Scribd
Upload
148 views

Tobias Counter

Gloria Chua denies the charges against her of violating RA 11332, unjust vexation, and a municipal ordinance. She claims she was at her grocery store from 7-10 AM on April 29th, not at the municipal health office. She argues the charges under RA 11332 are invalid because she was not reported to have COVID-19 or be under investigation. She also argues the municipal ordinance cannot be enforced because it was not properly publicized as required.

Uploaded by

Angie Douglas
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
148 views

Tobias Counter

Gloria Chua denies the charges against her of violating RA 11332, unjust vexation, and a municipal ordinance. She claims she was at her grocery store from 7-10 AM on April 29th, not at the municipal health office. She argues the charges under RA 11332 are invalid because she was not reported to have COVID-19 or be under investigation. She also argues the municipal ordinance cannot be enforced because it was not properly publicized as required.

Uploaded by

Angie Douglas
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 6

1

Republic of the Philippines


th
8 MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT
OF APARRI-CALAYAN
Second Judicial Region
BRANCH 01
Aparri, Cagayan

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES CRIMINAL CASE NO. 05-5183-20

-versus -For-

GLORIA CHUA y NGO, Violation of R.A 11332


Accused.
x-------------------------------------------x
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES CRIMINAL CASE NO. 05-5183-20

-versus -For-

GLORIA CHUA y NGO, UNJUST VEXATION


Accused.
x-------------------------------------------x
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES CRIMINAL CASE NO. 05-5183-20

-versus -For-

GLORIA CHUA y NGO, VIOLATION OF MUNICIPAL


Accused. ORDINACE No. 2020-024
x------------------------------------------x
JOINT C O U N T E R- A F F I D A V I T

I, Gloria Chua, of legal age, married, and a resident of Aparri Cagayan,


Cagayan, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, hereby
depose and state THAT:

1. I am the accused in the above-entitled cases, thus, charged with


violation of Republic Act No. 11332, Unjust Vexation, and
Violation of Municipal ordinance No. 2020-024, filed by Roseli M.
Racho;
2

2. I vehemently deny all the material allegations leveled against me


in the Amended Criminal Complaint, it being false, malicious and
fabricated;

3. With all due respect, it is worthy to emphasize the nature,


purpose and amount of evidence that is required to support a
finding of probable cause in an Investigation. Probable cause is
defined as such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded
belief that a crime/ offense has been committed and the
respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for
trial1;

4. Apropos thereto, for the Investigator in this case to determine if


there exists a well-founded belief that alleged offense has been
committed by the undersigned, and that the he is probably guilty
of the alleged offense committed. Thus, there is a need to
examine the evidence with care to prevent material damage to
the undersigned’s constitutional right and the freedom and fair
play, and to protect the Honorable Court from the burden of
unnecessary expenses in prosecuting the alleged offense and
holding of hearings arising from groundless charge. The elements
of the offense charged should, in all reasonable likelihood, be
present;

5. In the Amended Criminal Complaint, it was alleged that on April


29, 2020, at 7:45 in the morning, I went to the Municipal Health
Office of Aparri, Cagayan to secure a travel pass and when told to
fall in line and present Quarantine Pass, uttered unsavory words
towards the complainant;

6. However, contrary to the allegations of the complainant and her


witnesses, I never went to the Municipal Health Office at the
alleged date of the incident;

7. The truth being that, on the evening of April 28, 2020, two of my
trucks with Plate Number BCV 425 and XLJ 440 arrived at Aparri,
Cagayan fully loaded with grocery items;

1
Sy v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 166315, December 14, 2006, 511 SCRA 92, 96; Navarra v. Office
of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 176291, December 4, 2009, 607 SCRA 355, 363
3

8. At around seven (7) o’clock in the following morning (the alleged


date of the incident), upon my order, my employees began
unloading the groceries from the said trucks;

9. While my employees were busy unloading the groceries, I was


then monitoring the customers;

10.It was already Ten (10) o’clock in the morning when all the goods
were completely unloaded from the trucks;

11.Between 7 o’clock in the morning and 10’clock in the morning of


April 29, 2020, I was in the grocery store with my employees and
some of my regular customers
like_______________________________________;

12.It must be noted also that my two trucks with Plate Number BCV
425 and XLJ 440 just arrived at Aparri, Cagayan the night prior to
the incident, while the other truck with plate number
03860278662 was still in Manila. Hence, there is really no need
for our employees to apply for travel pass with the Municipal
Health Office on April 29, 2020. And there is no reason for me to
go to the MHO-Aparri, Cagayan, for that matter;

13.Obviously, the story of the private complainant is merely


concocted as she and another employee of the MHO-Aparri,
Cagayan by the name of Rosely Malazzab have an apparent
grudge against me. As a matter of fact, they even went together
to the Aparri Police Station on May 6,2020 to cause the entry in
the police blotter of fabricated stories about me that allegedly
transpired on April 28, 2020, or an event purportedly happened
more than a week before;

14.Further, in the Original Complaint filed, it was alleged that the


date of the alleged incident is April 28, 2020, however, when I
filed my counter-affidavit dated May 31, 2020, the complainant
realized that I have overwhelming evidence to disprove her
allegations. Thus, the complainant moved to amend the criminal
complaint and change the date of alleged incident to April 29,
2020;
4

15.Assuming arguendo without admitting that the allegations in the


criminal complaint are true, the undersigned still cannot be
charged for Violation of R. A. No. 11332;

16.It is worthy of note that Republic Act No. 11332 was directed
towards the “Mandatory Reporting of Notifiable Diseases and
Health Events of Public Concern2”. With this, it can be easily
deduced that this particular law was concerned on persons having
notifiable diseases that raises an issue of public health concern;

17.As a matter of fact, a closer scrutiny of the objectives of the same


law under Section 4 would reveal that indeed its mandate focuses
on the proper, prompt and mandatory reporting of notifiable
diseases of persons who either contacted or suspecting to have
been infected of a disease, again which raises an issue of public
health concern;

18.In this case, it must be noted that nowhere in the Criminal


Complaint and in the other documents attached to the records
can be found that we are persons who have contacted the COVID-
19 Virus which is now an issue of public health concern. Neither
was it alleged that we are Persons Under Investigation or Persons
Under Monitoring. In addition, there was no documentary
evidence attached to the Criminal Complaint that would support
this unfounded claim. With this fact, we are not under obligation
under the said law to comply to its mandate on the most basic
reason that, we are not persons subject of its provisions. Thus,
our prosecution under the said law has no basis;

19.Section 9 of R. A. No. 11332 is limited to the prosecution of the


following acts, to wit:

a. Unauthorized disclosure of private and confidential


information pertaining to a patient’s medical condition or
treatment;

2
Section 1, R. a. No. 11332
5

b. Tampering of records or intentionally providing


misinformation;
c. Non-cooperation of the disease surveillance and response
team;
d. Non-cooperation of persons and entities that should report
and/or respond to notifiable diseases or health events of
public concern; and
e. Non-cooperation of the person or entities identified as having
the notifiable disease or affected by health event of public
concern;

20.To reiterate, a detailed scrutiny of the aforementioned penal


provisions would truly reveal that the failure to observe physical
distancing during this time of COVID-19 pandemic is not
punishable under the said law especially when said person has not
contacted the virus nor a person under monitoring or a person
under investigation;

21.Moreover, I cannot be prosecuted for violation of Municipal


Ordinance No. 2020-024, because the said ordinance has no force
and effect. It must be noted that the Ordinance was signed only
on April 24, 2010. Under section 511 of the Local Government
Code, ordinances with penal sanctions shall be posted at
prominent places in the provincial capitol, city, municipal or
Barangay hall, as the case may be, for a minimum period of three
(3) consecutive weeks. Such ordinances shall also be published in
a newspaper of general circulation, where available, within the
territorial jurisdiction of the local government unit concerned,
except in the case of Barangay ordinances.

22..

23.On the basis of the foregoing, the reasonable probability of the


undersigned’s commission of the alleged crime was not
sufficiently established by the complainant. Hence, the case
against the undersigned should be dismissed.

24.That I am executing this affidavit to attest to the truth of the


foregoing facts.
6

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand this 11th day of June


2020 at Tuguegarao City, Cagayan.

ALVARETTE TOMAS y TOBIAS


Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 11th day of June 2020


at Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, affiants being personally known to me.

Doc. No. _____;


Page No. ____;
Book No. _____;
Series of 2020

Copy furnished:

Office of the Provincial prosecutor


Hall of Justice, Aparri, Cagayan

You might also like