Reply Affidavit: Department of Justice Office of The City Prosecutor

Republic of the Philippines
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Office of the City Prosecutor
San Juan City
NIKKA CARMELA AGUSTIN,

Complainant,
-versus- NPS Docket No. XV-15-

INV-17H-00928-00929
FOR: Grave Threats
under Article 282 of the
Revised Penal Code and
other applicable crimes
PO3 JOSEPH CABANIT,

Residence Address:
112 Lope K. Santos St.
Brgy. Pedro Cruz, San Juan City
Office Address:
PCP-1 Malabon CPS
Northern Police District
NCR Police Office
Respondent.
x-----------------------------------------x
REPLY AFFIDAVIT
I, NIKKA CARMELA AGUSTIN, Filipino, 21 years old, student,
with address at 709 Victoria Street, Brgy. Corazon de Jesus, San Juan
City, after having been duly sworn, hereby depose and state:
1. I am the complainant in this case, particularly charging

Respondent PO3 JOSEPH CABANIT of grave threats, defined and
penalized under Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code, on account of
what respondent intentionally and violently did against me on the
unfortunate date of 31 July 2017 at around 5:20 in the afternoon.
Refutation to Respondents
Blatantly Untruthful and
1
Fraudulent Presentation of
Facts
2. At the outset, it must be emphasized that respondent

presented not a single evidence–as he has none—to belie the strong
evidence that he committed the crime of grave threats charged against
him. In his attempt to exculpate himself from the criminal acts he
committed, respondent resorted to interweaving lies and peddling
falsehood; thus, making him liable for a separate crime of perjury.
3. In his Counter-Affidavit, respondent tries so hard, albeit in

vain, to make it appear that I–a mere student who just came from an on-
the-job training—am the antagonist and he—a police officer who publicly
pointed a gun at me—is the protagonist.
4. Respondent blatantly lied when he claimed that:

a. He confronted me politely after hitting my right arm;
b. I continued to chase him and provoked him to a fight;
c. He tried to avoid me, but I caught up with him near Lactao
St., where the people supposedly milled around him and
appeared ready to gang up on him; and
d. He did not brandish his sidearm [with a gun] nor uttered
words against me or pokes [the gun at] me.
5. With due respect, I would not undergo this trouble of filing a

criminal case against respondent—which caused me incalculable trauma,
mental anguish, sleepless nights, and absence in school—had I been the
aggressor od the villain and had respondent been the saint that he tries to
portray;
6. Contrary to respondent’s malicious and fraudulent

statements, as shown in my complaint 1 and as corroborated by the sworn
statement of Barangay Chairman Ruel R. Sumaguingsing2, respondent
chased me and pointed a gun at me. I was just lucky to be alive.
7. Without the timely intervention of Barangay Chairman Ruel

Sumaguingsing and some residents of Lactao St., respondents could have
fired shots at me, like what he reportedly did in the past.
8. Other than being self-serving and misleading, respondent’s

version of facts is utterly implausible, if not ridiculous. Respondent want
this Honorable Office to believe that I, who was merely walking and
1 Judicial Affidavit dated 01 August 2017 attached to the Investigation Data Form filed on 02
August 2017.
2 Sinumpaang Salaysay ng Pagtetestigo dated 01 August 2017 attached to the Investigation Data
Form filed on 02 August 2017.
2
weaponless, chased him, who was riding a blue Ford Ecosport (with Plate
No. AAO 4158) and armed with a gun, and provoked him to a fight. This
is certainly not in accord with the natural course of things.
9. Significantly, on several occasion after learning of the filing

of this case against him, respondent asked for forgiveness and tried to
offer a compromise to settle this case amicably. Fearing that respondent
would repeat similar violent acts, as he had reportedly done before, my
family and I rejected his offer.
10. As advised by counsel, “settled is the rule that in criminal

cases, except those involving quasi-offenses or those allowed by law to be
settled through mutual concessions, an offer of compromise by the
accused may be received in evidence as an implied admission of guilt.
Evidently, no one would ask for forgiveness unless he had committed a
wrong and a plea for forgiveness may be considered as analogous attempt
to compromise.” (People of the Philippines v. Relanes, G.R. No. 175831,
April 12, 2011).
Brief Truthful Narration of

Facts Showing Respondent’s
Criminal Acts
11. To put the record straight, the following are the truthful
narrative of what transpired on 31 July 2017 at around 5:20 in the
afternoon:
11.1. I was walking peacefully along N. Domingo St. corner
Lope K. Santos. I was on my way home after my on-the-job
training.
11.2. While waking, respondent’s blue Ford Ecosport car,
bearing Plate No. AAO 4158, hit me at the right side of my
upper body (right shoulder and arm). This caused me to tap
the back side of respondent’s car to alert respondent that I
was hit.
11.3. Apparently annoyed of my act of tapping his car,
respondent alighted from his car and cursed me repeatedly
with these words: “Tang ina mo! Ang yabang mo! Gago
ka!” Seeing that he is older than I am, I explained to him, in
the most courteous way, that I tapped his car to notify him
that I was hit.
11.4. Having previously briefed by my father when it comes to
situations like this, I politely told respondent that we can
call a police so that we can talk at a police station.
11.5. Instead of getting an apology, respondent continued cursing
at me.
3
11.6. When respondent saw that there were several bystanders on
the scene, respondent went back to his car and tried to flee.
11.7. While the traffic light along N. Domingo St. corner
Pinaglabanan was on red (stop), I took photographs of
respondent’s car3 and continued walking.
11.8. I was able to cross the street (Ministop along N. Domingo)
and tried to look at the plate number of the respondent’s car
while contacting my father and uncle on my mobile phone.
11.9. My attempt at calling my father and uncle was interrupted
when respondent’s car suddenly went at my direction, in an
attempt to hit me.
11.10. I ran as fast as I could, but respondent, who was riding his
car, was able to corner me along rhe streets of N. Domingo
and Lactao.
11.11. Respondent repeatedly shouted “Tang ina mo! Gago ka!
Mayabang ka!” while pointing his gun at me. I was utterly
shocked and could barely move my body.
11.12. Barangay Chairman Sumaguingsing and some of the
residents in the area (Lactao St.) tried to pacify the
respondent. They pulled me away and covered me to
protect me from the respondent’s violent attacks.
11.13. Had there been no timely intervention from Barangay
Chairman Sumaguingsing and the residents of Lactao, I
could have been dead at that time.
Based on Evidence on
Record, there is more than
Probable Cause to Indict
Respondent, at the very least,
of Grave Threats
12. As advised by counsel, at the very least, based on evidence

on record, there is more than probable cause to indict respondent of grave
threats, defined and penalized under Article 282 of the Revised Penal
Code.
13. As advised by counsel, respondent’s act of pointing a gun at

me while cursing clearly enounces a threat to kill or to inflict serious
physical injury upon my person. Respondent’s malevolent action speaks
louder than his words.
14. To reiterate, had there been no timely intervention from the

people present thereat, I could have been dead at that time.
3 Annexes “B” to “B-1” of my Judicial Affidavit dated 01 August 2017.
4
15. Further, as advised by counsel, in preliminary investigation,
the Office of the City Prosecutor is only tasked to make a finding of
probable cause—the existence of such facts and circumstances as would
excite the belief, in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within thr
knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the
crime for which he is to be prosecuted.
“[Probable cause] is such a state of facts in the mind of the

prosecutor as would lead a person of ordinary caution and
prudence to believe or entertain an honest or strong suspicion
that a thing is so. The term does not mean "actual or positive
cause"; nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely
based in opinion and reasonable belief. Thus, a finding of
probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there
is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough
that it is believed that the act or omission complained of
constitutes the offense charged. Precisely, there is a trial for
the reception of evidence of the prosecution in support of the
charge.” (Alejandro, et. al. v. Bernas, et. al., G.R. No.
179243, September 7, 2011; citing Sy v. Secretary of Justice,
which further cited Villanueva v. Secretary of Justice4).
16. Given the foregoing without prejudice to a finding of another

applicable criminal offense, the Honorable Office has reason to issue a
resolution finding probable cause to indict respondent PO3 JOSEPH
CABANIT of the crime of Grave Threats, defined and penalized under
Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 10

October 2017, at San Juan City.
NIKKA CARMELA AGUSTIN

Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 10 October 2017.
ACP ASNAIRA M. BATUA-ABEDIN

Investigating Prosecutor
4 Citations omitted.
5
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that: (a) I have personally examined the affiant; (b)
I am satisfied that he read and understood the contents of the foregoing
Reply Affidavit; and (c) that he voluntarily executed the same.
ACP ASNAIRA M. BATUA-ABEDIN

Investigating Prosecutor

Reply Affidavit: Department of Justice Office of The City Prosecutor

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reply Affidavit: Department of Justice Office of The City Prosecutor

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Reply Affidavit: Department of Justice Office of The City Prosecutor

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

NIKKA CARMELA AGUSTIN,

-versus- NPS Docket No. XV-15-

PO3 JOSEPH CABANIT,

1. I am the complainant in this case, particularly charging

2. At the outset, it must be emphasized that respondent

3. In his Counter-Affidavit, respondent tries so hard, albeit in

4. Respondent blatantly lied when he claimed that:

5. With due respect, I would not undergo this trouble of filing a

6. Contrary to respondent’s malicious and fraudulent

7. Without the timely intervention of Barangay Chairman Ruel

8. Other than being self-serving and misleading, respondent’s

Form filed on 02 August 2017.

9. Significantly, on several occasion after learning of the filing

10. As advised by counsel, “settled is the rule that in criminal

Brief Truthful Narration of

12. As advised by counsel, at the very least, based on evidence

13. As advised by counsel, respondent’s act of pointing a gun at

14. To reiterate, had there been no timely intervention from the

3 Annexes “B” to “B-1” of my Judicial Affidavit dated 01 August 2017.

“[Probable cause] is such a state of facts in the mind of the

16. Given the foregoing without prejudice to a finding of another

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 10

NIKKA CARMELA AGUSTIN

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 10 October 2017.

ACP ASNAIRA M. BATUA-ABEDIN

ACP ASNAIRA M. BATUA-ABEDIN

You might also like