Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice
CITY PROSECUTION OFFICE
Bulawagan Ng Katarungan
Sorsogon City
------------------------------------------
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES I.S. NO. __________
Complainant, FOR: ATTEMPTED MURDER
-vs-

EDGAR JAMISOLA & ZALDY

CAUBANG
Respondents.

REPLY/COMMENT TO COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT

I, MARIANO SALDE JESORO, of legal age, Filipino and resident Brgy.

Gimaloto, Sorsogon City, after having been duly sworn to in accordance

with law, hereby depose and say:

1. That I am the private complainant in I.S. No. ________ an

Attempted Murder case which I filed against the above-named
Respondents which is now pending for preliminary investigation before the
City Prosecution Office, Sorsogon City;

2. That, I therefore execute this Reply/Comment to the Counter-Affidavit

to belie allegations contained in the Counter-Affidavit of respondents
Edgar Jamisola, Zaldy L. Caubang and their witness Solomon Lacay, the
truth of the matter are as follows, to wit:

2.1 The averments contained in paragraphs 2 and 3 of

the Counter-Affidavit of Edgar Jamisola were all lies and
fabrications by the Respondent the truth of the matter is that
at the time of the incident the herein undersigned was walking
and was heading for home together with his wife Delia Jesoro,
Jose Sicad and Luis Sicad since they have just finished their
special session conducted at the residence of Barangay
Captain Arles Caubang. They started the special session at
about 6:00 P.M. and was able to finish the said session at
about 7:00 P.M. That momentarily, while walking past the
basketball court in front of barangay hall they were stopped
by the Respondent who at the time was drunk. It was
Respondent Edgar Jamisola who invited the private
complainant as herein testified to by Chief Tanod, Jose Sicad,
a copy of his Sworn Statement before the City Prosecution
Office is hereto attached to belie all the self-serving
allegations made by the respondent in his Counter-Affidavit, a
vain attempt on the part of the Respondent to evade his
criminal responsibility with impunity, forming part of this
Reply/Comment made an integral part and marked as ANNEX
“A.

That in the ordinary course of events, how can the

herein private complainant be intoxicated from liquor when he
had just came from a special session and headed directly
towards home after the culmination of the said session. The
duration of the session, its start and end and the commission
of the crime which is about 30 minutes from the time the
special session ended would clearly lead a reasonable and
prudent man to believe that it is highly improbable for the
herein private complainant to get drunk or even to drink
within such a very little period in order to be intoxicated.
Unless he was drinking during the said special session, which
he did not. All evidences would lead to the Respondents as
having committed the crime with evident premeditation. The
unity of purpose, criminal design and intent, specially [1] the
time when the offenders determined (conceived) to kill their
victim; [2] an act of the offender manifestly indicating that
they clung to their determination to kill their victim; and [3]
a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and
execution of the killing, would lead this Honorable office that
they have evidently premeditated the intention to kill the
private complainant.

2.2 That he DENIES specifically each and every

material averments contained in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of
the Counter-Affidavit of Edgar Jamisola since they were all
brazen lies and machinations by the Respondents as a futile
attempt to beguile and mislead this Honorable Office into
believing that they are the offended party. A mere alibi, which
under the law is the weakest of all evidences, not to mention
that their affidavits are all self-serving. The truth of the matter
being Respondent Zaldy Caubang has a grudge against the
private complainant and twice offended the herein private
complainant. Attached herewith is a barangay blotter dated
August 19, 2008 by the herein private complainant against the
herein respondent Zaldy Caubang for Grave Oral Defamation
and unjust vexation to prove that there was in fact a previous
altercation between the herein private complainant and
respondent Caubang hereto marked as ANNEX “B”.
Moreover, the stabbed wound obtained by respondent Zaldy
Caubang was in fact a lacerated wound as this was the result
when private complainant wrestled with respondent Zaldy
Caubang when the latter attempted to stab the former. That
at the time they were having a tussle and while Zaldy
Caubang was heavily intoxicated and brandishing his twelve
[12] inches jungle knife and about to strike and inflict a mortal
wound against the private complainant, respondent Zaldy
Caubang, lost his balance due to intoxication, fell on the
ground and had himself lacerated. Finally, the reason why
Zaldy Caubang had in his possession the alleged jungle knife
is because such knife is owned by him.

2.3 That I have no knowledge or information sufficient

to form a belief as to truth of the averments contained in
paragraph 7 of the Counter-Affidavit. I have no sufficient
knowledge that they have a project in our barangay, granting
that they have, as alleged, I am not the Punong Barangay,
hence, it is not within my province to meddle with their affairs.
I just do my duties and responsibilities as barangay councilor,
nothing more nothing less. All I know is that the averments
containt in their counter-affidavit are blatant lies. As a matter
of fact these Respondents have already attained notoriety in
barangay Gimaloto as brawlers, wranglers and are fond of
street fights.

2.4 That the allegations contained in the Counter-

Affidavit of Solomon Lacay are all brazen lies, a sinister
attempt to maliciously implicated the private complainant to
turn the law in their favor by declaring a deliberate falsehood
 on a material matter required by law to be under oath by
assuming the position of a perjured witness. How could he see
the private complainant and respondent Edgar Jamisola in
front of his house when the two traversed the estero “kale”
which was leading to Edgar Jamisola’s residence while they
were heading to Jamisola’s residence to have a drinking bout
when it is a known fact in barangay Gimaloto that his house
does not abut the road which leads to Edgar Jamisola’s
residence, his house being located within the interior and is
several houses away from the main road. This declaration is
indicative of perjury and shall be proven as such during the
hearing proper and upon proper ocular inspection of the crime
scene. Thus, a careful look at the evidences presented during
the preliminary investigation would amount to a finding of
probable cause upon proper evaluation and scrutiny of the
same. Hence, it is the humble submission of the private
complainant that this Office should be given a chance to prove
its case against the accused who is likewise afforded the
opportunity to resists the charge in court.

That as sufficiently elucidated in the case of Cesar T. Villanueva,

et. al., vs. Ople, et. al., G.R. No. 165125, November 18, 2005. Probable
cause is defined as the existence of facts and circumstances that engender
a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed, and that the
respondent is probably guilty of the crime and should be held for trial. This
term was explained in Pilapil vs. Sandiganbayan, 221 SCRA 349, as
follows: “Probable cause is reasonable ground of suspicion that a matter is
or may be, well founded, such as a state of facts in the mind of the
prosecutor as would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to
believe, or entertain an honest or strong suspicion, that a thing is so. The
term does not mean actual and positive cause nor does import absolute
certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. Thus a
finding of probable cause does not require into whether there is a
sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that it is believed
that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged.
Precisely, there is a trial of for the reception of evidence of the
prosecution in support of the charge [Paredes vs. Sandiganbayan, 252
SCRA 641]. Thus, a careful look at the evidences presented during the
preliminary investigation would amount to a finding of probable cause
upon proper evaluation and scrutiny of the same. Hence, it is a humble
submission of the private complainant that this Office should be given a
chance to prove its case against the accused who is likewise afforded the
opportunity to resists the charge in court.

3.] That I attest to the truth of the foregoing statements, and other
details will just be narrated if so required by the proper authority and/or
by the court.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my signature this

_____ of March 17, 2009 Sorsogon City, Philippines.

MARIANO SALDE JESORO

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ___ day of March,

2009, in Sorsogon City, Philippines.

ASST. CITY PROSECUTOR

Sorsogon City

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I had examined the Affidavit and I am

convinced that he understood and executed the foregoing Affidavit-
Complaint.

ASST. CITY PROSECUTOR

Sorsogon City