REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
CITY OF MAKATI

BERNADETTE MARQUEZ,
- Plaintiff

IS No. ________
For: Rape

v.
MANUEL MARQUEZ,
- Defendant
x-----------------------------------------x
COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT
I, Manuel Marquez, of legal age, married, and a resident
of Makati City, after being duly sworn in accordance with the
law, hereby depose and state that:
I.

ADMISSION AND DENIAL

1.
I did not rape or molest the Complainant,
Bernadette Marquez. Neither did I witness the said
complainant being raped or molested in their residence at
10 AM of April 16, 2015.
2.
I admit that I visit their house regularly in
order to convince her mother (my sister), Ysabel Miagao,
to vacate the said residence, which I own, in favor of my
newly-wed son. My ownership claim is evidence by a Deed
of Sale and TCT dated January 2014.
3.
Having prior knowledge that my sister went to
Davao on Thursday, April 16, 2015 and her husband
routinely visiting Davao office every Thursday, I did not
visit their residence on the day the crime was committed.

II.

DISCUSSION

1. There is no truth to the charges leveled at me by the

complainant. Her statement is full of uncertainties and
inconsistencies.
a. In the case of People v. Galera, G.R. No. 115938,
October 10, 1997, the court emphasize that :
A successful prosecution of a criminal action
largely depends on proof of two things: the
identification of the author of the crime and his
actual commission of the same. An ample proof that a
crime has been committed has no use if the
prosecution is unable to convincingly prove the
offenders identity. The constitutional presumption
of innocence that an accused enjoys is not
demolished by an identification that is full of
uncertainties."
2. The Complainant identified her assailant as a man in
black mask, wearing a perfume similar to her step-father,
Alberto Miagao, and a physique similar to her stepfather, the Defendant, Manuel Marquez, and her boyfriend,
Franco.
a. In the case of People vs Reyes, G.R. No. 120642,
July 2, 1999, the court stated that once a person
has
gained
familiarity
with
one
another,
identification
becomes
quite
an
easy
task.
Similarly in our case, the Complainant should have
easily recognized her assailant because of (1) her
familiarity with the suspects despite the hindrances
(2)the alleged crime was committed at 10 A.M on a
broad daylight.
b. In the case of People v. Tumambing, G.R. No. 191261,
March 2, 2011, the complainant cannot specifically
pinpoint
the
defendant
and
entertained
the
possibility
of
another
assailant.
The
court
therefore, cannot accept the Complainants testimony
and states that With such serious doubts regarding
the true identity of the rapist, the Court cannot
affirm the conviction of the accused.
3. There are no other evidence or testimony to corroborate
the statement made by the Complainant. While it is true
that given the very nature of the crime of rape, an
2

accused may be convicted solely on the basis of

testimony of the victim (People v. Mercado, G.R.
139904, October 12, 2001).

the
No.

However, in People v. Salidaga, G.R. No. 172323,

January 29, 2007, the court states that, the courts are
not bound to treat the testimony of the victim as gospel
truth. Judges are duty-bound to subject her testimony to
the most rigid and careful scrutiny lest vital details
which could affect the outcome of the case be overlooked
or cast aside.
In our case it is a necessity that the Complainants
testimony not be used solely to convict the defendant.
Considering its vagueness and doubtfulness. This would
have been different if the defendant was categorically
and positively identified.
4. By and large there was a failure to prove
Defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

that

the

Based on People v. Arango, G.R. No. 168442, 30

August 2006, the evidence for the prosecution must
stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be
allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the
evidence for the defense.
The conclusion can be easily reach
statements made by the Complainant has no
therefore has no legs to stand on.
5. The
Defendant reserve
SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT.

the

right

to

that
merit

file

6. The Defendant reserve the right to file a REJOINER

AFFIDAVIT.

the
and

for

a
-

III. PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully
prayed that the instant criminal complaint be DISMISSED for
lack of merit.
Further, the respondents respectfully pray for such
and other reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable in the
premises.

TO THE TRUTH OF THE

Complaint-Affidavit on xxxx

FOREGOING,

have

signed

this

MANUEL MARQUEZ
DEFENDANT
SUBSCRIBED and sworn to before me on x x x in
City.

x x x

Assistant City Prosecutor