Monday, January 5, 2015

Malicious mischief and grave coercion; sample counter-affidavit.


Our law office assisted the respondent in this case.


“x x x.

COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT OF RESPONDENT KAGAWAD xxx, IN RE: NPSD#-XV-04-INV. xxx, ENTITLED xxx PENDING WITH THE OFFICE  OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR OF xxx CITY, FOR MALICIOUS MISCHIEF AND GRAVE COERCION


          I, KAGAWAD xxx, of legal age, married, Filipino, and with postal address at c/o Barangay Hall, Barangay xxx, xxx Village, xxx, xxx City, under oath, depose and state:

I am a respondent in the above-mentioned complaint. I am submitting this counter-affidavit to deny, rebut, and controvert the false, malicious, and fabricated allegations against me stated in the complaint.

I am a senior Kagawad of my community, i.e., Barangay xxx, xxx City, which I have served with full dedication and selflessness for many years now without any taint of dishonor, graft, corruption, abuse, malice, dishonesty, or misconduct.

The complainant xxx charges me with the alleged felonies of MALICIOUS MISCHIEF AND GRAVE COERCION for:

(a) The alleged destruction of  her stair which was attached to the perimeter fence existing between xxx Village (which is a separate Barangay) and xxx Subd. (which is under Barangay xxx) that separates the lot on which her main house was located and the  lot on which her second house was located, and

(b)  The alleged destruction of her second house located on a lot adjoining the main lot on which her main house was located. It was allegedly valued at P250,000.00.

The true and correct historical facts of the instant case are stated hereinbelow for the full appreciation of the Honorable Investigating Prosecutor.

The true, lawful and registered owner of the subject real property (which is described as Lot xxx, Block xxx with an area of xxx square meters and covered by TCT No. T-xxx issued on xxx 1994 by the Register of Deeds of xxx City) is a certain xxx, married to xxx, with postal address at Unit xxx, xxx Townhomes, xxx St., xxx Village, xxx City.

A copy of the said TCT No. xxx is attached hereto as Annex “A” hereof.

At the lower end thereof appears the digital/computerized authentication of the said Register of Deeds that it is a true copy of the original thereof.
 
The complainant and her husband (xxx) were in possession of a fake, spurious or falsified version of the same TCT No. xxx, which they had used to deceive future lessees and other persons interested in the subject property by making it appear that they were the lawful owners thereof.

A photocopy of the said fake, spurious and falsified TCT which bears the registered owner as “xxx, married to xxx”, residing at “xxx St., xxx Village, xxx City”, is attached as Annex “B” hereof.

Please note that the falsified and spurious version of the complainant’s TCT does not bear the official digital/computerized authentication of the Register of Deeds.

Sometime in 2012 the registered owner xxx signed an unnotarized Special Power of Attorney authorizing his legal representative xxx to sell the property and, in effect, to insure that the sad property was free from any and all issues and problems, like the presence of illegal occupants or squatters, as a prelude to the smooth sale thereof to interested third parties.

Attached is a copy of the said unnotarized SPA, marked as Annex “C” hereof.

On xxx 2012, the said legal representative, xxx, issued a Letter-Authorization to the board and officers of xxx HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, which had jurisdiction over the subject property, empowering the Association to demolish and remove the illegally built house of the complainant on the subject property, with the assurance that the said xxx would shoulder all liabilities or damages arising out of any and all acts of the Association pursuant to the powers granted to it under the said Letter-Authorization.

A copy of the said Letter-Authorization, dated xxx 2012, is attached as Annex “D” hereof.

On xxx 2012, the said legal representative xxx issued, under oath, a follow-up Authorization reiterating the powers and instructions to the said Association as previously stated in his Letter-Authorization, dated xxx 2012.

A copy of the said notarized Authorization, dated xxx 2012, is attached as Annex “E” hereof.

The xxx HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION is duly recognized by the Barangay xxx as an entity.  For instance, see the attached Barangay Clearance, dated xxx 2012, issued by the Chairman of Barangay xxx, Hon. xxx, in re: cutting of obstructive ipil-ipil trees on the subject property (Lot xxx, Block xxx). It is marked as Annex “F” hereof.

The stair of the complainant that she had illegally attached to the perimeter fence separating two (2) barangays -- xxx Village under Brgy. xxx Village, where she actually lived, and the xxx Subd. under Brgy. xxx  --  in order to enable her to access her illegally-built house located on the subject property in the latter village (Lot xxx, Block xxx, xxx Subd.), was prohibited by existing city and barangay rules because it was a great security risk that could be used by criminals and other suspicious elements to access one village from another village to commit a crime to cause a disturbance of peace and order or to escape from one village to another village after committing such a crime or disturbance of peace and order.

For instance, by way of analogy, in xxx City Ordinance No. xxx-02, the City and the Barangay xxx are very conscious of maintaining orderliness by clearing public areas, which should include, by spirit and analogy, a perimeter fence of two (2) adjoining barangays. A copy of the said ordinance is attached as Annex “G” hereof.
  The lawful owner of the subject property, i.e., xxx, acting thru his legal representative, i.e., xxx, had previously sought in 2012 the mediation and conciliation  assistance of Barangay xxx to persuade the complainant to remove her illegally-built house on the subject property, even to the point of offering her a financial assistance, but the complainant unjustly rejected the said offer. There was an instance in the past where a meeting was held at the Office of the City Engineer, upon the prodding of the complainant, where the complainant insisted on her unjust claims, hence, the said meeting produced no positive result.

 Going back to the instant complaint, it will be noted that there is no single allegation therein which shows that I had a clear, direct, personal, and actual participation in the removal of her stair and the demolition of her illegally built house.

All her allegations from Question No. 1 to Question No. 7 in her complaint do not mention or state my alleged direct, actual and personal participate in the felonies she alleges against me.

The only allegation that the complainant has made to directly implicate me appears in Question No. 8 where she allegedly talked to me over the phone about her stair  -- an allegation which I vehemently deny, the truth of the matter being that I have never talked to the complainant over the phone about such matter.

It will be noted that aside from her bare and empty allegations, she has offered no documentary evidence or supporting statements from credible witnesses to show my direct, actual, and personal participation in the felonies she alleges against me.

 For whatever worth it may be, attached is a copy of the photos of the subject illegally-built house (a squatter’s shanty, actually) of the complainant, marked as Annex “H” hereof.

Its condition, appearance, and appraisal would never reach the alleged value of P250,000. Further, it will be noted from the photos that the house was not destroyed, although it appears that its roof and windows were missing.
 
1.       As to the charge of malicious mischief, Art. 327 of the Rev. Penal Code provides that there must be clear and positive proof that the guilty party “deliberately cause to the property of another any damage not falling within the terms of the next preceding chapter.

There is no evidence presented by the complainant that I DELIBERATELY CAUSED DAMAGE to her property.

  Article 286 of the Rev. Penal Code provides that the guilty party in a case for grave coercion must have committed the following act, to wit: “any person who, without authority of law, shall, by means of violence, prevent another from doing something not prohibited by law, or compel him to do something against his will, whether it be right or wrong”.
There is no positive and convincing evidence on record that I used “violence” to “prevent” the complainant from doing something, or that I used “violence” to “compel” her to do something.

 Below are some relevant citations:

 FRANCISCO M. LECAROZ and LENLIE LECAROZ, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 130872, March 25, 1999.

“X x x,

From all indications, it is possible that the omission was due to the inadequate documentation of Red's appointment to and assumption of office, or the result of a mere clerical error which was later rectified in the succeeding payroll.  This however cannot be confirmed by the evidence at hand.  But since a doubt is now created about the import of such omission, the principle of equipoise should properly apply.  This rule demands that all reasonable doubt intended to demonstrate error and not a crime should be resolved in favor of the accused.  If the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction.

X x x.”


ROBERTO FERNANDEZ vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, et. al., G.R. No. 138503. September 28, 2000

“X x x.
In all criminal cases, mere speculation and probabilities cannot substitute for proof required to establish the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt. Suspicion no matter how strong cannot sway judgment. Where there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, he must be acquitted even though his innocence may be doubted since the constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty can be overthrown only by proof reasonable doubt. When the guilt of the accused has not been proven with moral certainty, it is our policy of long standing that the presumption of innocence of the accused must be favored and his exoneration be granted as a matter of right.
X x x.

RIGHT TO BE PRESUMED INNOCENT.  The innocence of a defendant in a criminal case is always presumed until the contrary is proven.  Where two probabilities arise from the evidence, the one compatible with the presumption of innocence will be adopted.  Mere suspicion is not enough to take away one’s liberty and destroy one’s reputation.  Guilt must be proven by proof as clear as daylight, evidence so airtight that no is left for any reasonable doubt.  (PEOPLE vs. BARO, G.R. Nos. 146327-29, 5 June 2002),

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JOEL ELLOREG DE LOS SANTOS, et. al., G.R. No. 126998.  September 14, 1999:


“x x x. Where the inculpatory circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other with his guilt, then the evidence does not meet the test of moral certainty.  Necessarily, a judgment of acquittal must issue.

Xxxx.

Well-settled is the rule that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. To be believed, its evidence “must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but it must also be credible in itself, such that common experience and observation of mankind lead to the inference of its probability under the circumstances.” Verily, guilt cannot be shown by mere speculations or even probabilities, whether the offense be malum prohibitum or malum in se.

xxxx.

Verily, the Court has repeatedly held that “where the circumstances shown to exist yield two (2) or more inferences, one of which is consistent with the presumption of innocence while the other or others may be compatible with the finding of guilt, the Court must acquit the accused:  for the evidence does not then fulfill the test of moral certainty and is insufficient to support a judgment of conviction.” Indeed, a corollary to the constitutional presumption of innocence is the rule that “the circumstances of the case must exclude all and each and every hypothesis consistent with [appellant’s] innocence.”  xxxx. 



WHEREFORE, in the interest of justice, it is respectfully prayed that the instant complaint be DISMISSED for lack of merit.

FURTHER, the herein respondent respectfully prays for such and other reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable in the premises.

xxx City, xxx 2013.


KGD.  Xxx
Respondent


          SUBSCRIBED and sworn to before me in Las Pinas City on xxx 2013.


                                                Investigating Assistant City Prosecutor


X x x.”