REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Department of Justice
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
LAS PINAS, CITY

CLARISA ALIMOROM DE GUZMAN

Complainant/s

NPS DOCKET NO.

XV-04-INV-19H-00908
-versus- For: RAPE IN RELATION
TO RA 7610

JUDE SALVADOR CAMACHO

Respondent.
x--------------------------------------------------------x

COUNTER AFFIDAVIT

I, JUDE SALVADOR CAMACHO, minor, Filipino, Single, with

residence address at Rebecca Dulo, Almanza 2, Las Pinas City, after
having been duly subscribed and sworn to in accordance with law, do
hereby deposes and says that:

Prefatory Statement

The purpose of a preliminary investigation is to

secure the innocent against hasty, malicious and
oppressive prosecution, and to protect him from an open
and public accusation of crime, from the trouble, expense

1
 and anxiety of a public trial, and also to protect the state
from useless and expensive trials1

1. Undersigned respondent, being minor, was being charged for

Rape in relation to RA 7610 which is pending before the Office of the
Prosecutor of Las Pinas City. Copy of his Certificate of Live Birth as proof
of his minority is hereto attached as Annex “A”;

2. Respondent vehemently and specifically deny the allegations

contained in par. 01 to 23 in the instant complaint for being malicious,
perjurious and without any factual and legal basis;

3. The truth of the matter was that the complainant and her minor
child, Alexzandra De Guzman Cagampanan were the close family relatives
of the herein respondent who have been known each other for years;

4. In fact, their closeness extended from sharing foods from each

other and giving gifts for every celebration or occasion which later became
family tradition;

5. The familiarity among the family members even go beyond the

point that complainant and her child regularly visited the house of
respondent to eat and play along with her other cousins;

6. It bears stressing that on alleged date of the commission of the

offense, respondent and Junior Castillo (complainanat and respondent’s

1
Id. at 428, citing Trocio v. Manta, 203 Phil. 618 (1982) [Per J. Relova, First Division];
and Hashim v. Boncan, 71Phil.216 (1941) [Perl. Laurel, En Banc]

2
cousin) were too busy watching Television while Alexzandra and Alyanna
De Duzman, (Alexzndra’s cousin) were busy playing an online games;

7. Respondent and Junior Castillo suddenly heard Alexzandra and

Alyanna De Duzman were fighting over the online games that they were
playing were with at that was point were respondent intercede over the
quarrel of the two minor children;

8. The aforesaid allegations was only a product of sham and

fictitious claim which was not substantiated by convincing evidence;

9. For the crime of rape Under Section 266-A of the Revised

Penal Code be committed the following elements must be present as
follows, vis:

(1) The offender had carnal knowledge of the victim; and

(2) Such act was accomplished through force or intimidation; or

when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious; or when the victim is under twelve years of age.

10. On the other hand, the elements of Section 5 (b) of R.A. No.
7610, are as follows, vis:

(1) The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or

lascivious conduct;

(2) The act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or

subjected to other sexual abuse; and (3) the child, whether

3
 male or female, is below 18 years of age. It is also stated there
that children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse
are tho'se children, whether male or female, who, for money,
profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or
influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct.

11. It must be noted that the aforesaid allegations miserably failed

to substantiate the claim of rape for the reason that there was direct
witness that can be point that respondent indeed committed the offense
other than the bare and baseless statement of the police officers who
prepared the complaint affidavit;

12. Worthy to note that during the alleged date and time of the
commission of the offense, there were several people who was present in
the house of the respondent and they are: the respondent himself and his
cousin, Junior Castillo along with Alexzandra and Alyanna De Duzman who
were busy playing an online games;

13. It can be glean from the above facts that it was physically
impossible and highly improbable to commit the alleged rape as there were
various people who were present and inside the house. Indeed, it is
contrary to human experience that the said crime to be committed in full
view of many people;

14. A perusal to the medical certificate of the complainant’s child

will show that there were no slightest penetration from the complainant’s
child vagina at the time of the alleged incident which is contradicting to the
allegation of the police officer who prepare the complaint that respondent

4
inserted her finger unto the private parts of complainant’s child. (Please
see par. 21 of complainnat’s Sinumpaang Salaysay);

15. To show complainant’s inconsistency with their statement, and

the instant complaint was just an afterthought, the latter categorically stated
in the barangay that they were no longer interested to pursue the
complainant dated August 17, 2019. However, on the following day, August
18, 2019, complainant suddenly changed her mind to file the instant case.
A copy of the Barangay Blotter is hereto attached as Annex “B”’

16. It is clearly stated under Section 6 of the Revised Rules of

Criminal Procedure, that the basic contents of a complaint in order to
establish its sufficiency are as follows, vis:

Section 6, Sufficiency of complaint or information - A

complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of the
accused; the designation of the offense given by the statute;
the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the
offense; the name of the offended party, the approximate date
of the commission of the offense; and the place where the
offense was committed.
(Underlining and emphasis supplied)2

17. The aforesaid rule dictates that the acts or omissions

complained of, constituting the offense must be clearly indicated in a
complaint affidavit. In the instant case, nowhere in the complaint or
information will show that the particular acts that will indict the respondent
for the crime of rape were present. Therefore, the instant case should not

2
Rule 110, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure

5
be credited any evidentiary weight as it is purely self-serving statements
and without any factual and legal basis;

18. Likewise, the information for rape filed by the Honorable

Prosecutor dated 23 August 2019 against herein respondent with due
respect, does not state clearly, explicitly and unequivocally all the
elements to constitute the crime for Rape. Therefore, the instant case must
be dismissed for utter lack of merit;

19. At the expense of being repetitive, private complainant failed to

establish any probable cause that respondent indeed committed the
aforesaid charge as there was no direct testimony or witness from the
private complainant that clearly and unequivocally point the respondent in
committing the alleged offense;

20. Moreover, in criminal cases, 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. Hence,
circumstantial evidence that has not been adequately established, much
less corroborated, cannot be the basis of conviction. Suspicion alone is
insufficient, the required quantum of evidence being proof beyond
reasonable doubt. Indeed, "the sea of suspicion has no shore, and the
court that embarks upon it is without rudder or compass."

21. It must be stressed that in our criminal justice system, the

overriding consideration is not whether the court doubts the innocence of
the accused, but whether it entertains a reasonable doubt as to their guilt.
Where there is no moral certainty as to their guilt, they must be acquitted

6
even though their innocence may be questionable. The constitutional right
to be presumed innocent until proven guilty can be overthrown only by
proof beyond reasonable doubt3. (Emphasis in the original, citations
omitted)

22. Finally, the herein respondent pray for the immediate dismissal
of the instant case on grounds stated above. To reiterate, the respondent
must secure against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution, and to
protect her from an open and public accusation of crime, from the trouble,
expense and anxiety of a public trial, and also to protect the state from
useless and expensive trials.4

23. Undersigned respondent is executing this Counter-Affidavit to

attest to the truth of the foregoing statements.

WITNESS my hand this ______________ day of

_________________________at Las Pinas City,.

________________________
JUDE SALVADOR CAMACHO
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, this

_______________day of _____________at Quezon City. Further, I hereby
certify that I have personally examined the affiant and convinced that she
voluntarily executed the foregoing and understood its content.

______________________
ASSISTANT CITY OFFICER
3
People of the Philippines v. Asis, 439 Phil. 707, 72 7-728 (2002) [Per J. Panganiban, En Banc].
4
Ibid