffice it to say, that the subject motor vehicle which
we purchased is not that which is owned by Rene
D. Rossel as there exists a difference in the 13th digit
appearing as 9 in the Chassis Number of the motor
vehicle which we purchased and the 13th digit
appearing as 0 in the Chassis Number of the
carnapped motor vehicle of Rene D. Rossell;
60. The subject motor vehicle does not therefore belong

to Rene D. Rossell. This fact will exonerate us from
the present charges- even during the preliminary
investigation.

this 19th day of June 2014 at Pagadian City, Philippines.
Atty. JO EDWARD F. YECYEC JAMES L. YECYEC

June 2014 at Pagadian City, Philippines.
Doc No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2014
Hall of Justice
Pagadian City
----------------------------------------------
DANILO FELISILDA, et. al. NPS No. IX-09-INV-13J-000518

Plaintiffs,
-versus- -for-
NOEL MOJELLO, et. al. ATTEMPTED MURDER, etc.

Respondents.
x-------------------/
Counter-Affidavit
WE, NOEL MOJELLO, RENATO ARNAIZ and JULIE
SALVADOR, all Filipinos of legal age, married, and residents of
Liguac, Pitogo, Zamboanga del Sur, after having been sworn in
accordance with law, depose and say:
10.That we are among the eleven (11) Respondents in the

above-complaint;
11.That we vehemently deny having committed any or all the

acts alleged in the above-complaint;
12.That the truth is, we are more of a victim than a culprit in the
reported shooting incident on August 23, 2013 at Sitio Salva,
Purok 2, Liguac, Pitogo, Zamboanga del Sur;
13.That we were on on-foot patrol at or about 5:30 in the
afternoon of August 23, 2013, if only to verify reports that
there were several civilians who were openly seen carrying
firearms;
14.That we passed by the store of Barangay Kagawad Allan

Balaod at or about 6:00 o’clock in the evening were we saw
KENNETH BALDICANTOS, EKING ENDIG, ALMAR
MIÑOZA, GARFIELD IDIANG AND SILVERIO IDIANG
having a drinking spree;
15.That the group invited us for a drink. We then joined the

group with their fan;
16. That the group told us that Complainant Jubert L. Felisilda

was seen by them passing “back and forth” by the store and
which even constrained Aguilardo Miñoza, Loloy
Manguilimotan and Anito Romo to leave ahead murmuring:
“nangita ni ug problema ay” meaning, this guy is looking for a
problem;
17.That at or about 6:30 o’clock in the evening, we noticed

Carlito Logronio passing by the store. I (Noel Mojello) then
invited him to drop by for some wine;
18. That after taking some wine, Carlito Logronio intimated

that he would be leaving ahead;
19. That nevertheless, Carlito Logronio was not able to leave as

he chatted with Respondent Kenneth Baldicantos at the road
side;
20. That after which, we noticed the presence of Complainant

Jubert L. Felisilda on board a single motorcycle. He stopped
at the road side. I (Noel Mojello) then invited him for a shot of
wine which he refused;
21. That then and there, I (Noel Mojello), in my official capacity

as Punong Barangay approached Complainant Jubert L.
Felisilda and asked: “JUBERT NGANONG MAGDALA
DALA MAN KA UG ARMAS?” meaning, Jubert why do you
keep on carrying firearm;
22. That Complainant Jubert L. Felisilda replied: “WALA MAN

KOY ARMAS KAP” meaning, I do not have a fire arm
Chairman;
23. That after which, I (Noel Mojello) saw VICTOR BALINGIT

and ALLAN GARBAN entered the fence of the house of
Complainant Danilo R. Felisilda, the father of Complainant
Jubert L. Felisilda;
24. That Victor Balingit and Allan Garban were known to me as

armed escorts of Mayor Richard M. Garban- notorious hit
men, as such. They were carrying long firearms;
25. That then and there I (Noel Mojello) heard a gunshot coming
from the house of Complainant Danilo R. Felisilda. I then ran
to the back of the store of Kagawad Allan Balaod;
26. That we, Renato Arnaiz and Julie Salvador also ran for our
lives together with Eking Endig, Almar Miñoza, Garfield
Idiang and Silverio Idiang;
27.That after a little while, I (Noel Mojello) heard a voice of a

person growling in pain and then and there, I remembered
that Kenneth Baldicantos and Carlito Logronio were chatting
at the road side;
28. That then and there I (Noel Mojello) went back to the road
side, discretely. I was then stunned when I saw Kenneth
Baldicantos lying at the middle of the road wounded;
29. That I (Noel Mojello) assisted Kenneth Baldicantos to stand

but then I heard several gun shots and I saw Complainant
Danilo R. Felisilda, Complainant Jubert L. Felisilda, Victor
Balingit and Allan Garban shooting at us with their long fire
arms. Godspeed, we were not hit as we were able to hide
ourselves at the coconut trees nearby. I cannot even imagine
how I made it as I was half-carrying Kenneth Baldicantos in
walking. It was God’s intervention, so to speak;
30. That then and there I heard several gunshots again;
31. That as soon as the smoke was already cleared and that no
gunshot was already heard- I called for the assistance of
some neighbors to take Respondent Kenneth Baldicantos to
the hospital. And which they did;
32. That attached to this Counter-affidavit is the Complaint-

Affidavit of Respondent Kenneth Baldicantos against Danilo
Felisilda, Jubert Felisilda, Victor Balingit and Allan Garban
for Frustrated Murder marked as Annex “1” and my
Affidavit-Complaint against them for Attempted Murder,
33. Also attached, is a copy of the Medical Certificate issued by

Dr. Rey Anthony L. Acedillo of the RAMIRO HOSPITAL,
Ozamis City marked as Annex “3”as proof that Respondent
Kenneth Baldicantos was a victim of the August 23, 2013
shooting incident;
34. That we are executing this Joint Counter-Affidavit to

establish the fact that we are not the culprits but the victims
in the August 23, 2013 shooting incident at Sitio Salva, Purok
2, Liguac, Pitogo, Zamboanga del Sur and that if at all, the
above-complaint was only filed as a cover-up.

this __ day of January 2014 at Pagadian City, Philippines.
NOEL MOJELLO RENATO ARNAIZ

JULIE SALVADOR
Respondent

Copy furnished:
Danilo R. Felisilda Registry Receipt _____
Sitio Salva, Purok 2
Liguac, Pitogo, Zamboanga del Sur

Hall of Justice
Pagadian City
----------------------------------------------
DANILO FELISILDA, et. al. NPS No. IX-09-INV-13J-000518

Plaintiffs,
-versus- -for-
NOEL MOJELLO, et. al. ATTEMPTED MURDER, etc.

Respondents.
x-------------------/
Counter-Affidavit
WE, KENNETH BALDICANTOS, EKING ENDIG, GARFIELD
IDIANG, SILVERIO IDIANG AND ALMARK MIÑOZA, all
Filipinos of legal age, married, and residents of Liguac, Pitogo,
1. That we are among the eleven (11) Respondents in the

above-complaint;
2. That we vehemently deny having committed any or all the

acts alleged in the above-complaint;
3. That the truth is, we are more of a victim than a culprit in the
reported shooting incident on August 23, 2013 at Sitio Salva,
Purok 2, Liguac, Pitogo, Zamboanga del Sur;
4. That we were having a drinking spree at the store of

Kagawad Allan Balaod on August 23, 2013 at or about 5:30
o’clock in the afternoon together with Respondents LOLOY
MANGUILIMOTAN, AGUILARDO MIÑOZA and ANITO
ROMO;
5. That while thereat, we noticed Complainant Jubert L.

Felicilda in a single motorcycle passing “back and forth” by
the store with a hand gun on his waist;
6. That we sensed that Complainant Jubert L. Felicilda was

igniting us into trouble, murag gapabikil in the Cebuano
dialect;
7. That given the predicament, Respondents LOLOY

MANGUILIMOTAN, AGUILARDO MIÑOZA and ANITO
ROMO left the premises of the store murmuring “nangita ni
ug problema ay” meaning, this guy is looking for a problem;
8. That we went on drinking- ignoring the attitude of

Complainant Jubert L. Felicilda;
9. That at or about 6:00 o’clock in the afternoon of the same

day, Barangay Chairman NOEL MOJELLO, RENATO
ARNAIZ and JULIE SALVADOR passed by the store. They
were on on-foot patrol that evening;
10. That as they passed by, we invited them for a drink. They
then passed by the store and joined us in the drinking spree.
We were even gladdened as we found a Samaritan who
would be paying our bill;
11. That we then told Barangay Chairman Mojello of the

attitude of Complainant Jubert L. Felicilda and the fact that
he had a hand gun on his waist;
12.That at or about 6:30 o’clock in the evening, Carlito Logronio

passed by the store. He was invited by Barangay Chairman
Mojello to take some wine;
13. That after taking some wine, Carlito Logronio intimated
that he would be going home ahead of us;
14. That nevertheless, Carlito Logronio was not able to leave

home as he chatted with me (KENNETH BALDICANTOS)
at the road side;
15. That after which, we noticed the presence of Complainant

Jubert L. Felicilda on board a single motorcycle. He stopped
at the road side. Barangay Chairman Mojello then invited
him for a shot of wine but the latter refused;
16. That then and there, Barangay Chairman Mojello

approached Complainant Jubert L. Felicilda and asked:
“JUBERT NGANONG MAGDALA DALA MAN KA UG
ARMAS?” meaning, Jubert why do you keep carrying
firearm;
17. That Complainant Jubert L. Felicilda replied: “WALA MAN

KOY ARMAS KAP” meaning, I do not have a fire arm
Chairman;
18. That after which, we saw VICTOR BALINGIT and ALLAN

GARBAN entered the fence of the house of complainant
Danilo R. Felisilda;
19. That Victor Balingit and Allan Garban were known to us as

armed escorts of Mayor Richard M. Garban- notorious hit
men as such. They were then carrying long firearms;
20. That then and there, we heard a gunshot coming from the
house of Complainant Danilo R. Felisilda. We then ran to
different directions if only to save our lives;
21. That while running, we heard several gunshots in

succession;
22. That after the shooting incident, we learned that Kenneth

Balicantos was wounded and was brought to the hospital;
23. That I (Kenneth Baldicantos) was rushed to the RAMIRO
HOSPITAL in Ozamis City for medical attendance. A copy of
the Medical Certificate issued by the Hospital is hereto attached as
Annex “3”;
24. That also, I (Kenneth Baldicantos) prosecuted Complainant

Danilo R. Felisilda, Jubert L. Felisilda, Victor Balingit and
Allan Garban for Frustrated Murder. A copy of my Complaint-
Affidavit is hereto attached as Annex “1”;
25. That the above-complaint came as a surprise for us;
26. That we are executing this Joint Counter-affidavit to

establish the fact that we are totally innocent of the present
charge. Our only fault was to have fan by a drinking spree at
the store of Kagawad Allan Balaod where the shooting
incident took place;

this __ day of January 2014 at Pagadian City, Philippines.
KENNETH BALDICANTOS EKING ENDIG

ALMAR MIÑOZA GARFIELD IDIANG

SILVERIO IDIANG
Respondent

Copy furnished:
Danilo R. Felisilda Registry Receipt _____
Sitio Salva, Purok 2

Commission on Elections
Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao
OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL ELECTION DIRECTOR
Marawi City
----------------------------------------------
ALMER L. GANDAMASIR,
Complainant,
-versus-
ANALIA M. SARIP, et. al.

Respondents.
x-------------------/
Counter-Affidavit
I, ANALIA M. SARIP, Filipino of legal age, married, and a
accordance with law, depose and say: that:
1. I am one of the Respondents in the above-entitled complaint;
2. To sum up, I am charged for allegedly violating Section 261-

Prohibited Acts, paragraph (bb), Sub-paragraph (3) that: any
person who, being ineligible for appointment as a member of any
board of election inspectors or board of canvassers, accepts an
appointment to said body, assumes office, and actually serves as a
member thereof, or any public officer or any person acting in his
behalf who appoints such ineligible person knowing him to be
ineligible;
3. Simply put, I am charged in my official capacity as District

In-Charge of DepED, South Pualas District, Pualas, Lanao del
Sur, where Precinct No. 32-A of Barangay Tuka, Pualas,
Lanao del Sur is part of;
4. Also, I am blamed for the alleged absence of watchers during

the canvass of votes at the Municipal Hall of Pualas, Lanao
del Sur;
5. I vehemently deny having appointed Respondent SORAIDA

P. DUCOL as a member of the Board of Election Inspectors
(BEI) for Precinct No. 32-A on the occasion of the October 28,
2013 Barangay Elections;
6. Section 40 of the Omnibus Election Code is to the effect that:

the Commission shall constitute not later than ten (10) days
before the election a Board of Election Tellers in every
Barangay polling place, to be composed of a public
elementary school teacher as Chairman, and two members
who are registered voters of the polling place concerned, but
who are not incumbent barangay officials nor related to any
candidate for any position in that barangay within the fourth civil
degree of affinity or consanguinity;
7. Also, Section 10 of RA No. 6679 is to the effect that: the

Commission shall constitute, not later than ten (10) days
before the election, a board of election tellers in every
barangay polling place, to be composed of three (3) public
school teachers, one of whom shall be the chairman, provided
they are not incumbent barangay officials or related within the
fourth civil degree of affinity or consanguinity to any candidate for
any position in that barangay;
8. From the foregoing provisions of law, it is evident that I do

not have the power to appoint any one member of the Board
of Election Inspectors (BEI). The power of appointment is
exclusively vested upon the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC);
9. In my official capacity as District in-Charge, my only

prerogative is to submit names of public school teachers
who may be appointed by the Commission. Otherwise put,
my prerogative is simply recommendatory not mandatory
upon the Commission;
10. Also, my recommendation is subject to the approval of the

Commission. And no less the appointment of the members
of the BEI by the Commission is also subject to the objection
or opposition by any interested registered voter or candidate
to that effect;
11. In the present case, I did not recommend the name of

Respondent SORAIDA P. DUCOL to compose the BEI.
Recordedly, I recommended three names for Precinct No. 32-
A, Barangay Tuka, Pualas, Lanao del Sur, namely: 1)
______________, 2) _____________ and 3)_______________.
Apparently, the name SORAIDA P. DUCOL does not appear
in my list. A copy of the List of Recommendees is hereto attached
and marked as Annex “1”;
12. From my personal investigation on the happenstance, I

learn that two (2) of the appointed members of the BEI,
namely: 1) __________________ and 2) _____________ did
not appear or report at Precinct No. 32-A. Thus, the only
remaining member in the person of ________________,
appointed two (2) other members to complete the
composition of the BEI. This may be the reason why
Respondent SORAIDA P. DUCOL was appointed as member
of the BEI;
13. Suffice it to say therefore, that I do have any hand on the

appointment of Respondent SORAIDA P. DUCOL as member
of the BEI. Thus, I have to be exonerated of the present
charge;
14. Also, in my official capacity as District in-Charge, I do not

have a hand or any prerogative to the appointment much
more to the presence or absence of watchers in any one
precinct. The presence or absence of watchers in each and
every precinct or place of canvass is the exclusive concern of
the candidates themselves;
15. The expulsion of any watcher from any precinct or place of

canvass is no longer mine to look into but for the concerned
candidates or the watchers themselves to insist or fight for
their rights to be present and to observe the proceedings;
16. More than these, no one has the unbridled license to allege
that the fact that the ROHAIFA DUCOL obtained the
highest number of votes for Kagawad for Barangay Tuka is
already an imprimatur that the elections at Precinct No. 32-A,
Barangay Tuka, Pualas, Lanao del Sur is already attended by
irregularities, intimidation, fraud or violence;
17. These facts must be proved a priori, before any election case
may be filed against any public officer or any member of the
BEI;
18. Complainant’s complaint therefore is only based upon his

personal speculations or conjectures which do not deserve
the cognizance of the Honorable Commission. Inasmuch as
accusation is not synonymous with guilt, I humbly pray of
the Honorable Commission that I be exonerated from this
present Complaint. I vouch that I have always been true to
the aphorism that a public office is a public trust;

__ day of May 2014 at Marawi City, Philippines.
ANALIA M. SARIP
Respondent

May 2014 at Marawi City, Philippines.
Copy furnished:
ALMER L. GANDAMASIR Registry Receipt _____
Tuka, Pualas, Lanao del Sur

Manila
ROGELIO M. AÑONUEVO, NPS Docket No. XVI-INV-13E-00170

Complainant,
- versus -for-
SAMUEL S. CO, et. al.; SYNDICATED ESTAFA

Respondents.
X------------------------------------------/
NENA CALAYCA, NPS Docket No. XVI-INV-13E-00169

Complainant,
- versus -for-

Respondents.
X------------------------------------------/
JOINT MOTION TO FURNISH

RESPONDENT WITH A COPIES
OF COMPLAINANTS’ COMPLAINT-
AFFIDAVITS AND THEIR
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
Respondent DHURWEN (DARWIN) D. WENCESLAO, thru

counsel, to the Honorable Special Panel of Prosecutors, respectfully
states, viz:
1. Respondent received the subpoenas in the above-

complaints in due time;
2. Even then, except for the subpoenas, he received nothing

else;
3. Not a copy of Complainants’ Complaint-Affidavits as well

as their supporting documents was attached to the
subpoenas;
4. It is therefore physically impossible for him to prepare and

submit his Counter-Affidavits without a glimpse of the
Complaint-Affidavits and their supporting documents;
5. There is therefore cause to pray that he be furnished with a

complete set of Complainants’ Complaint-Affidavits as
well as their supporting documents;
6. Only after then, can he intelligently prepare and submit his

Counter-Affidavits;
7. A prayer too that he be given a fresh period within which

to prepare and submit his Counter-Affidavits to the
Honorable Special Panel of Prosecutors.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully

prayed of the Honorable Special Panel of Prosecutors that
Respondent be furnished with copies of Complainants’ Complaint-
Affidavits as well as its supporting documents and that he be given
a fresh period within which to prepare and submit his Counter-
Affidavits.
Pagadian City for Manila, Philippines, February 24, 2014.
FERDINAND MAS PABLO

Counsel for the Respondent
Roll No. 38881
Femaspa Law Office
Ground Floor, Poloyapoy Building
O250-A, Broca & Roxas Streets
Sta. Maria, Pagadian City
IBP No. 857707-January 2, 2014
PTR No. 2321581-January 2, 2014
Both issued at Pagadian City
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0003754-December 9, 2011

Manila
ERIC JASON SUMALINOG, NPS Docket No. XVI-INV-12L-00544

Complainant,
- versus -for-

Respondents.
X------------------------------------------/
MOTION TO FURNISH
RESPONDENT WITH A COPY
OF COMPLAINANT’S AFFIDAVIT-
COMPLAINT AND ITS
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
Respondent SAMUEL S. CO, thru counsel, to the Honorable

Special Panel of Prosecutors, respectfully states, viz:
1. Respondent received the subpoena in the above-complaint

in due time;
2. Even then, except for the subpoena, he received nothing else;
3. Not a copy of Complainant’s Affidavit-Complaint as well as

its supporting documents was attached to the subpoena;

submit his Counter-Affidavit without a glimpse of the
Affidavit-Complaint and its supporting documents;

complete set of Complainant’s Affidavit-Complaint as well as
its supporting documents;

Counter-Affidavit;
7. A prayer too that he be given a fresh period within which to

prepare and submit his Counter-Affidavit to the Honorable
Special Panel of Prosecutors.

Respondent be furnished with a copy of Complainant’s Complaint-
Affidavit as well as its supporting documents and that he be given
a fresh period within which to prepare and submit his Counter-
Affidavit.
FERDINAND MAS PABLO

Roll No. 38881
Femaspa Law Office
PTR No. 2321581-January 2, 2014
Nota Bene:
Complainant cannot be furnished with a copy of this Motion as his

address is not indicated in the subpoena.

Manila
YUSOPH “JOE” KALAW, NPS Docket No. XVI-INV-13E-00168

Complainant,
- versus -for-
ORVILLE SANTOS, ESTAFA

Respondent.
X------------------------------------------/
MOTION TO FURNISH
RESPONDENT WITH A COPY
OF COMPLAINANT’S AFFIDAVIT-
COMPLAINT AND ITS
ANNEXES
Respondent, thru counsel, to the Honorable Special Panel of
Prosecutors, respectfully state, viz:
1. Respondent received a copy of the subpoena;
2. Even then, except for the subpoena, he received nothing else;
3. Not a copy of Complainant’s Affidavit-Complaint as well as

its supporting documents was attached to the subpoena;

submit his Counter-Affidavit without a glimpse of the
Affidavit-Complaint and its annexes;

complete set of Complainant’s Affidavit-Complaint as well as
its annexes;

Counter-Affidavit and those of his witnesses;
7. A prayer too that he be given a fresh period within which to

prepare and submit his Counter-Affidavits to the Honorable
Special Panel of Prosecutors.

Respondent be furnished a copy of Complainant’s Complaint-
Affidavit as well as its annexes and that he be given a fresh period
within which to prepare and submit his Counter-Affidavit.
FERDINAND MAS PABLO

Roll No. 38881
Femaspa Law Office
PTR No. 2321581-January 2, 2014
Nota Bene:
Complainant cannot be furnished with a copy of this Motion as his

address is not indicated in the subpoena.

Manila
MARIO K. SABAC, et. al., NPS Docket NO. XVI-INV-13A-00004

Complainants,
- versus -for-
MANUEL K. AMALILIO aka VIOLATION OF PD 1689

“AMAN”, FERNANDO R.
LUNA, et. al
Respondents.
X------------------------------------------/
WE, MANNIMARGHEL VITORILLO PANER and
CONNIE FLOR GRACE LILIO-PANER, both Filipinos of legal
age, husband and wife and residents of Corner Datoc-Sabate Streets,
San Jose District, Pagadian City, after having been sworn in
accordance with law, depose and say, THAT:
1. We are charged as the operators of an alleged

AMAN-T’boli Branch;
2. We jointly and severally deny conspiring and

confederating with the incorporators of
AMAN FUTURES GROUP PHILIPPINES,
INC., namely: Manuel K. Amalilio, Fernando
R. Luna, Lelian Lim Gan, Eduard L. Lim,
Wilanie L. Fuentes, Naezelle M. Rodriguez,
Lurix B. Lopez and Isagani S. Laluna in
operating an AMAN Branch at T’boli, South
Cotabato. In fact, there is no such thing as
AMAN-Branch at T’boli, South Cotabato. If at
all, the investors thereat only attached their
investments with the AMAN-account of our
church, CHRIST THE LORD OF GLORY
FAMILY CHURCH OF PAGADIAN CITY,
of which Spouses Fernando R. Luna and
Nimfa C. Luna, are active members and
church-goers then facilitated by me being a
volunteer “teller” of AMAN-Kawit;
3. The phrase “innocent employees or workers in
good faith” squarely applies to us without fear
or favor;
4. Our father, HIPOLITO H. PANER was closely

knitted to Spouses Fernando R. Luna and
Nimfa C. Luna, the chief operators of the
investment trading at AMAN-Kawit, he being
the resident minister/pastor of the church. As
such, our father served as the spiritual adviser
of the spouses;
5. Jobless for quite some time, I, CONNIE FLOR

GRACE L. PANER applied and/or
with Spouses Luna at AMAN-Kawit;
6. As a daughter-in-law to Pastor Hipolito H.

Paner, the spouses accommodated me for
casual employment sans any job order or
contract of employment;

Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) to Five Thousand
Pesos (P5,000.00);
Hongkong come December, 2012;
9. There was likewise a built-in expectation to at

least own a car at a future time;
10. I was not given fixed or specific assignment. I

simply worked upon direct instructions or
orders from Spouses Luna. But most often, I
served as a teller;
11. Nowhere in my employment period that I

Manuel K. Amalilio, Lelian Lim Gan, Eduard
L. Lim, Wilanie L. Fuentes, Naezelle M.
Rodriguez, Lurix B. Lopez and Isagani S.
Laluna;
12. I also have not met them in any conference

or meeting- except for Manuel K. Amalilio
whom I saw for at least two (2) times on the
occasion of his visits to AMAN-Kawit;
13. My employment was only inspired by the

altruistic feeling that I directly work with
Spouses Luna- who during those days were
truly looked- up and seen with respect and
honor- they were so majestic, so to speak.
Truly, I consider AMAN as a Divine blessing;
14. My employment was also inspired by the
expressions of gratitude and thanksgivings of
our church-mates, neighbors, friends and
relatives, during cash-outs;
15. Otherwise put, if a friend, a neighbor or

relative cashes-out, I sometime received
impressive requerdos most of which were food
stuffs, communication gadgets and personal
paraphernalia;

information as to the planned deception, fraud
or scam behind the investment trading in
Kawit. All out I believed, that Spouses Luna
were doing a legitimate and truly pro-poor
and pro-marginalized business enterprise;

prosecutors, lawyers, law enforcers, doctors,
priests, clergies, pastors, ministers and lay men
and women- including the rich and the
famous;
18. Simply put, I humbly believed the legitimacy

and propriety of the investment trading where
I was utilized no less than as an axe that cuts;
a knife that wounds and a hammer that nails-
no more no less. If only I knew, if only I have
known early on that we were after all working
for the wicked and the uneven hands, I
should not have in the first place, applied or
volunteered for casual employment- despite we
truly needed it;

morning (or even earlier) until 5:00 o’clock in
the afternoon (or even beyond)- with all good
faith and fidelity;
20. It was for these reasons, that we invested a

meager personal fund with AMAN-Kawit. For
simply a month time, we were already able to
repair the house of our father, Rolando Lilio at
T’boli, South Cotabato. And we were also able
to help him buy a second hand Toyota Revo at
P 450,000.00;
21. True, AMAN-Kawit accorded a sudden

change in the life of our parents in T’boli. And
this sudden change in their status in life
caused our church-mates, neighbors, friends
and relatives to ponder. In their minds hailed
the questions, why and how. To borrow
Complainants words, they were lured to invest
when Rolando Lilio’s once a nipa-hut was
suddenly transformed into a flashy bungalow.
Aside, from this, he was able to own a Toyota
Revo. What was most alluring was the fact that he
spent P 500,000.00 in a shopping spree at a mall
in General Santos City;
22. Given this admission, it is evident that we

did not entice or invite them to invest with
AMAN-Kawit. They were simply lured by the
sudden change in the life of our father
Rolando Lilio. They just wanted to become
what became of Rolando Lilio. Simply put, we
did not tell them to invest. They were the ones
who came to us and pleaded to help them
invest with AMAN-Kawit;
23. Most of the complainants went directly to

AMAN-Kawit in Pagadian. But they found it
too difficult, if not at all, impossible to directly
invest thereat, given the thousand investors
flooding at the gate;
24. So, they had to find for a link to AMAN-

Kawit. Inasmuch that I, CONNIE FLOR
GRACE L. PANER, is a teller of AMAN-
Kawit, and nobly believing that AMAN was
truly a blessing for the poor and the weak as it
aimed to alleviate their plight, we gave them a
link to AMAN-Kawit, either through the
account of the church, CHRIST THE LORD
OF GLORY FAMILY CHURCH, which
Spouses Luna allowed no-ceiling as to amount
of investment; or by simply depositing their
investment thru my bank account with One
Network Bank (ONB) or with the ATM
account of my sister, Rhoda Girly Joy L.
Corpuz with ICTUS Premier Cooperative, of
which I was the actual holder or end-user and
for me to deposit with AMAN;
25. The Complainants began investing sometime

in July of 2012. Their initial investment ranges
from P 1,000 to P 20,000.00. In no time
however, was there an instruction that only a
minimum of P 200,000.00 would be accepted.
This fact is preponderantly proved by the
amount of investments as claimed by each
and every complainant;
26. Innocently, my sister Rhoda Girly Jhoie L.

Corpuz sent the attached investments of the
investors in bulk to my account. I withdrew it
from ONB or from the ATM of ICTUS
Premier Cooperative and deposited them
with AMAN-Kawit;
27. It was my sister Rhoda Girly Jhoie L. Corpuz

who kept a list of the individual investors
with their respective investments for cash-out
purposes;
28. Also, I sent the cash-outs by way of
depositing them in bulk through the account
of my sister Rhoda Girly Jhoie L. Corpuz with
Banco de Oro (BDO) and it was she who
distributed them to the individual investors in
accord with her list;
29. I often get scolded even by Spouses Luna for

wasting so much of my time attending to
Complainants’ investments. But I simply
believed that a blessing is like a bread, it has
to be divided and shared;
30. Thus, I ignored the fact of being scolded, as

what was important to me “was to be of help
to my church-mates, neighbors, friends and
relatives from my cherished home town,
T’boli”;
31. Attached, are copies of my deposit slips with

AMAN-Kawit which are inclusive of
complainants’ investments, viz:
31.1. Deposit Slip issued by AMAN-Kawit in

the sum of P 3,169,415.96 cashable on
September 28, 2012 with a cash-out
value of P 4,934,146.77 (Annex 1);
31.2. Deposit Slip issued by AMAN-Kawit

reflecting a cash deposit of P 2,249,
856.00 cashable on October 3, 2012, with
a cash-out value of P 3,588,970.29
(Annex 2);

the sum of P 1,698.889.95 cashable on
October 9, 2012, with a cash-out value of
2,693,759.91 (Annex 3); and-

October 11, 2012, with a cash-out value
of P 12,832,848.44 (Annex 4);
32. The deposits of investments mentioned above

were among the investments which were not
paid by AMAN-Kawit, as they were due for
cash-out after September 27, 2012 already, i.e.
after Spouses Luna disappeared;
33. Regrettably, Complainants’ investments were
among them;
34. Also attached, is BPI Check No. 3071-0708-74

issued by AMAN Group Philippines, Inc.
(thru Freedom International Construction and
Development) to me in the sum of P
10,000,000.00 representing a partial payment
of the deposited investments as mentioned
above, and which check turned out to be
drawn against a closed account (Annex 5);
35. To borrow Complainants’ words, “everything
were going on well except in the last week of
September when they received a bad news from
Pagadian that Spouses Luna disappeared”;
36. Simply put, from July, August and up to the

first three (3) weeks of September 2012,
Complainants’ were enjoying the fruits of
their investments. At times, there were
actually no expressions of thanks noted;
37. But came the last week of September 2012,

they looked upon us as scoundrels, swindlers
and members of a syndicate. As the song
goes: “all of a sudden, it was yours and mine” but
at the end of the day, we were blamed, not
only for now but for life or even until the twelfth
of never;
38. We did not attend the alleged September 7,

2012 thanksgiving at the house of our father,
Rolando Lilio at T’boli. Much more, we did not
assure complainants of the safety of their
investments. We were so busy at AMAN-
Kawit by then;
39. I, MANNIMARGHEL VITORILLO PANER

did not speak before Complainants on the
alleged thanksgiving. It seemed that what
Complainants are impressing is that I went to
T’boli, South Cotabato, spoke to them by way
of a State of the Investment Address (SOIA),
assuring them that their investments are safe
and would surely succeed. To this I say, I did
not;
40. Recordedly, a reading of the ONB Deposit Slip

(which was among the items allegedly taken from
our father’s house during the service of the search
warrant on November 21, 2012), it is very clear
that the same was deposited on September 7,
2012 at 3:57 in the afternoon as per validation
which is reflected to on the right side of the
slip. A machine copy of the deposit slip is hereto
41. If it be true, that we were expected at T’boli,

South Cotabato on that day, why must an
investor deposit the sum of P 188,500.00 on
that very day? Why not see us, or just have it
personally received by us. How would his
investment be credited without me (CONNIE)
in Pagadian City?
42. Granting in arguendo, that we were indeed at

the thanksgiving, how would we entice
Complainants to invest or assure them of the
safety or success of their investments when
they have been investing already since July of
2012? What would be the effect of our
enticement? Truly, unnecessary;
43. We should not therefore, be considered as

criminals or scoundrels- we too were victims
of the scam. Needless to state, we too- failed
to get back their investments- these include
our personal investments- which we nobly
earned by sweat and toil. The
Summary of the Christ the Lord of Glory
Family Church Account, which was attached
to the Complaint will prove this fact;
44. Well-settled, for one (1) to be criminal- he

must have FREEDOM to distinguish between
right and wrong; he must have
INTELLIGENCE to comprehend and
understand the consequence of his acts; and
he must have INTENT to commit the crime as
charged. Absent any one of these would make
him no criminal;
45. Known is the doctrinaire concept: Actus non

facit reum nesi mensit rea – the act of a man is
not criminal unless his intentions were so
criminal;
46. Nevertheless, we are charged as co-

conspirators of the incorporators of AMAN
FUTURES GROUP PHILLIPINES, INC. which
necessarily implies that- when conspiracy is
established- their act would be our act- The
act of one is the act of all;
47. The fact remains, the incorporators could

have a designed and planed deception in mind
from inception but never have we known of
this designed and planned deception;
48. Simply put, though the investment trading

came out to be fraudulent, we never had
known and never have we noticed of the
badges of fraud. Though the investment
trading was after all deceitful- we never had in
mind any intention to deceive anyone
investor- much more, our own friends,
neighbors and relatives – including our very
own selves. Deceit is indispensable in ESTAFA.
And it must be in the present charges;
49. Conspiracy exists when two (2) or more

persons come to an agreement and decide on
the commission of the felony (PP vs Acosta,
396 SCRA 348). For sure, we were never part
of any agreement to defraud- much more of a
decision to put into effect such fraud;
50. Conspiracy presupposes capacity of the

parties to the conspiracy- to discern what is
right from what is wrong (PP vs. Jesus , 448
SCRA 116). For sure, we were never in the
position of discerning what lies behind the
smiling face and loving touches of Manuel K.
Amalilio- we simply believed on him beyond
the whisper of any doubt. As such, we simply
have been negligent all thru out the AMAN
days- our eyes were blinded; our minds were
locked up and our hands were handcuffed. It was
truly a scam;

because negligence denotes the absence of
intent while conspiracy- involves a meeting of
the minds to commit a crime (Crisostomo vs
syndicated ESTAFA;
52. Also, mere knowledge, acquiescence to or

agreement to cooperate, is not enough to
constitute one as party to a conspiracy, absent
any active participation in the commission of
the crime, with a view to the furtherance of
the common design and purpose – conspiracy
transcends companionship (People vs. Patano,
399 SCRA 90);

rudder or compass (People vs. Patano, 399
SCRA 90);
54. Conspiracy comes to life at the very instance

the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to
commit and forthwith to pursue it actually
(People vs. Felipe, 418 SCRA 146). We never
had agreed with Spouses Luna to defraud
anyone- we simply had worked in good faith
and had made good what we were instructed
or ordered to do;
55. A lonesome gardener who works in a

vampire’s house is no vampire. With much
more reason that one who religiously works
with AMAN is not necessarily a scammer or
swindler;
56. Imputed or constructive notice cannot be

relied on to support a charge of direct,
personal conspiracy to the fraud (Preferred
Home Specialties, Inc. vs. CA, 478 SCRA 387);

mere presence when the check was issued
does not necessarily lead to an inference of
concurrence with a criminal design to issue a
bad check (People vs. Jose, 448 SCRA 116). The
mere fact that we were at Kawit almost all
through- out the AMAN days does not lead to
an inference that we concurred with any
criminal intent which AMAN had in mind;
58. If in the end, we be deemed co-conspirators

by the Panel of Prosecutors, then we be
prosecuted and incarcerated for sure- while
AMALILIO is free.

60. We are executing this counter-affidavit to

establish the fact that we did not from
inception, intend to commit so grave a wrong
when we facilitated the investments of the
Complainants with AMAN-Kawit;
We simply had to share our blessings-

which blessings all turned out to be fake and
poisonous.

this 2nd day of August, 2013 at General Santos City, Philippines.
MANNIMARGHEL VITORILLO PANER

Respondent
CONNIE FLOR GRACE LILIO-PANER
Respondent
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 2nd day of

August, 2013 at General Santos City, Philippines.

Manila
VICENTE JEMERA JR., et. al., NPS Docket NO. XVI-INV-13H-00250

Complainants,
- versus -for-
LUNA, et. al
Respondents.
X------------------------------------------/
San Jose District, Pagadian City, after having been sworn in
1. We are charged as the operators of an alleged

AMAN-T’boli Branch by another group of
alleged AMAN victims;
2. Inasmuch as the facts and circumstances of the

present charge are similar if not at all identical
with the facts and circumstances in NPS
Docket NO. XVI-INV-13A-00004 entitled
MARIO K. SABAC, et. al. VS. MANUEL K.
AMALILIO, et. al., we find it expedient to
adopt our joint counter-affidavit in the
previous charge;
THUS, WE SAY AGAIN THAT:

confederating with the incorporators of
AMAN FUTURES GROUP PHILIPPINES,
INC., namely: Manuel K. Amalilio, Fernando
R. Luna, Lelian Lim Gan, Eduard L. Lim,
Wilanie L. Fuentes, Naezelle M. Rodriguez,
Lurix B. Lopez and Isagani S. Laluna in
operating an AMAN Branch at T’boli, South
Cotabato. In fact, there is no such thing as
AMAN-Branch at T’boli, South Cotabato. If at
all, the investors thereat only attached their
investments with the AMAN-account of our
of which Spouses Fernando R. Luna and
Nimfa C. Luna, are active members and
church-goers then facilitated by me being a
volunteer “teller” of AMAN-Kawit;
4. The phrase “innocent employees or workers in

good faith” squarely applies to us without fear
or favor;
5. Our father, HIPOLITO H. PANER was closely

knitted to Spouses Fernando R. Luna and
Nimfa C. Luna, the chief operators of the
investment trading at AMAN-Kawit, he being
the resident minister/pastor of the church. As
such, our father served as the spiritual adviser
of the spouses;
6. Jobless for quite some time, I, CONNIE FLOR

GRACE L. PANER applied and/or
with Spouses Luna at AMAN-Kawit;
7. As a daughter-in-law to Pastor Hipolito H.

Paner, the spouses accommodated me for
casual employment sans any job order or
contract of employment;

Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) to Five Thousand
Pesos (P5,000.00);

Hongkong come December, 2012;
10.There was likewise a built-in expectation to at
least own a car at a future time;
11. I was not given fixed or specific assignment. I

simply worked upon direct instructions or
orders from Spouses Luna. But most often, I
served as a teller;
12. Nowhere in my employment period that I

Manuel K. Amalilio, Lelian Lim Gan, Eduard
L. Lim, Wilanie L. Fuentes, Naezelle M.
Rodriguez, Lurix B. Lopez and Isagani S.
Laluna;
13. I also have not met them in any conference

or meeting- except for Manuel K. Amalilio
whom I saw for at least two (2) times on the
occasion of his visits to AMAN-Kawit;
14. My employment was only inspired by the

altruistic feeling that I directly work with
Spouses Luna- who during those days were
truly looked- up and seen with respect and
honor- they were so majestic, so to speak.
Truly, I consider AMAN as a Divine blessing;
15. My employment was also inspired by the

expressions of gratitude and thanksgivings of
our church-mates, neighbors, friends and
relatives, during cash-outs;
16. Otherwise put, if a friend, a neighbor or

relative cashes-out, I sometime received
impressive requerdos most of which were food
stuffs, communication gadgets and personal
paraphernalia;

Kawit. All out I believed, that Spouses Luna
were doing a legitimate and truly pro-poor
and pro-marginalized business enterprise;

famous;
19. Simply put, I humbly believed the legitimacy

I was utilized no less than as an axe that cuts;
a knife that wounds and a hammer that nails-
no more no less. If only I knew, if only I have
known early on that we were after all working
for the wicked and the uneven hands, I
should not have in the first place, applied or
volunteered for casual employment- despite we
truly needed it;

morning (or even earlier) until 5:00 o’clock in
the afternoon (or even beyond)- with all good
faith and fidelity;
21. It was for these reasons, that we invested a

meager personal fund with AMAN-Kawit. For
simply a month time, we were already able to
repair the house of our father, Rolando Lilio at
T’boli, South Cotabato. And we were also able
to help him buy a second hand Toyota Revo at
P 450,000.00;
22. True, AMAN-Kawit accorded a sudden

change in the life of our parents in T’boli. And
this sudden change in their status in life
caused our church-mates, neighbors, friends
and relatives to ponder. In their minds hailed
the questions, why and how. To borrow
when Rolando Lilio’s once a nipa-hut was
suddenly transformed into a flashy bungalow.
Aside, from this, he was able to own a Toyota
Revo. What was most alluring was the fact that he
spent P 500,000.00 in a shopping spree at a mall
in General Santos City;
23. Given this admission, it is evident that we

did not entice or invite them to invest with


Kawit. Inasmuch that I, CONNIE FLOR
GRACE L. PANER, is a teller of AMAN-
Kawit, and nobly believing that AMAN was
truly a blessing for the poor and the weak as it
aimed to alleviate their plight, we gave them a
link to AMAN-Kawit, either through the
account of the church, CHRIST THE LORD
OF GLORY FAMILY CHURCH, which
Spouses Luna allowed no-ceiling as to amount
of investment; or by simply depositing their
investment thru my bank account with One
Network Bank (ONB) or with the ATM
account of my sister, Rhoda Girly Joy L.
Corpuz with ICTUS Premier Cooperative, of
which I was the actual holder or end-user and
for me to deposit with AMAN;

27. Innocently, my sister Rhoda Girly Jhoie L.

Corpuz sent the attached investments of the
investors in bulk to my account. I withdrew it
from ONB or from the ATM of ICTUS
Premier Cooperative and deposited them
with AMAN-Kawit;
28. It was my sister Rhoda Girly Jhoie L. Corpuz

who kept a list of the individual investors
with their respective investments for cash-out
purposes;
29. Also, I sent the cash-outs by way of

depositing them in bulk through the account
of my sister Rhoda Girly Jhoie L. Corpuz with
Banco de Oro (BDO) and it was she who
distributed them to the individual investors in
accord with her list;
30. I often get scolded even by Spouses Luna for

wasting so much of my time attending to
Complainants’ investments. But I simply
believed that a blessing is like a bread, it has
to be divided and shared;
31. Thus, I ignored the fact of being scolded, as

what was important to me “was to be of help
to my church-mates, neighbors, friends and
relatives from my cherished home town,
T’boli”;
32. Attached, are copies of my deposit slips with

AMAN-Kawit which are inclusive of

September 28, 2012 with a cash-out
value of P 4,934,146.77 (Annex 1);
32.2. Deposit Slip issued by AMAN-Kawit
856.00 cashable on October 3, 2012, with
a cash-out value of P 3,588,970.29
(Annex 2);

the sum of P 1,698.889.95 cashable on
October 9, 2012, with a cash-out value of
2,693,759.91 (Annex 3); and-

October 11, 2012, with a cash-out value
of P 12,832,848.44 (Annex 4);

after Spouses Luna disappeared;
34. Regrettably, Complainants’ investments were

among them;

Development) to me in the sum of P


their investments. At times, there were
actually no expressions of thanks noted;
38. But came the last week of September 2012,

of never;
39. We did not attend the alleged September 7,

2012 thanksgiving at the house of our father,
Rolando Lilio at T’boli. Much more, we did not
assure complainants of the safety of their
investments. We were so busy at AMAN-
Kawit by then;
40. I, MANNIMARGHEL VITORILLO PANER

did not speak before Complainants on the
alleged thanksgiving. It seemed that what
Complainants are impressing is that I went to
T’boli, South Cotabato, spoke to them by way
of a State of the Investment Address (SOIA),
assuring them that their investments are safe
and would surely succeed. To this I say, I did
not;
41. Recordedly, a reading of the ONB Deposit

Slip, it is very clear that the same was
deposited on September 7, 2012 at 3:57 in the
afternoon as per validation which is reflected
to on the right side of the slip. A machine copy
of the deposit slip is hereto attached and marked as
Annex “6”;
42. If it be true, that we were expected at T’boli,

South Cotabato on that day, why must an
investor deposit the sum of P 188,500.00 on
that very day? Why not see us, or just have it
personally received by us. How would his
investment be credited without me (CONNIE)
in Pagadian City?
43. Granting in arguendo, that we were indeed at

the thanksgiving, how would we entice
Complainants to invest or assure them of the
safety or success of their investments when
they have been investing already since July of
2012? What would be the effect of our
enticement? Truly, unnecessary;
44. We should not therefore, be considered as

to get back their investments- these include
our personal investments- which we nobly
earned by sweat and toil. The
Summary of the Christ the Lord of Glory
Family Church Account, which was attached
to the Complaint will prove this fact;

him no criminal;

criminal;





truly a scam;

syndicated ESTAFA;

399 SCRA 90);

SCRA 90);

anyone- we simply had worked in good faith
and had made good what we were instructed
or ordered to do;

swindler;

mere fact that we were at Kawit almost all
through- out the AMAN days does not lead to
criminal intent which AMAN had in mind;

AMALILIO is free.


Complainants with AMAN-Kawit. We simply
had to share our blessings- which blessings all
turned out to be fake and poisonous.

this ___day of __________, 2013 at Koronadal City, Philippines.

Respondent

Respondent
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this __ day of

____________, 2013 at Koronadal City, Philippines.

Manila
MARIO K. SABAC, et. al., NPS Docket NO. XVI-INV-13A-00004

Complainants,
- versus -for-

LUNA, et. al
Respondents.
X------------------------------------------/

Complainants,
- versus -for-

LUNA, et. al
Respondents.
X------------------------------------------/
REJOINDER TO
PINAGSAMA-SAMANG
PAGSASALAYSAY
San Jose District, Pagadian City, and MIKE ILDEFONSO
CORPUZ and RHODA GIRLY JHOIE LILIO-CORPUZ, both
Filipinos of legal age, husband and wife and residents of
Employees Village, Poblacion, T’boli, South Cotabato, after having
been sworn in accordance with law, depose and say, THAT:
1. We do hereby re-iterate that we did not

operate an AMAN-Branch at T’boli, South
Cotabato. If at all, the house of our father
ROLANDO LILIO was only used in receiving
the attached investments of the private
complainants to my (Connie Flor Grace Lilio-
Paner) account with AMAN-Kawit;
2. True, AMAN-Kawit accorded a sudden change

in our life in T’boli. And this sudden change
in our status in life caused our relatives,
church-mates and neighbors to ponder. In
their minds hailed the questions, why and
how. To borrow Complainants words, they
were lured to invest when Rolando Lilio’s once a
nipa-hut was suddenly transformed into a flashy
bungalow. Aside, from this, he was able to own a
Toyota Revo. What was most alluring was the fact
that he spent P 500,000.00 in a shopping spree at a
mall in General Santos City;
3. The phrase, “they were lured to invest when

Rolando Lilio’s once a nipa-hut was suddenly
transformed into a flashy bungalow” was
only quoted from Complainants’ Joint
Complaint-Affidavit which was prepared and
submitted by the NBI with the Honorable
Panel of Prosecutors. Otherwise put, it was
them who stated so- that they were lured to
invest because of the sudden change in Rolando
Lilio’s life;
4. This phrase negates any overt act of

enticement for them to invest on our part.
Complainants were the ones who pleaded to
attach their investments to my (Connie Flor
Grace Lilio-Paner) account. Never had we
entice them to so invest;
5. Life is like bread, it must be divided and shared-

this biblical syllogism bestowed in me (Connie
Flor Grace Lilio-Paner) an indomitable spirit to
share with Complainants what we had and
what we believed by heart was our only link
to escape from swimming in dire poverty;
6. But then, this same biblical mandate, caused

me (Connie Flor Grace Lilio-Paner) and my
whole family, to be charged with a non-
bailable offense which may caused as our
lives, liberties and sacred honors;
7. Otherwise put, we simply desired to help the

private complainants earn out of the AMAN
“double your money scheme”, without any intent
to deceive any one of them and/or to
misappropriate for ourselves what they
bitterly invested;
8. Known is the doctrinaire concept, volenti non

fit injuria, he who assumed a risk, is never
injured. And this was so in the present charge;
9. Given Complainants’ recorded admission in

their own Complaint-Affidavit, it is evident
that we did not entice or invite them to invest
with AMAN-Kawit. They were simply lured
by the sudden change in the life of our father
what became of our father;
10. Deceit, as an indispensable element of the

crime of Estafa is thus negated in the present
set of facts;
11. The elements of Estafa under Article 315, par

2(a) of the Revised Penal Code are: 1) there
must be a false pretense, fraudulent acts or
fraudulent means; 2) such false pretense,
fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made
or executed prior to or simultaneous with the
commission of the fraud; 3) the offended party
must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent
act or fraudulent means and was thus induced to
part with his money or property; and 4) as a result
thereof, the offended party suffered damages (Lateo
vs. People, 651 SCRA 262);
12. We did not entice Complainants by false
pretenses, fraudulent acts or fraudulent means if
only to invest and part with their moneys.
They were simply lured to come to us and to
plead that they be allowed to invest with us.
There was no need to entice as Complainants
were already ready with their moneys. All
that they needed was an account where to
invest their moneys. Regrettably, it was thru
my (Connie Flor Grace Lilio-Paner) account with
AMAN-Kawit;
13. When AMAN was still there, we were good

Samaritans. When AMAN was gone, we are
swindlers and scoundrels. If this is life, then
be it;
14. Under Section 1 of PD No. 1689, the elements

of Syndicated Estafa are: 1) the estafa or
swindling was committed by a syndicate of five or
more persons; and 2) the defraudation results in
the misappropriation of moneys contributed by
stockholders, or members of rural banks,
cooperatives, samahang nayon(s) or farmer’s
associations or of funds solicited by
corporations/associations from the general public
(People vs. Balasa, 356 Phil 362);
15. We are not a part of AMAN as a corporation.

We are neither, incorporators, corporators,
stockholders, shareholders, members and the like.
We are not even agents of the same. If at all, I
(Connie Flor Grace Lilio-Paner) was just an
innocent volunteer teller at AMAN-Kawit. The
reason why I became such was well narrated
in my Counter-Affidavit;
16. We cannot therefore be charged for Syndicated

Estafa which was committed by AMAN as a
corporation and AMALILIO as its the chief
architect and designer;
17. We do hereby re-iterate the process of

Complainants’ investments, viz:
17.1. I (Rhoda Girly Jhoie Lilio Corpuz)

would receive the investment;
17.2. I would issue a Payment Order Slip

to the individual investor, a sample of
which is hereto attached as Annex “1”;
17.3. I would then pool the whole

investment with me. I would keep a list
of individual investors reflecting the
name of investors, the amount of
investment, the date it falls due and the
cash-out amount;
17.4. I would then deposit the

investment in bulk to the account of
Christ the Lord of Glory Church of
Pagadian City or to the account of
Connie with ONB or to my ATM
account with ICTUS Premier
Cooperative;
17.5. Connie would deposit the

investments in bulk either in the church
account or with her personal account
with AMAN-Kawit. We refer to this as
“abay” or “attached”;
17.6. Upon due date, Connie would

cash-out the investments in bulk and
would deposit it to my account with
Banco de Oro (BDO); and-
17.7. I would withdraw the cashed-out

investments in bulk and would
distribute them individually to the
individual investors in accord with my
list. Upon receipt of their cashed-out
individual investments, investors would
sign an Acknowledgement Receipt,
worded as follows:
“Received from AMAN INVESTORS, INC.

the amount of _________ (P _____) as
partial/full payment of his/her investment”
(Sgd) INVESTOR (Sgd) RHODA
18. Complainants were paid of their investments

during the peak of AMAN Trading. Not one
of them came to the open and complained.
They only suffered loss and/or damages,
when AMAN was gone. To borrow
Complainants’ words, “everything were going
on well except in the last week of September when
they received a bad news from Pagadian that
Spouses Luna disappeared”;

their investments. No expressions of thanks
noted. But in the last week of September 2012,
of never;
20. We thus re-iterate, that the incorporators

could have a designed and planed deception in
mind from inception but never have we
known of this designed and planned
deception;
21. Though the investment trading came out

to be fraudulent, we never had known and
never have we noticed of the badges of fraud.
Though the investment trading was after all
deceitful- we never had in mind any intention
to deceive anyone investor- much more, our
own friends, neighbors and relatives –
including our very own selves;
22. We thus, pity the Complainants of their

fate. But what can we do if only alleviate their
plight? Amalilio is gone, and so with the
moneys.
Where shall we get them?

this ___day of __________, 2013 at _____________City, Philippines.

Respondent

Respondent
MIKE ILDEFONSO CORPUZ

Respondent
RHODA GIRLY JHOIE LILIO-CORPUZ

Respondent
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this __ day of

____________, 2013 at ____________ City, Philippines.
Manila
Complainants,
- versus -for-

LUNA, et. al
Respondents.
X------------------------------------------/
WE, MIKE ILDEFONSO CORPUZ and RHODA GIRLY
JHOIE LILIO-CORPUZ, both Filipinos of legal age, husband and
wife and residents of Employees Village, Poblacion, T’boli, South
Cotabato, after having been sworn in accordance with law, depose
and say, THAT:
20.We are charged as the operators of an alleged

AMAN-T’boli Branch by another group of
alleged AMAN victims;
21.Inasmuch as the facts and circumstances of the

present charge are similar if not at all identical
with the facts and circumstances in NPS
Docket NO. XVI-INV-13A-00004 entitled
MARIO K. SABAC, et. al. VS. MANUEL K.
AMALILIO, et. al., we find it expedient to
adopt our joint counter-affidavit in the
previous charge;
THUS, WE SAY AGAIN THAT:
22.There is no such thing as AMAN-Branch at

T’boli, South Cotabato;
23.It just happened that our sister, Connie Flor
Grace Lilio-Paner (Connie for brevity) was a
volunteer teller at AMAN-Kawit;
24.Our said sister, put up some investment for

our family. That is why we were able to repair
our house at T’boli and we were also able to
acquire a second hand Toyota Revo;
25.True, AMAN-Kawit accorded a sudden change

in our life in T’boli. And this sudden change
in our status in life caused our relatives,
church-mates and neighbors to ponder. In
their minds hailed the questions, why and
how. To borrow Complainants words, they
were lured to invest when Rolando Lilio’s once a
nipa-hut was suddenly transformed into a flashy
bungalow. Aside, from this, he was able to own a
Toyota Revo. What was most alluring was the fact
that he spent P 500,000.00 in a shopping spree at a
mall in General Santos City;
26.Given the admission, it is evident that we did

not entice or invite them to invest with
27.Most of the complainants went directly to

28.So, they had to find for a link to AMAN-

Kawit. Since my sister, Connie was a
volunteer-teller of AMAN-Kawit, and nobly
believing that AMAN was truly a blessing for
the poor and the weak as it aimed to alleviate
their plight, we pleaded of Connie to possibly
assist and give Complainants a chance to have
their money invested with AMAN-Kawit with
ease and without need of going to and fro
Pagadian City and without need of joining the
line-up of investors flooding at the gate;
29. As a good Samaritan and a practicing

Christian as such, Connie gave us a link to
AMAN-Kawit, either through the account of
our church, CHRIST THE LORD OF GLORY
which Spouses Luna allowed no-ceiling as to
amount of investment; or by simply
depositing our investments through Connie’s
bank account with One Network Bank (ONB)
or with my (Rhoda Girly Jhoie) ATM Account
with ICTUS Premier Cooperative, the ATM
Card of which I entrusted to Connie;

31. Complainants then frequented our house if

only to bring their investments with AMAN-
Kawit thru our sister Connie;
32. The process of investment is as follows, viz:
13.1. I (Rhoda Girly Jhoie) would receive

the investment;
13.2. I would issue a Payment Order Slip

to the individual investor, a sample of
which is hereto attached as Annex “1”;
13.3. I would then pool the whole

investment with me. I would keep a list
of individual investors reflecting the
name of investors, the amount of
investment, the date it falls due and the
cash-out amount;
13.4. I would then deposit the

investment in bulk to the account of
Christ the Lord of Glory Church of
Pagadian City or to the account of
Connie with ONB or to my ATM
account with ICTUS Premier
Cooperative;
13.5. Connie would deposit the

investments in bulk either in the church
account or with her personal account
with AMAN-Kawit. We refer to this as
“abay” or “attached”;
13.6. Upon due date, Connie would

cash-out the investments in bulk and
would deposit it to my account with
Banco de Oro (BDO); and-

investments in bulk and would
distribute them individually to the
individual investors in accord with my
list. Upon receipt of their cashed-out
individual investments, investors would
sign an Acknowledgement Receipt,
worded as follows:
“Received from AMAN INVESTORS, INC.

the amount of _________ (P _____) as
partial/full payment of his/her investment”
A sample of which is hereto attached as

Annex “2”;
33. The acknowledgement receipt signifies that

the individual investment of the individual
investors were already received by them;

their investments. No expressions of thanks
noted. But in the last week of September 2012,
of never;
36. Attached, are copies of Connie’s deposit slips

with AMAN-Kawit which are inclusive of
a. Deposit Slip issued by AMAN-Kawit

in the sum of P 3,169,415.96 cashable
on September 28, 2012 with a cash-
out value of P 4,934,146.77 (Annex 3);
b. Deposit Slip issued by AMAN-Kawit

856.00 cashable on October 3, 2012,
with a cash-out value of P
3,588,970.29 (Annex 4);
c. Deposit Slip issued by AMAN-Kawit

in the sum of P 1,698.889.95 cashable
on October 9, 2012, with a cash-out
value of 2,693,759.91 (Annex 5); and-
d. Deposit Slip issued by AMAN-Kawit

in the sum of P 7,996,540.65 cashable
on October 11, 2012, with a cash-out
value of P 12,832,848.44 (Annex 6);
after Spouses Luna disappeared. Regrettably,
Complainants’ investments were among
them;

Development) to Connie in the sum of P
39. Given the foregoing narrations, there is

actually no AMAN Branch operated at our
house at T’boli. If at all, investors had to be in
the house to attach their investment with our
own family investment thru the church or
thru the account of our sister Connie;
40. Complainants found this “attachment” or

“sakay” or “abay” with our family investment
more convenient and easier. In fact, most of
them had already enjoyed the fruits of our
benevolence in having their investments
attached with us. The acknowledgement
receipts which they attached to their
individual affidavit-complaints are reflective of
this. They already received what were due
them;
41. Also, the alleged P 85,000.00 which was

deposited by Complainant Arlene D.
Sumanghid with my (Mike Indefonso
Corpuz) BPI Account was also personally
accommodated by me, she being a close friend
of ours. The same money was also included in
the investments which were sent and
deposited with the AMAN-Kawit;
42. Also, Spouses Mannimarghel and Connie
were not at T’boli, South Cotabato on
September 7, 2012. In fact, I still deposited
some investments on the same day to her
account with ONB. A copy of the ONB deposit
slip is hereto attached as Annex “8”;
43. We should not therefore be considered as

to get back our investments- these include our
personal investments- which we nobly earned
by sweat and toil. The Summary of the Christ
the Lord of Glory Family Church Account,
which was attached to the Complaint will
prove this fact;

him no criminal;

criminal;




truly a scam;

syndicated ESTAFA;

399 SCRA 90);

SCRA 90);

anyone- we simply had invested with them in
good faith and had made good what we could
do for them;

swindler;


bad check (People vs. Jose, 448 SCRA 116);

AMALILIO is free.


Complainants with AMAN-Kawit. We simply
had to share our blessings- which blessings all
turned out to be fake and poisonous.

this ___day of __________, 2013 at Koronadal City, Philippines.

Respondent

Respondent
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ___ day of

__________, 2013 at Koronadal City, Philippines.

Manila

Complainants,
- versus -for-

LUNA, et. al
Respondents.
X------------------------------------------/
WE, MIKE ILDEFONSO CORPUZ and RHODA GIRLY
JHOIE LILIO-CORPUZ, both Filipinos of legal age, husband and
wife and residents of Employees Village, Poblacion, T’boli, South
Cotabato, after having been sworn in accordance with law, depose
and say, THAT:
1. We are charged for having assisted in the

operation of an alleged AMAN-T’boli Branch;
2. In fact, there is no such thing as AMAN-

Branch at T’boli, South Cotabato;
3. It just happened that our sister, Connie Flor

Grace Lilio-Paner (Connie for brevity) was a
volunteer teller at AMAN-Kawit;
4. Our said sister, put up some investment for

our family. That is why we were able to repair
our house at T’boli and we were also able to
acquire a second hand Toyota Revo;
5. True, AMAN-Kawit accorded a sudden change

in our life in T’boli. And this sudden change in
our status in life caused our relatives, church-
mates and neighbors to ponder. In their minds
hailed the questions, why and how. To borrow
when Rolando Lilio’s once a nipa-hut was suddenly
transformed into a flashy bungalow. Aside, from this,
he was able to own a Toyota Revo. What was most
alluring was the fact that he spent P 500,000.00 in a
shopping spree at a mall in General Santos City;
6. Given the admission, it is evident that we did

not entice or invite them to invest with AMAN-
Kawit. They were simply lured by the sudden
change in the life of our father Rolando Lilio.
They just wanted to become what became of
Rolando Lilio. Simply put, we did not tell them to
invest. They were the ones who came to us and
pleaded to help them invest with AMAN-Kawit;

AMAN-Kawit in Pagadian. But they found it too
difficult, if not at all, impossible to directly invest
thereat, given the thousand investors flooding at
the gate;
Kawit. Since my sister, Connie was a volunteer-
teller of AMAN-Kawit, and nobly believing that
AMAN was truly a blessing for the poor and the
weak as it aimed to alleviate their plight, we
pleaded of Connie to possibly assist and give
Complainants a chance to have their money
invested with AMAN-Kawit with ease and
without need of going to and fro Pagadian City
and without need of joining the line-up of
investors flooding at the gate;
9. As a good Samaritan and a practicing

Christian as such, Connie gave us a link to
AMAN-Kawit, either through the account of our
which Spouses Luna allowed no-ceiling as to
amount of investment; or by simply depositing
our investments through Connie’s bank account
with One Network Bank (ONB) or with my
(Rhoda Girly Jhoie) ATM Account with ICTUS
Premier Cooperative, the ATM Card of which I
entrusted to Connie;

from P 1,000 to P 20,000.00. In no time however,
was there an instruction that only a minimum of
P 200,000.00 would be accepted. This fact is
preponderantly proved by the amount of
investments as claimed by each and every
complainant;
11. Complainants then frequented our house if

only to bring their investments with AMAN-
Kawit thru our sister Connie;
12. The process of investment is as follows, viz:
12.1. I (Rhoda Girly Jhoie) would receive the

investment;
12.2. I would issue a Payment Order Slip to the

individual investor, a sample of which is hereto
attached as Annex “1”;
12.3. I would then pool the whole investment

with me. I would keep a list of individual
investors reflecting the name of investors, the
amount of investment, the date it falls due and
the cash-out amount;
12.4. I would then deposit the investment in bulk

to the account of Christ the Lord of Glory Church
of Pagadian City or to the account of Connie
with ONB or to my ATM account with ICTUS
Premier Cooperative;
12.5. Connie would deposit the investments in

bulk either in the church account or with her
personal account with AMAN-Kawit. We refer to
this as “abay” or “attached”;
12.6. Upon due date, Connie would cash-out the

investments in bulk and would deposit it to my
account with Banco de Oro (BDO); and-

investments in bulk and would distribute them
individually to the individual investors in accord
with my list. Upon receipt of their cashed-out
individual investments, investors would sign an
Acknowledgement Receipt, worded as follows:
“Received from AMAN INVESTORS, INC. the
amount of _________ (P _____) as partial/full
payment of his/her investment”
A sample of which is hereto attached as Annex

“2”;
13.The acknowledgement receipt signifies that

the individual investment of the individual
investors were already received by them;

Complainants’ were enjoying the fruits of their
investments. No expressions of thanks noted. But
in the last week of September 2012, they looked
upon us as scoundrels, swindlers and members of
a syndicate. As the song goes: “all of a sudden, it
was yours and mine” but at the end of the day, we
were blamed, not only for now but for life or even
until the twelfth of never;
16. Attached, are copies of Connie’s deposit slips

with AMAN-Kawit which are inclusive of
a. Deposit Slip issued by AMAN-Kawit in the

sum of P 3,169,415.96 cashable on September
28, 2012 with a cash-out value of P
4,934,146.77 (Annex 3);
b. Deposit Slip issued by AMAN-Kawit

reflecting a cash deposit of P 2,249, 856.00
cashable on October 3, 2012, with a cash-out
value of P 3,588,970.29 (Annex 4);
c. Deposit Slip issued by AMAN-Kawit in the

sum of P 1,698.889.95 cashable on October 9,
2012, with a cash-out value of 2,693,759.91
(Annex 5); and-
d. Deposit Slip issued by AMAN-Kawit in the

sum of P 7,996,540.65 cashable on October 11,
2012, with a cash-out value of P 12,832,848.44
(Annex 6);
17.The deposits of investments mentioned above

paid by AMAN-Kawit, as they were due for cash-
out after September 27, 2012 already, i.e. after
Spouses Luna disappeared. Regrettably,
Complainants’ investments were among them;

issued by AMAN Group Philippines, Inc. (thru
Freedom International Construction and
Development) to Connie in the sum of P
10,000,000.00 representing a partial payment of
the deposited investments as mentioned above,
and which check turned out to be drawn against
a closed account (Annex 7);
19. Given the foregoing narrations, there is

actually no AMAN Branch operated at our house
at T’boli. If at all, investors had to be in the house
to attach their investment with our own family
investment thru the church or thru the account of
our sister Connie;
20. Complainants found this “attachment” or
“sakay” or “abay” with our family investment
more convenient and easier. In fact, most of them
had already enjoyed the fruits of our
benevolence in having their investments
attached with us. The acknowledgement receipts
which they attached to their individual affidavit-
complaints are reflective of this. They already
received what were due them;
21. Also, the alleged P 85,000.00 which was

deposited by Complainant Arlene D. Sumanghid
with my (Mike Indefonso Corpuz) BPI Account
was also personally accommodated by me, she
being a close friend of ours. The same money
was also included in the investments which were
sent and deposited with the AMAN-Kawit;
22. Also, Spouses Mannimarghel and Connie

were not at T’boli, South Cotabato on September
7, 2012. In fact, I still deposited some investments
on the same day to her account with ONB. A copy
of the ONB deposit slip is hereto attached as Annex
“8”;

criminals or scoundrels- we too were victims of
the scam. Needless to state, we too- failed to get
back our investments- these include our personal
investments- which we nobly earned by sweat
and toil. The Summary of the Christ the Lord of
Glory Family Church Account, which was
attached to the Complaint will prove this fact;

must have FREEDOM to distinguish between right
and wrong; he must have INTELLIGENCE to
comprehend and understand the consequence of
his acts; and he must have INTENT to commit the
crime as charged. Absent any one of these would
make him no criminal;

facit reum nesi mensit rea – the act of a man is not
criminal unless his intentions were so criminal;

established- their act would be our act- The act of
one is the act of all;

from inception but never have we known of this
designed and planned deception;

came out to be fraudulent, we never had known
and never have we noticed of the badges of
fraud. Though the investment trading was after
all deceitful- we never had in mind any intention
to deceive anyone investor- much more, our own
friends, neighbors and relatives – including our
very own selves. Deceit is indispensable in
ESTAFA. And it must be in the present charges;

persons come to an agreement and decide on the
commission of the felony (PP vs Acosta, 396
SCRA 348). For sure, we were never part of any
agreement to defraud- much more of a decision
to put into effect such fraud;

parties to the conspiracy- to discern what is right
from what is wrong (PP vs. Jesus , 448 SCRA 116).
For sure, we were never in the position of
discerning what lies behind the smiling face and
loving touches of Manuel K. Amalilio- we simply
believed on him beyond the whisper of any
doubt. As such, we simply have been negligent
all thru out the AMAN days- our eyes were
blinded; our minds were locked up and our hands
were handcuffed. It was truly a scam;

while conspiracy- involves a meeting of the
minds to commit a crime (Crisostomo vs
syndicated ESTAFA;

agreement to cooperate, is not enough to constitute
one as party to a conspiracy, absent any active
participation in the commission of the crime,
with a view to the furtherance of the common
design and purpose – conspiracy transcends
companionship (People vs. Patano, 399 SCRA 90);

rudder or compass (People vs. Patano, 399 SCRA
90);

(People vs. Felipe, 418 SCRA 146). We never had
agreed with Spouses Luna to defraud anyone-
we simply had invested with them in good faith
and had made good what we could do for them;

vampire’s house is no vampire. With much more
reason that one who religiously works with
AMAN is not necessarily a scammer or swindler;
relied on to support a charge of direct, personal
conspiracy to the fraud (Preferred Home
Specialties, Inc. vs. CA, 478 SCRA 387);

mere presence when the check was issued does
not necessarily lead to an inference of
concurrence with a criminal design to issue a bad
check (People vs. Jose, 448 SCRA 116);

AMALILIO is free.


establish the fact that we did not from inception,
intend to commit so grave a wrong when we
facilitated the investments of the Complainants
with AMAN-Kawit. We simply had to share our
blessings- which blessings all turned out to be
fake and poisonous.
this 2nd day of August, 2013 at General Santos City, Philippines.

Respondent

Respondent
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 2nd day of

August, 2013 at General Santos City, Philippines.
Manila
NATIONAL BUREAU OF NPS Docket NO. XVI-INV-166-00251

INVESTIGATION represented by:
Agent JOEY B. MORAN and Private
Complainant ARFEL R. CANDIA,
Complainants,
- versus -for-
MANUEL K. AMALILIO aka VIOLATIONS OF ART 315

“AMAN”, FERNANDO R. OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE
LUNA, et. al IN RELATION TO PD 1689
Respondents,
X------------------------------------------/
We, HIPOLITO HERMOSA PANER, CONNIE FLOR
GRACE L. PANER, IRENE PANER, MANNIMARGHEL V.
PANER (aka MAN-MAN PANER) and MAYNARD V. PANER
(a.k.a. BOGS PANER), all Filipinos of legal age, married and
residents of Corner Datoc-Sabate Streets, San Jose District, Pagadian
say, THAT:
1. We are listed among the agents of Aman Futures

Group Philippines, Inc. which perpetrated a large scale
investment fraud at Kawit, Pagadian City in 2012;
2. We hereby deny being agents of AMAN FUTURES

GROUP PHILIPPINES, INC. The phrase innocent
investors, employees or workers in good faith” squarely
applies to us without fear or favor;
3. I, Hipolito Hermosa Paner was the Minister/Pastor of
the Church where Respondent FERNANDO R. LUNA
was a member;
4. During the good days of AMAN, the church was

privileged to have been offered by Respondent Luna not
to join the queue of investors at Aman-Kawit. The
arrangement was for the Church to receive the
investments of our church-people and that the Church
Treasurer would just give the investments to my
daughter-in-law, Respondent CONNIE FLOR GRACE
L. PANER, who was then one of the volunteer-workers
of Aman-Kawit and that the latter would remit the
investments to Respondent Luna;
5. Members then invested through the church. We

humbly believed in good faith that Aman was gift
from God. We even sincerely offered prayers for the
Aman Group and for Respondent Luna and his family;
6. Another churches even envied the privilege extended

to us. This could have been the fate undergone by the
investment of Private Complainant Arfel F. Candia. And,
we are nobly sorry for him;
7. Attached as Annex 1, is a check evidencing the church

investments which were not paid by Aman-Kawit-
despite our too close a relationship with Respondent
Luna- who was only used by Respondent Manuel K.
Amalilio in the investment scam;
8. We were more of a victim than a culprit. The church

only facilitated the investments of our members. It was
a privilege though, to have Respondent Luna as
member;
9. The church did not receive any commission or
percentage of a member-investment. If at all,
Respondent Luna only donated appliances and gadgets-
for church use;
10. Jobless for quite some time, I, CONNIE GRACE

FLOR L. PANER, volunteered as office staff at Aman-
Kawit on June 27, 2012;
11. There was no salary fixed for the engagement, except

for a promise that we be given bi-monthly allowances
ranging from Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) to Five
Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00);

possible Christmas Vacation at Boracay or Hongkong
come December, 2012;
13. There was likewise a built-in expectation to at least

own a car at a future time;
14. We were not given fixed or specific assignments. We

simply worked upon direct instructions or orders from
Respondent Luna;
15. Nowhere in our employment period that we received

instructions or orders directly from Manuel K.
Amalilio, Lelian Lim Gan, Eduard L. Lim, Wilanie L.
Fuentes, Naezelle M. Rodriguez, Lurix B. Lopez and
Isagani S. Laluna;
16. We also have not met them in any conference or

meeting- except for Manuel K. Amalilio whom we saw
for at least two (2) times on the occasion of his visits to
Aman-Kawit- he was just slightly lower than God
when he came;
17. Our workload included but not was not limited to
computer encoding and programming; receiving and
recording of investments; issuance of receipts on
investments, facilitating cash out of investments; and
doing any other personal and official errands for
Respondent Luna;
18. I also have a special assignment to receive and record

the church investments and to facilitate cash-outs
therefrom;
19. Our employment was only inspired by the altruistic

feeling that we directly work with Respondent Luna -
who during the investment trading days was respected
as a King of England;

information as to the planned deception, fraud or scam
behind the investment trading in Kawit. All out we
believed, that we were of help to our church-people;
21. More so, that the investing public included prominent

businessmen, politicians, judges, prosecutors, lawyers, law
enforcers, doctors, priests, clergies, pastors, ministers and
lay men and women- including the rich and the famous;
22. Simply put, we believed on the legitimacy and propriety

of the investment trading. If only we knew, if only we
have known early on that we were after all dealing with
the wicked and the uneven hands, we should not have
in the first place, allowed our church to be used in
facilitating our Member-investments;
23. We should not therefore be considered as criminals or

scoundrels- we too were victims of the scam. Needless
to state, we too, failed to get back our own
investments;
understand the consequence of his acts; and he must
have INTENT to commit the crime as charged. Absent
any one of these would make him no criminal;
25. Known is the doctrinaire concept: Actus non facit reum

nesi mensit rea – the act of a man is not criminal unless
his intentions were so criminal;
26. Nevertheless, we are charged as agents or co-

conspirators of the incorporators of AMAN FUTURES
GROUP PHILLIPINES, INC. which necessarily implies
that- when conspiracy is established- their act would
be our act- The act of one is the act of all;
27. The fact remains, the incorporators could have a

designed and planed deception in mind from inception
but never have we known of this designed and
planned deception. We were honesty working for our
church- not for a syndicate;
28. Simply put, though the investment trading came out to

be fraudulent, we never had known and never had we
noticed of the badges of fraud. Though the investment
trading was after all deceitful- we never had in mind
any intention to deceive anyone investor- much more,
our very own church and its people;
29. Conspiracy exists when two (2) or more persons come

to an agreement and decide on the commission of the
felony (PP vs Acosta, 396 SCRA 348). For sure, we were
never part of any agreement to defraud- much more of
a decision to put into effect such fraud. We were only
offered a facility so our church-members would not go
through the queue at Aman-Kawit;
30. Conspiracy presupposes capacity of the parties to the
conspiracy- to discern what is right from what is
wrong (PP vs. Jesus , 448 SCRA 116). For sure, we were
never in the position of discerning what lies behind the
Amalilio- we simply believed on him beyond the
whisper of any doubt. As such, we simply have been
negligent all thru out the AMAN days- our eyes were
blinded; our minds were locked up and our hands were
handcuffed. It was truly a scam;
31. Negligence is incompatible with conspiracy- because

negligence denotes the absence of intent while
conspiracy- involves a meeting of the minds to commit
a crime (Crisostomo vs Sandiganbayan, 456 SCRA 45).
Our minds had never met to perpetuate the resultant
crime of syndicated ESTAFA;

cooperate, is not enough to constitute one as party to a
conspiracy, absent any active participation in the
33. Mere suspicion, speculation, relationship, association

and companionship do not prove conspiracy. The sea
of suspicion has no shore and the court that embarks
upon it is without rudder or compass (People vs.
34. Imputed or constructive notice cannot be relied on to

support a charge of direct, personal conspiracy to the
fraud (Preferred Home Specialties, Inc. vs. CA, 478 SCRA
387);
35. If in the end, we be deemed agents or co-conspirators
by the Office of the Prosecutor, then we be prosecuted
and incarcerated for sure- while AMALILIO is free;
36. We are executing this counter-affidavit to establish the

fact that we did not from inception, intend to commit
so grave a wrong when we accepted the offer for our
church-members not to join the queue at Aman-Kawit.
It cannot be gainsaid therefore that we acted as agents
when we facilitated the investments of our church-
members.

this 29th day of March 2017 at Pagadian City, Philippines.
HIPOLITO HERMOSA PANER

Respondent
CONNIE FLOR GRACE L. PANER

Respondent
IRENE PANER
Respondent
MANNIMARGHEL V. PANER
Respondent
MAYNARD V. PANER
Respondent

March 2017 at Pagadian City, Philippines.
Doc No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2017
Manila
RAYMUNDO DIAZ, et. al. , NPS Docket NO. XVI-05-INV-12L-00529

Complainants,
- versus -for-

LUNA, et. al
Respondents.
X------------------------------------------/
We, IRENE C. PANER, Filipino of legal age, married and a
City; MARLON JOHN V. PANER (a.k.a. MARLON PANER),
Filipino of legal age, married and a resident of Corner Datoc-Sabate
Streets, San Jose District, Pagadian City; and MAYNARD V.
PANER (a.k.a. BOGS PANER), Filipino of legal age, married and a
say, THAT:
1. We are listed among the co-conspirators in the

above criminal complaint for the crime of
Estafa- committed in a large scale;

confederating with Chief Operators SPOUSES
FERNANDO and NIMFA LUNA as well as
with the incorporators of AMAN FUTURES
GROUP PHILIPPINES, INC., namely: Manuel
K. Amalilio, Fernando R. Luna, Lelian Lim
Gan, Eduard L. Lim, Wilanie L. Fuentes,
Naezelle M. Rodriguez, Lurix B. Lopez and
Isagani S. Laluna in committing the turned-
out investment fraud at Kawit, Pagadian City;
3. The phrase “innocent investors in good faith”

squarely applies to us without fear or favor;
4. We are closely knitted to Spouses Fernando

and Nimfa Luna, the chief operators of the
investment trading in Kawit, being the active
church workers and associate pastors of the
Christ the Lord of Glory Family Church at San
Jose District, Pagadian City, of which Spouses
Luna are active members and church-goers;
5. As close acquaintances and family friends of

the spouses, we were often invited in their
family gatherings more so if it had something
to do with prayer meetings, biblical readings
and thanksgiving ceremonies;
6. When the AMAN investment trading was at

its peak, Spouses Luna offered all the
members of our church to open a common
account with AMAN, where each and every
member could pool our meager investments;
7. Regrettably, everybody was tempted to invest

as all of us knew of the large amount of tithes
which the spouses Luna had remitted to the
church coffers;
8. As the active members and associate pastors

of the church, we took the cudgel of
facilitating the church investments, which a
priori, proved so lucrative to the church and
its members;

Kawit. All out we believed, that we were
investing in a truly pro-church, pro-poor and
pro-marginalized business enterprise;

famous;
11. Simply put, we believed on the legitimacy

at times, we were even utilized to lead the
spouses in their family prayer meetings. We
even put God in the center of the investment
trading. Often, we petitioned God to shower
His blessings upon the spouses and to protect
them from any danger to life and limb;

of the scam. Needless to state, our relatives,
friends much more, our church brethrens failed
to get back their capital investments- these
include our personal investments- which we
nobly earned by sweat and toil;

him no criminal;

criminal;
15. The incorporators could have a designed and

planed deception in mind from inception but
never have we known of this designed and
planned deception;



SCRA 116);
19. For sure, we were never in the position of

discerning what lies behind the smiling face
and loving touches of Manuel K. Amalilio- we
simply believed on him beyond the whisper
of any doubt;

syndicated ESTAFA;

399 SCRA 90);

SCRA 90);

anyone- we simply had put up our
investment with our church account and
suddenly lost it at the end of the day;
24. Complainant AMELIANO G. HIMANG, who

volunteered our names in his Complaint-
Affidavit, executed in our favor an Affidavit
of Rectification and/or Clarification to the
effect that he only blindly signed the
Complaint-Affidavit without knowing that
our names were included thereto. If at all, he
stated that he had no personal knowledge if
we had any participation with the AMAN
Trading. Attached, please find for a copy of the
Affidavit of Recantation and/or Clarification
by the Office of the Prosecutor, then we be
AMALILIO and the rests of the incorporators
of AMAN GROUP PHILIPPINES, INC. will
be free;

assisted Spouses Luna in their ecclesiastical and
spiritual needs. It is no crime to usher the bad
and the scoundrels back to the folds of God.

this __ day of July, 2013 at Pagadian City, Philippines.
IRENE C. PANER MARLON JOHN V. PANER

MAYNARD V. PANER
Respondent
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ___th day of

Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
Pagadian City
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, NPS Docket NO. IX-09-INV-13G-00326

Plaintiff,
- versus -for-
ARSENIO JAMINILLO GRAVE THREATS

Respondent.
X------------------------------------------/

Plaintiff,
- versus -for-
ARSENIO JAMINILLO, ILLEGAL DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS
Respondent.
X------------------------------------------/
I, ARSENIO D. JAMINILLO, Filipino of legal age, married
and a resident of Tipasan, Lapuyan, Zamboanga del Sur, after
THAT:
1. I am the Respondent in the above-entitled

case;
2. I am the incumbent Barangay Captain of

Barangay Tipasan, Lapuyan, Zamboanga del
Sur. As such, I am authorized to carry firearms
within my area of responsibility. My hand
gun too is licensed, with License No. AB30022;
3. I deny having threatened Joselito Repdos

Valenzuela at or about 4:00 o’clock in the
afternoon of July 20, 2013 by pointing my
hand gun to him. Much more, having
threatened Rodrigo Sigba Valenzuela by
shouting at him “Isog man kaha ka dali diri” at
or about the same time and place;
4. My defense is hereby narrated as follows, viz:
5. I went to Purok 4, of Barangay Tipasan,

Lapuyan, Zamboanga del Sur at or about
3:00 o’clock in the afternoon of July 20, 2013 if
only to visit the residents thereat- being their
Barangay Captain;
6. I left my motorcycle at or about the premises

of the Barangay Hall at Purok 3, and had to
walk to Purok 4;
7. That as soon as I was walking back to the
Barangay Hall with my wife at or about 4:00
o’clock in the afternoon, I saw a person using
a multi-colored cycling short pant and black T-
shirt beneath my motorcycle holding a knife;
8. That I then shouted at the person- gaunsa ka

diha? Then and there, the person ran away
from the motorcycle towards an opposite
direction;
9. That as soon as I was too near my motorcycle,

a girl named Liezel P. Tomo told me: “giluba
ang imong ligid kap, na flat”- Captain, your
wheel was stabbed, it is flattened;
10. That then and there, I ran towards the

direction where the person ran and as he was
already more than 200 meters from me, I drew
my hand gun from my waist and I made a
single warning shot to the air;
11. After which, I tucked my hand gun at my

waist and I pushed my motorcycle with my
wife walking behind me towards my house at
Purok 1;
12. While I was pushing my motorcycle, I heard

Rodrigo Sigba Valenzuela, a barangay kagawad
in same barangay, shouting this way: “diha na
jud maila Kap nga wa nay gyu’y mahadlok nimo
diri, ha ha, motor tuyuon ug flat!”-now we can
sense that no one is afraid of you here,
(laughing) imagine, your motorcycle was
intentionally flattened;
13. As soon as I heard those utterances which I

considered too insulting and teasing, I
answered, “apil apil na sad ning tambaloslos nga
konsehal”- this non-sense kagawad is interfering
again;
14. Needless to state, Rodrigo Sigba Valenzuela
is an avid critic of mine in the Barangay
Council, he was always adverse to my plans
and policies in the barangay. In fact, he is
fielding a candidate to run against me come
October 2013 Barangay Elections;
15. After saying, apil apil na sad ning tambaloslos

nga konsehal, I continued pushing my
motorcycle, with a heavy heart. Imagine,
instead of them helping me, they added insult
to my injury;
I am executing this affidavit to establish the fact that

I did not illegally discharge my hand gun and that, if at
all, I only made a warning shot unto the person who
stabbed the wheel of my motorcycle. Also, I did not
threatened Rodrigo Sigba Valenzuela nor his son Joselito
Repdos Valenzuela, I only responded to the insulting and
teasing utterances of Rodrigo Sigba Valenzuela, and that I
did so at the peak of anger.

10th day of September 13, 2013 at Pagadian City, Philippines.
ARSENIO D. JAMINILLO
Respondent

September 2013 at Pagadian City, Philippines.
Doc No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2013
Pagadian City

Plaintiff,
- versus -for-
ARSENIO JAMINILLO GRAVE THREATS

Respondent.
X------------------------------------------/

Plaintiff,
- versus -for-
ARSENIO JAMINILLO, ILLEGAL DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS

Respondent.
X------------------------------------------/
Joint Affidavit Of Affirmation

We, EDNA H. PORAN and ERNA D. GUMEN, both
Filipinos of legal age, married, and residents of Tipasan, Lapuyan,
1. We were present when the wheel of the

motorcycle of Captain Arsenio Jaminillo was
stabbed and flattened by a person named
Cocoy;
2. We were also present when Liezel Tomo told

him that the wheel of his motorcycle was
stabbed;
3. After which, he tucked his hand gun at his

waist and he pushed his motorcycle with his
wife walking behind him;
4. While he was pushing the motorcycle, I

heard Rodrigo Sigba Valenzuela, a barangay
kagawad in our barangay, shouting this way:
“diha na jud maila Kap nga wa nay gyu’y
mahadlok nimo diri, ha ha, motor tuyuon ug flat”;
5. After which, I heard Captain Jaminillo said:

“apil apil na sad ning tambaloslos nga konsehal”;
6. And then I observed that Captain Jaminillo

continued pushing his motorcycle.
I am executing this affidavit to establish the fact that

I was the one who told Captain Arsenio Jaminillo that the
wheel of his motorcycle was stabbed; that he only shot
once to the air and that I heard Kagawad Rodrigo
Valenzuela shouting, “diha na jud maila Kap nga wa na
gyu’y mahadlok nimo diri, ha ha, motor tuyuon ug flat” and
that I also heard Captain Jaminillo responding: “apil apil
na sad ning tambaloslos nga konsehal”;

10th day of September 13, 2013 at Pagadian City, Philippines.
LIEZEL P. TOMO
Affiant

September 2013 at Pagadian City, Philippines.
Doc No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2013

Manila
RAYMUNDO DIAZ, et. al. NPS Docket No.XVI--INV-12L-00529

Complainants,
- versus -for-

LUNA, et. al
Respondents.
X------------------------------------------/
We, HIPOLITO HERMOSA PANER, Filipino, 63 years old,
married and a resident of Corner Datoc-Sabate Streets, San Jose
District, Pagadian City; and MANNIMARGHEL VITORILLO
PANER (aka MANNY PANER), Filipino, 36 years old, married
and a resident of Corner Datoc-Sabate Streets, San Jose District,
Pagadian City, after having been sworn in accordance with law,
depose and say, THAT:
7. We are listed among the co-conspirators in the

above criminal complaint for the crime of
Estafa- committed in a large scale;

confederating with Chief Operators SPOUSES
FERNANDO and NIMFA LUNA as well as
with the incorporators of AMAN FUTURES
GROUP PHILIPPINES, INC., namely:
Manuel K. Amalilio, Fernando R. Luna, Lelian

Lim Gan, Eduard L. Lim, Wilanie L. Fuentes,
Naezelle M. Rodriguez, Lurix B. Lopez and
Isagani S. Laluna in committing the turned-
out investment fraud at Kawit, Pagadian City;
9. The phrase “innocent investors in good faith”

squarely applies to us without fear or favor;
10.We are closely knitted to Spouses Fernando

and Nimfa Luna, the chief operators of the
investment trading in Kawit, being the Senior
Minister and Associate Pastor of the Christ
the Lord of Glory Family Church at San Jose
District, Pagadian City, of which Spouses
Luna are active members and church-goers;
11.As close acquaintances and family friends of

the spouses, we were often invited in their
family gatherings more so if it had something
to do with prayer meetings, biblical readings
and thanksgiving ceremonies. Simply put, we
served as the spiritual advisers of the spouses,
their children and the immediate members of
their household. Needless to state, even
convicts need spiritual advisers. Thus, we
humbly submit that it is no crime to act as
spiritual advisers of spouses Luna who later
on, turned out to be scoundrels;
12.When the AMAN receipt of investment was at

its peak, Spouses Luna offered all the
members of our church to open a common
account with AMAN, where each and every
member could pool their meager investments;
13.Regrettably, everybody was tempted to invest

as all of us knew of the large amount of tithes
which the spouses Luna had remitted to the
church coffers;
14.As the Senior Minister and Associate Pastor of
the church respectively, we took the cudgel of
facilitating the church investments, which a
priori, proved so lucrative to the church and
its members;

Kawit. All out we believed, that we were
doing a legitimate and truly pro-church, pro-
poor and pro-marginalized business enterprise;

famous;
17. Simply put, we believed on the legitimacy

at times, we were even utilized to lead the
spouses in their family prayer meetings. We
even put God in the center of the investment
trading. Often, we petitioned God to shower
His blessings upon the spouses and to protect
them from any danger to life and limb;

of the scam. Needless to state, our relatives,
friends much more, our church brethrens failed
to get back their capital investments- these
include our personal investments- which we
nobly earned by sweat and toil;

him no criminal;

criminal;


neighbors, relatives and church members–
including our very own selves. Deceit is
indispensable in ESTAFA. And it must be in
the present charges;

1. Two (2) or more persons come to an agreement;
2. The agreement concerned the commission of a

felony; and-
3. The execution of felony was decided upon;

truly a scam;

syndicated ESTAFA;

399 SCRA 90);

SCRA 90);

had agreed with Spouses Luna to defraud our

very own selves- we simply had religiously
advised them to put God in their each and
every endeavor- all out in good faith;
31. Except for the general presumption that as

spiritual advisers- the Spouses’ link to God
almighty, we were already part of the scam,
there appears to be no other piece of proof
where it could be deduced that we had
knowledge or notice of the scam;

mere fact that we were sometimes seen at
Kawit during the AMAN days does not lead to
criminal intent which AMAN had in mind.
Otherwise put, we are no co-conspirators but
simply, innocent spiritual advisers and investors
in good faith;

by the Office of the Prosecutor, then we be
AMALILIO will surely go free;


assisted Spouses Luna in their ecclesiastical and
spiritual needs. It is no crime to usher the bad
and the scoundrels back to the folds of God.
It cannot be gainsaid therefore that we were
parties to the pre-designed investment fraud
and the damages caused.

this ___ day of June, 2013 at Pagadian City, Philippines.
HIPOLITO HERMOSA PANER

Respondent

Respondent

June 2013 at Pagadian City, Philippines.
Copy furnished:
Raymundo P. Diaz Registry Receipt No.

Pagadian City
Pagadian City
POI ALFIEKHAR ABDUA HASHIM, et. al. , NPS NO. IX-05-INQ-13B-00016

Complainants,
- versus -for-
TIMOTHY L. PIEDAD, ILLEGAL POSSESSION

Respondent. OF FIREARMS & VIOLATION
x----------------------------------/ OF THE OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE
Counter-Affidavit
I, TIMOTHY L. PIEDAD, Filipino of legal age, married and
a resident of San Pedro, Pagadian City, after having been sworn in
1. Who am I to join the lines of famous men and

women who stand charge of helpless crimes
in these valiant days in history?
2. The ever promising Sammy Co was linked to

AMAN and now faces charges for
SYNDICATED ESTAFA. The so-famous and
feared Spouses Tony and Auring Cerilles
were left-shocked by their Big 3 Financial
Pillars and now face charges for PLUNDER.
Why include me on the line-up? Is the name
Timothy Piedad famous and extra ordinary?
3. I am just an ordinary guy- accidentally known

in the community and academe thru a
morning radio program “Tonto por tonto” (A
fool for a fool). In speaking out the truth in a
colloquial way, I earned the ire of a few good
men in power;
4. Every now and then, I received threats against

my life and limb. In fact, my secret predators
disguised to have pitied my wife and
children- so they advised me to soften my
speech or not to speak at all;
5. Only the truth shall set us free, said the dog.
Only the martyrs die young, said the cat. Only
the braves as “Samson” are entrapped and
held in captivity. So was I;
6. If only to shut me up, a team of PNP

gladiators was composed to plan out my
captivity- to finally silence me and to report no
truth anymore;
7. The plan began with an information- relayed

by an unidentified informer. The information
was relayed to P/Insp. Sangue who then
relayed the information to P/Supt. Palermo.
Obviously, the information was hearsay. Much
more, it came from an unknown source;
8. But then, two (2) teams (Team A and Team B)

were composed allegedly to entrap me, to
borrow their language. The expertise they had
in a drug buy-bust operation was adopted.
They refer to it as firearms buy-bust. PO1Teus
was assigned to be the poseur-buyer with PO1
Hashim as his back-up security. Perhaps, a
back-up security was truly needed as the
subject was a certain TIM- a notorious gun
runner;
9. What is funny, aside from the back-up

security, Team A and Team B followed up
PO1 Teus and Hashim- TIM could have been
so notorious;
10. But then, I was not engaged in any illegal sale

of firearms. I am just a lowly radio
commentator- whom I said a priori, turned a bit
famous accidentally in a radio program Tonto
por tonto- later on dubbed as “PUNTO POR
PUNTO”;
11. I was standing by my motorcycle at the

premises of DXPR at or about 1:30 o’clock in
the afternoon of February 5, 2013. I was then
looking for Kuya Al Gesta for a casual reason.
He was not there, so I had to wait;
12. A CRV vehicle suddenly stopped too near

me. I believed, it was the service vehicle of
Captain Cauba of Barangay Sta. Lucia. I
smiled thinking it was him and I could ask for
a peso or two;
13. Surprisingly, it was not him. Then and there,

Teus and Hashim came out and pointed their
short firearms to me. I asked why, but PO1
Teus pushed me and made me enter the
service vehicle. I could have shouted, but not
one was there. Thus, I found myself inside the
service vehicle;
14. I saw PO1 Hashim dialed his cell phone.
Then I saw two (2) PNP vehicles getting near
us. I said to myself, “mao na ni ang ila text nako,
kuhaon jud ko nila”- this is what they texted
me, they would get me;
15. I was left with no other recourse but to wish

that I would not be summarily killed. The
heaven fell on me that very moment. I
thought, it was my end;
16. Simply put, I was not caught in flagranti

bringing the alleged three (3) pieces of .45
caliber pistol. If at all, they were only planted
to end me up and to stop me from getting
more famous and then to be idolized and
believed at by some lowly fans and listeners;
17. Also, I do not own the cellphone with SIM No.

09203091704- much more to have it in my
possession on February 5, 2013. The cellphone
was among the planted items to pin me up;
18. Res ipsa loquitor- the thing speaks for itself.

The pictures depicting the three (3) firearms
as confiscated are still wrapped with masking
tapes. They were fully wrapped, if at all. This
picture negates the story of PO1 Teus and
Hashim that I showed them the firearms and
that they inspected them. To quote: That I
PO1 Teus asked Tim if I can see the items, in
which he agreed. I took the said cellophane
where the items were placed then put it inside
the vehicle. I get one (1) of the unit caliber .45
with Model Remington and told PO1 Hashim
that it is a good quality and that I, PO1
Hashim also asked the units of caliber .45
pistol from PO1 Teus to check the makes and
model and find out that the two (2) units are
Armscor and the other one unit is Remington
xxx;
19. This story is very much contrary to the

appearance of the three (3) subject firearms
which were still fully wrapped with masking
tapes when they were subjected to picture
taking at Camp Abelon. As to how PO1 Teus
and Hashim know that they were either
Armscor or Remington, I am bewildered.
Please see picture hereto attached and marked as
Annex “1”;
20. Also, the picture taken on the firearms, the

yellow cellophane and other paraphernalia
with a PNP Officer in civilian attire pointing
at them negates the alleged marked money, to
wit: one (1) piece P 1,000.00 peso bill; thirteen
(13) pieces P 500.00 peso bill; eight (8) pieces P
100.00 peso bill and one (1) piece P .50 peso
bill;
21. As then Mayor Joey Marquez often asked:
Where did your peso go? Res ipsa loquitor-
the thing speaks for itself. They were no
marked money so to speak. Please see picture
hereto attached and marked as Annex “2”;
22. In their Affidavit, PO1 Teus and Hashim said,

that my entrapment took place on January 5,
2013, thus- that on January 5, 2013 in the
morning xxx;
23. Then- it witness whereof, we have hereunto

affixed our signatures this __ day of February
2013 at Pagadian City, Philippines;
24. Then- subscribed and sworn to before me this

__ day of February 2013 at Pagadian City,
Zamboanga del Sur, Philippines;
25. In their affidavit, PO1 Revelo and Urot said:

“That at around 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon
of same date xxx but actually there was no
date mentioned;
26. In his affidavit, P/Supt. Palermo said: On

January 5, 2012, at around 9:00 o’clock in the
morning xxx;
27. Then- in witness whereof, I have hereunto set

my hand this 8th day of February 2013 in
Pagadian City;
28. Then- subscribed and sworn to before me this
15th day of February 2013 at Pagadian City;
29. In his affidavit, P/Insp. Ariola said: that at

around 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon xxx – no
date mentioned;
30. In his affidavit, P/Insp. Sangue said: That on

January 5, 2013 at around 9:00 o’clock in the
morning xxx;
31. Then the pictures were taken on February 5,

2013 at 1:45 pm. Several pictures were taken-
all at 1:45 pm. Is this believable?
32.. Much more, the entrapment was had at 1:45.

Isn’t it? And the pictures were also taken at
1:45 pm. Rediculous!
33. ANO BA TALAGA KUYA? These apparent

inconsistencies in the affidavits of the
witnesses render the present complaint to
become dubious and suspicious. These would
render the complaint less worthy of faith and
credence. These may even cause the outright
dismissal of the Complaint;
34. A respondent must be informed of the nature

and cause of the accusation against him. He
should be informed as to what crime he is
being prosecuted and as to when, where and
how did he commit such a crime? Absent
these information/s would be violative of his
constitutional right to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against
him. As such, is dismissible and frowned
upon;
35. The handling prosecutor in his Order dated

February 7, 2013 noticed these inconsistencies-
he even ordered the complainants to rectify
these inconsistencies, but these were not
corrected. Thus, they should no longer be
allowed to do so, after then;
36. If the date of the commission of the crime

cannot be ascertained or made intact, then
there is no crime to speak of;
37. In People vs Sy Chua (GR No. 136066, February

4, 2003), the police officers received a report
from a confidential informant that the accused
was about to deliver prohibited drugs that
night at the Thunder Inn Hotel in Angeles
City. The police officers went to the hotel. At
around 11:45 in the evening, the informant
pointed to a car driven by the accused which
had just arrived then parked near the entrance
of the hotel. The accused was carrying a
sealed Zest-O juice box when he alighted from
the car. The Police Officers accosted him. As
the accused pulled-out his wallet, a sachet of
shabu protruded from his right back pocket.
The police officers opened the Zest-O box and
discovered that it contained a crystalline
substance. The accused was then arrested and
detained. The Supreme Court declared his
arrest to be illegal;
38. In People vs. Racho (GR No. 186529, August 3,

2010), a confidential agent transacted with the
accused for the purchase of shabu. The agent
reported the transaction to the police, giving
the latter the name and physical description of
the accused, and information as to when and
where the accused would be arriving. The
accused alighted from the bus. The agent
pointed to him. The Police Officers then
approached him and invited him to go with
them to the police station on suspicion of
carrying shabu. The accused denied the
accusations, but as he pulled out his hands
from his pocket, a white envelope slipped
therefrom which, when opened, yielded a small
sachet of shabu. He was then arrested and
detained. The Supreme Court declared his
arrest illegal, and-
39. In People vs Aruta (351 Phil, 868), a Police

Officer was tipped off by his informant that a
certain Aling Rosa would be arriving from
Baguio City the following day with a large
volume of marijuana. The police officer
deployed a team near a PNB Building at
Olongapo City. A Victory Liner Bus stopped
in front of the PNB building. A man and two
women got off. The informant pointed to the
woman who was carrying a travelling bag as
Aling Rosa. The Team approached her and
introduced themselves as police officers.
When asked about the contents of her bag, she
handed it to the police officers. Upon
inspection, her bag was found to contain
dried marijuana leaves. She was then arrested
and detained. The Court declared her arrest
illegal;
40. Given the foregoing cases, and though

granting arguendo, that I was indeed carrying
the yellow cellophane containing the three (3)
firearms when I was arrested by the
Complainants, my arrest was still illegal. As
such, the three (3) subject firearms are
inadmissible in evidence for being “fruits of a
poisonous tree”. My prosecution therefore, will
only mean a waste of judicial time and energy
as the prosecution will have no evidence to
prove the crime or crimes for which I am
charged be it, illegal possession of
firearms/illegal sale of firearms or violation of
the Omnibus Election Code on the ban on
carrying firearms outside of residence during
election period;

42. I am executing this counter-affidavit to

establish the fact that I did not have in my
possession the subject firearms which were
allegedly confiscated from my possession,
much more, to have sold any one of those
firearms to the police officers who accosted
and arrested me.

17th day of April 2013 at Pagadian City, Philippines.
TIMOTHY L. PIEDAD
Respondent

May 2013 at Pagadian City, Philippines.
Doc No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2012
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that I have personally examined the affiant

and I am convinced that this counter-affidavit was executed by
him freely and voluntarily and the facts and defenses narrated
thereon are true and correct.
Copy furnished:
P/Supt. MICHAEL P. PALERMO Registry Receipt No.

Provincial Public Safety Company
Camp Abelon, Pagadian City
PO1 Alfiekhar A. Hashim Registry Receipt No.

Provincial Public Safety Company

Pagadian City
EDNA PULMONES, et. al. , NPS NO. IX-09-INV-14D-00190

Complainants,
- versus -for-
JERRY ISOLIR Y MACAN, RA 10591

Respondent.
x----------------------------------/
Counter-Affidavit
I, JERRY M. ISOLIR, Filipino of legal age, married and a
resident of Alicia, Molave, Zamboanga del Sur, after having been
sworn in accordance with law, depose and say, THAT:
1. Who are these CIDG-CIS civilian agents who
had the nerve of unlawfully aggressing and
then apprehending a man in full security
uniform? Are they truly part of the organic
membership of the military or the PNP or
they are just but gutful civilian who
volunteered to augment the weakness of the
police force?
2. Truly, what authority do they have to conduct

surveillance and do apprehension works by
themselves and in the absence of any organic
member of the police force? I thought the
Marcos regime already ended para-military
forces? Now, they are here;
3. Worse, the PNP of Molave gave their

unauthorized act a semblance of legitimacy.
This is but fearing! The Supreme Court in
Villavincecio vs. Lucban aptly put: Nobility of
intention does not justify an unauthorized act;
4. Worst, if this Honorable Office will see fit to

file the present case in court. What justice will
there be on earth?
5. Those who are supposed to enforce the law

are not justified in disregarding the rights of
the individual in the name of order. Order is
too high a price for the loss of liberty. As
Justice Holmes once said: I think it is less evil
that some criminals should escape than that the
government should play an ignoble part. It is
simply not allowed in free society to violate a law
to enforce another, especially if the law violated is
the constitution itself (People vs. Laguio, G.R.
128587, 16 March 2007);
6. I am just a lowly man- a security guard as

such. I find honor in my uniform. I find solace
on what I poorly earn. If the PDAF went to
the pocket. My wage went to love-ones mouth;
7. I am a security guard engaged by the

Tabunaway Warrior Security Agency. I do not
know what Tabunaway is all about- what I
only know was that I could feed my children
out of my wage from it. Mine was simply an
intention to just exist instead of truly living-
so to speak;
8. I was assigned at the second floor of CINEMA

SQUARE-Molave. My duty begins at 9:00
o’clock in the morning to 9:00 o’clock in the
evening. I religiously reported to duty- despite
heavy rains and hot suns;
9. Routinarily, my direct supervisor, SG Rogelio

Mirontos comes to my post and take
possession of my service firearm and the
firearms issued to other security guards which
are entrusted to me upon their relief;
10. What happened on March 31, 2014, was very

peculiar. My direct supervisor, SG Mirontos
failed to come to my post. I had to leave as the
CINEMA SQUARE had to close by then. I also
did not have any relief-guard as Tabunaway’s
contracted duty ends every 9:00 o’clock in the
evening;
11. I was then in quandary as to what to do with

the three (3) short firearms which were at my
post during the time. If I would choose to
leave them, they might be lost and I would be
responsible for the loss. Thus, I chose to bring
them home along with me if only to safe-keep
them;
12. I do not know how I looked after tucking my

service firearm at my waist and putting the
two (2) other firearms at my pockets. But for
sure, I was in my full security uniform;
13. I did not have any intention to use the short

firearms in furtherance or for the commission
of any one firearm. Mine was simply to safe-
keep them- no more no less;
14. I then boarded a habal-habal in going home

that fateful night. Only to be suddenly pushed
by two (2) unknown men after I alighted
myself from the habal-habal;
15. True, I tried to protect myself from my

aggressors. I was even thrown to the ground
if only to protect myself from harm. The
attack was so sudden- I did not hear any
warning from them. Much more the so-called
Miranda Warning;
16. Even then, as soon as my aggressors said that

they were policemen, I immediately stood up,
raised my hands and said- security ko, sir!
17. Honestly, Complainant Emma Doronilla

Pulmones was not among the two (2) men
who aggressed and apprehended me that
fateful night. I do not know where did she
come from;
18. The firearms as apprehended are owned by

the Tabunaway Warrior Security Agency.
Attached, please find for the machine copies of
their licenses marked as Annexes “1”; “2”; and
“3”;
19. I am executing this counter-affidavit to show

proof that I did not intend to commit any one
crime when I carried with me the subject
firearms. If at all, I was thinking in good faith,
that as a security guard in full uniform, it
would be better for me to take home the
subject firearms than assume the risk of losing
them. Otherwise put, my possession thereof
was truly harmless- as such is no criminal.

JERRY M. ISOLIR
Respondent

April 2014 at Pagadian City, Philippines.
Doc No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2014
Copy furnished:
Emma D. Pulmones Registry Receipt No.

Madasigon, Molave, Zamboanga del Sur
Pablo C. Batiquin Registry Receipt No.

Maloloy-on, Molave, Zamboanga del Sur
Pagadian City
ALMIRA ARRIANE A, ANGCON, NPS NO. IX-05-INV-13D-00076

Complainant,
- versus -for-
DR. ROY P. ALCANO, ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS/

Respondent. SEXUAL HARASSMENT
x----------------------------------/
Counter-Affidavit
I, ROY P. ALCANO, Filipino of legal age, married and a
resident of Fatima Village, Balangasan, Pagadian City, after having
been sworn in accordance with law, depose and say, THAT:
1. How bad a friend was I to be dragged into a

dilemma involving a crime against chastity-
more particularly against a fellow health
worker?
2. If not all, imposed or scripted, what it is?
3. To begin with, LOVERS’ KISSES AND

EMBRACES ARE NOT ACTS OF
LASCIVIOUSNESS- this is a well-settled
doctrinaire concept so to speak;
4. I humbly deny under oath that I committed
the crime as charged- more particularly

sexually harassing Complainant Almira
Arriane as well as the alleged lewd design to
lie upon her in fantasy;
5. Whatever transpired between us on the fateful
night of March 27, 2013, if there was any, was

simply a wake of passion if not at all alcohol-
related intoxication;
6. It all began in a group plan to a bonding

spree after a tiresome drag race on March 24,
2013-where we served as medical team;
7. Of the many who undertook to join the
bonding spree, only the four (4) of us finally

made it on Wednesday, March 27, 2013- the
eve before Maundy Thursday- Karylle
Omandam and her boyfriend Faith Kappa,
Complainant Almira Arriane and myself;
8. We started with a heavy dinner at or about
8:00 0’clock in the evening of March 27, 2013

at JC Corner-fronting Dao Tennis Court;
9. Then a drinking spree followed- red horse beer-
a too heavy to carry drink;
10. Complainant Almira Arriane then

complained of stomach ache. As a physician
and a friend, I advised her that a tablet of
Buscopan would do;
11. Complainant Almira Arriane reacted saying
that since her childhood, she found it hard

taking a single tablet of medicine. She
advanced that she rather had an injectable one;
12. Again, as a physician and a friend, I

volunteered to buy one. It was truly an honest
assistance extended to a friend though he
might not consider me one;
13. I then bought a vial of Hyoscine N

Butylbromide (injectable) known in the
ordinary parlance as Buscopan and a lizard-eye
like tablet Pantoprazole;
14. Karylle Omandam volunteered to administer
the injection, and which she did. Afterwhich, I

handed the Pantoprazole tablet to her. She
then said “di lagi ko katulon ana”;
15. Then Faith Kappa said and demonstrated
how to take it i.e. putting it too near the throat

and then drink water- and which she did
successfully;
16. Apparently, Complainant Almira Arriane was
relieved of her stomach pain thus- she went

on drinking with us;
17. Then came the homeward bound- which if
ever repeated in my lifetime, I would surely

not offer to drive them home- if only to evade
from being caught into this mess;
18. Normally, I had to drop Faith Kappa at Sta.
Maria- the nearest station so far. Then it had

to be Karylle Omandam at Camp Abelon;
19. Complainant Almira Arriane had to be taken
home last, as she dwelt at Napolan i.e. even

beyond my very home at Fatima Village,
Balangasan;
20. True, I passed by “Three” and bought a bottle
of beer. But I only bought a bottle, just a

bottle;
21. I was already a bit drunk while driving
home. She too was a bit drunk. True, we had a

few joy driving within the city i.e. to while our
remaining moments before finally getting
home;
22. I sensed she enjoyed the ride;
23. True, I passed thru Ballesteros Village in
going to Napolan. Needless to state, in so

doing I had to pass by our house at Fatima
Village. I wish the Honorable Prosecutor will
take judicial notice of this. If indeed, I had a
lewd intention in mind, I should not have
passed via that route in going to Napolan. I
should have passed casually thru the ZSMIT
road. But then, I passed thru Ballesteros
Village;
24. Equally true, I stopped my car at the junction
of Ballesteros and Dumagoc (Green House), but

then I only stopped to buy some candies from
the store at the corner, no more no less;
25. I did not tell her to transfer to the back seat.
Why would I? If I intended to lie with her at

the back seat, why would I do it at the said
junction? Why too near a store? I should have
driven a bit and stopped at the premises of
the Tugas Church- it is far more private there.
And I could sexually abuse her with ease and
with impunity;
26. The only thing that transpired at the junction
was my tender touches on her fore head

(which she refer to a massaging her forehead) after
complaining for a headache;
27. What I remembered, was that she laid her
head upon my right shoulder and then I

touched her fore head tenderly if only to ease
her headache;
28. Aside from this, I do not remember doing any
other else. If it be true, that I kissed her,

exposed and fondled her breast and touched
her private parts, these happenstances are
more imaginary than real. Though passion
may not be a respecter of time and place, I
would not do this kind of a happenstance
inside my car and too near a store;
29. After which, I drove her home. We ended the
night with a friendly “good bye and see you”

and a few intimate text messages before I
finally entered our house;
30. The following day was a Maundy Thursday,
then Holy Friday, then Saturday and Sunday.

I expected to see her again on Tuesday, April
2, 2013. I was expecting to see her on a
Tuesday because I only report to Balangasan
Health Center during Tuesdays and Fridays;
31. Surprisingly, what followed were the present
criminal charges for Acts of Lasciviousness

and Sexual Harassment- which truly have
turned me into pieces.
32. I am executing this counter-affidavit to

establish the fact that I did not intend to lie
with Complainant Almira Arriane much
more, to sexually abuse or harass her. And
that if at all, the tablet which she took and the
injection which was administered to her were
nobly intended- without any ill or ulterior
motive behind.

23rd day of May 2013 at Pagadian City, Philippines.
ROY P. ALCANO
Respondent
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 23rd day of

May 2013 at Pagadian City, Philippines.
Doc No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2012
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that I have personally examined the affiant

and I am convinced that this counter-affidavit was executed by
him freely and voluntarily and the facts and defenses narrated
thereon are true and correct.
Copy furnished:
ALMIRA ARRIANE A. ANGCON Registry Receipt No.

Purok Waling-Waling,
Napolan, Pagadian City
Republic of the Philippines)

CITY OF PAGADIAN ) s.s.
x---------------------------------/
Affidavit
I, DHURWEN D. WENCESLAO, Filipino of legal age,
married and a resident of Ballesteros Village, Balangasan, Pagadian
say, THAT:
1. My parents were close family friends of
Spouses Fernando R. Luna and Nimfa C.
Luna, the chief operators of the AMAN
FUTURES GROUP PHILIPPINES, Inc. in
Kawit, Pagadian City;

with Spouses Luna;
3. As close acquaintances and family friends of

the spouses, they accommodated me for a
casual employment on March 10, 2012 sans
any job order or contract of employment;

engagement, except for a promise that I be
given a bi-monthly allowance ranging from
Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) to Five
Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00);
5. I was not given any fixed or specific

assignment. I simply worked upon direct
instructions or orders from Spouses Luna. But
most often, I was sent to deposit the proceeds
of investments at UCPB, BPI, East-West and
RCBC;
6. I used to deposit the proceeds of investments
to the following accounts, namely: UNIGEN,
AMAN Futures Trading and AMAN
Opportunities, with principal offices at Cebu
City;
7. As one of the first set of employees and

workers of Spouses Fernando and Nimfa
Luna, I personally know the pioneering
investors of AMAN Futures- most of whom
were lowly employees and market vendors
who only put up minimal investment of P
500.00 to P 5,000.00 in the months of March,
April and May of 2012;
8. Thus, I affirm the fact that City Mayor

SAMUEL S. CO, City of Mayor of Pagadian
was not among the pioneering investors
during the months of March, April and May
of 2012;
9. The investment suddenly grew up in the

months of June 2012, that was when the multi-
million investments from Marawi City and
Lanao del Sur came in to Kawit;
10. These multi-million investments were not
invested thru personal accounts (as spouses
Luna frowned upon Maranao investments) but
were invested thru the facility of already-
existing accounts of the pioneering investors,
which we referred to in the ordinary parlance
as “abay” or attached to already-existing
account;
11. This time too, the investing public already

included prominent businessmen, politicians,
judges, prosecutors, lawyers, law enforcers,
doctors, priests, clergies, pastors, ministers and
lay men and women- including the rich and the
famous;
12. On June 18, 2012, the City Mayor Samuel S.

Co ordered the cancellation of the Business
Permit under which Spouses Luna operated
the trading in Kawit- the FRETZ and SHA
Trading;
13. Also, Chief Operator Fernando R. Luna was

summoned by him to his office and directed
to stop the operation;
14. Not only that, Chief Operator Fernando R.
Luna was summoned by the Honorable
Sangguniang Panlungsod for a legislative
investigation where he was subjected to a
close legislative inquiry;
15. After which, officers and employees of the

City Government were blacklisted in Kawit.
Simply put, we were instructed by Spouses
Luna not to accept investments from the city
officers and employees if there be any;
16. In the month of August of 2012, I learned

that City Mayor Co was enticed by Manuel K.
Amalilio to directly invest to his investment
trading in Cebu City thru the account of
Lelian Lim Gan, one of the Incorporators and
Board of Directors of AMAN Futures;
17. Simply put, his investments were deposited

directly thru the account of Lelian Lim Gan
with AMAN Futures;
18. I personally knew this fact because his

investment with Lelian Lim Gan angered
Spouses Luna because they did not want City
Mayor Co to invest with AMAN-Futures
either thru Kawit or thru any other facility-
due to his adverse and prejudicial acts against
them;
19. Also, I personally knew this fact, because I

usually met his account personnel during
banking hours - also depositing his
investment to the account of Lelian Lim Gan
while I was depositing the proceeds of
AMAN-Kawit with the usual accounts of
Aman Futures;
20. On September 29, 2012, after AMAN-Kawit

stopped its operation, I was instructed by
Chief Operator Fernando R. Luna to go to
Cebu City and to submit to Lelian Lim Gan a
hard copy of the List of Investors with
already- due and demandable accounts so that
they would be issued checks. According to
him, Amalilio instructed him to do so. Thus, I
went to Ceby City with co-employee Marione
Paul V. Paner;
21. On September 30, 2012, after Lelian Lim Gan

had talked with Chief Operator Luna thru
cellular phone, Lelian Lim Gan gave us fifty
checks. She also informed me that another
fifty checks would be sent by her the
following day thru LBC Air Cargo to Kawit.
But then we suggested that it would be better
if she would send the checks thru the City
Government of Pagadian or thru the Office of
the City Mayor as we could no longer
distribute the checks as AMAN-Kawit was
already closed and most employees already
went hiding for fear to life and limb- which
she did. Thus, checks were sent thru the Office
of the City Mayor.
I am executing this affidavit to establish all the facts

and circumstances as narrated above- which facts and
circumstances came personally to my knowledge and
information while I was yet innocently working with
AMAN-Kawit.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my

hand this ___day of December 2012 at _______________,
Philippines.
DHURWEN D. WENCESLAO
Affiant

December, 2012 at ________________, Philippines, affiant
exhibiting his Professional Driver’s License and Permit to Carry
Firearms outside of Residence.
Office of the Ombudsman
MINDANAO
4th Floor H & C Bldg., Alvarez St., Sta. Ana, Davao City
JEANETTE M. BACANG, Case No. OMB-M-A-13-0103,

Complainant
-versus- -for-
SULTAN TAHA G. SARIP, GRAVE MISCONDUCT

Chancellor,
Mindanao State University,
Buug Campus, Zamboanga Sibugay,
Respondent
x-----------------------------------------------/
Counter-Affidavit
I, SULTAN TAHA G. SARIP, Filipino of legal age, married
and a resident of Datu Panas, Buug, Zamboanga Sibugay, after
THAT:
1. I am the Respondent in the above-complaint.

My personal circumstances are as follows, viz:
NAME : TAHA GURO SARIP
DESIGNATION : CHANCELLOR
ADDRESS :
MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY
BUUG CAMPUS
SALARY GRADE: 29
2. A reading of the Complaint-Affidavit is to the

effect that the Complaint-Affidavit is one and
the same Complaint-Affidavit which was filed
by the Complainant with the Civil Service
Commission, Central Office at CSC Building,
IBP Road, Constitution Hills, Quezon City. A
copy of the Complaint-Affidavit as well as the
Order of the Commission dated March 6, 2013 are
hereto attached and marked as Annexes “1” and
“2”;
3. Suffice is to say, the Complainant is shopping

for a favorable forum to ventilate her cause.
And this may be a violation of the rule against
forum-shopping:
4. Even then, I have to deny the administrative

charges of the Complainant, viz:
5. Appointment is the administrative function of

a university chancellor like me. Such a
function is never ministerial but discretionary.
Simply put, I am vested with the discretion to
appoint or not to appoint or to choose who
among the applicants or aspirants to appoint.
Mine is also the prerogative to choose who
among my temporary employees to re-appoint
or to retain in the school’s employ. This
discretion is exclusive and cannot be
interfered upon, not even by the Civil Service
Commission- provided an appointee meets
the minimum qualification as prescribed for a
position. On the same breath, I may or may not
renew the appointment of an employee with a
temporary appointment;
6. Also, there is no professional teacher by
prescription or by lapse of time- regardless of
the number of years devoted by a non-
professional teacher to service. Simply put, if it
be true that Complainant had been teaching
for the past twenty –three (23) years, she does
not still possess the unbridled license to
arrogate unto herself that her temporary
appointment may be renewed till her
retirement age. This makes of her an
exemption to the mandate of Republic Act
7836 otherwise known as the Philippine
Teachers Professionalization Act of 1994;
7. As a university chancellor, I had to enforce the

provisions of the act without fear or favor. I
regret if Complainant became the subject of
my first wave of enforcement of the act. My
apology then;
8. Admittedly, Complainant is not a professional

teacher. Simply put, she never had passed the
Professional Board Examination for Teachers
(PBET) and failed to date to become a licensed
teacher- and she cannot blame me for that.
Duralex sed lex- the law may be hard but it is
the law;
9. The state recognizes the vital role of teachers

in nation-building through a responsible and
literate citizenry. Towards this end, the state
ensures and promotes quality education by
proper supervision and regulation of the
licensure examination and professionalization
of the practice of the teaching profession;
10.Section 26 of RA 7836 mandates that two (2)

years after the effectivity of the act, no person
shall engage in teaching and/or act as a
professional teacher, whether in pre-school,
elementary or secondary level, unless he is a duly
registered professional teacher, and a holder of a
valid certificate of registration and a valid
professional license or a holder of a valid special or
temporary permit;
11. Upon approval of the application and

payment of the prescribed fees, the certificate
of registration and professional license as a
professional teacher shall be issued even
without examination as required in the act to
a qualified applicant, who at the time of the
approval of the Act is:
a) A holder of certificate of eligibility as

teacher issued by the CSC and the
Department of Education;
b) A registered professional teacher with the

National Board for Teachers under the
Department of Education pursuant to PD No.
1006; or-
c) Not qualified under paragraphs 1 and 2

but with any of the following qualifications, to
wit:
1) An elementary or secondary teacher for five

(5) years in good standing and a holder of BS
in Education or its equivalent; or-
2) An elementary or secondary teacher for

three (3) years in good standing and a holder
of a Master’s Degree in Education or its
equivalent;
12.The above exceptions is subject to a condition

that these teachers are given two years from
the organizations of the Board for Professional
Teachers within which to register and be
included in the roster of professional teachers;
13. Regrettably, complainant failed to register

within the schedule as prescribed by the act.
She does not also have in her favor any
Master’s Degree in Education- which the
other non-professional teachers in the campus
have;
14.More than these, Section 27 of the Act

mandates that no person shall practice or offer to
practice the teaching profession or be
appointed as teacher to any position calling
for a teaching profession without having
previously obtained a valid Certificate of
Registration and a valid Professional License
from the CSC. Simply put, the Act even
makes it criminal for complainant to practice
or to offer her teaching services to a Science
Laboratory High School of a premier
institution of learning as Mindanao State
University-Buug College without having
previously obtained a valid Certificate of
Registration and a valid Professional License
from the CSC;
15. Also, Mr. Bacang’s fate had already been a

subject of a previous Complaint, which he
filed against me with the Provincial Office of
the Civil Service Commission-Zamboanga del
Sur. A copy of the complaint as well as the action
taken by Atty. Mario Jose T. Cunting, Director II
are hereto attached and marked as Annex “3” and
Annex “4”;
16. Mr. Bacang was appointed ad interim by then

MSU-System Acting President Ricardo F. de
Leon. Ad interim in the sense that he was
appointed while the MSU System Board of
Regents was not in session. Noteworthy, the
power to appoint is vested in the MSU-System
Board of Regents, upon recommendation of
the University President;
17. An ad interim appointment in akin to a

temporary appointment which is intended to
fill an office for a limited period of time until a
permanent appointment is extended or a new
appointee is chosen (Austria vs. Amante, 79
Phil 780 as cited in Mahombsar vs. Alonto, GR
No. 93711, February 25, 1991);
18. Being an ad interim appointment, it was

issued subject to issuance of a permanent
appointment by the Board of Regents. The
Board of Regents did not issue a permanent
appointment to Mr. Bacang. An ad interim
appointment is one made during the time
when the appointing authority is not in
session and there is an existing clear and
present urgency caused by the impending
obstruction or paralyzation of the functions
assigned to the office if no immediate
appointment is made (Rodriguez vs Quirino, 9
SCRA 284, cited in Marombsar vs Alonto, GR
No. 93711, February 25, 1991);
19. An ad interim appointment expires upon the

immediately following regular session of the
Board of Regents, if not acted upon or no
permanent appointment is issued. In the case
of Mr. Bacang, no appointment was issued by
the Board of Regents on the immediately
following regular session. Simply put, Mr.
Bacang’s ad interim appointment normally
expired and met its natural death. And he
should not blame me for that;
20. For humanitarian reason, I recommended Mr.

Bacang for casual employment on September
1, 2008 under the presidency of the incumbent
MSU-System President, Dr. Macapado A.
Muslim. I did so for utter personal pity on
complainant, despite the fact that his
immediate supervisor, Vice Chancellor Pedro
S. Caong rated his performance barely
satisfactory. Complainant agreed and was
even thankful of the casual employment;
21. As a legal consequence, he was no longer

entitled to the benefits which were only
appurtenant to regular positions such as but
not limited to cash allowances and mid-year
and year-end bonuses, etc.;
22. Surprisingly, Mr. Bacang complained with the

Provincial Office of the Honorable
Commission for payment of the benefits
which were no longer appurtenant to his
casual employment. I did not understand why
he filed a complaint against me for that;
23. Fortunately, his complaint was not given due
course by the Provincial Office of the Civil
Service Commission. A copy of my comment to
the complaint of Mr. Bacang is hereto attached and
marked as Annex “C”;
24. I chose not to comment on the termination of

complainant’s daughter whom I hired only by
way of a job order due to my pity on her
family- who during the time was truly
financially hard-up by reason of the
deteriorating health of Mr. Bacang. Again,
they cursed me instead of thanking me for
that;
25. Finally, I am a Sultan by tribal royalty. As

such, I was born and raised in this world with
a golden spoon. I may not be rich but I am far
from being so poor or needy. Sequitur,
stealing public money much more, private ones
are far beyond me. I therefore, deny having
demanded or received the sum of P 2,000.00
by way of a monthly share from
Complainant’s husband’s salary;
I am executing this affidavit to establish all the facts and

circumstances as narrated above- which facts and circumstances
may in one or another shedlight on what actually transpired on the
employment status of Complainant Bacang and that of her
husband and daughter- which I was blamed of. I simply enforced
the mandate of RA 7836, if Complainant was affected, I simply
cannot do otherwise. My hands are tied, so to speak. Though I
pitied them, my pity was not good enough.

SULTAN TAHA G. SARIP

Respondent

April 2013 at Pagadian City, Philippines, affiant exhibiting his
University Identification Card and Professional Driver’s License,
depicting his recent photos and customary signatures.
Doc No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2013
Manila
MARIO K. SABAC, et. al. , NPS Docket No. XVI-INV-13A-00004

Complainants,
- versus -for-

Respondents.
X------------------------------------------/
MOTION TO ALLOW
RESPONDENTS TO APPEAR
AND SUBMIT COUNTER-AFFIDAVITS
ON JULY 22, 2013
RESPONDENTS, MANNIMARGHEL V. PANER, Filipino

of legal age, married and a resident of Corner Datoc-Sabate Streets,
San Jose District, Pagadian City; CONNIE FLOR GRACE L.
PANER, Filipino of legal age, married and a resident of Corner
Datoc-Sabate Streets, San Jose District, Pagadian City; RHODA
GIRLY JOY CORPUZ, Filipino of legal age, married, and a
resident of Employees’ Village, Poblacion, T’boli, South Cotabato;
and MIKE INDEFONSO CORPUZ, Filipino of legal age, married
and a resident of Employees’ Village, Poblacion, T’boli, South
Cotabato, respectfully states, viz:
1. That they have just received their subpoena on Friday,

July 5, 2013 and have just referred the above-complaint to
the undersigned counsel;
2. That if only to consider the issues involved in the

Complaint which require a thorough study of voluminous
documents, applicable laws and jurisprudence, the
undersigned counsel needs at least a period of ten (10)
days from today or until July 21, 2013 within which to
properly prepare and submit Respondents’ Counter-
Affidavits;
3. That as such, Respondents cannot as yet appear and

submit their Counter-Affidavits tomorrow, July 12, 2013;
4. There is therefore cause to pray that instead, Respondents

be allowed to appear and submit their Counter-affidavit
on July 22, 2013.
5. This motion is not intended to delay the proceedings in

the Complaint but is nobly intentioned if only to give
Respondents an opportunity to properly dispute or
overcome the issues involved in the same complaint.

prayed of the Honorable Special Panel of Prosecutors for AMAN
Cases, that the above-named Respondents be allowed to appear
and submit their Counter-Affidavits on July 22, 2013.
Pagadian City, Philippines, July 11, 2013
FERDINAND MAS PABLO

Counsel for the Respondents
FEMASPA LAW OFFICE
Ground Floor, POLOYAPOY BUILDING
0250-A, Broca & Roxas Streets, Pagadian City
Roll No. 38881-March 14, 1994
PTR No. 2164046-January 2, 2013
Issued at Pagadian City
MCLE Compliance III-0020982-August 14, 2011
MCLE Compliance IV-0003754-December 9, 2011
Copy furnished:
1. MARIO K. SABAC Registry Receipt ____________

Kematu, T’boli
South Cotabato
Pagadian City

Pagadian City
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, IS NO. IX-05-12J-00206

Complainant,
- versus -for-
LEMUEL VINCI ESPALDON DIRECT ASSAULT

BULAWIN,
Respondent.
X------------------------------------------/
Counter-Affidavit
I, LEMUEL VINCI ESPALDON BULAWIN, Filipino of
legal age, married and a resident of Sanson Street, Purok
Malipayon, San Francisco District, Pagadian City, after having been
sworn in accordance with law, depose and say, THAT:
1. That I am the Respondent in the above-entitled

information sheet;
2. That I vehemently deny having assaulted Complainant

ADRIANO BULAWIN DURANO III on October 19, 2012,
either directly or indirectly. If at all, it was Complainant
Durano who challenged me to a fist fight- in the presence
of several persons, most of whom, were his political fans;
3. That well-settled, when a public officer challenges an

ordinary constituent to a fist fight, he reduces himself into
the level of an ordinary constituent. The phrase “public
officer” no longer shields him and accords him any
advantage or favor- in the event that an ordinary
constituent buys out his challenge;
4. That simply put, Manny Pacquiao, ceases to be a

congressman inside the ring. Otherwise, his opponent
would be facing several prosecutions after each and every
fight with him;
5. That this too applies to what had transpired between me

and Complainant Durano- no matter how honorable he
may be;
6. That at or about 8:16 pm of October 9, 2012, I received a

text message from Jevic Fernandez this wise: “Naa man
nakakita nimo Lim ikaw daw nagputol sa amo street light.
Balos balos lang ta bay”;
7. That I then responded this wise: “Imposible walay reply”;
8. That I subsequently texted him this wise: “Unsa pre?

Kinsay gaputol sa imong street light”;
9. That Fernandez did not reply;
10. That if only to check the accusation with him, I decided

to see him in his restaurant and I even texted him jokingly
this wise: “Kinsay nakakita pre, ipaatubang nako kay kusion
nako iya itlog”. Needless to state, in going to Fernandez’
restaurant, I had to pass by his house first;
11. That Fernandez was not in the restaurant- thus- I decided
to go back and see him instead in his house;
12. That upon my arrival at the premises of Fernandez’

house, I parked my vehicle, alighted therefrom and walked
towards his gate;
13. That while walking towards Fernandez’ gate, I heard

somebody shouting “Nia nang maayong laki o! Maayo kay
naa ning maayong laki! Yawa! Patagmon tani!
14. That I was surprised, thus- I immediately stepped

backward and then verified who was shouting. And I
discovered that it was Complainant Durano;
15. That I responded to him saying this wise: “Unsay

maayong laki, ikaw pa gani ang gasige ug pamasangil nako nga
akoy tigpamutol sa mga suga!”
16. That he faced me and said: “Ahh maayo ning patagmon!”
17. That then and there, two (2) persons went near him and
told him: “Ayaw Kap kay ig-agaw ramo”;
18. That then and there he said: “Ahh way ig-agaway ni, unsa
man square ta? Meaning: “Ahh, I don’t care if we are cousins,
let’s fight?
19. That I noticed him taking off his black jacket, jewelries
and watch but one of the persons who was near him told
him: “Ayaw Kap maulaw ta kay ig-agaw ramo” meaning:
“Don’t Kap, it is shameful, you are cousins”;
20. That Complainant Durano replied instead: “Guniti ni”-

thereby giving his jewelries and watch to the person. That
the person (whom I identified only at that precise moment) as
a Barangay Tanod did not accept the jewelries and watch;
21. That I then noticed Complainant Durano approached his

car and placed his jewelries and watch inside it and
suddenly walked towards me;
22. That I then stepped backward sensing that I was just

alone and they were may but then and there he kicked me
to the direction of my face. Good enough that I was able
to evade my face from being hit. If at all, it was my chest
which was hit a bit (natapsingan);
23. That then and there I held the collar of his shirt and held
him tight if only to prevent him from hitting me again;
24. That I did not hit him with a fist nor kicked him in
response. If I did so, he should have been badly injured
because physically I am much bigger, robust and stronger
than him. I could not just imagine if what had happened to
him if I only hit him with a fist- the least he could have
landed in the hospital;
25. That while I was holding the collar of his shirt, I noticed
the two (2) persons held him and pulled him away from
me. But he was too aggressive during the time and tried
much to get loose from their old if only to attack me
again. That the holds of his own men could have caused
the hematoma on his upper arm or forearm- if there be any;
26. That then and there, I noticed that several men were
coming to his aid- whom I knew to be his men;
27. That I saw one of these men, Dondon Quizon who took
the service pistol of the security guard of Django’s Grill.
He stood in front of me and stared at me to the bones;
28. That then and there several people approached me and

advised me to leave and which I did;
29. That I immediately proceeded to the City Mayor’s Office

if only to report the incident to Mayor Samuel S. Co;
30. That after which, I proceeded to the City Police Station if

only to blotter the incident. After a little while,
Complainant Durano also arrived at the police station
and this time I told him: “Di ka maulaw nga mag-abot ta
dinhi sa estasyon sa police gumikan kay maminaw ka ug
solsol”- meaning: “Are you not ashamed that we reached
this police station just because you listen to ill-advises”;
31. That I am executing this counter-affidavit to establish the

fact that I did not attack or assault Complainant Durano
on October 19, 2012- if at all, he challenged me to a fist
fight and that it was he who attacked me first. I was not
the unlawful aggressor- but him.

22nd day of November, 2012 at Pagadian City, Philippines.
LEMUEL VINCI E. BULAWIN

Respondent

November, 2012 at Pagadian City, Philippines.
CERTIFICATION

Respondent and I am convinced that this counter-affidavit was
executed by him freely and voluntarily and that he affirmed that
the facts and defenses narrated thereon are true and correct.
Copy furnished:
Hon. Adriano B. Durano III Registry Receipt ______
San Francisco, Pagadian City

Pagadian City
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, IS NO. IX-09-1NV-00205

Complainant,
- versus -for-
ROEL “BALONG” MOLINA, et. al. GRAVE THREATS

Respondents.
X------------------------------------------/
WE, RUEL G. MOLINA, ALFIE GALAY, TATA SIALANA,
and JETHRO TABITA, all Filipinos of legal age, married and
residents of Diplo, Kumalarang, Zamboanga del Sur, after having
been sworn in accordance with law, depose and say, videlicet:
1. Who are we to join the lines of famous men

and women who stand charge of helpless
crimes in these valiant days of our history?
2. The ever promising Sammy Co was linked to

AMAN and now faces charges for
SYNDICATED ESTAFA. The so-famous and
feared Spouses Tony and Auring Cerilles
were left-shocked by their Big 3 Financial
Pillars and now face charges for PLUNDER.
Why include us on the line-up? Is the name
Balong Molina so famous and extra ordinary
as such?
3. A reading of the Complaint is to the effect

that, Complainant Manuel B. Biaco is an
honorable man. Honorable because is a
member of the Honorable Sanggunian of our
cherished municipality- Kumalarang,
Zamboanga del Sur. But by blindly filing the
present complaint- we feel that he ceased to
be such an honorable man;
4. From his Complaint-Affidavit, it appears that

he was so feared by his own of shadow, if not
by his own soul. Imagine, he felt that he was
chased by a maroon-colored Strada pick-up
with tarpaulin carrying the face of “Balong
Molina”;
5. How would such an honorable man, fear a

tarpaulin that carried the face of an unpopular
mayoralty-candidate? Needless to state, the
name Manuel Biaco is feared in the
municipality. Gikahintapan in the vernacular.
His house has been and is the nest of
monstrous goons and hardened wanted
criminals in the area;
6. Thus, it seemed peculiar for us to have read

that for once in his life he felt the fear that he
used to have caused the poor and the weak.
But then such a fear remained still more
imaginary than real. He just wanted to make
good of his image and to make a monster out
of Balong Molina;
7. We therefore, once and for all, deny all the

allegations contained in his complaint-
affidavit and those of his witnesses;
8. To summarize, Complainant Biaco and his

witnesses assumed that we were the driver
and passengers of the motor vehicle that
allegedly followed his Bongo truck on April 7,
2013 at or about 7:45 in the evening because of
the following three (3) reasons, namely: 1) the
Strada pick-up ws allegedly owned by Balong
Molina; 2) the strada pick-up allegedly had a
tarpaulin carrying the face of Balong Molina;
and the one who shouted “Biaco talawan,
pagawasa na si Biaco diha kay amo patyon” was
allegedly the voice of Balong Molina;
9. Additionally, Biaco who was already so fearful

while inside the house of Per Luzon and by
peeping thru the window, allegedly saw
Balong Molina at the driver seat of the Strada
Pick-up, which is colored- maroon; tinted and
during night time- with both the front lights
and tail lights on;
10. All the foregoing allegations are contrary to

the ordinary order of things- layo ra kaayo sa
tinuod;
11. First, the shouts “kang konsehal Biaco na?
hunong-hunong” which were allegedly made
while the Strada pick-up was following-up
Biaco’s Bongo truck in a high speed cannot be
heard in the ordinary order of things. It would
be flown by the speed of the air. It would be
otherwise, if the shouts came from the Bongo
truck;
12. Also, Balong Molina does not own any Strada

pick-up colored-maroon. If at all, he owns an
Isuzu Everest colored-blue. LTO records are
reflective of this fact. Also, the Strada pick-up
colored-maroon was not properly identified-
even just by way of its plate number. There
appears to be several Strada pick-up vehicles
of this like. If one can be a party-respondent
just because he allegedly owned the Strada
pick-up colored-maroon, then all those with a
Strada pick-up colored-maroon must be joined
as party-respondents- not only Balong Molina;
13. The fact that the Strada pick-up colored-

maroon had a tarpaulin carrying the face of
Balong Molina would not make him the
owner of the Strada pick-up. A politician who
vies for a mayoralty-seat makes more than just
one (1) copy of tarpaulin. He usually makes
no less than a hundred of tarpaulins. What if
the Strada pick-up colored-maroon had a
tarpaulin carrying the face of Mayor Salva-
would he be the Respondent? Or what if
Balong Molina drove a Strada pick-up
colored-maroon with a tarpaulin carrying the
face of Complainant Biaco himself? Would
Biaco be Respondent?
14. Much more, how could one be sure that the

voice heard shouting “Biaco talawan, pagawas
na diha si Biaco kay amo patyon” belonged to
Balong Molina. Do we have already
jurisprudence, where an accused was
convicted just because he was identified by
his voice? We doubt if there is;
15. Also, it is physically impossible for Biaco to

have seen Balong Molina when he peeped
thru the window while he was inside the
house of Per Luzon. Usually, a Strada pick-up,
(which the Honorable Handling Prosecutor has
one of his own) is tinted. As such, one cannot
see what is inside much more when it is during
night time, with all the front lights and tail
lights on- silaw jud kaayo! Giunsa tawon
pagkakita!
16. Also, it was physically impossible for armed

me with long firearms while boarded at the
back of a Strada pick-up to have brandished
and pointed their long firearms upon the
passengers of Biaco’s Bongo truck.
Mangatumba or mangahagbong baya pod!
17. The presence of armed men, allegedly, we,

ALFIE GALAY, TATA SIALANA, AND
JETHRO TABITA, were only named as we
were identified with Balong Molina. The facts
and circumstances obtaining in the case, the
place, the time, much more the fact that the
vehicles were chasing each other, negates any
possibility of identification. Our identification
were only made possible because Biaco and
his witnesses presumed that the Strada pick-
up colored- maroon could have been owned by
Balong Molina, no more, no less.
18. Finally, I, RUEL G. MOLINA aka Balong

Molina, is a lowly candidate for the position
of Mayor in the May 13, 2013 National and
Locals under a party adverse to Spouses
Antonio and Aurora Cerilles. Apparently, I
was the underdog;
19. Except for the sincerest desire to make good

my candidacy for the betterment of my
cherished municipality as I do not possess the
wealth and the wisdom of the ages to battle
out my candidacy against the Cerilleses, I am
less expected to do the reported incident
which featured Biaco in a situation which is
very much inconsistent with his being an
incumbent SB Member, a candidate of the
Cerilleses, and a strong figure of their team.
The word fear, I am pretty sure, does not fit
the name Biaco- whom everybody fears in
Kumalarang much more in Barangay Picanan.
It would also make me no different to my
opponents whose political scheme is un-
acceptable to the poor and weak- for whom I
ran for;
20. There is therefore cause to pray of the

Honorable Handling Prosecutor that the case
be fairly resolved and dismissed for utter
want of probability- it only tends to destroy the
already destroyed aspirations and dreams of a
lowly candidate named Balong Molina, who
could have been- Kumalarang’s best choice for
mayor!

justice be done, though the heaven may fall-
fiat justitia etsi ruant coeli!
this 10th day of July 2013 at Pagadian City, Philippines.
RUEL G. MOLINA ALFIE GALAY

TATA SIALANA JETHRO TABITA

Assisted by:
Atty. FERDINAND MAS PABLO

Doc No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2013
Copy furnished:
Hon. MANUEL B. BIACO Registry Receipt No.

Picanan, Kumalarang,
Zamboanga del Sur
Pagadian City
DINO CARCASONA, IS NO. IX-09-INV-12J-00444

Complainant,
- versus -for-
EARL B. NERI, SEXUAL ABUSE

Respondent,
X------------------------------------------/
Counter-Affidavit
I, EARL B. NERI, Filipino of legal age, married and a
resident of Barangay Maloloy-on, Molave, Zamboanga del Sur,
THAT:
1. That I am the Respondent in the above-entitled

information sheet;
2. That I vehemently deny having sexually abused

Complainant DINO J. CARCASONA- from June 25, 2011
until February of 2012;
3. That sexual abuse, which is also referred to as molestation

is the act of forcing an undesired sexual behavior by one
person. It is a non-consensual or forced physical sexual
behavior. It includes un-wanted touching, either of a child
or an adult;
4. That otherwise put, sexual abuse is an un-consented sexual

activity, with perpetrators using force, making threats or
taking advantage of a victim who is not capable of giving
consent;
5. That without need of disputing Complainant’s allegation
that I am a gay, and granting in arguendo that I am one- it
is very evident that he was not my working student
whom I could take advantage of;
6. That I am neither a philanthropist nor a social worker. As

such, I would not offer Complainant a privilege of going
to school at my expense without being a working student;
7. That except for the fact that he was my boyfriend if not a

playmate, there could be no other reason why I would
send him to school;
8. That, gays are but human. They too have the right to love
and to make known their love to a loved one. They too
have the right to enjoy sex even in their own illusive
ways;
9. That when Complainant agreed to enroll in school at my

expense, he is deemed to have agreed to accord me in
return- some of his time if not at all love;
10. That on the same breath, when he agreed to visit me at

home each time I invited him, he is deemed to have
agreed and to have consented to my indecent desires and
proposals;
11. That with much more reason, that when Complainant

agreed that I would spend for his birthday, he is deemed
to have agreed to spend his birthday with me much more-
the exciting night after such a birthday;
12. That very importantly, Complainant was already 22 years

old when I first known him at the internet café;
13. That as such, he was already capable of giving consent to

any contractual relations. Much more, a contract to love, to
behold and to cherish me as he pleased;
14. That otherwise put, the hugs, the touches, the kisses- all
formed part of a valiant sexual affair between two (2)
consenting adults. Not any one of us could be referred to
as an abuser, a molester or a perpetrator- we were both
simply expressing the passion of our mutual love and
longings. Lovers kisses and embraces are never akin to sexual
abuse;
15. That truly love is no respecter of sex, time and place- a

beautiful affair simply comes and sets softly upon the
beholders- and this was the happenstance between me
and Complainant;
16. That I simply considered the present case as the closing

and parting time of a beautiful affair. But then
surprisingly, Complainant sued me for sexual abuse;
17. That I humbly believe and hold that the present case was
orchestrated by Genesis Laborada- who sued me civilly if
only to recover the estate of my parents-in-law: Tirso
Laborada and Consolacion Barbaso. He also sued me
criminally for Falsification of Public Documents with this
same office;
18. That I humbly believe too, that Complainant filed the

present complaint for money or malice- never to seek
justice as he too is a scoundrel. Our laws only protect the
innocent- and punish the guilty. God knows I am not
guilty;
19. That I am executing this Counter-Affidavit to establish

the fact that I am not a gay. If indeed I am, then I am not
guilty as charged- not even just probably guilty thereof;

29th day of November, 2012 at Pagadian City, Philippines.
EARL B. NERI
Respondent

CERTIFICATION
Copy furnished:
Dino J. Carcasona Registry Receipt ________
Purok Piña, Barangay Makugihon,
Molave, Zamboanga del Sur

Pagadian City
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, IS NO. IX-09-INV-14I-00514
Plaintiff,
- versus -for-
GUILLERMA R. CAGAS, FALSIFICATION, ETC.

ESMERALDA S. ENGANO &
BARTOLOME BUSTAMANTE,
Respondents,
X------------------------------------------/
Counter-Affidavit
WE, GUILLERMA R. CAGAS, ESMERALDA S. ENGANO
and BARTOLOME BUSTAMANTE, Filipinos of legal age,
married and residents of Barangay New Mirapao, Dinas,
1. We are the Respondents in the above-entitled case;
2. We vehemently deny having falsified nor having used for

our own good and benefit the alleged falsified Deed of
Donation covering a portion of the lot of Private
Complainant Gregorio A. Superales if only to build
thereon a Barangay Water Reservoir- a public edifice;
3. The document which was alleged to have been falsified is

a Deed of Donation which was executed by the Private
Complainants, as Donors and Barangay Ignacio Garrata,
represented by then Barangay Captain Maximo Ferrer, Jr.,
as Donee;
4. Despite the fact, that our subpoena did not contain any
copy of the subject Deed of Donation, it could be read
from the Affidavit-Complaint that the subject deed was
executed during the incumbency of Barangay Captain
Maximo Ferrer, Jr. or at the very least within the period
2004 to 2007;
5. There is therefore cause to believe that we are being

charged not under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code
i.e. Falsification by public officers, employees, notaries public
and ecclesiastical ministers who took advantage of their
public positions but under Article 172 of Revised Penal
Code i.e. Falsification by private individuals and use of
falsified documents inasmuch as we are not incumbent
Barangay Officials of Barangay Ignacio Garrata when the
subject falsified document was so executed;
6. A priori, what is peculiar in this case is the fact, that

Maximo Ferrer, Jr., the incumbent Barangay Captain of
Barangay Ignacio Garrata in whose favor the Deed of
Donation was executed played Pontius Pilate and even
executed an Affidavit in support of Complainants’
Affidavit-Complaint indiscriminately stating that he had
no knowledge or information as to the existence of the
said deed and had not used the same during his
incumbency when in truth and in fact, the Barangay
Water Reservoir was conceptualized and built during his
incumbency;
7. Suffice it to say, that the subject deed was executed to

support the request of the Barangay to avail of a Barangay
Water Reservoir and that the same Water Reservoir was
admittedly built during his term of office;
8. It is apparently impossible, for Maximo Ferrer, Jr. not to

have known of the Deed of Donation when in truth and in
fact, it was the impelling factor and/or the very basis why
his Barangay became a recipient of a Barangay Water
Reservoir. Judicial notice must be had, that a public edifice
cannot be built on a lot i.e. not own by a recipient
government entity;
9. A Certificate of Title in the name of the recipient or in its

absence a Deed of Sale or a Deed of Donation may suffice
in lieu thereof;
10. How could Maximo Ferrer, Jr. then state indiscriminately,
that the signature appearing thereon is not his signature?
How could he state indiscriminately that it was physically
impossible for the Private Complainants too to have
affixed their signatures as they were in Korea during his
incumbency when he was the very party of the Deed of
Donation?
11. Otherwise put, it there be any party who would be most

interested in the execution of the donation, it was
Maximo Ferrer, Jr. who stood to be politically benefited or
glorified of the resultant Barangay Water Reservoir to be
built at the lot as covered by the donation;
12. A tarpaulin would surely be: done thru the effort of

Barangay Captain Maximo Ferrer, Jr. never: done thru the
effort of Guillerma R. Cagas, Esmeralda S. Engano and
Bartolome Bustamante;
13. Much more, how could he indiscriminately state that he

did not use the subject Deed of Donation during his
incumbency when it was used in support of the building
of the Barangay Water Reservoir in his cherished
Barangay? No mortal on earth would ever believe this
kind of a happenstance- the head of the implementing agency
not knowing that lot was donated to his Barangay where a
Barangay Water Reservoir would be built;
14. Also, how could Respondents, in their private capacities

falsify the subject Deed of Donation when they are not
parties to the requisitioning parties of the Barangay Water
Reservoir? And how could they use such a Deed of
Donation when they are not executive officers or even just
lowly employees of the Barangay?
15. More than these, the presumption that the user is the
falsifier cannot be applied against them as it was they do
not have any interest in the lot which is covered by the
deed. They do not also stand to be benefited, directly or
indirectly, in the building of the Barangay Water Reservoir-
except only as to their being end-users of the same being
residents of the Baranagy- a common benefit that they
would share with all other constituents;
16. Also, the Private Complainants cannot say that the Deed
of Donation caused them damage and prejudice, as in fact,
a public edifice was built on their lot and they now
experience the bliss of the altruistic feeling that the
depositary of water i.e. akin to life itself is built in their
very lot. This is more than just a benefit that they will
carry not only for now for life;
17. True, Respondent Guillerma R. Cagas was the Barangay

Captain of Ignacio Garrata from 1997 to 2004. Even then,
from 2004 to 2013, she was already a Member of the
Sangguniang Bayan of Dinas, Zamboanga del Sur;
18. Simply put, she was no longer a Barangay Official from

2004-2007, within which period, the subject Deed of
Donation was allegedly falsified and/or used. Attached, is a
copy of a DILG Certification to this effect marked as Annex
“1”;
19. There is therefore, not only a doubt but a physical

impossibility for us to have falsified the Deed of Donation
much more to have used the same inasmuch as the building
of the Barangay Water Reservoir is an official act of those
in power. And we are not;
20. Justice is the ultimate shadow of the law. Often it

shines, sometimes it darkens. In the present case, never
shall it darken- and thus we plead-

this 26th day of November, 2014 at Pagadian City, Philippines.
GUILLERMA R. CAGAS ESMERALDA S. ANGANO

BARTOLOME BUSTAMANTE
Respondent
Doc No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2014
CERTIFICATION

Respondents and I am convinced that this counter-affidavit was
executed by them freely and voluntarily and that they affirmed
that the facts and defenses narrated thereon are true and correct.
Copy furnished:
Gregorio A. Superales Registry Receipt ________
c/o TERESITA D. SUPERALES
Ignacio Garrata (New Mirapao)
Dinas, Zamboanga del Sur

Pagadian City
GENESIS LABORADA and IS NO. 09-INV-12J-00430
EDGARDO LABORADA
Complainants,
- versus -for-
MARIA MAE LABORADA- NERI FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC

& EARL B. NERI, DOCUMENTS
Respondents
X------------------------------------------/
Counter-Affidavit
I, EARL B. NERI, Filipino of legal age, married and a
resident of Barangay Madasigon, Molave, Zamboanga del Sur, after
1. That I am one of the Respondents in the above-entitled

information sheet;
2. That my co-respondent Maria Mae A. Laborada-Neri

(Maria Mae for brevity) is at present, a domiciliary of
Makkah, Saudi Arabia, being an Overseas Filipino Worker
(OFW) thereat. As such, she cannot be served with any or
all processes of the Honorable Office. Also, I no longer
have any personal contact with her as we have been
separated-in-fact for more than seventeen (17) years now;
3. That I deny having falsified the Contract of Marriage

which was entered into by and between me and my co-
respondent Maria Mae on June 29, 1985 at San Vicente
Ferrer, Molave, Zamboanga del Sur. A copy of the Contract
of Marriage is hereto attached and marked as Annex “1” ;
4. That I met Maria Mae when I was yet 23 years old. I was
a high school teacher then at the Molave Institute, Molave,
Zamboanga del Sur;
5. That Maria Mae was already 28 years old that time.

Mathematically, she was 5-year older than me when we
first met. She was working then as a Rural Health
Midwife at Josefina, Zamboanga del Sur ;
6. That needless to state, we were already consenting adults

when we first met, acquainted, engaged and finally married
to each other on June 29, 1985;
7. That it was in February of 1985 when she introduced me

to her mother Consolacion Barbaso-Laborada. Her mother
was a public school teacher then– a too respected public
school teacher during her time. As such, she was publicly
known in the community and academe;
8. That if at all, I did not personally met her father, Tirso

Laborada as he was already dead that time;
9. That with all good faith and fidelity, I believed that

Maria Mae was a natural daughter to Spouses Tirso and
Consolacion Laborada;
10.That my parents asked for the hand of Maria Mae in

marriage during a pre-marriage traditional engagement
rite “pamalayi” from her known mother Consolacion
Barabaso-Laborada. Otherwise put, it was Consolacion
Barbaso Laborada who gave the hand of Maria Mae in
marriage to me during the pre-marriage traditional
engagement rite;
11. That it was also Consolacion Barbaso-Laborada, who

walked with Maria Mae through the isle of the San
Vicente Ferrer Church before finally handling her in
marriage to me before the altar of God;
12. That also, the marriage was attended to by the relatives

and friends of Maria Mae from both the Laborada and
Barbaso lines. It was also attended to by some local
politicians, businessmen and other prominent
personalities. Otherwise put, the marriage was known to
the brothers and sisters of Tirso Laborada as well as to all
the brothers and sisters of Consolacion Barbaso. Copies of
pictures depicting the marriage ceremony are hereto attached
and marked as Annexes “2”, “3”, “4”, and “5”;
13. That suffice it to say, the marriage ceremony was also

personally known if not at all attended by Complainants
Genesis M. Laborada and Edgardo C. Laborada- who
were first degree cousins of Maria Mae in the Laborada
line;
14. That from June 29, 1985, when we were married until
September 2012- or after the lapse of no less than twenty-
seven (27) years from our marriage, never was the issue as to
whether or not Maria Mae was a natural daughter of
Tirso Laborada and Consolacion Barbaso raised in any
formal or informal proceeding. Simply put, no one has
come to the open and questioned the legitimacy of the
filiation of Maria Mae to her publicly known parents,
Spouses Tirso Laborada and Consolacion Barbaso;
15. That also, Consolacion Barbaso-Laborada herself did not

raise any such issue- if indeed she is not the natural
mother of Maria Mae;
16. That the issue was only raised for the first time by
Complainants Genesis M. Laborada and Edgardo C. Laborada
when they filed Civil Case No. 2012-20-491 entitled
Edgardo C. Laborada, Lydia C. Laborada and Genesis
M. Laborada, Plaintiffs, versus Ma. Mae Laborada-Neri,
Earl Neri and Consolacion Laborada, Defendants, for
ANNULMENT OF EXTRA-JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT OF
THE LATE TIRSO LABORADA, PARTITION,
ACCOUNTING OF THE PRODUCE AND/OR FRUITS
OF THE ESTATE WITH DAMAGES AND PRAYER FOR
A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION too lately on
October 1, 2012. The preliminary conference of the case is
set on February 13, 2013. A copy of the Complaint is hereto
17. That aside from the Civil Case, Complainants Genesis M.

Laborada and Edgardo C. Laborada facilitated and
triggered the filing of I.S. Case No. IX-09-INV-12J-00444
entitled Dino Carcasona, Plaintiff versus Earl Neri,
Respondent for SEXUAL ABUSE. A copy of the subpoena
and the Affidavit-Complaint of Complainant Dino J. Carcasona
are hereto attached and marked as Annexes “7” and “8”;
18. That in the Civil Case, Complainants Genesis M.

Laborada and Edgardo C. Laborada advanced the issue
that Maria Mae is not the natural daughter of Spouses
Tirso Laborada and Consolacion Barbaso;
19. That they raised this issue at a time when Maria Mae is
in Saudi Arabia, with no possible means to be served with
subpoena if only to be given the opportunity to dispute
the issue of the legitimacy of her filiation to Spouses Tirso
Laborada and Consolacion Barbaso- and at a time that
Consolacion Barbaso-Laborada is already too old, too weak
and too sick- with no more might and strength to defend
her cause in court;
20. That also, I was not charged for falsifying the Extra-
Judicial Settlement of the Late Tirso Laborada because I
was not a party thereto. If at all, what they did was to file
this present Complaint for Falsification of our Contract of
Marriage – with which the name: Tirso Laborada appears
as father and the name: Consolacion Barbaso appears as
mother;
21. That I did not volunteer the entry Tirso Laborada as father
and Consolacion Barbaso as mother- because Maria Mae
and Consolacion Barbaso- Laborada were present when
we applied for a Marriage License with the Office of the
Local Civil Registrar of Molave, Zamboanga del Sur;
22. That if at all, it was Consolacion Barbaso- Laborada who

volunteered the entries as she truly presents herself as the
mother of Maria Mae;
23. That if at all, my mother volunteered the entries on the

column: Husband with the name: Paulino Neri as father
and the name: Lucila Bagsican as mother. The entries on
the column: Wife were volunteered by Consolacion
Barbaso-Laborada;
24. That I cannot be faulted if the entries Name of Father

and Name of Mother in the Column: Wife would turn out
to be untruthful- as I simply relied on the truthfulness of
the entries volunteered and that if at all, I married Maria
Mae- not for what she had but for what she was;
25. That very importantly, the Contract of Marriage was

entered into in good faith with no intention or ill-motive
to perjure or pervert any truth nor to cause injury to any
one person- much more to render nil any one law of the land;
26. That I am executing this Counter Affidavit to establish the

fact that I did not confederate nor connive with my co-
respondent Maria Mae Laborada – Neri to falsely register
the name: Tirso Laborada as her father and the name:
Consolacion Barbaso as mother in our Contract of Marriage
which was simply prepared in the ordinary course of law;
27. That also, I am executing this Counter-Affidavit to

establish the fact that Complainant Genesis M. Laborada
and Edgardo C. Laborada filed the present Complaint if
only to pressure me to voluntarily surrender the
possession of all the real properties involved in Civil Case
No. 2012-20-491. Simply put, Complainants simply
wanted to short-cut the timely proceedings in a civil case;
28. That evidently, with Consolacion Barbaso-Laborada, too

old, too weak and too sick; with Maria Mae Laborada-Neri
out of the country and with me in jail – their entry to the
real properties may only be done with ease;
29. That inasmuch as my co-respondent Maria Mae

Laborada-Neri was not served with subpoena. As such,
cannot be expected to submit her Counter-Affidavit by
reason of practicability, I humbly pray that this Counter-
Affidavit be deemed as her counter-affidavit. As such, this
shall stand to benefit her in whatever way allowable by
the rules.
7th day of December, 2012 at Pagadian City, Philippines.
EARL B. NERI
Respondent

December, 2012 at Pagadian City, Philippines.
CERTIFICATION

Copy furnished:
Genesis M. Laborada Registry Receipt ________
Edgardo C. Laborada Registry Receipt ________


Counter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Counter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, IS Case No. IX-09-INV-17A-00062

JELVIN MAGARAO, HOMICIDE

1. I am charged for Homicide in the above-complaint;

2. A priori, I am a court employee stationed at the 6th Municipal

3. I deny having committed the crime as charged. The fact is, I

4. The law on self-defense embodied in our penal system finds

5. And I interpose this defense in my behalf- though mindful

7. I was at Liangan, Kaabatan, Vincenzo Sagun, Zamboanga del

8. A soon as I was approaching the store keeper, the victim

9. I was very much surprised of what he did and I said in low

10. He again pushed me and said: WAY KORTE KORTE SA

11. Suddenly, I heard a voice coming from my back saying:

13. I looked back at him and much to my surprise he drew a

15. The requisites of self-defense are: 1) unlawful aggression; 2)

16. Admittedly, I was attacked by the victim. The attack was

17. I just walked away with my back but he followed me.

18. Peril to one’s limb includes peril to the safety of one’s

19. Unlawful aggression contemplates an actual, sudden and

20. Reasonable necessity of the means employed does not imply

21. Perfect equality between the weapon used by the one

23. Well-settled, the person defending himself cannot be

24. With much more reason, when death occurred after

26. Even granting in arguendo that I engaged him in a verbal

28. Murder is the unlawful killing of any person which is not

31. That I am executing this Counter-Affidavit to establish the

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this

JILBEN VILLABETO MAGARAO

SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this 24th day of

ANALIZA R. MORANTE Registry Receipt _____

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have personally examined and interviewed

FERDINAND MAS PABLO

ABUNOR MALIDO, IS Case No. IX-09-INV-17K-00557

MODIN ABU ALIAS KOMUD, FRUSTRATED MURDER

1. I am charged for Frustrated Murder in the above-

2. A priori, I am a civilian volunteer in the Anti-Drug

3. Consequent thereto, Complainant was arrested on

4. I deny having committed the crime as charged. I did not

6. He said he said: when I turned around, I saw the face of Mr.

7. His’ was no more than a suspicion that the assailant could

8. Also, the charge should have been Attempted Murder or

9. The phrase “he wanted to shoot me again but his firearm

10. If at all, the assailant only commenced the commission of

11. Before the assailant ran towards the darkness, he knew

13. The elements of frustrated felony are:

1. The offender performs all the acts of execution;

2. All the acts performed would produce the felony as a

3. But the felony is not produced;

4. By reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.

14. Elements 1 and 2 are not present;

15. In a similar case, the Supreme Court ruled, that the

16. In the present Complaint, the assailant failed to perform

18. Complainant came to the Honorable Office to seek for

19. The Honorable Prosecutor has the solemn duty to

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this

SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this 24th day of

ABUNOR C. MALIDO Registry Receipt _____

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have personally examined and interviewed

Article 6- Consummated felonies, as well as well as those which are

There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a

Elements of frustrated felony

5. The offender performs all the acts of execution;

Republic of the Philippines

IRIS T. LALIS, IS Case No. XV-14-INV-17L-02318