Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Office of the Regional State Prosecutor
Regional Office 10, Bulwagan ng Katarungan
Arch. Hayes St., Cagayan de Oro City

JOVITA C. BULO
Complainant-Appellee, Case No. A-ORSP-X-No. 10-
013

-versus- For: N.P.S. No. X-08-INV-09L-

0113-A and 01134.

ROLANDO FAJARDO FOR: SLANDER BY DEED

Respondent-Appellant. and SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -/

COMMENT
RESPONDENT-APPELLANT, by himself, unto this Honorable
Office, most respectfully submits this Comment on the Motion For
Reconsideration filed by herein Complainant-Appellee, and in support
hereof hereby states that:

1. The instant Motion For Reconsideration warrants a denial for

being factually and legally baseless and also for being a mere
reiteration of the arguments alleged in her Comment dated
March 19, 2010;

2. A careful perusal of the Appellee’s Motion For Reconsideration

would suggest that Complainant-Appellee (“Appellee” for
brevity) is trying to mislead this Honorable Office by stating
baseless allegations that:

“The investigating prosecutor correctly filed the

information for grave slander for the very actuations of the
appellant during the preliminary investigation of the case.
Such actuations of appellant should be considered
contempt.” Last Paragraph, Page 2, Appellee’s
Motion For Reconsideration

It must be emphasized that there is nothing in the records

of this case that would support such allegations because the
truth is that such actuations never happened;
3. Likewise, Appellee also mentioned in the instant Motion For
Reconsideration that:

“Nowhere in the discussion and arguments did they

(Appellee) deny the acts of appellant was to cause
dishonor to complainant.” Second Paragraph, Page 3,
Appellee’s Motion For Reconsideration

It seems that Appellee is trying to convince this Honorable

Office that Respondent-Appellant (“Appellant” for brevity) never
denied the act of slapping. Again, the aforequoted allegations
clearly manifest the act of desperation of the Appellee in trying
to mislead this Honorable Office. It is clear from the records that
from the time this instant case was maliciously instituted by the
Appellee, Appellant has been strongly denying the alleged acts
of slapping because in truth and in fact it really did not happen.
Attention must be called on the following statements contained
in Appellant’s Petition For Review dated March 3, 2010, as well
as, in his Counter-Affidavit which form part of the records of this
case, to wit:
IN APPELLANT’S COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT

“1. The allegations of Ms. Bulo are unfounded and

exaggerated, for the truth of the matter are as follows:

a. xxx

b. xxx; and

c. In her effort in luring me to hurt her, Ms. Bulo, this time,

was annoyingly walking back and forth in front of me, and
because she was already getting on my nerves, I gently
grabbed her arm to stop her and to make her sit down
in the chair, but she arrogantly resisted and lean her
back to avoid me which cause her to trip and fall down
hitting her face against the wall;

3. To my dismay, Ms. Bulo filed again another

unfounded complaint against me and this time alleging
that I slapped her and made her a laughing stock inside
the barangay hall;

4. This instant complaint is just one of Ms. Bulo’s malicious

complaint against me and a mere vengeance motivated by
personal hatred because I am one of those who strongly
requested that her huge “buli tree” be cut and be taken out as it
is posing a threat to our family’s safety;”

IN PAGE 6, APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR REVIEW

 “THE ALLEGED SLAPPING,
GRANTING IT WAS TRUE,
CANNOT PRODUCED TWO
SEPARATE OFFENSES OF
SERIOUS SLANDER BY DEED
AND SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES.

In the dispositive portion, the Honorable

Investigating Prosecutor erred in recommending the filing of
information of separate offenses of Serious Slander By Deed and
Slight Physical Injuries against herein defendant. Assuming en
arguendo that Appellant slapped Appellee, the act
committed by the former cannot produced two separate
offenses”

In view of the foregoing statements, Appellee’s claim that

Appellant never denied the act of slapping is clearly without any
basis whatsoever;

4. Other than the aforequoted misleading allegations, the rest of

the arguments contained in Appellee’s Motion For
Reconsideration are mere rehash of the arguments stated in her
Comment dated March 19, 2010, which were already passed
upon by this Honorable Office in the Resolution promulgated on
May 12, 2010. Thus, it would just be a futile ritual for this
Honorable Office to reiterate itself; and

5. Finally, the contention of Appellee regarding the requirement of

the attachment of a certified true copy of the resolution is
likewise without merit. Since Department Circular No. 70 allows
an attachment of the legible duplicate original of the
resolution, it is without a doubt that Appellant has already
sufficiently complied with rules on appeal.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Done this ____ day of August 2010, in Iligan City for Cagayan de
Oro City.

ROLANDO FAJARDO
Respondent-Appellant

EXPLANATION
 This Comment is being served to the Appellee by registered mail
because of lack of personnel to effect personal service and being filed
before this Honorable Office through registered mail due to
geographical distance between Iligan City and Cagayan de Oro City.

ROLANDO FAJARDO
Respondent-Appellant
Copy furnished:

Jovita C. Bulo,
Aguinaldo St., Poblacion, Iligan City

Office of the City Prosecutor

Hall of Justice, Iligan City