Republic of the Philippines

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon
3rd Floor, Ombudsman Building, Agham Road,
Diliman, Quezon City

SILFREDO NAIGA, et al,

Complainants,

OMB-L-C-18-0462
For: Estafa, Local Gov’t. Code of 1991

OMB-L-A-18-0514
For: Grave Misconduct; R.A. 6713 Sec.
5 (a)
-versus-

ARMANDO MASANGKAY, et al,

Respondents.
x--------------------------------------------x

COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT

I, RESPONDENT ARMANDO S. MASANGKAY, Filipino, of

legal age, and with office address at 5 th floor, Antipolo City Hall
Building, M.L. Quezon cor. J. Carigma Streets, Brgy. San Roque,
Antipolo City, after having been sworn to in accordance with law,
hereby depose and state THAT:

1. I am the current Program Head of the Urban Settlement and

Development Office (USDO) of the City Government of Antipolo.

2. I am one of respondents in the above-cited cases for Estafa,

Violation of the Local Government Code, Grave Misconduct, and
Violation of Section 5 (a) of R.A. 6713.

3. I vehemently deny the allegations made against me in the

said complaint insofar as the same imputes the commission of the
above-cited offenses, the truth of the matter being those set forth in this
counter-affidavit.

COUNTER-STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS

 4. Mr. Alberto S. Wong is the former declared owner of a
parcel of land located at Labahan, Marcos Highway, Brgy. Mambugan,
Antipolo City, covered by Tax Declaration No. AR-011-05711. A copy of
the Tax Declaration under Mr. Alberto S. Wong’s name is hereto attached as
Annex “1” and made an integral part hereof.

5. For his failure to pay the corresponding real property taxes

on the said property, the City Government levied, and eventually
forfeited the same in its favor, for want of bidder, pursuant to Section
2631 of the Local Government Code. A copy of the Certificate of Sale issued
by the City Treasurer’s Office dated 17 February 2017 is hereto attached as
Annex “2” and made an integral part hereof.

6. On 5 April 2017 the three (3) neighborhood associations

currently occupying the subject property namely Ruhat 4 Mambugan
Neighborhood Association Inc. (RUMNAI), Sitio Ruhat 4 & 5 Upper
Neighborhood Association Inc. (SUNAI) and Samahan ng Mamamayan
sa Purok V Inc. (SAMAPU), wrote a letter addressed to USDO
requesting for the census and tagging of all residents occupying the
subject property. A copy of the said letter-request is hereto attached as Annex
“3” and made an integral part hereof.

7. Intending to utilize the subject property as one of its land

and housing project, the City Government of Antipolo, through the
USDO, thereafter conducted a series of census and tagging on the
subject property in order to determine the possible beneficiaries of the
City’s lot-award program.

8. On 31 May 2018, complainants Silfredo Naiga, Juancho

Azana, Felicitas Sallador, Walter Dela Cruz and Monseratt Mangarin,
wrote a letter2 to the USDO and the Barangay Government of
Mambugan, demanding the stoppage of all activities then being

1
Section 263. Purchase of Property By the Local Government Units for Want of Bidder. - In case there is no
bidder for the real property advertised for sale as provided herein, the real property tax and the
related interest and costs of sale the local treasurer conducting the sale shall purchase the property in
behalf of the local government unit concerned to satisfy the claim and within two (2) days thereafter
shall make a report of his proceedings which shall be reflected upon the records of his office. It shall
be the duty of the Registrar of Deeds concerned upon registration with his office of any such
declaration of forfeiture to transfer the title of the forfeited property to the local government unit
concerned without the necessity of an order from a competent court.

2
Annex “I” of the complaint
conducted by the USDO in connection with the census and tagging of
the residents occupying the subject property.

9. According to them, the leaders of RUMNAI, SAMAPU and

SUNAI had been illegally collecting membership fees and were even
selling “rights” over the subject property and that they further alleged
that the USDO and the Barangay Government of Mambugan are part of
the alleged illegal activities.

10. On 25 June 2018, the USDO wrote a letter reply to the

complainants’ letter through which, the USDO informed and explained
to them that the property they are currently occupying had already
been acquired by the City Government of Antipolo, and that the census
and tagging being conducted by the USDO is for the purpose of
identifying the number of actual occupants of the subject property in
preparation for the lot acquisition program of the city.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE DEFENSE.

THERE IS NO PROBABLE
CAUSE TO CHARGE ME
FOR THE CRIMINAL
OFFENSE OF SYNDICATED
ESTAFA.

11. Based on the absurd allegations in the complaint, I cannot

be charged with the criminal offense of Syndicated Estafa for the simple
reason that respondents failed to adduce even a single piece of
evidence that would directly or indirectly show that I, swindled any
amount from any of the residents of the subject property.

12. Under Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1689, Syndicated

Estafa is defined as:

Section 1. Any person or persons who shall commit estafa or

other forms of swindling as defined in Articles 315 and 316 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, shall be punished by life
imprisonment to death if the swindling (estafa) is committed by a
syndicate consisting of five or more persons formed with the
intention of carrying out the unlawful or illegal act, transaction,
enterprise or scheme, and the defraudation results in the
misappropriation of moneys contributed by stockholders, or
members of rural banks, cooperatives, "samahang nayon(s)," or
 farmers’ associations, or funds solicited by
corporations/associations from the general public.

13. In People of the Philippines vs. Palmy Tibayan3, the

Supreme Court laid down the elements of the criminal offense of
Syndicated Estafa. Thus –

xxx the elements of Syndicated Estafa are: (a) Estafa or other

forms of swindling, as defined in Articles 315 and 316 of the RPC,
is committed; (b) the Estafa or swindling is committed by a
syndicate of five (5) or more persons; and (c) defraudation results
in the misappropriation of moneys contributed by stockholders,
or members of rural banks, cooperative, "samahang nayon(s)," or
farmers’ associations, or of funds solicited by
corporations/associations from the general public.

14. In this case, complainants alleged that I, together with the

other respondents, conspired and unlawfully defrauded members of
the three association by collecting from them the amount of Ten
Thousand Pesos (₱10,000.00) for membership fees, and Three Thousand
Five Hundred Pesos (₱3,500.00) as survey fees.

15. To support their allegation, complainants attached what

appears to be collection letters4 issued by the SUNAI.

16. However, a review of said collection letters would show the

following:

a. SUNAI issued the said letters to its members;

b. The amount sought to be collected in the letters is
Three Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (₱3,500.00) for
survey fees;
c. There is no indication on the said collection letters as
to whether or not the individual members of SUNAI
actually paid the amount sought to be collected; and
d. There is no collection for membership fee in the
amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (₱10,000.00).

17. Now, applying the elements of the crime of Syndicated

Estafa vis-à-vis the facts established above, it is evident that not all the
elements of said crime are present in this case.

3
G.R. No. 209655-60. 14 January 2015
4
Annex “E” and series of the complaint.
 18. First, aside from their allegations of conspiracy, respondent
failed to show a single piece that would indicate that I, together with
the other respondents came to an agreement to defraud the members of
the three associations and by our collective act, decided to commit the
same.

19. Second, there is nothing in the complaint including its

attachments, that would show that the members of the three
associations were defrauded and that I, and the other respondents
misappropriated any amount from said associations.

20. Complainants must be reminded that “mere allegation is not

evidence and is not equivalent to proof. Charges based on mere suspicion and
speculation likewise cannot be given credence. When the complainant relies on
mere conjectures and suppositions, and fails to substantiate his allegations, the
complaint must be dismissed for lack of merit.”5

21. In sum, the elements of the criminal offense of Syndicated

Estafa are absent in the present case, hence, the dismissal of the same is
warranted.

22. As to the violation of the Local Government Code, there is

nothing in the complaint which alleged that I, or the USDO committed
any violation thereof. Hence, the complaint for the same must likewise
be dismissed.

I DID NOT COMMIT THE

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENSE OF
GRAVE MISCONDUCT

20. In the case of Roberto Villanueva vs. Court of Appeals6, the

Supreme Court explained the administrative offense of Grave
Misconduct. Thus –

“Misconduct means intentional wrongdoing or

deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior,
especially by a government official. To constitute an
administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be
connected with the performance of the official functions and
duties of a public officer. In grave misconduct as
5
Agdeppa v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 146376, 23 April 2014
6
G.R. No. 167726. July 20, 2006
 distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of
corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant
disregard of established rule, must be manifest. Corruption
as an element of grave misconduct consists in the act of an
official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully
uses his station or character to procure some benefit for
himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the
rights of others. ”

21. Applying the said definition to the facts established above,

it is evident that no Misconduct can be attributed to against me.

22. To reiterate, as I have previously explained to the

complainants, the census and tagging conducted by the City
Government of Antipolo of the property in question, is in furtherance of
the City’s intention of awarding the same to the qualified
beneficiaries/occupants of the property.

23. Complainants failed to show, by sufficient proof, that any

amount was collected in exchange for an occupant’s inclusion in the
census and tagging activity conducted.

24. What the complainants merely presented are membership

forms and the collections letters issued by the three associations, which
the USDO nor the Barangay did not take part in.

25. Clearly, I cannot be held to have committed any act which is

tantamount to a deliberate violation of a rule of law characterized by
the element of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or manifest
disregard of established rule.

26. For this simple reason, the administrative complaint against

must also be dismissed.

I DID NOT VIOLATE SECTION 5

(A) OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6713

27. Finally, based on the allegations in the complaint,

complainants themselves admitted that I replied to their 31 May 2018
letter by informing them that the property they are currently occupying
had already been forfeited in favor of the City Government of Antipolo
pursuant to the Local Government Code.
 28. All told, the administrative complaint as well as the
criminal charges against me are all baseless and merely intended to
harass me and my office.

EXPLANATION

29. I am serving a copy of this Counter-Affidavit to the

complainants through registered mail as I currently do not have the
facility to serve the same personally.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereby set my hand this 16th day of

January, 2018 in Antipolo City, Province of Rizal, Philippines.

ARMANDO S. MASANGKAY
Respondent

COPY FURNISHED:

SILFREDO NAIGA
WALTER DELA CRUZ
MONSERRAT MANGARIN
FELICITAS SALLADOR
Sitio Ruhat 4-A, Brgy Mambugan, Antipolo City

VERIFICATION

Republic of the Philippines

S.S.
______________________
x-----------------------x
 I, ARMANDO S. MASANGKAY, of legal age, Filipino, and with
office address at the 5th floor, Antipolo City Hall Building, M.L. Quezon
cor. J. Carigma Streets, Brgy. San Roque, Antipolo City, after being
sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose and say that:

1. I am one of the respondents in the above-cited case;

2. As such, I have caused the preparation of the above

COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT. I have read and understood the
contents thereof and affirm the allegations therein as true
and correct of my own personal knowledge and based on
authentic records;

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

day of January, 2019 at Antipolo City, Rizal, Philippines.

ARMANDO S. MASANGKAY
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, this ____ day of

___________________, in the ______________________, affiant exhibiting
before me his ________________ with No. ___________ issued
__________, on ___________.

NOTARY PUBLIC

Doc. No. ______;

Page No. ______;
Book No. ______;
Series of 2019.