Republic of the Philippines REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Pasig CityBranch __

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Complainant-Appellee

-versus- Crim. Case No.________ (Grave Slander)JEAN P.NAGUIT,

Accused-ApellantsX--------------------------------------X

BRIEF FOR THE ACCUSED APPELLANT

JEAN P. NAGUIT

Atty. Roy P.R. TalaoCounsel for the Accused-Appellant

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

SUBJECT INDEX....................................................................................

ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS....................................................................

STATEMENT OF THE CASE.....................................................................

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS...................................................................

ARGUMENT..............................................................................................

I. ....................................................................................

II. ....................................................................................

III. ....................................................................................

RELIEF......................................................................................................

ANNEXES

SUBJECT INDEX

ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED IN THE ABSENCE OF PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT AND/OR FOR THE REASON THAT THERE IS INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION.

II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED BASED ENTIRELY ON ACCOUNT OF UNSUBSTANTIATED AND BIASED TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES

III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING LITTLE ATTENTION TO THE EXCULPATORY TESTIMONIAL AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ADDUCED TO REBUT THE CONTROVERTING TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES WITH REGARD TO THE PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ACCUSED DURING THE INCIDENT PERTAINING TO THE CHARGES BROUGHT AGAINST HER BY THE COMPLAINANT.

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1.) This is an appeal to this Honorable Court by the above-named accused-

appellant seeking for the reversal of the Decision dated December 3, 2012 of the

Metropolitan Trial Court San Juan Branch 58 finding the accused-appellant guilty

of grave slander. The dispositive of the assailed decision reads:

"WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Jean P. Naguit GUILTY beyond

reasonable doubt of the crime of grave slander and is sentenced to suffer the

indeterminate penalty of one (1) month and one (1) day of arresto mayor, as minimum,

to one (1) year and one (1) day of prision correcional, as minimum. She is ordered to

pay private complainant Marilyn U. Golangco Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000) as moral

damages."

SUMMARY OF THE PROCEEDINGS

2.) A Complaint-Affidavit, dated November 3, 2008 was filed with the City

Prosecutor's Office, San Juan by the complainant, Marilyn U. Golangco,

President of the Greenhills Court Condominium Corporation (hereinafter

"GCCC"), against a certain "Jeanne Abigail Naguit".

3.) On a Manifestation and Motion dated January 19, 2009, the Complainant

moved to amend the name of the person charged in the Complaint-Affidavit to

"Jean P. Naguit".

4.) The Information filed with MeTC Pasig City, Branch 58 on October 27,

2009, reads:

That on or about the 12th day of September 2008 in the city of San Juan, Philippines

and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with

malicious intent on bringing one Marilyn U. Golangco, a woman of good reputation into

discredit and public contempt, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and

publicly utter and protter against Marilyn U. Golangco slanderous words to wit:

3

"ALAM MO BA MAY SASABIHIN AKO SA YO DYAN SA GOLANGO NA

YAN. ALAM MO BA NA PINATAY NILANG MAGKAKAPATID ANG SARILI

NILANG AMA? ANONG KLASENG MGA TAO YAN. BUHAY PA YUNG TATAY

NILA AY PINAGTATANGGALAN NA NILA NG MGA GADGETS NA

NAKAKABIT, GRABE DI BA? PARA LANG MAKUHA NILA ANG MANA NILA."

and other words and expressions of similar import thereby bringing said Marilyn U.

Golangco into public contempt, discredit and ridicule, to her damage and prejudice.

CONTRARY TO LAW." (ITALICS SUPPLIED)

5.) The accused, filed on April of 2009, her Counter-Affidavit, stating therein

her version of what took place during the incident of the allegation.

6.) In response, a Reply-Affidavit, dated June 1, 2009, was filed by the

Complainant.

7). Rejoinder-Affidavit, in turn, was filed by accused-apellant.

8). Upon her arraignment on March 3, 2010, accused-appellant, assisted by

counsel, pleaded not guilty on the criminal charge against her.

9.) The case was referred to the Philippine Mediation Center of San Juan

City, in hope of efforts to arrive at an amicable settlement between the parties but

which proved unsuccessful.

10.) At the termination of the pre-trial conference on October 13, 2010, the

sole issue raised by the parties is "Whether or not under the circumstances, the

accused could be held criminally and civilly liable for the offense charged?".

11.) Thereafter, the case proceeded to trial. Accordingly, the trial court

proceeded to the reception of evidence from the corresponding parties. After the

defense rested its case, the case was submitted for decision on August 1, 2012.

12.) The trial court promulgated its judgment in the assailed December 3,

2012 Decision, finding the accused guilty as charged.

4

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Parties to the Case

13.) Complainant-Appellee is 61 years old (now 63 y/o), married, and

resides in No. 8 Barkeley St., Wack Wack Village, Mandaluyong City (TSN dated

December 8, 2010). She is the daughter of William S. Golangco who died of

Multiple Organ Failure in the Intensive Care Unit of the Cardinal Santos Memorial

Hospital on July 1, 2008. She is presently the President of the Greenhills Court

Condominium Corporation (GCCC). Greenhills Court Condominium, according

to her, was developed by her family (page 6, TSN dated December 8, 2010).

She admits of personal knowledge of a certain "Jeanne Abigail M. Naguit"

(Exhibit "A"), daughter of Spouses Rolando and Novernia Naguit, and who she

later claimed and amended, through a Manifestation and Motion (dated January

19, 2009) as filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor, San Juan, to refer to the

herein accused-appellant, "Jean P. Naguit".

She said she knew the accused-appellant: (1) by reason of her father (page

6, TSN dated December 8, 2010) who she asserted as owner of a unit in

Greenhills Court Condominium (page 17, TSN dated December 8, 2010) and

that; (2) she had seen her because "she attended one of their (GCCC) elections

and that she made a big scene at the election".

14.) Accused-Appellant is Jean Naguit, 33 years old, single parent and

resides in 25 Miller St., Brgy Bungad, Greenhills, San Juan. She is self-

employed. She claimed of personal knowledge of the Complainant for the

reasons being: (1) that she is unit owner of GCC which is just right beside their

5

GCC unit; (2) that she is acting president of GCCC; (3) that she knew of the fact

of pending cases in MeTC and the RTC of intra-corporate dispute between the

Complainant and other members of the corporation (pp. 12-13 TSN dated March

26, 2012).

The Allegations of Grave Slander

15.) The charges of Grave Slander was brought up by private

complainant against the accused when, allegedly in between 9:30 A.M. to 12:30

A.M. of September 12, 2008, the accused went to the office of the GCCC (4th

Floor of the Condominium) to ask for the billing for water consumption of Unit 302

of the Condominium. While in a meeting with a certain Ms. Lourdes Cadiente,

employee and Bookkeeper of GCCC, the accused, allegedly uttered the following

words:

"Jeanne: Huwag kang matakot dyan kay Mallie Golangco na yan. Bakit

magkano ba pinapasahod nila sayo? Baka nagpapagamit ka lang sa barya barya

lang, eh kaya kitang bayaran ng mas malaki.

Lourdes: Bayaran nyo na lang po ako nung arrears nyo para

mapaupahan nyo yung unit nyo.

Jeanne: No. Nadeposit ko na yung association dues sa isang trust fund

na ibinibigay ko lang sa mananalong administration.

Jeanne: Alam mo ba may sasabihin ako sa iyo about dyan sa Golangco

na yan. Alam mo ba na pinatay nilang magkakapatid ang sarili nilang ama? Anong

klaseng mga tao yan. Buhay pa yung tatay nila ay pinagtatanggalan na nila ng

mga gadgets na nakakabit. Grabe diba? Para lang makuha nila ang mana nila."

(Exhibit "E", Par. 19 of Complaint-Affidavit)

17.) Complainant-Appellee insisted, after appellee’s fervent denial of the

charges against her that the filing of the case was not motivated by anything

amounting to a reprisal against the person of the accused-appellee. Thus, in the

6

appellee’s reply, she stated:

(Par. 11) "The filing of the case of grave slander against respondent is not

a reprisal against her (Complainant). As if denial was not enough, respondent

(Accused) even had the audacity to claim that the filing of the case of grave slander

against her is simply a form of retaliation for her sympathy with the Alcantara Board,

which has a board dispute controversy with me and my "cohorts".

18.) When cross-examined (TSN, pp. 14, December 8, 2010) on how the

Complainant-Appellee learned of the slanderous utterances allegedly imputed on

the Appellant, she submitted that whilst she was absent during the incident at the

4th Floor of the Condominium (GCC) in between 9:30 A.M. to 12:30 A.M. of

September 12, 2008, she claimed she was informed of everything she know by

only two (2) persons – (1) Ms. Lourdes Cadiente and (2) Mr. Ariel Agaro – who

allegedly were then and there, present in the very incident to witness the

actuations and statements made by the accused.

The Prosecution Witnesses

19.) Ma. Lourdes Cadiente is 38 years old, accountant and bookkeeper of

GCCC, tasked to prepare the monthly bills of the unit owners of GCC. She was

employed in the GCC, with Ms. Golangco as her main employer, for more or less

four (4) years (2004-June of 2008, See pp. 14 TSN, October 24, 2011), since the

incident broke out.

20.) According to her (Exhibit "B", Affidavit of the witness, and; pp. 4-5,

TSN, October 24, 2011) on September 12, 2008, at around 10:30 A.M. on 4th

Floor GCC Bldg. Administration office, Ms. Jean Naguit introduced herself as

daughter of Mr. Rolando Naguit, owner of Unit 302 of the Condominium. The

accused thereafter asked for their water bill. It was then that, according to the

accused, an "unusual incident happened" (pp.5, ff., TSN, October 24, 2011), and

7

which she depicted in detail as follows:

"x x x

(DIRECT EXAMINATION)

A. When she asked for the water bill, I looked for it on our records and then I

told her that I've already given the monthly bill and since the unit is vacant, there

is no one to receive the bill.

Q. Aside from these things that Jean was telling you, was there anything else

that happened?

A. She was very angry, sir.

Q. Why did you say that she was very angry?

A. Because her voice was very loud, sir.

Q. What was she uttering?

A. Sabi po niya, "Hindi mo ba ibibigay yung bill namin? Sunod ka ng sunod

diyan kay Ms. Golangco, natatakot ka ba sa kaniya? Baka barya barya lang ang

binabayad sa'yo; kaya kitang bayaran ng mas malaki."

B. Aside from these utterances made by Jean naguit, what else happened?

A. Sabi po niya kahit i-search ko sa google, madami daw pong demandahan

yung magkakapatid, sir. So very personal po lahat ng mga sinabi niya. x x x

x x x FISCAL DAMASING: What was your reaction upon hearing

all those utterance made by Jean Naguit?

THE WITNESS: I stayed calm and told Ms. Naguit to just pay her arrears para

mapaupahan na nila yung unit nila. x x x

(CROSS EXAMINATION)

x x x Q. What did she say?

A. Yun nga po na baka sunod daw po ako ng sunod kay ma'am Mallie baka

binabayaran lang po ako ng barya barya, kaya daw po niya ako bayaran ng mas

malaki.

Q. What did you say?

A. Sabi ko po kesa ibaya niya sa akin, ibayad niya na lang sa arrears nya sa

condominium.

8

Q. And what did she say?

A. Nagsalita na po siya ng mga personal na bagay about kay ma'am Mallie

na hindi naman po related sa condominium things against Ms. Golangco.

Q. What are the personal things that she said?

A. Alam mo ba may sasabihin ako diyan sa mga Golangco na 'yan: Yang

magkakapatid na yan, pinatay nila ang sarili nilang ama. Pinagtatanggal nila

ang gadgets para makuha lang nila ang mana nila. Ganyan ang ugali ng

magkakapatid na iyan.

Q. Is that all she said?

A. I-search ko daw po sa google, lalabas na daw yung pagdedemandahan

nilang magkakapatid. x x x"

21.) Meanwhile, witness No. 2 for the prosecution is Ariel Agaro, 37 years

old, married, a maintenance and utility man of the GCC. He is employed by

President of the GCC, the herein Complainant-Appellee. He has been an

employee of GCC since January 9, 2007 up to present; his responsibilities

include the cleaning of the condominium premises and fixing and/or

troubleshooting technical problems. Aside from this, he is also authorized by his

employer to perform other tasks, such as when he is asked to deposit bank

checks.

22.) In his testimony (Exhibit "C"; pp. 3, TSN, August 17, 2011), the

second witness claimed he was at the Administration Office of the 4th floor GCC

Building when he heard the accused, talking to the bookkeeper of the

Administration Office, Ma. Lourdes Cadiente, allegedly uttered the same words

alluded to her by the bookkeeper. To recite in detail, Ariel Nagaro’s narration is

as follows:

"x x x (Direct Examination) x x x

Q. Where were you on September 12, 2008 at around 10:30 A.M. in the morning?

9

A. Nasa opisina po ako kasama si Lourdes Cadiente, yoong amin pong bookkeeper kasi

inutusan nya po ako noon na mag-deposito ng mga tseke.

Q. She was tasking you to deposit some checks?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where is the office located?

A. 4th floor of the Greenhills Court Condominium.

Q. While in the said office, was there anything unusual that happened?

A. Meron po kasing pumunta po doon si Jean Naguit para po magbayad noong kanyang

water bill. x x x

Q. When she arrived in the said office what did you do?

A. Lumabas po ako saglit doon sa may pinto para kasi lam ko mag-uusap silang dalawa ni

Lourdes Cadiente.

Q. When you were about to leave the office, what happened next?

A. Narinig ko po yung sinabi ni Jean Naguit, huwag po akong matakot kay Marilyn

Golangco, sabi niya, magkano ba ang ibinabayad sa'yo, baka nagtitiyaga ka lang sa barya

barya. Gusto mo higitan ko pa ang ibinabayad sa'yo. Sabi ni'ya pa po, meron akong

sasabihin tungkol kay Marilyn Golangco, alam n'yo ba na pinatay nilang magkakapatid ang

sarili nilang ama. Buhay pa ang tatay nila, pinagtatanggalan na ng gadget sa katawan.

Tapos, ang sabi pa, anong klaseng mga tao iyan, buhay pa ang tatay nila ay pinatay nila

para makuha lamang iyong mana.

Q. While you were saying these, how far were you?

A. About more or less five (5) meters away, sir.

Q. And where were you five (5) meters away from Naguit?

Q. Can you describe the door and window during that time?

A. This is the door and this is the window. Tapos may terrace dito.

Q. And five (5) meter away, you were able to hear these. Why were you able to hear

these?

A. Medyo malakas yoong pagkakasabi niya.

Q. And the door and window were not closed?

A. Yes, sir. It's always open. x x x

10

Defenses of the Accused

23.) Tersely put, herein appellant has, at the very outset, vehemently denied

the allegations imputed on her, as what may be gleaned from what she succinctly

stated in her Answer to the Complaint:

(Par. 5) "x x x She went to the GCCC office to pay her arrears relative to her

water bills and that she met Ms. Cadiente therein but vehemently denies x x x

insulting words were uttered by the herein respondent against the complainant, her

family and siblings as these were fabricated stories to implicate the

undersigned in a crime she did not commit as reprisal for sympathizing with

the Alcantara Board which in turn has an on-going dispute with the

complainant and her cohorts. x x x"

(Par. 11) "x x x The undersigned vehemently denies the allegations in

paragraphs 33-37 as these are fabrications and the truth being that the

undersigned is the real victim in this case for having suffered the serious

anxiety, sleepless nights, wounded feelings and embarassment of being

charged with a crime she never committed."

(Par. 12) "That the undersigned denies having committed the crime of Slander

as alleged by the complainant x x x (and) these are conclusions of law and not

statement of facts."

(Par. 13) "That in sum, this case of Slander is filed against the undersigned

was motivated by ill-will and as part of the harassment scheme being undertaken by

the complainant against the parties perceived to be sympathetic to the leadership of

Mrs. Alcantara in the GCC Board and that this dispute has spilled-over to the

hapless unit owners such as the respondent who merely want peace and oderliness

in the Condominium units they own. x x x"

(Emphasis and Italics Supplied)

24.) The accused rebutted the allegations against her, in the statements

she made before the trial court, in the following manner (TSN, March 26, 2012):

X x x I was to settle the water bill in compliance with the order of the RTC Pasig,

that was from the date of the Order which is September 8, 2010, within the week to

settle the water bill so that the water meter will be reconnected.

x x x When I went to the 4th floor, I knocked at the door of the Administration Office

because the windows were closed and the door was even closed so I was hesitant to

knock because I thought there was no one inside, but it was the guard on duty at the

ground floor that Ms. Cadiente was already there. So I knocked on the door and

then when I opened it, a girl was seated on a desk and I asked if she was Lourdes

11

Cadiente, sir.

x x x I introduced myself as the daughter of Mr. Naguit, and on the spot she was

very arrogant and she was yelling at the top of her lungs while it was just the two of

us inside that room. I asked her if she can give me how much we need to pay for the

water bill and she told me that the Statement of Account of GCC has been prepared

already and signed by Ms. Sharma but she was not authorized by Ms. Golangco to

release that and in the same way, she even mentioned that she refuse to receive any

payment from me, sir.

x x x Not long after because she was yelling, she was shouting, sinisigawan po

niya ako, kaming dalawa lang po ang nandoon sa kwarto. And I was explaining to her

that the reason why I was there is because I just have to comply with the order that

within one week from September 8 we have to settle the water bill and she still refuse

to accept, ayaw pa rin niya. So what I did, I opened the door, stepped out of the

office and knocked at the door of Mr. Gopez, he is also a unit owner of GCC and the

former president of GCC.

x x x Thinking at the back of my mind that he was the former administrator and that

he knew about our account as well as the order of the RTC, I requested him to come

with me to the office where Ms. Cadiente was and to explain to her that the reason I

was there was to comply so I just needed to pay for the water bill, sir.”

24.) Furthermore, to support her claim, the accused-apellant explained

that Ms. Cadiente refused to (1) release the statement of account, and (2) accept

her payment for the water bill – mainly since it was the instruction given by her

employer, the herein Complainant. Hence, it was only through Mr. Gopez’s

presence in the Administration office and the latter’s indulgence about the Order

of the RTC, and its implication on how the accused was constrained to comply

with payment for the water bill for that week of September, that the bookkeeper,

Ms. Cadiente, finally released the billing statement, accepted her payment and

issued the corresponding receipt therefor.

25.) Meanwhile, in rebutting the testimony of Ariel Agaro, accused-

appellant, through counsel, sought to establish the improper motives attributable

to Mr. Agaro for giving his testimony in open court, which mainly was in his

retribution for a past criminal charge of theft lodged against him by Rolando

Naguit, father of the appellant.

12

Even then, it was submitted to the court that the appellant denied having

seen Ariel Agaro in the room, as very well indicated and clarified in the records of

her testimony:

Q. Did you notice a person by the name of Ariel Q. Agaro?

A. I know this person as the building janitor or maintenance office, sir.

Q. Was this person present then?

A. He was in the building, sir.

Q. Was he present in the room?

A. He was not there in the room, sir.

(Emphasis Supplied)

25.) In order that the appellant’s testimony may be corroborated and

stand ground, the defense called Mr. Galiciano Gopez, himself the former

President and Administrator of GCC, invoking for his exculpatory testimonial

statement on that day of September 12, 2008, at the time that he was with the

witness at the Administration office, the place where the accused allegedly

committed the charges she is implicated with. Mr. Golez attested to the trial

court, based on his personal knowledge and in relation to the charges against the

herein appellant, that:

(a) He knows the accused and her father, Rolando Naguit;

(b) On or about September 12, 2008, the accused went to his unit

asking for assistance regarding the payment of water bills which Ms.

Cadiente refused to receive;

(c) He accompanied the accused back to the Administration Office

and explained to Ms. Cadiente the compromise agreement before the RTC

of Pasig City;

13

(d) After his explanation, Ms. Cadiente, in his presence, accepted

the payment of the accused and issued a receipt therefor;

(e) Ariel Agaro was not present when he accompanied the accused

to Ms. Cadiente.

26.) In addition, the defense, in order that the appellant’s testimonies may

be proved by circumstantial evidence, offered to the court, which later admitted,

the following corroborating documentary evidence:

a.) Order dated September 8, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court, Pasig

City, Branch 157 (Exhibit “5”) – to show that the appellant’s purpose why

she came to the GCC Administration Office was to secure the water bill

pertaining to their Condominium Unit;

b.) Letter dated September 12, 2008 (Exhibit “6”) – the Letter which

the Appellant submitted to Ms. Cadiente at the GCC Administration Office,

together with the receipt for payment of the water bill;

c.) Official Receipt No. 1664 of the GCCC (Exhibit “7”) – the receipt

issued to the Appellant by Ms. Cadiente after payment of the water bill;

d.) Records of Crim. Case No. 84287 entitled People vs. Aquino for

Theft (Exhibit “8”) – which, the defense presented to show how Ariel Agaro

was motivated to testify against the Appellant.

27.) Even so, after the accused stood up to the court, telling her side of

the story and presenting the necessary evidence in support of her resounding

plea of innocence, still, the trial court, unmoved and unyielding, maintained the

herein accused-appellant’s conviction.

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

14

I. WHETHER OR NOT THE INFORMATION SUPPLIED IS HEARSAY AND HAS PROBATIVE VALUE?

II. WHETHER OR NOT ARIEL AGARO’S STATEMENTS ARE ADMISSIBLE, AND IF SO, WEIGHED PROPERLY BY THE TRIAL COURT?

III. WHETHER OR NOT THE ACTS OF THE WITNESSES AND/OR COMPLAINANT ARE TAINTED WITH EVIDENCE OF ULTERIOR AND IMPROPER MOTIVES?

IV. WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUSSED-APELLANT’S CASE IS LAYDEN WITH REASONABLE DOUBT?

ARGUMENT

x-----------------------------------------xI. THE INFORMATION SUPPLIED IS HEARSAY AND DOES NOT HAVE PROBATIVE VALUE

28.) The sacrosanct duty of the Public Prosecutor in being circumspect in

evaluating the merits of a complaint is well-entrenched in one case:

“x x x This broad prosecutoral power is however not unfettered, because just

as public prosecutors are obliged to bring forth before the law those who have

transgressed it, they are also constrained to be circumspect in filing criminal

charges against the innocent. Thus, for crimes cognizable by regional trial

courts, preliminary investigations are usually conducted. In Ledesma v. Court of

Appeals, 13 we discussed the purposes and nature of a preliminary investigation

in this manner:

The primary objective of a preliminary investigation is to free

respondent from the inconvenience, expense, ignominy and stress of

defending himself/herself in the course of a formal trial, until the

reasonable probability of his or her guilt in a more or less summary

proceeding by a competent office designated by law for that purpose.

Secondarily, such summary proceeding also protects the state

from the burden of the unnecessary expense an effort in

prosecuting alleged offenses and in holding trials arising from

false, frivolous or groundless charges.

Such investigation is not part of the trial. A full and exhaustive

presentation of the parties' evidence is not required, but only such as

may engender a well-grounded belief than an offense has been

committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof. By reason of

15

the abbreviated nature of preliminary investigations, a dismissal of the

charges as a result thereof is not equivalent to a judicial

pronouncement of acquittal. Hence, no double jeopardy attaches.”

(PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and ALYNN PLEZETTE DY vs. COURT OF APPEALS, BILLY CERBO and JONATHAN CERBO. G.R. No. 126005 . January

21, 1999. Emphasis Supplied)29.) Here, we have a case in which circumspection and prudent evaluation

by the investigating officials of information filed in court is amissed.

To begin with, when the City Prosecutor released its resolution, it merely

based its findings on two persons, namely, the Complainant-Appellee herself and

a single witness, Ms. Cadiente. It is noted that what appeared from the affidavits

of these two persons, are the exact alleged exchange of words that resulted to

the charge of grave slander, to wit:

“Jeanne: Huwag kang matakot dyan sa Mallie Golangco na yan. Bakit

magkano ba pinapasahod nila sayo? Baka nagpapagamit ka lang sa barya

barya lang, eh kaya kitang bayaran ng mas malaki.

Lourdes: Bayaran nyo na lang po kaya yung arrears nyo para mapaupahan nyo

yung unit nyo.

Jeanne: No. Nadeposit ko na yung association dues sa isang trust fund na

ibinibigay ko lang sa mananalong administration.

Jeanne: Alam mo ba na may sasabihin ako sayo about diyan sa Golangco na

iyan. Alam mo ba na pinatay nilang magkakapatid ang sarili nilang ama? Anong

klaseng mga tao iyan. Buhay pa yung tatay nila ay pinagtatanggalan na nila ng

mga gadgets na nakakabit. Grabe di ba? Para lang makuha nila ang mana

nila.”

(Exhibit “A”, Complaint-Affidavit; TSN of Marilyn Golangco, Dec. 8, 2010; Also, as

quoted in pp. 1-2 of Office of the City Prosecutor’s Resolution dated Oct. 20,

2009; Also [4th Par] as appearing in Information, filed with MeTC San Juan,

Oct. 27, 2009)The foregoing quoted words were claimed to be sourced from a handwritten

report (pp. 14, October 24, 2011 TSN), which was submitted by Ms. Cadiente to

her employer (the Complainant), the very next day after the incident broke out.

16

Nevertheless, considering that it was routine practice for Ms. Cadiente (as

alleged by her, pp. 13 of October 24, 2011 TSN) to submit her written reports

to her boss, neither of the two (Ms. Cadiente and/or the Complainant) was

unable to account for such “handwritten report”, i.e., to serve as a memorial of

everything that happened on that particular day, during all of the investigations

and trial proceedings (including the cross-examination of Ms. Cadiente) that were

conducted, but nonetheless, seemed to be prone of being repeatedly quoted and

reproduced, firstly, in the affidavit of the Complainant, secondly, the testimony

(TSN December 8, 2010) of the same, thirdly, the Prosecutor’s Resolution, and

fourthly, the Information filed in Court.

Apparently, when called upon during trial, Ms. Cadiente’s statement is a mere

reiterations and oral reproduction of what was written in her affidavit, as may be

observed, to wit:

Q. What was she uttering?

A. Sabi po niya “Hindi mo ba ibibigay yung bill naming? Sunod ka ng sunod

diyan kay Ms. Golangco, natatakot ka ba sa kaniya? Baka barya barya lang

ang binabayad sa’yo, kaya kitang bayaran ng mas malaki.”

Q. Aside from these things, did she utter anything else?

A. Sabi po niya, “May sasabihin ako tungkol sa mgakakapatid na iyan. Alam

mo bang piñata nila ang ama nila/ Buhay pa yung ama nila, pinagtatanggal na

nila yung mga gadgets na nakakabit para lang makuha nila yung mana nila.

Q. Aside from these utterances made by Jean Naguit, what else happened?

A. Sabi po niya kahit i-search ko sa google madami daw pong demandahan

yung magkakapatid, sir. So very personal po lahat sinabi niya.

Q. Aside from these utterances, did she utter something else?

A. No more, sir.

(Pp.5-6 TSN October 24, 2011)

It certainly would be difficult to ascertain how the witness, Ms. Cadiente,

17

upon giving her testimony on the day of October 24, 2011, can make a vivid

recapitulation of the exact words that were exchanged (which is the root of all the

accusations hurled against the appellant) during the incident on September 12,

2008, already more than three (3) years that have passed, as what she actually

did in open court, unless, by any chance, she looked and recalled everything

that she put in writing right after the very day of the incident, (in which case, she

claimed to be in the form of a “handwritten report” which remained unaccounted

for) from where the integrity and indubitability of her statement, in both the

affidavit and in her testimony in court, may be derived.

The foregoing explanation is an indication that the Information filed in Court,

was not based on a valid source and proof, but, succinctly put, on no other than

hearsay, and that, unless the affidavit and testimony of the single witness of the

incident (Ms. Cadiente) is validated, the root of all the accusations hurled against

the appellant remains unfounded for being merely based on hearsay

information. This is so since, the Complaint-Affidavit of Mrs. Golangco, in itself,

is bereft of any sound proof, for the latter stands incompetent to testify against

the accused, as may be gleaned from the fact that she was absent when the

alleged incident took place.

Inasmuch as the City Prosecutor himself, admitted in its Resolution that the

“Evaluation of her (the accused) testimony is a matter best undertaken by the

Trial Court”, it is likewise herein submitted that for fairness’ sake the same

manner of appraisal be given to the suspicious testimony given by the testifying

witness.

x x x

29.) To further bolster the argument that the allegations against the

18

accused remain to be seen as unvalidated and unverified, it must be taken

that when the investigation was being conducted by the investigating officials,

the affidavits of the witnesses were merely suited to conform to the

Complaint-Affidavit as filed by Mrs. Golangco, the Complainant in this case.

This may be further proven by the inconsistencies in the statements of Ariel

Agaro:

Q. Who prepared this affidavit?

A. Hindi ko po alam kung sino ang gumawa nito kasi transfer lang po iyan sa

English.

Q. The one who translated this in English is the one to whom you gave the

narration?

A. Hindi ko po alam.

Q. To whom did you narrate this incident?

A. Atty. Dimaculangan, sir.

Q. After you narrated to Atty. Dimaculangan, he gave you this affidavit to be

filed in court?

A. Pinabasa po sa akin kung tama po young sinabi ko. Habang binabasa

niya sa akin ito, tina-translate niya sa akin sa Tagalog. Sabi ko sa kaniya, iyan

po ang lahat ng sinabi ko.

Q. In this affidavit you mentioned the name Jean Abigail M. Naguit. Were you

the one who gave this information to Atty. Dimaculangan?

A. Hindi po. Jean Naguit lang po ang inilagay ko. Pero maaari rin pong

tinama nila young pangalan.

Q. So this is addition to your narration?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Jean is the daughter of spouses Rolando and Novernia Naguit. Were you

the one who gave this information to Atty. Dimaculangan?

A. Hindi po.

Q. So, this was also not part of your narration to Atty. Dimaculangan?

19

A. Hindi po.

x x x

It leaves no doubt that somewhere along the line, manipulations by means of

enlargements and magnification in the wordings of Mr. Agaro, were pre-

conceived in the cleverly crafted “indicting” statements contained in the affidavit

of Mr. Agaro, in order that the same maybe posed as an effective weapon for

indicting and prosecuting the herein appellant.

29.) In fact, as the investigating officials were collecting their evidence, it

seemed, they have already belatedly acquired the affidavits of the witnesses.

For instance, the affidavit of Ariel Agaro was only duly executed by him in the City

Prosecutor’s office, on the date of October 11, 2012, which was right after the

Information was already filed (after two years at that) with MeTC Pasig City,

Branch 58, which was on October 27, 2009. This is better illustrated from the

cross-examination conducted of Ariel Agaro, to wit:

Q ( ATTY. Viray): So, when Mrs. Golangco filed this case with the City

Prosecutor’s Office of San Juan City sometime in November 3, she did not ask

you to execute any affidavit to narrate the incident that you heard on September

12, 2008?

A: Hindi po.

Q: When did Mrs. Golangco asked you to execute an affidavit or do you

remember having executed any affidavit?

A: Meron po. Hindi ko lang po matandaan kung anong buwan

x x x

Q: Did you appear before Assistant Prosecutor Ramon P. Zarsadiaz on

October 11, 2010?

A: Natatandaan ko po pero hindi ko po alam kung anong eksaktong

petsa.

20

Q: That was the first time you appear before the City Prosecutor’s Office

to execute your affidavit?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And that is also unusual, is it not? You will go to the City Prosecutor’s

Offfice to sign your affidavit?

A. Opo, tama po yoon.

x x x

30.) Furthermore, a questionable aspect of the investigation of the

charges against the accused, as conducted by the City Prosecutor, is the fact

that the investigating officials did not inquire as to the due execution of the

document, given the fact that acknowledgement by Ariel Agaro of his own

affidavit was made only after the statements averred therein was prepared (and

more probably contorted and made with prejudicial implications, as may be seen

above) by Atty. Dimaculangan, the very same lawyer who represented him in the

prior criminal case filed against him by the father of the accused.

31.) Even on the face of the witnesses’ affidavits, it appears, there were

irregularities owing to the fact that the witnesses’ signatures appeared only in last

page, which goes to show and prove that the affidavits of the witnesses were

executed privy to the knowledge of the affiants thereto, and were

manipulated and deliberately made to be exaggerated:

Q. By the way, how many pages was the affidavit?

A. About three (3) pages, sir.

Q. Did you sign each and every page of the affidavit?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where did you sign each page?

A. Natatandaan ko, pinirmahan ko lang sa huling page.

21

Q. Will you please go over your affidavit and tell us if this is your affidavit you

executed on October 11, 2012?

A. Ito nga po.

Never has such an official investigation been tainted with so much irregularity

than the crime pinned against the accused by her detractors.

x-----------------------------------------xII. ARIEL AGARO’S STATEMENT IS INADMISSIBLE FOR BEING SELF-SERVING

32.) Ariel Agaro was made to sign an Affidavit (Exhibit “C-3”) which,

inexplicably, prepared after the of a considerable lapse of time, that is, more or

less, one (1) year after the occurrence in September 12, 2008 – when the

accused-appellant was alleged to have uttered the slanderous words.

The fact on how the statements of Ariel Agaro were obtained was clear.

He executed his affidavit (Exhibits “C”, “C-1” and “C-2”) on October 11, 2010,

before Assistant City Prosecutor Ramon P. Zarsadiaz. Hence, the said affidavit

was only prepared (October 2010) long after a substantial lapse of time has

already passed when the incident broke (September 2009).

One can just surmise how – after so long, considering that the information

was filed with MeTC Pasig City, Branch 58, on October 27, 2009 – the written

testimonies of the testifying witnesses were purported to serve as instruments in

pinning the charges against the accused, from how they were mustered,

prepared and executed through the investigating authorities, in a time after the

alleged crime, may as well, already said to be “long past due”.

Serious doubt may be casted as to the keen and unperturbed capacity of

Ariel Agaro in recollecting the interplay of each act, event and scenario, and not

the least, the very exact and precise words that were allegedly uttered by those

22

who were present in the room at that very incident. This can be figured out from

the import and manner of how the witness gave in open court his very own

testimony, to wit:

“x x x Q. You can still remember the date September 12, 2008 but you

cannot remember the date when you executed your affidavit before the

City Prosecutor’s Office on October 11, 2010?

A. Kasi po noong gumawa ako ng affidavit yoon lang po ang

natatandaan kong petsa.

Q. When the incident happened, you noted the date?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where did you note the date? Did you note it in writing?

A. Yes, sir.”

It may be noted that when asked on dates as regards what is contained in his

own affidavit, he could not remember but one particular date, that is, September

12, 2008. This is a fair indication of inconsistency – as if all that he was asked to

give for his statement in his testimony is all based on a scripted story, a well-

executed rehearsal of what allegedly transpired on that particular day of

September 12, 2008.

33.) More importantly, note must be taken of the character and

testamentary disposition which Mr. Agaro employed in court, gleaned from his

shrewd denial when cross-examined (TSN, August 17, 2011) , if for any reason,

he might be harboring any ill-feelings toward the accused:

ATTY. VIRAY, JR.:

Q. You stated that you have no ill feeling to Ms. Naguit?

THE WITNESS:

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You know that she was the daughter of Rolando Naguit?

23

A. Alam ko po na anak siya ni Rolando Naguit.

Q. And that was before you executed your affidavit in the case?

A. Nakasuhan na ako noong ginawa ko young affidavit.

Q. And because you were charged by Mr. Naguit, the father of the accused,

you have a sort of ill feeling against the father?

A. Wala po akong galit kasi po young binibintang nila sa akin ay hindi naman

po talaga totoo. So, wala po akong galit.

Q. What happened to that case?

A. Na-dismiss na daw po yata.

Q. Because Mr. Naguit failed to appear and testify?

A. Siguro po dahil alam nilang hindi totoo po young kaso ko.

Mr. Agaro’s statement that no ill-feelings would have gotten in between him

and the accused is an empty statement. It is no question that Jean Naguit was

sympathetic and sided along with her father when the criminal charges were

brought up against Mr. Agaro. There remains enough and sound reason as to

why the latter may have been compelled to testify in words to destroy the person

of the accused, not the least, to redeem himself from the humiliation of being

accused of theft. Although the assailed witness would deny it, the inevitable

question surges: why should he take the witness stand for her present employer

and against an adverse party, who formerly charged him of theft in court? Clearly,

these are all a strong indicia of impropriety and patent self-serving evidence.

34.) Moreover, Mr. Agaro said that when he was first approached by Ms.

Cadiente when the alleged incident broke, contrary to what Ms. Cadiente claimed

in her statement in which she denied knowledge or information about Jean

Naguit, the herein assailed witness, Mr. Agaro, admitted in open court that

Lourdes Cadiente knew of the name Jean Naguit, whom she was from then on

24

slowly bringing this ripening case of grave slander against:

ATTY VIRAY

Q. Did you tell Ms. Cadiente the full name of Jean Naguit?

THE WITNESS

A. Actually, kilala rin ni Ms. Cadiente si Jean Naguit. So, wala akong sinabi na

ganoon kay Lourdes kasi kilala namin parehas si Ms. Naguit.

Q. So, when Jean Naguit allegedly went ot the office, the two (2) of you,

Cadiente and you know her name already?

A. Yes, your honor.

Q. And you knew her as Jean Abigail M. Naguit?

A. Kilala ko lang po siya sa Jean Naguit.

Q. Who supplied the name Jean Abigail M. Naguit to Mrs. Golangco?

A. Hindi ko po alam.

Q. How about this Cadiente, did she give you the name of Jean Abigail M.

Naguit?

A. No, sir.

Q. Who told this conversation between Ms. Naguit and Ms. Cadiente to Mrs.

Golangco prior to November 3, 2008?

A. Hindi ko na po matandaan.

Q. So, you cannot remember if prior to November 3, 2008, you have already

told to Mrs. Golangco the conversation between Ms. Naguit and Ms. Cadiente

on September 12, 2008?

FISCAL DAMASING

Already answered, your Honor.

(TSN AUGUST 17, 2011)

Mr. Agaro seemed to really impress upon the court that he really had no

reason to stand in a biased position against the accused. Nevertheless, the

inconsistencies of his statement would reveal a number of contradictions and

how the case against the accused was craftily plotted. From all that has been

said above, it cannot be gainsaid that Agaro’s testimony is at most flawed for

25

being biased, self-serving and ill-motivated.

x-----------------------------------------xIII. THERE ARE IMPROPER AND ULTERIOR MOTIVES ON THE WITNESSES / COMPLAINANT

35.) The ratio decidendi of the trial court’s decision states:

“As to accused’s claim that Ms. Lourdes I. Cadiente and Ariel Agaro are

biased witnesses, such claim was not satisfactorily proved. The fact that both

are employees of GCC of which the private complainant is the President,

and the fact that Mr. Agaro was sued by the accused’s father for theft, do

not necessarily mean their testimonies are biased. While motive, bias or

interest of the witness in testifying against the accused should be supported by

satisfactory proof in order that his testimony may be considered biased. This,

she failed to prove. In fact, the accused testified she does not know of any

reason why Ms. Cadiente said she uttered defamatory remarks and why she

executed an affidavit to that effect.

Thus, no weight can be accorded accused’s denial. The Court finds the

testimonial evidence of the defense unconvincing.”

(Pp. 10-11 of the Decision. Emphasis Supplied.)

Mainly, the court a quo’s basis given why the appellant is to be held guilty, is

that in the absence of proof to the contrary, the presumption exists that there is

no ulterior or improper motives on the testfiying witnesses. However, the

converse rule applies where the circumstances establish that there is showing as

to the presence of the same. Thus, in the case of NICASIO BORJE vs.

SANDIGANBAYAN (G.R. No. L-55436 November 25, 1983), it was held:

“The rule is established that the absence of evidence as to an improper motive

actuating the offended party and the principal prosecution witness tends to

sustain the conclusion that no such improper motive existed and that their

testimonies are worthy of full faith and credit. (People vs. Amiscua 37 SCRA

813; People vs. Mercado, 38 SCRA 168; People vs. Valdemoro, 102 SCRA

170). Conversely, where there is showing as to improper motives, as in the

case at bar, the testimony of complainant Ducusin is unworthy of faith and

credit and, therefore, deserves scant consideration. And since the

prosecution theory is built or based on such testimony, the cause of the

prosecution collapses or falls with it.

26

According to respondent court, its conclusion that the accused falsified or

caused to be falsified the document in question is further supported by the

following facts: (1) that the accused confessed to him that he was the one who

got the money and offered immediately to Ducusin the sum of P225.00 to cover

the incentive pay so that Ducusin will just keep silent but Ducusin did not accept

the money; and (2) that in his reply to the letter of Ducusin denouncing the

forging of his signature that he received his incentive pay from January to

March, 1977, the accused tried to justify the falsification of the time record as

shown in the portion of said reply, Exhibit "H".

In the light of the ill-motives of the complainant as shown above, this

particular assertion of Ducusin which is uncorroborated is sleazy, that is,

flimsy, shabby, cheap or unsubstantial. Moreover, petitioner's reply marked

Exh. "H" is not an admission of the accused that he falsified or caused to be

falsified the documents in question. In fact, examining Exh. "H", it says that "his

Ducusin daily time record (was) prepared by other employees in order to justify

such payment. The authenticity of Exh. "H" is denied by the petitioner who

presented Exh. "8" as the real and correct copy duly received and initialed by

the Regional Office, and therein, he wrote: "I therefore deny knowledge of the

alleged forgery of the signature of Mr. Ducusin in the same payroll."

36.) Likewise, in the case at bar, the Defense has clearly shown that

ulterior and improper motives are present, in the persons of all the witnesses.

First, the facts show that Mrs. Golangco undeniably has personal

knowledge of the accused. In fact, she was the owner of the neighboring

condominium unit of the former. Furthermore, the story behind the dissension

among the members of the condominium corporation, as laid out in the defense

of the accused, is not merely a fabricated story. This is more appreciated if one

is to consider how, on the one hand, the Complainant holds esteem in her

passion about the position of the presidency of the condominium corporation,

while on the other hand, there are the dissenting members who are more loyal to

the former board of directors and who are not in a favorable and cordial terms

with the present GCCC administration. In fact, there were then pending civil

cases filed in courts (citation) and the main issue therein involves resolving the

heated dispute from amongst the GCCC members who are divided into those

who are for and against, the officials of the present GCCC administration. This is

27

even the main reason why the appellant was constrained to settle a contestable

imposition of condominium dues by the GCCC President, since an urgent

compliance with a court order then became a necessity. The bottom line is, prior

to charges of slander against the accused, the Complainant is not a disinterested

party: the culprit lies in the antagonism, lack of support and disfavor for the

present Condominium management which the accused seemed to have

impressed upon the Complainant and the present GCCC management. This

explains why the Complainant would not hesitate to proceed to the Office of the

Prosecutor and hastily initiate a Complaint against the herein Appellant, relying

solely on the uncorroborated and unfounded testimony of her employee-witness,

and even after then, would not stop at seriously exerting efforts towards the

prosecution and indictment of a person whom she have so much deplored.

37.) Secondly, the testimony of GCCC’s employed bookkeeper, Ms.

Cadiente, is easily devastated (as already explicated above) by the apparent

contradiction against her statement in denial of personal knowledge of the actual

person of the accused, to wit:

“FISCAL DAMASING:

Q. Ms. Witness, where were you on September 12, 2008 at around 10:30

A.M.?

THE WITNESS:

A. At the fourth floor of the Greenhills Court Condominium, sir.

Q. Where particularly in the fourth floor?

A. At the Administration Office, sir. x x x

Q. Why were you there?

A. Because I was the bookkeeper on that time, sir.

Q. While in the said office, was there any unusual incident that happened?

28

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What is the unusual incident that happened?

A. Ms. Jeanne Naguit arrived and since I don’t know her she introduced

herself to me that she is the daughter of Mr. Rolando Naguit, the owner of

Unit 302, sir. x x x”

(TSN, OCTOBER 24, 2011. EMPHASIS SUPPLIED)

This very same claim is impeached by the co-witness himself, Mr. Agaro:

“ATTY VIRAY

Q. Did you tell Ms. Cadiente the full name of Jean Naguit?

THE WITNESS

A. Actually, kilala rin ni Ms. Cadiente si Jean Naguit. So, wala akong sinabi na

ganoon kay Lourdes kasi kilala namin parehas si Ms. Naguit.

Q. So, when Jean Naguit allegedly went ot the office, the two (2) of you,

Cadiente and you know her name already?

A. Yes, your honor.”

(TSN AUGUST 17, 2011)

Obviously, these two witnesses stand in opposing and contradictory

positions – which, verily has detrimental implications to the overall stance of the

prosecution, since the wrongful presumption that Mrs. Cadiente did not know the

accused at the time they first met makes her a disinterested person.

Consequently, the same reliance on this presumption is evident on the assailed

decision:

“x x x The Court finds the testimony of the accused incredible. She said Ms.

Lourdes I. Cadiente was acting arrogantly and was yelling at her when she

introduced herself as the daughter of Mr. Naguit. This is hard to believe

because this is very unnatural for someone to shout at another person

who he/she has just met for the first time. As testified by the accused, she

and Ms. Cadiente met for the first time and do not know each other.”

(Trial Court’s Decision; Emphasis Supplied)

At this juncture, there is no point in belying the rest of Ms. Cadiente’s

statements, since evident contradictions from at the offing render the rest inutile,

with no leg to stand on. Nevertheless, the appellant’s testimony concerning her

29

having met Ms. Cadiente for the first time buttresses the argument that ulterior

and improper motives were attendant to the latter in consideration of the fact that

the bookkeeper is gainfully employed by the present GCCC administration. The

culprit lies, as said before, in the antagonism, lack of support and disfavor for the

present Condominium management which the accused seemed to have

impressed upon the Complainant and the present GCCC management, which

precisely is the ultimate reason which initiated the sourly turn of events:

“x x x ATTY. VIRAY, JR.

Q. After she introduced herself, did she tell you the purpose of her coming to

your office?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What was that?

A. They wanted to have their unit rented and she will ask how much will they

pay for the water bill, sir. x x x

Q. After receiving the copy, what else transpired?

A. She needs to pay the association dues before po nila mapaupahan yung

unit. That was the time po na doon na siya nagagalit, nung nireremind ko na po

siya about the association dues.

Q. What was her reply?

A. Idineposit na daw po nila sa isang trust fund na ibibigay po nila sa

mananalong president, sir.

Q. So there was a conflict when you said “mananalong president”?

A. Considered po as president si Ms. Golangco, kung hindi niya po

matanggap yun, that is no longer my problem. Ang trabaho ko lang po ay

to collect and follow the house rules of the condominium, sir.

Q. What happened after that?

A. Nagsalita na po siya ng mga sinabi ko kanina, sir. x x x”

(TSN, OCTOBER 24, 2011. EMPHASIS SUPPLIED)

The sound test of credibility may very well be applied in the testimony of Ms.

30

Cadiente: “What a man (or woman) says against his (her) interest may be safely

believed; but it is not safe to credit him (her) where he (she) is advocating his

(her) interest.” (pp. 321, Francisco, “The Revised Rules of Court in the

Philippines” Vol. VII Part I 1990 Ed., citing In re:Grove, 110 Me. 169, 480, 87

A.40)

x-----------------------------------------xIII. THERE IS PROOF LEANING TOWARDS REASONABLE DOUBT

38.) A cardinal rule in criminal procedure is that “the strength of the

prosecution lies not in the weakness of the defense”. In a number of case

precedents, this doctrine has been repeatedly applied, among which, is the case

of PEOPLE vs. BERNABE MACASINAG (G.R. No. 74075 May 12, 1989):

“It is a basic principle of constitutional law that the accused shall be

presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and this by the most

convincing evidence constituting proof beyond reasonable ground.

Lacking such certainty, the trial court has the duty to render a verdict of

acquittal indeed even if the prisoner on the dock utters not a word on his

behalf on the equally well-known precept that the strength of the

prosecution lies not in the weakness of the defense. The prosecution

must rely on its own evidence to prove its case and stand on its own two

feet, so to speak, to sustain a conviction. If it cannot, the charge must be

dismissed and the defendant released.

In the case at bar, the defense offered by the accused-appellant is

alibi, one of the least persuasive of excuses known in law. We feel,

however, that the evidence of the prosecution is even less believable and

has in fact even bolstered the cause of the defense. The defense must be

sustained.

Bernabe Macasinag, the herein accused-appellant, was charged, with the

murder of Jesus Matienzo, Sr., allegedly committed in the early morning of April

20, 1985, at the Masbate abattoir in Kinamaligan, Masbate. 1 After trial, he was

found guilty by Judge Zosimo Z. Angeles of the Regional Trial Court of Masbate

and sentenced to death, besides being subjected to certain pecuniary liabilities.

2 His case was elevated to the Court for automatic review because of the

penalty, which, however, is no longer imposable under the present Constitution.

This case is now treated as an ordinary appeal.

Also settled is the rule that the factual findings of the trial court should be

accorded the highest respect by the appellate court because of the opportunity

enjoyed by the former to observe the demeanor of the witnesses on the stand

31

and assess their testimony. Nevertheless, the higher court is not entirely

precluded from reviewing and reversing these findings if it is not

convinced that they are conformable to the evidence of record and to its

own impressions of the credibility of the witnesses.”

(EMPHASIS SUPPLIED)

39.) In the case at bar, the facts as alleged by the accused is plain and

simple. Without pretense, she disclaimed any of the slanderous remarks which

were maliciously impugned against her by her adversaries. She denied, with all

her heart, having anything to do with attacking the reputation of anybody. She

lacked any of the potential, and the least tendencies, of ever doing such a

repugnant act, notwithstanding that it allegedly took place at such point when

she, a self-employed single mother, was as absorbed as she was by her

thoughts in tendering the warm and loving caress then needed at the time by her

one and only baby. She backed this all up with solid evidence, which pointed

towards every little detail in her carefully narrated turn and sequence of events.

She presented: the RTC’s order for immediate compliance, from which is hinged

the purpose of her coming over to the GCCC Administration office to settle her

account; the letter which she presented and tendered to Ms. Cadiente upon

payment of her water bill; the receipt issued therefor; a proof to the effect that a

case was previously filed against the testifying witness by her late father, and last

but not the least; the testimony of the former GCCC President, Mr. Gopez,

attesting to the truth of the facts, in accordance to her allegations. All these

evidence were left uncontroverted by the prosecution after presentation. On

the contrary, what remains to be controverted is the fact that the witnesses’

assertions are replete with ulterior and improper motives, as what have been

explained above.

40.) Hence, for the same reasons underlying the doctrine which sustained

32

the acquittal of the accused in the case of PEOPLE vs. BERNABE MACASINAG,

it is therefore submitted to this Honorable Court that the herein Accused-Apellant

be acquitted of all the unfounded, baseless and malicious charges in this criminal

case against her.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the court a quo’s judgment be reversed for failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused must be ACQUITTED of all the charges against him based on the grounds thus presented.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are also prayed for.Manila for Pasig City, Philippines. February __, 2013.

FORTUNATO F. L. VIRAY &ROY P. R. TALAO

Counsels for the AccusedSuite 510, Don Santiago Bldg.1344 Taft Ave., Ermita, Manila

By:

ROY P. R. TALAOIBP Lifetime Member No. 02502

PTR O. R. No. 3179869/01-05-12/Makati CityRoll No. 41956

MCLE Compliance No. III-4722/9-4-09roytalao@yahoo.com

Tel. No. 341-6771/952-7542

NOTICE & COPY FURNISHED

Counsel for the Private Complainant

33