Republic of the Philippines

City of Manila

COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT

I, GRACE ESCUDERO, of legal age, married, resident of 1302 Dapitan Street, Manila City,
after having been duly sworn in accordance with the law, do hereby depose and say that:

1.

I am one of the members of the Board of Directors of Ro-Ro Academy, the respondent
academic institution;

2.

I vehemently deny the allegations set forth in the Complaint-Affidavit filed by Ms.
Miriam Marcos (the Complainant) dated 14 November 2015;

3.

On the 15th of October 2015, the Board of Directors of Ro-Ro Academy, myself included,
validly terminated the contract between Ro-Ro Academy and PoeChiz, Canteen, Inc. on
the ground of the latters material breach of contract. Thereafter, an advisory was posted
stating that:
ADVISORY
We wish to inform you that effective 15 September 2015 the Agreement between
Ro-Ro Academy (Ro-Ro) and PoeChiz Canteen Inc. (PoeChiz) has been terminated.
PoeChiz is no longer accredited to serve meals and refreshments within campus
premises.
PoeChiz has not been remitting the cash sales to Ro-Ro since last year, contrary to
the tenor of the Agreement with Ro-Ro. Last 10 August, Ro Ro gave PoeChiz a
final chance to settle its payables, but the latter did not comply. PoeChiz has in fact,
padlocked the Canteen premises and refused to vacate the same.
Rest assured that Ro-Ro is and shall take all necessary action to ensure that it will
regain full possession of the South Wing of the Conservatory. Such action of
PoeChiz has endangered the safety and security of our employees, teachers and
students, which Ro-Ro has the utmost duty to uphold at all times. Rest assured that
Ro-Ro shall do all measures to protect the employees, teachers and students from
any disturbance or harm caused by PoeChiz continued and unauthorized presence
within our campus.

4.

The instant complaint must be dismissed outright for the reasons stated hereunder;

5.

First, the Complaint-Affidavit filed by the Complainant is erroneous and grossly

insufficient, hence, it must be dismissed outright;

6.

Section 6, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that:
A complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of the
accused; the designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions
complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the
approximate date of the commission of the offense; and the place where the
offense was committed.

When an offense is committed by more than one person, all of them shall
be included in the complaint or information.
7.

The above-quoted provision of law is clear in requiring that the complaint should state
the name of the accused and that, if the crime be committed by more than one person, all
of the names of the accused be included in the complaint filed.

8.

It is clear that the Complaint-Affidavit of the Complainant did not follow the form and
procedural requirements specifically required by the law, as it identified Ro-Ro Academy
in general as the respondent of their complaint.

9.

Further, it is elementary that such juridical person cannot be tried in a criminal case.

10. Second, assuming that the above error may be overlooked, this case must still be
dismissed on the ground that not all the elements of the crime of libel are present.
11. Under the Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code, the elements of libel are as follows:
(a) Defamatory imputation tending to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt;
(b) Malice either in law or in fact;
(c) Publication; and
(d) Person defamed is identifiable.
12. There was no defamatory imputation in the advisory since it was merely a statement of
events that have transpired and our future cause of action should the complainants action
continue.
13. The posting of the advisory is likewise consistent with the practice of other institutions in
matters of great importance to their clients and employees as that like such advisory
which was made to notify the clients and employees of Ro-Ro Academy that PoeChiz
would no longer be accredited to serve meals and refreshments in the campus.
14. Further, The Complainants argument that the notice was posted in a conspicuous place
in order to create in the minds of the public and its other clients that PoeChiz, Inc. does
not comply with its obligations cannot be given merit.
15. The reputation of the Complainants company cannot be affected by the posted advisory
because it was posted within the premises of the campus, which is a private property not
easily accessible to the public, much less the clients of PoeChiz, Inc.
16. Again, I emphasize that the reputation of the company cannot be affected as it would be
highly unlikely that their clients would be able to see the advisory.

17. The publication of the advisory cannot be considered as the publication contemplated
by the law in defining and punishing libel.
18. Fourth, assuming arguendo that ill will or malice is present, said ill will or malice must
be personal. (People v. de los Reyes, Jr.)
19. Defamatory remarks directed at a group of persons are not actionable unless the
statements are all-embracing or sufficiently specific for the victim to be identifiable.
(Newsweek Inc. v Intermediate Appellate Court; Uy Tioco, et al. vs. Yang Shu Wen,
et al.)
20. As the Complainant herself was not singled out in the allegedly defamatory advisory the
fourth essential requisite of the offense of libel does not exist in the notice.
21. Lastly, even if the elements of libel were proven to be present in the advisory, the case
must be dismissed because I had nothing to do with these criminal acts.
22. The enumeration of persons liable for libel provided in Article 360 is exclusive. As the
enumerations stated therein does not include members of the Board of Directors of
private institutions, I cannot be made liable for the crime.
23. Given the above arguments, it is apparent the instant complaint is not sufficient to create
a well-founded belief that an offense has been committed. There is no probable cause to
hold me liable for libel as defined in the Revised Penal Code. Thus, the present complaint
should be dismissed for lack of merit.

Affiant further sayeth naught.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto affixed my signature below this 21st day of November
2015 in the City of Manila, Philippines.

_________________________________
Grace Escudero
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, in the City of Manila, this 21 st day of November
2015.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have personally examined the affiant and I am satisfied that he
voluntarily executed this Counter-Affidavit and understood the same.

_______________________________________
INVESTIGATING PROSECUTOR