Republic of the Philippines

PROVINCE OF SURIGAO DEL SUR

Municipality of Cortes

OFFICE OF THE SANGGUNIANG BAYAN

BARANGAY OFFICIALS OF MATHO, Admin. Case No. ________

CORTES, SURIGAO DEL SUR,
Complainant,

-versus-

ELEUTERIO BIOL,
Respondent.
x--------------------------------------------------------/

ANSWER

COMES NOW the Respondent, through the undersigned counsel of the Public
Attorney’s Office, unto the Office of the Sangguniang Bayan of Cortes, Surigao del Sur,
respectfully avers – THAT:

1. Respondent categorically denies that he has committed acts which may be

deemed Grave Misconduct while in Office;

2. As shown in the Affidavit-Complaint, the allegation that Respondent may be

held liable for Grave Misconduct in Office is anchored on the purported kaingin
activities of the Respondent within the premises of Matho Environmental
Management Protection Cooperative (MEMPCO);

3. This allegation that Respondent engaged in an illegal activity within the

premises of MEMPCO has no bearing at all. In fact said allegation is FALSE
and TOTALLY MISLEADING; thus, Respondent advances the following
averments:

a. The Affidavit-Complaint says that Respondent together with other

persons entered into the premises of MEMPCO, cleared the area and
cut down several trees thereat. This statement is purely hearsay, since
not one of the affiants was an eyewitness to the alleged illegal activity;

1
 b. While it is true that they may have personal knowledge regarding the
existence of an area subjected to kaingin activity, considering that they
conducted an investigation as well as an inspection of the area; no one,
however, has ever seen the Respondent clearing area which belongs to
MEMPCO, cutting the trees therein and burning them afterwards;

c. The Affidavit-Complaint banks on the purported admission of the

Respondent before the Barangay Council of Matho, Cortes, Surigao del
Sur, on September 23, 2011. However, said statement of the
Respondent was made before he was apprised that the area he cleared
up is a part of the Ancestral Domain of the Kahugpungan sa Tribung
Manobo ug Mamanwa (KATRIMMA) of Cortes, Surigao del Sur;

d. The area cleared up by the Respondent is the one which he took over
from Joel Raut-raut, which is located in Sinyaganon, Matho, Cortes,
Surigao del Sur, and within the area identified and denominated as
Ancestral Domain belonging to KATRIMMA;

e. Stated otherwise, the complaint tries to draw strength from the

admission of the Respondent. But Respondent says that said admission
cannot be used against him, because the area he has cleared belongs
to the members of the KATRIMMA and not to MEMPCO;

4. Having said the above, what is to be considered in this case, therefore, is

whether or not the Respondent is the one who cleared up that area which
belongs to MEMPCO; and, whether or not the area cleared up by the
Respondent is a MEMPCO area. Respondent’s answer to these issues is in
the negative. His answers are treated below as part of his affirmative and
special defenses;

AFFIRMATIVE AND SPECIAL DEFENSES

Respondent repleads the foregoing allegations and avers further – THAT:

5. The Affidavit-Complaint seems to be positive that an area belonging to

MEMPCO had been subjected to kaingin activities. Documents were attached
to the complaint to show that indeed kaingin exist. But no evidence was ever
presented that would point out that it is the Respondent who is responsible for

2
 it. Hence, the allegation charging the Respondent is so flimsy and must be
rejected. If indeed the area is subjected to Kaingin, then it may have been the
doing of a different person, and certainly not the Respondent;

6. Corollary to this, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor had already settled this
issue. This incident of kaingin within the premises of MEMPCO, as the
complaint has alleged, was once brought to the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor. The decision of the Handling Prosecutor, however, favors the
Respondent. Said decision was not surprising; after all, there was no positive
identification that it was the Respondent who cleared the area belonging to
MEMPCO. The decision is hereto attached as Annex “A”;

7. Respondent understands that he made a statement during the September 23,

2011 Barangay Council Session. He mentioned to have cleared up an area.
Moreover, he also made mention of two persons, namely Joel Raut-raut and
Lolong Laroa, whose areas Respondent had tried to assume;

8. The said statement made by the Respondent is where the complaint

capitalizes. But, it must be noted that the area referred to by the Respondent
is that area of Joel Raut-raut, and nothing else. Hence, the issue now is whether
this area of Joel Raut-raut belongs to MEMPCO;

9. It is only the area of Joel Raut-raut which the Respondent had cleared up,
because as to the area concerning Lolong Laroa, Respondent was not able to
enter the same for it belongs to the members of KATRIMMA. Respondent was
not aware that Lolong Laroa was barred by the KATRIMMA from cultivating the
land. It was only upon agreement with Espidito Gonzales, the Tribal Chieftain,
that Respondent began to have an interest in the area, by becoming a partner
of Espidito Gonzales. An Affidavit executed by Espidito Gonzales is attached
hereto as Annex “B”;

10. Thus, if the Barangay Council’s cause of action is based on the area of Joel
Rau-raut, which was cleared up by the Respondent; then, they are trying to
mislead the Honorable Office. Respondent says so, for the area does not
belong to MEMPCO, but to the members of the KATRIMMA;

3
 11. Moreover, the clearing made by the Respondent in the land belonging to Joel
Raut-raut, if it can be called kaingin, is not illegal. It is so, for it is within a private
property. As a matter of fact, Joel Raut-raut had executed an affidavit to this
effect, which is attached hereto as Annex “C”;

12. Given the above, the kaingin activities, therefore, which the Officials of
Barangay Matho said to have been done within the premises of MEMPCO is
clearly not that of the Respondent. Because, again the Respondent’s area is
within the Ancestral Domain of KATRIMMA. If indeed kaingin exist in the area
of MEMPCO, then others might have been responsible for it;

13. With the above justification Respondent cannot help, but theorize that this is a
politically motivated complaint. An affidavit executed by Alexander Cubio,
which was also submitted to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, is hereto
attached as Annex “D” to show that the complaint is malicious, and therefore
does not deserve any credit.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that this complaint

for Grave Misconduct in Office be dismissed for being devoid of merit, considering that
Respondent has done nothing illegal, and has not, therefore, violated Section 69 of PD
705.
Other just and equitable reliefs under the circumstances are likewise being prayed
for.

Respectfully submitted.

Tandag, Surigao del Sur (for Cortes, Surigao del Sur). June 27, 2012.

Public Attorney’s Office

Department of Justice
Tandag District Office
Counsel for the Defendant
PAO, Hall of Justice
Tandag, Surigao del Sur

By:

DANIEL L. DIAZ
Public Attorney II
4
 Roll No. 57741
IBP No.744443 – 01/06/12
Tandag, Suigao del Sur
TIN: 295-753-777-000
MCLE Compliance No. IV - 0004737

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION

Republic of the Philippines }

Province of Surigao del Sur }s.s
City of Tandag }
X------------------/

I, ELEUTERIO BIOLS, of legal age, married, Filipino and a resident of Matho, Cortes,
Surigao del Sur, Philippines, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law do hereby
depose and say that:

1. I am the Respondent in the above-entitled case;

2. I have caused the preparation and filing of this Answer;
3. I have read the foregoing Answer and that the allegations therein are true and correct of
my own personal knowledge and based on authentic records;
4. I further certify that I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the
same issues in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals or any other court, tribunal or agency
and to the best of our knowledge, there is no action or proceeding involving the same
issues pending before the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or any other court, tribunal
or agency and should I learn thereafter that the similar action or proceeding has been filed
or is pending before the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or any other court, tribunal or
agency, I hereby undertake to report the fact within five (5) days therefrom to the
Honorable Office, where the foregoing Answer has been filed.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 27th day of June 2012, at
Tandag, Surigao del Sur, Philippines.

ELEUTERIO BIOL
Affiant
ID No. R 13-244
Issued by Karancho

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 27th day of June 2012, at Tandag,
Surigao del Sur, Philippines.

Copy Furnished:

Hon. Marivic P. Lao

Brgy. Captain
Matho, Cortes, Surigao del Sur
Republic of the Philippines)
Province of Surigao del Sur)
City of Tandag) s.s.

5
 COUNTER - AFFIDAVIT

I, MANUEL ANDAYRAN, Filipino, of legal age, married and a resident

of Alba, Tago, Surigao del Sur, after having been sworn to in accordance
with law, do hereby depose and say:

1. That I am the same MANUEL ANDAYRAN who is the respondent

in a complaint for violation of Section 68 of P.D. 705, lodged before
the Office of the Community Environment and Natural Resources,
DENR, Tandag, City, Surigao del Sur;

2. That Section 68 of P.D. 705 pertains to the cutting, gathering and/or

collecting timber or other products without license - and, I
VEHEMENTLY DENY TO HAVE VIOLATED THE SAID
PROVISION OF LAW;

3. That before showing my innocence as regards the alleged infraction

of Section 68 of P.D. 705, I deem it necessary to bring out to the
attention of the Honorable Office the manifest defects that
characterize the Affidavit-Complaint filed by Ricky Besinga. The
following are my intelligent observations:

a. Paragraph 12 of the complaint says that Ricky Besinga is

executing the affidavit-complaint for the purpose of instituting
a formal complaint for violation of Section 68 of P.D. 705
against me. However, it is worthy to note that nothing in
paragraphs 1 to 11 vouch the allegation that I had violated
Section 12;

b. It is a cardinal rule that when one accuses another, the

accusation must be supported with facts or empirical
evidence, which must be material to the accusation. In the
instant case, it is very obvious that the facts which Ricky
Besinga had tried to establish are not relevant, and do not
even show any of the elements of the offense, that is, cutting
the trees without permit;

c. What is clear, rather, in paragraphs 1 to 11 of the affidavit-

complaint are allegations that the family of the complainant
have been in actual, open, peaceful, physical, exclusive,
notorious, continuous and interrupted possession of the land
where the trees allegedly cut without a permit had been
planted;

6
 d. The complaint patently imports the idea that the falcata trees
that were allegedly cut and gathered, without a permit, were
planted at the land owned by the family of Ricky Besinga. It is
clear, therefore, that the issue raised by the complaint is
ownership or, if not, boundary conflict, and never for the
cutting of trees without permit;

e. It is, then, proper to say that the allegations in the complaint

do not support the accusations or charge that I had violated
Section 68 of P.D. 705;

4. That it is not surprising why the allegations and the charge do not
conform to each other, because the truth is that filing of the instant
complaint is just an after effect of what had happened at the
barangay conciliation that we had;

5. That private complainant had me summoned before the barangay

office of Barangay Cayale, Tago, Surigao del Sur, because they
claimed that the falcata trees cut and gathered were owned by
them. During the hearing, however, it was agreed that an ocular
inspection be had in order to determine whether those trees were
planted on my land or on their land;

6. That it was resolved after the ocular inspection that I had never
encroached on their land. All the falcata trees that were cut and
gathered were from and within my land. As such, their claim finds
no bearing. Otherwise stated, it failed. But on their desperate effort
to pin me down, they decided to file this case, with the futile hope
that they may be able to show that no permit was secured in cutting
those trees;

7. That going back to the accusation that I allegedly infringed Section

68 of P.D. 705, the same has no degree of truth;

8. That while the falcata were planted on my lot, those trees, however,
had been sold already to the buyer from Cagayan de Oro City long
before those trees were cut;

9. That anent to the sale is the transfer of ownership, from me who

owns the land and who planted the falcata to the buyer. Although,
the transfer ownership pertains only to the trees, since the sale does
not include the land. Hence, if there is anyone who should secure
permit for the cutting of those trees, necessarily it is the buyer, for
the buyer is now the owner and was the one in fact who cut those
trees;
7
 10. That it is logical and within the bounds of law that it is the owner,
especially if he is the one who cut the trees, as in the instant case,
must be the one to secure the permit to cut. It is true that I was
present when the buyer, who became the owner of those trees
before it were cut, gathered the fallen trees. My presence has no
other purpose, but to ensure that no trees belonging to the owners
of the adjoining lands be included in the cutting;

11. That I likewise give emphasis to the fact that part of the
contract of sale is that the buyer, who bought the trees before
they are cut, and, thus becomes the owner therefor, will be the
one responsible in obtaining the permit to cut as well as permit
or necessary papers for the transport of the same. This
arrangement, I believe, is sound and proper, for again it is now the
buyer who owns the trees;

12. That it is not farfetched, therefore, to conclude that I am already

out of the picture the moment I sold those trees to the buyer. If those
trees were cut without a permit, then, it is the buyer who should
answer for it;

13. That I am executing this affidavit to attest to the veracity of the

foregoing and to request the Honorable Office to dismiss the instant
case for lack of merit, for for being inconsistent and for being
malicious.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 31st day of

May 2012, in Tandag, Surigao del Sur.

MANUEL ANDAYRAN
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 31st day of May 2012

at Tandag, Surigao del Sur, affiant exhibited to me a competent evidence of
identity and after being satisfied that he understood and voluntarily executed
this affidavit.
Copy furnished:

Ricky Besinga
Cayale, Tago,
Surigao del Sur

Republic of the Philippines)

Province of Surigao del Sur)
City of Tandag) s.s.

AFFIDAVIT

8
 I, DAKULA ESPIDITO MAQUILING GONZALES, Filipino, married, tribal chieftain
of KATRIMMA and a resident of Matho, Cortes, Surigao del Sur, after having been sworn
to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and say:

1. That I am the Tribal Chieftain of the Kahugpungan sa Tribung Manobo ug

Mamanwa (KATRIMMA) of Cortes, Surigao del Sur;

2. That members of our tribe possess and occupy a vast portion of the land
awarded to us by the government as our Ancestral Domain. The said land
stretches around the Municipalities of Tago, Tandag, Cortes and Lanuza, with
a land area of approximately 11, 700 hectares. A Certificate of Ancestral
Domain Title covering the said land is attached in this affidavit;

3. That the portion we possessed and occupied is located in Sinyaganon, a

mountainous area, which is still part of Matho, Cortes, Surigao del Sur. And,
more or less five and a half kilometres away from the center of Barangay Matho;

4. That I have been residing in Sinyaganon since birth - that was April 5, 1964.
And, my parents had been in Sinyaganon as well even before I was born;

5. That apart from the area I inherited from my parents, I also cleared an area of
least 2 hectares. This is located at Sinyaganon, and clearly within the land
identified and denominated as our Ancestral Domain;

6. That this area of at least 2 hectares is the same area that Maxrio Laroa, alias
“Lolong,” had tried to clear up and possess, but the members of our tribe barred
him from doing so, considering that the land is within our Ancestral Domain;

7. That unknown to us Maxrio Laroa, as he left the area, had offered the land to
Eleuterio Biol. Hence, the latter went to the area, and that was the time that I
and Eleuterio Biol was able to discuss the possibility of becoming partners in
the business of facata, considering that I have no money to use in the
procurement of the falcata seedlings;

8. That Eleuterio and I agreed that I will be the one to clean up the area, which
Maxrio Laroa had offered to him, since it belongs to us; while Eleuterio will be
the one to provide falcata seedlings. Then, we will share equally with the
proceeds of the falcata after all expenses are deducted. And, indeed we had
already planted some falcata trees to the area, which is again clearly to be
within our Ancestral Domain;

9. That with the facts I have narrated above, I was surprised and I did not
understand why the Barangay Council of Barangay Matho, Cortes, Surigao del
Sur, filed a complaint against Eleuterio Biol, who is their own colleague, for
alleged kaingin activities that Eleuterio had been into;

10. That I vouched Eleuterio Biol when he alleged in his Counter-Affidavit, which
he submitted to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, that he never engaged
in kaingin activities. I very well know that, because it was I who cleared the area
which the Council is now pointing to be where Eleuterio had conducted kaingin
activities;

9
 11. That assuming for the sake of argument that indeed Eleuterio had engaged in
kaingin activities in that area, just the same the complaint must not prosper. It
is so, because that area, under pain of repetition, is within our Ancestral
Domain. It is our private property; though it is owned-in-common by all the
members of the KATRIMMA. It is never within the premises of the Matho
Environmental Management and Protection Cooperative (MEMPCO);

12. That I believe, therefore, that Eleuterio’s colleagues in the Barangay Council
are trying to pull him down by inventing a story, which they brought to the Office
of the CENRO, to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, and now, after they
failed in the Prosecutor’s Office, to the Sangguniang Bayan of Cortes. I say that
they are inventing a story because again not one of them could point a finger
to Eleuterio that he was the one who cut those trees or the one who cleared up
the area. They cannot do so, since it is I, myself, who did it. And, I can freely
do it, for we privately own the area;

13. That I am executing this affidavit to attest to the veracity of the foregoing and
to request the Honorable Office of the Sangguniang Bayan of Cortes to dismiss
the complaint against Eleuterio Biol for lack of merit, or for being malicious as
it may have been a politically motivated complaint.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 26th day of June 2012,
in Tandag, Surigao del Sur.

DAKULA ESPIDITO M. GONZALES

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 26th day of June 2012 at Tandag,
Surigao del Sur, affiant exhibited to me a competent evidence of identity and after being
satisfied that he understood and voluntarily executed this affidavit.

Republic of the Philippines)

Province of Surigao del Sur)
City of Tandag) s.s.

AFFIDAVIT

10
 I, JOEL T. RAUT-RAUT, Filipino, married and a resident of Matho, Cortes, Surigao
del Sur, after having been sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and say:

1. That I am an active member of Matho Environmental Management Protection

Cooperative (MEMPCO). As such, I am well apprised of the area belonging to
our cooperative;

2. That I possess and cultivate a portion of land located at Sinyaganon, Matho,

Cortes, Surigao del Sur, as early as 1981 – long before the existence of
MEMPCO. As a matter of fact, I have been harvesting copra from the said land
way back 1984, since it was already planted with coconut trees by my parents-
in-law sometime on the year 1969;

3. That after the Kahugpungan sa Tribung Manobo ug Mamanwa (KATRIMMA)

was granted with their Ancestral Domain, the land I possess and cultivate is
found out to be within their Ancestral Domain. Being so, it is not, therefore,
within the premises of MEMPCO;

4. That sometime on September 2011, I and Eleuterio Biol agreed that a portion
of the land I possess and cultivate, which clearly belongs to KATRIMMA, be
used by Eleuterio Biol for his agricultural/farming endeavours;

5. That since the portion I gave to Eleuterio was idled for quite sometime,
Eleuterio has to clean the area again. Necessarily, therefore, there was burning
of grass and small trees, as it is the process if one has to make the land ready
for planting;

6. That to say that it is an illegal kaingin is entirely misleading. It is so, because

the area Eleuterio had cleared up was once my garden, planted with different
root crops. As such, the clearing done was not illegal, for it did not do any harm
to the environment;

7. That the Barangay Council also has no cause of action against Eleuterio
because the land I gave him is already privately owned by the members of the
KATRIMMA. It can be used, therefore, for any agricultural endeavours;

8. That being a private property, the same may be enjoyed by the owner in
whatever means, so long that it does not infringed the property or property
rights of another;

9. That with the facts I have narrated above, I was surprised and I did not
understand why the Barangay Council of Barangay Matho, Cortes, Surigao del
Sur, filed a complaint against Eleuterio Biol, who is their own colleague, for
alleged kaingin activities that Eleuterio had been into;

10. That I vouched Eleuterio Biol when he alleged in his Counter-Affidavit, which
he submitted to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, that he never engaged
in kaingin activities. I very well know that, because it was I who gave him the
land, which he now possesses and cultivates;

11. That assuming for the sake of argument that indeed Eleuterio had engaged in
kaingin activities in that area, just the same the complaint must not prosper. It

11
 is so, because that area, under pain of repetition, is within the Ancestral Domain
of KATRIMMA;

12. That I am executing this affidavit to attest to the veracity of the foregoing and
to request the Honorable Office of the Sangguniang Bayan of Cortes to dismiss
the complaint against Eleuterio Biol for lack of merit, or for being malicious as
it may have been a politically motivated complaint.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 27th day of June 2012,
in Tandag, Surigao del Sur.

JOEL T. RAUT-RAUT
Affiant
ID No. FIB-036929
Issued by Philippine Army

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 27th day of June 2012 at Tandag,
Surigao del Sur, affiant exhibited to me a competent evidence of identity and after being
satisfied that he understood and voluntarily executed this affidavit.

12