Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 11

Republic of the Philippines


City of Mandaluyong


x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x


(of the Resolution dated September 03, 2014)

COMES NOW, Respondent BALTAZAR VILLARIEZ, through the

undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Office, most respectfully file this
Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated September 03 2014, a copy of
which is hereto attached as Annex A, the dispositive portion of which reads, to

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is most respectfully

recommended that the charges of Grave Threats be approved and
filed before the proper court against the above-named respondent.
With respect to the charge of Unjust Vexation, the same is hereby
recommended for dismissal since it is deemed absorbed already by a
more grave offense of Grave Threats.

Mandaluyong City
03 September 2014.



Assistant City Prosecutor


Deputy City Prosecutor


Senior Deputy State Prosecutor

A copy of which was received on September 26, 2014.


Respondent respectfully moves for a reconsideration of the said resolution

which filed a case of Grave Threats against respondent BALTAZAR VILLARIEZ
for there were overlooked, misconstrued or misinterpreted cogent facts and
circumstances which, if considered, will indubitably changed the findings in this





With due respect to the conclusion of Honorable Ramon Chito R. Mendoza

that there is a probable cause to indict the herein respondent/movant for the said
offense, such conclusion has no valid basis but purely a speculation hence, contrary
to prevailing law and jurisprudence.

It is worthy to note the case of Kilosbayan Inc. et. Al. versus Comelec et.al.1
the Supreme Court held that:

The determination of probable cause in any criminal

prosecution is made indispensable by the Bill of Rights which
enshrines every citizens rights to due process, the presumption that he
is presumed innocent, and the inadmissibility against him of any
damaging evidence obtained in violation of his right against self-
incrimination.2 As Justice Reynato S. Puno has pointed out, probable
cause is neither an opaque concept in our jurisdiction 3 or a high
level legal abstraction to be the subject of warning thoughts 4It
constitutes those facts and circumstances which would lead a
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense
has been committed5by the person sought to be judicially indicted.
In determining probable cause, however,, the public prosecutor must
have been apprised by the complainant of his evidence in support of
his accusatory allegations. In other words, determining probable
cause is an intellectual activity premised on the prior physical
presentation or submission of documentary or testimonial proofs
either confirming, negating or qualifying the allegations in the

In the case at bar, nothing in the facts and circumstances would lead a
reasonably discreet prudent man to believe that Grave Threats was committed
against the herein complainant by the respondent. Likewise, procedural matters
were not properly observed in this case.

The Complaint was filed without the necessary

Certificate to File Action from the proper barangay

The pertinent provisions of the Local Government Code provides that cases
where the imposable penalty does not exceed one year imprisonment such as the
case at bar must undergo the mandatory Barangay Conciliation Proceeding in the
Barangay where the Respondent resides before the complaint may be filed before
this Honorable Office. The Complainant fails to observe such requirement of the
It can be gleaned from the records that no certification to file action was
issued by Barangay Addition Hills, the barangay where Respondent is a bona fide

To prove Respondents claim that he is a resident of Barangay Addition hills,

a copy of certification from the Barangay Chairman of the said barangay is
attached herein as Annex B and made an integral part hereof. To bolster
respondents claim that he is a resident of Barangay Addition Hills, a copy of his
tricycle franchise stating that his residence is at Barangay Addition Hills is
attached herein as Annex C.

Both complainant and respondent are residents of the same city, the City of
Mandaluyong, though of different barangays. Mrs. Gloria Kalaw is a resident of
413 Dr. Fernandez St., Brgy. Highway Hills, Mandaluyong City while respondent
is a resident of #2814 Blk. 11 Welfareville Compound, Brgy. Addition Hills, of the
same city. In this regard, Complainant must have obtained a Certificate for file
Action from Barangay Addition Hills consistent with the provision of the Local
Government which provides that:

Those involving actual residents of different barangays within the

same city or municipality shall be brought in the BARANGAY
RESPONDENTS ACTUALLY RESIDES, at the election of the
complaint.1 (Emphasis and underscoring ours)

The absence of the Certificate to file Action from the proper Barangay is fatal to
the cause of the Complainant since the same law provides that:
No complaint, petition, action, or proceeding involving any matter within
the authority of the lupon shall be filed or instituted directly in court or
any other government office for adjudication, unless there has been a
confrontation between the parties before the lupon chairman or the
pangkat, and that no conciliation or settlement has been reached as
certified by the lupon secretary or pangkat secretary as attested to by the
lupon or pangkat chairman or unless the settlement has been repudiated by
the parties thereto.2

The rationale why a Certificate to file action is mandatory before a complaint

may be filed in any other government office was explained by the Suprement Court
in one case.

The barangay justice system was established primarily as a means of

easing up the congestion of cases in the judicial courts. This could be
accomplished through a proceeding before the barangay courts which,
according to the conceptor of the system, the late Chief Justice Fred
Ruiz Castro, is essentially arbitration in character, and to make it
truly effective, it should also be compulsory. 3 (Emphasis Supplied).

The fact that complainant was able to secure a certificate to file action from
Barangay Highway Hills, will not cure the defect since the law specifically
mandates that the confrontation must be before the barangay where the respondent
resides. To allow the complainant to obtain the necessary certificate from the
barangay wherever she pleases is detrimental to the welfare of the Respondent. We
cannot allow the complainant to look for a friendly forum to obtain a favorable
result. Further, the act of Complainant of not exploring the possibility of amicable
settlement in the said barangay but insisting the immediate issuance of a certificate
to file action in her favor is a clear disregard to the noble purpose of the
Katarungang Pambarangay Law. Indeed, we must not allow the complainant to
disrespect the clear mandate of the law.

Thus, for failure of complainant to obtain a Certificate to file action from the
proper barangay, it consequently follows that an information must not be filed in
court but the case must referred to barangay Addition Hills to give the parties the
opportunity to settle their differences and to achieve the noble purposes of
Katarungang Pambarangay Law which is to unclog court dockets as well as to
prevent the deterioration of the quality of justice. In one case, the Supreme Court
had the occasion to highlight the importance of the arbitration before barangay
courts and the necessary consequence of non-observance thereof.

1 Sec. 409 (b) Republic Act 7160

2 Sec. 412 (a) Republic Act 7160
3 People v. Caruncho, Jr., 212 Phil. 16, 27 (1984).
this Court wishes to emphasize the vital role
which the revised katarungang pambarangay law plays
in the delivery of justice at the barangay level, in
promoting peace, stability, and progress therein, and in
effectively preventing or reducing expensive and
wearisome litigation. Parties to disputes cognizable by
the lupon should, with sincerity, exhaust the remedies
provided by that law, government prosecutors should
exercise due diligence in ascertaining compliance with
it, and trial courts should not hesitate to impose the
appropriate sanctions for non-compliance thereof.4

There is no probable cause to believe that the crime

of grave threats has been committed by the
Respondent, thus, he must not be indicted for the same

In the case at bar, nothing in the facts and circumstances would lead a
reasonably discreet prudent man to believe that Grave Threats was committed
against the herein complainant by the respondent.

The Supreme Court, in the one case6 held that:

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 to presupposition, conjecture, or
even convincing logic.

In this case, it is the complainant who has the burden of proof to support his
charged by adducing sufficient and convincing evidence, but unfortunately, she
failed to do so. It is worth stressing that it was the complainant who had the
intention of committing a wrong against herein respondent since she is the one who
started the provocation against the respondent by unauthorizingly taking pictures
of the latters son.

The case of grave threats filed against respondent is founded upon the bare
and self-serving claim of complainant and her witness who happened to be her
live-in partner.

The Honorable Prosecutor who issued the assailed resolution stated that the
bare denial of the respondent cannot prevail over the positive and straightforward
asseveration of the complainant.

4 G.R. No. 111416 September 26, 1994 FELICIDAD UY, petitioner, vs.HON. MAXIMO C. CONTRERAS
We respectfully submit that the denial of herein respondent is not bare
but corroborated by a witness who is independent and uninterested in the
outcome of this case in the person of one Deliege Talagan.

In her Sinumpaang Salaysay, particularly under paragraph 10 thereof,

Deliege Talagan categorically stated that WALA PONG PAGMUMURA,
GLORIA KALAW. Dahil kung mayron man, dapat sana ay inawat o inaresto siya
ng mga taong nandodoon lalo pat babae ang kanyang kaaway.

It must be noted that witness Deliege Talagan is not related to Respondent

unlike the witness of Complainant, Bernard Batogon who is the live-in partner of
Complainant as admitted by him in his Sinumpaang Salaysay wherein he stated
that: pabalik na sana ako sa aming pilahan ng makita ko si Baltazar Villariez na
humahangos patungo sa canteen na kung saan ay kinaroroonan ng aking
kinakasamang si GLORIA KALAW.

Between Complainants witness, Mr. Bernard Batogon and Respondents

witness Deliege Talagan, the latter deserves more credence since she has no
relationship whatsoever to respondent. Witness Deliege Talagan is also
uninterested in the outcome of this case.

Aside from the fact that the witness of complainant is not credible, the claim
itself of Complainant that he was threatened by the Accused is not worthy of belief.

While complainant claims that she trembled in fear due to the threats made
by the Accused, her action contradicts the same for the following reasons.

First, if it is true that complainant trembled in fear as claimed by her, then

why was she able to talk right straight to the eyes with Respondent? In her
Sinumpaang Salaysay ng Pagdedemanda as well as in her Sinumpaang Sagot sa
Kontra Salaysay, Complainant stated that: nagkaroon po ako ng pagkakataon na
sabihin sa kanya kung bakit ko kinunan ng litrato ang anak niya. Hence, the claim
of Complainant that she trembled in fear has no basis and is nothing but a mere
exaggeration trigerred by the ill-motives of complainant against those who are
siding against their counter-parts in the tricycle line.

Second, according to Complainant in par. 2.6 of her complaint, dahil sa

karahasang ginawa sa akin ni Baltazar Villariez at sa kanyang pagbabanta sa akin
ay nagdulot po ito ng mga takot, pagdurusa, pagkainis, at pangamba sa kaligtasan
sa aking buhay. Again, complainants claim is far from reality. If it is true that
Complainant was afraid of Respondent, why is it that Complainant was alone
during their first hearing before this Honorable Office? This matter was even raised
in the rejoinder. Also, complainant and respondent are still seeing each other in the
tricycle line as well as in other places though they are not talking with each other.

Third, it is ridiculous if we may say so that Complainant had the courage to

sue the Respondent for allegedly threatening her with words only to forego the
alleged attempt of Respondent to overrun her several days before the present case.
According to the Complainant, while Respondent was allegedly uttering invectives
at her, she recalled the incident which happened few days ago wherein Respondent
allegedly tried to overrun her while she was walking near E-Toda Terminal at the
corner of Lopez Rizal and Samat Streets. However, Complainant never bothered to
file a complaint or at least a blotter against the Respondent. It is not difficult to
imagine which is more grave between threats with words than an actual threat to
overrun a person so as to give one the courage to file the necessary complaint. To
drive home the point, we cannot understand why Complainant never filed a
complaint against respondent for allegedly trying to overrun her but she had the
courage to sue for alleged invective words uttered against her. We must take notice
that Complainant attempted to answer that she has no witness for the June 04
incident as her reason why she never filed a formal complaint against Respondent.
We are not persuaded. The place where the alleged attempt to overrun the
Complainant is a public place and taking into consideration that it allegedly
happened on broad daylight, it is thus next to impossibility that there was nobody
who witnessed the alleged incident. Likewise, the failure of complainant to at least
report the incident militates against her claim. Also, the fact that the complainant
had the guts to take photos of Respondents son without the latters permission or
good reason is a clear indication that Complainant had ill motives and was out
there to provoke the Respondent.

To aid the Honorable Office in deciding this Motion for Reconsideration, we

will reiterate the reasons why there is no probable cause to indict respondent for
the crime of grave threats:

1. There is no certificate to file action from the proper barangay the

barangay where respondent resides in accordance with the provision of
Katarungang Pambarangay Law.

2. The investigating prosecutor failed to give weight to the testimony of

defense witness who corroborated respondents testimony that indeed, the latter
never threatened nor uttered invective words against respondent but merely inquire
as to the reason why Complainant took photos of his son without permission.

3. The witness of respondent must be given more credence since she is not
related whatsoever to the former and she is not interested to the outcome of this
case unlike the witness of complainant who happened to be her live-in partner.

4. The testimony itself of the respondent is doubtful. She had the courage to
file a complaint against complainant for allegedly uttering invective words at her
yet she never bother to complain or at least report the alleged attempt of
respondent to overrun her using the latters tricycle.

5. The complainant is clearly moved by ill motive, hatred and is out there to
harass and cause injustice to the respondent. At the onset, it was mentioned that
there are disputes in the tricycle line to which respondent belongs. Several cases
involving personalities in the said tricycle line are also pending before this
Honorable Office. It just so happened that complainant and respondent do not
share the same side in the controversies in their tricycle line. The Honorable Office
must not let itself be used as an instrument to cause an injustice at the guise of
obtaining justice.

Based on the foregoing, the respondent is begging at this Honorable Office

to reconsider the assailed resolution in accord with the objective and purpose of
preliminary investigation which 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
also to protect the state from useless and expensive trials.7
Mere allegation of the charge against the herein respondent is not sufficient
to indict the respondent for the acts he allegedly committed. It is beyond doubt that
there is far from sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that the acts of
the herein respondent constitute Grave Threats and that the herein respondent is
probably guilty thereof.
It is an established principle in law that one who comes in equity must come
with clean hands. (Tala Realty Services Corporation vs. Banco Filipino Savings
and Mortgage Bank, G.R. No. 137533, 22 November 2002, 392 SCRA 506). One
who seeks equity must do equity, and he who comes into equity must come with
clean hands. He or she who has done inequity shall not have equity. The courts
may deny equitable relief on the ground that the conduct and actions of a party are
inequitable, unfair, dishonest, or fraudulent, or deceitful. (Miller vs. Miller, G.R.
No. 149615, 29 August 2006; Abacus Security vs. Ampil, G.R. No. 160016, 27
February 2006, 483 SCRA 315.).
Complainant should not take refuge from the provisions of law, because the
law applies only to those persons who are victim of injustice. In the case at bar,
Respondent did not do any violence or harm against the complainant;
Moreover, in trying to resurrect complainants rancor, she forgot the
Principle of Justice saying that in the quest of justice, law and evidence always
prevail over dramatization or speculation, because justice did not protect or give
premium or favor to those violators of the law.
In addition, the law gives favor to those persons who stand by and follow the
principle of Human Relation particularly Article 19 of the New Civil Code of the
Philippines, which provides that:

Article 19 Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and

in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his
due, and observe honesty and good faith.

While it is true that we encourage people to come out who are victim of
injustice, this Office should not close its EYES nor to be deaf to the many report of
false complaint/charges of innocent person for extortion and blackmail and in some
instance to satisfy their hidden personal animosity x xx to respondent. This Office
should be vigilant and alert to recognize trumped up charges lest on innocent man
on the basis of fabricated allegation be made to suffer the unusually severe penalty
for the crime charged by the people who are extremely obsessed to put persons
behind bars.
I am of the opinion that it is a legal tenet that bare allegations
unsubstantiated by evidence are not equivalent to proof. In this case, it is the
Complainant who has the burden of proof to support his charged by adducing
sufficient and convincing evidence, but unfortunately, she failed to do so.
In truth and in fact, if there is anybody here who should have a reason to sue,
it could only be the herein respondent/movant, for having been unfairly
accused/charged by the complainant. This incident has caused irreparable damages
and injuries to my persons. Respondent suffered serious anxiety and sleepless
In the case at bar, there were no relevant facts and circumstances which
would lead a discreet and prudent man to believe that Grave Threats were
committed by the herein respondent.

It is for the above stated reasons that the movant would like to request to this
Honorable Office to reconsider its resolution.Since this Honorable Office is a
temple of justice, the herein respondent still hope against hope, that this motion for
reconsideration will be entertained and eventually granted in the interest of justice.


WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully moved of this

Honorable Office, that, in the in the interest of justice and fair play, the Resolution
dated April 17, 2012 be set aside and reconsidered.


Mandaluyong City, September 30, 2014.


Ground Floor, G Square Arcade,
451 Barangka Drive, Brgy. Plainview
Mandaluyong City, Metro Manila 1550
Tel. No. 02-4774431



IBP No. 967909 /03.28.2014/ RSM
PTR No. 2083666 / 05.09.2014/ Mand. City
Roll No. 63347
MCLE Exempted per MCLE Governing Board
Order No. 1 Series of 2008

Republic of the Philippines )

City of Mandaluyong ) Sc.


I, BALTAZAR VILLARIEZ, of legal age, Filipino, under oath, hereby

depose and state:

I am the movant in the above-entitled case;

I have caused the preparation of the herein Motion for Reconsideration and
the same is true to the best of my knowledge and based on authentic records;

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature on this 8 th

day of September, 2014 at Mandaluyong City, Philippines.


SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _____ day of October,

2014, affiants exhibiting to me the following:

Names CTC Nos/I.D. Nos. Date/Place Issued


Doc. No.
Page No.
Book No.
Series of 2014

The Trial Prosecutor

City Prosecutors Office
City of Mandaluyong

Mandaluyong CPO
GLORIA KALAW October _______, 2014
No. 413 Dr. Fernandez St., Reg. Rec. No._________
Brgy. Highway Hills,
Mandaluyong City


Copy of the foregoing counter-affidavit was served to the adverse party by

registered mail for lack of material time and impracticality of personal service.