REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE
OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR
LINGAYEN, PANGASINAN

NENE L. REPUDAS
Complainant,

-versus- NPS No. I-01-INV-16C-00105

For: Slander by Deeds

BENEDICTO A. REPUDAS,
Respondent.
x-------------------------------------------------------------x

COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT

Respondent, BENEDICTO A. REPUDAS, unto this Honorable Office,

most respectfully states that:

1. I am the Respondent in this case for Slander by Deeds filed by

Complainant Nene L. Repudas (“Complainant”) pending before this
Honorable Office.

2. I vehemently deny that I have committed the crime of Slander

by Deeds as alleged by the Complainant in her Complaint-Affidavit dated
March 6, 2016.

The Complaint Filed By Nene

Repudas Should Be Dismissed
Outright Because it Appears that
the Crime She is Accusing of Me
Has Already Prescribed.

3. My Counsel advised me that under Article 90 of the Revised

Penal Code, “The offenses of oral defamation and slander by deed shall prescribe
in six months.” I was also apprised that Article 91 of the Revised Penal
Code provides that “the period of prescription shall commence to run from the
day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their
agents.”

1
 4. Further thereto, I was informed that the Crime of Slander and
Slander by Deed is punishable, under Article 358 and 359 of the Revised
Penal Code respectively, by arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision
coreccional in its minimum period if it is of a serious and insulting nature,
otherwise the penalty shall be arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200.

5. Accordingly, in the case of People vs. Maceda,1 the Supreme

Court held that Simple Slander prescribes in two (2) months.

6. In relation to these rules on prescription of offenses, my

Counsel further advised me that under Article 13 of the Civil Code, when
the law speaks of months, it is understood that months are of thirty (30)
days. Thus, when the Revised Penal Code speaks that light offenses
prescribes in two months, it is equivalent to sixty (60) days. In other words,
a light offense, like Simple Slander prescribes in sixty (60) days.

7. Here, the acts complained of transpired on June 2, 2014, August

19, 2014, August 28, 2015 and February 14, 2016, respectively. Considering
that the crime alleged by Complainant is Slander by Deed, the charge must
be filed not later than 2 months or 6 months for Simple or Grave Slander,
respectively, from the time the crime was discovered.

8. A reading of the Complaint-Affidavit evidently showed that

more than 2 months have lapsed from the occurrence of the alleged
defamation before this Complaint is filed. As such, this Complaint must be
dismissed on the ground of prescription.

9. While it may be true, that for Grave Slander and Slander by

Deed, the prescriptive period provided under the law is 6 months, it bears
noting that the allegations in the Complaint failed to sufficiently prove
that the crime caused upon the Complainant was so grave as to constitute
Grave Slander or Grave Slander by Deed, as the case maybe.

10. In Pader vs. People2, the Supreme Court held that in resolving
the issue as to whether or not defamatory words will fall under slight or
serious defamation, will depend not only upon their sense, grammatical
significance, and accepted ordinary meaning judging them separately, but
also upon the special circumstance of the case, antecedents, or relationship
between the offended party and the offender, which might tend to prove
the intention of the offended at the time.

1
G.R. No. L-48224, September 23, 1942.
2
Rogelio Pader vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 139157, February 8, 2000.

2
 11. In this case, granting without conceding that the allegations of
Complainant is true, the defamatory statement cannot be qualified to grave
slander or slander by deed considering that Complainant is my next-door
neighbour, and it is not uncommon for neighbours to be involved in
squabble; that Complainant is my infamous sister-in-law widely known for
her offensive demeanor and conduct especially towards us, her in-laws.

12. It is thus, safe to conclude that the allegations of Complainant

fall within the crime of Simple Slander or Slander by Deed, a light felony
punishable by arresto menor or a fine of 200 pesos. In light of the foregoing,
the Complaint must perforce be dismissed.

Even Assuming That The

Offense Charged Has Not Yet
Prescribed, There Is No Probable
Cause To Charge Respondent
With Slander by Deeds. The
Complainant Failed To Allege
And Prove The Specific Acts That
Would Constitute The Elements
Of The Offense Charged. Hence,
The Complaint Should Be
Dismissed for Lack of Probable
Cause.

13. The purpose of a preliminary investigation is to secure the

innocent against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution, and to
protect him from an open and public accusation of crime, from the trouble,
expense and anxiety of a public trial, and to protect the state from useless
and expensive trials. The right to a preliminary investigation is a statutory
grant, and to withhold it would be to transgress constitutional due process.
However, in order to satisfy the due process clause, it is not enough that
the preliminary investigation is conducted in the sense of making sure that
a transgressor shall not escape with impunity. A preliminary investigation
serves not only the purposes of the State. More important, it is a part of the
guarantee of freedom and fair play which are birthrights of all who live in
our country. It is, therefore, imperative upon the fiscal or the judge as the
case may be, to relieve the accused from the pain of going through a trial
once it is ascertained that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a prima
facie case or that no probable cause exists to form a sufficient belief as to
the guilt of the accused. Although there is no general formula or fixed rule
for the determination of probable cause since the same must be decided in
the light of the conditions obtaining in given situations and its existence
depends to a large degree upon the finding or opinion of the prosecutor
(judge) conducting the examination, such a finding should not disregard

3
the facts before the prosecutor (judge) nor run counter to the clear dictates
of reason3.

14. Probable cause, for purposes of filing a criminal information,

has been defined as such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded
belief that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably
guilty thereof. It is the existence of such facts and circumstances as would
excite the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the
knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the
crime for which he is to be prosecuted. A finding of probable cause needs
only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has
been committed and that it was committed by the accused4.

15. I was advised by my Counsel that the right to be informed of

the nature and cause of the accusation against an accused cannot be
waived for reasons of public policy. Hence, it is imperative that the
complaint or information filed against the accused be complete to meet
its objectives. As such, an indictment must fully state the elements of the
specific offense alleged to have been committed5.

16. Based on the foregoing law and jurisprudence, the failure of the
Complainant to allege all the acts constituting the offense with sufficient
particularity must result to the automatic dismissal of the Complaint.

17. I am charged herein with the crime of Slander by Deeds. My

counsel advised me that the Supreme Court in the case of Villanueva vs.
People,6 held that Slander by Deed is a crime against honor, which is
committed by performing any act, which casts dishonor, discredit, or
contempt upon another person. Accordingly, the elements are (1) that the
offender performs any act not included in any other crime against honor,
(2) that such act is performed in the presence of other person or persons,
and (3) that such act casts dishonor, discredit or contempt upon the
offended party. Whether a certain slanderous act constitutes slander by
deed of a serious nature or not, depends on the social standing of the
offended party, the circumstances under which the act was committed, the
occasion, etc. It is libel committed by actions rather than words.

18. A cursory perusal of the Complaint-Affidavit of Nene Repudas,

and affidavits of Ronald G. Lazaro and Cristina R. Uson, who is by the way
her brother and sister-in-law, respectively, reveal that nothing, not even a

3
Salonga v. Pano et al, No. L-59524, 18 February 1985; Geronimo v. Ramos, No. L-60504, 14 May 1985.
4
Tan, Jr. vs. Matsuura, 688 SCRA 263(2013).
5
People vs. Pangilinan, 660 SCRA 16(2011); see also People vs. Valdez, 663 SCRA 272(2012)
6
Noel Villanueva vs. People of the Philippines and Yolanda Castro, G.R. No. 160351, April 10, 2006.

4
single act was imputed against me. Absent this essential element, there can
be no crime of Slander by Deeds.

Respondent Can Neither Be Charged

of Slander or Oral Defamation. A
Simple Perusal Of The Affidavits Of
Complainant’s Witnesses Reveal That
Her Allegations Is Entirely Baseless,
Unfounded and Malicious. It Must Be
Emphasized Her Accusation Is Self-
Serving, Groundless and
Uncorroborated By Her Very Own
Witnesses.

19. Complainant alleged that on June 2, 2014, August 19, 2014,

August 28, 2015 and February 14, 2016, I slandered her by uttering
defamatory remarks. It bears noting however, that no evidence whatsoever
has been adduced to prove the occurrence thereof. As a matter of fact, even
the Complainant’s very own witnesses mentioned nothing in their
respective affidavits about the February 14, 2016 incident.

20. According to Complainant, the unsavory remarks were uttered

in the presence of our neighbors. It is quite surprising however, that no one
has been presented to prove the truthfulness of her allegations.

21. Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) in relation to

Article 353 of the same code provides:

Art. 358. Slander. Oral defamation shall be punished by arresto

mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its
minimum period if it is of a serious and insulting nature;
otherwise, the penalty shall be arresto menor or a fine not
exceeding 200 pesos.

ART. 353. Definition of libel. — A libel is a public and malicious

imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or
any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to
cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical
person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.

22. In Villanueva vs. People,7 the Court ruled that Slander is libel
committed by oral (spoken) means, instead of in writing. The term oral
defamation or slander as now understood, has been defined as the

7
Noel Villanueva vs. People of the Philippines and Yolanda Castro, G.R. No. 160351, April 10, 2006.

5
speaking of base and defamatory words which tend to prejudice another in
his reputation, office, trade, business or means of livelihood.

23. The elements of Libel are (1) allegation of a discreditable act or

condition concerning another, (2) publication of the charge, (3) identity of
the person defamed, and (4) existence of malice.8

24. Manifestly, Complainant, upon whom rest the burden of

proving her cause of action, failed to show in satisfactory manner the facts
upon which she bases her claims. Elementary is the rule that he who
alleges must prove.

25. Furhtermore, granting without conceding that I uttered the

unsavory remarks as alleged by Complainant, a reading thereof will
readily show that it was not intended to slander but rather to express
anger or displeasure. It is to be reiterated that I did not impute a condition,
defect, status or vice intended to cause dishonor, discredit or contempt
upon her person, there can be no cause of action for Slander.

Complainant Maliciously Filed

This Complaint To Harass,
Embarrass and Expose
Respondent To Public Shame
and Ridicule.

26. There is absolutely no truth to the allegations of Complainant

that I uttered defamatory remarks against her.

27. While I do not deny that we used to have squabble, I

specifically deny however, uttering the words “ Wadja la may professional ya
kabao-bao ya semmempet diya ya amin ya bayaw to et kakulkol koto. Aga diya ya
nayari. Anggapoy karapatan to diya yan manayam.”

28. Truth is, long before the alleged incidents, there already exist
bad relationship between us because of the overbearing conduct and
arrogance, acts of discourtesy and disrespect of Complainant towards us,
in-laws and neighbours. Verily, Complainant is suffering from superiority
complex, boasting that she is a professional, and a wife of a seaman.

29. In one occasion, sometime in June 2014 while I was on my way

towards the house of Complainant’s mother-in-law, who was also my
brother’s wife, Fedelina Repudas, I saw Complainant uprooting grasses
using a sickle. Due to pent-up annoyance of her arrogance, I uttered “Wadja
8
Vasquez vs. CA, G.R. No. 118971, September 15, 1999.

6
la may manugang mo ya professional” to Fedelina Repudas. Thereafter,
Complainant suddenly pointed the sickle at my neck and in a threatening
voice said “Bauninam ya maseken. Gergeren koy biklew mo. Pateyen taka
bauninam.” Thereafter, I saw Elisa Marsaba, sister-in-law of Complainant
rushing towards us. Fedelina Repudas , Elisa Marsaba and Cristina Uson,
who were there, pacified us. Cristina Uson succeeded in taking the sickle
from Complainant. On the other hand, Fedelina Repudas and Elisa
Marsaba asked to me to go back in my house. When I was about to leave,
someone suddenly hit me with a stone. When I look back I saw
Complainant (please see Annex 1). Because of the pleas of Fedelina Repudas
and Elisa Marsaba, I went ahead of my house and ignored her.

A copy of the affidavit of Elisa Marsaba is attached hereto as Annex

“1”.

30. In August 2014, Complainant resented my actions when I block

a portion of the passageway beside my house to ensure that only light
vehicles (e.g., tricycle) may pass therein. I was prompted to block a portion
of the road of right of way because of Complainant’s obstinacy in
transporting sand towards her house using kuliglig notwithstanding that
the passageway was very narrow. In fact, each time the kuliglig passes by,
the plants I have planted near the passageway were plowed and harrowed
leading to their destruction. (please Annex 1)

31. Complainant resented this actions and since then, our existing
animosity was even aggravated.

32. Thereafter on February 10, 2016, Nene begrudged me for

reprimanding her when I learned that she quarrelled Fedelina Repudas
and Elisa Marsaba simply because they burned garbage allegedly causing
her newly wash clothes hanged outside her house to smell smoke-like
(please see Annex 1).

33. Based on the foregoing, it is very clear that Nene Repudas filed
this Complaint simply to satisfy her personal spite and to wreck vengeance
upon me for reprimanding her. Thus, for lack of cause of action, this
Complaint must perforce be dismissed.

AFFIANT FURTHER SAYETH NAUGHT.

BENEDICTO A. REPUDAS

7
 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ___ day of April 2016
at Lingayen, Pangasinan.

I hereby certify that I have personally examined the affiant and that I
am satisfied that he has voluntarily and personally executed and
understood this Counter Affidavit.

_____________________________
HON. RAUL B. CAMPOS
Sr. Asst. Prov’l Prosecutor