Statement of Facts - Reply Affidavit

Statement of Facts – Reply Affidavit
Christopher Patrick Casserly, an Irish Citizen of legal age, and presently residing at Calle Marina 29, 2-1
080005 Barcelona, reiterates and re-pleads all positions and arguments contained in his Complaint-
Affidavit.
Mr. Casserly asserts that the counter-affidavit submit by respondent Mia Rota is an attempt to escape
criminal liability by mere denial and by claiming that the charges against her was bereft of any evidence.
The respondent claims that there was no probable cause to indict her and co-respondent Hubbard with
the crime of adultery as Casserly failed to allege in the Complaint any overt act constitutive of Adultery.
In response, Casserly asserts that in the complaint, he has: 1) categorically stated that the respondents
deported themselves as husband and wife publicly as evidenced on their social media photos, 2) when
he came to visit his daughter Summer in 2015, respondent Rota was pregnant and it was highly
improbable to be his because of physical impossibility as they were living in different countries, and 3)
the fact that co-respondent Hubbard simulated the birth certificate of Summer to make him appear as
the biological father surmises that he is aware of the marital status between complainant and
respondent Rota.
Moreover, the birth of respondent’s child, Joseph Edward Rota Hubbard, as claimed by complainant,
creates the presumption that the respondents are engaged in an adulterous relationship. The
complainant stresses that a direct proof of sexual act is not necessary as the crime of adultery can be
established by strong circumstantial and corroborative evidence that will lead a reasonable and just man
to conclude that the alleged act has been committed. Probable cause need not be based on clear and
convincing evidence beyond reasonable doubt and does not require that evidence would justify
conviction.
Likewise, the claim by respondent Rota that her pregnancy was through artificial insemination,
according to complainant, is highly unlikely, as the co-respondents have been cohabiting together and
are expecting their second child.
While respondent Rota imputes the doctrine of “unclean hands” in the case at hand as she alleges that
the complainant has a live-in partner, Casserly states that the present rule on recrimination in crimes is
that the husband’s misdeeds may only be considered as mitigating the liability of the wife.
Lastly, complainant proclaims that mere knowledge of the co-respondents illicit relationship is not
tantamount to consent or abandonment of his rights to pursue a criminal action against respondents as
he was only initially afraid that respondent Rota would hide his daughter from him as what she has
previously done.
Statement of Facts – Rejoinder-Affidavit
Mia Rota, a Filipino citizen of legal age, with address c/o CNDLAW at Unit 2201 Tycoon Center, Pearl
Drive, Ortigas Avenue, Pasig City, deposes the accusations against her.
Respondent Rota claims the complainant Casserly attempts to shift the burden of proof on her instead
of establishing probable cause against her and co-respondent Hubbard.
Likewise, respondent Rota also claims that the case against her and co-respondent Hubbard may not
prosper as complainant Casserly has: 1) failed to allege all material elements of the crime he is charging,
particularly “the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense” and 2) alleged all
constitutive elements of the crime particularly that she has had sexual intercourse with a man not her
husband.
Proof of the existence of sexual intercourse with a man not her husband shown by complainant to be: 1)
respondents deporting themselves to be husband and wife publicly, 2) pregnancy of respondent Rota
after complainant has been away for several months, and 3) the giving birth of respondent Rota to her
son, Joseph Edward Rota, are all mere presumptions of respondent Rota’s sexual intercourse with a man
not her husband.
To further her claim, respondent Rota asserts that the photos of her with co-respondent Hubbard are
only indicative of good relations between them and not suggestive of a sexual relation between them.
Similarly, the photos taken of the two of them in her house cannot be equated as proof that they are
cohabiting together as well. The claim that respondent Rota’s pregnancy is highly unlikely to be through
artificial insemination as complainant alleges that respondents live together is merely a pure conjecture
and probable cause demands more than bare suspicion.
Additionally, alleged in the written statement of Mr. Mojica is the fact that he sees co-respondent
Hubbard staying over the house of respondent Rota and is thus not implying that respondents deport
themselves as husband and wife nor that there exists a sexual relationship between them. Also,
respondent Rota stresses the deficiency of complainant in his complaint-affidavit as to stating the place
of commission of the offense, an essential element in determining jurisdiction of a court over a criminal
case. In conclusion, respondent Rota asserts that assuming that co-respondent Hubbard and her have
indeed committed adultery, complainants inaction despite knowledge is equated to consent that would
bar the filing of the case at hand in accordance to Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code.
Related Supreme Court Decisions:
1) G.R. No. 11895 December 20, 1916
2) G.R. NO. 155409 June 8, 2007
3) G.R. No. 96602 November 19, 1991
4) G.R. No. 9274 September 14, 1914

Statement of Facts - Reply Affidavit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Statement of Facts - Reply Affidavit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Statement of Facts – Reply Affidavit

1) G.R. No. 11895 December 20, 1916

2) G.R. NO. 155409 June 8, 2007

3) G.R. No. 96602 November 19, 1991

4) G.R. No. 9274 September 14, 1914

You might also like