Criminal Case No.

99-0362 Page 1 of 20
Navarro vs. Navarro Charge & Counter- Charge

Republic of the Philippines

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
National Capital Judicial Region
Branch 54, Navotas

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Complainant,

-versus- Crim. Case No. 99-0362

For: Grave Threats

MARILOU NAVARRO,
Accused.
X==================================================X
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Complainant,

-versus- Crim. Case No. 99-0408-

0410

For: Unjust Vexation

Oral Defamation
LUNETA NAVARRO, Grave Threats
Accused.
X==================================================X

JUDGMENT

Four (4) separate Informations (charge and counter charge) were filed
before the MeTC Branch 54, Navotas City against the accused Marilou
Navarro for Grave threats under Criminal Case No. 99-0362, and Luneta
Navarro for Unjust Vexation, Oral Defamation, and Grave Threats
respectively, under Criminal Case Nos. 99-0408 to 99-0410. The accusatory
portion of the Informations are provided, to wit:

Criminal Case No. 99-0362

“That on or about the 19th day of March 1999,

in Navotas, Metro Manila, and within the jurisdiction
of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously threaten one LUNITA NAVARRO, by
then and there uttering threatening words to wit:
“LAGOT KA NA SA AKIN, WALA ANG ASAWA
Criminal Case No. 99-0362 Page 2 of 20
Navarro vs. Navarro Charge & Counter- Charge

MO PAPATAYIN KITA.

CONTRARY TO LAW.'

Criminal Case No. 99-0408

“That on or about the 19th day of March 1999,

in Navotas, Metro Manila, and within the jurisdiction
of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously unjustly vex one MARILOU NAVARRO
FERMILAN, by then and there pouring her with
water all over her body and face, to the great
annoyance and disgust of the complainant.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”

Criminal Case No. 99-0409

“That on or about the 19th day of March 1999,

in Navotas, Metro Manila, and within the jurisdiction
of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously unjustly vex one MARILOU NAVARRO
FERMILAN, did and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously utter in the presence of the public the
following defamatory words, to wit,

“putang-ina mo, puta kang kaputaputahan.

Kung kanino-kanino kang lalaki nag-puputa”

CONTRARY TO LAW.”

Criminal Case No. 99-0410

“That on or about the 19th day of March 1999,

in Navotas, Metro Manila, and within the jurisdiction
of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
conspiring, confederating and mutually helping with
one another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully
and feloniously threaten to kill one MARILOU
NAVARRO FERMILAN an act amounting to a
Criminal Case No. 99-0362 Page 3 of 20
Navarro vs. Navarro Charge & Counter- Charge

crime.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”

During arraignment1, accused Marilou Navarro entered her plea of

NOT GUILTY. On the other hand, Luneta Navarro entered her plea 2 of
NOT GUILTY to the offenses charged.

THE FACTS

For Criminal Case No. 99-0362, the prosecution presented Luneta

Navarro.

In her Sworn Statement, Luneta said that while inside her house, she
heard someone shouting invectives on top of her voice, ordering her to come
out. She then saw Marilou peeping through her window and reaching with
her with a “karit”. Upon seeing such, she threw water at Marilou. This
further aggravated Marilou who began threatening to kill Luneta saying
“Lagot ka na sakin, wala ang asawa mo papatayin kita!”. Marilou
continued to reach Luneta with the “karit” so Luneta threw her another
bucket of water. Marilou unrelentlessly threatened to kill Luneta and even
took a bucket of water to throw at Luneta. Marilou threw the water to the
husband of Luneta who then rose to pacify the two.3

In her direct-examination4, Luneta Navarro described the karit as a

blade curved in an arc used in palay rice tabs. According to her, Marilou
inserted the karit in a small window portion of their sink.

On cross examination, Luneta said5 that she was not hurt by the karit
on the two instances that Marilou tried to hit her. Accordingly, she was in a
state of shock and was unable to report the incident to her husband at that
time.

The prosecution thereafter offered the following pieces of evidence:

1) Exhibit A- Sworn satement of Luneta Navarro; 2) Exhibit B- Katibayan
Upang Makadulog sa hukuman.

The court admitted the aforementioned pieces of evidence. Thus,

prosecution rested its case.

1 Order dated September 8, 1999.

2 Ibid.
3 Exhibit “A”.
4 TSN, Testimony of Luneta Navarro, Febrary 28, 2005, p.6.
5 Ibid, at p. 9.
Criminal Case No. 99-0362 Page 4 of 20
Navarro vs. Navarro Charge & Counter- Charge

The defense presented its lone witness in the person of the accused
Marilou Navarro.

In her sworn statement6, she interposed the defense of denial for the
claims of Luneta Navarro. She said that there is no truth to the allegations
of Luneta Navarro that the she threatened her. She was merely helping a
certain Racquel Caisip in tying the plastic cover to prevent rain water from
entering her door. While doing so, Luneta got angry and shouted
invectives at her in the following manner: “Putang ina mo, puta ka ng
kaputa-putahan. Kung kanikanino kang lalaki nagpuputa.” Apart from the
aforementioned statement, Luneta threw water, that is used in washing fish,
all over her face and body. Because of such act, Marilou slipped from the
table and hit the pavement. Moreover, such fall caused her to suffer a
miscarriage.

On cross examination7, Marilou said that Luneta got angry because

the latter does not want to have the plastic cover to be attached thereto. It
was revealed that she was not there to help Racquel Caisip but to prevent
rainwater from entering her own door.8 Relevant to such act of putting the
plastic cover, she denies using a karit to attach such cover. She averred that
prior to this incident, she and the complainant had no disagreement.9

The defense formally offered their pieces of evidence in the following

manner: a) Exhibit 1- Counter affidavit dated June 10, 1999; b) Exhibit 2-
ultra Sound request; c) Exhibit 2-A- Clinic impression and reason for
request, threatened abortion; d) Exhibit 3- Result of the ultra sound
examination; e) Exhibit 3-A – Signature of the doctor.

After the comments of the public prosecutor, the Court admitted all
the pieces of evidence of the defense as part of the testimony of the witness
subject to the determination of its weight and probative value.

For Criminal Case Nos. 99-0408, 99-0409, and 99-0410, the

prosecution presented Marilou Navarro.

In her sworn statement10, Marilou said that, at around 7 o'clock in the

evening, she was talking with a certain Racquel Caisip who was putting up a
plastic cover to prevent Racquel's door and that of Johnny Navarro's from
getting wet if it rains. She was on top of a table outside the house and below
the window of Luneta Navarro. Luneta did not want Marilou and Racquel
to put up such plastic cover so the former got angry at them. Luneta started

6 Exhibit “1”.
7 TSN, Testimony of Marilou Navarro, June 25, 2018, p.7.
8 Ibid at p. 10.
9 Ibid at p.11.
10 Exhibit “C”.
Criminal Case No. 99-0362 Page 5 of 20
Navarro vs. Navarro Charge & Counter- Charge

hurling invectives towards her and even went to the extent of pouring water
to her all over her face and body.

In her cross-examination11, she admitted that her sworn statement was

prepared on May 6, 1999, a day after the Information for Grave threats was
filed against her by Luneta Navarro. She likewise admitted that she knew of
the case filed against her in the Municipal Trial Court of Navotas prior to her
filing of these cases.12 She further averred that the attached Reklamo13 does
not bear14 on its face, the allegations of herein complainant against Luneta
Navarro. The alleged defamatory words were likewise not written 15 in the
barangay blotter.

Thereafter, the prosecution formally offered the following pieces of

evidence; 1) Exhibit A – Katibayan para makadulog sa hukuman; 2)
Exhibit B- Ultrasound Request and Report; 3) Exhibit C and submarkings-
Complaint Affidavit of Marilou Navarro

Acting on the Formal Offer of Exhibits, the court admitted 16 all the
pieces of evidence of the prosecution as part of the testimony of the witness
presented by the prosecution.

The defense presented herein accused Luneta Navarro and Marilyn

Navarro, her daughter.

In her Judicial Affidavit,17 she testified that while she was cleaning
fish, someone was shouting threats and invectives against her, ordering her
to go out. Thereafter, Marilou went on top of the table outside their window
and wielded the karit against her. She then threw water against Marilou
because she was trying to harm her with the karit. Marilou, armed with the
karit and a bucket of water, went around the house and removed the plastic
cover in their window. She threw the water which hit Luneta's husband,
Antonio Navarro. In a few moments, Nelson Macawili, who was already at
the scene, ordered Johnny Navarro to kill Antonio Navarro and to not stop
hitting him until no blood flows. Luneta averred that Marilou was not
pregnant at the time of the incident and that all the charges were untrue, as it
was the latter that uttered threats and invectives towards her.

On cross examination, Luneta said that the house of a certain Racquel

11 TSN, Testimony of Marilou Navarro, August 10, 2005, p. 6.

12 Ibid at p. 8.
13 Exhibit A-1
14 TSN, Testimony of Marilou Navarro, December 5, 2005, p.7.
15 TSN, Testimony of Marilou Navarro, November 26, 2008, p.6.
16 Order dated March 2, 2009.
17 Exhibit 3.
Criminal Case No. 99-0362 Page 6 of 20
Navarro vs. Navarro Charge & Counter- Charge

is directly in front of her house 18. Their windows have wooden grills 19 and
spaces between them which was used by Marilou to insert the karit. She
admits throwing water20 towards Marilou which made the latter climb down
the table that she was using. She averred that the karit was not recovered
and cannot be presented in court.21 She admitted to having thrown water to
Marilou twice to repel her acts.22

Next presented was Marilyn Navarro, the daughter of Luneta Navarro.

She said that she heard someone shouting outside their house, while she was
taking a bath. She saw Marilou23 on their window wielding the karit against
her mother. Her mother threw water against Marilou which caused the latter
to leave for a moment. Then she saw her father, Antonio, talk to Marilou
who was challenging Luneta to go outside. She denied hearing her mother
shout invectives against Marilou.

On cross-examination24, she said that she was only ten years old at the
time of the incident. She testified that their window was quite high and a
stool or a chair may be needed to reach it.

Thereafter the defense formally offered their exhibits, viz: a) Exhibit

1- Drawing of the karit; b) Exhibit 2- Decision dated October 26, 2015 by
Branch 170 of the City of Malabon; Exhibit 3- Judicial Affidavit of the
Accused; Exhibit 4- Judicial Affidavit of Marilyn Navarro.

The court25 admited all the pieces of evidence offered by the defense.

THE COURT'S RULING

For Criminal Case No. 99-0362
PP VS. MARILOU NAVARRO

Provided hereunder are the provisions of Art. 282 of the Revised

Penal Code for Grave threats, viz:

ART. 282. Grave threats. — Any person who shall

threaten another with the infliction upon the person,
honor or property of the latter or of his family of any
wrong amounting to a crime, shall suffer:

18 TSN, Testimony of Lunita Navarro, February 22, 2019, p.4

19 Ibid at p.7.
20 Ibid at p.10.
21 Ibid at p.13.
22 Ibid at p.14.
23 Judicial Affidavit of Marilyn Navarro, Exhibit 4.
24 TSN, Testimony of Marilyn Navarro, November 22, 2019, p.6.
25 Order dated November 22, 2019.
Criminal Case No. 99-0362 Page 7 of 20
Navarro vs. Navarro Charge & Counter- Charge

1. The penalty next lower in degree than that

prescribed by law for the crime he threatened to
commit, if the offender shall have made the
threat demanding money or imposing any other
condition, even though not unlawful, and said
offender shall have attained his purpose. If the
offender shall not have attained his purpose, the
penalty lower by two degrees shall be imposed.
  If the threat made in writing or through a
middleman, the penalty shall be imposed in its
maximum period.
2. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not
exceeding 500 pesos, if the threat shall not have
been made subject to a condition.

In grave threats, the wrong threatened amounts to a crime which may

or may not be accompanied by a condition. In light threats, the wrong
threatened does not amount to a crime but is always accompanied by a
condition. In other light threats, the wrong threatened does not amount to a
crime and there is no condition.

The threats are qualified as grave threats when the following

circumstances concur:
1. Offender makes a threat to commit a wrong;
2. The wrong constitutes a crime;
3. The wrong may or may not be attended by a demand for
money or any condition; and
4. The offender does not immediately attain his purpose.
In this instant case, the alleged threats as charged in the Information
reads:

“LAGOT KA NA SA AKIN, WALA ANG ASAWA MO

PAPATAYIN NA KITA”

The threat made by herein accused Marilou Navarro constitutes the

crime of either murder or homicide. In the instant case, the accused
threatened the complainant whilst wielding against her the karit and was
unable to hurt the latter because she cannot be reached. The defense was
unable to to contravert the positive allegation of the complainant of the
above-mentioned threats delivered to her by the accused. The court notes the
Criminal Case No. 99-0362 Page 8 of 20
Navarro vs. Navarro Charge & Counter- Charge

candid, straightfoward, and unwavering answer of herein complainant when

placed on direct and cross examination, to wit:26

Direct Examination

Q: And according to your statement while accused was

saying or shouting “lagot ka sa akin ngayon, wala ang
asawa mo papatayin kita” you said that she was
striking you with that karit, is that correct?
A: Yes sir. This is how it happened. There is a small
window portion on our sink where the accused inserted
the karit and trying to strike me.

Q: How many times did this accused Marilou Navarro strike

you?
A: Twice.

Q: In all the time she was saying this threatening words

“lagot ka sa akin ngayon, wala ang asawa mo papatayin
kita?”
A: Yes, Sir.

Cross Examination27

Q: When Marilou Navarro was trying to strike you

with that karit, how far were you?
Interpreter: Witness is demonstrating the distance by the left
hand.
Atty. Abrogena: More than one foot.
Q: And with that distance you were not hit?
A: Yes because I was able to evade.

Q: And when she try to strike you again were you hit?
A: No, sir.
xxx

26 TSN, Cross Examination of Lunita Navarro, february 28, 2005. p. 4 to p.7.

27 Ibid at p. 9.
Criminal Case No. 99-0362 Page 9 of 20
Navarro vs. Navarro Charge & Counter- Charge

Q: And was Marilou Navarro shouting at the time

when he try to strike you?
A: Yes, sir.

In her defense, accused Marilou simply denied28 all the accusations

against her. She said that she was merely helping a certain Racquel to put
plastic covers on her door when Luneta Navarro threw water at her. The
court cannot accord weight and value to such testimony which was not
supported by evidence.

Accused's defense is based mainly on denial.  However, "[n]othing is

more settled in criminal law jurisprudence than that denial cannot prevail
over the positive and categorical testimony of the witness."29

Denial is an intrinsically weak defense. To merit credibility, it must

be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability.30 If unsubstantiated by
clear and convincing evidence, it is negative and self-serving, deserving no
greater value than the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on
affirmative matters.31

In People v. Mateo, the Supreme Court pronounced:

Accused-appellant’s bare-faced defense of denial
cannot surmount the positive and affirmative
testimony offered by the prosecution. x x x. A
defense of denial which is unsupported and
unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence
becomes negative and self-serving, deserving no
weight in law, and cannot be given greater
evidentiary value over convincing,
straightforward and probable testimony on
affirmative matters. x x x

Indeed, denial and alibi are intrinsically weak defense which must be

buttressed with strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility. In
this instant case, the accused presented nothing to support her denial, nor
was she able to present testimony of the certain Racquel to support her
defense.

The prosecution has the onus probandi of establishing the guilt of the

28 Exhbit 1, Counter Affidavit of Marilou Navarro

29 People versus Villanueva, G.R. No. 211082, December 13, 2017, citing  People v. Bulasag, 582 Phil.
243, 251 (2008).
30 People v. Calara, G.R. No. 197039, June 5, 2013.
31 People v. Calara, supra note 41; People v. Alfon, supra note 19.
Criminal Case No. 99-0362 Page 10 of 20
Navarro vs. Navarro Charge & Counter- Charge

accused. Ei incumbit probatio non qui negat. He who asserts - not he who
denies - must prove. The burden must be discharged by the prosecution on
the strength of its own evidence, not on the weakness of that for the
defense.32 The prosecution has clearly complied with such burden and has
sufficiently dispensed the onus probandi, as both physical and testimonial
evidence presented clearly and sufficiencly met the evidentiary requirement
necessary for conviction of the accused. The prosecution was able to prove
all the elements for the crime of grave threats.

All told, the court is morally convinced that the prosecution was able
to discharge its constitutional duty of proving the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of GRAVE THREATS against
MARILOU NAVARRO y FERMILAN.

For Criminal Cases No. 99-0408-0410

PP VS. LUNETA NAVARRO

Unjust vexation is punished under the 2nd paragraph of Article 287 of

the Revised Penal Code that says33:

“Any other coercions or unjust vexations shall be punished

by arresto menor or a fine ranging from 5 pesos to 200
pesos, or both.”

The second paragraph of the Article is broad enough to include any

human conduct which, although not productive of some physical or material
harm, could unjustifiably annoy or vex an innocent person.34 The paramount
question in the prosecution of such crime, is whether the offender's act
causes annoyance, irritation, torment, distress, or disturbance to the mind of
the person to whom it is directed.

Article 358 of the RPC defines and penalizes the crimes of Serious
Oral Defamation and Slight Oral Defamation, to wit:

Article 358. Slander. – Oral defamation shall be punished

by arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correctional in
its minimum period if it is of a serious and insulting nature;
otherwise, the penalty shall be arresto menor or a fine not
exceeding 200 pesos.

In De Leon v. People,35 the Court thoroughly discussed the nature of

32 People vs. Nilo Macayanan, Jr,, y Malana, G.R. No. 175842, March 18, 2015.
33 Article 287, Revised Penal Code.
34 Guevarra, Commentaries on the Revised Penal Code, 4TH ed., p. 565
35 G.R. No. 212623, January 11, 2016, 779 SCRA 84
Criminal Case No. 99-0362 Page 11 of 20
Navarro vs. Navarro Charge & Counter- Charge

Oral Defamation and the parameters for classifying the same as either Grave
or Slight:
Oral Defamation or Slander is libel committed by
oral (spoken) means, instead of in writing. It is
defined as "the speaking of base and defamatory
words which tend to prejudice another in his
reputation, office, trade, business or means of
livelihood.

"The elements of oral defamation are: (1) there

must be an imputation of a crime, or of a vice or
defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission,
status or circumstances; (2) made orally; (3)
publicly; (4) and maliciously; (5) directed to a
natural or juridical person, or one who is dead;
(6) which tends to cause dishonor, discredit or
contempt of the person defamed. Oral
defamation may either be simple or grave. It
becomes grave when it is of a serious and
insulting nature.

An allegation is considered defamatory if it

ascribes to a person the commission of a crime, the
possession of a vice or defect, real or imaginary or
any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance
which tends to dishonor or discredit or put him in
contempt or which tends to blacken the memory of
one who is dead. To determine whether a statement
is defamatory, the words used in the statement must
be construed in their entirety and should be taken in
their plain, natural and ordinary meaning as they
would naturally be understood by persons reading
them, unless it appears that they were used and
understood in another sense. It must be stressed that
words which are merely insulting are not actionable
as libel or slander per se, and mere words of general
abuse however opprobrious, ill-natured, or
vexatious, whether written or spoken, do not
constitute a basis for an action for defamation in the
absence of an allegation for special damages. The
fact that the language is offensive to the plaintiff
does not make it actionable by itself.

x x x x
Criminal Case No. 99-0362 Page 12 of 20
Navarro vs. Navarro Charge & Counter- Charge

Whether the offense committed is serious or

slight oral defamation, depends not only upon the
sense and grammatical meaning of the utterances
but also upon the special circumstances of the
case, like the social standing or the advanced age
of the offended party. "The gravity depends
upon; (1) the expressions used; (2) the personal
relations of the accused and the offended party;
and (3) the special circumstances of the case, the
antecedents or relationship between the offended
party and the offender, which may tend to prove
the intention of the offender at the time. In
particular, it is a rule that uttering defamatory
words in the heat of anger, with some provocation
on the part of the offended party constitutes only
a light felony." 36
*Emphases and underscoring supplied

Art. 282 of the Revised Penal Code for Grave threats, viz:

ART. 282. Grave threats. — Any person who shall

threaten another with the infliction upon the person,
honor or property of the latter or of his family of any
wrong amounting to a crime, shall suffer:
1. The penalty next lower in degree than that
prescribed by law for the crime he threatened to
commit, if the offender shall have made the
threat demanding money or imposing any other
condition, even though not unlawful, and said
offender shall have attained his purpose. If the
offender shall not have attained his purpose, the
penalty lower by two degrees shall be imposed.
  If the threat made in writing or through a
middleman, the penalty shall be imposed in its
maximum period.
2. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not
exceeding 500 pesos, if the threat shall not have
been made subject to a condition.

In grave threats, the wrong threatened amounts to a crime which may

or may not be accompanied by a condition. In light threats, the wrong

36  Id. at 100-101; citations omitted

Criminal Case No. 99-0362 Page 13 of 20
Navarro vs. Navarro Charge & Counter- Charge

threatened does not amount to a crime but is always accompanied by a

condition. In other light threats, the wrong threatened does not amount to a
crime and there is no condition.

The threats are qualified as grave threats when the following

circumstances concur:
1. Offender makes a threat to commit a wrong;
2. The wrong constitutes a crime;
3. The wrong may or may not be attended by a demand for
money or any condition; and
4. The offender does not immediately attain his purpose.

In this instant case, the court examined the pieces of evidence offered
by the prosecution. The complaint affidavit of the complainant Marilou
Navarro37, the certificate to file action from the Barangay 38, the Reklamo39,
and the ultrasound request and its result40. However, upon examination
thereof, this court is convinced that there was no convincing evidence to
show that the accused was guilty of the crimes of Unjust Vexation, Oral
Defamation, and Grave Threats against herein complainant. The pieces of
evidence were uncorroborated and unsupported by any other evidence apart
from the self-serving testimony of the complainant, as will be discussed
hereunder.

Testimony of the Complainant Marilou,

Riddled with Lies

In her complaint affidavit, Marilou narrates that she was talking with a
certain Racquel Caisip and helped her to put up a plastic cover on the latter's
door. She claims that the installation of such plastic cover is not permitted
by Luneta Navarro, and her act of assisting Racquel Caisip angered herein
accused so she kept cursing her and poured water at her in the process. This
cannot be accorded any weight and probative value as the same was
debunked by the words of the Reklamo41 which was also offered by the
prosecution. The Reklamo is provided to wit:
“Dumulog sa hukumang pambarangay ng
Tangos si Gng. Marylou Navarro, may sapat na
taong gulang, may asawa at nakatira sa No.367
37 Exhibit C.
38 Exhibit A.
39 Exhibit A-1.
40 Exhibit B.
41 Exhibit A-1.
Criminal Case No. 99-0362 Page 14 of 20
Navarro vs. Navarro Charge & Counter- Charge

xxx dahilan sa binuhasan siya ng tubig ni

Luneta at nalisat siya sa lamesa at si Antonio
naman ay pinagmumura siya at hinamon pa
siya na lumabas kariyan para makita mo ang
hinahanap mo at si Gng. Marylou ay
buntis.xxx”

Her claim that she was cursed by the herein accused Lunita Navarro
was not diligently inscribed in the Reklamo which would have narrated the
exact incident complained of. Moreso, the same document was signed by
Marilou Navarro, which to the eyes of the court, manifests her satisfaction of
the words inscribed thereto, regardless of whoever wrote the same.

Evidence in Support of the

Complaint Affidavit
Proved to be Unavailing

Likewise, she admitted under oath that the Reklamo does not show
any of the complaint that would support her action against herein accused,
viz42:
Cross Examination

Q: Show me in that portion where it is stated there accused

Luneta Navarro also said those words.
Court: Point to the portion of that document.
A: None, here.43

Q: And you will agree with me that the only complaint as

appearing in the barangay blotter are the words and it is
referring to your complaint against this accused “dahilan
sa binuhusan siya ng tubig ni Luneta at nalisat siya sa
lamesa” I want you to read that portion.
A: Yes, that is the reason why I have miscarriage.

Court: You are aware that the Blotter does not contain the whole
story but still you sign the same?44
A: Yes, your Honor
42 TSN, Cross Examination of Marilou Navarro, December 5, 2005, pp . 4 to 5
43 Ibid. at p. 7
44 TSN, Cross Examination of Marilou Navarro, November 26, 2009. p.7.
Criminal Case No. 99-0362 Page 15 of 20
Navarro vs. Navarro Charge & Counter- Charge

The defense likewise questioned the timing of the filing of the case at
bench.

Cross Examination
Q: And this complaint that you filed against the accused
arose from the same incident on March 19, 1999 were
you are charged with grave threats by this accused?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: So you will agree with me that this are counter charges

to the charges that were earlier filed against you by the
accused?
A: No, sir.

Q: You very well knew the development of this charges

and counter charges didn't you?
A: Yes, sir.45
xxx
A: On that date May 6, 1999 I dont'y know that there was
already a complaint filed against me.
xxx
A: Yes sir, simultaneously we get the certification
xxx
Q: So you cannot feel ignorant that you do not know that
the criminal case was filed against you by this Luneta
Navarro? Why are you smiling is there something
funny in what I am asking you.
A: No, sir.46
xxx
Atty. Maglaqui
Q: Now in this Exhibit A, the Katibayan xxx, there was
no mention about the alleged charges you want to file
against the accused you will agree with me by just
looking in the document?47
45 Ibid at. P.8.
46 Ibid at p.14.
47 TSN, Cross Examination of Marilou, Nov. 26, 2008, p. 14.
Criminal Case No. 99-0362 Page 16 of 20
Navarro vs. Navarro Charge & Counter- Charge

xxx
Q: DON'T LIE IN COURT.
xxx
A: Yes.

Case law says that motives become inconsequential if there is an

affirmative and credible declaration from the complainant which clearly
established the liability of the accused.48 The court notes that the case was
filed a day after the information against her was filed in court. This gives
rise to the motive of herein complainant on the filing of the complaint. Her
account of the reason why the case was filed was riddled with
inconsistencies.
The Supreme Court consistently held, inconsistencies on minor details
do not impair the credibility of the witnesses where there is consistency in
relating the principal occurrence. However, this instant case, it was noted
that the inconsistencies in the testimony of the accused proved to be
material.

The Supreme Court held in People vs. Amon that self-contradictions

and inconsistencies on a very material and substantial matter seriously
erodes the credibility of a witness, viz49:

“Self-contradictions and inconsistencies on a very

material and substantial matter seriously erodes the
credibility of a witness.

For evidence to be believed "must not only proceed

from the mouth of a credible witness, but must
be credible in itself — such as the common
experience and observation of mankind can approve as
probable under the circumstances. There is no test of
the truth of human testimony, except its conformity to 
our knowledge, observation and experience. Whatever
is repugnant to these belongs to the miraculous and is
outside of judicial cognizance."

The inconsistency in the statements of the accused on material points

significantly erodes the credibility of her testimony, juxtaposed against the
forthright and consistent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.

48 PP vs. Aquino, G.R. No. 201092, January 15, 2014

49 People v. Amon, 218 Phil. 355, 361 (1984)
Criminal Case No. 99-0362 Page 17 of 20
Navarro vs. Navarro Charge & Counter- Charge

The assessment of the credibility of witnesses is within the province

of the trial court.50 The court's direct and personal access to the witnesses
while they testify in its presence, giving them the unique opportunity to
observe their manner and decorum during intensive grilling by the counsel
for the accused, and to see if the witnesses were fidgeting and prevaricating,
or sincere and trustworthy. The court notes that the complainant had
fabricated stories to implicate herein accused who had earlier filed a charge
against her.

Ultrasound Do Not
Prove Pregnancy

To further detail the lies of the complainant Marilou, she presented in

court her Exhibit B, the Ultrasound request and the result thereto. The
complainant alleges that the incident with the herein accused had caused her
to have miscarriage, viz”

Q: And you will agree with me that the only complaint as

appearing in the barangay blotter is the words and it is
referring to your complaint against this accused “dahilan
sa binuhusan siya ng tubig ni Luneta at nalisat siya sa
lamesa” I want you to read that portion.
A: Yes, that is the reason why I have miscarriage.51

A perusal of the exhibits of the prosecution reveals otherwise, to wit52

REPORT
The uterus is normal in site measuring xxx
The echo pattern is uniform and no focal mass seen.
The endometrial stripe is intact 0.5cm.
Both adnexae and cul-de-sac are unremarkable.
*Normal sized uterus.

The evidence of the prosecution itself proved that the patient or herein
complainant may not be pregnant. The results thereto proves that there is no
problem with her uterus and that it bears no manifestation that the

50 People v. Abaigar, G.R. No. 199442, April 7, 2014: People v. Bisda, G.R. No. 140895, July 17, 2003,
406 SCRA 454
51 TSN, Cross Examination of Marilou Navarro, December 5, 2005, p7.
52 Exhibit B.
Criminal Case No. 99-0362 Page 18 of 20
Navarro vs. Navarro Charge & Counter- Charge

complainant is pregnant, which would have been apparent as the request for
ultrasound is for an alleged threatened abortion.

Hence, no evidence offered by the prosecution supports the

allegations of herein complainant.

"Physical evidence is evidence of the highest order. It speaks more

eloquently than a hundred witnesses."53 They have been characterized as
"that mute but eloquent manifestations of truth which rate high in our
hierarchy of trustworthy evidence."54 Thus, in People v. Vasquez,55 the
Supreme Court refused to undiscemingly lend credence to the incriminating
assertions of prosecution witnesses as to an alleged mauling, and stated that
"[t]his Court cannot be persuaded by the prosecution's claim of perpetration
of physical violence in the absence of any marked physical injuries on the
various parts of the victim's face and body." 56 There being no physical
evidence accorded weight, a conviction cannot stand.

The prosecution has the onus probandi of establishing the guilt of the
accused. Ei incumbit probatio non qui negat. He who asserts - not he who
denies - must prove. The burden must be discharged by the prosecution on
the strength of its own evidence, not on the weakness of that for the
defense.57 The prosecution has not satisfactorily hurdled such burden and has
sufficiently dispensed the onus probandi, as both physical and testimonial
evidence failed to clearly and sufficiencly meet the evidentiary requirement
necessary for conviction of the accused.

In case of doubt as to the moral certainty of culpability, the balance

tips in favor of innocence or at least in favor of the milder form of criminal
liability. This is as it should be. For, it is basic, almost elementary, that the
burden of proving the guilt of an accused lies on the prosecution which must
rely on the strength of its evidence and not on the weakness of the defense.

In conclusion, because of reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the

accused, he must be acquitted. Every accused is presumed innocent until the
contrary is proved; that presumption is solemnly guaranteed by the Bill of
Rights. The contrary requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, or that degree
of proof that produces conviction in an unpre judiced mind. Short of this, it
53 People v. Sacabin, 156 Phil. 707, 713 (1974) [Per J. Fernandez, Second Division]
54  People v. Vasquez, 345 Phil. 380, 395 (1997) [Per J. Hermosisima, Jr., First
Division], citing People v. Uycoque, 316 Phil. 930, 942 (1995) [Per J. Puno, Second
Division].
55 345 Phil. 380 (1997) [Per J. Hermosisima, Jr., First Division]
56 Ibid., at 395.
57 People vs. Nilo Macayanan, Jr,, y Malana, G.R. No. 175842, March 18, 2015.
Criminal Case No. 99-0362 Page 19 of 20
Navarro vs. Navarro Charge & Counter- Charge

is not only the right of the accused to be freed; it is even the constitutional
duty of the court to acquit them.58

In this jurisdiction, no less than proof beyond reasonable doubt is

required to support a judgment of conviction. While the law does not require
absolute certainty, the evidence presented by the prosecution must produce
in the mind of the Court a moral certainty of the accused's guilt. When there
is even a scintilla of doubt, the Court must acquit. 59 As the Court succinctly
held in People v. Erguiza, viz:60

It is the primordial duty of the prosecution to present its

side with clarity and persuasion, so that conviction
becomes the only logical and inevitable conclusion. What
is required of it is to justify the conviction of the accused
with moral certainty.

Upon the prosecution's failure to meet this test in Criminal Case Nos.
99-0408-0410, , acquittal becomes the constitutional duty of the Court, lest
its mind be tortured with the thought that it has imprisoned an innocent man
for the rest of his life.61

WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, for Criminal Case No. 99-

0362, JUDGEMENT is hereby rendered finding accused MARILOU
FERMILAN NAVARRO to be GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Grave Threats. There being no mitigating nor aggravating
circumstance, she is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of Four
(4) months and One (1) day of arresto mayor in its medium period and to
pay therefor a fine of Five Hundred Pesos (Php500.00) with subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, plus cost of the suit

For Criminal Case No. 99-0408, 0409, 0410, for failure of the
prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt,
accused LUNETA NAVARRO is hereby ACQUITTED for the crimes of
Unjust Vexation, Oral Defamation, and Grave Threats, respectively.

58 G.R. No. 137599, October 8, 2001, People of the Philippines vs. Gilbert Baulite, et. al.
59 Caunan v. People and Sandiganbayan, 614 Phil. 179, 194 (2009).
60 592 Phil. 363 (2008).
61 Ibid. at 388,
Criminal Case No. 99-0362 Page 20 of 20
Navarro vs. Navarro Charge & Counter- Charge

SO ORDERED.
City of Navotas
February 21, 2020.

HON. FREDRICK G. SEPARA

Pairing Judge

Copy furnished:

ACP Golda Pablo Salamat

Atty. Sabrina Datu

Atty. Norby P. Clemente

Marilou Fermilan

Luneta Navarro