Republic of the Philippines

Municipal Trial Court

Second Judicial Region
Baggao, Cagayan

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Criminal Case No. 5400

Complainant, for: Grave Oral Defamation

-versus-

AGRIPINA ROBLES,
Accused.
x--------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM

Undersigned Trial Prosecutor hereunto submits the foregoing Memorandum

and respectfully states that:

PREFATORY

The incident subject of the instant case transpired on March 7, 2007 in Alba,
Baggao, Cagayan where accused, Agripina Robles uttered the defamatory words in
Ilocano dialect, “Ibagam ken kabsat mo nga Lando, agtatakaw isuna iti kayo, haan
nak nga mabuteng kanyana uray idanun mo” to Juliana Pascual to the damaged
and prejudiced of the private complainant, Orlando Pigao.

ISSUES:

I. WHETHER OR NOT ACCUSED IS LIABLE AS CHARGED IN THE CRIMINAL

COMPLAINT; and
II. WHETHER OR NOT ACCUSED IS LIABLE FOR DAMAGES.

EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION

On the first issue.

Juliana Pascual testified that accused served is known to be the farm helper of
Josefina Bacud on March 7, 2007. She further testified that on March 7, 2007, she
together with her husband, accused and Perlita Galera were in the ricefield owned
by Josefina Bacud purposely to remove weeds thereat. At about 3:00 P.M. accused
uttered to witness in the presence and within the hearing of their companions the
accusatory defamatory remarks, “Ibagam ken kabsat mo nga Lando, agtatakaw
isuna iti kayo, haan nak nga mabuteng kanyana uray idanun mo”. Accused as

1
testified by the witness angrily and repeatedly utter the remarks. Witness then did as
told, she informed private complainant about the incident.

Renato Pascual, wife of Juliana Pascual and brother-in-law of private

complainant corroborated in material points the testimony of Juliana Pascual. Renato
Pascual likewise testified that he was told by the accused, “Ibagam ken kabsat
kayong mo, agtatakaw isuna iti kayo, haan nak nga mabuteng kanyana uray idanun
mo”.

Orlando Pigao, private complainant testified that he was indeed informed by

her sister, Juliana Pascual about the incident subject of this case. He allegedly filed the
instant case because accused did not make good their agreement on their problem
regarding a tree before the Lupon. In fact, the Barangay Captain issued a certification
to file action to that effect.

Noel Taclan, a barangay official of Alba corroborated the testimony of private

complainant regarding the issue about the tree where accused Agripina Robles
blamed the private complainant to have stolen the tree and such issue was referred
to the Lupon Tagapamayapa of Alba, Baggao, Cagayan. Accused however did not
comply hence the Barangay Captain issued a certification to file action.

On the second issue.

Private complainant is entitled for moral damages considering the utterances

of the accused against his person. Clearly, the utterances which are blatant
accusations and a brazen lie were made with intention to cause injury to the person
of the private complainant.

EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENSE

Agripina Robles who testified on March 12 and May 14, 2012 denied her
presence on the ricefield of Josefina Bacud on March 7, 2007. She testified that on
March 7, 2007, she went to school to sell and arrived thereat at 8:30 in the morning
and left at 12:00 noon for home where she reached home at 12:15 P.M. She further
testified that thereafter she washed clothes, watched tv, cooked and feed the pig
and never went out of the house.

2
 She emphasized that it was on March 6, 2007 that she went to the farm and
had conversation with Juliana Pascual. That in said conversation, Juliana complained
that he was not giving their shares in the land so accused told Juliana, just like awhile
ago, Orlando Pigao cut the trees at the back of our house without permission.
Moreover, accused could not possibly utter the utterances complained of because
she is afraid of Orlando. Accused mentioned about the threatening remarks of Alden,
son of complainant. However, she did not file a case against the son of complainant
because the latter already filed the instant case against her.

Accused even testified that there was no settlement made on the

disagreement she had with the private complainant regarding the cutting of trees.
She likewise claimed ownership over the trees as the trees are nearer to her house. To
bolster her claim, accused testified that sometime April, private complainant uprooted
the monument. Accused’s husband was alleged to be afraid to private complainant
so is one Kagawad Duque to whom the report was made.

Perlita Galera testified on September 10, 2012. She corroborated in material

points the testimony of the accused pertaining to the date of their presence in the
ricefield as well as the incident as per version of the accused. Likewise as to the fact
that she saw accused passed by her house going to school to sell. Witness was
emphatic about her refusal to testify as she would not like to be involved in the issue.
However, when asked if accused asked her to execute the affidavit in favor of the
latter she had difficulty in answering the same. In fact she admitted having been
closed to the accused as she usually hires her as a farm worker. And when asked if her
being hired by accused could be the reason why she testified in favor of the accused,
she was unable to give an answer. She claimed that she testified only to tell the truth
yet it’s only now that she is telling the truth after the lapsed of many years from the
time of the incident.

DISCUSSION

We submit that the Honorable Court has the sole authority to determine who
between the parties is telling the truth or more credible to the utmost impartial
judgment of the Honorable Court.

Undersigned in the quest for justice hereunto accentuates important details

why the version of the private complainant deserves more credence.

3
 Accused argued that she could never commit the felony as charged in the
criminal complaint for she is afraid of the private complainant. It is rather suspicious
how she can claim such when the truth and in fact, she never presented any evidence
why she should be afraid of the private complainant. She desperately claimed that
she was unable file a case against Alden for the threatening remarks the latter utter
against her as the private complainant already filed the instant case against her. The
thing is, Alden is a separate and distinct fellow that of his father, the private
complainant in the foregoing case. The filing of the instant case could not bar
accused right to file the appropriate case against Alden if there was indeed an
incident that transpired.

Accused further claimed that it was on March 6, 2007 that the removal of
weeds as well as her conversation with Juliana took place in the ricefield of Josefina
Bacud. This is a frail excuse to escape liability. There is no patent evidence showing
that the ricefield of Josefina Bacud is not accessible to the accused that it could be
impossible for her to be present thereat on March 7, 2007. Hence her bare allegation
and the frailty of the biased corroborative testimony of witness Perlita Galera could
not hold water to impugn accused for having committed the felony as charged.
Clearly, Perlita Galera is a biased witness as can be gleaned in the evidence of the
defense itself including the cross-examination and the clarificatory questions
propounded by the Honorable Court.

To stress the conversation of accused with Juliana, the trend of the conversation
has been directed to the alleged reputation of the private complainant. Logically,
accused could have maliciously imputed accusations to the person of the private
complainant and could not have expected Juliana to inform her brother considering
that Juliana seem to harbor ill feelings against her brother because of not giving their
share over the land.

Granting without necessarily admitting that the land where the trees allegedly
cut and taken by the private complainant is owned by the accused, and even if it
was true that the private complainant took the trees or there’s truth in it, she cannot
escape liability as the utterances were made maliciously purposely to cause damage
to the private complainant.

In the case of BONIFACIO L. CAÑAL, SR., petitioner versus People of

the Philippines, respondent G.R. No. 163181 promulgated October 19,
2005, it was held that-

4
 xxx

“It must be remembered 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

Accused in saying that Orlando is a thief is defamation against his character

and reputation sufficient to cause him mortification and social disgrace making
accused liable for the felony as charged as well as for damages.

FROM THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully prayed for that accused be declared

GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for having committed the felony of Grave Oral
Defamation.

Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

Tuguegarao City for Baggao, Cagayan

26 November 2012

FLODEVYNN G. DAQUIOAG-RAMOS
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor