Republic of the Philippines 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Office of the City Prosecutor
__________________________

,
                                    Complainant,
             FOR: ADULTERY
­versus­

                                     Respondents.

VERIFIED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

RESPONDENT,   through   the   undersigned   counsel,  move   this   Honorable

Office for a reconsideration of its  Resolution dated February 16, 2015, a copy of
which  was  received on February  26, 2015 upon the following considerations  and
further avers that:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

The determination of the existence of probable cause lies
within   the   discretion   of   the   prosecuting   officers   after
conducting a preliminary investigation in accordance with
the   guidelines   set   forth   in  the   2000   Revised   Rules   of
Criminal Procedure.

Prosecutors   however,   are   not   given   an   unregulated

authority   to   determine   the   existence   of   probable   cause.
They must abide by the cardinal rules of justice and fair­
play.  Specifically,   in  order  that   probable  cause to  file a
criminal case may be arrived at, the elements of the crime
charged should be determined to be present through the
careful   consideration   and   examination   of  competent
evidence. 

Furthermore,   since   the   conduct   of   a   preliminary

investigation  do not require a confrontation between the
 parties   and   their   witnesses,   the   Rules   has   made   it
mandatory   that   the   Affidavits   Complainant,   as   well   as
the Affidavits of Witnesses, must be subscribed and sworn
to before any prosecutor or government official authorized
to administer oath. 

The Ratiocination for the requirement is  to exclude self­
serving   and   unreliable   evidence   for   purposes   of   the
preliminary   investigation   and   to   ensure   that   the
affidavits   supporting   the   factual   allegations   in   the
Complaint   have   been   sworn   before   a   competent   officer
and that the affiant has signed the same in the former’s
presence   declaring   on   oath   the   truth   of   the   statement
made considering that this becomes part of the bases in
finding probable guilt against the respondent.

Ultimately,  those Affidavits  and statements that  do not

conform to the requirement of the Rules are accorded as
self­serving and hearsay and thus are not admissible as
evidence.

TIMELINESS OF THE MOTION

1. On   _______________,   Respondent   received   a   copy   of   the   Resolution,

______________________, issued by this Honorable Office finding probable cause for
the case of Adultery against herein Respondent. The dispositive portion of the said
Resolution reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE,   finding   probable   cause,   the

undersigned   recommends   the   filing   of   the   information   for
Adultery   against   the   respondents  _______________  at   the
_________________________”

2. Pursuant to the Rules on Procedure in The Investigation, Prosecution
and Trial of Criminal Cases, specifically, Part III, Section 56 thereof, Respondent is
given 10 days from the receipt of the Resolution, or until __________________ to file
a Motion for Reconsideration;

3. However, __________________ falls on a Sunday, thus Respondent has
until the next working day, _______________ to file the motion;
 4. Therefore, the filing of this Motion for Reconsideration;

GROUNDS FOR THE FILING OF THE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

5. The Recommendation for filing the Information made by the Honorable
Office of the City Prosecutor is SOLELY based on the Affidavit Complaint and the
Judicial Affidavits of the witnesses that were submitted to the aforesaid Honorable
Office; 

6. It is worth noting that no other pieces of evidence were offered to prove
nor support the charge of Adultery against herein Respondent; 

I. It is mandatory that the Affidavit
Complaint   and   the   supporting
Affidavits   of   Witnesses   must   be
subscribed   and   sworn   to   before   the
authorized   officers.   Otherwise,   it   is
considered an unsworn statement; and
unsworn   statements   are   considered
hearsay   and   self­serving,   thus,
inadmissible in evidence.

7. Herein Respondent, maintains that the Affidavit Complaint as well as
the   Judicial   Affidavits   of   the   Witnesses   should   not   have   been   entertained   and
considered as evidence by the Honorable Prosecutor for the reason that it was not
subscribed   and   sworn   to   before   an   authorized   officer   or   even   before   a
public   prosecutor  as   mandated   by   the   Revised   Rules   of   Criminal   Procedure,
hence a mere scrap of paper;
 8. Specifically,   Rule   112,   section   3,   paragraph   (a)   of   the   2000   Revised
Rules   of   Criminal   Procedure   mandates   the   procedure   as   to   the   conduct   of
investigations, whether a preliminary investigation is required to be conducted or
not. To wit:

Section 3. Procedure.   —   The   preliminary   investigation   shall   be

conducted in the following manner:

(a) The   complaint   shall   state   the   address   of   the   respondent   and
shall be accompanied by the affidavits of the complainant and
his witnesses, as well as other supporting documents to establish
probable cause. They shall be in such number of copies as there
are   respondents,   plus   two   (2)   copies   for   the   official   file.  The
affidavits   shall   be   subscribed   and   sworn   to   before   any
prosecutor   or   government   official   authorized   to
administer oath, or, in their absence or unavailability, before a
notary   public,   each   of   who   must   certify   that   he   personally
examined   the   affiants   and   that   he   is   satisfied   that   they
voluntarily   executed   and   understood   their   affidavits.”
(underscoring and emphasis ours)

9. The   above­mentioned   provision  unambiguously   mandates  that   the

Affidavits   must   be   subscribed   and   sworn   to   before   a   prosecutor   or   government
official authorized to administer oath; 

10. It   is  ONLY   IN   THE   ABSENCE   OR   UNAVAILABILITY  of   the

foregoing officials that such affidavits may be certified before a notary public;

11. A   perusal   of   the   record   of   this   case   evidently   shows   that   the
Complainant has not even alleged the unavailability of the prosecutor or any other
government official who is authorized to administer oath to excuse the fact that only
an Acknowledgment was made in his Affidavit Complaint; 

12. Likewise, the Judicial Affidavits of the witnesses that were attached to
the   Affidavit   Complaint   were   likewise  not   “subscribed  and   sworn   to”   before   any
prosecutor or government official authorized to administer oath;
 13. To excuse the above­mentioned fact that the Judicial Affidavits of the
Witnesses were only attested to before a notary public, the Complainant once again
offered no proof or allegation regarding the  unavailability of the prosecutor or any
other government official who is authorized to administer oath to justify the non­
compliance with the mandate of the Rules; 

14. More importantly, the case of MARIE CALLO­CLARIDAD vs. PHILIP
RONALD   P.   ESTEBAN   and   TEODORA   ALYN   ESTEBAN 1  is   instructive   in
determining the ramifications of the failure to comply with the said certification
requirement. To state: 
x x x

The   CA   explained   that  the   requirement   for   the

certifications   under   the   aforecited   rule   was
designed   to   avoid   self­serving   and   unreliable
evidence from being considered for purposes of the
preliminary investigation, the present rules for which
do   not   require   a   confrontation   between   the   parties   and
their   witnesses;   hence,  the   certifications   were
mandatory, to wit:

In Oporto, Jr. vs. Monserate 2, it was held that the
requirement  set  forth  under Section  3, Rule 112 of
the   Revised   Rules   of   Criminal   Procedure   is
mandatory. This is so because the rules on preliminary
investigation   do   not  require   a  confrontation  between   the
parties. Preliminary investigation is ordinarily conducted
through   submission   of   affidavits   and   supporting
documents,   through   submission   of   affidavits   and
supporting documents, through the exchange of pleadings.
Thus,   it   can   be   inferred   that   the   rationale   for
requiring the affidavits of witnesses to be sworn to
before a competent officer so as to ensure that the
affidavits supporting the factual allegations in the
Complaint   have   been   sworn   before   a   competent
officer and that the affiant has signed the same in
the former’s presence declaring on oath the truth of
the   statement   made   considering   that   this   becomes
part of the bases in finding probable guilt against
the respondent. Well­settled is the rule that persons, such

1
 G.R. No. 191567, March 20, 2013
2
 A.M. No. MTJ­96­1109, April 16, 2001
 as an employee, whose unsworn declarations in behalf of a
party,   or   the   employee’s   employer   in   this   case,   are   not
admissible   in   favor  of   the   latter.  Further,   it  has   been
held   that   unsworn   statements   or   declarations   are
self­serving   and   self­serving   declarations   are   not
admissible in evidence as proof of the facts asserted,
whether   they   arose   by   implication   from   acts   and
conduct or were made orally or reduced in writing.
The   vital   objection   to   the   admission   to   this   kind   of
evidence is its hearsay character.

15. As a consequence of the non­compliance with the Rules, the Supreme
Court has clearly held that such UNSWORN STATEMENTS in both the Judicial
Affidavits accompanying the Affidavit Complaint including the Judicial Affidavit of
the Complainant himself are all self­serving and are not admissible in evidence as
proof of the facts asserted. Thus,  all the foregoing   Judicial Affidavits deserve no
probative value and should be treated as mere scraps of paper;

16. Hence, the Honorable Office of the City Prosecutor erred in considering
and   giving   weight   to   the   Judicial   Affidavits   of   the   Complainant,   as   well   as   the
Judicial Affidavits of his witnesses since all of their Judicial Affidavits were not
subscribed and sworn to before any prosecutor or government official authorized to
administer oath;

II. The   Rules   require   that   the

affidavits   must   be  subscribed   and
sworn to  BEFORE THE AUTHORIZED
OFFICERS in the absence of the latter,
any notary public.  The execution of an
Acknowledgement is not enough.

17. The   Supreme   Court   in   the   case   of   MAXIMINO   GAMIDO   Y

BUENAVENTURA, VS. NEW BILIBID PRISONS (NBP) OFFICIALS  defined the
phrase “subscribed and sworn to”. To state:

To subscribe literally means to write underneath, as one's
name; to sign at the end of a document (Black's Law Dictionary,
Fifth ed., 1279). To swear means to put on oath; to declare on
oath the truth of a pleading, etc. (Id., 1298). Accordingly, in a
 Jurat, the affiant must sign the document in the presence of and
take   his   oath   before   a   notary   public   or   any   other   person
authorized to administer oaths.

18. In   this   instant   case,   the   Affidavit   Complaint   were   merely

acknowledged before a consulate officer in the Philippine Embassy in Washington
D.C., United States of America and WAS NEVER SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO
before the said consulate officer;

19. Specifically,   the   aforementioned  “ACKNOWLEDGMENT”  in   the

Affidavit Complaint merely states that the Complainant is the same person who
executed the annexed document which is the Affidavit­Complaint executed on the
14th day of October by the Complainant. Further, the said Acknowledgement states
that   “   For   the   contents   of   the   annexed   document,   the   Embassy   assumes   no
responsibility”;

20. It is worthy to note that the Complainant never made an explanation
why he resorted to an Acknowledgment before the consular official considering the
fact that consular officials have the power and authority to administer an oath and
thus is one of the government officials contemplated in the above stated provision of
the Rules;

21. Furthermore, Section 1 of Rule II of A.M. No. 02­8­13­SC or the 2004
RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE defines an ACKNOWLEDGMENT as:

“Section   1.   Acknowledgment.   ­   “Acknowledgment”

refers to an act in which an individual on a single
occasion:

(a) appears   in   person   before   the   notary   public

and presents an integrally complete instrument or
document; 

(b) is   attested   to   be   personally   known   to   the

notary   public   or   identified   by   the   notary   public
through   competent   evidence   of   identity   as   defined
by these Rules; and

  (c)     represents   to   the   notary   public   that   the

signature   on   the   instrument   or   document   was
voluntarily affixed by him for the purposes stated in
the   instrument   or  document,   declares   that   he   has
executed   the   instrument   or   document   as   his   free
 and   voluntary   act   and   deed,   and,   if   he   acts   in   a
particular representative capacity, that he has the
authority to sign in that capacity.”

22. As defined above, an Acknowledgment only imparts that the signature
on the document was voluntarily affixed by the person executing the document for
the purposes stated in the document, and that he declares that he has executed the
document as his free and voluntary act and deed;

23. Clear enough, nowhere in an Acknowledgment can one see nor deduce
compliance with the requirements of Rule 112, Section 3 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure, which is the declaration under oath as to the truthfulness of
the statements embodied in the Affidavit Complaint before a competent officer. 

24. The   same   holds   true   with   regard   to   the   Affidavit   of   Witnesses
accompanying   the   Affidavit   Complaint.   While   it   be   proper   under   the   Judicial
Affidavit Rule to have the affiant subscribe the same before any notary public, this
act is INSUFFICIENT in a case before the Office of the Prosecutor since it does not
conform  to the mandatory requirements of the Rules with regard to preliminary
investigation;

25. Thus, an Acknowledgment, as well as the subscription before a notary
public cannot be interpreted to comply with the requirement of the aforementioned
Rules; 

III. Pursuant  to  part   III,   Section

14,  of   the  Manual   for   Prosecutors,
THE   OUTRIGHT   DISMISSAL   OF
THE COMPLAINT IS WARRANTED
if the Complaint and its supporting
Affidavits  have   not   been   duly
subscribed   and   sworn   to   as
prescribed   under   the   Rules   on
Criminal Procedure

26. The Manual for Prosecutors Part III, Section 14, paragraph (e) clearly
provide   that   if   the   Complaint   and   the   supporting   Affidavits   are   not   properly
subscribed and sworn to as prescribed under the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the
same shall cause its outright dismissal. To wit:
 SEC.   14.    Dismissal   of   complaint.   ­  The   following,   among   others,   shall
constitute sufficient basis for the outright dismissal of a complaint:

a) that   the   offense   charged   in   the   complaint   was

committed   outside   the   territorial   jurisdiction   of   the
Office of the Investigating Officer;

b) that,   at   the   time   of   the   filing   of   the   complaint,   the

offense charged therein had already prescribed;

c) that   the   complainant   is   not   authorized   under   the

provisions of pertinent laws to file the complaint;

d) that the acts and/or omissions alleged in the complaint
and/or   the   supporting   affidavits   do   not   sufficiently
show that a criminal offense or violation of a penal law
has been committed; or

 e)        
   that the complaint and the supporting affidavits
are   unsigned   and/or   have   not   been   duly   subscribed
and   sworn   to   as   prescribed   under   the   Rules   on
Criminal Procedure.

27. In addition, the Honorable Prosecutor stated in its Resolution that:

“Now, whether or not the said documents were
properly subscribed and notarized as mandated by
the   judicial   affidavit   rule   is   a   matter   beyond   the
jurisdiction of the undersigned to determine as we
are only interested in the criminal culpability of the
respondents.”

28. However, it is well settled that the Prosecutor is mandated, not by the
Judicial Affidavit Rule, but instead by the Rule 112, Section 3, Paragraph (a) of the
Revised   Rules   of   Criminal   Procedure   to   accept   and   give   weight   only   to   those
affidavits   that   are   properly   subscribed   and   sworn   to   before   any   prosecutor   or
government official authorized to administer oath;

29. Besides, the issue in this case is not only with regard to the compliance
of   the   Complaint   and   the   supporting   affidavits   with   the   Judicial   Affidavit   Rule
alone, but importantly with its conformity with the requirements of the Rules of
Criminal Procedure;

30. The   Honorable   Prosecutor   is   thus   gently   reminded   of   his

responsibilities to give weight and consideration only to Complaint and supporting
Affidavits   that   are   properly   subscribed   and   sworn   to   before   any   prosecutor   or
government official authorized to administer oath, in conformity with the Rules of
Criminal Procedure as well as the Manual for Prosecutors; 

31. Be it noted that Prosecutors are endowed with ample powers in order
that they may properly fulfill their assigned role in the administration of justice.  It
should   be   realized,   however,   that   when   a   man   is   hailed   to   court   on   a   criminal
charge, it brings in its wake problems not only for the accused but for his family as
well.   Therefore, it behooves a prosecutor to weigh the evidence carefully and to
deliberate thereon to determine the existence of a prima facie case before filing the
information in court.  Anything less would be a dereliction of duty 3. 

32. With all due respect to the Honorable Prosecutor, It is not only the
technical issues that herein respondent focused on.  The rules laid down under Rule
112, section 3 of the 1997 Rules of Court were not merely guide for the prosecutors
to follow or not  but are mandatory in nature;

33. To remind the Honorable Prosecutor, the reason for the requirement
that affidavits must be based on personal knowledge is to guard against hearsay
evidence.  The requirement of personal knowledge should have been strictly applied
considering that the allegations in affidavit complaint were not supported with any
evidence. The alleged adulterous relationship was based on his allegation that the
complainant allegedly saw the “love messages” between the respondents. Aside from
this bare allegations of the Complainant, the narration in the affidavit complaint of
alleged adulterous relationship of the respondents was based on the unsubscribed,
unauthenticated judicial affidavits of his witnesses which was just photocopied from
the cases filed by ________________;

34. The Honorable Prosecutor is likewise reminded that although the law
has accorded them broad prosecutorial powers, such an authority is not unfettered
because public prosecutors are constrained to adhere to the time­honored principle
that   a   finding   of   probable   cause   requires   substantial   evidence.   And   substantial
evidence is that which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion ;

35. In this case, for probable cause to exist, it is thus imperative that the
elements of Adultery must be established by COMPETENT EVIDENCE required by
the Rules in Preliminary Investigation;

3
Sales v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 143802, 16 November 2001, 369 SCRA 293, 305 citing Bernardo v. Mendoza,
G.R. No. L-37876, 25 May 1979, 90 SCRA 214, 220; Vda. De Jacob v. Puno, G.R. Nos. L-61554-55, 31 July 1984,
131 SCRA 144, 149.
 36. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in the case of PREFERRED HOME
SPECIALTIES, INC. VS. COURT OF APPEALS   enunciated that while probable
cause should be determined in a summary manner, there is a need to examine the
evidence   with   care   to   prevent   material   damage   to   a   potential   accused’s
constitutional right to liberty and the guarantees of freedom and fair play, and to
protect the State from the burden of unnecessary expenses in prosecuting alleged
offenses and holding trials arising from false, fraudulent or groundless charges;

37. Under the same vein, it is likewise worthy to state that Prosecutors
are   duty­bound   to   secure   the   innocent   against   hasty,   malicious   and   oppressive
prosecution and to protect him from an open and public accusation of a crime and
from the trouble, expense and anxiety of a public trial ;

38. Hence the Judicial Affidavits of the Complainant and his Witnesses
should have necessarily been disregarded by the Office of the City Prosecutor for
being hearsay and self­serving; thus,  are inadmissible in evidence; 

39. How can the Honorable Prosecutor engender a well­founded belief that
the crimes have been committed and that the Respondent is probably guilty when
there was NO evidence to support the complainant’s claim? In fact, the complaint
was   not   even   based   on   personal   knowledge   worse,   it   was   unsubscribed   and
unsworn;

40. Consequently,   given   that   the   facts   from   which   the   Honorable
Prosecutor   has   derived   its   findings   from   were   not   even   duly   established   by
competent evidence, what then will be the basis in finding a probable cause for the
crime of adultery?

PRAYER

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable
Office that the Resolution, dated __________________, recommending for the filing of
an information for Adultery against herein Respondents be REVERSED and SET
ASIDE, and that a Resolution be issued DISMISSING the Complaint.

Other reliefs, just and equitable in the premises, are likewise prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Davao City, Philippines. __________.
 NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

Administrative Officer
City Prosecution Office
__________________________

Please take notice that we are submitting the foregoing Motion for the kind
consideration   of   this   Honorable   Office   immediately   upon   receipt   hereof   sans
appearances and without further arguments.

Thank you.

Copy furnished:
VERIFICATION
Republic of the Philippines)
Davao City )S.S.
x­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­x

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE  

I,  ______________,   of   legal   age,   and   with   office   address   at

_______________________________________________________, Philippines, after having been
duly sworn to in accordance with law, depose and state:

1) I   am   a  staff  of  ______________________,   Counsel   for   the  Respondent,

___________________________________,  in the above­entitled case;

2) ______________________, I served a Motion for Reconsideration by registered mail
pursuant to Section 7, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court to:

IN   WITNESS   WHEREOF,   I   have   hereunto   set   my   hand

_________________________________

___________________
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ______________________ at Davao
City, Philippines; Affiant exhibiting to me _______________________________.

Doc. No.  ____;
Page No. ____;
Book No. ____;
Series of 20___.