Republic of the Philippines

1st MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT

PAMPLONA-AMLAN-SAN JOSE
Pamplona, Negros Oriental

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRIMINAL CASE NO. 2626

Plaintiff, For: Grave Slander

-versus-

JENALYN DE GUZMAN, JOCELYN DE

GUZMAN, SHEILA SEIT, WILMA SIENES
a.k.a ALMA SIENES,
Accused.
X----------------------------/

OMNIBUS MOTION
(MOTION TO QUASH INFORMATION,
RECALL WARRANT OF ARREST
AND REINVESTIGATION)

COME NOW DEFENDANTS, by counsels and unto this Honorable Court,

most respectfully move to quash the information filed against the defendants on
the following grounds:

1) That the case has not undergone requisite Barangay Conciliation

proceedings.
2) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense.
3) That the facts contains averment which if true would constitute a legal
excuse or justification.

FURTHERMORE, DEFENDANTS move to recall the warrant of arrest issued

against the accused on the ground that it was issued without probable cause.

FINALLY, DEFENDANTS respectfully move for the reinvestigation of the

case on the following grounds:
1) That minutes of the barangay mediation proceedings were incomplete.
2) That the alleged defamatory statements were made in a barangay mediation
proceedings, which are privileged and confidential in nature.

ARGUMENTS

Defendants are indicted for committing the crime of "Grave Slander" that is
punished under the Article 358 1st phrase of the Revised Penal Code; Said
provision states that:

Motion to Quash Criminal Case 2626 Page 1/10

 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 200 pesos.

DEFENDANTS, HOWEVER, MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THE

FOLLOWING ARGUMENTS:

1. The court should dismiss the case because it has

not undergone the requisite Barangay conciliation
proceeding.

The case should be dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Book
III, Title I, Chapter 7 (Katarungang Pambarangay), of Republic Act No. 7160 (The
Local Government Code of 1991). As held in Agbayani v. CA 1, where the criminal
complaint (a) did not state that it is one of the excepted cases, or (b) it did not
allege prior availment of said conciliation process, or (c) did not have a
certification that no conciliation or settlement had been reached by the parties, the
case should be dismissed. While the parties have previously undergone Barangay
Conciliation, the subject matter of the complaint before the Lupon was different.
The dispute subject for reconciliation during the said Barangay Conciliation
proceeding was the alleged defamatory remarks on the Facebook page of accused,
not the remarks uttered DURING the SAME Barangay Conciliation proceeding.
Therefore, the case before this Honorable Court, which is about the alleged
defamatory remarks uttered during the Barangay Conciliation Proceedings has not
yet undergone the requisite Barangay Conciliation proceedings. Subsequently, the
case should be dismissed for failure to undergo mandatory Barangay Conciliation
proceedings.

2. The alleged defamatory statements were uttered

in the course of mediation/conciliation
proceedings upon the queries of Lupon Members
thereby negating the element of malice necessary
in the crime of slander.

The information states that the utterance of the alleged defamatory words was
done in the presence of the mediator. That, in itself, indicates that words would
have been uttered in the middle of a proceeding and questioning, thereby making
them non-malicious. As such, the facts stated in the information do not constitute a
crime.

Nevertheless, the Honorable Prosecutor based his findings of slander primarily

on the Minutes of the Barangay Conciliation proceeding. However, the minutes

1
G.R. No. 183623, June 25, 2012

Motion to Quash Criminal Case 2626 Page 2/10

submitted by the barangay and attached to the complaint is not a faithful
reproduction of what really transpired in the mediation proceedings. It did not
relay in detail how the statements were made. Instead, the utterances of the
accused were paraphrased and put into writing in a manner convenient to the
Secretary, who made such minutes. Only the alleged defamatory remarks were
transcribed and the preparatory questions were left out. In fact, upon reading of the
minutes, there is no clear flow of what actually went on during the conciliation
proceedings, to wit:

September 10, 2015 @ 10:00AM (Excerpt)

Kag. Barrera : Sa wala pa ni mahitabo mayo bam o(sic) ug relasyon?

Jenalyn De Guzman: April 28, 2015, alas 8:00 sa buntag nangayo ka

(Linda Gentelizo) ug asa paliton ang baso sa buko juice ug unsaon
pagtimpla pero gay aba-yaba ka nga imo ko I report BIR.

Sheila Seit: Nagkita mi, nagkatagbo mi nangutana ko ug ngano naapil

ko sa Face Book, wala naku siya gitulisok, miingon siya nga gitulisok
daw siya naku ug nga gihulga kuno siya naku, nga dalaga kuno kong
buhat ug ngano kuno nga ga iskandalo ko.

Kag. Barrera: Dili ni final nga motuo or dili mutuo sa inyong

gipangbatbat ron, kay sa dagan sa 2nd hearing galabuga ang inyong
istorya ug unending case ni…

Here, Kagawad Barrera asked about their relationship and yet Jenalyn de
Guzman allegedly went on to narrate what happened on May 12, 2015.

September 29, 2015 @ 9:00AM Excerpt

Linda Gentilizo: Kanang akong gi complaint akong ipadayon against

the respondents.

Jenalyn de Guzman : May 12, gahisgot ug pagpangawat ug kanding

either 2013 or 2014 at 9 p.m. Ang kanding gikuha ni
Noel Gentelizo, ug si Mama ug akong iyaan ang
nakakita (1 kanding nga laki), ilihawon to mga 1 year
kapin na. Naa may record daan iyang anak, siya pay
misulong sa balay, gay aba-yaba anang May 12 pero
iyang gitabanana ang gibuhat sa iyang anak. Mga
ulutanon, galay, kalamungay mga atis iyang gipang-
pupo ug gidala sa lungsud ug gibaligya.

It would appear that Jenalyn de Guzman uttered these words without any
direction or purpose. First, she was talking about the stealing of the goat then all of
a sudden, she was talking about vegetables. It just does not make any sense. The
entire record does not make sense. Clearly, the minutes are very incomplete to

Motion to Quash Criminal Case 2626 Page 3/10

even provide the context upon which the alleged defamatory statements were
uttered, if in fact they were uttered maliciously. There was even no indication of
any altercation between the accused and private complainant which could have
possibly caused the accused to utter the alleged defamatory remarks.

Luckily, accused Jenalyn de Guzman was able to make a voice recording of

the entire proceedings using her cellphone. The accused is willing to present
before the court the voice recording of the conversation that transpired during the
September 29, 2015 mediation proceedings.

Based on the voice recording dated Sept. 29, 2015, prior to the utterance of
accused Jenalyn De Guzman, the mediator raised the question of what happened
on May 12. In her candor, Jenalyn simply narrated that on May 12, either 2013 or
2014 at 9:00PM, her mother and auntie saw Private complainant Noel Gentilizo
stole 1 male goat, that was 1 year old and could be slaughtered already, and that
her (Linda Gentilizo) son has already a record. Jenalyn added that though she was
not able to witness the incident personally, her mother, accused Jocelyn De
Guzman, and her aunt, accused Alma Sienes, can attest to her statement, the two
having witnessed the incident themselves.

Since the two other accused were mentioned by Jenalyn De Guzman, the
mediator asked Alma Sienes about what she had witnessed on May 12. In
response, she made the following statement: “May 12, 9pm ang kanding kalubog
sa balay, may nihunong nga motor ug kigarga sa motor kauban ang ig-agaw nga
taga tayasan. Si Noel Gentilizo ang gakarga sa motro. (May 12, 9PM the goat was
resting near our house when somebody in a motorcycle stopped and loaded the
goat in the motorcycle together with his cousin who is from Tayasan. Noel
Gentilizo was the one who loaded the goat in the motorcycle). The accused Alma
Sienes’ utterances were merely in answer to the question of the mediator and a
narration of what she had personally witnessed during the said date and time.

After Alma Sienes gave her testimony, Jenalyn De Guzman again told the
mediator that her mother also had personally witnessed the said incident and is
willing to testify. The mediator then asked accused Jocelyn to narrate on what she
saw on May 12. In response, Jocelyn uttered the following statement: “May 12,
2015, alas 9:00 sa gabii akong nakita si Noel Gentilizo nga giaswat and kanding
kauban sa iyang ig-agaw taga tayasan. Si Noel Gentilizo ang ga karga sa motor.”
(May 12, 2015, 9:00 o’clock in the evening, I saw Noel Gentilizo carry the goat
together with his cousin who is from tayasan. Noel Gentilizo was the one who
loaded the goat on the motorcycle). Again, accused Jocelyn de Guzman’s
utterances were made in answer to the query of the mediator and serves as her
attestation to Alma’s testimony on what she also personally witnessed on the same

Motion to Quash Criminal Case 2626 Page 4/10

day.

Thus, the utterances made by accused Jenayn De Guzman, Alma Sienes and
Jocelyn De Guzman were all made in the course of the barangay conciliation
proceedings and as answers to the queries made by the mediator. Such statements
made by the accused were not intended to be humiliate the complainants but rather
to shed light to the issues and to assist the mediator to understand better the
controversy between accused and private Complainants. If the accused are not
allowed to defend themselves during the Barangay Conciliation proceedings for
fear of being charged for slander, then no amicable settlement will ever be
achieved at this level and the whole proceeding’s purpose is put to naught. In
short, these alleged utterances were not malicious but in fact called for by the
circumstances.

With respect to the allegation against accused Sheila Seit, the minutes of the
mediation proceedings dated September 10, 2016 do not reflect any record that
Sheila uttered the following statement: “Kawatan man gud na sya, watchinangga
lang” (She is a thief and very clever). Upon review of the voice recording of the
said proceedings, Sheila merely narrated the incident that occurred on April 28,
2015. Although there occurred raising of voices on both parties, the accused and
private complainant Linda Gentilizo, accused Sheila Seit never uttered the alleged
defamatory statement. Such allegations are clear fabrications designed by
complainants to implead Sheila Seit in the case. Again, Jenalyn De Guzman is
willing to present in court the voice recording she had on the September 10, 2016
mediation proceedings in the barangay.

3. The alleged defamatory statements uttered by the

accused, as stated, were made in a
mediation/conciliation proceedings, making them
privileged, confidential, and inadmissible in
evidence against the accused.

The Barangay Mediation/Conciliation proceedings provides the disputing

parties a venue to search for a solution that is mutually acceptable to them. The
Punong Barangay and the Community Conciliators (Lupon Members) only assist
the parties in discussing the possible amicable settlement to their disputes. In the
process of reaching a solution, parties should have the freedom to express their
and expected to exercise candor in answering questions raised by the conciliators.

While the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law 2 and the Administrative

Circular No. 14-933, are silent on the confidentiality and privileged nature of
information obtained during Barangay Conciliation proceedings, the rules

2
Sections 399-422, Chapter VII, Title I, Book III of the Local Government Code of 1991.
3
Guidelines on the Katarungang Pambarangay Conciliation proceedings.

Motion to Quash Criminal Case 2626 Page 5/10

regarding conciliation-mediation proceedings in RA 9285, Labor Code and A·M.
No, 11-1-6-SC-PHILJA, suppletorily apply.

Under RA 92854, the Katarangang Pambarangay, being an alternative,

community-based mechanism for dispute resolution, would fall under the
definition of Alternative Dispute Resolution System, to wit:

"Alternative Dispute Resolution System" means any process or

procedure used to resolve a dispute or controversy, other than by
adjudication of a presiding judge of a court or an officer of a
government agency, as defined in this Act, in which a neutral third
party participates to assist in the resolution of issues, which includes
arbitration, mediation, conciliation, early neutral evaluation, mini-trial,
or any combination thereof.”

Both the proceedings in Katarungang Pambarangay and ADR are facilitated by

private individuals. Furthermore, both proceedings aim to promote party
autonomy in the resolution of disputes or provide freedom of the parties to make
their own arrangement to resolve disputes to help achieve speedy and impartial
justice and de-clog court dockets. Accordingly, provisions in RA 9285, including
the confidentiality and privileged clause, can be interpreted and made applicable to
the Karatungang Pambarangay. The only exception under the law is that it cannot
be interpreted to repeal, amend or modify the jurisdiction of the Katarungan
Pambarangay.5

Under Sec. 9 of RA 9285, information obtained through mediation

proceedings shall be privileged and confidential. It shall not be subject to
discovery and shall be inadmissible in any adversarial proceeding, whether
judicial or quasi-judicial. The confidentiality of the mediation process is for the
purpose of promoting candor of parties and mediators to foster a prompt,
economical and amicable resolution of disputes. This should also be true in
Katarungang Pambarangay, otherwise conflicting parties will not be candid in the
process of conciliation for fear of being imputed later on of a crime for utterances
they have made during the process or for fear that what they have revealed would
be used against them.

Moreover, in conciliation proceedings before the Department of Labor,

information and statement during said conciliation proceedings are prohibited to
be used in evidence, to wit:

Art. 233. Privileged Communication. Information and statements

made at conciliation proceedings shall be treated as privileged
communication and shall not be used as evidence in the
4
An Act To Institutionalize The Use Of An Alternative Dispute Resolution System In The Philippines And To Establish
The Office For Alternative Dispute Resolution, And For Other Purposes
5
Sec. 53, ADR

Motion to Quash Criminal Case 2626 Page 6/10

 Commission. Conciliators and similar officials shall not testify in
any court or body regarding any matters taken up at conciliation
proceedings conducted by them.6

In Nissan Motors Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor 7, the court pointedly

disallowed the award made by the public respondent Secretary since the award
was based on the information NCMB Administrator Olalia secured from the
confidential position given him by the company during conciliation. The same
doctrine was reiterated in the case of Pentagon Steel Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 8
the court said:

“We agree with the petitioner, but for a different reason. The
correct reason for the CA’s error in considering the actions and
agreements during the conciliation proceedings before the labor
arbiter is Article 233 of the Labor Code which states that
‘[i]nformation and statements made at conciliation proceedings
shall be treated as privileged communication and shall not be used
as evidence in the Commission. Conciliators and similar officials
shall not testify in any court or body regarding any matters taken
up at conciliation proceedings conducted by them.’
xxx
In the present case, we find that the CA did indeed consider the
statements the parties made during conciliation; thus, the CA erred
by considering excluded materials in arriving at its conclusion. x x
x”

The court further discussed on the two-fold justification for the exclusionary
rule, thus:

“First, since the law favors the settlement of controversies out of court, a
person is entitled to “buy his or her peace” without danger of being
prejudiced in case his or her efforts fail; hence, any communication made
toward that end will be regarded as privileged. Indeed, if every offer to buy
peace could be used as evidence against a person who presents it, many
settlements would be prevented and unnecessary litigation would result,
since no prudent person would dare offer or entertain a compromise if his
or her compromise position could be exploited as a confession of
weakness.

xxxx

Finally, in mediation proceedings before the Philippine Mediation Center and

the Judicial Dispute Resolution, any and all matters discussed or communications
made, including requests for mediation and documents presented during the said
proceedings shall be privileged and confidential, and the same shall be
inadmissible as evidence for any purpose in any other proceedings.9
6
Labor Code of the Philippines.
7
G.R. Nos. 158190-91, June 21, 2006
8
G.R. No. 174141, June 26, 2009.
9
A·M. No, 11-1-6-SC-PHILJA, CONSOLIDATED AND REVISED GUIDELINES TO

Motion to Quash Criminal Case 2626 Page 7/10

 To succinctly put, the prominent spirit of the law is to allow the parties an
avenue to discuss their issues and difference without fear of criminal prosecution
in order for them to settle their dispute outside of the courts. Otherwise, the goal of
an amicable settlement outside of courts, for which the law was created, would be
a mere illusion, and the law a futile legislation. Therefore, the utterances made
therein is privileged and inadmissible in court.

4. The warrant of arrest is void ab initio, and should

be recalled, because the Court did not make a
personal determination of probable cause but
instead merely adopted the findings in the
resolution issued by the investigating officer.

With the above discussion, it is evident that the Court did not make a personal
evaluation of the records of the case to determine whether probable cause exists to
justify the issuance of the assailed warrant of arrest. The Court could have known
that the Certification issued by the Barangay was issued for accused Jenalyn De
Guzman and Sheila Seit only, and not for the other two accused, Jocelyn De
Guzman and Alma Sienes. The said certification was also issued for a different
complaint/incident filed by Private complainant Linda Gentilizo before the
Barangay. Moreover, the minutes of the mediation proceedings dated September
10, 2016, which the Prosecution relied its finding on do not show the alleged
defamatory utterances made by accused Sheila Seit. With respect to the minutes of
the mediation proceedings dated September 29, 2016, which was used as the basis
for the charged against accused Jenalyn De Guzman, Jocelyn De Guzman, and
Alma Sienes, it is an incomplete record of what really transpired during the said
proceedings. Thus, it is erroneous to conclude that what was written in the minutes
are defamatory in nature because not only were they made as an answer to the
mediator’s query, but were also uttered in a barangay reconciliation proceedings,
thus considered privileged and confidential.

The Court could have known that there was indeed no basis for the crime
charged against the accused and would have not issued the warrant of arrest had
he made a more than cursory examination of the records of the case. It only goes
to show that there was no personal examination of the records done by the Court
as required by law. Instead, the warrant of arrest was perfunctorily issued based on
the certification of the prosecutor that probable cause exists, in violation of the
constitutional provision that no warrant shall issue except upon probable cause to
be determined personally by the judge.

IMPLEMENT THE EXPANDED COVERAGE OF COURTANNEXED MEDIATION (CAM)

AND JUDICIAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION (JDR), January 11, 2011.

Motion to Quash Criminal Case 2626 Page 8/10

 In the case of Mayor Bai Unggie D. Abdula and Odin Abdula vs. Hon. Japal
M. Guiani10, the Supreme Court held, thus:

“Although the prosecutor enjoys the legal presumption of regularity in

the performance of his official d uties, which in turn gives his report the
presumption of accuracy, nothing less than the fundamental law of the
land commands the judge to personally determine probable cause in the
issuance of warrants of arrest. A judge fails in this constitutionally
mandated duty if he relies merely on the certification or report of the
investigating officer.

xxxx

The circumstances thus require that respondent look beyond the bare
certification of the investigating prosecutor and examine the documents
supporting the prosecutor's determination of probable cause. The
inordinate haste that attended the issuance of the warrant of arrest and
respondent's own admission are circumstances that tend to belie any
pretense of the fulfillment of this duty.

Clearly, respondent judge, by merely stating that he had no reason to

doubt the validity of the certification made by the investigating
prosecutor has abdicated his duty under the Constitution to determine
on his own the issue of probable cause before issuing a warrant of
arrest. Consequently, the warrant of arrest should be declared null and
void.”(underscoring supplied)

5. The case should be reinvestigated because the evidence relied

upon by the Prosecution are grossly insufficient to warrant
probable cause.
As has been highlighted above, the minutes of the mediation proceedings by which the
Prosecution based its findings of probable cause are utterly incomplete and also considered
privileged and confidential in nature. It could not possibly engender a well-founded belief in a
reasonable mind that a crime has been committed and the persons charged are probably guilty
thereof. Such reinvestigation would not only lessen the dockets, but also protect the innocent from
being subjected to the trouble of a public trial.

CONCLUSION

In view of all the foregoing, accused Jocelyn De Guzman, Jenalyn De

Guzman, and Alma Sienes submit that the alleged utterances they made do not
constitute the crime of grave slander nor is there any probable cause to indict them
for the same.
On the other hand, accused Sheila Seit submits that she never made such
utterance as alleged by the complainant and information. As such, there is no
offense to speak of and consequently, the accused cannot be charged of grave
slander.

PRAY E R

WHEREFORE, it view of all the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed

that the information be quashed, the warrant of arrest be recalled, and/or the case

10
G.R. No. 118821, 18 February 2000.

Motion to Quash Criminal Case 2626 Page 9/10

be reinvestigated to determine probable cause.

Other relief just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

Dumaguete City, Philippines, August 16, 2016.

GRACELYN E. BELLINGAN
Roll of Attorneys No. 65133;
PTR No. 0462961 (06/23/16) Sibulan, Negros Or.
IBP Receipt No. 1042038 (06/13/16); Pasig City
MCLE Exempt, Admitted to the Bar on June 17, 2016,
MCLE Board Order No. 1, s.2008
Cel. No. 09054028121; Email: gracey.bellz@gmail.com
G/F Villareal Hall, Silliman University
Dumaguete City

LESLIE JOY L. CUEVAS

Roll of Attorneys No. 65301;
PTR No. 1378930, 7-18-16, Dumaguete City.
IBP Lifetime No. 1042628, 6-15-16
MCLE Exempt, Admitted to the Bar on June 17, 2016,
MCLE Board Order No. 1, s.2008
2nd Floor DRBI Building, San Jose St., Dumaguete City

NOTICE OF HEARING

Greeting: Please take notice that the foregoing Motion will be submitted for
the Court’s consideration without issue.

COPY FURNISHED:

Hon. Ronald Tenaja

Prosecutor II
PPO Dumaguete City

Motion to Quash Criminal Case 2626 Page 10/10