REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR

PASIG CITY

JASMINE CATHALINA J. NAVA

Complainant,

-Versus- I.S. No. XV-14-INV-20A-00181

FOR: Slander by Deed/ Oral
defamation

MARGARITA SAMBRANO
Respondent,
X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X

MEMORANDUM

COMES NOW, the respondent in the above entitled case

by and through undersigned counsel and into this Honorable
investigating prosecutor most respectfully avers:

That the respondent is the president and general

manager of SEALBOND CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES, INC. a
corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the
Republic of the Philippines with the principal office address at
No. 17 Ledesma Street Phase 1, AFPOVAL, Western Bicutan,
Taguig City.

That complainant herein purchases some of her materials

she uses in complainants construction business GABB and NICH
BUILDERS;

That the complainant in the above entitled cases

accuses herein respondent of the crime of slander by deed
and oral defamation. The same is punishable under Article 358
and Article 359 of the Revised Penal Code;

That the complaint- affidavit of the complainant alleges

that the alleged offense was committed on July 23, 2019 at
about 2:00 to 3:00 in the afternoon in the City of Pasig and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable office.
 That the offense as charge, a minor offense, prescribes
within a period of six (6) months, Article 90, of the Revised
Penal Code which states that:

ART. 90. Prescription of crimes. – Crimes punishable by death,

reclusion perpetua or reclusion temporal shall prescribe in twenty years.
Crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties shall prescribe in
fifteen years.
Those punishable by a correctional penalty shall prescribe in ten
years; with the exception of those punishable by arrestor mayor, which
shall prescribe in five years.
The crime of libel or other similar offenses shall prescribe in one
year.
The offenses of oral defamation and slander by deed shall
prescribe in six months.
Light offenses prescribe in two months.
When the penalty fixed by law is a compound one, the highest
penalty shall be made the basis of the application of the rules contained
in the first, second, and third paragraphs of this article. (As amended by
R.A. No. 4661.)

That the offense as charged (Affidavit – Complaint),

paragraph three (3) states that the offense as charged was
committed on July 23, 2019, while the case was filed with the
Prosecutors Office, Pasig City, (See the I.S. Sheet and the
rubber stamp reflecting when the date was received at the
Prosecutors Office of Pasig City) on January 28, 2020. Counting
the period from the commission of the offense, which is
alleged to have been on July 23, 2019, up to the time of the
filing of the case with the Prosecutors Office of Pasig City
which is on January 28, 2020, – more than six (6) months has
lapsed. Therefore, the offense as charged has already
Prescribed under Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code.

That attached hereto as Annex “A” – is a copy of the

complaint- affidavit and Annex “B” is the Information Sheet of
the case as filed with the Pasig City Prosecutors Office more
particularly the “rubber stamp’ which indicates that the case
was filed on: January 28, 2020.

That the instant complaint is nothing but a leverage and

counter suit/ complaint, harassment suit designed to get even
within the respondent herein. As herein respondent has filed a
case for ESTAFA against the complainant herein for P
6,052,274.00 pesos;
 That attached hereto as Annex “C” is a copy of the
complaint-affidavit and the I.S. sheet hereto attached as
Annex “D” – Annexes “A, B, C, and D” are made an integral
part of this Motion to Dismiss;

That complainant has every act to grind against herein

respondent as herein respondent has several cases of B.P.22
(the Bouncing Check Law) against the complainant. These
cases for B.P. 22 are now pending before Branch ___,
Metropolitan Trial Court of Taguig City. Photo copies of the
INFORMATION are hereto attached as Annex ____.

That complainant herein is now frantic and desperate in

her design to get even, with the respondent herein has
designed this malicious, non-existing case, fabricated charges
designed to force the respondent herein to drop the case for
“ESTAFA” now pending preliminary investigation with the City
of Taguig Prosecutors Office under I.S. No. XV-16-INV-19K-
00981;

That under the prevailing circumstances, the undersigned

counsel for the respondent has no other alternative but to
move for the dismissal of the instant complaint based on
prescription.

That in paragraph no. 3 of the complaint-affidavit,

complaint states that:

On 23 July 2019 at around 2:00 to 3:00 in the afternoon at Ilugin

Site, Brgy. Pinagbuhatan, Pasig City in front of Crystal R. Eda, Engr.
Louimer Rioveros, Engr. Angelica Perez, Engr. Maria Fatima Flores, Engr.
Ryan Daganio and Engr. Rafael Yabut, said Margarita Sambrano uttered
the following words against me while talking to Crystal R. Eda as follows,
to wit: “ANG BOSS MO MANDARAMBONG, MANDURUGAS,
SINUNGALING” knowing that said Crystal R. Eda is under my employ
being my Project Consultant. In addition, said Margarita Sambrano asked
said Crystal R. Eda to resign from my employ and to transfer to her
company. Said acts of Margarita Sambrano were perpetrated to my
damage and prejudice. Copy of the Certification of the Police Blotter is
hereto attached as Annex “A”.
 That the persons alluded to or mentioned as the persons
who allegedly heard the utterances are:

a. Crystal R. Eda
b. Engr. Louimer Rioveros
c. Engr. Angelica Perez
d. Maria Fatima Flores
e. Engr. Ryan Daganio
f. Engr. Rafael Yabut

That clearly the alleged utterances uttered were not

made in her presence but as alleged the same were made in
the presence of some other persons. Clearly the complaint is
Hearsay in character.

Pertinent jurisprudence on the matter provides:

 A witness can testify only to those facts which he

knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are
derived from his own perception, x x x (Section 36,
Rule 30, Revised Rules on Evidence) The Rules of
Court provide that a witness can testify only to those
facts which he knows of his personal knowledge, that
is, which are derived from his perception. A witness,
therefore, may not testify as what he merely learned
from others either because he was told or read or
heard the same. Such testimony is considered
hearsay and may not be received as proof of the
truth of what he has learned. This is known as the
hearsay rule. Hearsay is not limited to oral testimony
or statements; the general rule that excludes hearsay
as evidence applies to written, as well as oral
statements. (D.M. CONSUNJI, INC. Vs. COURT OF
APPEALS and MARIA J. JUEGO, G.R. No. 137873. April
20, 2001)

 Any evidence, whether oral or documentary, is

hearsay if its probative value is not based on the
personal knowledge of the witness. It is a basic rule in
evidence that a witness can testify only on the facts
that he knows of his own Personal knowledge, i.e.
those which are derived from his own perception. A
witness may not testify on what he merely learned,
read or heard from others because such testimony is
 considered hearsay and may not be received as
proof of the truth of what he has learned, read or
heard. (PRIMO C. MIRO, in his capacity as Deputy
Ombudsman for the Visayas Vs. MARILYN MENDOZA
VDA. DE EREDEROS, ET AL., G.R. Nos. 172532 172544-
45, November 20, 2013)

That nowhere in the complaint-affidavit would it state

that the alleged persons who heard the alleged persons, who
heard the alleged utterances, did not execute affidavits or
joint-affidavits to prove such contentions;

That the nearest evidence submitted is the unsigned

affidavit of one CRYSTAL R. EDA, which is not notarized.
Hence, the affidavit of the witness is inadmissible in evidence
or bereft of any merit.

That as alleged in the earlier paragraphs herein, the

complaint contains nothing but fabricated lies, perjurious
statements and malicious statements designed to mislead the
Honorable Investigating Prosecutor;

That with due respect to the honorable investigating

prosecutor, the complainant has failed to establish probable
cause and therefore, the instant case should be dismissed for
lack of merit.

That while it may be true that the law on Preliminary

Investigation, and as a general rule, motions to dismiss are not
allowed or is a prohibited pleading, however, this
memorandum falls under the exception as when the case has
prescribed such as the case at bar.
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of the

Honorable Investigating Prosecutor to dismiss the instant case
against herein respondent.

Respondent prays for other reliefs and remedies

equitable und the law.

City of Manila, Philippines, February 13, 2020

ATTY. LEOPOLDO P. DELA ROSA

Counsel for the Respondent
Suite 307 CCI Bdg. No. 1091
Concepcion St. Ermita, Manila
PTR No. No. 8076534/Mla./ 01-17-2019
IBP No. 053136 /Mla./ 10-23-2018
Roll No. 28195
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0027011
September 13, 2016
Email:dlrlawfirm@yahoo.com
Tel. No. 5255979

Copy furnished:

JASMINE CATHALINA J. NAVA

Complainant.