REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

IN THE CITY OF MANILA)

SS.
X---------------------X

COUNTER- AFFIDAVIT

I, WHIS, Filipino, of legal age and a resident of Barangay Lot 7, Dragon Balls Kame Lands,
Bantay Ilocos Sur, after having been sworn in accordance with law, upon my oath do hereby state:

1. That I may be served with copies of the subpoenas, orders, resolutions and other processes
of this Honorable Office at the following address Barangay Lot 7, Dragon Balls Kame Lands,
Bantay Ilocos Sur;

2. That I do not personally know the COMPLAINANT Bulma Brief who is of legal age,
Filipino, single and a resident of Lot #1 Capsule Land Residences, Sta. Mesa, Manila;

3. That I am the same WHIS who is the respondent in the case now pending before this
Honorable Office;

That Complainant Bulma Brief in her Complaint received by the City Prosecutor last
September 30, 2009, accused me of committing (1) violations of the provisions of RA 10175
or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012; (2) Grave Threats; (3) other crimes punishable by
the RPC and other Statutes for reposting, commenting, and sharing a Facebook post authored
by someone else.

i. On September 28, 2007, Chi-Chi II (a.k.a. Chi-Chi) posted two (2)

narratives, attached therewith are pictures of Yamcha and Bulma Brief in her
Facebook account.
ii. On September 29, 2007, Chi-Chi posted the third narrative that included a
picture of Bulma Brief’s sister.
iii. On September 30, 2007, I commented on the said posts stating my view and
opinion on the narratives of Chi-Chi. I likewise reposted and shared the posts
of Chi-Chi.
iv. On September 30, 2009, or two years after I reacted to the posts of Chi-Chi,
Bulma Brief filed a complaint against me accusing me of committing (1)
violations of the provisions of RA 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act
of 2012; (2) Grave Threats; (3) other crimes punishable by the RPC and
other Statutes.

4. That to my understanding and as explained to me by my legal counsel in the absence of

express legislation, someone who repost, comment, or share a malicious or openly libelous
post cannot be made liable for the crime of cyber libel. Further the laws on libel, under the
Revised Penal Code, from which the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 refers to, punish
only the author of the post, or editor in cases of magazines, newspapers, books or serialized
publications.

I am not the author of the post containing narratives and photos of Yamcha, Bulma Brief and
her sister. I merely reacted to these posts by reposting, commenting, and sharing. Besides my
comments are not addressed to Yamcha, Bulma Brief and her sister.

5. Moreover, Article 90 of the RPC, “the crime of libel and other similar offenses shall
prescribe in one year.”

The post of Chi-Chi was published on September 28-29, 2007 and I reposted, commented,
and shared these posts on September 30, 2007. All these engagements happened beyond a
year ago, which is past the prescriptive period.

6. Likewise the crime of grave threat is punishable under Article 282 of the Revised Penal
Code (RPC). It is stated therein that any person who shall threaten another with the infliction
upon the person, honor, or property of the latter or of his family or any wrong amounting to a
crime. The threat is considered to be grave if the offender shall have made the threat
demanding money or imposing any other condition, even though not unlawful, and that said
offender shall have attained his purpose. The crime shall likewise be grave threat even if the
threat of infliction of harm upon a person, his honor or property was not made subject to a
condition.
 The Complainant Bulma Brief alleged that she was threatened by my comments as seen in the
unauthenticated screenshots of the comment thread she submitted. In the contrary, there is no
showing that the threatening comment is addressed to the Complainant Bulma Brief.

7. My counsel furthermore explained that laws should have no retroactive effect. Exemption
to this rule is provided in Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), which provides that
penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they are beneficial to the accused.

At the time of reposting, commenting and sharing of the post of Chi-Chi II, the RA 10175 or
the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 haven’t been passed. Therefore it cannot aggravate a
crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in when it was committed.

This Counter Affidavit is being executed to attest to the truth of all the foregoing facts and
events and to disclaim all the accusations against me.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature on this 5th day of October, 2009 at
City of Manila.

WHIS (sgd.)
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 5th day of October, 2009 at City of Manila.

I hereby CERTIFY that I have personally examined the affiant and that I am satisfied that he has
voluntarily executed and understood his Counter‐Affidavit.

Abcdee (sgd.)
counsel

Ef G (sgd.)
Asst. Prov. Prosecutor