DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Office of the Provincial Prosecutor

Borongan City, Eastern Samar

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES NPS NO. VIII-xx-xxxxxx-xxxxx

Plaintiff, For:
-Versus- “ LIBEL”
RHODORA X
Barangay Pluto, Taft, Eastern Samar
Accused,
x---------------------------------------------x
COMPLAINT
The undersigned Complainant hereby accuses RHODORA X of
the crime of libel as defined and penalized under Article 355 of the
Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 4, (c) paragraph 4 of
Republic Act Number 10175 also known as the Cybercrime
Prevention Act of 2012, committed as follows:

That on or before January 23, 2019, February 27, 2019, March

2, 2019, and February 26, 2019, the said accused through a computer
system or other similar means and with malice aforethought, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously posted/published
on Facebook, a Social Networking Sire available to the general public,
several malicious imputations labeling the complainant a whore, an
adulteress, sexual pervert, a cousin of a rapist, a trouble maker, an
extortionist. Such imputations tend to cause dishonor, discredit or
contempt to complainant’s person to her damage and prejudice.
ALL CONTRARY TO LAW.
_______ March 2019 at Taft, Eastern Samar.

SABRINA M.
Complainant
WITNESSES:
1. Aloha S. – Barangay 9, Taft, Eastern Samar
2. Virginia L. – Barangay 11, Taft, Eastern Samar
3. Lita B. – Barangay 12, Taft, Eastern Samar
4. Others to be presented later
EXHIBITS:
1. Affidavit of Witness
2. Police Blotter Excerpt
3. Authenticated Screen-shot copies of Facebook Posts
4. Certification of Authentication
5. Others to be presented later

SIGNED AND SWORN to me before this ____ day of March

2019 at Borongan, Eastern Samar.

GARRY J DEGUINION
PROSECUTOR 1

Republic of the Philippines)

Province of Eastern Samar) Sc.
Municipality of Taft )

AFFIDAVIT
I, ALOHA S, 24 years old, married, laundry woman and resident
of Barangay 9, Taft, Eastern Samar, after having been duly sworn to
an oath in accordance with law, hereby depose and say:

1. That I work as an on-call laundry woman of Sabrina M, at

Barangay 6, Taft, Eastern Samar;

2. That in the course of my employment as such, I and Sabrina

M. become friends and I became her confidante;

3. That I learned from her that her husband Papa P is having

an affair with a certain Rhodora X;

4. That on January 23, 2019, while searching the facebook

account of the said Phodora X, I found out a post containing
the following texts; Kaayaw matitigbak mamapokpok ka
animal!! Yada tim nanhinputahan nagpupulukatpukat ura
hin kasupo kan Enchong Dee-nga animal. Mas poker ka
mayda ka pa patod nga rapist mananap. Hi ikaw it
nagtitinuroy hin samok nga kaber ka ngan mas shit ka pa
demonyo! Ikaw it diri happy ka waray ka susuportahi ni
Enchong Dee-nga tim bastardo nga anak asya nag iinaro ka
hin salapi…kairo ma udog hinihimo hiya nga sumsusman hit
ira mga madi ngan padi ngin kinikita hiya suga kuno hin
nagpipinutak nga ugang;

5. That when I further scanned on the comments, I found out

that the author Rhodora X was referring to Sabrina M as in
one comment, she directly named Sabrina M. in reply to a
comment of one Lily Cruz;

6. That I immediately informed Sabrina M. of what I hae found

so that she would know about it, she however, told me that
she already read the said post;
 7. That I have also previously read some earlier facebook
posts containing defamatory remarks of the said Rhodora X,
which are apparently directed at Sabrina M one of which
reads; “ Tim pagpinakalinislinis nga ayam ka tim kapalahian
diri lugo nim gin-iintindi tim kalugaringon nga lamiri bias
kana may anak nagpaanak ka pa hin iba nga lalaki kun diri
ka latir nga hayop ka!!! Maaram ako tim istorya tikang pala
han tikang bisita ka la han iya birthday nga waray ka uuli
kay tipakuan ka…maaram ka nga ayda a hiya asawa ngan
burod mangaranak pero wra ka la gihap pagstop kay
pokpok ka ma tapos nag live in na kam nagpipinanlalaki ka
la gihap. Diri ka nakukuntento ht usa la nga lalaki. Makatol
ka!

8. That it appears that there were already too many people

who have read the said posts of Rhodora X as shown by the
several comments that are also posted therein;

9. That I am executing this affidavit to attest the truth of the

foregoing.

IN TRUTH WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this

______ day of March 2019, at Taft, Eastern Samar.
ALOHA S.
Affiant
SIGNED AND SWORN to before me this ___ day of March 2019
at Borongan, Eastern Samar.

GARRY J DEGUINION
PROSECUTOR 1
Republic of the Philippines)
Province of Eastern Samar) Sc.
Municipality of Taft )

AFFIDAVIT
I, VIRGINIA L, 36 years old, single, self-employed and resident
of Barangay 11, Taft, Eastern Samar, after having been duly sworn to
an oath in accordance with law, hereby depose and say:

1. That on February 27, 2019, while I was scanning through

the newsfeed of the Facebook account of my partner
Aliford, I came upon a post of one Rhodora X containing the
following texts; Kaayaw matitigbak mamapokpok kal!!
Yada tim nanhinputahan nagpupulukatpukat ura hin
kasupo kan Enchong Dee-nga. Mas poker ka mayda ka pa
patod nga rapist mananap. Hi ikaw it nagtitinuroy hin
samok nga kaber ka ngan mas shit ka pa! Ikaw it diri happy
ka waray ka susuportahi ni Enchong Dee-nga tim bastardo
nga anak asya nag iinaro ka hin salapi…kairo ma udog
hinihimo hiya nga sumsusman hit ira mga madi ngan padi
ngin kinikita hiya suga kuno hin nagpipinutak nga ugang;

2. That when I further scanned on the comments, I found out

that the author Rhodora X was referring to Sabrina M as in
one comment, she directly named Sabrina M. in reply to a
comment of one Lily Cruz;

3. That I felt bad about that which I read as I have known

Sabrina M. to be a good woman and responsible mother to
her two young children;

4. That which I read somehow left an impression in my mind

that Sabrina M, married as she is, is still having an affair
with another man referred to in the Facebook post as Papa
P and that she begot her second child from him.
 5. That I screen shot the said post and forwarded it to Sabrina
M.’s messenger so that she would know about the said
posts;

6. That I have also previously read some earlier Facebook

posts containing defamatory remarks of the said Rhodora X,
it is however only this time that I discerned that those are
directed at Sabrina M.;

7. That I am executing this affidavit to attest the truth of the

foregoing.

IN TRUTH WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this

______ day of March 2019, at Taft, Eastern Samar.

VIRGINIA L.
Affiant
SIGNED AND SWORN to before me this ___ day of March 2019
at Borongan, Eastern Samar.

GARRY J DEGUINION
PROSECUTOR 1
REPUBLIIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)
Province of Eastern Samar ) S.S.
x---------------------------------------x
COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT
I, RHODORA X, Filipino, of leagl age, and resident of Barangay
Pluto, Taft, Eastern Samar, Philippines, after having been duly sworn
to in accordance with law, and in compliance with the directive of
this Honorable Office, hereby depose and state that:

I am the named Respondent in a complaint filed by one

SABRINA M., allegedly for violation of Cybercrime Prevention Act of
2012 (R.A 10175) allegedly for posting defamatory remarks on social
media, and which is presently docketed as NPS Docket No. VIII-xx-
xxxxxx-xxxxx, befor e the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor,
Borongan City, Eastern Samar.

I vehemently deny the serious accusation against me for being

totally false, baseless and maliciously fabricated the truth being that i
did not at any time post the alleged defamatory remarks against the
complainant. Apparently, the instant case is but a way of the
complainant to get back at the respondent as she is being
romantically linked with the complainant’s husband.

First and foremost, however, it is respectfully submitted that

the instant complaint ought to have been dismissed outright for
having failed to conform to the requirement of Section 3, Rule 112 of
the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Under the aforesaid section,
it is clearly provided that “the affidavits shall be subscribed and
sworn to before any prosecutor or government official authorized to
administer oath, or in their absence or unavailability, before a notary
public, each of whom must certify that he personally examined the
affiants and that he is satisfied that they voluntarily executed and
understood their affidavits.” A close scrutiny of the affidavits
attached to the complaint would readily show that the same did not
bear the certification of the prosecutor or a notary public that e
personally examined the affiants and that he is satisfied that they
voluntarily executed and understood their affidavits. On this point
alone, the complaint should not have deserved consideration from
this Honorable Office.

In Oporto, Jr. vs. Monserate1, it was held that the requirement

set forth under Section 3, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure is mandatory. This is so because the rules on preliminary
investigation does not require a confrontation between the parties.
Preliminary investigation is ordinarily conducted through submission
of affidavits and supporting documents, and through the exchange of
pleadings. Thus, it can be inferred that the rationale for requiring the
affidavits of witnesses to be sworn to before a competent officer so
as to ensure that the affidavits supporting the factual allegations in
the Complaint have been sworn before a competent officer and that
the affiant has signed the same in the former’s presence declaring on
aoth the truth of the statement made considering that this becomes
part of the bases in finding probable guilt against the respondent.

Even then, to set set te records sstaright, I would like to

reiterate that I was not the one who poste the alleged defamatory
accusations directed towards the complainant. While the alleged
Facebook account bears a resemblance to my name, I categorically
state that I did not at any time post the defamatory remarks that the
compliant is now attributing to me.

Besides, the complaint itself did not state that the alleged
Facebook account under my name has been autheticated in
accordance with the prescribed rules. Under the Rules on Electronic
Evidence (REE), which the Supreme Court promulgated in 2001, it is
provided that “(b)efore any private electronic document offered as
authentic is received in evidence, its authenticity must be proved by
any of the following means: (a) by evidence that it had been digitally
signed by the person purported to have signed the same; (b) by
evidence that other appropriate security procedures or devices as
may be authorized by the Supreme Court or by law for
authentication of electronic documents were applied to the
document; or (c) by other evidence showing its integrity and
reliablity to the satisfaction of the judge.”

Consequently, due to the lack of authentication and given the

advances in technology noadays, it would not be farfetched that
some malevolent inviduals, who may have some axe to grind against
the complainant, had hacked into my account and posted the alleged
1
A.M No. MTJ-96-1109, April 16, 2001.
defamatory remarks in my account, without my knowledge or
consent. It could also be that the subject account is a fictitious or
dummy account made just for the purpose of posting those alleged
defamatory remarks where my name was maliciously used in the
process. Indeed, nowadays, anyone could make an account in
Facebook under any name, even duplicating the names of persons,
without their knowledge and consent.

For the utter lack of authentication, it is respectfully submitted

that the instant complaint must necessarily fail as complainant
miserably failed to discharge her burden of proving the authenticity
of the alleged defamatory post. Under Section 1 Rule 5, of the Rules
on Electronic Evidence, it is provided that-

SECTION1. Burden of proving authenticity. – The person

seeking to introduce electronic document in any legal
proceeding has the burden of proving its authenticity in
the manner provided in this Rule.

The alleged Certification from the anti-cybercrime group of the

Philippine National Police does not prove anything. It simply prove
that an account under the name of Rhodora X is existing under FB ID
123456789. It did not prove that I am the owner of that account as
the certification did not even state that ISP address from which such
account has been maintained. Again, it is undisputed fact that
anyone, could make an FB account under any name, even copying or
duplicating the existing accounts.

Suffice to say, thus, that this charge is baseless and deserve

scant consideration, if at all. For this reason alone, with due respect,
it behooves upon this Honorable Office to immediately dismiss the
instant complaint.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this

_______________, at ____________, Philippines.

RHODORA X
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, this ______ day of
__________ 2019. I hereby certify that I have examined the affiant
and that I am satisfied that she voluntarily executed and understood
her Counter-Affidavit.
 ATTY. MARINETH M POMBO
Doc. No. Notary Public
Page No. Notarial Commission No. 1234
Book No. Until December 31, 2020
Series of 2019 Roll of Atty. No. 4321
PTR No. 5678/Borongan, E.
Samar
IBP No. 12345678/Manila
` MCLE ComplianceNo./March 3,
2014
Police Blotter Excerpt
Authenticated Screen-shot copies of Facebook Posts

Certification of Authentication