REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
National Prosecution Service
Padre Faura, Manila

ACP JEANETTE M. DACPANO

NBI-NCR-MILBERT OLIVEROS y DE
LEON,
Complainant,

NPS Docket No. XVI-INV-17H-000181

– versus – For: Violation of Sec. 4 (d) of RA 9995
and Violation of Art. VI, Sec. 10 (a) of
RA 7610

MICHAEL ERIC LIWAG CASTILLO,

ET AL.,
Respondents.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

MEMORANDUM
(For Respondents)

Respondents MICHAEL ERIC LIWAG CASTILLO, ROMEL MIRAS

CABUHAT, OSCAR ARROYO RAMOS, GINA OLIVEROS RAMOS, OSCAR DELA
TORRE GORDULA, ROLAND PEREZ MESINA, JANICE OLIVEROS ORTAÑEZ,
CHRISTOPHERSON MANATA VALENCIA, HERMIE CONDE TITAN, EDGARDO
CONDE DUMA, NOEL VALDONPEÑAS ESGUERRA, MILAGROS DE LEON
ARANZA, MARIVELLE ARROYO EVANGELISTA, BETHOVEN PRINCIPE DELA
TORRE, MAURO VILLANUEVA MESINA, JR., JIMMY JOSE VILLAMIN OLIVEROS
and TERESITA ROCAMORA PERILLO (collectively referred to as
“respondents”), through undersigned counsel, in compliance with the
Honorable Office’s Order dated 13 October 2017, directing the
respondents to file their Memorandum incorporating the rejoinder-
affidavit, most respectfully state that:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

For the public prosecutor to determine if there exists a

well-founded belief that a crime has been committed, and
that the suspect is probably guilty of the same, the elements
of the crime charged should, in all reasonable likelihood, be
present. This is based on the principle that every crime is
defined by its elements, without which there should be, at the
most, no criminal offense.1

Ma. Belen Flordeliza Ang-Abaya, et al. v. Eduardo G. Ang, G.R. No. 178511, 04
1

December 2008.

Page 1 of 18
 TIMELINESS

1. In its Order of 13 October 2017, this Honorable Office directed

both parties to file their memoranda in the above case within fifteen (15)
days or until 30 October 2017 (since 28 October 2017 fell on a Saturday).

PARTIES

2. Private-complainant Milbert De Leon Oliveros (“Oliveros”),

with address at 246 Barangay Inao-Awan, Cavinti, Laguna.

3. Respondents Michael Eric Liwag Castillo (“Castillo”), Noel

Valdopeñas Esguerra (“Esguerra”), Marivelle Arroyo Evangelista
(“Evangelista”), Bethoven Principe Dela Torre (“Dela Torre”), Mauro “Jojo”
Villanueva Mesina, Jr. (“Mesina”), Edgardo Conde Duma (“Duma”),
Jimmy Jose Villamin Oliveros (“Jimmy”), Teresita Rocamora Perillo
(“Perillo”), Hermie Conde Titan (“Titan”), Milagros De Leon Aranza
(“Aranza”), Gina Oliveros Ramos (“Gina”), Christopherson Manata
Valencia (“Chris”), Janice Oliveros Ortañez (“Janice”), Oscar Dela Torre
Gordula (“Gordula”), Romel Miras Cabuhat (“Cabuhat”), Roland Perez
Mesina (“Mesina”) and Oscar Arroyo Ramos (“Oscar”), Filipinos, all of
legal age, and with address at c/o SANTOS SANTOS & SANTOS LAW
OFFICES, Unit 3201-B East Tower, Philippine Stock Exchange Center,
Exchange Road, Ortigas Centre, Pasig City.

NATURE OF THE CASE

4. This is a complaint for violations of Section 4 (d) of Republic

Act No. 9995 or the Anti-Photo or Video Voyeurism Act of 2009 and Article
VI, Section 10 (a) of Republic Act No. 7610 or the Special Protection of
Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act for alleged
proliferation and dissemination of the purported “private” videos of
private-complainant Oliveros to the public.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

5. Private-complainant Milbert De Leon Oliveros is the

incumbent Mayor of the Municipality of Cavinti, Laguna.

6. Herein respondents are all residents of the same municipality

of Cavinti, Laguna.

7. On 26 May 2016, private-complainant Oliveros filed his Sworn

Affidavit before the National Bureau of Investigation against Michael Eric
Liwag Castillo, Noel Valdopeñas Esguerra, Marivelle Arroyo Evangelista,
Bethoven Principe Dela Torre, Mauro “Jojo” Villanueva Mesina, Jr.,

Page 2 of 18
Edgardo Conde Duma, Jimmy Jose Villamin Oliveros, Teresita Rocamora
Perillo, Hermie Conde Titan, Milagros De Leon Aranza, Gina Oliveros
Ramos, Christopherson Manata Valencia, Janice Oliveros Ortañez, Oscar
Dela Torre Gordula, Romel Miras Cabuhat, Roland Perez Mesina, Oscar
Arroyo Ramos and Lolita Pecaña Dela Torre for allegedly proliferating and
distributing his purported “private” video to the public.

8. From January 2012-June 2013, respondent Janice O. Ortañez

worked for the private-complainant Oliveros as his liason officer, secretary,
marketing assistant, and human resource person. When private-
complainant Oliveros won in the 2013 election, she was personally
appointed as his secretary for a coterminus period.

9. Sometime in 2014, when private-complainant Oliveros

renewed his mobile line subscription with a new mobile phone, he gave
his old iphone 4 (“iphone”) to respondent Janice. Before the said iphone
was handed to respondent Janice, private-complainant Oliveros made
sure that all his important data and contacts were transferred to his new
cellphone and then deleted all the files like pictures and data.2

10. On 12 August 2015, due to personal reasons, respondent

Janice tendered her resignation from her post as private-complainant
Oliveros’ secretary.

11. Allegedly, around the latter part of 2015, when respondents

were trying to complete their political slate for 2016 elections, some of the
“supporters” of private-complainant Oliveros heard the group of
respondents Castillo, Titan, Cabuhat, etc. during gatherings the latter is
claiming that they have an ace or “alas” against private-complainant
Oliveros.3

12. Allegedly, on 27 March 2016, about 1:00 o’clock in the

afternoon, private-complainant Oliveros alleged that when he was about
to attend a family reunion of a certain Arroyo Clan, he was invited by
Nanay Loly Ruazol and Tatay Cedring Ruazol to their house in Barangay
Poblacion, Cavinti, Laguna, to inform him that respondent Bethoven
“Enteng” Dela Torre, then candidate for mayoralty position under UNA
slate, visited the spouses’ residence and showed them a “sex video” in his
cellular phone. According to spouses, respondent Dela Torre alleged that
pivate-complainant was the male person in the said “sex video”.4

2Page 2 of the Sworn Statement of private-complainant Milbert L. Oliveros dated

01 August 2017.

3 Page 6, ibid.

4 Page 7, ibid.

Page 3 of 18
 13. Allegedly, on 30 March 2016, a screen shot of the “sex video”
was posted online through facebook accounts under the names of Flora
Flor, Dianne Flores and Vanna Salcedo.5

14. On 02 April 2016 at about 9:00 o’clock in the morning, private-

complainant Oliveros allegedly received a private message through his
facebook messenger from a certain Jane Megino-Castro telling him that
a screen shot photograph of the “sex video” was forwarded to her by
respondent Michael Eric Castillo.6

15. On 03 April 2016, at about 6:00 o’clock in the morning,

private- complainant Oliveros allegedly again received a message from a
certain Angel Aquino (Ms. Lovella Aquino), informing him that the “sex
video” was forwarded to her by respondent Castillo.7

16. On 04 April 2016, at about 8:00 o’clock in the morning when

respondent Castillo allegedly posted on his facebook wall announcing
the readers about the “sex video” and encouraging the public to join him
to watch and discuss the said “sex video” in the Town Plaza of Cavinti,
Laguna.8

17. On the same day, 04 April 2016, the 12th Regular Session of the
Sangguniang Bayan was attended by Kgg. Danilo G. Arroyo, Kgg. Pedro
O. Villegas, Jr., Kgg. Arrantlee R. Arroyo, Kgg. Anita C. Baeyens, and
respondents Kgg. Oscar D. Gordula, Kgg. Romel M. Cabuhat, Kgg. Roland
P. Mesina, Kgg. Michael Eric L. Castillo and Kgg. Oscar A. Ramos which
was held in Bulwagang Pulungang Bayan, Gusaling ABC Hall.

18. During the open forum part, Kgg. Romel M. Cabuhat moved
for an executive session to once and for all settle the circulating issue
regarding the viral video to which the highest elected official in their
municipality is involved. Further, since respondents Kgg. Oscar D. Gordula,
Kgg. Romel M. Cabuhat, Kgg. Roland P. Mesina, Kgg. Michael Eric L.
Castillo and Kgg. Oscar A. Ramos were one of those being pinpointed by
private-complainant Oliveros as the author of the “edited private video”,
the executive session’s purpose is also to clear their name and to prove
that these purportedly “private” videos were not edited. To which, the
respondents agreed for the showing of the purportedly “edited private
videos”.

5 Page 8, ibid.

6 Ibid.

7 Page 9, ibid.

8 Ibid.

Page 4 of 18
 19. Accordingly, Resolutions No. 2016-14 (A resolution requesting
Atty. Virgilio L. Mendez, Director, National Bureau of Investigation,
Department of Justice, to cause the investigation of the sex video scandal
circulating in the internet and social media involving Hon. Mayor Milbert
De Leon Oliveros, Municipal Mayor, Cavinti, Laguna, to determine its
authenticity, further requesting the investigation of various fictitious
facebook accounts spreading dangerous and malicious stories and
accusations against members of Sangguniang Bayan, Cavinti, Laguna)
and 2016-15 (A resolution requesting the Committee on Ethics of the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Laguna to investigate the
sex video scandals circulating in the internet and social media involving
Hon. Milbert Oliveros, Municipal Mayor, Cavinti, Laguna, further requesting
the imposition of preventive suspension pending results of investigation of
the case) were passed by the Sanggunian.
20.

21. Allegedly, the leakage started from a certain old iphone 4

(“iphone”) given by private-complainant Oliveros to respondent Janice
Ortañez. He further alleges that in connivance with herein respondents, by
hacking the icloud of the said iphone, the purportedly “private” video
went viral thus became public.

22. There are several fake facebook accounts which uploaded

this purportedly “private” videos more particularly the account of a
certain Flora Flor.

23. On 04 April 2016, the 12th Regular Session of the Sangguniang

Bayan attended by Kgg. Danilo G. Arroyo, Kgg. Pedro O. Villegas, Jr., Kgg.
Arrantlee R. Arroyo, Kgg. Anita C. Baeyens, and respondents Kgg. Oscar
D. Gordula, Kgg. Romel M. Cabuhat, Kgg. Roland P. Mesina, Kgg. Michael
Eric L. Castillo and Kgg. Oscar A. Ramos was held in Bulwagang
Pulungang Bayan, Gusaling ABC Hall.

24. On ____________, by the power vested to the members of the

Sanggunian, copy of the resolutions were submitted/forwarded to the NBI
to verify the purported “private” videos’ authenticity and to the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan-Laguna for its independent investigation.

25. Filing of cases – OMB and CHR

26. On ____________, while respondent members of the

Sanggunian was still waiting for the findings of the NBI, they received
summons from the Bureau requiring them to appear in lieu of an
investigation being conducted in relation to the request filed by private-
complainant Oliveros.

Page 5 of 18
 27. On ________________, herein respondents received a
subpoena requiring them on 11 September 2017 at 10:00 o’clock in the
morning to appear and submit their respective counter-affidavits together
with the supporting pieces of evidence to answer the complaint-affidavit9
of private-complainant Oliveros.

28. On 22 September 2017, respondents Cabuhat, Oscar, Gina,

Gordula, Ortañez and Valencia filed their Counter-Affidavits, and on 29
September 2017 the remaining respondents Castillo, Esguerra, Evangelista,
Aranza, Dela Torre, Mesina, Duma, Oliveros, Perillo and Titan filed theirs.

29. On 13 October 2017, Assistant State Prosecutor Jeanette

Dacpano ordered the submission of Memorandum. Respondents now file
the memorandum.

ISSUE

WHETHER THERE IS A PROBABLE CAUSE TO INDICT RESPONDENTS

FOR VIOLATIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NOS. 9995 AND 7610.

ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSIONS

1. In the Philippine Criminal Justice System, the overriding

consideration is not whether the court doubts the innocence of the
accused, but rather whether it entertains “reasonable doubt as to his/her
guilt”.10 Every accused is presumed innocent until the contrary is proved;
that presumption is solemnly guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. The contrary
requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, or that degree of proof that
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. Short of this, it is not only
the right of the accused to be freed; it is even the constitutional duty of the
court to acquit them.

2. The constitutional presumption of innocence is not an empty

platitude meant to embellish the Bill of Rights. Its purpose is to balance
the scales in what would otherwise be an uneven contest between the
lone individual pitted against the State, the People of the Philippines and
all the resources at their command. Its inexorable mandate is that, for all
the authority and influence of the State, represented by the prosecution,
the accused must be acquitted and set free if his/her guilt is not proved
beyond the whisper of a doubt. That mandate should be enforced.11

9Case No. NPS Docket No. XVI-INV-17H-000181 captioned as NBI-NCR-MILBERT

OLIVEROS y DE LEON versus MICHAEL ERIC LIWAG CASTILLO, ET AL.

10 People v. Salangga, 234 SCRA 407 (1994).

11 People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 86172, 04 March 1991.

Page 6 of 18
 3. In this case, private-complainant Oliveros miserably failed to
meet the required quantum of proof to secure a probable cause against
respondents. In fact, the prosecution’s fabricated stories and/or evidence
prove respondents’ innocence. At the very least, the evidence creates
doubt as to respondents’ guilt, and so this Honorable Office, with all due
respect, is bound dismiss the charge for violations of R.A. No. 9995 and
R.A. No. 7610.

THERE IS NO POSITIVE AND

CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE THAT
RESPONDENTS ACTED IN
CONSPIRACY AS REQUIRED UNDER
THE LAW.

4. Jurisprudence dictates that conspiracy must be established,

not by conjectures, but by positive and conclusive evidence. Conspiracy
transcends mere companionship and mere presence at the scene of the
crime does not in itself amount to conspiracy. Even knowledge,
acquiescence in or agreement to cooperate, is not enough to constitute
one as a party to a conspiracy, absent any active participation in the
commission of the crime with a view to the furtherance of the common
design and purpose.12 It bears stressing that conspiracy requires the same
degree of proof required to establish the crime proof beyond reasonable
doubt.13

5. To show conspiracy, there must be “evidence of actual

cooperation, rather than mere cognizance, acquiescence or approval of
an unlawful act.”14 It is not enough that the person supposedly engaged
or connected with the same be present when the crime was committed,
or might have been interested in its commission. The prosecution must
establish a logical relation between the commission of the crime and the
supposed conspirators and a closer and more intimate connection
between and among the latter, such as by their conduct or overt acts
committed in pursuance of their common criminal design.15

6. Facts of the alleged conspiracy…

12 Evangeline Ladonga v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 141066, 17 February

2005.

13 People of the Philippines v. De Chavez et al., G.R. No. 188105, 23 April 2010.

14 People v. Tabuso, 317 SCRA 454, 459 [1999].

15 People of the Philippines v. Jose Bernal, et al., G.R. No. L-4409, 14 July 1952.

Page 7 of 18
 7. Private-complainant in his attempt to set up a grand scheme
to sweep all his political opponent which happened to be herein
respondents, to stitch stories and come up with an unbelievable story, put
“color” and malicious imputation on the employment of respondent
Janice Ortañez and Chris Valencia in order to drag into this bogus case
respondent Gina O. Ramos. It is public knowledge that respondents Gina
and Oscar Ramos, are owners of a janitorial agency, it is obvious that the
business engages in hiring people, especially those who are skilled and
competent. Given the resignation of respondents Janice and Chris from
their respective positions, they are free and protected by our laws and
Constitution to choose their own employment wherever they want.

8. Thus, private-complainant Oliveros failed to…

THE ALLEGATION OF HACKING IS

BASELESS IF NOT ABSURD.

9. Private-complainant Oliveros in his desperate attempt to

pinpoint the leakage of the purported “private” videos alleged, to wit:

“Because it could only be accessed through my icloud

account and no one knows my account name and
password. It could only be accessed either by me or by
another person using my cellphone. In this case, since
Janice have in her possession my Iphone4, she was
able to access my Icloud account because I failed to
reformat and logout my account. Janice accessed my
Icloud account with the connivance and in conspiracy
with Chris Valencia, Gina and Oscar Ramos, Hermie
Titan, Michael Eric Castillo, Roland Mesina, Rommel
Cabuhat and others.”16

10. Private-complainant forgot that he categorically admitted in

the same Sworn Statement of 01 August 2017 that it is not only the iphone
which he gave to respondent Ortanez contains allegedly the purported
“private” videos, to wit:

“No, sir. I don’t have private videos in my Iphone 4

because most of them were in my broken Iphone which
I kept inside my vault.”

11. “Most of them” imply that there are other storage devices
that the purported “private” videos were saved/stored. It may be on the
private-complainant Oliveros’ laptop or these videos may also be found

16 Page 6 of the Sworn Statement dated 01 August 2017 of Mayor Milbert L.

Oliveros.

Page 8 of 18
and/or accessed through his icloud account. It is only private-
complainant Oliveros who has knowledge where his “private” videos were
kept and he know for a fact that there are other sources to where the
allegedly “leakage” took place.

12. Further, private-complainant Oliveros admitted in his

complaint-affidavit that no one knows his “account name” and
“password”.17 He even admitted that he transferred first some important
data and contacts to his new cellphone, and then deleted all the files like
pictures and data.

13. Technically, the allegation of private-complainant Oliveros of

hacking through his icloud account sound pretty easy to do for a sci-fi
movie, but not in reality.

14. Private-complainant may have forgotten that for any person

and even the personal user/owner of the iphone to access his “icloud
account”, the person is required to key in an “apple id” and/or username
together with his password, and the device cannot just be left open. It
bears emphasis again that private-complainant Oliveros categorically
admitted that he is the only person who knows his username and
password for his iphone/icloud.

15. It is a public knowledge not only locally but internationally

that the security protocol of iphone and/or Apple Company is very strict. It
cannot be compromised easily even by the creativity/ingenuity of
hackers. The applications are always protected by an “apple id account”
created from legitimate and verified email account. Also, the iphone user
is required to provide personal password and answer all the security
questions to ferret out “hackers”.

16. Theoretically, extraction of the videos from the icloud to the

iphone cannot be done unless the phone is restored to its “factory setting”
and iphone is backed-up/sync with the icloud. In both procedures, the
user is always required to key in his “apple id/icloud id/username and
password” before he can proceed with the restoration to factory setting
and thereafter the extraction of the files stored in the icloud.

17. On a close scrutiny, clearly, private-complainant all

throughout in all his answers in the complaint was very consistent that
before he the subject iphone was handed to respondent Janice, private-
complainant deleted everything.

17 Page 6 of private-complainant Oliveros’ Sworn Statement dated 01 August

2017.

Page 9 of 18
 18. Private-complainant Oliveros founded his allegations based
on his own theories, concocted stories and unbelievable if not
unimaginable plotted sci-fi facts.

THE ALLEGATION THAT THE

EXHIBITION OF THE PRIVATE-
COMPLAINANT OLIVEROS’
“PRIVATE VIDEOS” IS POLITICALLY
MOTIVATED IS UTTERLY
UNSUBSTANTIATED IF NOT
SPECULATIVE.

19. It is worth reiterating that the allegation as to the leakage of

private-complainant Oliveros’ “private” videos was politically motivated is
entirely based on his indescribable imagination, hence under the law and
jurisprudence does not at all hold water.

20. The Commission on Elections’ (“COMELEC”) list of candidates

who filed their candidacy with the city/municipal/district offices for
automated national, local, and ARMM elections May 9, 2016 will show
that it was not only respondent Bethoven Dela Torre who was then running
for the mayoralty position against private-complainant Oliveros. As a
matter of fact, Mr. Noel V. Esguerra who later on substituted by Ms.
Florcelie Esguerra was also vying for the same position under the PDP-
LABAN party.

21. It is worth stressing that the two (2) persons vying for the
mayoralty position comes from two (2) different established parties, the
PDP-LABAN and UNA respectively. Does it mean to say that PDP-LABAN
and UNA party connived in order to put down a candidate from Liberal
Party (“LP”)? This is beyond belief. These two political parties are publicly
known and well established. They sponsor and/or fund candidates to
represent their political parties; to get the majority representation in the
entire Philippines. What does the private-complainant think of himself?
With all due respect, the private-complainant is misled in thinking that Mr.
Esguerra and Mr. Dela Torre will sacrifice one another just to put the
private-complainant Oliveros down and eventually lose the mayoralty
race? This is illogical. The two candidates already did a lot of sacrifice and
already waste their time, in reality, in the real world, the goal of every
candidate as a rule is to emerge as the victor and eventually sit as the
Mayor of Cavinti, Laguna.

22. Furthermore, the alleged proliferation of sex video in order to

boost the candidacy of respondents Bethoven dela Torre, Jojo Mesina,
Roland Mesina, Rommel Cabuhat, Edgardo Duma, Teresita Perillo, Oscar
Gordula and Jimmy Jose Oliveros is entirely based on mere suspicion and

Page 10 of 18
plucked out of thin air but not backed up by competent proof. Even
private-complainant Oliveros’ witnesses merely surmised the fact that said
respondents are responsible for the proliferation of the sex video since
they are under the electoral slate and/or supporters of UNA but did not
actually considered the other Party.

THERE IS NO PROOF POINTING

THAT RESPONDENTS ARE THE
SOURCE AND DISTRIBUTOR OF THE
ALLEGED “FAKE” FACEBOOK
ACCOUNTS USED IN ALLEGEDLY
SENDING THE VIDEOS TO VARIOUS
PEOPLE.

23. It is an elementary rule that evidence that one did or did not
do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did or did
not do the same or a similar thing at another time.18

24. Private-complainant alleges that, to wit:

“Q: How did you know that it was the group headed by
Enteng dela Torre, Michael Eric Castillo etc. who were
behind these fake accounts that uploaded the sex
video using the fake facebook account?

A: Because these fake accounts while sympathetic to

them actively attacked me in the discussion thread on
their facebook accounts as well as the facebook of
Michael Eric Castillo. I don’t think its just a coincidence.
Besides, based on the language used by these fake
facebook accounts, they were almost the same with
the style of Michael Eric Castillo, Chris Valencia, Roland
Mesina and Jojo Mesina. The language, the words
used, the intonations etc. are distinctly theirs. Its very
easy to identify especially for me who are familiar with
them since we were together in the 2013 elections.
Besides, during the 2013 elections, it was Michael Eric
Castillo, Roland Medina, Jojo Mesina, Gina Ramos,
Oscar Gordula, Oscar Ramos and Hermie Titan who
also created bogus facebook accounts to attack on
social media then Board Member Floro Esguerra and
his wife who was running for re-election. They did it
without fear of any legal repercussions. That is why, I

18 Rule 130, Section 34 of 1997 Rules of Court.

Page 11 of 18
 knew that they would do the same dirty style of
policking against me in the 2016 election.”

25. It must be remembered that private-complainant Oliveros is a

“public figure”, who initially denied that he is the person in the sex videos
but recently admitted the same. Just like any other sex videos involving
local and foreign celebrities, the Filipino people always have intense
curiosity over these kinds of videos, which spread like wildfire over the
internet and need not require or put a distributor to reach them. As a
matter of fact, private-complainant Oliveros even won the said election. It
could even be possible that the group of private-complainant Oliveros
proliferated the sex videos in order to boost the dwindling popularity of
the former and appeal to the sympathy of the people of Cavinti, Laguna.
As the old saying goes “there is no such thing as bad publicity.”

THE ALLEGATION AS TO THE PUBLIC

EXHIBITION OF THE PURPORTED
“PRIVATE” VIDEO/S DURING
PROCLAMATION RALLY,
GATHERINGS, and MEETINGS IS
UNSUBSTANTIATED.

26. The allegation of private-complainant Oliveros that herein

respondents proliferated or publicized the purported “private” videos was
solely based on his fabricated stories.

27. Private-complainant is a re-electionist in the mayoralty

position way back then, during the hype of the 2016 election campaign,
and it is a common practice that every political party sends out
representative/s to the meetings, gatherings, or proclamation rallies of
their opponents to spy on the happenings and/or agenda of their
opponents. Granting for the sake of argument that there is a public
viewing that transpired, isn’t unusual that nobody dares to report the said
incident to the COMELEC or the nearest police station or barangay tanod
to the very least since in the first place the person involved in the
purported “private” video being played in these public place/s is their
very own Mayor, who has the highest electoral position in the municipality.
Private-complainant Oliveros and his witnesses categorically admitted in
their sworn statements that there are numerous people during the
proclamation rally, campaign rally, gatherings, meetings, etc. but none of
them attempted to stop and/or interrupt the said exhibition of the
purported “private” video. Further, no one documented and/or caught
on video the said display. Isn’t odd most especially to those constituents
who vigilantly supporting the candidacy of private-complainant? This is a
clear if not obvious indication that there is no public exhibition of the
purported “private” video that transpired.

Page 12 of 18
 28. Moreover, a closer scrutiny one of the sworn statements
executed by the allegedly witnesses of private-complainant Oliveros more
specifically the “Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay” of Ms. Nancy
Duma, Ms. Mary Jane Magdangan, Ms. Julieta Villamin, Ms. Remelyn
Blasco, Ms. Celerina Ansay, Ms. Gene Ansay, and Mr. Carlito Lubugin will
reveal that there is really no public exhibition of the purported “private
video”, to wit: “noong gabi na iyon ay ipinakita ni Castillo ang isang “still
shot photo” ng isang babae na nakahiga at isang lalaki na nasa ibabaw
noong babae. Bagamat malabo ang larawan ay ipinaliwanag ni Castillo
na ang taong nasa larawan ay si Mayor Oliveros. Maraming beses na
sinabi ni Castillo na si Mayor Oliveros ay may sex video at siya ang tao na
nasa larawan doon. Paulit-ulit din tinatanong ni Castillo ang mga
manunuod kung nais daw makapanood ng mga tao ng sex video
scandal ni Mayor Oliveros at kung gusto daw namin na siya na maging
Mayor ng aming bayan.”19 Given these sensitive circumstances that
need urgent action and/or attention, why there are no single
documentation made by the affiants mentioned. Also, if these are all
happening during that specific campaign in Barangay Poblacion, why
they did not bother to call a person in authority to interrupt the malicious
black propaganda? They let it pass because in the very first place it did
not transpired. Worst, private-complainant Oliveros consider these people
as “concerned citizens” but they did nothing to prevent it from
happening. Again, all because these are merely fabricated stories
intended to overwhelm this Honorable Office with private-complainant
Oliveros’ so called “concerned citizens” or “witnesses”.

29. To completely prove that there is no public viewing that

transpired, in the same “Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay” affiants
further testified “Naalala din namin noong “proclamation” sa Plaza,
Poblacion, Cavinti bago ang eleksyon na nagsalita muli si Castillo na may
ipapalabas sila na sex scandal ni Mayor Oliveros. Kami ay naghintay na
ipalabas nila Castillo ngunit hindi naman ito ipinalabas. Sa pananalita ni
Castillo ay tila mayroon nga silang pinanghahawakan na “sex video
scandal” laban kay Mayor Oliveros.”20 Even the affiants admitted that
there was no “private” videos that were played during the
“proclamation” rally of Mr. Dela Torre contrary to private-complainant
Oliveros’ allegation. The statements of these “witness” if closely dissected
will reveal that were all flawed since it is based on a grand scheme to
harass herein respondents in retaliation of the barrage of cases some of

19 Paragraph 4 of the Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay dated 26 May 2016.

20 Paragraph 7, ibid.

Page 13 of 18
herein respondents filed against private-complainant Oliveros before the
Ombudman21 and Commission on Human Rights (“CHR”)22.

30. It is worth reiterating that, it is unlikely and highly impossible

that respondents showed “still photo” and/or sex video of private-
complainant Oliveros during the political meetings as it will create huge
commotion, particularly to the supporters of private-complainant Oliveros,
who at that time is the incumbent mayor. Barangay halls and police
detachments are very near the venues of the respondents’ political
meetings and they can be easily arrested or apprehended for should they
attempt to commit the alleged illicit and/or immoral acts.

31. Finally, the political meetings are always held with the
permission/notice and/or in the presence of the representative of
COMELEC, who oversees compliance to the election rules, ethics and
regulations. Should the alleged illicit acts were committed by the
respondents, they could have been disqualified from running in the public
position and failed to partake on the day of the elections. But, that is not
the case.

THE UPDATES ON FACEBOOK WERE

DONE IN GOOD FAITH AND
MERELY TO INFORM THE PUBLIC AS
TO THE STEPS AND/OR ACTIONS
OF THEIR REPRESENTATIVES IN THE
GOVERNMENT.

32. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees

must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost
responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and
justice, and lead modest lives.23

33. As to the allegation against respondent Castillo, he owes the

responsibility of informing and/or updating their constituents about the
current issue/s in their municipality. It is within the ambit of his
responsibilities as Sanggunian Member.

34. Parenthetically, private-complainant Oliveros is the one to be

blamed for the leakage of these purported “private” photos must face all
the consequences of his immorality which render him unfit for the
mayoralty position. It all boils down to one thing, why record all these

21 Case Nos. OMB-L-A-16-0335, OMB-L-C-17-0079, and OMB-L-A-17-0140.

22 Case No. CHR-IV-2017-0031.

23 Article XI, Section 1 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

Page 14 of 18
sexual acts with different women and if leaked find someone who is to be
blamed when in fact there should be no video to speak of?

THE HOLDING OF A “REGULAR”

SESSION IS MANDATED UNDER THE
LAW.

35. Under the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local

Government Code of 199124 (“IRR”), the “sessions” of the sanggunian may
be either be regular or special. Further, it is expressly provided, to wit:

“Article 105. Sessions – x x x

(1) Regular Session – On the first day of the session

immediately following the election of its members, the
sanggunian shall, by resolution, fix the day, time and
place of its regular sessions. The minimum number of
regular sessions shall be once a week for the
sangguniang panlungsod, and sangguniang bayan,
and twice a month for the sangguniang barangay.”
(Emphasis supplied)

36. Pursuant to the mandate of the Local Government Code

(“LGC”) , and IRR, on 04 April 2016 at Bulwagang Pulungang Bayan,
25

Building ABC Hall, acting as Sangguniang Bayan (“SB”), respondents

convened as a body and held the Sangguniang Bayan 12th Regular
Session (“Session”).

37. Contrary to the allegation of the private-complainant

Oliveros that the session was merely for the viewing of his sex videos is
preposterous. The minutes of the session will clearly show that it was only
during the open forum part that the alleged sex videos were played and
in fact the SB members moved to discuss the sensitive matter in an
executive session. These actions completely negate imputation of the
private-complainant Oliveros that respondents’ intention was to humiliate
him to the public. How is it possible to humiliate him when in the first place
the reason for the executive session was to settle once and for all the issue
regarding his viral sex videos. Prior to the session, the videos already
became viral in the town of Cavinti, Laguna.

24 Administrative Order No. 270, 21 February 1992.

25 Republic Act No. 7610 (“RA 7610”), 10 October 1991.

Page 15 of 18
 38. As a matter of fact, the SB members come up with two (2)
resolutions26 to bring the matter to the proper forum who can settle all the
imputations of private-complainant.

THE PURPORTED FINDINGS OF NBI-

MANILA ARE BASELESS AND
UNSUBSTANTIATED.

39. With all due respect, the purported findings of NBI-Manila are
baseless and reeking with evident irregularities and were perpetuated in
order to harass all the respondents, who are political opponents of
private-complainant Oliveros. The following are the veritable badges of
irregularities:

i. Certain parties were mentioned in the

statements/affidavits but were dropped from the
report/complaints filed before this Honorable Office.

ii. Sometime in November 2016, some respondents were

subpoenaed to appear before the NBI-Manila in
January 2017 to answer the complaint of Mayor
Oliveros before NBI-Manila but in spite of their
attendance at the investigation and requests, they
were not furnished with copy of the alleged complaint
of Mayor Oliveros, hence was not given the opportunity
to answer the allegations during the investigation;

iii. Interestingly, the date/s of the purported

complaint/sworn-statement, (which was the basis of
the investigation) and report of the NBI-Manila were the
same (purportedly 01 August 2017), where obviously
the complaint should have been “dated earlier”.

iv. The subtitle of the report on “Material Facts Established”

in page 4 of the investigation report is clearly
misleading, and much more erroneous as the said
facts was only based on imagined facts supplied by
Mayor Oliveros and which mostly is based on his
personal opinion, hearsay and suspicion.

v. Private-complainant used the letterhead of Office of

the Mayor in requesting for an investigation addressed
to the Bureau. Private-complainant Oliveros is seeking
for the help of a government office as a private

26 Resolution Nos. 2016-15 and 2016-14 dated 04 April 2016.

Page 16 of 18
 individual and not as a Mayor, which clearly gave the
impression that Mayor Oliveros is using his position for an
immediate action and to at the very least influence the
investigation inquiry of the Bureau.

40. While it is an established rule in administrative law that the

findings of administrative agencies should be given respect, the same is
not absolute and there are recognized exceptions thereto. Findings of
fact of an administrative agency may not be conclusive when there is
absolutely no evidence in support thereof or such evidence is clearly,
manifestly and patently insubstantial;27 when there is a clear showing that
the administrative agency acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of
discretion or in a capricious and whimsical manner, such that its action
may amount to an excess or lack of jurisdiction;28 or when the precise
issue in the case is whether there is substantial evidence supporting the
findings of the administrative agency.29 The last exception exists in this
case and thus with all due respect to the Bureau,
findings/recommendations are not conclusive to this Honorable Office.

THE CHARGE FOR VIOLATION OF

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7610 MUST
ALSO BE DISMISSED.

41. As to the charge of violation of Republic Act No. 7610, there

are no specific allegations in the complaint to constitute any offense. Thus
this violates the right of the respondents to be informed of the nature and
circumstances of the accusations against them.

42. All told, the Supreme Court makes clear that when an officer
or employee is disciplined, the object sought is not the punishment of that
officer or employee, but the improvement of the public service and the
preservation of the public’s faith and confidence in the government. It is
reminded that the Constitution stresses that a public office is a public trust
and public officers must at all times be accountable to the people, serve
them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with
patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives. These constitutionally-
enshrined principles, oft-repeated in our case law, are not mere rhetorical
flourishes or idealistic sentiments. They should be taken as working
standards by all in the public service.30

27 Blue Bar Coconut Philippines v. Tantuico, Jr., G.R. No. L-47051, 29 July 1988.

28 Ganitano v. Secretary of Agriculture & Natural Resources, 123 Phil. 354, 357
(1966).

29 Gravador v. Mamigo, 127 Phil. 136, 142 (1967).

30 Civil Service Commission v. Cortez, G.R. No. 155732, 03 June 2004.

Page 17 of 18
 RELIEF

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of

the Honorable Office that the Complaint be DISMISSED for UTTER LACK OF
MERIT.

Other reliefs just, proper, and equitable are also prayed for.

Pasig City for Manila, 26 October 2017.

SANTOS SANTOS & SANTOS

LAW OFFICES
Counsel for Respondents
Unit 3201-B East Tower
Philippine Stock Exchange Center
Exchange Road, Ortigas Center, Pasig City
Tel Nos. 6357925, 6357926 & 6871147
By:

ERIC C. SANTOS
PTR No. 1387287/06 January 2016/Pasig
IBP No. 1017898/05 January 2016/PPLM Chapter
Roll No. 33263
MCLE Compliance No. V-0019762
25 April 2016

DENNIS B. PUNO
PTR No. 1387286/06 January 2016/ Pasig City
IBP No. 1017897/05 January 2016/ Pampanga
Roll No. 54517
MCLE Compliance No. V-0016808
28 March 2016

TOSCA LEIRA ELLA G. MANSUJETO

PTR No. 2541198/09 June 2017/Pasig City
IBP No. 004036/14 May 2017/Pasig City
Roll No. 69990
MCLE Compliance No. N/A31

31 Explanation (Re: MCLE Compliance) – Admitted to the Philippine Bar in 2017.

Pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 3 of Bar Matter No. 850, otherwise known as “Mandatory
Continuing Legal Education”, she has a period of thirty six (36) months from date of
admission for initial MCLE Compliance, or until the year 2020.

Page 18 of 18