Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice
OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR
Province of Antique

FILBERT D. PAUNON,
Complainant,
-versus00093

NPS NO. VI-02-INV-11DFor: Frustrated Murder

WILFREDO P. UY,
Respondent.
x----------------------------------x

REJOINDER-AFFIDAVIT
I, WILDREDO UY, Filipino, 63 years old, and a resident of T.A.
Fornier Street, Antique, after having been sworn in accordance with
law, hereby depose and state that:

1.

In his Reply, Complainant Filbert Paunon (Paunon) claims

that he could not have harassed me considering the great disparity

in our personal circumstances.1 He continues by saying that the one
cogent reason for filing this instant case as well as the other cases he
filed before the Municipal Trial Court is his quest for justice.2

2.

It is worth reiterating that, aside from this present

complaint for Frustrated Murder, Paunon has also filed multiple

complaints against me. These include the following:

1
2

Reply dated 14 June 2011.

Id.

a.

A complaint for Grave Threats,

docketed as Criminal Case No. 9173 before the

Municipal Trial Court of San Jose, Antique.

b.

A complaint for Tumults and Other

Disturbances under Article 153 of the Revised

Penal Code, docketed as Criminal Case No.
9172 before the Municipal Trial Court of San
Jose, Antique.

c.

A complaint for Oral Defamation,

docketed as Criminal Case No. 9174 before the

Municipal Trial Court of San Jose, Antique.

d.

A complaint for Malicious Mischief,

docketed as Criminal Case No. 9171 before the

Municipal Trial Court of San Jose, Antique.

3.

All of the above complaints stem from the same incidents

also alleged in this present complaint. The filing of these multiple

complaints betrays an intention far more than a mere quest for justice.
True enough, the Supreme Court, in one case, has categorized the
tenacity of a complainant in filing several cases against a respondent
as not the persistence of one who has been grievously wronged but
the obstinacy of one who is trying to exact revenge.3

4.

It does not matter what among the criminal complaints was

filed first by Paunon. The bottomline is that the needless filing of

3

Saburnido vs. Madroo, A.C. No. 4497. September 26, 2001.

several cases involving the same incident simply confirms that Paunon
is not on a quest for justice, but rather on a quest for revenge in
order to harass me and malign my name.
5.

I am already sixty-three (63) years old and the strain of

addressing these complaints has brought me and my family great

stress. Perhaps in addition to harassing me, Paunon is likewise
yearning for easy money in his vain hope that I will settle this instant
case with him. It is, however, stressed that despite Paunons
continuous harassment, I am not inclined to settle any of the cases
since I have not committed any of the acts he claims I have done.

6.

To further illustrate Paunons tendency for exaggeration,

Paunon, also claims in his Reply that I have misled this Honorable
Office when I claimed that most of the criminal-complaints lodged
directly with the Municipal Trial Courts had been dismissed. 4 It is,
however, a matter of fact that the complaints for Grave Threats, Oral
Defamation and Tumults and Other Disturbances have already been
dismissed by the Municipal Trial Court as shown by the attached Orders
of the court.5 Paunon cannot feign ignorance of the dismissal of these
cases since he already filed respective Motions for Reconsideration of
such Orders. By pretending not to have been aware of the dismissal of
these complaints and even insinuating that I had insider knowledge
on the workings of the Trial Court, it is actually Paunon who was
misleading the Honorable Prosecutor.

4
5

Reply, par. 6.
Copies of the Orders dismissing the complaints for Tumults and Other
Disturbances, Grave Threats and Oral Defamation are attached hereto as
Annexes 1,2, and 3 respectively.

7.

Paunons proclivity to exaggerate was again evident when

he claimed that I was seething with rage when I visited the premises
of the new Medicus Building in the afternoon of 31 March 2011. 6 As I
already explained in my Counter-Affidavit, I was a little disappointed
that there was a delay in the turn-over of the leased property.
Nevertheless, when I visited the premises of Medicus that afternoon, I
was cordial to the personnel remaining within the Medicus Building.
There is also no truth to his claim that I uttered invectives and
scurrilous and defamatory words at Paunon when I spoke to him on the
phone. In fact, the complaint for Oral Defamation which he filed
against me as a result of that alleged incident was already dismissed
by the Municipal Trial Court.

8.

Paunon also accused me of lying through my teeth when

I alleged that there was a prior agreement to turnover the leased

premises on 31 March 2011 at 12:00 noon. 7

It should, however, be

noted that a cursory reading of the letter Paunon attached as Annex

D to his Reply would show that an agreement to turn-over the
possession of the property on 31 March 2011 was actually made with
Medicus. In the said letter, my wife, Melinda M. Uy, reminded Dr.
Vicente E. Villareal, the President of Medicus, about the March 31,
2011 expiration of the term of our Lease Contract on your company. 8
The reason for the turnover on 31 March 2011 was also evident from
the said letter where it was clearly stated that my wife had already
offered and secured another lease contract with another lessee on the
said property which will start on April 1, 2011.9
6

Par. 7 of the Reply.

Id.
8
Letter to Dr. Vicente E. Villareal, attached as Annex D to Respondent
Paunons Reply.
9
Id.
7

9.

My wife, Melinda M. Uy, the lessor of the property leased

by Medicus, also expressly stated in her affidavit dated 1 June 2011 10

that there was a previous agreement to turn over upon the building to
her on 31 March 2011. In the face of these documentary evidence,
Paunons baseless contentions must fail.
10.

In his Reply, Paunon also explained why, despite our

alleged earlier altercation over the phone, he still visited me in my

house. He claimed that his visit to my home was necessary to avoid
inconvenience to the clients of Medicus the following day since I
allegedly threatened to close down the Center. This simply did not
make sense.
11.

First

of

all,

Medicus

had

already

transferred

their

operations to their new building located at Barangay Atabay, San Jose

de Buenavista, Antique. The building that they leased from my wife
was already empty and even assuming for arguments sake that I
really threatened to close it down on 1 April 2011, its closure would not
cause any inconvenience to Medicus or its customers. Second, since
their operations have already moved to a new building, I had no
authority or control over their place of business. There was simply no
threat

to

Medicus

that

would

shut

down

their

Center

and

inconvenience their customers. Paunons statements in his Reply were

clearly an afterthought to explain the inconsistencies in his behavior
which I pointed out in my Counter-Affidavit.
12.

Paunon continues to insist that there was an agreement

with my wife, Melinda M. Uy, that only two (2) bulbs and one outlet
would be re-installed in the leased premises before it is turned over
10

Attached as Annex A to my Counter Affidavit.

back to us.11 He thus contends that I was lying through my teeth when
I mentioned in my Counter-Affidavit that I required Medicus to reinstall
all eight (8) fluorescent bulbs together with their respective outlet
receptacles before the turnover is made.12

13.

Paunons claim was already refuted by my wife, Melinda M.

Uy, when she stated in her affidavit that no such agreement was made.
To recall, in paragraph 6 of her affidavit dated 1 June 2011, Melinda M.
Uy expressly stated that:
6.
There was no agreement between
myself, my husband and Paunon that only two
(2) bulbs and one (1) electrical outlet would be
installed in the premises. I was insistent that all
of those removed by Medicus would also be reinstalled. Thus, I was surprised when my
husband later informed me that only two (2)
bulbs and one (1) electrical outlet was installed
by Medicus.

14.

In order to support his contention, Paunon stated that

Medicus actually owned the electrical fixtures on the leased premises

since it renovated the leased premises a few months back and put in
place a new electrical layout. Punon thus concludes that Medicus had
the right to remove them.13 This contention has no merit.

15.

It is stressed that at the time the commercial building was

leased to Medicus, it had complete electrical wiring, lighting fixtures

and fluorescent bulbs. In fact, it was specifically mentioned in the
Lease Agreement between Medicus and my wife that no alteration of
the electrical, plumbing, and permanent installation of the leased

11
12
13

Id., at par. 11.

Reply, par. 12.
Reply, par. 13.

premises shall be made by the lessee without the written consent of

the lessor.14

16.

Aside from his words, there was no evidence presented by

Paunon that a renovation was conducted by Medicus on the leased

premises. Moreover, I dont recall any instance when my wife or I gave
written consent for Medicus to renovate the premises or change the
electrical lay out of the commercial building.
17.

Even assuming for the sake of argument that Medicus

renovated the leased premises without our consent, it does not justify
the removal of all the electrical wiring and lighting fixtures. As earlier
explained, the leased premises were turned over with complete
electrical wiring, lighting fixtures and fluorescent bulbs. It was thus
incumbent upon Medicus, as the lessee, to return the leased premises
upon termination of the lease, just as it was received from us.15

18.

In any case, the matter of the missing electrical wiring,

fixtures and fluorescent light bulbs are not relevant to this case, and is
even already the subject of a criminal complaint for Qualified Theft
which we had earlier filed against Paunon and Medicus. It should be
also noted that the said complaint for Qualified Theft was filed on 12
April 2011, or a few days before Paunon filed the several criminal
complaints against me. Having filed earlier than Paunon, there is
simply no truth to Paunons allegations that the complaint for Qualified
Theft was merely an afterthought meant to dissuade him and Medicus
from pursuing the criminal complaints they filed against me.16
14

15
16

Par. 7 of the Lease Agreement between Melinda M. Uy and Medicus,

Annex A of the Complaint.
Art. 1665 of the Revised Penal Code.
Reply, par. 15.

19.

In his Reply, Paunon continues to give much emphasis on

the injuries he allegedly suffered when I headlocked him. Although

the Medico-legal Examination Report presented by Paunon stated that
he had an erythema with tenderness at the left side of the neck, there
was no explanation how it was possibly caused. As already explained in
my Counter Affidavit, Erythema is simply redness of the skin which can
be caused a myriad of ways. It can even be caused by a simple insect
bite or scratching of the skin. There is no showing that I caused such
injury.
20.

Paunons gross exaggerations persisted when he claimed

in his Reply that I was in the throes of murderous rage when I met
with him in the afternoon of 1 April 2011. 17 In truth, I was admittedly
agitated both by the delay in the turnover of the commercial building
and Paunons insistence that only two (2) bulbs and one (1) electrical
outlet would be re-installed by Medicus. I even raised my voice at him.
This is probably the reason why Paulino Magbanua told me calm down.
It

is, however,

case of

over exaggeration

to describe

my

temperament on that day as in the throes of murderous rage. In

addition, I never performed any act upon him that could be remotely
described as a headlock. As I already stated in my Counter Affidavit,
my act towards him would have been better described as inakbayan
ko lang sya.
21.

It

is

evident

that

Paunon

continues

to

engage

in

speculations, conjectures and assumptions to justify the filing of this

criminal complaint for Frustrated Murder against me. He claims that I
do not realize that the neck is so sensitive a region of the body that the
17

Reply, par. 22.

cervical can easily snap causing instantaneous death, or paralysis. 18

Again, he argues in terms of what I could have done and what I am
capable of doing. This is clearly erroneous.
22.

As I already explained in my Counter-Affidavit, the fact

that I could have gravely injured him is not relevant. What is

relevant is if I performed all of the acts which I believe was
necessary to consummate the crime of murder, it is only that
death fails to follow for causes entirely apart from my will.
Certainly I did no such thing.
23.

I had no murderous intent or desire to kill Paunon.

My lawyers have informed me that the intent to kill should be

proved by convincing external evidence incompatible with any
other intention.19 Intent to kill may be proved by evidence of:
(a) motive; (b) the nature or number of weapons used in the
commission of the crime; (c) the nature and number of wounds
inflicted

on

the

victim;

(d)

the

manner

the

crime

was

committed; and (e) the words uttered by the offender at the

time the injuries are inflicted by him on the victim.20
24.

In this case, there is no evidence of any intention on my

part to kill Paunon. In fact, even assuming that Paunons narration in

his Complaint are true, it would still be insufficient to hold me liable for
Frustrated Murder.
25.

I reiterate that I am already Sixty-Three (63) years old while

Paunon is just Thirty (30). There was no possibility that I could have
placed a much younger man in danger just by using my bare hands.
18
19

20

Id., at par. 18.

People vs. Villanueva, G.R. No. L-28201, February 8, 1928
Esqueda vs. People, G.R. No. 170222, 18 June 2009.

26.

In addition, the words which Paunon attribute to just as I

allegedly head-locked him likewise betrays any intention to kill.

According to Paunon, I purportedly said Tapungulon tan a lang kaw!
which is translated as I will just box you! Assuming that I really
uttered these words, they do not convey any intention on my part to
kill Paunon.
27.

I reiterate that I merely put my arms around Paunons

shoulders and pulled him closer to me. In doing so, I had no intention
of killing him. Thus, this complaint for Frustrated Murder must be
dismissed.
28.

According to my lawyers, it is a time-honored principle in

criminal law that if the inculpatory facts are capable of two or more
explanations, one consistent with the innocence of the accused, and
the other with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of
moral certainty, and the Court should adopt that explanation which is
more favorable to the accused.21

29.

Compared with Paunons exaggerations, conjectures and

assumptions, it is respectfully submitted that I had given the more

plausible narration consistent with my innocence. I therefore implore
this Honorable Prosecutor to apply the foregoing principle and dismiss
this instant complaint to spare me and my family from further stress,
anxiety and embarrassment caused by these baseless and malicious
accusations.

21

People vs. Santos, G.R. No. L-32073 23 October 1978.

10

30.

I am executing the foregoing Rejoinder-Affidavit to attest to

the truth of the foregoing narration of facts and to refute the criminal
charge of Frustrated Murder leveled against me by complainant
Paunon.

AFFIANTS FURTHER SAYETH NAUGHT.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand on this ___ day of

July 2011.
WILFREDO UY
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on this _____ day of
July 2011 in the Province of Antique.

ASSISTANT

PROVINCIAL

PROSECUTOR

CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that I have personally examined the affiant and
am satisfied that he voluntarily executed and understood his affidavit.
ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR

11