WARRANT OUT AGAINST ME

August 05, 2014

WARRANT OUT AGAINST ME

WARRANT OUT AGAINST ME

My mugshots for my posting of my bail for the libel warrant issued because of Hagedorn complaint.

The Regional Trial Court of Princesa has issued a warrant for my arrest upon a patently baseless libel complaint filed by former mayor Edward Solon Hagedorn of Puerto Princesa City.

The libel charge of Hagedorn was based on the interview I granted to a broadcaster in Puerto Princesa City.

I am NOT SAD due to the warrant of arrest issued against me by the RTC of Puerto Princesa upon the Libel Information filed by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Puerto Princesa.

I am VERY SAD because these supposed-to-be-defenders of the innocent have become TOOLS OF OPPRESSION and SUPPRESSION OF PRESS FREEDOM.

Meanwhile, the warrant compelled me to ask for financial help from friends. It is because it happened that I have no money these days for my bail and other expenses that go along with in filing bail in court. I also had myself photographed for mugshots to be used in posting my bail. Indeed, the issue on bail is one aspect where we can see the gap between the moneyed and those who have none.

By the way, the libel complaint of Hagedorn was based on my answers in an interview of a radio broadcaster in Puerto Princesa City.

What was libelous there if I just answered the questions thrown me and the answers were based on the allegations I stated in the Complaint-Affidavit as well as the Supplemental Complaint-Affidavit, Second Supplemental Complaint-Affidavit and the Reply-Affidavit that I filed before the Office of the Ombudsman against the former mayor, who unfortunately I happened to campaign for during the 2013 Senatorial Elections because I believed in his environmental agenda?

What was libelous there if I answered a question what would happen to Hagedorn if he can explain my charges that he failed to disclose his 59 real property and the answer I stated was that “Ngayon, kung ma-e-explain nya iyon maliligtas siya.”

According to the City Prosecutor and the investigating prosecutor, it was libelous because I was insinuating that Hagedorn cannot explain the charge for his failure to declare in his SALN the 59 parcels of land in Puerto Princesa and Palawan. The tone of my speech when I uttered this answer was calm and a lecture mood as to what will be the logical consequence based on a premise.

Then the OCP of Puerto Princesa said that it was also libelous for me to make an opinion that all officials are required to completely disclose their properties in their respective SALNs for the people to know.

What has become of the OCP of Puerto Princesa?

It is very obvious that the OCP of Puerto Princesa tried so hard to SQUEEZE SOMETHING OUT OF NOTHING. This is because they cannot find any ground for libel in all other statements I made that were all based on the allegations I stated in the Complaint, Supplemental Complaint, Second Supplemental Complain, and my Reply-Affidavit to the Counter-Affidavit of Hagedorn before the Office of the Ombudsman.

For those who want to know more, you may read the MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION I FILED WITH THE OCP OF PUERTO PRINCESA, as well as the affidavits I filed against the toughie former mayor of Puerto Princesa.

THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
THAT I FILED VS PROBABLE CAUSE FINDING:

Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice

Office of the City Prosecutor

Hall of Justice, Sta. Monica

Puerto Princesa City, Palawan

EDWARD S. HAGEDORN,

Complainant,

-versus- NPS Docket No. IV-17-INV-13K-0837

For: Libel

ATTY. BERTENI C. CAUSING.

Respondents.

x----------------------------------------x

Motion for Reconsideration

The respondent, BERTENI CATALUÑA CAUSING, by himself as his own counsel, respectfully moves the Honorable Office to reconsider its Resolution dated 26 May 2014.

The Timeliness

On 28 July 2014 the undersigned received the Resolution of the Office the City Prosecutor.

The fifteenth (15^th) day within which to file this motion ends on 12 August 2014.

Thus, the filing of this motion for reconsideration today, 11 August 2014, is timely.

The Missing Page 10

This is to inform the Office of the City Prosecutor that the copy of the Resolution that was received by the undersigned did not have Page 10. It must have been inadvertently left out by the filing clerk of the Office. It is therefore requested of the Office to send another copy to the undersigned ensuring that all the pages of the Resolution are intact. With this, the undersigned reserves the right to file a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration after the complete copy of the Resolution is received.

The Grounds

With due respect to the Office, it gravely erred in its resolution, forgetting the ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED MATTER FOR COMPLAINTS that are protected absolutely against libel and also forgetting that what it referred to as “unnecessary remarks” are actually fair comments under the Fair Comments Doctrine that are undoubtedly logical.

The Discussions

The Absolutely Privileged Matter

There is no dispute that all allegations in the complaint filed before a quasi-judicial body are absolutely privileged that they cannot serve as bases for libel.

And if the same allegations are restated in a publication or broadcast, the same published restatements are likewise absolutely privileged.

This is in addition to the fact that these allegations made during the radio interview are also protected by Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code, to wit:

Art. 354. Requirement for publicity. — Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown, except in the following cases:

1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty; and

2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions.

Under Article 354, matters talking about the happening of an official proceeding like the filing of the Complaint before the Ombudsman are not presumed as malicious.

If that is so, then the accuser has the obligation to submit proofs of malice in fact in the degree of probable cause to justify the filing of information for libel in court.

Here, the complainant failed to submit any proof of malice in fact. So that it is erroneous for the Office to resolve there is probable cause when in truth there is no evidence of actual malice that was submitted.

And it is much more anomalous for it to say there is probable cause and allow the complainant to prove malice in Court.

It is mandatory for the Prosecution Office not to file any complaint in court with the objective of giving an opportunity to the complainant to submit the evidence of malice in fact later.

The act of the prosecutor in filing an information in Court when there is no evidence in one of the elements of the crime is prohibited by the Supreme Court in Salonga vs Paño, G.R. No. L-59524, February 18, 1985, to wit:

xxx The judge or fiscal, therefore, should not go on with the prosecution in the hope that some credible evidence might later turn up during trial for this would be a flagrant violation of a basic right which the courts are created to uphold. It bears repeating that the judiciary lives up to its mission by vitalizing and not denigrating constitutional rights. So it has been before. It should continue to be so.

Here, the complainant did not submit any evidence of malice in fact. As such, the Office of the City Prosecutor is compelled by law to dismiss the complaint.

The Fair Comments Law

The Fair Comments Law removes the presumption of malice and requires the complainant to submit evidence of Actual Malice.

The Fair Comments doctrine is enunciated in Borjal vs Court of Appeals, GR 126466, January 14, 1999, to wit:

To reiterate, fair commentaries on matters of public interest are privileged and constitute a valid defense in an action for libel or slander. The doctrine of fair comment means that while in general every discreditable imputation publicly made is deemed false, because every man is presumed innocent until his guilt is judicially proved, and every false imputation is deemed malicious, nevertheless, when the discreditable imputation is directed against a public person in his public capacity, it is not necessarily actionable. In order that such discreditable imputation to a public official may be actionable, it must either be a false allegation of fact or a comment based on a false supposition. If the comment is an expression of opinion, based on established facts, then it is immaterial that the opinion happens to be mistaken, as long as it might reasonably be inferred from the facts.

In this case, the “unnecessary remarks” referred to by the Office of the City Prosecutor clearly falls within the Fair Comments Law. These are no less than fair and logical opinions from the facts presented by the Complaint filed before the Office of the Ombudsman.

No doubt that this phrase, “Ngayon, kung ma-e-explain nya iyon maliligtas siya,” is an opinion. Even if the prosecutor would take the meaning that may be somewhat like insinuating that Hagedorn cannot explain, still it is an opinion.

Now, opinion is one thing, facts is another thing. One can be false only in a statement of facts, but no one can be false in stating an opinion. Opinion can only be correct or incorrect.

If only the prosecutors in Puerto Princesa heard the CD of the interview, the manner of talking was delivered not in an insinuation manner but in a respectful mode. It was a statement of saying what will logically happen from a given condition. So that the undersigned was talking in a good manner just like answering “5 is the answer if we add 2 and 3.”

So that actually there is no defamation in saying that if the Mayor could explain then he would be saved. The undersigned did not mean it to mean as an insinuation he will never ever answer the complaint before the Ombudsman.

The same is true to the statement: “Kaya nga tayo pinapa submit (all real properties in the SALN and not by merely making a generalization) ay para i read lahat mo (this should be i-reveal mo lahat, for it must have been erred by the transcriber) sa madlang people kung anong meron ka, hindi yung magtatago tago ka...”

These are matters of opinion as to the question why the statement of real properties cannot be stated in a general manner.

Frankly, these opinions are based on what are logical answers and as lawyers, too, the prosecutors know that if the accusations are explained the accused will be exonerated.

With due respect to my panyeras, the ruling on these opinions borders on the wild yonder and unwarranted.

The Lack of Evidence of Actual Malice

To repeat, if the libel complainant is a public figure like Mayor Edward S. Hagedorn, it is automatic and not a matter of evidence that the publication or broadcast involved is covered by the Public Figures Doctrine.

So that other than the fact that the instant interview broadcast is covered by the Fair Comments Law, it is also covered by the Public Figures Doctrine.

And if it is so, Guingguing vs Court of Appeals, GR No. 128959, September 30, 2005, is very strict in saying that the public figure complainant must submit evidence of actual malice in the degree of probable cause in order to justify the finding of probable cause.

Actual Malice is defined as knowingly publishing a false defamatory matter or publishing a defamatory matter with reckless disregard of the falsity thereof.

Ergo, if only to justify the finding of probable cause, it is required of the complainant to submit the following evidence:

1. Evidence that the matters deemed by the complainant as defamatory is false;

2. Evidence that the publisher or the speaker knew of the falsity before the same was broadcast or published; or evidence that the publisher or speaker recklessly disregarded the truth or falsity thereof.

In this instant case, Mayor Hagedorn failed to submit evidence that the factual matters uttered during the interview broadcast were false. To the contrary, the undersigned submitted evidence of truth.

The mayor also did not submit evidence that the undersigned knew of the falsity.

And if the mayor failed to submit any evidence of actual malice, that the bases of his opinions are false, the Office of the Prosecutor has no right to cause prejudice to the undersigned and compel him to undergo trial in Puerto Princesa and spending substantial amounts for fares and for bail.

Meantime, the undersigned wishes to state that it is unfortunate for the Office of the City Prosecutor to state: “It is worthy to note that even Causing himself has admitted that the case he filed before the Office of the Ombudsman is still pending, hence, he has yet to prove facts underlying his accusations against the former Mayor, the herein complainant Edward S. Hagedorn.”

This is totally irrelevant and irresponsible. It is because it does not matter whether the contents of the complaint are false. What is important is that these are stated in the complaint for them to be privileged.

This is the rule of Absolutely Privileged Communication on pleadings and affidavits filed in courts and quasi-judicial bodies.

One last note. The Prosecutor’s Office has no authority to find probable cause in cases of privileged communication, unless the complainant submitted probable cause evidence of actual malice.

The Prayer

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of the Honorable Prosecutor’s Office to REVERSE its Resolution dated 26 May 2014.

Other reliefs just and equitable are also prayed for. 4 August 2014, Manila for Puerto Princesa City.

Causing Sabarre Castro

Unit 1, 2368 JB Roxas St. corner Leon Guinto St., Malate, Manila

Emails: totocausing@yahoo.com, berteni.causing@gmail.com; Telephone No.: +632-3105521

By:

BERTENI CATALUÑA CAUSING

IBP No. 928535 / Manila IV / 01-06-2014

PTR No. 2529536 / Manila / 01-06-2014

Roll No. 60944 / MCLE No. IV -0007338 / 08-10-2012

Cc:

EDWARD S. HAGEDORN, 1 Marcelo Compound, Socrates Road

Brgy. San Pedro, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan

x----------------------------------------------x

Republic of the Philippines )

City of Manila ) SC

VERIFICATION & CERTIFICATE

I, BERTENI CATALUÑA CAUSING, of legal age, Filipino, whose office address is Unit 1, No. 2368 Leon Guinto St. corner JB Roxas St., Malate, Manila, after having been sworn to in accordance with law, hereby declare under oath that I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Motion for Reconsideration, read and understood the same, and the allegations therein are true and correct of my personal knowledge and based on records that can be best obtained under the circumstances.

I further certify that other than this venue and jurisdiction, I have not filed any other action having similar facts, parties and reliefs prayed of in any quasi-judicial offices, courts, or tribunal and should I learn one I undertake to inform the Honorable Office about it within five (5) days from knowledge.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I sign this Verification and Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping on 4 August 2014 in the City of Manila.

BERTENI CATALUÑA CAUSING

Driver’s License No. N02-94-241544

Expiring on December 10, 2015

IBP ID No. 60944

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on 4 August 2014, in the City of Manila, affiant showing his evidence of identity as written above.

Doc. No.: ____; Page No.: ____;

Book No.: ____; Series of 2014.

THE COMPLAINT THAT I FILED VS HAGEDORN ON HIS FAILURE TO DISCLOSE HIS 59 LAND PROPERTIES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

Republic of the Philippines

Office of the Ombudsman

Ombudsman Bldg., Agham Road, Diliman, Quezon City

BERTENI “TOTO” CATALUÑA

CAUSING, president of Alab ng

Mamamahayag (ALAM) and

Hukuman ng Mamamayan

Movement, Inc. (HMMI)

Complainant,

- versus - OMB C-C No. _______________

For: PERJURY

FALSIFICATION

Violation of Section 8 in

relation to Republic Act

No. 6713

EDWARD S. HAGEDORN,

Puerto Princesa, Palawan

Respondent.

x---------------------------------------x

Republic of the Philippines )

City of Manila )SC

Complaint Affidavit

I, BERTENI “TOTO” CATALUÑA CAUSING, of legal age, president of Hukuman ng Mamamayan Movement, Inc. (HMMI) and president of Alab ng Mamamahayag (ALAM), Filipino, whose postal address is Unit 1, No. 2368 Leon Guinto St., Malate, Manila, after having been sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and state:

1. I am filing a complaint for nine (9) counts of falsification of public documents, nine (9) counts of perjury, and nine (9) counts of violation of Section 8 in relation to Section 11 of Repub lic Act No. 6713, otherwise known as “AN ACT ESTABLISHING A CODE OF CONDUCT AND ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES, TO UPHOLD THE TIME-HONORED PRINCIPLE OF PUBLIC OFFICE BEING A PUBLIC TRUST, GRANTING INCENTIVES AND REWARDS FOR EXEMPLARY SERVICE, ENUMERATING PROHIBITED ACTS AND TRANSACTIONS AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,” against Edward Solon Hagedorn;

2. The respondent is well-known and popular in Puerto Princesa City that subpoena for him can be coursed through the Chief of Police, Puerto Princesa City;

3. These charges stemmed from the failure of the respondent to file his nine Satement of Assets, Liabilities and Net worth (SALN) by making it to appear that he did not own more than 50 real properties all registered in his name during his incumbency as mayor of Puerto Princesa City from year 2004 to 2012;

4. The filing of his SALN is required by Section 17, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, which states:

A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth. In the case of the President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional offices, and officers of the armed forces with general or flag rank, the declaration shall be disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law. ”

5. This obligation of a public officer or employee is also included in the provisions of RA 6713 – Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees under Section 8, which states:

“Section 8. Statements and Disclosure. – Public officials and employees have an obligation to accomplish and submit declarations under oath of, and the public has the right to know, their assets, liabilities, net worth and financial and business interests including those of their spouses and of unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of age living in their households.

6. In his SALN from 2004 to 2012, Hagedorn did not declare his real properties which are the following:

a) 30,000 square meters Agricultural land in Barangay Bacungan, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 002-20885 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “A;”

b) 12,909 square meters agricultural land with Transfer Certificate Title TCT-78015 in Barangay Bagong Bayan, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 004-8004 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “B;”

c) 12,909 square meters agricultural land with Transfer Certificate Title TCT-87012 in Barangay Bagong Bayan, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 004-8005 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “C;”

d) 21,009 square meters residential land with Transfer Certificate Title TCT-187989 in Barangay Bagong Bayan, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 004-8193 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “D;”

e) 21,009 square meters residential land with Transfer Certificate Title TCT-187944 in Barangay Bagong Bayan, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 004-8194 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “E;”

f) 21,009 square meters residential land with Transfer Certificate Title TCT-187943 in Barangay Bagong Bayan, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 004-8195 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “F;”

g) 21,009 square meters residential land with Transfer Certificate Title TCT-188004 in Barangay Bagong Bayan, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 004-8196 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “G;”

h) 21,009 square meters residential land with Transfer Certificate Title TCT-187990 in Barangay Bagong Bayan, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 004-8197 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “H;”

i) 113,387 square meters residential land with Transfer Certificate Title TCT-074-2013000031 in Barangay Bagong Bayan, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 004-8198 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “I;”

j) 96,555 square meters residential land with Transfer Certificate Title TCT-074-2013000028 in Barangay Bagong Bayan, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 004-8199 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “J;”

k) 38,050 square meters agricultural land with Transfer Certificate Title TCT-162970 in Barangay Bagong Silang, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 039-8049 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “K;”

l) 3,518 square meters residential land with Transfer Certificate Title TCT-162972 in Barangay Bagong Silang, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 039-8045 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “L;”

m)3,518 square meters residential land with Transfer Certificate Title TCT-162971 in Barangay Bagong Silang, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 039-8046 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “M;”

n) 1,640 square meters residential land with Transfer Certificate Title TCT-15887 in Barangay Bancao-Bancao, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 005-14645 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “N;”

o) 9,960 square meters residential land with Transfer Certificate Title TCT-129631 in Barangay Bancao-Bancao, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 005-15409 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “O;”

p) 35,162 square meters agricultural land in Barangay Binduyan, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 006-8164 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “P;”

q) 96,555 square meters residential land with Transfer Certificate Title TCT-176245 in Barangay Cabayugan, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 008-2242 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “Q;”

r) 1,452 square meters residential land in Barangay Cabayugan, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 008-2243 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “R;”

s) 40,166 square meters residential land with Transfer Certificate Title TCT-074-2013000030 in Barangay Cabayugan, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 008-2477 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “S;”

t) 40,167 square meters residential land with Transfer Certificate Title TCT-074-2013000027 in Barangay Cabayugan, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 008-2478 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “T;”

u) 38,688 square meters residential land with Transfer Certificate Title TCT-186616 in Socrates Road, Barangay Irawan, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 012-8037 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “U;”

v) 772 square meters residential land with Transfer Certificate Title TCT-182669 in Barangay Maligaya, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 048-1358 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “V;”

w) 192.46 square meters residential building in Barangay Maligaya, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 048-1182 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “W;”

x) 284 square meters commercial land with Transfer Certificate Title TCT-180353 in Barangay Manggahan, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 056-2769 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “X;”

y) 623 square meters commercial land with Transfer Certificate Title TCT-177153 in Barangay Manggahan, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 056-2777 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “Y;”

z) 299.85 square meters commercial building in Barangay Manggahan, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 056-2374 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “Z;”

aa) 226.80 square meters commercial building in Barangay Mangghan, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 056-2401 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “AA;”

bb) 41,015 square meters agricultural land in Barangay Mangingisda, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 064-13081 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “BB;”

cc) 141 square meters commercial land with Transfer Certificate Title TCT-172147 in Barangay Maningning, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 057-8248 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “CC;”

dd) 6,816 square meters agricultural land in Barangay Masipag, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 052-8733 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “DD;”

ee) 1,110 square meters residential land with Transfer Certificate Title TCT-19837 in Barangay Masipag, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 052-8727 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “EE;”

ff) 84.46 square meters residential building in Barangay Masipag, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 053-7727 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “FF;”

gg) 570 square meters residential land with Transfer Certificate Title TCT-14844 in Barangay Milagrosa , Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 059-5812 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “GG;”

hh) 270 square meters residential land with Transfer Certificate Title TCT-80098 in Barangay Milagrosa, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 059-6007 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “HH;”

ii) 7,749 square meters agricultural land with Original Certificate Title OCT-4131 in Barangay Napsan, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 020-11463 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “II;”

jj) 2,144 square meters residential land with Transfer Certificate Title TCT-13512 in Barangay Napsan, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 020-11291 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “JJ;”

kk) 52,037 square meters residential land with Transfer Certificate Title TCT-187942 in Barangay Napsan, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 020-11922 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “KK;”

ll) 29,030 square meters residential land with Transfer Certificate Title TCT-188137 in Barangay Napsan, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 020-11923 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “LL;”

mm) 23,084 square meters residential land with Transfer Certificate Title TCT-074-2013000068 in Barangay Napsan, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 020-11925 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “MM;”

nn) 240,100 square meters agricultural land in Barangay Salvacion, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 025-4472 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “NN;”

oo) 10,000 square meters residential land with Transfer Certificate Title TCT-94058 in Barangay San Jose, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 026-21182 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “OO;”

pp) 1,130 square meters commercial land with Transfer Certificate Title TCT-505 in Barangay San Miguel, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 027-19003 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “PP;”

qq) 900 square meters residential land with Transfer Certificate Title TCT-94059 in Barangay San Pedro, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 028-45038 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “QQ;”

rr) 438 square meters residential land with Transfer Certificate Title TCT-94057 in Barangay San Pedro, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 028-45130 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “RR;”

ss) 2,400 square meters residential land with Transfer Certificate Title TCT-16572 in Barangay San Pedro, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 028-47782 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “SS;”

tt) 776 square meters residential land with Transfer Certificate Title TCT-175218 in Barangay San Pedro, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 028-50088 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “TT;”

uu) 600 square meters residential land with Transfer Certificate Title TCT-074-2013000607 in Barangay San Pedro, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 028-51839 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “UU;”

vv) 151.80 square meters residential building in Barangay San Pedro, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 028-30189 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “VV;”

ww) 20,315 square meters agricultural land in Barangay Simpocan, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 035-10737 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “WW;”

xx) 12,820 square meters residential land with Original Certificate of Title OCT-3604 in Barangay Simpocan, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 035-11021 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “XX;”

yy) 19,485 square meters residential land in Barangay Simpocan, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 035-11022 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “YY;”

zz)173,538 square meters residential land with Transfer Certificate Title TCT-074-2013000029 in Barangay Simpocan, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 035-11035 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “ZZ;”

aaa) 10,000 square meters residential land with Transfer Certificate Title TCT-15909 in Barangay Sta. Lourdes, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 032-7161 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “AAA;”

bbb) 49,651 square meters residential land with Transfer Certificate Title TCT-182072 in Barangay Sta. Lourdes, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 032-7163 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “BBB;”

ccc) 10,000 square meters residential land with Transfer Certificate Title TCT-89069 in Barangay Sta. Monica, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 033-29473 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “CCC;”

ddd) 20,000 square meters residential land with Transfer Certificate Title TCT-176225 in Barangay Sta. Monica, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 033-29504 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “DDD;”

eee) 412 square meters residential land in Barangay Sta. Monica, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 033-30669 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “EEE;”

fff)1,000 square meters residential land with Transfer Certificate Title TCT-14811 in Barangay Simpocan, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 033-31811 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “FFF;”and

ggg) 600 square meters residential land in Barangay Tagburos, Puerto Princesa City. This is covered by Tax Declaration No. T.D. 037-5133 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “GGG;”

7. As said, the foregoing lists of Hagedorn’s real properties were not declared in his SALN as proved by his SALN dated December 31, 2012 which he subscribed and sworn to on April 19, 2013 and submitted to the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon on 4-30-13, or April 30, 2013; a copy of his SALN is attached hereto as ANNEX “HHH;”

8. Hagedorn did not declare the foregoing real properties in his 2011 SALN which he subscribed and sworn to on April 2, 2012 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “III;”

9. Hagedorn did not declare the foregoing real properties in his 2010 SALN which he subscribed and sworn to on April 4, 2011 that is attached hereto as ANNEX “JJJ;”

10.Hagedorn did not declare the foregoing real properties in his 2009 SALN which he subscribed and sworn to on March 30, 2010 that is attached hereto asANNEX “KKK;”

11.Hagedorn did not declare the foregoing real properties in his 2008 SALN which he subscribed and sworn to on June 8, 2009 that is attached hereto asANNEX “LLL;”

12.Hagedorn did not declare the foregoing real properties in his 2007 SALN which he subscribed and sworn to on April 10, 2008 that is attached hereto asANNEX“MMM;”

13.Hagedorn did not declare the foregoing real properties in his 2006 SALN which he subscribed and sworn to on March 26, 2007 which is attached hereto as ANNEX “NNN;”

14.Hagedorn did not declare the foregoing real properties in his 2005 SALN which he subscribed and sworn on April 5, 2006 that is attached hereto asANNEX “OOO;”

15.Hagedorn did not declare the foregoing real properties in his 2004 SALN which he subscribed and sworn to on March 22, 2005 that is attached hereto asANNEX “PPP;”

16.All the annexes that are attached hereto are Certified True Copies;

17.Because he has filed his SALN consistently and consecutively in nine (9) years without disclosing the above-listed properties, although which may have been legitimately acquired, it has become very clear that the act of non-disclosing them become deliberate under the principle of the “totality of the circumstances”;

18.This therefore constitutes acts of making it appear that he did not own, or did not have any interest in, these undisclosed real properties, thereby constituting the crime of falsification for nine (9) counts;

19.Because the signature in the SALN is deemed by law to be accomplished as sworn and under the penaltites of perjury, it is now deemed that the respondent committed the crime of perjury also for nine (9) counts;

20. Republic Act 6713 specifically defines the same act as a penal offense under Section 11 thereof, that a violation of any of the provision of Section 8 thereof is punished with imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years, or a fine not exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000), or both, and, in the discretion of the court of competent jurisdiction, disqualification to hold public office;

21. As such, the respondent also committed nine (9) counts of violation of Sec. 8 in relation to Sec 11 of RA 6713;

22. Because the respondent is no longer a public employee, these criminal charges are the ones now being filed against him;

23. Hukuman ng Mamamayan Movement, Inc. is an organization of advocates for the installation in the Philippines of a People’s Justice System or Jury System, where the people themselves will participate in the decision making in the judiciary;

24. Alab ng Mamamahayag (ALAM) is an organization of advocates for total press freedom and justice;

25. In relation to their objective of justice, I as president of both HMMI and ALAM file cases every time I happen to stumble on corruption evidence like this one in this case;

26.Under the People’s Justice System, the participation of the people is necessary in every decision making in all courts and prosecution offices;

27. Under this system, the people participate through raffling and screening from them a group of 26 persons to be appointed to serve for six (6) months as the Grand Jurors in every province or city;

28.The duty of the members of the Grand Jury is to vote whether to file a criminal case in court against certain persons arrested or charged for crimes, assuring a very fair process to ensure that only those persons with strong evidence against them shall be held in prison and tried in court, assuring that there will be no political color in every case filed in court;

29. The Grand Jury system protects those being harassed or framed up by policemen, prosecutors and politicians wanting to imprison persons not supportive to them;

30. After their term of six (6) months, new Grand Jury members will be appointed to replace the incumbents and the same procedure shall be employed in choosing succeeding members;

31. If jury system is imposed, those charged in court as determined by the grand juries shall be assured the fairest trial because the judges on issues on facts shall be a group of 12 ordinary persons with one alternate who will continue to sit while cases are tried daily;

32. Under jury system, trials for ordinary criminal cases can be completed in two to three days and the jurors are not allowed to go home until they voted for conviction or acquittal;

33. Nevertheless, what is important for now is that their case against Hagedorn shall roll on in order to give him an opportunity to defend and clear his name;

34. While I am desirous that this case be governed by a grand jury, I nevertheless have faith in the Office of the Ombudsman that it will be fair in this case;

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I sign this Complaint Affidavit this ____ October 2013 in the City of Manila.

BERTENI “TOTO” CATALUÑA CAUSING

Affiant

Driver’s No. NO2-94-24154, issued by LTO

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this 22 October 2013 in the City of Manila, affiant manifested his sufficient proof of identity written under his name.

Doc. No.: ___;

Page No.: ___;

Book No.: ___;

Series of 2013.

THE SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT THAT I FILED VS HAGEDORN ON HIS FAILURE TO DISCLOSE HIS 59 LAND PROPERTIES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

Republic of the Philippines

Office of the Ombudsman

Ombudsman Bldg., Agham Road, Diliman, Quezon City

BERTENI “TOTO” CATALUÑA

CAUSING, president of Alab ng

Mamamahayag (ALAM) and

Hukuman ng Mamamayan

Movement, Inc. (HMMI)

Complainant,

- versus - OMB C-C No. _______________

For: PERJURY,

FALSIFICATION,

Violation of Sections 87

& in relation to Section 11 of Republic Act

No. 6713

EDWARD S. HAGEDORN,

Puerto Princesa, Palawan

Respondent.

x---------------------------------------x

Republic of the Philippines )

City of Manila )SC

Supplemental Complaint-Affidavit

1. I have filed the above-captioned complaint against Edward Solon Hagedorn at the Office of the Ombudsman on October 23, 2013;

2. Because of additional documentary evidences that I have discovered in relation to Hagedorn’s six (6) business interests that he failed to declare in his Statements of Assets, Liabibities and Net Worth (SALNs for brevity), and because of the fact that it was only now he learned of the residence address of the respondent, and further because he committed thirty-three (33) more counts of the crime of violation of Section 7(a) and Section 7(b) in relation to Section 11 of Republic Act 6713, I am filing this Supplemental Amended Complaint, I file this Supplemental Complaint;

3. From the corporation papers where the name of the respondent appears as a stockholder, he listed his residence address as No. 1 Marcelo Compound, San Pedro, Puerto Princesa;

4. The six business corporations where Hagedorn is one of the incorporators and stockholders, include the one that runs a hundred-million-pesos-yearly-selling Jollibee franchise in Puerto Princesa City;

5. These businesses that have not been declared in his Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Networth (SALNs) are the following:

a) Palawan Jolly Foods Corporation, with principal office address at Rizal Avenue, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, was issued a Certificate of Filing of Amended Articles of Incorporation by the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC for brevity) on August 27, 2010, but it appeared that it existed since December 17, 1998 as proved by an Acknowledgement notarized by Atty. Roberto A. Delos Reyes. This corporation that owns the franchise of Jollibee in Puerto Princesa had not been declared by Hagedorn in his SALNs for the years 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012(Nine counts).

All the documents relating to Palawan Jolly Foods Corporation are attached hereto as ANNEX “QQQ” series.

b) Puerto Princesa Broadcasting Corporation, with principal office address at Centro De Benito Yaliva, 178 Rizal Avenue, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, was issued a Certificate of Filing of Amended Artciles of Incorporation by the SEC on January 14, 2009, but it appeared that it existed since June 17, 2008 as proved by a Directors’ Certificate which was notarized by Atty. Leonido B. Arriola. This corporation had not been declared by Hagedorn in his SALNs for the years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 (Five counts).

All the documents relating to Puerto Princesa Broadcasting Corporation are attached hereto as ANNEX “RRR” series.

c) Puerto Prince Bee Foods Corporation, with principal office address at National Highway, Barangay San Manuel, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, was issued a Certificate of Incorporation by the SEC on January 26, 2012. This coporation had not been declared by Hagedorn in his SALN for 2012 which he submitted to the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon on April 30, 2013 (One count).

All the documents relating to Puerto Prince Bee Foods Corporation are attached hereto as ANNEX “SSS” series.

d) Green Forest Blue Waters Corporation, with principal office address at 2384 Kanumayan Pensione Penthouse-A, Malate, Manila, was issued a Certificate of Incorporation by the SEC on January 8, 2008. This corporation had not been declared by Hagedorn in his SALNs for the years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 (Five counts).

All the documents relating to Green Forest Blue Waters Corporation are attached hereto as ANNEX “TTT” series.

e) Radiant Homes Land Development RHLD Inc., with principal office address at 178 Rizal Avenue, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, was issued by the SEC a Certificate of Incorporation on October 23 2009 and a Certificate of Filing of Amended Articles of Incorporation renaming it to Radiant Forest Homes Development RFHD Inc. on October 18, 2011. This corporation had not been declared by Hagedorn in his SALNs for the years 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012(Four counts).

All the documents relating to RHLD and RFHD are attached hereto asANNEX “UUU” series.

f) Hagedorn Travel & Tours Inc., with principal office address at National Hiway, San Pedro, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, was issued a Certificate of Incorporation by the SEC on May 29, 2000. This company had not been declared by Hagedorn in his SALNs for the years 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 (Nine counts).

ll the documents relating Hagedorn Travel & Tours Inc., are attached hereto as ANNEX “VVV” series.

6. The aforementioned documentary evidence form an integral part of the Complaint.-Affidavit earlier filed.

7. In addition to the charges of three kinds of criminal offenses, I am also filing the charge of amending the complaint, I am filing against Hagedorn a criminal offense of violation of Section 7(a) and Section 7(b) in relation to Section 11 of Republic Act No. 6713, for a total of thirty-three (33) counts for all the corporations listed above and for all the years that he issued Mayor’s Permit to these business establishments.

8. It is noted that despite being the mayor of the City of Puerto Princesa, he issued permits and licenses to all his businesses, despite the fact that it is undisputable that he has had financial and material interests in all these corporations.

9. The respondent knows that as the mayor he knew that every issuance of license and mayor’s permit is not a simple ministerial matter but one that requires judgment.

10. The respondent deliberately ignored the fact that the businesses he approved for his corproations have had competitors in the City.

11. For being so interested in the businesses, the respondent placed himself in material and financial conflict with his office.

12. Because he approved the business permits of these corporations where he is a major stockholder, the respondent violated Section 7(a) and Section 7(b) of RA 6713, to wit:

Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. — In addition to acts and omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the following shall constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby declared to be unlawful:

(a) Financial and material interest. — Public officials and employees shall not, directly or indirectly, have any financial or material interest in any transaction requiring the approval of their office.

(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto. — Public officials and employees during their incumbency shall not:

(1) Own, control, manage or accept employment as officer, employee, consultant, counsel, broker, agent, trustee or nominee in any private enterprise regulated, supervised or licensed by their office unless expressly allowed by law;

(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided, that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions; or

13. Under Section 11 of the same Act, any public officer committing the acts stated in Section 7 shall be punished with an imprisonment of not exceeding five (5) years, or a fine not exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000), or both, and, in the discretion of the court of competent jurisdiction, disqualification to hold public office.

14. Thus, it is very clear that by maintaining these corporations running businesses in Puerto Princesa City, the respondent committed also the crimes of violating Section 7(a) and Section 7(b) of RA No. 6713 for thirty-three counts.

15. To serve the public good, the Office of the Ombudsman must not let this pass unpunished.

16. In this trying time when the citizens are bombarded with munomental corruption acts in relation to the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), Malampaya Funds and other discretionary funds, which amount to tens of billions of pesos that only went to the pockets, it is revolting to conscience for Mr. Hagedorn to go scot-free and laughing all the way to the bank.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I sign this Supplemental Amended Complaint this 25 October 2013 in the City of Manila.

BERTENI “TOTO” CATALUÑA CAUSING

Affiant

Driver’s No. NO2-94-24154, issued by LTO

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this 25 October 2013 in the City of Manila, affiant manifested his sufficient proof of identity written under his name.

Doc. No.: ___;

Page No.: ___;

Book No.: ___;

Series of 2013.

THE SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT THAT I FILED VS HAGEDORN ON HIS FAILURE TO DISCLOSE HIS 59 LAND PROPERTIES ARE AS FOLLOWS:

Republic of the Philippines

Office of the Ombudsman

Ombudsman Bldg., Agham Road, Diliman, Quezon City

BERTENI “TOTO” CATALUÑA

CAUSING, president of Alab ng

Mamamahayag (ALAM) and

Hukuman ng Mamamayan

Movement, Inc. (HMMI)

Complainant,

- versus - OMB L-C 13-0453

For: PERJURY,

FALSIFICATION,

Violation of Sections 87

& in relation to Section 11 of Republic Act

No. 6713

EDWARD S. HAGEDORN,

Puerto Princesa, Palawan

Respondent.

x---------------------------------------x

Republic of the Philippines )

City of Manila )SC

Second Supplemental

Complaint-Affidavit

1. I have filed the above-captioned complaint against Edward Solon Hagedorn at the Office of the Ombudsman on October 23, 2013, and it has been docketed as Omb. L-C-13-0453;

3. The Complaint-Affidavit consisted of non-declaration in the SALN of 59 real properties of Mr. Hagedorn;

4. The Supplemental Complaint-Affidavit consisted of the non-declaration of six (6) business corporations where the name of the respondent appears as a stockholder, where he listed his residence address as No. 1 Marcelo Compound, San Pedro, Puerto Princesa;

5. The six business corporations where Hagedorn is one of the incorporators and stockholders, include the one that runs a hundred-million-pesos-yearly-selling Jollibee franchise in Puerto Princesa City;

6. In this SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT, I am now including the LIST OF MOTOR VEHICLES IN THE NAME OF MR. EDWARD S. HAGEDORN that he did not also disclose in his Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Networth (SALNs) for the years 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012;

7. This Second Supplemental Complaint-Affidavit also forms an integral part of the Complaint-Affidavit that was first to have been filed by me;

8. The motor vehicles that were not listed in his SALNs are thirty-eight (38) vehicles comprising of motorcycles, hauling vehicles and luxury cars that are the following:

a. Volvo 1997 model, plate no. UTD-387;

b. Nissan Patrol Super Wagon 1994 model, plate no. TNP-517;

c. Ford Expedition Wagon 1997 model, plate no. WAP-293;

d. Toyota Land Cruiser Wagon 1997 model, plate no. ZAJ-898;

e. BMW 750 IL Sedan, plate no. ZGE-801;

9. In all nine (9) SALNs of Mr. Hagedorn from 2004 up to 2012, he never decalred any motor vehicle except for a couple occasions; and

10. With these, I am officially filing this Second Supplemental Complaint-Affidavit to form an integral part of my original complaint, along with the Supplemental Complaint Affidavit that I filed earlier.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I sign this Second Supplemental Complaint-Affidavit this 23 December 2013 in the City of Manila.

BERTENI “TOTO” CATALUÑA CAUSING

Affiant

Driver’s No. NO2-94-24154, issued by LTO

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this 23 December 2013 in the City of Manila, affiant manifested his sufficient proof of identity written under his name.

Doc. No.: ___;

Page No.: ___;

Book No.: ___;

Series of 2013.

Republic of the Philippines )

City of Manila )SC

Verification & Non-forum Shopping Certificate

1. I prepared the foregoing Second Supplemental Complaint-Affidavit and read and understood the same;

2. The contents thereof are true and correct based on authentic records;

3. That other than this complaint, I did not file in any other venue and jurisdiction any action having the same parties, the same issues and the same reliefs prayed for, except for the Complaint-Affidavit and Supplemental Complaint-Affidavit that I earlier filed in this case docketed Omb No. L-C-13-0453.

4. Should there be any other action, I undertake to inform the Office within five (5) days from notice.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I sign this Second Supplemental Complaint-Affidavit this 23 December 2013 in the City of Manila.

BERTENI “TOTO” CATALUÑA CAUSING

Affiant

Driver’s No. NO2-94-24154, issued by LTO

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this 23 December 2013 in the City of Manila, affiant manifested his sufficient proof of identity written under his name.

Doc. No.: ___;

Page No.: ___;

Book No.: ___;

Series of 2013.

THE REPLY-AFFIDAVIT THAT I FILED VS HAGEDORN COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT ON SALN:

Republic of the Philippines

Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon

Agham Road, Government Center

North Triangle, Diliman, QC

BERTENI C. CAUSING,

Complainant,

-versus- OMB-L-C-13-0453

For: Violation of Section 7

RA 3019, Section 7(a) and

(B) and Section 8 of RA 6713

AND ART. 183, RPC

EDWARD S. HAGEDORN,

Respondent.

x-------------------------------------x

Republic of the Philippines )

City of Manila )SC

Reply - Affidavit

on the Motion to Admit Counter-Affidavit

with Ex-Parte Motion

for Additional Time to File Supplemental Counter-Affidavit

and

on Supplemental Counter Affidavit

I, BERTENI CATALUÑA CAUSING, of legal age, whose office address is Unit 1, No. 2368 Leon Guinto St. corner JB Roxas St., Malate, Manila, after having been sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and state:

1. In the interest of justice, I am not opposed to the respondent’s motion to admit counter-affidavit and supplemental counter-affidavit;

2. However, I am also requesting the Honorable Office to admit his Reply-Affidavit to the respondent’s Counter-Affidavit and Supplemental Counter-Affidavit;

3. The respondent’s claim that “he does not own any other real properties except those declared in his SALN” is not the issue because the issue here is his failure to declare them in his Statements of Assets Liabilities and Networth (SALN) for each of the years 2004 up to 2012;

4. So that even if the respondent submitted his list of land property as certified by the Assessor’s Office of the City of Puerto Princesa, it does not help him in this case;

5. And by virtue of his acts of not disclosing all his parcels of land, interests in private corporations, and ownership in various motor vehicles listed in the Second Supplemental Complaint, he also committed criminal acts of Violation of Section 7 of RA 3019, Section 7(a) and (b) and Section 8 of RA 6713 and Art. 183 of the Revised Penal Code;

6. And what is shocking, he committed these criminal acts in all his SALNs from 2004 up to 20012;

7. The respondent is being reminded that he is not being accused for amassing ill-gotten wealth;

8. It is noted that in his counter-affidavit on February 12, 2014, as his annexes he attached a list of the respondent’s real property;

9. The annexes of list of real property did not save him from the crime of not disclosing them in his SALNs for 2004 up to 2012;

10. The truth remains that he DID NOT ATTACH the said list of land property to any of his SALNs from the year 2004 up to the year 2012;

11. I was able to secure a certification from the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman certifying as follows:

“This is to certify that, no attachment found in the Statement of assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) for the years 2004 to 2012 of MR. EDWARD S. HAGEDORN, former City Mayor of Puerto Princesa City, Palawan.

“This certification is issued upon request of MR. GERRY D. SAUDI, Executive Producer & Program Anchor, DZME, 5/F Victory Mall, 717 Rizal Avenue Ext., Moñumento, Caloocan City, for whatever legal purpose it may serve.

“Issued this 21^st day of January 2014 at Quezon City, Metro Manila.

“(Signed)

“ARNEL P. LARROBIS

“Administrative Assistant II

SALN-In-Charge

12. A copy of this certification is attached hereto as ANNEX “GGGGG”;

13. The respondent may be arguing that he already lumped up into one as “land and buildings” the land property but this is still a criminal violation of the SALN law because the law is specific that even the location of the property must be disclosed;

14. I was able to secure a legal opinion from the Civil Service Commission-Office of Legal Affairs regarding what should be the correct manner of filling up the SALN, and this is docketed CSC-OLA Opinion No. 94, s. 2014;

15. The pertinent part thereof states:

“Please be reminded that the Guidelines in the Filling-Out of the SALN (Revised 2013) require that the declaration made in the SALN be true and complete. As such, for real properties, it requires description, kind, location, year and mode of acquisition, assessed value, fair market value, acquisition cost of land, building, etc., to include the improvements made thereon. This then presupposes that the declaration of real properties be itemized / specified in order to provide the foregoing required entries.

“On the other hand, with regard to personal properties, the same guidelines allow the declarant to make collective / general declarations as far as properties of minimal value or those collectively acquired are concerned. Hence, the declarant may indicate “various years” under the column for Year Acquired.”

16. A copy of this legal opinion is attached hereto as ANNEX “HHHHH”;

17. It is noted that the respondent did not submit any counter-affidavit with respect to the motor vehicles that he did not disclose in all his SALNs;

18. Now coming to the assertion that he cannot be held liable for his SALNs because he was not required to correct any defect therein, this is specious;

19. Mere defects must be distinguished from apparent deliberate act of hiding properties;

20. Those that can be deemed as defects are defects that are under ordinary meaning can be seen immediately on the face of the SALN;

21. If it cannot be seen on the face of the SALN that there are defects, then this is one that is presumed to be a deliberate act of non-disclosing the property or interest;

22. The non-disclosure must be separated from mere defects;

23. What is punished is an act of non-disclosing the property and defects are not punished;

24. In defects, there is that clear attempt at disclosure but that the disclosure was imperfect;

25. In non-disclosure, the property is not listed;

26. The logic of nature says that no one can be able to discover the property not being disclosed if the examination is confined only to the particular SALN;

27. The logic of nature also says that defects can only be discovered if there are sufficient details that can be seen from the entries in the SALN so that the examiner can now be prompted to determine that there was indeed a defect;

28. In cases where there is no disclosure at all, no examiner will be able to know that there was such property if not disclosed;

29. Therefore, to be protected by the provision for a chance to make corrections it is limited only to circumstances where it is apparent on the face of the entries that the entries were defective and this is the one referred to by the law as forgivable because there was actually a modest effort at disclosing;

30. In the instant case, there was no attempt to disclose his motor vehicles, there was no attempt to disclose his corporation interests, and there was no attempt to disclose his “61” parcels of land property;

31. This assertion of right to make corrections was asserted in the Impeachment Trial of former Chief Justice Renato Coronado Corona but he was debunked by the Senate Impeachment Court that voted him “guilty”;

32. ERGO, there are probable causes that the respondent is guilty as charged.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I sign this Reply-Affidavit on this 22 April 2014 in Manila.

BERTENI CATALUÑA CAUSING

Affiant

Driver’s No. NO2-94-24154, issued by LTO

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this 22 April 2014 in the City of Manila, affiant manifested his sufficient proof of identity written under his name.

Doc. No.: ___;

Page No.: ___;

Book No.: ___;

Series of 2014.

Cc:

YORAC ARROYO CHUA

CAEDO & CORONEL LAW FIRM

Counsel of the Respondent

Unit 3103-A West Tower

Philippine Stock Exchange Road

Ortigas Center Pasig City

EXPLANATION

Distance compelled the service of copies of this Comment on the Motion… via registered mail or LBC courier.

BERTENI CATALUÑA CAUSING

THE COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT THAT I FILED VS HAGEDORN'S LIBEL CASE:

Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice

Office of the City Prosecutor

Hall of Justice, Sta. Monica

Puerto Princesa City, Palawan

EDWARD S. HAGEDORN,

Complainants,

-versus- NPS Docket No. IV-17-INV-13K-0837

For: Libel

ATTY. BERTENI C. CAUSING.

Respondents.

x----------------------------------------x

Republic of the Philippines )

City of Manila )SC

Counter-Affidavit

I, BERTENI CATALUÑA CAUSING, of legal age, whose office address is at Unit 1, No. 2368 Leon Guinto St. corner JB Roxas St., Malate, Manila, after having been sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and state:

1. The instant complaint for libel utterly lacks merit aside from the fact that it accuses of matters that are ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED;

2. But before delving into the substance of this Counter-Affidavit, let me point out that the first notice that was handed to me by the police officers in pursuance of the request of the Office of the City Prosecutor did not contain any attachment of the Complaint-Affidavit;

3. So that, let me correct the impression of the Honorable Asst. City Prosecutor Venus I. Gapuz-Taliman and Honorable City Prosecutor Joy Olga O. Rabang that this was the FIRST TIME that the undersigned received a subpoena with the attached Complaint Affidavit for libel;

4. Nevertheless, a reading of the allegations in the Complaint-Affidavit clearly showed that the complaint for libel does not hold water;

5. The basis of the libel complaint is the broadcast interview on me by commentator Eljin Robert L. Damasco, Station manager of DWAR, RMN, Palawan, during his Straight to the Point program;

6. Those answers I gave to the questions were based on the complaint I filed before the Office of the Ombudsman;

7. It was clear in the interview transcript presented in the complaint that I was driving on the road when I was interviewed: in other words I was interviewed over my cellular phone;

8. All those matters I stated in the interview, although with some inaccuracies because I was driving my car during the interview and I had no copy of the Complaint Affidavit for violation of SALN Law under Republic Act 6713, are faithful representations of what were stated in the Complaint Affidavit and interviews on the attachments of my Complaint Affidavit;

9. A copy of the Complaint-Affidavit is attached hereto as ANNEX “1” series, and the annexes therein are also attached;

10. It is noticeable in the interview of Eljin Robert L. Damasco that he was asking me only about the SALN for the year 2012 while the SALN forms tackled by my Complaint-Affidavit includes SALNs from 2004 up to 2012;

11. Now, it is noticeable also from the questions of Eljin Robert L. Damasco and my answers that these were only discussions on the theories of my complaint and the theories of the defenses of ex-Mayor Edward Hagedorn;

12. In other words, the discussions did not go out of the issues raised by the said Complaint-Affidavit that I filed;

13. Now, in that said interview, Eljin Robert L. Damasco was also trying to impress to the listeners that he had with him a copy of a certification issued by the City Assessor’s Office listing all real properties of Hagedorn;

14. In fact, in the only one SALN for 2012 that was attached as ANNEX “C-3” by the former mayor he attached thereto as a part of SALN for 2012 a list of properties attached as ANNEX “D” and ANNEX “D-1”;

15. But a copy of the certificate issued by the Office of the Ombudsman certifies that the all the SALN filed by the former mayor had no attachments;

16. A copy of the Ombudsman certification is attached hereto as ANENX “2”;

17. My interview with Eljin Robert Damasco also tackled whether or not it was correct for the former mayor to just lump into one name as “land with improvements” all the 59 or 61 properties;

18. I just stated my opinion that in my theory as the accuser that was not compliant with the law because the wisdom behind is transparency;

19. Since transparency is the wisdom, common sense dictates that public official cannot hide in one name all his real properties;

20. And I am proven correct because the Civil Service Commission issued a legal opinion that it is not allowed to lump into one name all the properties and it was also opined that the declaration of real properties must include the locations of the real properties;

21. A copy of the legal opinion of the Civil Service Commission is attached hereto as ANNEX “3” and ANNEX “3-A”;

22. My interview with Eljin Roberto Damasco also touched on the corporations that were not listed by the former mayor and this included Jolly Foods Corp. that runs Jollibee in Puerto Princesa City;

23. The only corporation listed by the former mayor as his corporation participation is ESH Realty Inc.;

24. Because of those corporations that were not listed I filed a Supplemental Complaint to show the corporations that were not listed in the SALNs of the former mayor from the year 2004 up to 2012;

25. A copy of the Supplemental Complaint is attached hereto as ANNEX “4”;

26. Now, any report of any official proceedings is privileged and that interview on me discussed only matters contained in the Complaint-Affidavit and the Supplemental Complaint-Affidavit that I filed before the Office of the Ombudsman and there is no issue that they were official proceedings of the Office of the Ombudsman;

27. The reporting of the facts of the filing and the contents of the Complaint Affidavit, Supplemental Affidavit and Reply-Affidavit are for sure treated as mere reports of official proceedings and cannot be subject of a libel complaint;

28. My opinions given in the interview with Eljin Robert Damasco were all found in the Reply-Affidavit that I filed against the Counter-Affidavit of former mayor Hagedorn;

29. A copy of the Reply-Affidavit that I filed is attached hereto as ANNEX “5” series, excluding the attachments therein;

30. In the discussion of the Reply-Affidavit, portions relevant to the opinions discussed as having been parts of the Reply-Affidavit to obviate the possibility of going out of reporting only on the official proceedings including the statements made in the said official proceedings are hereby quoted as follows:

18. Now coming to the assertion that he cannot be held liable for his SALNs because he was not required to correct any defect therein, this is specious;

19. Mere defects must be distinguished from apparent deliberate act of hiding properties;

20. Those that can be deemed as defects are defects that are under ordinary meaning can be seen immediately on the face of the SALN;

21. If it cannot be seen on the face of the SALN that there are defects, then this is one that is presumed to be a deliberate act of non-disclosing the property or interest;

22. The non-disclosure must be separated from mere defects;

23. What is punished is an act of non-disclosing the property and defects are not punished;

24. In defects, there is that clear attempt at disclosure but that the disclosure was imperfect;

25. In non-disclosure, the property is not listed;

26. The logic of nature says that no one can be able to discover the property not being disclosed if the examination is confined only to the particular SALN;

27. The logic of nature also says that defects can only be discovered if there are sufficient details that can be seen from the entries in the SALN so that the examiner can now be prompted to determine that there was indeed a defect;

28. In cases where there is no disclosure at all, no examiner will be able to know that there was such property if not disclosed;

29. Therefore, to be protected by the provision for a chance to make corrections it is limited only to circumstances where it is apparent on the face of the entries that the entries were defective and this is the one referred to by the law as forgivable because there was actually a modest effort at disclosing;

30. In the instant case, there was no attempt to disclose his motor vehicles, there was no attempt to disclose his corporation interests, and there was no attempt to disclose his “61” parcels of land property;

31. This assertion of right to make corrections was asserted in the Impeachment Trial of former Chief Justice Renato Coronado Corona but he was debunked by the Senate Impeachment Court that voted him “guilty”;

32. ERGO, there are probable causes that the respondent is guilty as charged.

19. It is therefore now necessary for me to cite here Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code, to wit:

1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty; and

20. For sure, I cannot have any ill motive against the former mayor who I even campaign for senator in the 2013 elections;

21. But ill-motive is not a function of malice when public officials and public figures who include public officials;

22. This is so because malice in libel case the offended party is a public official must be limited only to ACTUAL MALICE;

23. Actual malice is defined by jurisprudence as a circumstance where the publisher published a defamatory imputation that he knew to be false at the time of the publication or a reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the defamatory imputation in the manner that it was stupid to believe that the same imputation is true;

24. In other words, the true test of actual malice is whether the allegations published were false and if they were false the published knew the falsity;

25. In the instant case, the main allegations of facts that I made in the interview are:

(a) that the former mayor did not disclose his 59 properties (or 61 properties as claimed by the former mayor);

(b) that the former mayor did not disclose his interest in several private corporations, including the Palawan Jolly Foods, Inc.;

(c) that the SALNs submitted by the former mayor for the years 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 did not disclose the 59 or so real properties;

(d) that the same SALNs submitted by the former mayor did not contain an attachment of a list of these 59 or so real properties or any interest in corporations;

(e) that it is required for all public officials to disclose all details of their real properties, including their respective locations;

26. Are these false in order for me to be said to have failed in actual malice test?;

27. The truth is I can never be guilty because I have submitted all his SALNs from the year 2004 up to 2012 and not one of them contained a disclosure of or a list of 59 or so real properties and corporations where he had interest;

28. Another truth is I have submitted a copy of the certification from the Office of the Ombudsman that the SALNs of the former mayor did not attach any list of real properties or corporations where he had interests;

29. Another truth is that the former mayor did not disclose his 59 real properties as required by the Civil Service Commission as expressed in the legal opinion issued a copy of which is attached hereto;

30. So that it is plain, simple and clear that I can never be said to have known that the imputations were false because even if they were defamatory to the former mayor these are all backed up by official documents;

31. A fortiori, I can never be said to have published these imputations with knowledge of falsities since these are not false;

32. In the same manner that I can never be said to have published these imputations with reckless disregard of the falsities of the imputations because the imputations are to the contrary true;

33. To understand that I can never be guilty, let me cite Guingguing vs Court of Appeals, GR No. 128959, September 30, 2005, to wit:

The prominent American legal commentator, Cass Sunstein, has summarized the current American trend in libel law as follows:

[C]onsider the law of libel. Here we have an explicit system of free speech tiers. To simplify a complex body of law: In the highest, most-speech protective tier is libelous speech directed against a “public figure”. Government can allow libel plaintiffs to recover damages as a result of such speech if and only if the speaker had “actual malice”–that is, the speaker must have known that the speech was false, or he must have been recklessly indifferent to its truth or falsity. This standard means that the speaker is protected against libel suits unless he knew that he was lying or he was truly foolish to think that he was telling the truth. A person counts as a public figure (1) if he is a “public official” in the sense that he works for the government, (2) if, while not employed by government, he otherwise has pervasive fame or notoriety in the community, or (3) if he has thrust himself into some particular controversy in order to influence its resolution. Thus, for example, Jerry Falwell is a public figure and, as a famous case holds, he is barred from recovering against a magazine that portrays him as having had sex with his mother. Movie stars and famous athletes also qualify as public figures. False speech directed against public figures is thus protected from libel actions except in quite extreme circumstances.

34. Now, under the Fair Comments doctrine, opinions on matters of public interest such as this SALN issue about this public figure, who is the former mayor, are protected as long as it is proven that there is no actual malice;

35. As discussed above, I have clearly proven in the degree of more than clear and convincing that there is no actual malice on my part;

36. So that, I can never be guilty with the opinions stated in the interview and at the same time stated in the Reply-Affidavit vs Hagedorn filed before the Ombudsman;

37. The Fair Comments doctrine is enunciated in Borjal vs Court of Appeals, GR 126466, January 14, 1999, to wit:

38. So that it is now very clear that the instant interview with Eljin Robert L. Damasco is not libelous.

39. It is very clear therefore that the instant complaint utterly lacks merit and the subject matters cannot make me liable because these are PRIVILEGED.

40. I reserve to state all other matters.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I sign this Counter-Affidavit 22 April 2014 in the City of Manila.

BERTENI “TOTO” CATALUÑA CAUSING

Affiant

Driver’s No. NO2-94-24154, issued by LTO

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this 22 April 2014 in the City of Manila, affiant manifested his sufficient proof of identity written under his name.

Doc. No.: ___;

Page No.: ___;

Book No.: ___;

Series of 2014.

Cc:

EDWARD S. HAGEDORN

1 Marcelo Compound, Socrates Road

Brgy. San Pedro, Puerto Princesa City

Palawan

ADDRESSED TO:

Associate City Prosecutor VENUS I. GAPUZ-TALIMAN

City Prosecutor JOY OLGA O. RABANG

City Prosecution Office of Puerto Princesa

Hall of Justice, Brgy. Sta. Monica, Puerto Princesa City

Explanation

Lack of personnel compelled the filing and service of this Counter-Affidavit by Registered Mail.

BERTENI CATALUÑA CAUSING

ANNEX “2”

ANNEX “3”

ANNEX “3-A”

Search This Blog

Berteni "Toto" Cataluña Causing

WARRANT OUT AGAINST ME

Comments

Popular Posts

Small but substantive Christmas & New Year Party of Alcothans

Sale of awarded lot without NHA consent gives no right of possession to buyer