Maria Elena Celiz Counteraffidavit

Republic of the Philippines
Department of Justice
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
Kidapawan City
EMMYLOU J. TALINO-MENDOZA
Complainant,
-versus- NPS Doc. No.: XII-04-INV-2018-00052

and XII-04-INV-2018C-00053
For: Falsification of Public Document
and Perjury
MARIA ELENA B CELIZ

Respondent.
X--------------------------------------X
COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT
of MARIA ELENA CELIZ
I, MARIA ELENA CELIZ, of legal age, single and a resident of Amas

Capitol Compound, Amas, North Cotabato, Philippines after having
been duly sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and
state THAT:
1. I am the Respondent in the above-captioned case;
2. I am a Teacher IXS at Patadon Elementary School and have

been so since 2008;
3. When I received the summons for the above-mentioned case,

I was deeply troubled. As an ordinary citizen, I knew nothing about
1
the legalities of being charged with a crime, hence I went on for
days without sleep and was crippled by anxiety. It was only when I
spoke with my counsel that I realized that the accusations against
me are baseless, unmeritorious and are solely intended to threaten
me enough to desist from the cases I filed against herein
Complainant. A similar case has been filed against MR. REY GUELOS,
who is my co-plaintiff and co-complainant in the two cases we filed
against the governor. Clearly, she is going for us one by one to
retaliate and cause us to cower;
4. The allegations in her Complaint are but lies and quite

ironically, perjurious and she even failed the to attach the very
document which is supposedly the basis for her charge of
falsification of public document;
5. Her lengthy narration of the facts of the case pending before

the Municipal Trial Court and the Office of the Ombudsman were
irrelevant to the crimes of Perjury and Falsification of Public
Document, which she accuses me of. Clearly, she is trying to use
this case to forward her defenses when in fact the issues she raised
are already pending resolution before the above-mentioned court
and office. She cannot file a case for perjury when the subject
affidavit she said I perjured is my testimony to both cases of
FORCIBLE ENTRY & Violation of Republic Act 3019, Sec. 3, Par.
E, a fact she even admits in her Complaint. Hence, the filing of
these cases are improper;
6. As advised by my counsel, the elements of “perjury” are as

follows:
(a) That the accused made a statement under oath or

executed an affidavit upon a material matter.
(b) That the statement or affidavit was made before a

competent officer, authorized to receive and administer
oath.
(c) That in that statement or affidavit, the accused

made a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood.
2
(d) That the sworn statement or affidavit containing the
falsity is required by law or made for a legal purpose1.
7. For a perjury case to prosper, it must be proved that the

accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood and
that the affidavit would contain such falsity. NONE OF THESE
ELEMENTS ARE PRESENT IN THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE
COMPLAINANT. What is the proof of the Complainant that I lied in
my affidavit except her bare allegations? The cases which she is
pertaining to are still pending in court and there is no proof that my
testimony were not based on the truth;
8. What I stated in my affidavit before the MTC and Ombudsman

were everything that happened to my sister and I, nothing about it
is a lie. And besides, why would I make accusations against a very
powerful governor if I was not telling the truth? I have so much to
lose and the only thing that moved me to file such cases was the
desire to obtain justice and nothing more;
9. The Complaint also stated that the allegations about what

happened to my sister at the Provincial Hospital were not true for
the reason that I did not file other cases for this is simply
untenable, according to my counsel, this argument is non sequitur.
Just because I did not file a medical malpractice case does not
mean that what happened to us was not true. In fact, the
Complainant here even instigated that I should make millions out of
such case. That simply is not in my nature. The reason why I cannot
file other cases is because we do not have the means to hire a
lawyer to file such other cases. The cases before the MTC and the
Ombudsman were all paid by my more financially able neighbors
since it was a class suit, my contribution was very minimal. In fact,
if the undersigned counsel did not agree to take my case as pro
bono, then I would have been left completely helpless. Who am I to
go against the powers that be of the Province?
1 Diaz v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 65006, 31 October 1990, 191 SCRA 86.
3
10. The charge for FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENT must also
be immediately dismissed as it finds no basis in fact and in law. The
Complainant stated that:
“She is clearly lying because she must be in Patadon at

that time because she was never absent in her school as
contained in the Certification issued by the Department of
Education. If it were true that she was in their house at that
time, she must have falsified her daily time records in school
unnecessarily placing herself in the danger of being
prosecuted for falsification of public documents. Actually,
her similar claims in paragraphs 10 and 12 of her affidavit
that she was also at home on June 15, 2017 and July 6, 2017
also place her in the danger of being prosecuted for
falsification. It is either she perjured her statements in her
affidavit or she falsified her daily time records on those dates
by appearing that she was never been (sic) late or absent on
those dates.”
11. Firstly, the Complainant is not even sure in her charge of

Falsification of Public Document or Perjury against me as can be
easily gleaned from her allegations. The terms like “she must have
falsified her daily time records” or “it is either she perjured her
statements in the affidavit or falsified the daily time record”
which are repeated in the entire complaint only shows that this
Complaint is a “scattershot” accusation, throwing in all kinds of
allegations and hoping that one of them would be received well by
this Honorable Office. This only proves that there is no solid basis
for this case and hence it must be immediately dismissed;
12. Secondly, THE COMPLAINANT FAILED TO PROVIDE THE

ALLEGED FALSIFIED DOCUMENT. At the bare minimum, a complaint
for falsification of public document should have atleast presented
such document but the Complainant did not. Where is the evidence
that the Daily Time Record was falsified? Where is the DTR in the
first place? The documents which the Complainant presented (the
Certification from the OIC Administrative Officer of the Department
of Education and the Monthly Report of Service) were not the
documents that were allegedly falsified by me. It only shows that I
4
did not incur any absence during those months and not that I
falsified any document. Since the Complaint did not have part of its
attachments the said DTRs, then it must be immediately dismissed
for lack of probable cause because for there to be a reasonable
belief that a crime has been committed and that I was the one who
committed the same, then the DTRs should have atleast been
presented;
13. Third and most importantly, I did not falsify my Daily Time
Records because I was in fact not in school on those dates but I was
only gone for an hour or two. What actually happened was, during
the time that they started going house to house, I would receive
text messages from my neighbors and sister telling me that the
demolition was about to be had. In my fear that our house would be
demolished and out of my concern for my sickly sister, I would ask
permission from our principal MRS. ZAYRA P. MAGULING to go home
for an hour or two so that I could check on the situation. Since my
superiors understood that this was an urgent matter, they allowed
me to go knowing that I would immediately come back after;
14. Also, on July 6, 2017 I only left the school for approximately
12 minutes to go to COTELCO to pay for our electric bill. I went
there during my lunch break. I left the school at 11:25am and
arrived in COTELCO at 11:30am. I was immediately allowed to pay
since I am already a senior citizen. As can be seen in the time
indicated in the COTELCO bill, I paid at exactly 11:32am. I left and
returned to school at 11:37am. I have attached herewith as Annexes
“1” and “2” are my COTELCO receipt and Senior Citizen ID
respectively;
15. I did not falsify my DTRs nor did I make false statements in my
affidavit;
16. Moreover, the COMPLAINANT IS NOT IN THE POSITION TO

FILE THIS CASE AGAINST ME BECAUSE SHE HAS NO PERSONAL
KNOWLEDGE OF THE CRIME SHE IS ALLEGING. My counsel advised
me that in the case of Borlongan vs MAGDALENO M. PEA and HON.
MANUEL Q. LIMSIACO, JR., as Judge Designate of the Municipal
Trial Court in Cities, Bago City (G.R. No. 143591. November 23,
5
2007), the complaint for falsification was not given weight by the
Supreme Court because there was no probable cause to believe that
the crime has been committed, given that the Complainant had no
personal knowledge of the acts constituting the crime, to wit:
“It must be emphasized that the affidavit of the

complainant, or any of his witnesses, shall allege facts within
their (affiants) personal knowledge. The allegation of the
respondent that the signatures of Ponce, Abad, Ong and
Montilla were falsified does not qualify as personal
knowledge. Nowhere in said affidavit did respondent state
that he was present at the time of the execution of the
documents. Neither did he claim that he was familiar with
the signatures of the signatories. He simply made a bare
assertion that the signatories were mere dummies of ISCI and
they were not in fact officers, stockholders or
representatives of the corporation. At the very least, the
affidavit was based on respondents personal belief and
not personal knowledge. Considering the lack of personal
knowledge on the part of the respondent, he could have
submitted the affidavit of other persons who are qualified
to attest to the falsity of the signatures appearing in the
questioned documents. One cannot just claim that a
certain document is falsified without further stating the
basis for such claim, i.e., that he was present at the time
of the execution of the document or he is familiar with the
signatures in question. Otherwise, this could lead to abuse
and malicious prosecution. This is actually the reason for the
requirement that affidavits must be based on the personal
knowledge of the affiant. The requirement assumes added
importance in the instant case where the accused were not
made to rebut the complainants allegation through counter-
affidavits.
xxx
“True, a finding of probable cause need not be based on clear

and convincing evidence, or on evidence beyond reasonable
doubt. It does not require that the evidence would justify
6
conviction. Nonetheless, although the determination of
probable cause requires less than evidence which would
justify conviction, it should at least be more than mere
suspicion. While probable cause should be determined in a
summary manner, there is a need to examine the evidence
with care to prevent material damage to a potential accuseds
constitutional right to liberty and the guarantees of freedom
and fair play, and to protect the State from the burden of
unnecessary expenses in prosecuting alleged offenses and
holding trials arising from false, fraudulent or groundless
charges. It is, therefore, imperative for the prosecutor to
relieve the accused from the pain and inconvenience of going
through a trial once it is ascertained that no probable cause
exists to form a sufficient belief as to the guilt of the
accused.
Considering that the respondent failed to adduce

sufficient evidence to support his claim that the
documents were falsified, it follows that the introduction
of the questioned documents in Civil Case No. 754 is not an
offense punished by any provision of the Revised Penal
Code or any other law. The petitioners should not be
burdened with court proceedings, more particularly a
criminal proceeding, if in the first place, there is no
evidence sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that
an offense was committed.”
17. It is very apparent in this case that the Governor merely tried
to “connect the dots” and based her accusations on matters she has
no personal knowledge of. She has miserably failed in adducing
evidence to support the claim that my DTRs were falsified and it
only shows that the intent of this Complaint which has been
haphazardly prepared and lacks substance has only been filed to
make me tremble in fear and intimidation, causing me to back
down from the cases I filed before the MTC and Office of the
Ombudsman. Or perhaps this is her retaliation for doing so. It would
then be the height of injustice if a public school teacher like me
would be subjected to a trial due to a complaint which is grounded
on sinking sand and is motivated by personal vendetta;
7
18. It is then my plea before this Honorable Office that it would
immediately be dismissed and that I be spared from the nightmare
of malicious prosecution.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Respondent is respectfully praying that the charge

against him for Falsification of Public Document and Perjury be
immediately dismissed for LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set out my hand this

________ day of April 2018 in Kidapawan City, Philippines.
MARIA ELENA CELIZ

Affiant
Assisted by:
ATTY. BERNICE JOANA L. PIÑOL

Roll No. 67158; Page No. 398; Book No. XXVIII
MCLE Exempted As Per MCLE Governing Board Order No. 1, s. 2008
IBP OR No. 006053; North Cotabato; 5/19/17
PTR No. 8813339; Davao City; 6/02/17
Mobile No. 09177057999
Paulino Law Office #0006 Rizal Ave., San Jose,
8002 Digos City, Davao del Sur, Philippines
Email: bernicejoana@gmail.com
8
ATTY. ERICK JOHN S. CABUSLAY
The Law Firm of Torreon and Partners
(Collaborating Counsel)
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, this ______ day of April 2018 in
Kidapawan City, Philippines. I hereby certify that I have fully examined the
affiants and I am satisfied that they understand allegations herein and that the
allegations are true and correct of their own knowledge and belief.
PROOF OF SERVICE:
Atty. Emma O. Ferenal-Andiano

J and E Building,
Dela Cruz St. Kidapawan City
Per registry receipt no. __________ date _______
EXPLANATION: Served by registered mail due to lack of personnel to effect personal service
Atty. Bernice Joana L. Piñol

Maria Elena Celiz Counteraffidavit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Maria Elena Celiz Counteraffidavit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Maria Elena Celiz Counteraffidavit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

-versus- NPS Doc. No.: XII-04-INV-2018-00052

MARIA ELENA B CELIZ

I, MARIA ELENA CELIZ, of legal age, single and a resident of Amas

1. I am the Respondent in the above-captioned case;

2. I am a Teacher IXS at Patadon Elementary School and have

3. When I received the summons for the above-mentioned case,

4. The allegations in her Complaint are but lies and quite

5. Her lengthy narration of the facts of the case pending before

6. As advised by my counsel, the elements of “perjury” are as

(a) That the accused made a statement under oath or

(b) That the statement or affidavit was made before a

(c) That in that statement or affidavit, the accused

7. For a perjury case to prosper, it must be proved that the

8. What I stated in my affidavit before the MTC and Ombudsman

9. The Complaint also stated that the allegations about what

“She is clearly lying because she must be in Patadon at

11. Firstly, the Complainant is not even sure in her charge of

12. Secondly, THE COMPLAINANT FAILED TO PROVIDE THE

16. Moreover, the COMPLAINANT IS NOT IN THE POSITION TO

“It must be emphasized that the affidavit of the

“True, a finding of probable cause need not be based on clear

Considering that the respondent failed to adduce

WHEREFORE, Respondent is respectfully praying that the charge

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set out my hand this

MARIA ELENA CELIZ

ATTY. BERNICE JOANA L. PIÑOL

Atty. Emma O. Ferenal-Andiano

Per registry receipt no. __________ date _______

Atty. Bernice Joana L. Piñol

You might also like

Per registry receipt no. ____ date _