Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
Marikina City

MARINA GEPIGA,
Complainant,

-versus- NPS No. XV-09-INV-18H-00789

ANALYN NAVARRO, et al.,

Respondents.
x-------------------------------x

JOINT COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT
WE, EDUARDO NAVARRO y DELA CRUZ (“Eduardo” for
brevity”) and ANALYN BALICUATRO y GALLEGO1 (“Analyn” for
brevity), Filipinos, both of legal age, and with common address at No. 4
Wisdom St., Sherwill Homes, Tangile, Marikina Heights, Marikina City, by
way of a Joint Counter-Affidavit to the Complaint-Affidavit of MARINA
GEPIGA (“Gepiga”) docketed as NPS DOC. NO. XV-09-INV-18H-00789,
hereby state under oath as follows:

1. We are among the respondents being charged with the herein

subject crimes2 arising from the alleged trespass to, and demolition of
Gepiga’s purported “house” located at Block 1, lots 9 and 10, of Sherwill
Homes in Tanguile, Marikina Heights, Marikina City, which lots and
improvements thereon, Gepiga claims to own.

A. As to Respondent Eduardo

2. From a careful reading of the complaint-affidavit and its

attachments, there is absolutely nothing attributed to or against me. Thus,
there is no allegation or imputation therein of any act or omission on my part
that may constitute an offense or a violation of complainant’s purported
rights, either in relation to the offenses alleged in the complaint or otherwise.

3. I must emphasize, nevertheless, that, as may be inferred even from

the complaint-affidavit itself, I actually did not participate in any act of

1 Herein respondents have been common law spouses for more than ten years
2 For Qualified Trespass to Dwelling and Grave Coercion and Violation of Sec. 28, RA 7279
demolition, coercion or eviction, assuming there was any, nor did I order
anyone to do or participate in doing the same.

4. I likewise have to accentuate that by legal authority I, and not the

complainant nor any of her relatives, am the lawful
awardee/beneficiary/occupant of a lot, described as Block 1, Lot No. 10,
consisting of 25.60 sqm, at Sherwill Homes in Tanguile, Marikina Heights,
Marikina City.

5. This fact is by virtue of a valid award, and proven by the following

documents:

a. Lease/Purchase Agreement dated 29 May 2008 which I executed

with Sherwill Homes Homeowners’ Association Inc. (ANNEX “1”
hereof);

b. Letter dated 18 October 2018 (ANNEX “2” hereof), from Social

Housing Finance Corporation (hereinafter “SHFC”) OIC Manager
Charito C. Lantayao, in reply to my counsel’s letter (ANNEX “3”
hereto), attesting that:

b.1. I am a member-beneficiary of Sherwill Homes HOA, Inc.,

financed by the SHFC under the Community Mortgage Program
(CMP);

b.2. Marina B. Gepiga, et al. (Zacarias, Zaldy, Saldy and Sandy 3)

are not listed in their database as CMP beneficiaries.

c. Certification from SHFC OIC- Vice President, NCR Operations

Josefina B. Banglagan, dated 18 October 2018, certifying that based on
their database and Final Masterlist of Beneficiaries and Loan
Apportionment, I am a member/beneficiary of Sherwill Homes
Homeowners Association, Inc., with lot assignment at Block 1, Lot 10
in Sherwill Homes, Tanguile, Marikina Heights, Marikina City,
(ANNEX “2-A” hereof);

d. Final Masterlist of Beneficiaries and Loan Apportionment, prepared

sometime on 02 June 2008 (ANNEX “2-B” hereof);

e. Certification, issued by Sherwill Homes Homeowners Association,

Inc., through its President, Irma M. De Guzman, dated 2 June 2018,
(hereto attached as ANNEX “4”) certifying that I, Eduardo Navarro,
am a bonafide member of Sherwill Homes Homeowners’ Association,

3 Please see Topacio Law Office’s letter dated 16 October 2018, par. no. 3 (Annex “3” hereof)

2|Page
 Inc., with known address at Block 1, Lot 10 in Sherwill Homes at
Tanguile, Marikina Heights, Marikina City and is cleared in all
encumbrances in said association.

6. Our counsel advises that, by these proofs issued by competent

public and private entities, the validity of the documents attached to the
complaint in support of complainant’s alleged right over the subject
premises, is completely negated.

7. Clearly, therefore, aside from the non-allegation of acts as against

me, the alleged right claimed by Gepiga over Block 1, Lot 10 of the Tanguile
Settlement Site in Marikina Heights, now known as Sherwill Homes in
Tanguile, Marikina Heights, is non-existent. This, according to my counsels,
removes an essential element of each of the crimes subject of the complaint,
and strips complainant of any legal standing to file her herein complaint
against me or any of the respondents.

B. As to Respondent Analyn

8. I am adopting the foregoing allegations of respondent Eduardo

Navarro insofar as germane to my defense. Apparently, all of the allegations
against me by complainant are not supported by any proof.

9. Complainant and her alleged witnesses impute to me the “direction

and supervision of several unidentified men” who allegedly entered and
demolished her purported house. It will be observed that while complainant
attached a Pinagsamang-Salaysay of her purported witnesses, the
statements therein all refer to what they witnessed AFTER the alleged
demolition, hence, none of the affiants alleged any personal knowledge on
the identity of the culprit or the circumstances of the alleged criminal acts.
Hence, they offer no testimony based on personal knowledge of my, or
anybody else’s, participation to the alleged crimes.

10. As to the second count of qualified trespass to dwelling, that is, the
alleged destruction of the padlock on complainant’s claimed gate and
forcible reentry in her claimed house, complainant makes no imputation to
anyone.

11. On the baseless charge of grave coercion against me, there is

equally no proof much less substantiation of the alleged acts on my part that
could fall under the definition of the crime or constitute any of its elements.

C. Common legal arguments

3|Page
 12. We are advised that as to the particular acts complained of and the
identity of the offenders, complainant’s and her witnesses’ allegations are
worthless for purposes of probable cause.

13. Our counsel advises that probable cause may not be sustained upon
mere conjectures and surmises as in the case of the herein complaint. Our
counsel explains that in the case of Tan vs. Matsuura, G.R. No. 179003, January
9, 2013, the Supreme Court sustained the nullification of a Resolution of no
less than the Secretary of Justice as the latter’s finding of probable cause
against the respondents was based solely on surmises and conjectures,
wholly unsupported by legal and factual bases. In ruling so, the Court held:

“True, a finding of probable cause need not be based on clear

and convincing evidence, or on evidence beyond reasonable doubt. It
does not require that the evidence would justify conviction.
Nonetheless, although the determination of probable cause
requires less than evidence which would justify conviction, it
should at least be more than mere suspicion. And while probable
cause should be determined in a summary manner, there is a need
to examine the evidence with care to prevent material damage to a
potential accused’s constitutional right to liberty and the
guarantees of freedom and fair play, and to protect the State from
the burden of unnecessary expenses in prosecuting alleged offenses
and holding trials arising from false, fraudulent or groundless
charges. It is, therefore, imperative for the prosecutor to relieve the
accused from the pain and inconvenience of going through a trial
once it is ascertained that no probable cause exists to form a
sufficient belief as to the guilt of the accused.” (emphasis supplied)

14. In Paredes vs. Calilung, G.R. No. 156055, March 5, 2007, the Supreme
Court likewise ruled:

“It is worth stressing that it was respondent who initiated the

complaint before the Makati City Prosecution Office. Thus, upon him
rests the burden of supporting his charges with affidavits and any
other evidence, for it is upon these evidence thus adduced, that the
investigating prosecutor determines the existence, or in this case, the
absence, of probable cause to hold the petitioners for trial for the
crimes charged. Respondent must have necessarily tendered
evidence, independent of and in support of the allegations in his
affidavit-complaint, of such quality as to engender belief in an
ordinarily prudent and cautious man that the offense charged therein
has been committed by the petitioners. Indeed, probable cause need
not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on
evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt and definitely,
not on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt, but it
certainly demands more than bare suspicion and can never be left

4|Page
 to presupposition, conjecture, or even convincing logic.” 4 (emphasis
sipplied)

15. Moreover, we are told by our counsel that, assuming only for the
sake of argument that Gepiga and her family members indeed built
something over said Block 1, lot 10, such constitutes a building in bad faith
on her/their part, which may result to her losing whatever she had built
thereon without right to indemnity.5

16. In any case, our counsels advise that there can be no crime of
trespass or qualified trespass to dwelling as claimed by complainant since,
by complainant’s own description of her purported house, the same is not
used for dwelling when the alleged trespass happened. Indeed,
Complainant admits that the alleged house has been uninhabited since
2015. (Please see pars. 8 and 11, Complaint-Affidavit).

17. We are executing this Counter-Affidavit to make of record the

above-mentioned facts for all legal purposes, and in support of our request
that the present complaint against us be DISMISSED for lack of merit.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands this ___ day
of October, 2018, in Marikina City, Philippines.

______________________ _______________________
EDUARDO NAVARRO ANALYN BALICUATRO

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this ___ day of October,

2018 in Marikina City.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have personally examined the Affiants and

that I am satisfied that they voluntarily executed and understood this Joint
Counter-Affidavit.

ADMINISTERING OFFICER

4Kilosbayan, Inc. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 128054, 16 October 1997, 345 SCRA 1141, 1174.
5Art. 449, Civil Code of the Philippines – “He who builds, plants or sows in bad faith on the land of
another, loses what is built, planted or sown without right to indemnity”.

5|Page