Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
Pasay City
ALLAN LUCERO,
Complainant/s,

-versus- I.S. No. XV-07-17L-088888

For: LIBEL AND GRAVE SLANDER

ALJUN ROSALES, et al.,

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

JOINT COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT

WE, ALJUN ROSALES, et al, all of legal age, Filipino citizens, and with
postal address c/o Santocidad Security Agency 1998 Century St., Brgy. San Agustin,
Malabon City, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby
depose and state that:

1. We are the respondents in the above-entitled case pending before the

Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila;

2. This instant complaint filed against us by ALLAN LUCERP (hereinafter,

“COMPLAINANT”) is utterly baseless, unsubstantiated by testimonies of alleged
people whom he claimed to have heard the utterances, and a total and clear
fabrication of woven lies depicting ill-motive of the Complainant to retaliate on us
after we have merely exercised our right to inform the Management of Santocidad
Security Agency of Complainant’s various misdeeds and abuse of authority on his
subordinates;

3. To put the facts straight, we have individually raised our own experiences
with the Complainant and no one ever forced us to do the same. It is not unusual
that as a group of Security Guards stationed at one institution (PCCR), we have
personally witnessed those acts being complained of by one of us and we felt the
need to put an end to this kind of leadership and management of the Complainant
as no one deserves to be treated in the manner he was doing;

4. We believe that we must not be blamed by the Complainant for what the
Management of Arthorn Security Agency has decided to do with our individual
complaints which only contains the truth. In fact, Complainant was given by the
Management an opportunity to explain his side about the numerous complaints
hurled against him, proof of which is the copy of the Notice to Explain, dated 23
November 2017, addressed to Complainant and issued by the Operation Manager,
SPO2 Ernesto M. Mandanas, a retired PNP officer, hereto attached as ANNEX “A”;

5. It is therefore misleading for the Complainant to state in his Complaint-

Affidavit, paragraphs 5 & 6 thereof, that he was suddenly prevented to report for
work at PCCR merely because of our written complaints. The truth is Complainant
answered the allegations against him, one by one, in a letter-explanation he
submitted to SPO2 Ernesto M. Mandanas, dated 25 November 2017, copy of which
was furnished to us by the Management and which we hereto attached as ANNEX
“B” and series;

6. Clearly, Complainant, in his letter-explanation attached as Annex B, he

merely denied the various complaints we individually raised against him but there
are matters which he admit doing and yet tried to justify his obvious wrongdoings,
if not misconduct as a superior. The following inconsistencies and misleading
statements can serve as reference to our defense that there is no truth to all the
allegations of the Complainant in his Complaint-Affidavit filed before the Honorable
City Prosecutor:

6.1 For SG Aljune Morales, Complainant denied having unjustly vexed or

harassed his subordinates. But in his letter-explanation, Complainant actually
admitted his temperament and at times, his need to borrow money from the
respondents;

6.2 For LG Joana Gutierrez, Complainant accused her of maliciously

spreading about the alleged case of Estafa with Engr. Bobot and other guards. But
in the letter-explanation (page 4 thereof), Complainant admitted that he in fact
came up with an idea or opinion that LG Gutierrez may have been the source of the
office address given to one Engr. Bobot;

6.3 For LG Lanie Sumalpong in which she alleged that Complainant said
“Hindi kami ang makikisama sa INYO”. In response thereto, Complainant explained
that he said was “Hindi kaming trenta (30) ang makikisama sa inyo” – words which
only pertains to one and the same meaning;

6.4 Same with the complaint of LG Sumalpong about being cursed by the
Complainant – the latter merely justify that he did not mean to curse LG Sumalpong
directly but was a mere expression which, to the mind of LG Sumalpong is still
attributed to her and was uncalled for and as to the issue of bullying, contrary to
Complainant’s claim that he is a strong advocate of anti-bullying, he admitted in his
letter-explanation that he and another guard actually laugh after having a
conversation with LG Sumalpong;

6.5. In answer to the complaint of John Lloyd Tumangan, Complainant, in

his letter-explanation did not deny that he in fact has borrowed from SG Tumangan
but still in paragraph 10 of his Complaint-Affidavit, Complainant lied by denying that
he owed SG Tumangan the amount of PhP500.00;

6.5. As to the complaint of Arnel Toreta, the same is not even a malicious
imputation of any wrongdoing as it merely informs the Management on the acts
seen and curses uttered by Complainant in front of them;

6.6 In Alejandro Malunes’ complaint, the same is likewise an information

report to the Management which Malunes himself personally experienced and which
his co-respondents can attest that such kind of abusive treatment of subordinates
may have likewise happened to them;

6.7 As for Rena Lueterio, clear from the letter complaint given to the
Management of Arthorn Security Agency, that the details indicated therein cannot
be a mere fabrication or a product of imagination as LG Lueterio even made specific
mention of the place where the incident occurred as well as the teachers whom
Complainant asked about LG Leuterio’s performance. None of those narration of
facts by LG Leuterio can there be a case of libel, much less of grave slander;

6.8 For Zainal Kuli, while Complainant denied having uttered unkind words
to SG Kuli because the school records will not show the same, still Complainant was
not able to include any statement or certification from the school administration
about his claim, thus the same is self-serving and must not be relied upon;

6.9 For Ricardo Tizon’s complaint, the statements contained therein

obviously fall short of the elements of libel or grave slander. It is unthinkable that
even the decision of one person not to join his immediate superior over dinner can
be a libelous remark;

6.10 For Jupiter Santos, his complaint did not state any accusation of threat
such as intending to cause harm to anyone. The context of the letter-complaint of
Jupiter Santos must be considered more than the mere words which Complainant
took in parts in order to make it appear as maliciously done;

7. Our lawyer informed us that the elements of the crimes of libel and grave
slander are wanting in this case. The elements of libel are: (a) imputation of a
discreditable act or condition to another; (b) publication of the imputation; (c)
identity of the person defamed; and, (d) existence of malice. [Daez v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 47971, 31 October 1990, 191 SCRA 61, 67].

8. At first glance, it might be concluded that the individual letter-complaints

we submitted to the Management of Arthorn Security Agency contain mere
imputation of discreditable act or condition of Complainant Molina. But a close
scrutiny of each and every letter-complaint, reading it in context and considering
that it was done in exercise of a rightful duty to readily inform the Management of
any wrongdoing of a fellow employee in order that proper action can be made to it.
Here, our respective complaints were brought to the Management and the same
was not spread out to anyone in the institution where we worked. There was no
publication of the alleged written imputation against Complainant. While the
identity of the person referred to in the individual complaints is clearly identified,
still, the existence of malice is absolutely wanting.

9. We were likewise told that it is provided under Article 354 of the Revised
Penal Code provides that: “Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious,
even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is
shown, xxx”. In our case, we have personally witnessed and experienced the
misdeeds of Complainant and we believe that we brought it to the attention of the
proper authorities. No ill intention can be attributed to us as we only sought the
Management’s intervention in order not to tolerate Complainant’s wrongdoings which
we honestly believe were already violating our code of conduct.

10. As to the charge of Grave Slander, we were told by our lawyer that in
one recent case1, the Supreme Court explained this crime in this manner:

“Oral Defamation or Slander is libel committed by oral (spoken) means, instead of

in writing. It is defined as "the speaking of base and defamatory words which tend
to prejudice another in his reputation, office, trade, business or means of
livelihood." The elements of oral defamation are: (1) there must be an imputation
of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, status or
circumstances; (2) made orally; (3) publicly; (4) and maliciously; (5) directed to a
natural or juridical person, or one who is dead; (6) which tends to cause dishonour,
discredit or contempt of the person defamed. Oral defamation may either be simple
or grave. It becomes grave when it is of a serious and insulting nature.”

11. In the same case, it was further explained that in order to determine
whether a statement is defamatory, the words used in the statement must be
construed in their entirety and should be taken in their plain, natural and ordinary
meaning as they would naturally be understood by persons reading them, unless it
appears that they were used and understood in another sense.2 It must be
stressed that words which are merely insulting are not actionable as libel
or slander per se, and mere words of general abuse however opprobrious, ill-
natured, or vexatious, whether written or spoken, do not constitute a basis for an
action for defamation in the absence of an allegation for special damages. The fact
that the language is offensive to the plaintiff does not make it actionable
by itself.3

12. In the case submitted before this Honorable City Prosecutor, while to
the mind of Complainant, the allegations contained in the individual complaints may
have insulted him or tend to offend his person, that alone cannot be made as a
basis for charging all of us the crimes of libel or grave slander. In the first place, no
particular instance was mention by Complainant when and where the alleged
utterances of malicious accusations were made by all the respondents.
Complainant merely relied on the written complaints which copy was furnished to
him upon his request. The said letter-complaints were not meant to be published
or its contents read by other persons but merely as an aid to the investigation to be
conducted by the Management.

13. We categorically deny all the accusations of Complainant Molina in his

Complaint-Affidavit as these are all untrue, unsubstantiated, and without basis in
law or in fact. In other words, we humbly believe that the complaint must be
dismissed for lack of probable cause which according to our lawyer means:

“Probable cause has been defined as the existence of such

facts and circumstances as would lead a person of ordinary
caution and prudence to entertain an honest and strong

1
ENRIQUE G. DE LEON vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and SPO3 PEDRITO L.
LEONARDO, G.R. No. 212623, January 11, 2016
2
Id citing Lopez v. People, 658 Phil. 20, 31 (2011).
3
Id citing MVRS Publications v. Islamic Da’wah Council of the Phil., 444 Phil. 230, 241 (2003).
 suspicion that the person charged is guilty of the crime subject
of the investigation.4

14.
We were also reminded by our lawyer that as held in the case of
Rhodora M. Ledesma vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 278 SCRA 656 , the primary
objective of preliminary investigation is to free a respondent from the
inconvenience, expense, ignominy and stress of defending
himself/herself in the course of formal trial, until the reasonable probability of
his or her guilt has been passed upon in a more or less summary proceeding by a
competent officer designated by law for that purpose.

15. It is our honest opinion that Complainant’s motive in filing this instant
case is merely to retaliate on us for having brought our individual concerns to the
proper authorities and to continuously deprive us from exercising our right to work
in an environment free from any unnecessary hardship, ridicule, unkind words and
abusive leadership.

16. We executed this Joint Counter-Affidavit to attest to the truth of the

foregoing statements, and move for the dismissal of the above case for lack of legal
and factual basis.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto affixed our signature this 14th

day of February, 2018 in the City of Manila.

4
Manebo v. Acosta, G.R. No. 169554, October 28, 2009