REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Department of Justice OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR Cit of !ani"a !IRI#! !#RCOS$ Comp"ainant %
&ersus %
I'S' No' ()%*+%IN)%IIC%,,,,,
-R#CE ESCUDERO$ Respon.ent /%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%/ REPLY%#FFID#)IT I$ !IRI#! 0BREND#1 !#RCOS$ !#RCOS$ Fi"ipino$ of "e2a" a2e$ marrie.$ resi.ent of *3,* 4ati 4atipun punan an #&enu enue$ e$ 5u 5ue6 e6on on Cit Cit P7i"i P7i"ipp ppine ines$ s$ Pres Presi. i.en entt of PoeC PoeC7i6 7i6 Cante Canteen en$$ Inc'$ Inc'$ respectfu"" su8mit 7ereun.er$ m rep" to t7e Counter%#ffi.a&it of respon.ent -R#CE ESCUDERO$ to 9it: To Be2in ;it7$ #n. To T7e #8o&e%Respon.ent: *' Her Her !a"ici !a"icious ouse. as #NNE( #' #' ON TH THE E ISSU ISSUE E OF TH THE E ERRO ERRONE NEOU OUS S #ND INSU INSUFF FFIC ICIEN IENT T CO!PL CO!PL#IN #INT T% #FFID#)IT =' Anent the erroneous and insufficient Complaint-Affidavit, such error does not affect the merit of the present case for it merely affects the procedural aspect of the case. The Supreme Court, in several instances has relaxed the Rules of Procedure in favor of Facilitating the Attainment of ustice, rather than it!s Frustration. ?' Respondent merely focused on the form and procedural re"uirement of the ComplaintAffidavit. @' That in focusing merely on the a#ove-error, $hich is merely procedural, RESPONDENT E(HIBITS -ROSS #ND UTTER DISRE-#RD #ND DENI#L OF JUSTICE #ND E5UITY.
B' ON THE ISSUE ISSUE OF THE #BSEN #BSENCE CE OF THE ELE!ENT ELE!ENTS S OF THE CRI!E OF LIBEL IN THE PRESENT C#SE +' As pointed out #y respondent in her Counter-Affidavit, under Article %&% of the Revised Penal Code, the elements of li#el are as follo$s. a' 8' c' .'
'efamatory imputation tending to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt( )alice * either in la$ or in fact( Pu#lication( and Person defamed is identifia#le
A' 'efamatory imputation in the advisory is evidently attendant in the present set of facts. The advisory pu#lished at the campus gate $ould clearly and s$eepingly defame and #esmirch my reputation as the President of a food service esta#lishment, PoeChi+ Canteen, nc. ' Respondent!s averment that the reputation of the company cannot #e affected as it $ould #e highly unliely that their clients $ould #e a#le to see the advisory/, is a clear sho$ing of her misapprehension of reality, if not her arrogance and gross ignorance of the la$. am engaged in the #usiness of food service, and in the said industry, reputation is of utmost importance #ecause of $hat said industry entails, $hich is to serve drins, refreshments, food, and the lie. ' )y clientele include therefore not only the other schools and institutions to $hich provide my canteen services, #ut the students, professors, and every single person $oring, studying and passing therein. 3' t is not necessary that all the $orld should understand the li#el. t is sufficient that those $ho no$ the defamed can mae out that he is the person meant. )y identity can therefore #e adduced from the malicious Advisory #annered at the gate of the campus. *,' Again, emphasi+e that the posting of the Advisory $ould create in the minds of the pu#lic and my other clients, the idea that PoeChi+, nc. is a de#tor in #ad faith. **' )oreover, said defamatory imputation $ould lie$ise result in the pu#lic, dou#t, not only insofar as my o#ligations are concerned, #ut also of my o$n and the general integrity of my #usiness. *=' The posting of the Advisory is clearly a deli#erate and malicious plot of respondent in star retaliation to my alleged default in remitting a portion of my sales to Ro-Ro Academy. *?' The la$ 0also1 presumes that malice is present in every defamatory imputation. Thus, Article %&2 of the Revised Penal Code provides that3
4very defamatory imputation is presumed to #e malicious, even if it #e true, if no good intention and 5ustifia#le motive for maing it is sho$n, except in the follo$ing cases3 6. A private communication made #y any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty( and 7. A fair and true report, made in good faith, $ithout any comments or remars, of any 5udicial, legislative or other official proceedings $hich are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed #y pu#lic officers in the exercise of their functions. 0Santos v. Court of Appeals, 8o. 9-2&:%6, 76 ;cto#er 6<<6
Paragraph 7 afore"uoted refers to a "ualifiedly privileged communication, the character of $hich is a matter of defense that may #e lost #y positive proof of express malice on the part of the accused. ;nce it is esta#lished that the article is of a privileged character, the onus of proving actual malice rests on the plaintiff $ho must then convince the court that the offender $as prompted #y malice or ill $ill. =hen this is accomplished the d efense of privilege #ecomes unavailing.
*@' 9astly, respondent!s contention that she had nothing to do $ith these criminal acts and her invocation of Article %>: of the Revised Penal Code is a clearly shallo$ and ignorant understanding and use of the la$, $hich could even #e tantamount to an implied admission of #ad faith on her part.
*+' Respondent invoes the ruling of the Supreme Court in ?6@ 8e$s$ee nc. v ntermediate Appellate Court and ?7@ y Tioco, et al. v Bang Shu =en et al., $here it $as held that defamatory remars directed at a group of persons are not actiona#le un"ess t7e statements are a""%em8racin2 or sufficient" specific for t7e &ictim to 8e i.entifia8"e . *A' A li#el directed at a group or class may form the foundation of an action #y an individual of the group or class is small enough to that a person reading the article may readily identify the person as one of the group. *' t is clear from the facts of the case, that in the Advisory that respondent pu#lished, in the guise of Ro-Ro Academy, maliciously impute my company, PoeChi+, nc., of $hich am the identified ;fficer-in-ChargePresident, as a de#tor in #ad faith. *' ;it7 t7e fore2oin2 facts$ it is e&i.ent t7at -race Escu.ero of Ro%Ro #ca.em 8e in&esti2ate. an. upon fin.in2 of pro8a8"e cause t7at t7e correspon.in2 information for cases for appropriate crimina" action 8e fi"e. in t7e appropriate court or tri8una" PRO!PTLY in t7e interest of fairness an. 7onest$ an. to ensure spee. a.ministration of ustice'
#ffiant furt7er saet7 nau27t
IN ;ITNESS ;HEREOF$ I 7ereunto affi/e. m si2nature 8e"o9 t7is = t7 .a of No&em8er =,*+ in t7e Cit of !ani"a$ P7i"ippines'
#ffiant Dov!t ssued ' EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE alid ntil EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE 'ate of ssue EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE Place of ssue EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
SUBSCRIBED #ND S;ORN to BEFORE !E this 7Gth day of 8ovem#er 7:6& in the City of )anila , Philippines. FURTHER CERTIFIES that have personally examined the herein affiant and $as fully convinced that she freely executed and understood the contents of this Reply-Affidavit
IN)ESTI-#TIN- PROSECUTOR .
