REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
CITY OF MANILA

JOVENCIO S. LUMBANG
Complainant,

- versus - I. S. No.XV-07-INV-17C-01522
For: Unjust Vexation, Slander by
Deeds, Slight Physical Injury, Oral
Defamation and Threat

P/B CARIDAD VILLEGAS ET.AL.,

Respondent.
x------------------------x

REJOINDER–AFFIDAVIT

Undersigned respondent, to the Honorable Investigating Prosecutor, by way

of Rejoinder to Complainant’s Reply, respectfully states under oath, as follows:

1. That I have already read the reply affidavit of herein complainants;

2. That I am reiterating the facts and circumstances of our defense as

narrated in our counter-affidavit.

3. On the outset, respondent would like to emphasize that most of the

narratives of complainant has nothing to do with this case. Complainant is trying
to insert something which is not part of this case. However, for he’s defense
against respondent Torres, complainant is insisting that the facts narrated by
respondent Torres should be omitted in this case since this Office has no
jurisdiction to hear the same. Complainant is preaching but does not do what he
preaches. In fact, he is doing the otherwise.

4. Nevertheless, I am reiterating that under Article 412 of RA 7160 or

the Local Government Code of 1991 states that “ No complaint, petition, action or
proceeding involving any matter within the authority of the lupon shall be filed or
instituted directly in court or any other government agency for adjudication unless
there has been a confrontation between the parties before the lupon chairman”
(underscoring supplied).

5. Section 408 (c) of the same law likewise states that offenses
punishable by imprisonment not exceeding one year or a fine not exceeding Php.
5,000.00 shall be subject to Barangay conciliation proceedings.
 6. Under the law, complaints for Simple Slander and Unjust Vexation
requires that parties residing in the same Barangay should have first undergone
Barangay Conciliation before initiating any complaint, especially in this
Honorable Office. Nothing appears on the record any “Certificate to File Action”
issued by the barangay and complainant is likewise silent whether they have first
filed complaints in the Barangay before initiating a complaint before this
Honorable Office. Hence, as far as the above enumerated charges are concerned,
the Honorable Investigating Prosecutor should recommend the dismissal of these
cases for failure to comply with the provisions of RA 7160.

7. Complainant insist that he is exempted from complying with the law

on barangay conciliation for the reason that the Office of the Mayor, the
Administration Office of the Manila City Hall, the Manila Barangay Bureau and a
confident officer opined that if a Punong barangay is involved in a case, the case
should be filed directly to court for proper legal proceedings. Respondent opined
the otherwise.

8. Section 2 of PD 1508 enumerates the only exemptions of the law :

"SECTION 2. Subject matters for amicable settlement.

- The Lupon of each barangay shall have authority to
bring together the parties actually residing in the same
city or municipality for amicable settlement of all
disputes except:

(1) Where one party is the government, or any

subdivision or instrumentality thereof;

(2) Where one party is a public officer or employee,

and the dispute relates to the performance of his
official functions;

(3) Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding

30 days, or a fine exceeding P200.00;

(4) Offenses were there is no private offended party;

(5) Such other classes of disputes which the Prime

Minister may in the interest of justice determine, upon
recommendation of the Minister of Justice and the
Minister of Local Government. ella

"SECTION 3. Venue. — Disputes between or among

persons actually residing in the same barangay shall
be brought for amicable settlement before the Lupon of
said barangay. Those involving actual residents of
different barangays within the same city or
municipality shall be brought in the barangay where
the respondent or any of the respondents actually
resides, at the election of the complainant. However,
all disputes which involve real property or any interest

VILLEGAS Rejoinder-Affidavit 2 | P a g e
 therein shall be brought in the barangay where the real
property or any part thereof is situated.

"The Lupon shall have no authority over disputes:

(1) involving parties who actually reside in barangays

of different cities or municipalities, except where such
barangays adjoin each other; and

(2) involving real property located in different

municipalities."

9. In said enumerations, nowhere can be found that that if a Punong

barangay is involved in a case, the case should be filed directly to court for proper
legal proceedings. Therefore, the argument of complainant has no leg to stand on.

10. Complainant is saying that he is accusing me for the crime of

Slander. In his complaint, he is accusing me for Slander by allegedly maliciously
joining respondent Torres shouting defamatory words heard by many people. But
what is this defamatory words that complainant is referring to? Complainant did
not state the particular words that I allegedly uttered but instead, he cited again
some other event which is not part of the circumstances of this case. Complainant
is arrogant by saying that respondent does not know how the complaint affidavit
was being done. However, it seems that it is complainant who does not know what
the complaint affidavit should only contain.

11. Also, Complainant is saying that he is accusing me for the crime of

Unjust Vexation, allegedly for what I did during the court hearing. Complainant
said that he is annoyed by my allegedly facial expression. However, complainant
did not state what kind of facial expression did I do. If he does not want to see my
face then he should have not look at me. On my part, I have the very right to be in
the court room and hear his testimony since I am a real party in interest therein.
Therefore, his speculative allegations have no basis.

12. Over all, this case filed by complainant is purely for purposes of
harassing my person. His allegations has no basis in law and in facts, he is
practically inserting events that is not part of the incident. Worst, he filed this case
prematurely just for the purposes of harassing me.

13. The general goal of our criminal law and procedure is not to send
people to the guilty but to do justice especially to the innocent1.

14. The Supreme Court held that:

“The test should be whether sufficient facts

exist which show that, in bringing the criminal action,
1 People vs De Guzman, 250 SCRA 118

VILLEGAS Rejoinder-Affidavit 3 | P a g e
 complainant acted without probable cause, defined as
the existence of such facts and circumstances as would
excite the belief in a reasonable mind that the person
charged and prosecuted in a criminal case is probably
guilty of the crime or wrongdoing.”.2

15. The lack of probable cause that indeed the said offenses were
committed by the Respondents is a ground to dismiss said Complaint for lack of
merit.

16. In filing the instant Rejoinder-Affidavit, Undersigned rely nothing

less than the duty of this Honorable Office which is to secure innocent respondents
against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution, and to protect them from an
open and public accusation of a crime and from the personal damage, injury,
trouble, expense and anxiety of a public trial with the consequent adverse publicity
thereof.

17. Thus, when at the outset the evidence offered at preliminary

investigation proves insufficient, the prosecution is duty-bound to dismiss the
complaint-affidavit as a matter of law and spare the system meant to restore and
propagate integrity in public service from the embarrassment of a careless
accusation of crime as well as the unnecessary expense of a useless and expensive
criminal trial.3

18. I am executing this Rejoinder-Affidavit to attest to the truth of the

above statements of facts, with prayer that the Investigating Assistant City
Prosecutor of the City of Manila to dismiss the baseless case filed against us.

I FURTHER SAY NONE.

CARIDAD S. VILLEGAS
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this __th day of May 2017. I

hereby certify that I have personally examined the affiant and that I am satisfied
that he voluntarily executed and understood the contents of his affidavit.

2 Limanch-O Hotel and Leasing Corp. and Tiu. G.R. No. 185121, January 18, 2010.
3 Sistoza vs. Desierto, et al., GR No. 144784, September 3, 2002

VILLEGAS Rejoinder-Affidavit 4 | P a g e
 HON. WILBUR M ARIMBOYUTAN
SENIOR ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR

VILLEGAS Rejoinder-Affidavit 5 | P a g e