REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
PARANAQUE CITY

ROBERTO E. VILLAVIEJA,
Complainant,

- versus - I.S. No. __________________

For: Light Threats, Unjust Vexation
and Slight Oral Defamation

CARLITO BUMAGAT,
Respondent.

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT

I, ROBERTO E. VILLAVIEJA, of legal age, married, Filipino, and

with postal address at No. 23 Sta. Elena St., San Antonio Valley 9,
Sucat, Paranaque City, after having been duly sworn in accordance
with law, hereby depose and state that:

1. Respondent CARLITO BUMAGAT is of legal age, Filipino,

and a resident of No. 28 Sta. Elena St., San Antonio Valley 9, Sucat,
Paranaque City, where he may be served with summons, notices and
other processes of this Honorable Office.

2. Respondent is our neighbor. His house is located across

the street from our house, and is right beside another property that
we own (No. 30 Sta. Elena St., San Antonio Valley 9, Sucat,
Paranaque City). He lives with his old mother, whom he usually
leaves and locks inside their house with no other companion.

3. Respondent has gained a notorious reputation in our

neighborhood for his bad temper and difficult personality. He would
often get involved in disputes with his neighbors and those merely
passing by or visiting the area.
 2

4. In 1992, sometime after he arrived back from Saudi

Arabia where he worked as an Overseas Filipino Worker, respondent
started harassing me and my family. He poisoned and killed the
chickens that we took care of in our backyard. This went on until
around the year 2000.

5. He later on caused the closure of our water re-filling

station, which was located in our property right beside his house.
He complained about our business every day at the Paranaque City
Hall, claiming that it was too noisy, until he finally got it closed
down. The closure of the said business greatly affected our finances
at that time.

6. Not satisfied with the tremendous stress that his

previous acts have caused us, respondent assaulted our pet dog
while it was urinating in front of his house last 2017. He hit our dog
hard with a broom. When I called him out for doing such deplorable
act, he likewise assaulted me, thereby inflicting upon me some
physical injuries.1 I lodged two (2) separate complaints against the
respondent with the Barangay as a result of this incident. 2 However,
we decided to forgive him and desist from the complaints after he
begged for our forgiveness.3

7. Despite all the acts done by respondent to harass us, we

still tried to act amicably and be civil with him. We extended our
utmost understanding and even assisted him in times when he
needed help. In fact, last 30 January 2019, I defended him from some
male teenagers, who tried to beat him up. Respondent apparently
got into a heated argument with the teenagers after seizing the
mangoes that the teenagers picked from our other neighbor’s tree. I
went after the teenagers and caused their arrest.

8. Barely two (2) months after the said incident, and

without an ounce of gratitude for having rescued him from being
mauled, respondent had the gall to slanderously lash out at me and
threaten me with a bolo.

1
A copy of the demand letter dated 13 February 2017 with attached medico-legal certificate is
attached as Annex “A”.
2
Copies of the Barangay Complaints dated 8 February 2017 are attached as Annexes “B” to “B-
1”.
3
Copies of the minutes of the 24 February 2017 hearing, during which the parties agreed to
settle, are attached as Annexes “C” to “C-1”.
 3

9. Around 8:00 A.M on 11 March 2019, I had a welder work

on a gate to be used for one of my projects. The welder initially
worked in front of our house. Since it was getting pretty hot come
9:00 A.M., I told the welder to transfer in front of our other property
across the street to get some shade. After about 10 minutes,
respondent went out of his house and berated the welder. He
demanded the welder to leave because what the latter was doing was
allegedly noisy.

10. Upon hearing respondent shouting outside, I explained

to him that I asked the welder to transfer to the side of our other
property because it was too hot for him to work directly under the
sun. Instead of trying to understand the situation, respondent
sarcastically retorted that I should just put up a tent or let the
welder work inside our house.

11. I went outside and approached respondent, hoping to

know what exactly his concerns are and to better explain my side.
Instead of engaging in a cordial discussion, however, respondent
went inside his house to get a bolo. He then approached me, with
the bolo in his hand, and started taunting me. He kept on shouting,
“Putangina nyo! Mga perwisyo kayo! Umalis na kayo dito.”

12. It was around this time that my wife, Lorie Asuncion

Villavieja, went outside to see what was happening. My wife took out
her cellphone and started taking pictures of respondent while he
was holding the bolo.4 Upon noticing that he was being caught on
camera, respondent hurriedly turned his back on us and went inside
his house. Aside from the photos taken by my wife, the whole
incident was likewise caught by our CCTV camera.5

13. Respondent’s act of bringing out a bolo in the middle of

our heated argument was the last straw in the long line of
debaucheries that respondent has committed against me and my
family. On the very same day, I lodged a complaint against the
respondent before the Barangay. 6 In view of our failure to amicably
settle the dispute,7 a Certificate to File Action was issued on 22
March 2019.8

4
A photo of respondent wielding a bolo is attached as Annex “D”.
5
A copy of the CCTV footage of the incident is included herewith as Annex “E”.
6
Copies of the Barangay Complaint and Patawag are attached as Annexes “F” to “F-1”.
7
Copies of the minutes of the Barangay hearings are attached as Annexes “G” to “G-1”.
8
A copy of the Certificate to File Action is attached as Annex “H”.
 4

DISCUSSION

Respondent committed the

crime of Other Light Threats.

14. Article 285 of the Revised Penal Code (“RPC”), as

amended by Section 71 of Republic Act No. 10951 (“RA 10951”) states:

ART. 285. Other light threats. - The penalty

of arresto menor in its minimum period or a
fine not exceeding Forty thousand pesos
(P40,000) shall be imposed upon:

1. Any person who. without being included in

the provisions of the next preceding article,
shall threaten another with a weapon, or
draw such weapon in a quarrel, unless it be
in lawful self-defense.

xxx

15. In this case, respondent brought out a bolo in order to

threaten me in the middle of our heated argument. Upon seeing the
bolo, I feared for my life because, based on my previous experience
with him, I knew respondent was capable of inflicting physical
injuries on others. At that moment, I thought the respondent was
going to kill me.

16. Respondent’s act of taking out a bolo cannot be

considered as self-defense since it is clear from the CCTV footage
that I never performed any act or carried any weapon that would
constrain him to employ self-defense. It was, in fact, respondent
who started the altercation and kept on provoking me. The video
would show that I was merely arguing with respondent when he
suddenly went inside his house and brought out a bolo.

17. Respondent should thus be held liable for the crime of

Other Light Threats.

Respondent committed the

crime of Unjust Vexation.
 5

18. Unjust vexation is punished under paragraph 2 of

Article 287 of the RPC, as amended by Section 73 of RA 10951, which
states:

ART. 287. Light coercions. – x x x

Any other coercions or unjust vexations shall be

punished by arresto menor or a fine ranging
from One thousand pesos (P1,000) to not more
than Forty thousand pesos (P40,000) or both.

19. Our penal laws do not provide a specific definition of

“unjust vexation”. However, the Supreme Court has consistently held
that the crime of unjust vexation is broad enough to include any
human conduct which, although not productive of some physical or
material harm, could unjustifiably annoy or vex an innocent
person.9

20. Here, while respondent’s act of taking out a bolo during

our altercation did not cause me physical harm, it was more than
enough to unjustifiably torment and distress me. To reiterate, I
never performed any act that could justify respondent’s move to
wield a bolo, and yet respondent chose to do so, thereby causing me
great anxiety. Respondent’s act caused me to fear not just for my
safety but for the safety of my family, as well. I could not sleep and
eat properly for a few days, as I kept on replaying the incident in my
head, all the while thinking of what respondent could have done
with the bolo.

21. It is thus clear that respondent committed the crime of

Unjust Vexation.

Respondent committed the

crime of Slight Oral Defamation.

22. Respondent should also be held liable for Slight Oral

Defamation under Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by Section 94 of RA 10951, which reads:

9
Baleros, Jr. v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 138033, 30 January 2007.
 6

ART. 358. Slander. - Oral defamation shall be

punished by arresto mayor in its maximum
period to prision correccional in its minimum
period if it is of a serious and insulting nature;
otherwise the penalty shall be arresto menor or
a fine not exceeding Twenty thousand pesos
(P20,000).

23. Oral Defamation or Slander is the speaking of base and

defamatory words which tend to prejudice another in his
reputation, office, trade, business or means of livelihood. 10 Oral
defamation may either be simple/slight or grave. In either case, the
elements 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 person, or one who is dead; (6)
which tends to cause dishonour, discredit or contempt of the person
defamed.

24. All the said elements are present in this case.

Respondent repeatedly shouted “perwisyo” and “putangina nyo” at
me while we were out in the street and seen by my welder, wife,
some of our neighbors and passers by. Uttering these without any
provocation on my part undoubtedly indicates respondent’s
malicious intention to debase and malign my reputation in our
neighborhood.

25. When respondent created a scene and hurled

disparaging and angry words at me, he conveyed the message to the
onlookers that me and my family are nothing but a nuisance in our
community. This is certainly very demeaning considering that we
have established a good reputation therein.

26. This case is within the jurisdiction of this Honorable

Office because the crimes charged were all committed by
respondent within Paranaque City.

27. I am executing this Complaint-Affidavit to attest to the

truth of all the foregoing allegations, and to charge CARLITO
BUMAGAT with the crimes of Light Threats, Unjust Vexation,
Slight Oral Defamation, or any other appropriate offense
punishable by law.
10
Villanueva v. People, G.R. No. 160351, 10 April 2006.
 7

AFFIANT STATES NOTHING FURTHER.

ROBERTO E. VILLAVIEJA
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ______ day of

______2019 in Paranaque City. I hereby certify that I have personally
examined the affiant and I am satisfied that he understood and
voluntarily executed this Complaint-Affidavit.

INVESTIGATING PROSECUTOR