REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
PASAY CITY

VICTORIA DULUTAN,
Complainant,

- versus - NPS Docket No.___________

For: Slander & Unjust
Vexation

ELAINE A. CALLAO
Respondent.
x-------------------------------------------x

COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT

I, ELAINRE A. CALLAO (“Respondent”), of legal age, Filipino

citizen, who may be served with notices, subpoenas, pleadings,
motions, and other documents at Unit ______, Somerset Mansion,
1809 Leveriza St., Pasay City, Quezon City, Philippines, with a
landline number of (02) _________, and an email address of
______________, after being duly sworn in accordance with law,
depose and state that:

1. I am the respondent in the above-entitled case,

which was initiated through a Complaint-Affidavit dated 23 July
2019 (“Complaint”) executed by VICTORIA DULUTAN
(“Complainant”) and filed with this Honorable Office on 29 July
2019.

2. The Complaint claims that I am liable for a

violation of Slander and Unjust Vexation, allegedly in connection
with certain utterances I made to a certain Rosana Hugo (“Hugo”).

3. According to Complainant, I allegedly said to

Hugo that she was the source behind the rumors that Hugo had only
managed to obtain her title to her condominium unit by siding with
the Board of Directors (“Board”) in an on-going dispute between the
latter and the unit owners.
 4. Allegedly, due to the fact that I had said that she
was the source of the rumors, Complainant had been embarrassed by
making it seem that she was the type of person to spread malicious
rumors about others and that her reputation as a unit owner had
been besmirched.1

5. Complainants allegations are untrue and more

importantly she has not particularly alleged any acts that I committed
that constitute the crime of Slander and/or Unjust Vexation.

6. The truth of the matter is that on 18 May 2019,

there was an open forum between the current Board and the unit
owners of our condominium relative to the aforementioned dispute. I
was at work, hence, I was not able to attend the open forum.

7. On the night of 20 May 2019, my neighbors Elisa

Fermin and Margaret Tan talked to me to ask about what had
transpired on the open forum since they too were unable to attend. I
said that I had work that day and was not able to attend as well.

8. They then relayed to me that they had heard

from other individuals, of which I did not bother to ask the identities
of, that Complainant was claiming that Hugo had sided with the
Board in the dispute. As a reward for supposedly switching sides,
Hugo had been given the title to her condominium unit.

9. I called Hugo the next day to clarify what

actually happened during the open forum and to ascertain if there is
any truth to the claims that she switched sides. I was only concerned
with the fact that if Hugo did indeed side with the Board this
would have a big effect on the dispute, which would in turn affect
me as a unit owner. Hugo explained to me that there was no truth to
it and that the notion that she switched sides must have stemmed
from the fact that she got the Board to acquiesce to the conduct of the
open forum.

10. After which, Hugo asked me where I had gotten

that particular information. I said that I had learned it from my
neighbors who had heard it from other individuals that Complainant
was claiming that she has sided with the Board.

1
See Complainant’s Complaint par. 10.

2
 11. Satisfied with Hugo’s clarification I thought
nothing more of the incident nor did I discuss this matter with
anyone else. Which is why I was surprised that on 22 May 2019, I was
called on the phone by the Administrative Office (“Office”) of the
condominium and that my presence was being requested thereat.

12. I managed to talk with Hugo on the phone as she

was present in the Office at that time, she explained that out of her
own accord she had confronted the Complainant. I replied that I did
not want to interfere nor intervene in the matter as it was between
her and the Complainant. As such, I did not see the need to be
present at the Office as I had no issue to resolve with neither
Complainant nor Hugo.

13. Later that night I received a call from the

chairman of our baragangay. He said that Complainant had went to
their office to complain against my alleged role in the spreading of
the rumors against her. Said chairman stated that pursuant to their
mandate they were going to set multiple settings of conciliation
proceedings.

14. I replied that I had not been spreading malicious

and baseless rumors against the Complainant, as such, I did not see
the need to participate in those proceedings before the barangay
officials. Also I did not want to see Complainant in person as I did
not want to be on the receiving end of her unwarranted rage.

15. More importantly, any spare time I have was

split between caring for my mother who is currently undergoing
chemo therapy and raising my child as a single parent.

16. Considering the foregoing, the Complaint should

be dismissed outright. It has no basis and does not satisfy the
elements of Slander and/or Unjust Vexation, punishable under
Article 358 and Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code (“RPC”), as
amended.

17. While there is no debate about the fact that I had

talked to Hugo and likewise upon her insistence I relayed what I had
heard from my neighbors, there is nothing defamatory about those
utterances which indubitably could neither subject Complainant to
public ridicule and humiliation nor cast aspersion to her person as
she claims.

3
 18. Under Article 358 of the RPC, Slander is defined
as the speaking of base and defamatory words which tend to
prejudice another in his reputation, office, trade, business, or means
of livelihood. Thus, the elements of Slander are: (a) there must be an
imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any
act, omission, status or circumstances; (2) made orally; (3) publicly;
(4) and maliciously; (5) directed to a natural or juridical person, or
one who is dead; (6) which tends to cause dishonour, discredit or
contempt of the person defamed.2

19. In the instant case, while admittedly some

elements of Slander are present, there is no malicious imputation of
crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission,
status or circumstances against the Complainant that should
warrant some criminal liability.

20. My sole and primary concern when I called

Hugo was to get updated on what events had transpired on the
forum between the Board and the unit owners and to ascertain if
Hugo had indeed sided with the Board – as this would have affected
me as a unit owner. I would not have even mentioned that
Complainant was the source of the rumors had not Hugo pressed me
to disclose the details of the information I had gotten from my
neighbors.

21. Hence, my utterances to Hugo taken into the

proper context of me just wanting to get updated relative to the
ongoing dispute between the Board and the unit owners, can in no
way shape or form be construed as a malicious imputation on the
person of the Complainant. It cannot be stressed enough that
Complainant failed to particularly allege any act of mine to constitute
the element of malicious imputation.

22. As for Complainant’s allegations that I am liable

for the violation of Unjust Vexation punishable under Article 287 of
the RPC, the same is without any legal basis and should be dismissed
as well.,

23. I was unquestionably acting in good faith when I

was clarifying with Hugo as I had only wanted to ascertain her

2
De Leon v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 212623, January 11, 2016.

4
loyalties relative to the ongoing dispute between the Board and the
unit owners. My action in reaching out to Hugo was in no way
intended to annoy, irritate, nor distress the Complainant.
Complainant reached her own convoluted conclusion and wrongly
assumed that this was about her. Again Complainant’s failure to
particularly allege my malicious acts in her Complaint is utterly fatal
to her assertion that I am liable for a violation of Unjust Vexation.

24. Since Complainant clearly failed to particularly

allege my acts that constitute malicious imputations against her nor
illustrate and adduce proof that I had maliciously directed my
actions to annoy, irritate, or distress her, this Honorable Office must
DISMISS this Complaint.

25. I am executing this Counter-Affidavit to attest to

the truth of the foregoing facts, and to disprove and refute all the
allegations against me in the Complaint.

26. Finally, I reserve my right to avail of any and all

legal remedies, including the filing of appropriate criminal charges,
against the Complainant.

City of Pasay, ___ August 2019

____________________
ELAINRE A. CALLAO

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me at Pasay City this ___

August 2019. I hereby certify that I have personally examined the
affiant and that I am satisfied that the affiant voluntarily executed
this Counter-Affidavit and that he understood the contents thereof.

_________________________
Assistant City Prosecutor