Sie sind auf Seite 1von 9

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
MANILA

EDEN ABLING EBALLARAN


Petitioner

-Versus- Case No. IV-05-INV-16L-335


For: Review of the Resolution
of the Provincial Prosecutor of
Marinduque

CONCEPTION ELAG ET AL,


Respondent

x-------------------------------------x

PETITION FOR REVIEW

Petitioner, by counsel and to this Honorable Court, respectfully alleges


that:

NATURE OF THE PETITION

This is a petition for Review under DOJ Department Circular No. seeking to set
aside the Resolution of the Provincial Prosecutor of Boac Marinduque, dated
March 6, 2017, in IV-05-INV-16L-335 for Grave Slander and unjust vexation.

PARTIES

1. Herein public respondent, ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR


RYAN B. RIVAMONTE OF BOAC MARINDUQUE, issued a resolution
dated 16 march 2017 pursuant to the complaint filed by EDEN ABLING
EBALLARAN of Brgy. Caigangan, Buenavista, Marinduque for Grave
Slander And Unjust Vexation docketed under IV-05-INV-16L-335 against
the accused Conception Elag et al. of Brgy. Caigangag, Buenavista,
Marinduque before Municipal Trial Court of Buenavista.

TIMELINESS OF PETITION

2. The instant petition is filed within the 15 days from receipt on


_____________
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND MATTERS INVOLVED

3. Complainant Eden Abling Eballarans (Complainant) Complaint dated


________ charging, Respondent Conception Seca Elag (Respondent),
Marlene M. Siena, Rovenus S. Sager, and Rubylyn Petalvero (Co-
Respondents) with Grave Slander and Unjust Vexation under _______ of
the Revised Penal Code.

4. Complainant alleged that on August 20, 2016, at around ten oclock in the
morning, she was invited in the Office of the Barangay Chairman of
Caigangan, Buenavista in order to made some clarifications with regard to
the case filed by the respondents ;

5. That the Complainant was given a chance by the Barangay Chairman and
Barangay Councilor Jacinto Matining to explain some matter regarding the
case filed by the respondents, however, while the complainant is
explaining, the respondent uttered the following words, while her fingers
was pointed to the complainants face, to wit IKAW ANG
NAGMANIPULA SA KASO KAYA NAPUNTA SA OMBUDSMAN AT
IKAW ANG NAG FABRICATE AT NAG PALSIPIKA NG SINUMPAANG
SALAYSAY NG MGA MAMPOSTE SA KASONG ITO;

6. That the respondent is saying that according to Lydia Mamposte (co-


respondent) the complainant fabricated the Sinumpaang Salaysay and the
latter was the one who filed the case in the Office of the Ombudsman.

7. That the respondent continuously insisted that the complainant


manipulated the case and while uttering those statements he is tapping the
table of the barangay chairman and pointing the fingers on the face of the
complainant.

8. The statements made by the respondent during the mediation proceedings


are not true and incorrect. The respondents does not even consider that the
complainant respectfully appear within the mediation proceeding.

9. That the complainant was greatly embarrassed and deeply humiliated on


the statement made by Conception Elag, including the teachers, namely,
Marlene Malapote, Rovenus Sager and Rubilyn Fetalvero. The statement
was made in front of the Barangay Chairman, Jacinto Matining, Secretary
of the Barangay, Susana Rotolo and with all the Barangay Councilor
namely, Marites Melodias, Angelyn Grave, Rodolfo Rotolo and Imelda
Vitto.
10. That the complainant was greatly dismay on the attitude shown by the
respondent, the latter being the Principal and teacher for years, and
expected to be a person of respect and dignity. However, the respondent
become arrogant.

11. The complainant attached herein the affidavit of the witnesses, Marivic
Panaligan and Barangay Officials abovementioned, marked as Annex B
and C.

12. That the complainant filed a criminal case of Grave Slander and Unjust
Vexation for imputation of a crime of falsification that cause dishonor and
discredit to the person of the complainant. An administrative case was also
filed by the herein complainant. The statement and behavior made by the
respondent as a teacher constitute misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the
service and grave abuse of authority and dishonesty.

13. That on March 16, 2017, Public Respondent Assistant Provincial


Prosecutor, Ryan B. Rivamonte issued a resolution finding no probable
cause to hold respondents for trial for the crime of grave slander and
unjust vexation.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

14. With due respect to the Honorable City Prosecutor, the undersigned
counsel believes that:

1. PUBLIC RESPONDENT ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF


DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF
JURISDICTION IN ISSUING THE ASSAILED RESOLUTIONS
FINDING NO PROBABLE CAUSE AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS
FOR GRAVE SLANDER AND UNJUST VEXATION. THE
IMPUTATION MADE DURING THE MEDIATION PROCEEDING
IS NOT PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL.

2. PUBLIC RESPONDENT ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF


DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF
JURISDICTION IN ISSUING THE ASSAILED RESOLUTIONS
FINDING NO PROBABLE CAUSE AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS
FOR GRAVE SLANDER.ALL THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME ARE
PRESENT.
DISCUSSION

I.

PUBLIC RESPONDENT ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF


DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF
JURISDICTION IN ISSUING THE ASSAILED RESOLUTIONS
FINDING NO PROBABLE CAUSE AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS
FOR GRAVE SLANDER AND UNJUST VEXATION. THE
IMPUTATION MADE DURING THE MEDIATION PROCEEDING IS
NOT PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL.

1. Sec.9 paragraph (a) of Republic Act 9285 otherwise known as Alternative


Dispute Resolution Act of 2004 states that:
Information obtained through mediation proceedings
shall be subject to the following principles and
guidelines:
a. Information obtained through mediation shall be
privileged and confidential.

However, this rule is not without an exception, Sec. 11 of the RA 9285


states that:

There is no privileged against disclosure under Art 9. If


mediation communication is:

(4) Intentionally used to plan a crime, attempt to


commit, or commit a crime, or conceal an ongoing crime
or criminal activity;

2. The Statement uttered by the respondent in the case herein is clearly an act
of committing a crime of Slander punishable under the Revised Penal
Code. Thus, although the communication made during the mediation
proceedings is confidential and privileged the same is not true when it is
within the exceptions provided by the law.

3. Utterance of the words, IKAW AND NAG MANIPULA SA KASO KAYA


NAPUNTA SA OMBUDSMAN AT IKAW ANG NAG FABRICATE AT
NAG PALSIPIKA NG SINUMPAANG SALAYSAY NG MGA
MAMPOSTE SA KASONG ITO in front of barangay officials and several
persons during the mediation proceeding are defamatory words. An
imputation of criminal act towards the person of the complainant, clearly,
Grave Slander is committed by the respondent.
4. The defamatory statement made by the respondent does not fall within the
ambit of confidential information as defined under Sec. 3, Par. (h) of RA
9285, which states:

Confidential information means any information, relative to


the subject of mediation or arbitration, expressly intended by
the source not to be disclosed, or obtained under
circumstances that would create a reasonable expectation on
behalf of the source that the information shall not be
disclosed. It shall include (1) communication, oral or written,
made in a dispute resolution proceedings, including any
memoranda, notes or work product of the neutral party or
non-party participant, as defined in this Act; (2) an oral or
written statement made or which occurs during mediation or
for purposes of considering, conducting, participating,
initiating, continuing of reconvening mediation or retaining a
mediator; and (3) pleadings, motions manifestations, witness
statements, reports filed or submitted in an arbitration or for
expert evaluation.

I.

PUBLIC RESPONDENT ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF


DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF
JURISDICTION IN ISSUING THE ASSAILED RESOLUTIONS
FINDING NO PROBABLE CAUSE AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS
FOR GRAVE SLANDER. ALL THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME ARE
PRESENT.

1. The Revised Penal Code, Article 353 enumerated the elements of Libel
Defamation to wit: (1) That there must be an imputation of a crime, or
of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition,
status, or circumstances; (2) That the imputation must be made
publicly; (3) That it must be malicious; (4) That the imputation must be
directed at a natural or juridical person, or one who is dead; (5) That the
imputation must tend to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of
the person defamed. Thus, the complainant establishes all the elements
of Slander.

2. That the herein petitioner established that the statements made by the
respondent are defamatory. The criterion to determine whether the
statements are defamatory, to wit: (1) Words calculated to induce the
hearers to suppose and understand that the person against who they
are uttered were guilty of certain offenses, or to hole the person up to
public ridicule. (US v. OConnel); (2) Construed not only as to the
expression used but also with respect to the whole scope and apparent
object of the writer. (People v. Encarnacion)

3. The utterance of the words IKAW AND NAG MANIPULA SA KASO


KAYA NAPUNTA SA OMBUDSMAN AT IKAW ANG NAG
FABRICATE AT NAG PALSIPIKA NG SINUMPAANG SALAYSAY
NG MGA MAMPOSTE SA KASONG ITO in front of barangay
officials and several persons during the mediation proceeding are
defamatory words. It constitutes an imputation of a crime of
falsification punishable under Revised Penal Code that the hearers tend
to suppose and understand that the complainant is guilty of the said
crime. Also, the statement cause dishonor and discredit to the person of
the petitioner.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, petitioner respectfully prays as follows:

1. That the petition be given due course;


2. Declaring that the resolution of the Provincial Prosecutor of Boac,
Marinduque dated March 16, 2017, be reversed and set aside, and ordering
the granting of the complaint docketed as NPS Docket No. IV-0-INV-16L-
335.
3. Petitioner further prays for such other reliefs and remedies as this
Honorable Office may find just and equitable in the premises.

Manila, 4 April 2017.

Counsel for the Petitioner

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING


I, Eden Abling Eballaran, of legal age, after having been duly sworn in
accordance with law, depose and state that:

1. I am the complainant in the above-stated case;

2. I caused the preparation of the foregoing complaint;

3. I have read the contents thereof and the facts stated therein are true and correct
of my personal knowledge and/or on the basis of copies of documents and
records in my possession;

4. I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same
issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or
agency;

5. To the best of my knowledge and belief, no such action or proceeding is


pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or
agency;

6. If I should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or
is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal
or agency, I undertake to report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to this
Honorable Court.

7. I executed this verification/certification to attest to the truth of the foregoing


facts and to comply with the provisions of Adm. Circular No. 04-94 of the
Honorable Supreme Court.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this ______


day of April 2017, in the City of Manila.

Eden Abling Eballaran


Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _____ day of April 2017, in


the City of Manila, affiant exhibiting to me ____________ issued at _____________
issued on ___________________.

NOTARY PUBLIC

Doc. No. ________;

Page No. ________;

Book No. ________;


Series of 2017

Copy furnished:

EXPLANATION

That the above PETITION FOR REVIEW was not served personally to
respondents and service by registered mail was resorted to due to distance, and
lack of office personnel thereby rendering personal service inconvenient and
impracticable.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )


CITY OF MANILA ) S.S.

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

I, ___________________________________, of legal age, Filipino citizen and


with office address at
_____________________________________________________, after having duly
sworn to in accordance with the law do hereby depose and say that:

I am the appellant in the above case, and I have today served by registered
mail with return card to:

1. ____________ RR# ______________


P.O. ______________
Date ______________

2. SOLICITOR GENERAL RR# ______________


P.O. ______________
Date ______________
No. 134 Amorsolo Street,
Legaspi Village, Makati City

3. OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR RR# ______________


P.O. ______________
Date ______________

Copy of the Petition for Review was furnished to the prosecution as


evidenced by the Registry Receipt indicated opposite his name copy of which is
attached in the original copy said pleading.

I am executing this Affidavit of Service to attest to the truth of the


foregoing facts and for any legal purpose it may serve.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed any signature this


________ day of April 2017, in the City of Manila.

AFFIANT

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _______ day of April 2017,


in the City of Manila, affiant exhibiting to me his _____________ issued on
_____________.

NOTARY PUBLIC

Doc. No. ________;


Page No. _______;
Book No. _______;
Series of 2017