Page 1 of 11

Republic of the Philippines

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

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Complainant,

v. NPS Docket No. __________

FOR: SLANDER
PLT JULIET QUINAGORAN
Respondent.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Complainant,

v. NPS Docket No. __________

FOR: ARBITRARY DETENTION
PLT JULIET QUINAGORAN
PSSG ARNEL B. TALOSIG,
PCPL ROMARICO R. NARAG JR.,
and PSSG MARK ANTHONY M. BACCAY
Respondent.

COMPLAINT 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:

PARTIES

Complainant:

(1) The undersigned affiant is a public school teacher, the daughter of

Sps. Justo Quinagoran and Leona Saquing Quinagoran;

Respondent/s:

(2) PLT JULIET QUINAGORAN, is the younger sister of the undersigned

affiant. She is a resident of Camasi, Peñablanca, Cagayan, Philippines
where she may be served with court processes;

(3) PSSG ARNEL B. TALOSIG, PCPL ROMARICO R. NARAG JR., AND

PSSG MARK ANTHONY M. BACCAY, the arresting officers, assigned at
 Page 2 of 11

Peñablanca Police Station where they may be served with court

processes;

Prefatory Statement

“When a person becomes a victim to the throes of another person's anger,

hurtful words become a powerful weapon that pierces through the soul
and can scar them for life.”

Preliminary Statement

The complainant reserves the right to file the necessary civil action
against the respondent/s to seek retributive justice.

RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND

(4) I am the second child of Sps. Justo Quinagoran (deceased) and

Leona Saquing Quinagoran to which I am the lawful owner of the
property subject of herein altercation (A copy of the Birth Certificate is
hereto attached as Annex “A” and made integral part hereof);

(5) On 25 August 2019 at around 10:30 in the morning, I went to the

house of my sister, Juliet Quinagoran to pay a visit, and also to talk with
them regarding the Affidavit of Adverse Claim that my five (5) siblings,
including the latter, instituted against my property;

(6) As I entered, 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;

(7) 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;

(8) We initially had a small chit-chat and a peaceful conversation.

However, when I opened up the matter regarding the authenticity of her
signature in our Deed of Absolute Sale, her mood changed and
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;

(9) The Supreme Court made it clear that:

“Every person dealing with registered land may safely rely on the
correctness of the certificate of title issued therefor and the law
 Page 3 of 11

will in no way oblige him to go behind the certificate to determine

the condition of the property.”1

(10) Our conversation went on regarding who has a better right to the
property in question;

(11) After our conversation, I went outside the house to entertain our
neighbor who came by to invite us for lunch. Thereafter, I went back
inside, and rested in the rocking chair when surprisingly, Juliet
Quinagoran came out from her room and aggressively shouted at me:

“FUKINENAM! MANAW KA TAW! NANGGUGULO KA!

AWAN TU PASIRAMMU!”

(12) Without any sign of remorse, she simultaneously threw pillows

and a comb at me, hitting my right shoulder during the altercation;

(13) The Supreme Court in the long line of cases decided that,

“Whenever an act has been committed which inflicts upon a person

less serious physical injuries with the manifest intent to insult
or offend him or under circumstances adding to the offense, the
offender should be prosecuted under that article and, if convicted,
should be sentenced to the penalty therein prescribed.”2

(14) I vehemently told her to calm down. I explained to her, 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;

(15) Also, I want an explanation why she blocked me on social media

(Messenger app) where I sent 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 “B” and made
integral part hereof);

(16) Distressed with her offensive and disrespectful acts, I uttered:

“ATTORNEY KA.KENGA EGGA OBLICON MU,

Y ADVERSE MU YO NAKA-DEED OF SALE?”;

(17) 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 Hospicio D. Rosaroso, et. al v. Lucila Laborte Soria, et. al, G.R. No. 194846 (2013)
2 People of the Philippines, v. Miguel Lasala, G.R. No. L-12141 (1962)
 Page 4 of 11

(18) What must be emphasized was the rule that in determining

whether a statement is defamatory, the words used are construed in
their entirety and taken their plain, natural and ordinary meaning
as they would naturally be understood by person hearing or reading
them.3

(19) I responded,

“WOW, NGATTA ANNI Y AMMUM?”

(20) I hastily left their house and closed the gate. Thereafter, I was
informed that the closing of the gate resulted in the bumping of the rear
tail light of their Honda City vehicle, which was imputed against me;

(21) Not long after, the Police Patrol of Camasi, Peñablanca arrived at
our house together with Juliet Quinagoran. They invited me to the
Peñablanca Police Station to get my statement regarding the complaint
filed against me by the latter. At that instance, Juliet Quinagoran told to
the police officers:

“SIGE KUNIN NIYO SIYA AT POSASAN NIYO NA YAN.”

(22) Due to my honest belief that they will only get my statement
regarding the incident, I acceded to their invitation without
hesitations.

(23) As we reached the police station, the interrogating police officer

Gervacio Cornel asked me to explain about what happened;

(24) The police officer tried to resolve the case and to arrive at an
amicable settlement. Being adamant to the plea of the officer, Juliet
Quinagoran objected and told them instead to file directly a case of
Slander and Malicious Mischief at the Prosecutor’s Office, and told the
police officers:

“I-FILE NU YATUN! I-FILE NU YATUN. I-DETAIN NU YAYYA.”

(25) Gervacio Cornel informed Juliet Quinagoran that they will only be
able to file it on 27 August 2019 (Tuesday) since the incident happened
on 25 August 2019 (Sunday) and the following day, 26 August 2019,
was a holiday;

(26) The police officer repeated his aforementioned statement since

Juliet Quinagoran insisted on her demands, saying:

3 G.R. No. 141332. December 11, 2003 Novicio vs. Aggabao

 Page 5 of 11

“ANG TAGAL MO NG IMBESTIGADOR, HANGGANG NGAYON ‘DI MO

PA ALAM ANG GINAGAWA MO? HINDI MAAARI! I-FILE MO YAN
NGAYON!”

(27) Moreover, she further informed the police officer that at the
Philippine National Police – RO2, such complaint can be filed at any day
and any time;

(28) The police officer then informed Juliet Quinagoran that her
presence is needed upon the filing of the said complaint, but the latter
told him that they can do so even without her;

(29) While waiting for the Police Report, I asked them if I can go home
to have my lunch since it’s already quarter to 2:00 P.M. However, they told
me:

“ARI PWEDE MA’AM. ORDER NI MA’AM JULIET.”

(30) After the accomplishment of the Police Report, I was surprised

that they brought me immediately to the Prosecutor’s office
notwithstanding the fact that it was Sunday, hence there’s no office hours.

(31) In so doing, we fetched the Secretary of the Prosecutor’s Office in

order to file the complaint. I came to know that the Prosecutor is also on
her way to the Office. Again, it was a SUNDAY.

(32) Upon arrival, the Prosecutor explained the repercussion of signing

the waiver to which I assented. They let me sign a waiver stating that
they are to detain me until such time that I will post bail;

CRIMES COMMITTED

I. SLANDER

Article 358 of the Revised Penal

Code falls squarely with that of
the respondent’s actuation.

(33) Oral defamation or slander is defined as "the speaking of base

and defamatory words [that] tend to prejudice another in his reputation,
office, trade, business or means of livelihood. 4

I.A. To be charged of the crime of oral defamation or slander, the

following must concur:

4 Victoria v. Court of Appeals, 255 Phil. 630 (1989)

 Page 6 of 11

(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;
and
(6) which tends to cause dishonor, discredit or contempt of the
person defamed. 5

(34) Herein respondent, Juliet Quinagoran, shouted in Ybanag the

following to quote:

“FUKINENAM! MANAW KA TAW! NANGGUGULO KA!

AWAN TU PASIRAMMU!”

(35) Adding more fuel to the flame, she shouted:

“BAKIT NUNG IKINASAL KAYO NI EDDIE AY VIRGIN KA? IPA-

CANCEL MU NGANA WITH YOUR OWN EXPENSE! ANIMAL KA!”

(36) An ordinary person of reasonable mind would construe the words,

“Fukinenam,” “Awan tu Pasirammu,” and “Bakit nung ikinasal kayo ni
Eddie ay virgin ka?” as something derogatory and cannot be taken in any
other sense. The same must be understood in its plain, natural and
ordinary meaning by the person hearing or reading them. 6

(37) The chain of circumstances will lead to a reasonable conclusion

that the respondent made a discreditable act or condition against the
complainant. Moreover, this verbal altercation was done at its height, that
other people in their neighborhood can hear the same.

(38) It bears stressing that a person, in the name of PCapt Juliferr B.

Narag, the husband of respondent, witnessed the incident and heard all the
imputations hurled against the complainant. (Copy of his Complaint
Affidavit is hereto attached as “Annex C” and made integral part hereof);

(39) Moreover, a charge is sufficient if the words are calculated to

induce the hearers to suppose and understand that the person or persons
against whom they were uttered were guilty of certain offenses or are
sufficient to impeach the honesty, virtue or reputation or to hold the
person or persons up to public ridicule.7

5 De Leon v. People, GR 212623 (2016)

6 Manila Bulletin Publishing Corporation and Ruther Batuigas v. Victor A. Domingo and The People
Of The Philippines, Gr 170341 (2017)
7 Manila Bulletin Publishing Corporation and Ruther Batuigas v. Victor A. Domingo and The People
Of The Philippines, Gr 170341 (2017)
 Page 7 of 11

Oral defamation may either be simple or grave. It becomes grave when it

is of a serious and insulting nature.

I.B. The complainant is a public school teacher

whose rights are protected by law.

(40) Herein complainant, being a public school teacher is being looked

upon by the community and needs to maintain integrity free of any
malicious and unwarranted attributions. (Copy of the complainant’s PRC ID
is hereto attached as “Annex D” and made integral part hereof);

(41) Categorically, the Code of Ethics for Professional Teachers states:

“Article XI: The Teacher as a Person.

Section 1. A teacher is, above all, a human being endowed

with life for which it is the highest obligation to live with
dignity at all times whether in school, in the home, or
elsewhere.”8

(42) In this light, it is of notable reiteration that the law recognizes the
value of such reputation and imposes upon him who attacks it, by
slanderous words, the liability to make full compensation for the
damages done.

The presumption of malice stands.

(43) We humbly but strongly assert that the statements were

purposely made by the respondent to malign the character of herein
complainant;

(44) Based from the foregoing, the acts of the respondent were
sufficient to establish the commission of the crime of Slander.

II. ARBITRARY DETENTION

Article 124 of the Revised Penal

Code falls squarely with that of
the respondents’ actuation.

II. A.
The act of detaining a person
without reasonable ground
constitutes Arbitrary Detention.

8 Code of Ethics for Professional Teachers

 Page 8 of 11

(45) Republic Act No. 7438, Section 2, Paragraph e, states that, “Any
waiver by a person arrested or detained under the provisions of Article 125
of the Revised Penal Code, or under custodial investigation, shall be in
writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel;
otherwise the waiver shall be null and void and of no effect.”9 (Copy of
the Request for Preliminary Investigation with Waiver of Article 125 of the
Revised Penal Code is hereto attached as “Annex E” and made integral part
hereof);

(46) Undisputedly, the herein complainant was merely INVITED with

an honest belief that she was only to rebut the allegations in the
complaint filed against her as evidenced by the Affidavit of Arrest
executed by PCPL Romarico R. Narag Jr., And PSSg Mark Anthony M.
Baccay. (Copy of the Affidavit of Arrest is hereto attached as “Annex F” and
made integral part hereof);

(47) However, when she acceded to that request, the course of events
turned differently. At that very moment, she was arrested and was
subsequently detained;

(48) According to the complainant, she was not appraised of her

constitutional rights under the Miranda Doctrine which is a condition
sine qua non in arresting a person. This bolsters the fact that the purpose
in bringing her to the Police Station was merely for INVITATION and
NOT for the purpose of delivering her to the proper judicial authority;

(49) To emphasize, the said Miranda rights are guaranteed, to preclude

the slightest use of coercion by the State as would lead the accused to
admit something false, not to prevent him from freely and voluntarily
telling the truth.10 However, such rights will only be appraised to those
who were ARRESTED and not when a person is simply INVITED to give
her statement regarding the complaint filed against her;

(50) The acts of the police officers in heeding to the demands of Juliet
Quinagoran, and letting the complainant sign a waiver without the
assistance of her counsel constitutes a violation of the aforementioned
provision of the law. The consequence of such act led to her detention
for two (2) consecutive nights. This caused the complainant’s distress,
mental anguish and sleepless nights;

(51) The Constitution guarantees every person the right of enjoyment

of a private reputation as to possession of life, liberty or property. The law
recognizes the value of such reputation and imposes upon him who

9 Republic Act No. 7438, entitled, “An Act Defining Certain Rights of Person Arrested, Detained or
under Custodial Investigation as well as the Duties of the Arresting, Detaining and Investigating
Officers, and Providing Penalties for Violations Thereof.”
10 People of the Philippines v. Rosauro, GR 221424 (2017)
 Page 9 of 11

attacks it, by slanderous words, the liability to make full compensation for
the damages done. 11

(52) Arbitrary Detention is committed by any public officer or

employee who, without legal grounds, detains a person. The elements of
the crime are:

1. That the offender is a public officer or employee;

2. That he detains a person; and
3. That the detention is without legal grounds.12

(53) Hence, the aforementioned acts of the police officers in detaining

the complainant for two (2) nights, knowing fully well that it is contrary
to law, falls within the ambit of Arbitrary Detention.

II.B.
Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code
falls squarely with that of Juliet
Quinagoran’s actuation
as a principal by inducement.

(54) Any person may become a principal by inducement when:

a. by directly forcing another to commit a crime; and

b. by directly inducing another to commit a crime.13

(55) The following inducing and forceful words were uttered by Juliet
Quinagoran preceding her arrest:

“SIGE KUNIN NIYO SIYA AT POSASAN NIYO NA YAN.”

(56) Sensing her evil intent, she deliberately said to the investigating
officer:

ANG TAGAL MO NG IMBESTIGADOR, HANGGANG NGAYON ‘DI MO

PA ALAM ANG GINAGAWA MO? HINDI MAAARI! I-FILE MO YAN
NGAYON!”

(57) To constitute inducement, there must exist on the part of the

inducer the most positive resolution and the most persistent effort
to secure the commission of the crime, together with the presentation to
the person induced of the very strongest kind of temptation to commit
the crime. 14

11 Worcester vs. Ocampo, G.R. No. L-5932 (1912)

12 Astorga vs People, GR 154130 (2003)
13 Article 17, Revised Penal Code
14 U.S. vs. Indanan, 24 Phil 203; People vs Kiichi Omine, 61 Phil 609
 Page 10 of 11

(58) Juliet Quinagoran, who is a Police Lieutenant Officer and a law

graduate is expected to be knowledgeable of the procedure observed in
arresting a person. Despite the fact that she is claiming to be the
aggrieved party in a case, she must not resort to her rank and/or
authority to impose unjustified orders upon his subordinates to detain a
person without reasonable ground.

(59) Undeniably, the police officers remained submissive to her

demands regarding the custody of herein complainant as shown, when
the latter asked from the officers if she can go home for the meantime to
take her meal:

“ARI PWEDE. ORDER NI MA’AM JULIET.”

(60) There are two (2) ways of inducing another to commit a crime:

a. by giving price or offering a reward or promise; and

b. by using words of command.

(61) Indubitably, PLt Juliet Quinagoran, by using and usurping her rank
and/or authority, maliciously directed orders to induce her subordinates
to detain the complainant. Her direct, efficacious and powerful words of
command were the following:

“SIGE KUNIN NIYO SIYA AT POSASAN NIYO NA YAN.”

“I-FILE NU YATUN! I-FILE NU YATUN. I-DETAIN NU

YAYYA.”

“ANG TAGAL MO NG IMBESTIGADOR, HANGGANG NGAYON ‘DI

MO PA ALAM ANG GINAGAWA MO? HINDI MAAARI! I-FILE MO
YAN NGAYON!”

“ARI PWEDE. ORDER NI MA’AM JULIET.”

(62) Clearly, the one who made the command, PLT Quinagoran, has an
ascendancy or influence over the persons of PSSG ARNEL B. TALOSIG,
PCPL ROMARICO R. NARAG JR., and PSSG MARK ANTHONY M.
BACCAY, who happened to be her subordinates as fellow police officers.

(63) Verily then, both the person who used the words of command and
the person who committed the crime, because of the words of command,
are equally liable. 15 To point out, were it not for her command, the crime
of Arbitrary Detention would not have been committed.

Therefore, in such case, there is a collective criminal responsibility.

15 US vs Gamao, 23 Phil 81
 Page 11 of 11

(64) The undersigned affiant is executing the foregoing instrument to

attest the foregoing facts and circumstances and to support the filing of
complaints for Violation of Article 358 for the crime of Slander against
PLt Juliet Quinagoran of Camasi, Peñablanca, Cagayan and Article 124
for Arbitrary Detention against PSSg Arnel B. Talosig, PCPL
Romarico R. Narag Jr., and PSSg Mark Anthony M. Baccay of
Peñablanca Police Station and PLt Juliet Quinagoran as principal by
inducement.

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 August 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.