Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice

CITY PROSECUTION OFFICE

Pagadian City

-o0oXYZ,

NPS NO. IX-0222222222222

Complainant,
-versus-

-for-

ABC,
Respondent.
x--------------------------------x

GRAVE THREATS
GRAVE COERCION
TRESPASSING

COUNTER-AFFFIDAVIT
Undersigned Respondent unto the Honorable Office of the City
Prosecutor most respectfully states and deposes: THAT1. She is the respondent in the above-entitled case;
2. In order to controvert the allegations of the private complainant in his
affidavit of complaint dated 21 April 2016, Respondent hereby recounts
the truthful and honest narration of facts that transpired between her
and the private complainant on 31 March 2016;
3. To start with, the parcel of land with a land area of TWELVE THOUSAND
SEVEN HUNDRED EIGHTY EIGHT SQUARE METERS (12,788SQM)
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. E-984 was mortgaged to
Respondents husband, DIOMEDES L. ACASO, by its registered owner,
Porferio G. Naldoza, and is evidence by the two Real Estate Mortgage
dated 11 November 2010; (hereto attached and marked as Annexes
A, A-1, A-2, B and C are copies of said Transfer Certificate of
Title and two Real Estate of Mortgage for reference)
4. Said parcel of land consists of more than a half hectare of rice paddy
and more than a half hectare of coconut farm;
5. Part of the agreement between the parties in said Real Estate
Mortgage was that the coconut farm will be cultivated and the produce
thereof shall be harvested by the mortgagee, while the rice paddy shall
be cultivated by the mortgagor with the condition that the latter shall
deliver shares to the mortgagee from the produce of the rice paddy
every cropping period;
6. In addition thereto, the Owners Duplicate Copy of the Certificate of
Title of said parcel of land was surrendered by the spouses Naldoza to
the care of the Respondents husband for security;
7. Sometime in March 2016, Respondent went to the house of Elvira M.
Naldoza (Elvira), Kalasan, Pagadian City to collect from the latter their
shares from the recent cropping. But when Respondent arrived thereat,
she was told by Elvira to collect the formers shares from Xyz (Mr. Xyz)
since it was already the latter who has been cultivating the rice paddy.
Elvira then accompanied Respondent to the house of Mr. Xyz;
8. While thereat, Mr. Xyz told Respondent that he will be the one to pay
the balance of the loan that the spouses Naldoza owed to, and redeem
the owners duplicate copy of the certificate of title from, the
Respondent in November 2016;

9. After the conversation of Mr. Xyz and the Respondent, the former gave
the latter her shares from the produced of the rice paddy;
10.
Few days after said conversation with Mr. Xyz, Respondent was
surprised when her two laborers were arrested from stealing coconuts
in the above-mentioned coconut farm for which Respondent was
cultivating;
11.
Further, Respondent heard rumors that the weirs of the rice
paddy have been hoed by Mr. Xyz. As such, Respondent went to the
Kalasan, Pagadian City, on 31 March 2016, together with her daughter
and the latters fiance in order to verify the rumors;
12.
When respondent and her companions arrived at Kalasan they
went to the house of Elvira to confirm if the rumors she heard were
true, for which Elvira answered in the positive;
13.
Respondent then asked Elvira to accompany them to where Mr.
Xyz was, in order to consult the latter for the matter. Elvira then
willingly accompanied Respondent and her companions;
14.
Upon arrival at the rice paddy, Respondent saw Mr. Xyz and his
male companion hoeing the weirs of the rice paddy. At that instance,
Respondent called the attention of Mr. Xyz telling him, to quote and
unquote Ngano imo man ng gibungkal nga naa pa man nako ang
titulo? Diba nag storya na ta nga lukaton nimo ang titulo taman
November? Unya na unta nimo na bungkalon kung na lukat na ang
yuta, which more or less means, WHY ARE YOUY HOEING THAT
THOUGH THE TITLE OF THE LAND IS STILL IN MY POSSESSION? IS IT
NOT THAT WE HAVE ALREADY TALKED THAT YOU WILL REDEEM THE
TITLE UNTIL NOVEMBER? IT SHOULD HAVE HOED THAT AFTE YOU
REDEEM THE LAND;
15.
Right then and there, Mr. Xyz got angry and told the Respondent
furiously, to quote and unquote Ikaw tigulanga ka, unsa pa may
interest nimo diri sa yuta nga hapit naman ka mamatay!? which more
or less means, YOU OLD ONE, WHAT INTEREST DO YOU STILL HAVE
OVER THIS LAND WHEN YOU ARE SOON TO DIE?!;
16.
Mr. Xyz further told Respondent that he will file a case against
the latter and tell the court that Respondent ordered her men to kill the
former. In addition thereto, Mr. Xyz told Respondent to leave
immediately and bring her documents because they will see each
other before the court;
17.
Respondent denies the allegations of the private complainant,
Mr. Xyz, in his affidavit of complaint dated 21 April 2016, specifically
Paragraph 4, 5, and 6 for being unfaithful narration of facts of the
incident that transpired on 31 March 2016;
18.
It was the private complainant who made threats towards the
Respondent on said date and not the other way around;
19.
Private complainant and respondent had argument during said
incident but the latter never did utter defamatory remarks against the
former, as in fact it was the private complainant who was uttering
defamatory words against the Respondent. Neither did Respondents
daughter joined the arguments between Respondent and private
complainant, much more of uttering defamatory words against the
latter;
20.
More to that, fiance of the Respondents daughter was not
wearing a loose upper shirt but a slim fit shirt, as alleged by the private
complainant. Further, the latter is speculating that the former was
tucking-in a hand-gun that day when in truth there was none;
21.
It is the humble submission of the Respondent that if the above
statement of facts be appreciated by the Honorable Office of City

Prosecutor the offenses of GRAVE THREATS, GRAVE COERCION,

TRESPASSING, as charged against her, are of without basis and cannot
be prosecuted;
22.
Grave Threats and Grave Coercion could not be prosecuted
against the Respondent considering that the private complainant was
never threatened nor coerced by the by the former;
23.
Trespassing is likewise could not be prosecuted since Respondent
is the lawful possessor of the parcel of land as per agreement by the
Respondents husband and the spouses Naldoza;
24.
It is most respectfully prayed before the Honorable Office of the
City Prosecutor that that the instant criminal complaint be dismissed
for being maliciously filed against the Respondent.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto affixed my signature this ___ day
of May 2016 at Pagadian City, Philippines.
ABC
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ____ day of May 2016,
at Pagadian City, Philippines. This is further to certify that I have personally
examined the affiant and I am satisfied that she voluntarily and understood
the contents of her statements.