Republic of the Philippines)

Province of Davao del Sur)s.s.

x------------------------------x

AFFIDAVIT-COMPLAINT

I, FRANCISCO “FRASHALE” LOGRONIO GUERRERO, of

legal age, single, Filipino, and resident of Rizal Street, NCO District,
Padada, Davao del Sur, under oath, hereby depose and say, that:

1. I am an elected public official and currently the Municipal

Mayor of the Municipality of Padada, Davao del Sur.

2. I hereby formally charge TYRONE SALGADO DELA

CERNA, an elected public official and member of the
Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Padada, of legal
age, and a resident of Almendras District, Padada, Davao
del Sur, herein referred to as RESPONDENT

for VIOLATING SECTION 4, (C), PARAGRAPH 4 OF R.A. 10175

ALSO KNOWN AS THE CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT OF
2012, to wit:

SECTION 4 (C) (4) Libel. — The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as

defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
committed through a computer system or any other similar means
which may be devised in the future.

REVISED PENAL CODE. ARTICLE 353. Definition of Libel. — A libel

is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect,
real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or
circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of
a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is
dead.

The facts antecedents to this complaint are as follows:

1. On 21 December 2024, Respondent did then and there,

willfully, unlawfully, feloniously, and with the intention to malign
my person, character and honor, write, compose, and publish
and caused to be written, composed and published in his
Facebook page
(https://www.facebook.com/tyrone.delacerna.1), a totally
fabricated, utterly false and grossly misleading post as follows:

Attached is the full text of libelous article hereto referred as

Annex "A" and “A-1”.

Page 1
 “ TINIMBANG KA NGUNIT KULANG” KINSA KAHA PWEDE
I ASK ANI? ANG SUPPLIER O ANG AGENCY CONCERN
SA LGU? MEDYO LOOY NA POD ANG SENIOR MAO NA
LANG GANI KALIPAY GIKURAKOT PAH. DAPAT NAA JUD
MANUBAG ANI.

2. Said post was published by Respondent, containing malicious

imputations with bad intentions and unjustifiable motives,
purposely to malign, dishonor, discredit, insult, impeach and
assassinate my character and good reputation to the public.

3. Under the Revised Penal Code, libel is a defamation committed

by means of writing, printing, lithograph, engraving, radio,
phonograph, painting or theatrical or cinematographic
exhibition, or any similar means. Moreover, the Cybercrime
Prevention Act of 2012 has amended Article 353, as libel can
be committed through a computer system or any other similar
means which may be devised in the future.

4. That the elements of libel are:

a. That there must be an imputation of a crime, or of a vice or
defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, status, or
circumstance;
b. That the imputation must be publicly made;
c. That it must be malicious;
d. That the imputation must be directed to a natural or juridical
person, or one who is dead; and
e. That the imputation must tend to cause the dishonor,
discredit, or contempt of the person defamed.

Page 2
5. That there was imputation of a crime, vice or defect real or
imaginary on the Facebook post published by the Respondent
in his Facebook Page. The emphasized portion of the post
authored by the Respondent created in the minds of the
readers that I commited or caused to have committed
“corruption” an offense punishable under RA 3019 or the Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and RA 6713 otherwise known
as Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials
and Employees.

6. The defamatory statements posted, written, and published by

the Respondent has no factual basis, is highly speculative and
blatanly false and made for no other purpose but to destroy my
reputation as a political figure and expose me to public ridicule,
humiliation and embarrassment thereby casting dishonor,
discredit and contempt upon my character and reputation to my
damage and prejudice.

In People vs. Tulfo, G.R. No. 187113, the Supreme Court held
that, when a person in an article, ascribes to a person a
commission of a crime, the possession of a vice or defect, real
or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or
circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or
contempt of a natural or juridical person or to blacken the
memory of one who is dead, that article is of a libelous nature
as it tends to discredit the persons libeled in the minds of those
reading the said article.

7. That the imputation was made publicly. The libelous article

having been published in Facebook, a social media account
read by the said general public, including my family, colleagues,
friends, and constituents thereby conveying the idea or
impression in the minds of the public that I embezzled or
caused to be embezzled for my personal gain, a fraction of the
food packs (rice) distributed to Senior Citizens.

In the case of Vasquez vs Court of Appeals, the Court ruled

that, there is publication if the material is communicated to a
third person. It is not required that the person defamed has
read or heard about the libelous remark. What is material is that
a third person has read or heard the libelous statement, for “a
man’s reputation is the estimate in which others hold him, not
the good opinion which he has of himself.”

8. Respondent’s Facebook account has 263, 107 followers hereto

attached as Annex “F.” In minutes, the malicious post of the
Respondent was shared online. Many netizens like
______________________(Annex “G”) and
________________ (Annex “H”) cited his post.

Page 3
 That the Respondent, in posted and published said defamatory
statements absent any good intention or justifiable motive
but to malign, dishonor, discredit, insult and assassinate my
character and good reputation to the public as well as to my
consitituents. The malicious statements were posted with actual
malice having been made by the Respondent with the
knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.

In the case of Daquer, Jr. vs People, G.R. No. 206015, the

Court held even qualifiedly privileged communications were
actionable when made with actual malice.

9. That the post was directed at me even without expressly

mentioning my name for the plain and simple reason that the
distribution of food pack (rice) to Senior Citizen is one of the
major programs of the Local Government under my leadership.

In the case of Lastimosa vs People, G.R. No. 233557 that

Supreme Court has elucidated that while it is essential that the
victim be identifiable in order to maintain a libel suit, it is not
necessary that the person be named. It is enough if by
reference the allusion is apparent or if the publication contains
matters of description or reference to facts and circumstances
from which others reading the article may know the person
alluded to, or if the latter is pointed out by extraneous
circumstances so that those knowing such person could and
did understand that he was the person referred to. Kunkle vs.
Cablenews-American and Lyons laid the rule that this
requirement is complied with where a third person recognized
or could identify the party vilified in the article (emphasis ours).

In the case of Manila Bulletin vs People, G.R. No. 170341, July

5, 2017 it was held that , to satisfy the element of identifiability,
it must be shown that at least a third person or a stranger was
able to identify him as the object of the defamatory
statement. It is enough if by intrinsic reference the allusion is
apparent or if the publication contains matters of description or
reference to facts and circumstances from which others
reading the article may know the person alluded to; or if the
latter is pointed out by extraneous circumstances so that those
knowing such person could and did understand that he was
the person referred to (emphasis ours).

10. That the post have caused dishonor, discredit and contempt
thereby impeaching my integrity, virtue and reputation and
eventually exposing me to public ridicule and contempt.

11. That I have heard and read vulgar messages impeaching my

person, honor, and character from the public since the

Page 4
 12. Respondent posted the malicious imputations. Attached hereto
are the screenshots of some of the comments that I have
gathered as Annex “J,” Annex “J-1,” and Annex “J-2.”

13. Due to the said malicious public imputations by the

Respondent, I suffered and continue to suffer serious anxiety,
besmirched reputation, mental anguish, sleepless nights, not to
mention the damage the Respondent has caused to my career,
reputation and honor among my family, colleagues, friends, and
constituents.

14. Due to such grossly unjustified malicious and libelous

imputations, I therefore respectfully pray that the Respondent be
found guilty for violating Section 4, (C), Paragraph 4 Of R.A.
10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 and be liable to
pay the damages I was made to suffer as a result of the
Facebook post in whatever amount the Honorable Court deems
sufficient and proper together with the attorney’s fees and the
cost of this suit.

I hereby execute this affidavit to attest to the truth of the

foregoing facts and hereby request the investigating prosecutor to file
the Information for Libel under R.A. 10175 against the herein
Respondent.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 31 st

day of December in Padada, Davao del Sur, Philippines.

FRANCISCO L. GUERRERO, JR
Complainant-Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this ___ day of

December 2024 in Padada, Davao del Sur Philippines. Affiant
exhibiting to me his PRC ID No. 0014266 valid until 24 August 2025.

I hereby certify that I have personally examined the

complainant-affiant and I am satisfied that he voluntarily executed
and understood the foregoing Complaint-Affidavit.

___________________________
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor

Page 5
Dr. Richen Merbert Del Mundo