Paunon vs. Uy
Paunon vs. Uy
Department of Justice
OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR
Province of Antique
FILBERT D. PAUNON,
Complainant,
-versus00093
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.
2.
1
2
a.
b.
c.
d.
3.
4.
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.
6.
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.
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.
It should, however, be
9.
First
of
all,
Medicus
had
already
transferred
their
to
Medicus
that
would
shut
down
their
Center
and
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
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.
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.
15.
11
12
13
16.
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.
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
19.
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
It
is
evident
that
Paunon
continues
to
engage
in
on
the
victim;
(d)
the
manner
the
crime
was
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
26.
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.
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.
21
10
30.
the truth of the foregoing narration of facts and to refute the criminal
charge of Frustrated Murder leveled against me by complainant
Paunon.
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