Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTOR
Tarlac City

LEXI BEAR, INC.

Complainant,

- versus -
IS# ___________
C
o
m
p
l
a
i
n
t

f
o
r
:

L
i
b
e
l

u
n
d
e
r

A
r
t
i
c
l
e

3
5
5

o
f

t
h
e

R
e
v
i
s
e
d

P
e
n
a
l

C
o
d
e
a
s

a
m
e
n
d
e
d

i
n

C
h
a
p
t
e
r

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
4
)
o
f

R
A

1
0
1
7
5

o
r

t
h
e

C
y
b
e
r
c
r
i
m
e

P
r
e
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
 A
c
t

HAPPY LEE,
Respondent.
x------------------------------x

AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLAINT

Complainant, through undersigned counsel and before this Honorable Court

respectfully avers:

1. Complainant LEXI BEAR, INC. is a corporation duly registered under

Philippines laws and with principal office address at Brgy. San Vicente,
Tarlac City. It may be served with pleadings, orders and processes of the
court at the office of its undersigned counsel.

2. Complainant is an event organizer involved in event planning and

coordination in the business for at least a decade.

3. That the Company is instituting this Criminal Complaint against Happy Lee,
of legal age, married, Filipino and residing at 120 P. Hilario St. Brgy.
Ligtasan, Tarlac City for Libel under Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code
as amended in Chapter 2 Section 4 C ( 4 ) of RA 10175 of the Cybercrime
Prevention Act.

4. That the act complained of was committed as follows:

a. On 25 April 2016, Complainant and Respondent entered into a contract

for services where the Complainant agreed to provide wedding planning
services to the Respondent in the total amount of P500,000.00.

A copy of the contract and its annexes is attached as Annex A and

made an integral part of this complaint.
b. Upon commencement of the contract between them, Respondent paid an
initial P50,000.00 as downpayment, with the remaining balance payable
not later than three (3) working days after the wedding, or 17 May 2017.

c. The wedding proceeded as planned and the Complainant provided the

services agreed upon. However, the deadline passed without the
Respondent making any payment nor providing any explanation even for
the failure to pay her outstanding balance.

d. While the Complainant reached out to the Respondent several times

through telephone to remind the Respondent of her outstanding balance,
the Respondent ignored the Complainants reminders.

e. On 15 July 2017, the Complainant sent the Respondent a demand letter

through registered mail which again went unacknowledged.

f. Complainant again sent a second demand letter on 15 September 2017

and a third one on 10 October 2017, personally received by the
Respondent on 01 October 2017.

g. On 01 October 2017, after receiving her second reminder letter,

Respondent posted on her blog and personal Facebook account the
following:

Hay naku. You may be a big and popular wedding events company,
BB-Ventures, but you are one big epic FAIL! You handled my
wedding badly! Let me count the ways:

1) Did not reply or text or return my missed calls from the

time of the professional engagement of your services to the
wedding day itself;
2) Made me wait for 3 hours during one coordination meeting;
3) Unprofessional behavior by its founder and main man, BB,
who refused to honor my wishes as the client and
unprofessional behavior of his staff.
4) My pre-nup photo shoot was a disaster because of you! Who
in his right mind would do a night time shoot?
So yeah, I hope my post puts you out of business.
 h. That Respondent Facebook status message has gone viral and
generated 5,000 reactions (500 angry reactions, 200 thumbs up reactions
and 300 sad reactions) and 1,500 comments which are generally
negative.

5. That Happy Lees Facebook and blog page post can be considered libelous.

6. That, it was posted on social networking sites like the Facebook and blog
page that was not only seen but have reactions and negative comments in
response with the post.

7. That it can also be noted that the posts publicly and maliciously attacks the
honesty, virtue, honor and integrity, character and reputation of the
company.

8. That for an imputation then to be libelous, the following requisites must

concur: (a) it must be defamatory;(b) it must be malicious;(c) it must be
given publicity; and (d) the victim must be identifiable.

9. That, as provided by Article 355. Libel means by writings or similar

means. - A libel committed by means of writing, printing, lithography,
engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition,
cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means, shall be punished by
prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging
from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, in addition to the civil action which may
be brought by the offended party.

10.That, Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code was amended in Chapter 2
Section 4 C (4) of RA 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 ;
(4) Libel. The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Article
355 of the revised Penal Code, as amended, committed through a computer
system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future.

11.That the enactment of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 expanded

libel to include publications made online.
12.That, Happy Lee made a written statement that uses direct and express
defamatory words or accusations BB-Ventures, but you are one big epic
FAIL! You handled my wedding badly! Let me count the ways:. The
Statement satisfies the requirement of libel to be defamatory.

13.That, Happy Lee maliciously and intentionally wants to cause harm to the
Company by stating: So yeah, I hope my post puts you out of business.
This statement is malicious, which is the second requisite of libel.

14.It was without a doubt understood, that the statement was made publicly
because it was transmitted through the Facebook and blog page that caters
to millions or billions of users all over the world. In fact, the statement
garnered reactions and comments from the public. Public statement is a third
requisite of libel.

15.. That, Happy Lee directly mentioned the flagship of the company in his
statement which satisfies the fourth element of libel - Hay naku. You may
be a big and popular wedding events, BB-Ventures, but you are one big
epic FAIL! You handled my wedding badly! Let me count the ways:

16.That, Article 26 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines established civil
libel, Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace
of mind of his neighbors and other persons.

17.That in a recent case, Vivares and Suzara vs. St. Theresa's College and
Escudero , the Supreme Court issued a ruling saying that nothing is ever
private on Facebook, even those tagged as private never really escape public
viewing, including unintended audiences.

18.That, in social media there is a rapid sharing and exchange of information.

Happy Lees unrestrained and continuous posting of offensive statement to
the Corporation by using Facebook and blog may cause undue strain with
our present and future clients.

19.That in another relevant case, Belo-Henares vs. Atty. Guevarra A.C. No.
11394, December 1, 2016, the Supreme Court there is no assurance that
the same or other digital content that one uploads or publishes on his
Facebook profile, will be safeguarded as within the confines of privacy.
20.That, in our recent inquiry, there were already at least 1000 reactions and
1500 negative comments from the social media post of Happy Lee.

21.That due to the said malicious public imputations by Respondent, the posts
publicly and maliciously attacks the honesty, virtue, honor and integrity,
character and reputation of the company.

22.That due to such grossly unjustified malicious and libelous imputations,

Complainant therefor pray that Respondent be made to pay the damages the
complainant was made to suffer as a result of the online post in whatever
amount the Honorable Court deems sufficient and proper together with the
attorneys fees and the cost of this suit.

I, Roberto Reynaldo, duly authorized by Lexi Bear, Inc., hereby execute

this affidavit to attest to the truth of the foregoing facts and hereby request
the investigating prosecutor to file the crime under Article 355 of the
Revised Penal Code as amended in Chapter 2 Section 4 C (4) of RA 10175
or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of against the herein Respondents.

Tarlac City, done this 17th day of November, 2017.

 Complainant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, in the city of Tarlac, this 17th
day of November, 2017, the affiant exhibiting to me his Senior Citizen ID issued
on 18th of July , 2017 at Tarlac City.
 Submitted by:

Gerald Q. Mamaradlo
Maria Sheila G. Reyes