You are on page 1of 13

Republic of the Philippines )S.

s
Quezon City )

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT

I, _____________, Filipino, 27 years old,


_______________________________, after duly sworn in
accordance with law, hereby dispose and state THAT:

1. This complaint was premised on the physical injury inflicted


upon the complainant by the respondents
________________________who are siblings, and who
are also currently residing in Transmitter Area, Brgy. 184
Maricaban, Pasay City where the former resides.

2. To begin with, it is in humble opinion of the complainant that


the commission of physical injury by the siblings to the
complainant was triggered by the fact that the latter was
indebted to them.

3. To recall, sometime in 2014, the private complainant had


entered into a contract of loan with the respondent and as a
security to pay, the complainant allows temporarily the latter
to occupy the 1st floor, and the half of the 2nd floor of the
building while the complainant is occupying the half of the
2nd floor, as well as the 3 rd and 4th floor of their owned
building.

4. This is the reason why the private complainant and


respondents were currently residing in the same place. As
such, the complainant necessarily had to pass thru the 1 st
and 2nd floor where the respondent resides, before they
could reach to their place at 3rd and 4th floor of the building.

5. Further, for this Honorable Offices record, the fact of


indebtedness was already legally adjudged by the Small
Claims Court dated, March 30,2016, the copy of the Order is
hereto attached as Annex A.

6. In the said Order, the Small Claims Court ruled in favor of


the respondents where the private complainant was directed

Page | 1
to pay the former in the amount of Php200, 000.00 to the
respondents.

7. Regrettably, the complainant was not able to pay


immediately in full amount, due to lack of means and
resources, and so the indebtedness of the complainant
remains unsettled, to date.

8. For the reason known to the complainant, herein


respondents begin from showing their unpleasant behaviour
towards them.

9. Unacceptably, the displeasing attitude of the respondents


became their usual behaviour towards the complainant
which the latter did not bother and ignored the same, for
they understand the foundation of their animosity.

10. Noteworthy to state, that the utterances by the


respondents are malicious and disgraceful in nature,
which, as human nature being what it is, become unbearable
to the complainant every time they throw their insults to
them, as the same weakens their self-value.

11. However, there came a time when the complainant can


no longer withstand the idea of defamation and degradation
to their morality because of their mere debts to the
respondents.

12. As a matter of fact, on several occasions, the


respondents offended the complainant with derogatory
words such as, patay gutom, walang pambayad kasi di
na inuuwian ng asawa, dibale lalayas na kayo jan
kasi hanggang myerkules na lang kayo jan, whenever
they pass through the 1st and 2nd floor of their residence.

13. The latter statement pertains to their stay in their


owned place, the respondents presupposed that the
complainants will be evicted due to the fact of their
indebtedness, and the alleged mortgaged of the 1 st and the
half of the 2nd floor of the building.

14. Despite the undisputed defamatory words by the


respondents against the private complainant, the latter

Page | 2
remained quiet and calm, for again, they understood the
said unwelcoming behaviour.

15. Nevertheless, the complainant finally broke her silence


when she confronted one of the respondents, CHERYL
LAMPONG. That on April 11, 2015, the complainant went
out to buy some of her needs where she, again, necessarily
had to pass thru the said floors occupied by the
respondents.

16. On the same day, while the respondents were playing


bingo nearby a store where complainant will buy something
to, she passed through respondent CHERYL LAMPONG, a 43-
year old woman, and the latter uttered spiteful statements
directly against the former, in which she felt humiliated and
belittled in front of many people.

17. Initially, the complainant asked for the first time the
respondent, Ano po ba ang problema ninyo saamin?

18. Without any warning, the respondent CHERYL


LAMPONG suddenly grabbed and pulled the hair of the
private complainant. As a result thereof, a scuffle ensued
between them causing a commotion on the area.

19. By that instance, respondent, ANTHONY MONTALVO,


likewise a 45-year old man, brother of herein respondent
CHERYL LAMPONG, came and helped her sister adding up
more injuries to the private complainant.

20. The herein complainant submits that, although


ANTHONY MONTALVO acted as if he came to break them up,
she figured it out that he was not really trying to separate
them but instead, came to the rescue of her sister, for blood
is thicker than water. Thus, getting involved and inflicted
some injuries as well.

21. Under the circumstances, the latter was beaten up and


was deprived of opportunity to properly defend herself from
the respondents considering that she was outnumbered and
out-powered. Attached in this complaint is the executed
Affidavit of Witness by Ricardo Estrera, indicated herein as
Annex B.

Page | 3
22. Suffice it to say that respondents CHERYL LAMPONG
and ANTHONY MONTALVO, conspiring together, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, and employ
personal violence upon the person of ANNA JOY
SORIANO, thereby inflicting upon her physical injuries
which required medical attendance for less than nine (9)
days.

23. Hence, the herein private complainant suffered


abrasions from the incident as evidenced by Medico Legal
Slip, attached hereto as Annex C.

24. Worst, the complainant suffered traumatic experience,


an anxiety and fear of being beaten up again, and suffering
from emotional distress as a consequence thereof.

25. On April 12, 2016, the complainant filed an action


against the respondents before the barangay charging them
to have committed physical violence upon her, but failed to
arrive at an amicable settlement since the complainant was
not only physically injured but also emotionally harmed.

26. Thus, the Office of the Barangay Captain issued a


Certificate to File Action in her favour, a copy of which is
hereto attached as Annex D.

27. In view of the foregoing, the private complainant


employs the aid of this Honourable Office of the Prosecutor
to cause the filing of criminal information for the violation of
Article 266 of Revised Penal Code or a crime of slight
physical injuries.

28. At the onset, the issue to be determined is Whether or


Not the Acts complained of constitute the offense.

29. In accordance with Article 266 of the Revised Penal


Code otherwise known as Slight Physical Injuries, it is
committed as follows:
Article 266. Slight physical
injuries and maltreatment. -
The crime of slight physical
injuries shall be punished:

Page | 4
1. By arresto menor when
the offender has inflicted
physical injuries which
shall incapacitate the
offended party for labor
from one to nine days, or
shall require medical
attendance during the
same period.

2. By arresto menor or a fine


not exceeding 20 pesos and
censure when the offender has
caused physical injuries which
do not prevent the offended
party from engaging in his
habitual work nor require
medical assistance.

3. By arresto menor in its


minimum period or a fine not
exceeding 50 pesos when the
offender shall ill-treat another
by deed without causing any
injury. (Emphasis supplied)

30. It suffices to state that a proof of abrasions and


erythema, as founded on a medico legal slip attached
hereto, are prima facie evidence of an injury was
physically inflicted upon a person, which are present in this
instant complaint.

31. The same being consistent in the case of Enrique Totoy


Rivera Y De Guzman vs. People of the Philippines 1 affirming
in toto the Court of Appeals decision in CA-G.R. CR No.
17284, where Erythema was suffered by the victim and
sentencing the accused to arresto menor for committing
slight physical injury.

1 G.R. No. 138553, June 30, 2005.

Page | 5
32. As a result of which, the complainant was incapacitated
for less than 9 days, reflecting the duration of medical
attendance indicated in the medico legal slip, proving the
violation of Art. 266 of the Revised Penal Code by the
respondents.

33. Now, it is undoubted fact that the complainant, being


out-powered by a stronger and bigger opponent, was beaten
up even more since the latters brother came to aid his sister
impliedly conspiring and confederating to further inflict
bodily harm upon the former.

34. To venture on the concept of conspiracy, the herein


complainant endeavours to explain the doctrine of implied
conspiracy as applicable in this complaint, citing the case of
People vs. Sandiganbayan and Estrada 2 referring to the case
of People vs. Ponce3 and People vs. Del Rosario4, which
clarifies that:

When by their acts, two or more


persons proceed toward the
accomplishment of the same
felonious object, with each doing
his act, so that their acts though
seemingly independent were in fact
connected, showing a closeness of
formal association and concurrence of
sentiment, conspiracy may be
inferred.

Consequently, the presence of the


concurrence of minds which is involved
in conspiracy may be inferred from
proof of facts and circumstances which,
[when] taken together, apparently
indicate that they are merely parts of

2 People of the Philippines vs. Sandiganbayan and Jose Jinggoy Estrada, G.R.
No.158754, August 10, 2007.

3 People v. Ponce, G.R. No. 126254, September 29, 2000, 341 SCRA 352, 361.

4 People v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 127755, April 14, 1999, 305 SCRA 740, 755.

Page | 6
some complete whole. If it is proved
that two or more persons aimed by
their acts towards the accomplishment
of the same unlawful object, each doing
a part so that their combined acts,
though apparently independent,
were in fact connected and
cooperative, indicating a closeness
of personal association and a
concurrence of sentiment, a
conspiracy may be inferred though no
actual meeting among them to concert
is proved. That would be termed an
implied conspiracy. (Underscoring
ours)

35. The acts of Anthony Montalvo, as the brother of Cheryl


Lampong, who came to the rescue of his sister, his co-
respondent, by wrenching the arm of complainant with
forcible amount of pressure, in the guise of breaking
them up, clearly manifest the intention on the part of
Anthony Montalvo to cooperate with his sister to beat up
herein complainant.

36. It is acceptable in the complainants belief that the act


of Anthony Montalvo was just a product of human nature,
and considering the old dictum that blood is thicker than
water, the said act was not an outright impossibility.

37. But then again, contrariwise, it is totally and entirely


unacceptable that such act of Anthony was likewise a
product of excessively lawless and felonious act when he did
so without considering the age and size of his sister, a 43-
year old woman, who was at apparent advantage against a
little teenager, at least during the time of the incident,
unless Anthony also wanted to inflict injury upon the latter
to also burst out his animosity towards the complainant and
her family.

Page | 7
38. Such circumstances was similar in the case of People
vs. Vega5 citing the case of People vs. Campa6, putting in
plain words the conspiracy committed by siblings in the
commission of a crime, to wit:

the appellant and his brother conspired


to commit the crime. Each brother
performed specific acts with such
closeness and coordination as to
indicate beyond doubt a common
purpose or design. Both were thus
principals in committing the crime
charged. (Emphasis ours)

39. Of more recent vintage was the pronouncements of the


Honorable Supreme Court in the case of People vs. Ramos7
as to the conspiracy to commit slight physical injuries, which
finds a clear application in this instant complaint, thus:

x x x whereas, the respondents


conspiring together and mutually aiding
one another in attacking, boxing,
assaulting and slapping on the face and
other parts of the body including the
pulling of the hair of the offended
party. The Honorable Court rendered
conviction against the respondents for
the crime of slight physical injuries.

40. To recapitulate, the siblings who conspired to inflict


physical violence on the complainant has clearly manifested
to have committed the crime of Slight Physical Injuries.

5 People of the Philippines vs. Carlos Patrolla , Jr. y Vega, G.R. No. 112445,
march 7, 1997.

6 People v. Campa, 230 SCRA 431(1994).

7 People of the Philippines vs. Leon Ramos, Francisca De Ramos, Avelina De


Ramos, and one Intsik Ramos, G.R. No. L-15958, May 31, 1961.

Page | 8
41. Ultimately, an aggravating circumstance of Abuse of
Superior Strength was attendant in the incident concerning
the physical constitutions of the 2 assailants-respondents
and the weaker victim as to age and size.

42. The case of Valenzuela vs. People8 was instructive on


this point, stating inter alia, hence:

Abuse of superior strength is


determined by the excess of the
aggressors natural strength over
that of the victim's, considering the
momentary positions of both
parties and the employment of
means weakening the defense of
the victim, although not annulling
it. Thus, there is abuse of superior
strength in the case where four
persons attacked an unarmed victim9;
or where six persons inflicted injuries on
the victim10.

43. The facts of the case reveal that there was a huge
disparity about the size of the complainant considering that
she was only 18 years old at the time of the incident
having a typical body size of a Filipino, while the respondent
CHERYL LAMPONG was 43 years old having also the built of
a strong matured and adult woman to engage in a brawl
with a teenager.

44. It follows therefore, that there is also a huge disparity


as to the strength and power of both parties. Worst, is that
the brother of Cheryl, Anthony Montalvo, around 40 years
of age, had to add up to the injuries inflicted to the
complainant as shown by his concerted action with the
respondent.

8 Ramie Valenzuela vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 149988, August 14,
2009.

9 People vs. Garcia, 94 SCRA 14

10 People vs. Gonzales

Page | 9
45. To shed light, the recent 2014 case of People vs.
Duran and Arco11, was instructive on this point citing the
case of People vs. Bediya12 stating inter alia, thus:

for abuse of superior strength, it


is present whenever there is a
notorious inequality of forces
between the victim and the
aggressor, assuming a situation
of superiority of strength
notoriously advantageous for the
aggressor selected or taken
advantage of by him in the
commission of the crime. The fact
that there were two persons who
attacked the victim does not per
se establish that the crime was
committed with abuse of superior
strength, there being no proof of
the relative strength of the
aggressors and the victim. The
evidence must establish that the
assailants purposely sought the
advantage, or that they had the
deliberate intent to use this
advantage.34

46. It is, but a truism, that the respondents-siblings


purposely took advantage of the incident by wilfully
employing physical violence upon the person of the
complainant due to their long-termed animosity towards
the latter considering the fact of indebtedness.

47. Lastly, the instant complaint necessitates the award of


moral damages to the complainant by suffering from
serious anxiety due to ruined reputation, humiliation,
physical and moral suffering, pursuant to Article 2217 and
2219 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which provides
that:

11 People of the Philippines vs. Arnel Villalba y Duran and Randy Villalba y
Sarco, G.R. No. 207629, October 22, 2014.

12 People v. Beduya, G.R. No. 175315, August 9, 2010, 627 SCRA 275, 284.

Page | 10
Art. 2217. Moral damages include
physical suffering, mental anguish,
fright, serious anxiety, besmirched
reputation, wounded feelings,
moral shocks, social humiliation,
and similar injury. Though incapable
of pecuniary computation, moral
damages may be recovered if they are
the proximate result of the defendant's
wrongful act or omission.

Art. 2219. Moral damages may be


recovered in the following and
analogous cases:

(1) A criminal offense resulting in


physical injuries;
(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical
injuries;
(3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other
lascivious acts; .
(4) Adultery or concubinage;
(5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or
arrest;
(6) Illegal search;
(7) Libel, slander or any other form of
defamation;
(8) Malicious prosecution
(9) Acts mentioned in article 309;
(10) Acts and actions referred to in
articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34,
and 35.

48. It bears underscoring that, since the victim has


suffered sleepless nights being depressed that the incident
might happen again since they live in the same building: the
victim is entitled to moral damages in a criminal offense
resulting in physical injuries in conformity with the case of
People vs. Flores13.

13 People v. Flores, G.R. Nos. 143435-36, November 28, 2003, 416 SCRA 612

Page | 11
49. The case of People vs. Villacorta14 citing the case of
Aradillos vs. Court of Appeals15 and People vs. Loreto16,
expounds that:

Further, under paragraph (1), Article


2219 of the Civil Code, moral
damages may be recovered in a
criminal offense resulting in
physical injuries. Moral damages
compensate for the mental anguish,
serious anxiety, and moral shock
suffered by the victim and his family as
being a proximate result of the wrongful
act. An award requires no proof of
pecuniary loss. Pursuant to previous
jurisprudence, moral damages is
appropriate for less serious, as well
as slight physical injuries.
(Emphasis supplied)

50. ALL TOLD, in view of the foregoing recitals, as guided


by the laws and jurisprudence, the complaint filed must be,
as it should be, given credence as the respondent had
willfully, intentionally, and feloniously committed the
crime of Slight Physical Injury against the person of Ana Joy
Soriano, the herein complainant.

51. ACCORDINGLY, it is respectfully prays to this


Honorable Office of the Prosecutor to cause the filing of the
Information for (i) violation of Article 266 of the Revised
Penal Code, otherwise known as Slight Physical Injuries, and
(ii) the award of Moral Damages in the amount of
P10,000.00.

14 People of the Philippines vs. Orlito Villacorta, G.R. No. 186412, Septemper
7, 2011.

15 Aradillos v. Court of Appeals, 464 Phil. 650, 679 (2004);

16 People v. Loreto, 446 Phil. 592, 614 (2003).

Page | 12
52. That, I am executing this COMPLAINT AFFIDAVIT to
attest to the truth of the foregoing facts and to hereby give
due course to my verified complaint to prosecute the
respondent as justice and fair play demands.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have attached my


signatures on this ___ day of ________ 2017, Quezon City
Philippines.

JAZEN TOLENTINO
Complainant-Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ___ day


of _________2017 in Quezon City, Philippines. I further
certify that I have personally examined the Affiant and I am
satisfied that she voluntarily executed the Complaint
Affidavit and that she understood the contents of the same.

____________________
Office of City Prosecutor

Doc. No. ____:


Page No. ____:
Book No.____:
Series of 2017.

Page | 13

You might also like