Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice
NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE
OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR
Tuguegarao City, Cagayan

COUNTER AFFIDAVIT

I, Leticia Q. Agabin, of legal age, Filipino, married, and a resident

of Camasi, Peñablanca, Cagayan, after having been sworn in accordance
with law, do hereby depose and aver that:

The instant Counter Affidavit herein:

1.) Categorically deny the allegations in the complaint affidavit.

2.) That the complaint affidavit fails to satisfy the elements of
Slander and Malicious Mischief.

TIMELINESS OF THE FILING:

A copy of the complaint affidavit was received by respondent on August

25, 2019. Supposedly, respondent have until September 6, 2019 to file
her counter complaint affidavit.

The Respondent is filing today, September 5, 2019, her Counter Affidavit.

In view of the foregoing, the instant pleading is timely filed.

PRELIMINARIES

(1) I am a public school teacher, and one of the seven children of Sps.
Justo Quinagoran and Leona Saquing Quinagoran and a resident of
Camasi, Peñablanca, Cagayan, Philippines where I may be served
with court processes;

(2) PLT JULIET QUINAGORAN, is my younger sister, while PCAPT

JULIFERR NARAG Y BUNUAN is her husband. They are residents of
Camasi, Peñablanca, Cagayan, Philippines where they may be
served with court processes;

I. SLANDER

I.A ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME SLANDER

(3) 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

1
 person, or one who is dead; (6) which tends to cause dishonor,
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. 1

I.B ULTIMATE FACTS

(4) I admit that on 25 August 2019, at around 10:30 in the morning, I

went to the house of my sister, Juliet S. Quinagoran, to pay a visit,
and also to talk to them regarding the Affidavit of Adverse Claim;

(5) I vehemently deny the allegation that I went to Juliet’s house to

cause altercation. As a matter of fact, I entered the house
courteously, then I saw Iñigo Narag watching. I then asked him of
the whereabouts of my mother Leona Quinagoran, and his step-
mother, Juliet Quinagoran, and answered that they were in their
respective rooms;

(6) Lured with the smell of the “kamoteng kahoy,” I first went to the
kitchen to pick some, and proceeded to the room of my mother. We
had a small chit-chat and a peaceful conversation;

(7) However, when I opened up the matter regarding the authenticity

of her signature in the Deed of Absolute Sale, her mood changed
and she unexpectedly uttered the words, “KWAM LAMAN!” (It’s all
yours!) Moreover, she strappingly stated that my other sister Joan
Quinagoran invested so much in the improvement of the house;

(8) Although we had heated argument, I fervently deny that I scolded

my mother. Our conversation just went on regarding who has a
better right to the property in question;

(9) After our conversation, I went outside the house to entertain our
neighbor who came by and invited us for lunch. Thereafter, I went
back inside, when surprisingly, Juliet Quinagoran came out from
her room drastically throwing pillows and a comb at me, hitting my
right shoulder during the altercation while aggressively shouting,
“FUKINENAM! MANAW KA TAW! NANGGUGULO KA! AWAN TU
PASIRAMMU!”

(10) Adding more insult, she replied,

“BAKIT NUNG IKINASAL KAYO NI EDDIE AY VIRGIN KA? IPA-
CANCEL MU NGANA WITH YOUR OWN EXPENSE! ANIMAL KA!”

1 Deleon vs. People, G.R. No. 212623, January 11, 2016

2
(11) Distressed with her offensive and disrespectful acts, I uttered:
“Abugadu kupol, dambel ka. Kenga la egga y ammum ta legal
matters, alle gittam kurukurug. Sobra kabobom, immoral ka.”

(12) At this juncture, I strongly disagree that I uttered the word

“pupuruppu” as stated in paragraph four (4) of the complaint
affidavit.

(13) To put an end to abusive and pestering collective behavior of

JULIET S. QUINAGORAN, I told her to stop. I explained that my
real purpose in visiting was to clarify things up regarding the
Affidavit of Adverse Claim as I don’t want any grudge to stain our
sisterhood. Also, I want an explanation why she blocked me on
social media (Messenger app) after sending all the documents
evidencing my lawful ownership of the subject lot. Persistently, she
told me to leave; (photos evidencing the conversation is hereto
attached as “Annex 1” and made integral part hereof);

I.A.I. THE UTTERANCES WERE NOT MALICIOUS

(14) The distasteful utterances castigated by the herein complainant

were so insulting, derogatory, and disgraceful to my person and my
honor, that I was left with no other reasonable recourse but to
express my resentment thru those words. While I uttered those
words against Juliet, those were said when I was consumed by the
heat of anger and were done with some sort of provocation on
the part of the latter. Since it is unintentional, it runs counter
with the malicious element required in oral defamation.

(15) Verily, the Supreme Court ruled in the long line of cases, that the
offensive remarks made by an accused is not sufficient to constitute
defamation, the remarks being merely an incident preliminary
to the threat made by the other party, in the heat of anger2.

I.A.2. IT WAS NOT MADE PUBLICLY

(16) Let it be noted that our conversation was made inside the
residence of Juliet and merely surrounded by immediate family
members, hence wanting of the third element of oral defamation.

II. MALISCIOUS MISCHIEF

(17) To successfully make a person liable of Malicious Mischief, the

following elements must be proved:

2 People vs Cervera G.R. No. L-26395 November 21, 1969

3
 a. That the offender deliberately caused damage to the
property of another;
b. That such act does not constitute arson or other crimes
involving destruction;
c. That the act of damaging another’s property be committed
merely for the sake of damaging it.3

(18) It has always been regarded of the essence of this felony that the
offender should have not only the general intention to carry out the
felonious act, but that she should act under the impulse of a
specific desire to inflict injury to another4.

(19) The necessity of the special malice for the crime of malicious
mischief is contained in the requirement of Art. 327 of our
Revised Penal Code, already quoted, that the offender "shall
deliberately cause to the property of another any damage not
falling within the terms of the next preceding chapter", i.e., not
punishable as arson. It follows that, in the very nature of things,
malicious mischief cannot be committed through negligence,
since culpa (negligence) and malice (or deliberateness) are
essentially incompatible. 5

(20) I left their house and closed the gate which was loose and
“through and through” that even with a slight force the gate
would swing. More importantly, it was during this date (August 25,
2019) that the typhoon “Ineng” about to leave the Philippines,
and typhoon “Jenny” is about to enter the country. These
occurrences naturally brought a strong course of wind causing
the increased force of movement of the gate which eventually
hit the rear tail light of their Honda City vehicle;

(21) Under Art. 1174 of the Civil Code, “Except in cases specified by
the law, or when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when
the nature of the obligation requires the assumption of risk, no
person shall be responsible for those events which, could not
be foreseen, or which, though foreseen were inevitable.” A
fortuitous event under Article 1174 may either be an "act of
God," or natural occurrences such as floods or typhoons, or an "act
of man," such as riots, strikes or wars.6

(22) For this, I strongly deny paragraph five (5) of the complaint
affidavit that I forcibly banged the gate which resulted to the
damage of the aforementioned vehicle;

3 Article 327 of the Revised Penal Code

4 Quizon vs. The Honorable Justice of the Peace of Bacolor, Pampanga, et.al G.R. No. L-6641 (1955)
5 Ibid

6 Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation vs. Globe Telecom, Inc.

4
(23) Absent my deliberate intent to cause damage to the
aforementioned vehicle, the crime could not exist.

III. THE COMPLAINT AFFIDAVITS ARE DEFECTIVE

(24) In the final note, a perusal of the complaint-affidavit did not

categorically state the crime/s committed. Under Section 6, Rule
110 of the Revised Rules of Court “A complaint or information is
sufficient if it states xxx the designation of the offense given by
the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting
the offense xxx”

(25) A thorough review of the complaint would reveal that the

complaint-affidavit did not categorically state the crime/s
committed7.

(26) I am executing this affidavit to attest to the truthfulness and

veracity of the foregoing facts to support my prayer for the
outright dismissal of the charges against me.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ____ day

of September 2019 at Tuguegarao City, Cagayan.

LETICIA Q. AGABIN
Affiant

Subscribed and sworn to before me this ____day of September 2019,

in the City of Tuguegarao, Province of Cagayan. Affiant showed me her ID
bearing her picture and signature.

Doc. No.:
Page No.:
Book No.:
Series of 2019.

Copy Furnished:

JULIET S. QUINAGORAN/ JULIFERR N. BUNUAN

Camasi, Penablanca, Cgayan

PNP, PENABLANCA, CAGAYAN

Centro, Penablanca, Cagayan

7 Annex 2 and Annex 2-1.

5