a.

I am an active CIDG special agent whose role is to

strengthen the information and gathering system of the
departments anti-crime drive;
b. I am in no way,be behind the said crime since I stand for its
prevention and support and abide by the very ideals of CIDG;
c. I have no knowledge as to the person of one Rolando
Gonzales a principal witness in this case;
d. I never called said person on January 06,2014 as he was
claiming;
e. If as claimed that he was also CIDG special agent, being of
co-equal position, I dont have any authority to head an
operation under the clout of CIDG;
f. It is unusual for a reasonable man, as he was claiming to join
a particular operation without knowledge of the full identity
of the person whom he transacted with;
g. Also unusual for a reasonable man like him to trust one who
communicated only via phone call;
h. Declaration of Rolando Gonzales is only binding as to him.
This is founded by rule on res inter alios acta which provides
that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,
declaration, or omission of another;

i. This rule is further reiterated in the case of Tamargo v.

Awingan et. Al (G.R. no. 177727 January 19, 2010) to wit:

on a principle of good faith and mutual convenience, a

mans own acts are binding upon himself, and are evidence
against him. So are his conduct and declarations. Yet it would
not only be rightly inconvenient, but also manifestly unjust,
that a man should be bound by the acts of mere
unauthorized strangers; and if a party ought not to be bound
by the acts of strangers, neither ought their acts or conduct
be used as evidence against him
j. There are no witnesses as to who committed the crime;
k. He claimed he was only tasked to burn the cadaver;
l. I am innocent and I lack motive in doing the crime, the
above being circumstantial;
m.
I am not acquainted to the victim nor have any
knowledge as to her circumstances;
n. Rolando Gonzales was in fact the perpetrator of the crime,
the effects of which were found in his possession;
o. As gleaned from his testimony, he alleged that I
confederated and conspired with one Michael Edades. And
the Rules on Evidence substantially states:
SEC. 12. Admission by conspirator. The act or declaration
of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its
existence, may be given in evidence against the coconspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other
than such act or declaration.
p. There exists no other evidence to prove that there was
conspiracy;

q. The truth of the matter is Rolando Gonzales was really the

perpetrator of the crime, the effects of which were found in
his possession;
r. He was forced by the circumstances, the belongings of the
victim Loreta Antonio was found in his possession;
s. To escape from liability he implicated innocent persons who
were not even known to him for ill reasons;
t. Rolando Gonzales might have just randomly selected from a
list of CIDG special agents. Even implicated Joel M. Pata as
the owner of the alleged STAREX but was in fact a CIDG
agent too;
u. During the day of the incident, I joined other operation in
Urbiztondo,Pangasinan;
v. Sworn statements of those who were with me during the said
operation is hereunto attached as ANNEX A
and
corresponding blotter as ANNEX B.
w. The entire allegations of Rolando Gonzales were concocted
and bereft of basis;