1

Republic of the Philippines

MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT
______
____
___

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plantiff,

-versus- CRIMINAL CASE NO. ____

FOR: GRAVE THREATS

oooo,
Accused.
x------------------------x

COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT

Accused, oooo, of legal age, Filipino, married, and a resident of

pppp, after having been duly sworn in accordance with law, do
hereby depose and states THAT:

1. Herein respondent is executing this Counter-Affidavit as a

Reply and Comment to the Sworn Statement/Sinumpaang
Salaysay of complainant _____ and that of his witnesses:
____and _____, in connection with the alleged incident that
transpired last _______ in the evening, within the premises of
__________________________________________.

2. The criminal complaint against herein respondent for Grave

Threat is devoid of any basis and ergo, should be dismissed
taking into consideration the following ratiocinations and
grounds:

3. At this point, it is worth emphasizing that given the factual

circumstances, most especially the fact that there was a verbal
altercation or quarrel between the private complainant and
accused during that time, it is crystal clear that herein accused,
assuming arguendo that he uttered the alleged threatening
 2

remarks, cannot be charged and later convicted for grave

threats. If at all, the crime alleged to have been committed
could only be light threats or other light threats, which by the
way has already prescribed.

4. This is because, even if there was really a threat that was

uttered by the accused, because it was made in the heat of
anger and the accused did not persist, the charge can only be
Light Threats, especially so that accused did not do anything
more after it. Also, noteworthy is the fact that the alleged
remarks “URAY NANGANGATO KAYO, KAYA KAYO NGA
PATAYEN!” obviously, was not even directed to a specific
person or in this case, to the private complainant. It is
undisputed that there were several persons during that time
and the remarks assuming without admitting it was made by
accused, was definitely made in the heat of an anger but
questionable as to whom it was really directed because the
word “kayo” (an Ilocano dialect) surely refers to two or more
people from those who were present that time.

5. Nevertheless, while herein accused admits having heated

exchange of words with the private complainant during that
night of ______, herein accused did not make any threatening
remarks against the private complainant or against anyone
from those who were present.

6. Such allegations from the private complainant, was only made

after taught. The two witnesses who gave their sworn
statements in his favor were not even credible because they are
both under his control or authority. Besides, on that very same
night, what he reported to the police was the incident of slight
physical injuries only. The only time he reported to the police
about the threatening remarks allegedly made by herein
accused was on ______ or after the lapse of more than 6
months.

7. Said conclusion can also be supported by the fact that when

private complainant reported an incident before the Barangay,
the report was only about the alleged slapping. Obviously, he
 3

never mentioned about the alleged threatening remarks made

by herein accused. A copy of the Barangay Blotter is hereto
attached as Annex A.

8. The private complainant and his witnesses have committed

perjury, instead, when they fabricated stories and twisted from
the actual facts and circumstances that transpired on the night
of ____ in their respective sworn statements.

9. What actually transpired was that, on ______, herein accused

and his co-worker were on duty

10. XXXX

11.As expected, the complainant twisted the facts and has played
the victim, hence, the instant case.

12.Fortunately, a key witness was present and who could narrate

what actually transpired on the night of ______.

13.Mr. ___, who was present on _____ and who witnessed what

actually transpired, recalls very well that herein accused never

uttered threatening remarks against complainant.

14.It was therefore baseless, malicious, and perjurious for

complainant and the witnesses to state that herein accused

uttered those threatening remarks. By analogy, it is rather

obvious that this is a mere aftertaught charge. Why would

complainant had to wait for more than five (8) months before

reporting about the threat to the police if indeed accused has

done it?

15.At the expense of being repetitious, even assuming without

admitting that such threatening remarks was made by accused,
considering that it was made in the heat of anger and the
accused did not persist, what was committed was only Light
 4

Threats, especially so that accused did not do anything more

after it. Hence, the case should be dismissed or accused must be
acquitted on the ground of prescription for having filed the case
only after the lapse of two months

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable

Court, that the case be dismissed on the ground of prescription of the
light threats the accused probably committed or that the accused be
acquitted.

Other reliefs and remedies, just and equitable under the

premises such are likewise prayed for.

Respectfully Submitted.