Comment Fajardo

8/8/2019 Comment Fajardo

1/4


2/4

3. Likewise, Appellee also mentioned in the instant Motion For

Reconsideration that:

Nowhere in the discussion and arguments did they

(Appellee) deny the acts of appellant was to causedishonor to complainant. Second Paragraph, Page 3,Appellees Motion For Reconsideration

It seems that Appellee is trying to convince this Honorable

Office that Respondent-Appellant (Appellant for brevity) never

denied the act of slapping. Again, the aforequoted allegations

clearly manifest the act of desperation of the Appellee in trying

to mislead this Honorable Office. It is clear from the records thatfrom the time this instant case was maliciously instituted by the

Appellee, Appellant has been strongly denying the alleged acts

of slapping because in truth and in fact it really did not happen.

Attention must be called on the following statements contained

in Appellants Petition For Review dated March 3, 2010, as well

as, in his Counter-Affidavit which form part of the records of this

case, to wit:

IN APPELLANTS COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT

1. The allegations of Ms. Bulo are unfounded andexaggerated

, for the truth of the matter are as follows:

a. xxx

b. xxx; and

c. In her effort in luring me to hurt her, Ms. Bulo, this time,

was annoyingly walking back and forth in front of me, andbecause she was already getting on my nerves, I gentlygrabbed her arm to stop her and to make her sit downin the chair, but she arrogantly resisted and lean herback to avoid me which cause her to trip and fall downhitting her face against the wall

;3. To my dismay, Ms. Bulo filed again anotherunfounded complaint against me and this time allegingthat I slapped her and made her a laughing stock insidethe barangay hall

;

4. This instant complaint is just one of Ms. Bulos maliciouscomplaint against me and a mere vengeance motivated by

personal hatred because I am one of those who stronglyrequested that her huge buli tree be cut and be taken out as itis posing a threat to our familys safety;

IN PAGE 6, APPELLANTS PETITION FOR REVIEW


3/4

THE ALLEGED SLAPPING,GRANTING IT WAS TRUE

,CANNOT PRODUCED TWOSEPARATE OFFENSES OFSERIOUS SLANDER BY DEED

AND SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES.

In the dispositive portion, the HonorableInvestigating Prosecutor erred in recommending the filing ofinformation of separate offenses of Serious Slander By Deed andSlight Physical Injuries against herein defendant.Assuming enarguendo that Appellant slapped Appellee, the actcommitted by the former cannot produced two separateoffenses

In view of the foregoing statements, Appellees claim that

Appellant never denied the act of slapping is clearly without anybasis whatsoever;

4. Other than the aforequoted misleading allegations, the rest of

the arguments contained in Appellees Motion For

Reconsideration are mere rehash of the arguments stated in her

Comment dated March 19, 2010, which were already passed

upon by this Honorable Office in the Resolution promulgated on

May 12, 2010. Thus, it would just be a futile ritual for this

Honorable Office to reiterate itself; and

5. Finally, the contention of Appellee regarding the requirement of

the attachment of a certified true copy of the resolution is

likewise without merit. Since Department Circular No. 70 allows

an attachment of the legible duplicate original of the

resolution, it is without a doubt that Appellant has already

sufficiently complied with rules on appeal.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Done this ____ day of August 2010, in Iligan City for Cagayan de

Oro City.

ROLANDO FAJARDORespondent-Appellant

EXPLANATION


4/4

This Commentis being served to the Appellee by registered mail

because of lack of personnel to effect personal service and being filedbefore this Honorable Office through registered mail due togeographical distance between Iligan City and Cagayan de Oro City.

ROLANDO FAJARDO Respondent-AppellantCopy furnished:

Jovita C. Bulo,Aguinaldo St., Poblacion, Iligan City

Office of the City ProsecutorHall of Justice, Iligan City

Documents

Comment Fajardo