REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

CITY OF QUEZON, METRO MANILA S.S.

COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT

I, ESTHER MARGAUX “MOCHA” USON, of legal age with office address

at Second Floor, New Executive Building, Malacanang Compound, San Miguel,
Manila, after being duly sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby state that:

1. I am the respondent in the instant case, filed by SEN. ANTONIO

“SONNY” F. TRILLANES IV, hereinafter referred to as the
“Complainant”.

2. I categorically deny paragraph 1 of the Complaint Affidavit, and

particularly categorically deny that the publication I made was in any
way derogatory.

2.1. The statement says:

xxx

“Alleged tagong yaman ni TRILLANES. Tignan natin

kung ilalabas ito ng GMA News, ABS-CBN News, News
5, CNN Philippines, Rappler, INQUIRER.net”
[emphasis supplied]

xxx

2.2. First, the statement is not about the Complainant. The subject
of the statement are the media organizations.

2.3. Second, the statement does not allege as a fact that

Complainant has “hidden wealth”; rather, it indicates that
there is an allegation of hidden wealth.

2.4. Libel being a malicious imputation of a crime, vice or defect,

nothing in the statement imputes any of the foregoing.
3. I admit paragraph 2 on page 1 of the Complaint Affidavit.

4. I categorically deny paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6 of the Complaint Affidavit

for lack of personal knowledge sufficient to determine the truth or
falsity of such allegations.

5. I admit paragraphs 7 and 8 in so far as thety relate to the fact that I

took down my post. However, I categorically deny the rest of the
contents of said paragraphs for lack personal knowledge on my part
to determine the truth or falsity of such claims.

6. I categorically deny paragraph 9 for lack of personal knowledge on

my part to determine the truth or falsity of such claims.

7. I categorically deny paragraph 10, in which Complainant states:

xxx

“However, shortly thereafter, almost as if on cue,

President Rodrigo Roa Duterte, Ms. Uson’s principal,
began making the same accusations against the
undersigned, apparently based in turn on the
earlier article/facebook post posted (sic) of
respondent Uson” [emphasis supplied]

xxx

7.1. The Complainant is not stating ultimate facts here, as

required by the Rules of Court, but indulges in mere
speculation.

7.2. I am an Assistant Secretary of the Presidential

Communications Office.

7.3. If I needed to transmit any information in the nature of a

criminal act possibly committed by a senator of the republic, I

Page 2 of 10
 would not let him learn of it from my blog. Instead, I would
convey the information through more formal means.

8. I categorically deny paragraph 11 for lack of personal knowledge on

my part to determine the truth or falsity of such claims..

9. I admit paragraphs 12 and 13 only for the fact of my publication and

its contents. I categorically deny that the same constitutes libel.

10. I categorically deny paragraphs 14, 15 and 16. These paragraphs

only show mere conclusions on the part of the Complainant and do
not constitute ultimate facts.

11. I categorically deny paragraph 17 as being mere speculation and

conclusions on the part of the Complainant, all of which are in turn
unsubstantiated, malicious and over-reaching. I have no personal
knowledge of his Facebook name, the names he uses or their form
or how often he uses his name. Nor do I even care about his
Facebook account and the things he posts on it.

12. I categorically deny paragraph 18, 19, 20 and 21 for being

speculative, and I further categorically deny Paragraph 21 for lack
of lack personal knowledge on my part to determine the truth or
falsity of such claims.

13. I categorically deny paragraph 22 and 23 for lack of lack personal

knowledge on my part to determine the truth or falsity of such
claims.

14. I categorically deny paragraphs 24-32 for lack of lack personal

knowledge on my part to determine the truth or falsity of such
claims.

Page 3 of 10
15. I categorically deny paragraphs 33 and 34 as they constitute
conclusions made solely by Complainant, based on spurious and
clearly illogical premises.

16. I categorically deny paragraphs 35-38 for being ridiculous

arguments and not ultimate facts.

17. I categorically deny paragraph 39 for being mere arguments and

citations of law, and not ultimate facts.

18. I neither admit nor deny paragraph 40 for being a mere statement
by Complainant of his intent to charge the undersigned respondent.
No one, let alone this Respondent, knows what goes on inside the
mind of this person; as well as the intentions he might have about
those things.

19. I neither admit nor deny pars 41-47 for being mere statements of
law, jurisprudence, references to annexes, statements of intention
by the Complainant, insinuations and conclusions. None of the
allegations contained in these paragraphs constitute ultimate facts.
They are all rather things imagined by a certain senator of this
country. All of which do not amount to anything relevant to this
case.

20. I categorically deny paragraph 48 for lack of lack personal

knowledge on my part to determine the truth or falsity of such
claims. The truth of the matter is that these allegations merely
constitute hearsay and have no evidentiary value whatsoever in
proceedings such as this one.

Page 4 of 10
21. I neither admit nor deny paragraphs 49-50 for being non-sensical
arguments rather than ultimate facts.

22. I neither admit nor deny paragraph 51 for being merely

Complainant’s statement of intent and not necessarily any ultimate
fact.

23. I neither admit nor deny pars 52-56 for being arguments and
citations; and not ultimate facts, as are required for affidavits of
complaint.

COUNTER-ALLEGATIONS

24. On 08 September, 2017 I shared the Facebook post of Davao

Breaking News which had posted documents purporting to be Sen.
Antonio Trillanes’ off shore bank accounts.

25. Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV is a member of the Philippine Senate and

is a public figure. He is also one of the persons in the opposition, who
are involved in a black propaganda campaign against the duly-
elected President and his government.

26. Complainant’s popularity is, however, largely due to the blunders he

commits on print and broadcast media. Most of those blunders
involve his mistaken and weak grasp of his own smear campaign
against the president and this constitutional government.

27. When I shared the Davao Breaking News (hereinafter “DBN”)

article, I added a comment saying:

xxx

“Alleged tagong yaman ni Trillanes. Tignang

natin kung ilalabas ito ng GMA News, ABS-CBN

Page 5 of 10
 News, News 5, CNN Philippines, Rappler”
[emphasis supplied]
xxx

28. I carefully used the word “alleged” in that post to signify the fact
that I am not the origin of such claim. If complainant does not see
the significance of that word in relation to my post, then let this be
his education regarding the matter.

29. The print-outs of the purported bank accounts were also shared
from the same Facebook Account of DBN. (re paragraph 1
Complaint). By “share” I mean the act of reposting something which
was posted by someone else. A shared post, therefore, is something
that was not originated by the “sharer”. At best, the person who
shared something originally posted by someone else can be
considered to have presumed that the thing shared is true, owing to
the character and reputation of the original poster. Surely,
complainant knows this as well; considering that he has come out
on broadcast and print media –against the President, his
government and even members of his family— with allegations he
himself did not originate, but were merely sourced from persons
whose identities he did not care to reveal.

30. After Complainant issued his denial, which I heard about only
through other shared articles on Facebook, I voluntarily took down
the said shared post from my wall. Again, this is something that
Complainant apparently fails to comprehend. He seems to be
uninformed of the fact that a voluntary cessation of something
perceived to be unlawful is a clear sign of the lack of intention to
commit such an unlawful act. May this be another learning
experience for complainant, Senator Trillanes.

31. Contrary to Complainant’s imaginings, I am not President Duterte’s

source of information on matters pertaining to Complainant. That is
too much of an assumption to be made by a senator of a country

Page 6 of 10
 regarding the sources of intelligence of the Office of the President. If
complainant believes that I am somehow very interested in his
actuations, let this be a clarification that I have better things to do
and attend to than follow his activities; which activities are largely
insignificant to my job, and even to the welfare of this country and
its citizens.

32. I posted a statement from the President on 09 September 2017. In

as much as the president said the same publicly, it was also covered
by media and published. In it, I said, PRRD: I’m coming out with
Trillanes bank deposits.” (re paragraph 12 Complaint)

32.1. GMA published the exact same words on its website.

[http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/625212/
duterte-i-m-coming-out-with-trillanes-bank-deposits/story/
accessed 27 November 2017]

32.2. The same words were also published in MSM.

[https://www.msn.com/en-ph/news/national/duterte-im-
coming-out-with-trillanes-bank-deposits/ar-
AArxByb?li=BBr8Mkn]

32.3. Again, as stated above, I was only re-posting or sharing what

other broadcast media had earlier posted. Now it is quite
obvious that complainant really does not understand the
difference between an original post and a shared post.

32.4. Assuming without conceding that complainant has such a

basic understanding of the same, then why is he charging only
me and not the original posters of those articles I merely
shared? This just goes to show that complainant is way out of
his wits in what he is trying to do in this case.

Page 7 of 10
33. I made a statement on the same blog, “Sinabi mismo ni PRRD na
mayroong bank deposits si Trillanes sa iba’t ibang bansa.
Panoorin.” And this was appended to a video posted on the same
blog. And the same video shows President Duterte saying exactly
that, that he was coming out with Trillanes’ bank deposits. The video
was from PCOO as clearly indicated in the lower right-hand corner.
(re paragraph 12, Complaint).

34. The comment I made that says, “Kung sino ang namimintang sa
Pangulo at sa kanyang pamilya tungkol sa tagong yaman, tila
sila ang may tinatago.” Is not in any way derogatory or malicious.
Unless of course if complainant admits that he is directly alluded to
in that statement in such a way that the public would realize that he
is in fact guilty of whatever he seems to feel guilty about.

35. I did not use any of the documents, Complainant says I did, other
than to share the same on my Facebook blog. (re paragraph 17
complaint affidavit). Again, complainant here shows how much of
what he is talking about he does not understand. I reposted or
shared the documents that came with article which I also reposted
or shared. Any other “use” complainant is imaginatively insisting
upon here simply does not exist in reality.

36. I do not have any other form of work or job outside and apart from
my job as Assistant Secretary. I have no other source of
compensation apart from my current job. And to correct the
misimpression of complainant, the President Duterte is not by any
stretch imagination my principal. He is not my employer. It is the
government of the Republic of the Philippines that employs me. The
same employer that employs the complainant. The only difference
between complainant and I is the fact that I know who employs me
and the complainant clearly does not.

Page 8 of 10
37. I no longer perform in Resorts World. Complainant relies upon a
Rappler article posted on Rappler’s site. Rappler is another one of
the leading black propaganda machinery engaged in sowing
misinformation about and discord in the current de jure
government. It is notable that the Rappler article itself was already
hearsay. Complainant’s use of that same Rappler article makes his
own allegations twice removed from the truth of personal
knowledge. It is, for all intents and purposes, double-hearsay. Which
is not really atypical of complainant’s actuations of late.

38. Furthermore, I had sought permission from my superior, Sec. Martin

Andanar to continue performing to comply with existing contractual
obligations, provided I no longer receive compensation. Such
permission was granted (re paragraph 47).

39. Attached hereto is my request for permission and the granting

thereof, which are marked ANNEXES “1” and “2” respectively, and
made integral parts of this Counter-Affidavit.

40. To put finality upon this matter, and to correct Rappler’s and
complainant’s misinformation on the same, I had stopped
performing for Resorts World or for any other entity since that last
performance. May this be the final statement on the matter. The
insistence upon this matter, after this correction, would make it
utterly malicious and therefore illegal.

41. Considering the foregoing, it is at once made very clear that

complainant’s allegations, his misplaced sense of injured reputation
and this present proceeding are nothing but a baseless, imagined
and useless activity that takes much of the time and financial
resources of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines. This
case is something that no one in this government has the right to
dignify, at the expense of the people of this country, who stands as

Page 9 of 10
 the real employer of the Complainant, this Honorable Office and this
humble Respondent.

42. I am voluntarily executing this affidavit to attest to the truthfulness

of the foregoing facts and to support the outright dismissal of the
complaint filed against me.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 5th day of

December 2017, in Quezon City, Republic of the Philippines.

ESTHER MARGAUX “MOCHA” USON

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, this 5th day of December 2017,
by ESTHER MARGAUX “MOCHA” USON, who exhibited to me the following:

Competent Evidence of Identity

Affiant Number & Expiry
Type of ID
Date

ESTHER MARGAUX “MOCHA” USON

NOTARY PUBLIC

Doc. No. ____

Page No. ____
Book No. ____
Series of ____

Page 10 of 10