Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

BRANCH 32
Quezon City

AAA & People of the Philippines,

Complainant,

-Versus- Criminal Case No. 74-SD (96)

For: HOMICIDE
Alejandro,
Accused,
x--------------------------------------------------x

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT

COMES NOW, the respondent, by the undersigned attorney, unto this

Honorable Court, most respectfully submit the instant answer, and in support
thereof, state, that;

1. The respondent, Alejandro, 23 years of age, single, resident of Barangay

Lagim, Quezon City, Philippines, after having sworn in accordance with
the law, does hereby, deny the allegations as contained in the Complaint
Affidavit as filed by plaintiff AAA and depose THAT:

2. The respondent, Alejandro, came home from a long tiring day of driving
a Public Utility Jeepney (PUJ) for 12 long hours.
3. Once home, the respondent’s friend, Noel Mendoza, asked Alejandro to
help the former (Mendoza) to irrigate the rice field but Alejandro refused
due to his exhaustion.

4. Alejandro, due to the aforementioned exhaustion, decided to sleep with

his wife inside their humble abode as early as eight (8) o’clock in the
evening and;

5. That the morning after, at approximately seven (7) o’clock in the

morning, he was informed by his brother-in-law of BBB’s death and that
it was not Alejandro who gave the statement that his relationship with
BBB was that of a mother and son. Rather, the remark was given by the
brother-in-law that brought the news of BBB’s death to Alejandro.
6. Alejandro was later arrested for violations of Homicide under Article 249
of Revised Penal Code of the Philippines.

7. The respondent, Alejandro, denies the allegations and states that he does
not know either AAA or BBB until the filing of the charges against him.

8. In contrast to AAA’s statement of fighting back against the alleged

perpetrator, Alejandro, the latter does not have any scars from scratches
on his back, given that the wound inflicted by AAA should be with great
force due to self-defense. The fingerprint of Alejandro did not match the
imprints found in the two instruments used for homicide. According to
Rules of The Court, Rule 134, Section 5, it states that:
 Substantial evidence. — In cases filed before administrative or
quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is supported
by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. (n)

9. That the lighting provided by the kerosene lamp was not sufficient to
accurately illuminate the face of the assailant/perpetrator;

10.That the appellant, AAA, suffered major head concussions from the
assailant’s blow to her cheek that rendered her unconscious. The trauma
caused by the assailant should affect AAA’s “sensorium” and, therefore,
should cloud her short-term memory and sensory which should affect her
credibility;

11.That the killing was done with extreme atrocity or cruelty and with
treachery which is characterized by having BBB beg for mercy and the
assailant stabbing and attacked with blunt force multiple times;

12.That Alejandro does not personally know AAA and BBB which does not
provide any possible criminal intent (Mens Rea) to commit the said
criminal act (Actus Reus); nor should the respondent have any reason to
commit said act in an extremely atrocious or cruel manner;

13.That the neighbor of Arlene P. Ramirez, Kyle Lopez, provided a

suspicious testimony due to the following reasons: (1) The distance of
Kyle Lopez’ house to BBB’s should not provide Kyle Lopez a plain sight
of the assailant’s escape from the premises; (2) the dark midnight should
not give sufficient illumination to identify the assailant accurately. This
does not follow the “In Plain Sight” Doctrine.
 14.In People of the Philippines v. Crisente Pepaño Nuñez, To give
allegations without support or in opposition to substantial evidence such
as biometrics and use of electronic devices is dangerous to the pursuit of
truth because of the frailty of human memory, and if sometimes, clouded
by a head trauma.

Leonen, J

“To convict an accused it is not sufficient for the prosecution to present a

positive identification by a witness during trial due to the frailty of human
memory…”

“...Criminal prosecution may results in the severe consequences of

deprivation of liberty, property, and, where capital punishment is
imposed, life. Prosecution that relies solely on eyewitness identification
must be approached meticulously, cognizant of the inherent frailty of
human memory.” — Leonen, J
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed before this

Honorable Office finds the accused, Alejandro, not guilty for violations
of Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code and that the
instant complaint be dismissed for lack of merit.

Just and equitable relief, under the premises, are likewise prayed
for.

April 28, 2023, Arellano Little Theater

_______________________
Name and Signature of the
Respondent or Counsel of
the Respondent

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ____ day of

___________ 20____ in ____________, _____________, Philippines.