Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice
National Prosecution Office
OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR
Province of Cagayan
Tuguegarao City, Cagayan

NIKKO P. LAGUNDI, ET AL,

Complainant, II-02-INV-23K-00391

-versus- For:

ALBERT DIMAYA, ESTAFA

Respondent.
X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X

REPLY-AFFIDAVIT

WE, NIKKO P. LAGUNDI, RICO P. LAGUNDI, and EIZEL

KARINA P. LAGUNDI, of legal age, Filipino Citizens, and residents of
San Jose, Baggao, Cagayan, after having been duly sworn to in accordance
with law, do hereby depose and say THAT:

PREFATORY STATEMENT:

“Probable cause is a reasonable ground of presumption that a

matter is, or may be, well-founded, such a state of facts in the mind of the
prosecutor as would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to
believe, or entertain an honest or strong suspicion, that a thing is so x xx;
While probable cause demands more than bare suspicion, it requires less
than evidence which would justify conviction.”1 (underscoring supplied)
In a preliminary investigation, a full and exhaustive presentation of
the parties' evidence is not required, but only such as may engender a
well-grounded belief that an offense has been committed and that the
accused is probably guilty thereof. Certainly, it does not involve the
determination of whether or not there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt
pointing to the guilt of the person. Only prima facie evidence is required;
or that which is, on its face, good and sufficient to establish a given fact,
or the group or chain of facts constituting the party's claim or defense;
and which, if not rebutted or contradicted, will remain sufficient.
Therefore, matters of evidence are more appropriately presented and
heard during the trial2. – (underscoring supplied)

In fine, the validity and merits of a party's defense or accusation, as

well as admissibility of testimonies and evidence, are better ventilated

1
R.R. Paredes versus Calilung, 517 SCRA 369
2
Antonio Tan et al versus Amelito Ballena, et al, G.R. NO. 168111 : July 4, 2008 citing People v. Court of
Appeals, People v. Court of Appeals, 361 Phil. 492, 498 (1999), citing Ledesma v. Court of Appeals, 344
Phil. 207, 226 (1997); Wa-acon v. People, G.R. No. 164575, 6 December 2006, 510 SCRA 429, 439.
Page 1 of 4
during trial proper than at the preliminary investigation level 3. –
(underscoring supplied)

AVERMENTS TO SUPPORT THE FOREGOING

REPLY-AFFIDAVIT:

1. We received a copy of the Counter-Affidavit filed by the herein

respondent in the above-captioned case;

2. We vehemently and categorically DENY the allegations contained in the

Counter-Affidavit of the above-named respondent for being false,
baseless and unfounded, while the truth of the matter is hereunder stated,
thus:

a. A careful perusal of the averments of the respondent as contained in

his Counter-Affidavit would readily reveal that he did not make a
categorical denial of our allegation that he received an amount from
our father and that the same respondent is harping that his liability is
only civil in nature4;

b. Worthy of note is the fact that herein respondent received in person

the amount of One Million Seven Hundred Thirty One Thousand and
Sixty Two (Php1,731,062.00) Pesos from our late father as evidenced
by his signature in the notebook5 then maintained by our father during
his lifetime, particularly on January 22, 2020;

i. As a matter of fact, we, Nikko P. Lagundi and Rico P.

Lagundi were present during that time;

ii. Worthy of note that during that time, respondent

expressly assured our father that upon harvesting his
corn, the former shall deliver his corn to our father as
payment;

c. Showing the fraudulent, deceptive and deceitful instinct of the

respondent, though he was able to harvest his corn during that
cropping season immediately succeeding his receipt of the above-
mentioned amount from our father, the respondent delivered it to
another trader;

d. To note, demands were made to the respondent to make good his

promise to our deceased father but to no avail without any valid
justification; it could only be concluded that the refusal of the herein
respondent to make good his obligation is a further pursuance of his
intention to defraud and to deceive;

3
Leonardo M. Andres, et al versus Justice Secretary Serafin Cuevas, G.R. NO. 150869 : June 9, 2005, citing
Drilon v. Court of Appeals, 258 SCRA 280, 286 (1996)
4 th
7 paragraph of the Counter-Affidavit, Expediente
5
Please see Annex “D” of the Affidavit-Complaint, Expediente
Page 2 of 4
3. If only to make a clearer picture of the incident, we would like to state
the nature of the business of our late father, which we thereafter
continued up to this time:

a. The business of our late father, which we continued after his death, is
grains trading, coupled by the retailing of farm inputs;

b. Incidental to the same business, farmers who are in need for cash or
agricultural inputs, usually get cash and/or farm inputs, on the express
assurance that the concerned farmer shall sell his produce to our father
after the cropping season. Without such a condition, our father will
not give by any amount and/or farm inputs to the concerned farmer;

i. From the proceeds of the sale of the produce of the

farmers, our father shall deduct their obligation owing to
our father;

c. In this instant case, the herein respondent blatantly violated his

assurance while bolstering his fraudulent, deceptive and deceitful
intent;

4. On the other point, a careful perusal of the allegations contained in the

Counter-Affidavit of the respondent would disclose that the same are
pure general denials, if not concocted statements, without any supporting
documents to bolster the same averments; in fact, in his Counter-
Affidavit, herein respondent even made unfounded conclusions;

a. Noteworthy, however, the same bare denials of the herein

respondent cannot overturn the positive, clear, direct and
categorical averments leveled against him;

5. At best, the averments of the herein respondent are matters of defense

which can be threshed out during the course of a full-blown trial;
respondent must be apprised that the case is still under preliminary
investigation and only probable cause is required:

“Probable cause is a reasonable ground of presumption

that a matter is, or may be, well-founded, such a state of facts
in the mind of the prosecutor as would lead a person of
ordinary caution and prudence to believe, or entertain an
honest or strong suspicion, that a thing is so x x x; While
probable cause demands more than bare suspicion, it requires
less than evidence which would justify conviction.” 6
(underscoring supplied)
In a preliminary investigation, a full and exhaustive
presentation of the parties' evidence is not required, but only
such as may engender a well-grounded belief that an offense
has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty
thereof. Certainly, it does not involve the determination of

6
Citation omitted
Page 3 of 4
 whether or not there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt
pointing to the guilt of the person. Only prima facie evidence
is required; or that which is, on its face, good and sufficient to
establish a given fact, or the group or chain of facts
constituting the party's claim or defense; and which, if not
rebutted or contradicted, will remain sufficient. Therefore,
matters of evidence are more appropriately presented and
heard during the trial7. – (underscoring supplied)
In fine, the validity and merits of a party's defense or
accusation, as well as admissibility of testimonies and
evidence, are better ventilated during trial proper than at the
preliminary investigation level8. – (underscoring supplied)

6. We are executing the foregoing instrument to attest the foregoing facts

and circumstances and to support the filing of the appropriate
Information for Estafa defined and penalized under Article 315 of the
Revised Penal Code, amended, against Albert Dimaya of Tungel,
Baggao, Cagayan.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands this ___

day of January 2024 at Tuguegarao City, Cagayan.

AFFIANTS FURTHER SAYETH NAUGHT.

NIKKO P. LAGUNDI RICO P. LAGUNDI
Affiant/Complainant Affiant/Complainant

EIZEL KARINA P. LAGUNDI

Affiant/Complainant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ___ day of January
2024 at Tuguegarao City, Cagayan.

Copy furnished:
MR. ALBERT DIMAYA
Tungel, Baggao, Cagayan

7
Antonio Tan et al versus Amelito Ballena, et al, G.R. NO. 168111 : July 4, 2008 citing People v. Court of
Appeals, People v. Court of Appeals, 361 Phil. 492, 498 (1999), citing Ledesma v. Court of Appeals, 344
Phil. 207, 226 (1997); Wa-acon v. People, G.R. No. 164575, 6 December 2006, 510 SCRA 429, 439.
8
Supra note 3
Page 4 of 4