Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
PROVINCE OF LANAO DEL SUR
Marawi City, Lanao del Sur

MARIA MAKILING,
Complainant,

-versus- NPS NO. X-08-INV-165-9876

----For----
MR. A,
Respondent. MURDER
x------------------------------------------x

COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT
I, Mr. A of legal age, married, and resident of Purok 4 Poblacion,
Marawi City Lanao del Sur having duly sworn to in accordance with law
deposes and says:

1. THAT I am the respondent in the above-titled complaint for

MURDER;
2. THAT on February 1, 2021, I received a copy of the
RESOLUTION and corresponding INFORMATION for murder;
3. THAT I was not given the opportunity to file my Counter-
Affidavit since the subpoena was sent to my previous address;
4. THAT I am submitting this counter-affidavit to deny, rebut
and controvert the false, malicious, and fabricated allegations against
me as stated in the complaint- the truth of the matter is:

FACTUAL ANTECEDENT

1. THAT I am the incumbent Barangay Chairman of Poblacion ,

Marawi City, Lanao del Sur;

2. THAT the complainant is related to me by affinity and by

consanguinity being the wife of my brother Mr. B and being the second
cousin of my father thereby making her my aunt respectively;
 3. THAT I was at home and never been out of our Barangay the
whole day from morning to evening, including the time when the shooting
incident happened causing the instantaneous death of the victim Acmali ;

4. THAT as a matter of fact at around 7:00 o’clock in the evening

of the said date Mr. C went to our house and saw me at home since they
came to us to borrow my brother’s motorcycle. Attached herewith as
ANNEX “1” to form an integral part thereof is the Affidavit attesting on this
matter;

5. THAT IT IS NOT TRUE THAT I TOOK PART NOR DID I

HAVE KNOWLEDGE IN THE ALLEGED KILLING INCIDENT OF THE
VICTIM, MUCH MORE TO BE THE GUNMAN OF THE SAID CRIME;

6. THAT to reiterate, I am the incumbent Barangay Chairman of

Barangay Poblacion. In consonant with Section 1, Article XI, of the
Constitution, to wit:

Public office is a public trust. All government officials

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

Being the incumbent Brgy. Chairman of Poblacion, Marawi City this

constitutional mandate is always in my mind to guide me during my entire
tenure AND EVEN IN MY PERSONAL LIFE. Moreover, I find no cogent
reason to depart from my hard earned reputation as a new public servant.
Hence, planning to kill a person, much more to actually kill a person is out
of my character. Not even in my imagination will I afford to besmirch my
reputation by killing anyone, including the victim in this case.

7. BE IT NOTED that the records of the police even showed that

VICTIM ACMALI HAS A WARRANT OF ARREST ISSUED ON MAY
25, 2011 FOR MULTIPLE MURDER under criminal case number 22-1234.
Thus, it would NOT BE IMPOSSIBLE THAT THE VICTIM HAD BEEN
INVOLVED TO SOME TROUBLE IN THE PAST WHICH COULD
POSSIBLY RIPEN TO HIM BEING KILLED BY ANYONE.
8. Anent to the complainant’s accusation that allegedly our intent
to kill his husband was due to her act of marrying the victim as her second
husband without a valid divorce with my brother Mr. B is IMPROBABLE
 MAKILING vs. MR.A
Counter-Affidavit
Page 3 of 10

SINCE I HAVE NO INTEREST OF PUTTING JUSTICE IN MY HANDS

AND I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR MARITAL AFFAIRS;

9. The complainant Maria Makiling’s ALLEGED POSITIVE

IDENTIFICATION of me as gunman in this case at bar is DOUBTFUL. TO
NOTE, WE ARE RELATIVES NOT ONLY BY AFFINITY, being the wife
of my brother BUT ALSO BY CONSAGUINITY being the second cousin
of my father, how come SHE FAILED TO RIGHT THERE AND THEN
IDENTIFY ME BY NAME as the alleged gun man when the police blotter
was taken right after the incident on December 2, 2020 if she is really certain
that I am the one involved in the incident?;

10. Being relatives by affinity and consanguinity, and having

known each other for a long time it is impossible for her not to identify me
by name if what she is complaining against me was true. Supreme Court
ruled as cited in People of the Philippines vs. De Guzman1

The time-honored test in determining the

value of the testimony of a witness is its
COMPATIBILITY WITH HUMAN KNOWLEDGE,
OBSERVATION AND COMMON EXPERIENCE OF
MAN.2 Thus, WHATEVER IS REPUGNANT TO THE
STANDARDS OF HUMAN KNOWLEDGE,
OBSERVATION AND EXPERIENCE BECOMES
INCREDIBLE AND MUST LIE OUTSIDE JUDICIAL
COGNIZANCE. Consistently, the Court has ruled that
evidence to be believed must proceed not only from the
mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself
as to hurdle the test of conformity with the knowledge
and common experience of mankind. 3  (Emphasis
supplied)

In the case at bench, the testimony of Makiling, the complainant,

does not bear the earmarks of truth on following points:

FIRSTLY, natural human experience dictates that if you know

a person, you can right there and then name him or them especially that in
this case her husband died and she is an eye witness as alleged by her. But
why is it that in this case MAKILING STATED IN THE POLICE
1
People of the Philippines vs. De Guzman, G.R. No. 192250, 2012.
2
Ocampo v. People, G.R. No. 163705, July 30, 2007, 528 SCRA 547, 560
3
Zapatos v. People, 457 Phil. 969, 985 (2003)
BLOTTER THAT THE SUSPECTS WERE UNIDENTIFIED? Only to be
retracted on a following day and suddenly name me as the gunman and the
other three respondents as back-ups? This is a clear manifestation of her
fabricating a lie and implicating us in bad faith as suspects to the death of
her husband. At any rate, her tales fail to lend a touch of realism that raises
doubt and the possibility of imputing us as an afterthought only;

SECOND, THAT IF SHE IS REALLY SURE OF HER

IDENTIFICATION OF US SHE SHOULD HAVE IDENTIFIED
WITHOUT INCONSISTENCIES ON THE DETAILS: such as the color of
the motorcycle. Even if assuming that she was not able to correctly identify
the color of the motorcycle as Blue or Red/White at the time of incident
because she was overwhelmed by what happened to her husband, IF WHAT
SHE IS SAYING IS TRUE SHE SHOULD HAVE ALSO CORRECTED
THE SAME ON THE SECOND POLICE BLOTTER THAT SHE MADE
ON DECEMBER 3, 2020 when she implicated us by name, but the same
was not made.

FURTHERMORE, if it is true that she recognized me why did her

sister Marie sent a text message to my wife saying “ kpakay man atroon ka
so bnar emiyakatimbak para masalbangka si karumangka, kadirkanubo
kpukas a pamilya tcher” (which means: You can tell the truth on who fired
the gun/who killed the victim so that you can save your husband since the
issue can never be separated from your family, teacher.)

11. ADDITIONALLY, complainant’s act of pointing me as the

gunman IS JUST AN AFTERTHOUGHT SINCE SHE HAS AN
ANIMOSITY AND GRUDGE TO ME AND MY FAMILY since I filed a
case against his father who was the former Barangay Chairman of
Poblacion, the post where I sit now. That the foregoing case pertains to her
father’s acts constituting Violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,
Tumults and other Public Disturbances under Art. 153 of the Revised Penal
Code; and Violation of the Procurement Act (R.A. 9184).

12. ALSO, taking into consideration that election is approaching,

this complaint is POSSIBLY INITIATED IN BAD FAITH AND
INTENDED TO DISQUALIFY ME to run again OR THE VERY LEAST
AN ACT TO DISCREDIT ME TO MY CONSTITUENTS.

THERE IS NO MURDER
 MAKILING vs. MR.A
Counter-Affidavit
Page 5 of 10

13. THAT murder is defined and penalized under Art. 248 of the
RPC, as amended and cited in the case of People of the Philippines vs.
Leozar dela Cruz y Balobal 4 provides:
ART. 248. Murder.Any person who, not falling within the
provisions of Article 246, shall kill another shall be guilty
of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua,
to death if committed with any of the following attendant
circumstances:
 
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior
strength, with the aid of armed men, or
employing means to weaken the defense, or of
means or persons to insure or afford impunity;

2. In consideration of a price, reward, or

promise;
 
3. By means of inundation, fire, poison,
explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel,
derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of an
airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the
use of any other means involving great waste
and ruin;
 
4. On occasion of any calamities enumerated in
the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake,
eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone,
epidemic, or any other public calamity;
 
5. With evident premeditation;
 
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly
augmenting the suffering of the victim, or
outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse. 
 
 Thus, for the charge of murder to prosper, the
prosecution must prove that: (1) the offender killed the
victim, (2) through treachery, or by any of the other five
qualifying circumstances, duly alleged in the
Information. Generally, the elements of murder are:
1. That a person was killed.
2. That the accused killed him.
3. That the killing was attended by any of the qualifying
circumstances mentioned in Art. 248.

4
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LEOZAR DELA CRUZ y BALOBAL, G.R. No. 188353, February 16, 2010
 4. The killing is not parricide or infanticide.5 (Emphasis
supplied.)

14. In determining the criminal liability of a person, the test would

be the concurrence of ALL the elements of the crime being charged. In this
case, it is humbly submitted that discussion of the same results in futility
inasmuch as the respondents’ defense rests on the fact that WE HAVE NOT
AND COULD NOT HAVE COMMITTED THE CRIME CHARGED AT
ALL;

As to the possibility that the

allegations of Makiling is an
alibi.

15. I ACKNOWLEDGED that the prevailing rule is that:

alibi, as a defense, is inherently weak and crumbles in

light of positive identification by truthful witnesses. 6

HENCE, complainant’s alibi that she saw me kill his husband

crumbles in light of the affirmative testimonies of our witnesses mentioned
above that I am not and I could not be possibly be in MSU Campus Marawi
City where the crime happened.

16. The Rules of Court of the Philippines, Rule 133, Sec. 2

provides:

“Proof beyond reasonable doubt – In a criminal case,

the accused is entitled to acquittal unless his guilt is
shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond
reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does
not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding the
possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral
certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.”(emphasis
ours)

In the same vein, the Supreme Court, in the case of People v.

Maraorao, June 20,2012 has held that:

“ In every criminal prosecution, the state must prove

beyond reasonable doubt, all the elements of the crime
charged and the complicity or participation of the
5
 2 L.B. Reyes, THE REVISED PENAL CODE CRIMINAL LAW 469 (16th ed., 2006).
6
People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 175929, December 16, 2008, 574 SCRA 78, 91; and Velasco v. People, G.R.
No. 166479, February 28, 2006, 483 SCRA 649, 664-665
 MAKILING vs. MR.A
Counter-Affidavit
Page 7 of 10

accused conviction must rest on the strength of the

prosecution’s evidence and not on the weakness of the
defense.” (emphasis ours)

17. As could be gleamed from the testimony of our witnesses, the

ACCUSATIONS OF THE COMPLAINANT IN THE INSTANT CASE IS
ALIBI, that we were the ones who were there at the scene of the crime when
the criminal act complained of happened.

18. THAT we reiterate that we had no participation in the alleged

killing of the victim. ASSUMING ARGUENDO that we caused the killing
of the victim, and the allegations of the complainant were true, there is doubt
as to the identification made both by the complainant and her witnesses.

As to the discrepancies and

inconsistencies in the
testimonies of witnesses and
complainant:

ALSO on discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of

witnesses it was cited in People of the Philippines vs. Michael
Maguing y Saligumba,7 to wit:

Third, the eyewitness testimonies as to the

identification of appellant are replete with irreconcilable
inconsistencies and inherent improbabilities pertaining
to material facts. When they contradict themselves on a
vital question such as the identity of the offender, the
element of reasonable doubt is injected and cannot be
lightly disregarded.8 Consequently, their credibility is
seriously impaired,9 the veracity of their claim is
negated,10 and their probative value greatly diminished
-- if not rendered useless altogether. On the whole, the
impression they create is that they were feigned or
fabricated. (Emphasis Supplied).
7
People of the Philippines vs. Michael Maguing y Saligumba, G.R. No. 144090, June 26, 2003.
8
People v. Aranas, 345 SCRA 377, November 22, 2000
9
People v. Malacura, 346 SCRA 781, December 4, 2000
10
People v. Decillo, 341 SCRA 591, October 2, 2000
 When the records are bereft of any indication that
an eyewitness has given a description that will enable
an anonymous person to point to the accused as the
perpetrator of the crime, the court cannot judge whether
a correct and proper identification has been made.
11
(Emphasis Supplied).

HENCEFORTH, the foregoing bolstered the argument that

complainant’s act of charging us is a mere afterthought. Thus, negates
complainant’s alleged positive identification of us, and raises the possibility
of fabrication.

As to the credibility of the

complainant and witnesses:

19. ADDITIONALLY, her allegations in her complaint affidavit is

riddled with inconsistencies which tend to erode her credibility and raise
doubts on the veracity of her complaint against me since both police blotters
dated December 2 and 3, 2020, stated:

“ …unidentified suspect who was wearing

a black jacket also riding in A MOTORCYCLE XRM
BLUE AS DESCRIBED BY HIS WIFE.”

WHILE sixth paragraph of her complaint affidavit states, to wit:

“ That upon reached along the national

highway of Curva-Miagao more or less 11:25 in the
evening, we noticed that we are followed by the two (2)
fast riding motorcycles and suddenly the leading
motorcycle DESCRIBED AS XRM RED/WHITE OF
WHICH I IDENTIFIED the driver who is Sanali Saripada
Alando apposed us on the left side and I saw Jobail
Hadjicasan Saripada a.k.a Jobail Lantud Hadjicasan
(back rider) directly shoot my husband hitting his
head…”

If she is really sure of her identification of me, as well as on what she

perceived she should have identified without inconsistencies the details such
as the color of the motorcycle. Even if assuming that she was not able to
correctly identify the color of the motorcycle as Blue or Red/White at the
time of incident because she was overwhelmed by what happened to her
11
People v. Caedo, 335 SCRA 81, July 5, 2000.
 MAKILING vs. MR.A
Counter-Affidavit
Page 9 of 10

husband. If what she is saying is true she should have also corrected the
same on the second police blotter dated December 3, 2020, but the same was
not done.

20. THAT ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT WHAT SHE IS

SAYING IS TRUE. It is worthy to stress that the incident allegedly
happened at around 11:25 in the evening. The condition of visibility at the
time of the shooting incident does not favor her theory that she identified me
since the incident took place during nighttime at MSU, and there is no
mentioning that there is a good source of light adequate for purposes of
identification.

Hence, considering the foregoing, it is humbly submitted that, there is

a great possibility that the stories were merely contrived to pin criminal
culpability upon me. Thus, there can be no murder case against me.

CONCLUSION/PRAYER
1. THAT the case filed against me is clearly motivated by bad
faith and ill-will. I am therefore reserving our rights to file the necessary
legal actions against the complainant;

2. THAT I am executing this counter affidavit to attest to the truth

of the foregoing statements and to support for the dismissal of the case for
MURDER against me.

AFFIANTS FURTHER SAYETH NAUGHT.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 5 th day of

February 2021 in Marawi City.
MR. A_______
Respondent Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 5th of February

2021, Marawi City. I hereby certify that I have personally examined the
affiant and I am convinced and satisfied that he voluntarily executed the
foregoing Counter-Affidavit and understood all the contents hereof and that
they are true and correct as to their own personal knowledge.

Copy Furnished:
MARIA MAKILING
Bangon Marawi