Reply Affidavit Sample 6a1f2n

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Department of Justice OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR City of Manila MIRIAM MARCOS, Complainant -

versus -

I.S. No. XV-15-INV-IIC-00000

GRACE ESCUDERO, Respondent x-----------------------------------------x REPLY-AFFIDAVIT I, MIRIAM “BRENDA” MARCOS, Filipino, of legal age, married, resident of 1901 Katipunan Avenue, Quezon City Philippines, President of PoeChiz Canteen, Inc., respectfully submit hereunder, my reply to the Counter-Affidavit of respondent GRACE ESCUDERO, to wit: To Begin With, And To The Above-Respondent: 1. Her Malicious/Ill-willed/Libelous Statement is definitely ed by the Best Evidence. For this Malicious/Ill-willed/Libelous Statement was bannered in the form of an Advisory at the campus gate of Ro-Ro Academy in front of the Conservatory on October 15, 2015, a copy of which is hereto attached and marked as ANNEX A. A. ON THE ISSUE OF THE ERRONEOUS AND INSUFFICIENT COMPLAINTAFFIDAVIT 2. Anent the erroneous and insufficient Complaint-Affidavit, such error does not affect the merit of the present case for it merely affects the procedural aspect of the case. The Supreme Court, in several instances has relaxed the Rules of Procedure in favor of Facilitating the Attainment of Justice, rather than it’s Frustration. 3. Respondent merely focused on the form and procedural requirement of the ComplaintAffidavit. 4. That in focusing merely on the above-error, which is merely procedural, RESPONDENT EXHIBITS GROSS AND UTTER DISREGARD AND DENIAL OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. B. ON THE ISSUE OF THE ABSENCE OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME OF LIBEL IN THE PRESENT CASE 5. As pointed out by respondent in her Counter-Affidavit, under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code, the elements of libel are as follows. a. b. c. d.

Defamatory imputation tending to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt; Malice – either in law or in fact; Publication; and Person defamed is identifiable

6. Defamatory imputation in the advisory is evidently attendant in the present set of facts. The advisory published at the campus gate would clearly and sweepingly defame and besmirch my reputation as the President of a food service establishment, PoeChiz Canteen, Inc. 7. Respondent’s averment that “the reputation of the company cannot be affected as it would be highly unlikely that their clients would be able to see the advisory”, is a clear showing of her misapprehension of reality, if not her arrogance and gross ignorance of the law. I am engaged in the business of food service, and in the said industry, reputation is of utmost importance because of what said industry entails, which is to serve drinks, refreshments, food, and the like. 8. My clientele include therefore not only the other schools and institutions to which I provide my canteen services, but the students, professors, and every single person working, studying and ing therein. 9. It is not necessary that all the world should understand the libel. It is sufficient that those who know the defamed can make out that he is the person meant. My identity can therefore be adduced from the malicious Advisory bannered at the gate of the campus. 10. Again, I emphasize that the posting of the Advisory would create in the minds of the public and my other clients, the idea that PoeChiz, Inc. is a debtor in bad faith. 11. Moreover, said defamatory imputation would likewise result in the public, doubt, not only insofar as my obligations are concerned, but also of my own and the general integrity of my business. 12. The posting of the Advisory is clearly a deliberate and malicious plot of respondent in stark retaliation to my alleged default in remitting a portion of my sales to Ro-Ro Academy. 13. The law [also] presumes that malice is present in every defamatory imputation. Thus, 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, except in the following cases: 1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty; and 2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions. [Santos v. Court of Appeals, No. L-45031, 21 October 1991

Paragraph 2 aforequoted refers to a qualifiedly privileged communication, the character of which is a matter of defense that may be lost by positive proof of express malice on the part of the accused. Once it is established that the article is of a privileged character, the onus of proving actual malice rests on the plaintiff who must then convince the court that the offender was prompted by malice or ill will. When this is accomplished the defense of privilege becomes unavailing.

14. Lastly, respondent’s contention that she had nothing to do with these criminal acts and her invocation of Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code is a clearly shallow and ignorant understanding and use of the law, which could even be tantamount to an implied ission of bad faith on her part.

15. Respondent invokes the ruling of the Supreme Court in (1) Newsweek Inc. v Intermediate Appellate Court and (2) Uy Tioco, et al. v Yang Shu Wen et al., where it was held that defamatory remarks directed at a group of persons are not actionable unless the statements are all-embracing or sufficiently specific for the victim to be identifiable. 16. A libel directed at a group or class may form the foundation of an action by an individual of the group or class is small enough to that a person reading the article may readily identify the person as one of the group. 17. It is clear from the facts of the case, that in the Advisory that respondent published, in the guise of Ro-Ro Academy, maliciously impute my company, PoeChiz, Inc., of which I am the identified Officer-in-Charge/President, as a debtor in bad faith. 18. With the foregoing facts, it is evident that Grace Escudero of Ro-Ro Academy be investigated and upon finding of probable cause that the corresponding information for cases for appropriate criminal action be filed in the appropriate court or tribunal PROMPTLY in the interest of fairness and honesty, and to ensure speedy istration of justice.

Affiant further sayeth naught IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto affixed my signature below this 28 th day of November 2015 in the City of Manila, Philippines.

__________________________________ Affiant Gov’t Issued ID ___________________________ Valid Until __________________________ Date of Issue __________________________ Place of Issue __________________________

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to BEFORE ME this 28th day of November 2015 in the City of Manila , Philippines. FURTHER CERTIFIES that I have personally examined the herein affiant and was fully convinced that she freely executed and understood the contents of this Reply-Affidavit

_____________________________________ INVESTIGATING PROSECUTOR.