Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTSICE
Manila Philippines

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Complainant,

IS NO. V-05-INV-13C-0148
For: RAPE

IS NO. V-05-INV-13C-0149
For: RAPE

IS NO. V-05-INV-13C-0150
For: ACTS OF LASCVIOUSNESS
-versus-
IS NO. V-05-INV-13C-0150
For: ATEMPTED RAPE

MANNY Z. REY,
Respondent.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

PETITION FOR REVIEW

With due respect, this is an appeal for the Honorable Department of

Justice to take a second look at the biased, illegal and disorderly RESOLUTION
issued by Investigating Prosecutor MAHARLIKA RAMON OAFERINA of the City
Prosecution Office of Naga City finding probable cause in the above-entitled
cases for two counts of RAPE, ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS and ATTEMPTED
RAPE filed by a daughter against her own father the dispositive portion of which
reads follows:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered the

undersigned Investigating Prosecutor finds
probable cause against respondent MANNY Z. REY
for the following crimes:

a. Two (2) counts of SEXUAL ABUSE defined and

penalized under Section 5 (b), Article III of RA
7610 for the acts committed in 2006 and June
2008. Bail in the amount of Php 180,000.. for
each case is hereby recommended.

b. QUALIFIED RAPE defined and penalized under

paragraph 1 (a) Article 266-A in relation to
Paragraph 1 of Article 266-B of the Revised
Penal Code for the act committed on August
2009. No bail is recommended.

1
 c. QUALIFIED RAPE BY SEXUAL ASSAULT
defined and penalized under paragraph 2,
Article 266-A in relation to last paragraph of
Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code for the
acts committed on October 2008. Bail in the
amount of Php200,000.00 is hereby
recommended.

d. ATTEMPTED RAPE BY SEXUAL ASSAULT

defined and penalized under Paragraph 2,
Article 266-A in relation to Article 6 of the
Revised Penal Code for the act committed on
December 24, 2009. Bail in the amount of
Php60,000.00 is hereby recommended.

Let therefore, five (5) separate informations

for each crime be filed in proper court.

SO RESOLVED.

Naga City, Philippines, 01 July 2013.

MAHARLIKA RAMON C. OAFERINA II

Assistant City Prosecutor

Approved:

JOSE DEMOSTHENES M. SALGADO

Deputy Regional Prosecutor
City Prosecutor, OIC “

The undersigned counsel enters his appearance for the respondent-

petitioner in the several cases above cited and prays that he be furnished with
copies of notices, orders and/or resolutions at the given address hereunder as
follows:

GUALBERTO C. MANLAGÑIT
Counsel for the Respondent
Attorney’s Roll No. 17869
PTR No. 198407 – April 22, 2013
IBP No. 886897 – January 2, 2013
MCLE No. IV-0007825 – Sept. 2012
Diamond St., Filoville Subd.,
Calauag, Naga City.

2
 BRIEF CURRENT RATIONALIZATION

MANNY Z. REY, petitioner-respondent in the above-entitled cases, by

counsel respectfully states that a complaint-affidavit, sans other evidence and
simply standing alone was filed by private-complainant CHER ADELINE REY
against her own father for SEXUAL MOLESTATIONS including RAPE.

At the outset, it is humbly submitted that the accusations if at once viewed

from even a short distance would seem to trump up moments of infamy as the
story although made up of untruths flaunts a discordant specter of a derelict
parental principle defiling respect and fidelity to a member of his own family and
exposed a wicked and vile conduct of a demonic persona that undoubtedly
tarnished Filipina womanhood. From a distance, such a respondent is rightly
damned.

With due respect, the accusation enduring in isolation is a very grave,

sickening and shocking accusation. Therefore, those tasked to administer justice
in such an atmosphere is, with due respect, expected to be not only filled with
concern, ardor and wisdom but must be so tenacious in seeking out what is really
true otherwise justice may be mortally injured.

However, with utmost deference, before we tackle what truly transpired in

these so called cases between father and daughter including a decadent mother
and a lesbian lover, may we respectfully point out that, as seen in the caption the
private complainant complained against four (4) alleged offenses namely two
counts for rape, one for acts of lasciviousness and one act of alleged attempted
rape.

However, in the questioned RESOLUTION the INVESTIGATOR found

probable cause for FIVE (5) CASES specifically two (2) counts of SEXUAL
ABUSE, one QUALIFIED RAPE, one QUALIFIED RAPE BY SEXUAL
ASSAULT and one ATTEMPTED RAPE BY SEXUAL ASSAULT. To provide
reference and hopefully enlightenment to the esteemed Department of Justice

we respectfully attach hereto a copy of the RESOLUTION finding probable

cause as ANNEX “A” hereof.

3
 To confess, we found difficulty in securing a copy of ANNEX “A” because
allegedly a copy of the same was mailed via the postal corporation. We find it
imperative to state here that the postal corporation is no longer workable in our
area as sometimes we receive our mails more than a month after they were
deposited in the post office. Therefore, what we did here is to write the esteemed
office of the Naga City Prosecutor pleading that we be furnished with a copy of
the RESOLUTIOIN if it was already available. We were REFUSED and advised
to wait for the mail. With due respect, we attach hereto our letter to the City

Prosecutions’ Office with the corresponding receipt thereof as ANNEX “B”

hereof.

With due respect, as we seek an insightful REVIEW of the City

Prosecution’s RESOLUTION finding probable cause and as we have initially
described the gravity of the offense heaped by private complainant CHER
ADELINE REY against her own father, we find it imperative to provide
immediately the respected REVIEWER of our petition with antecedent and
relevant facts that would immediately impart awareness of factual details of
incidents to the evaluator of the merit or demerit of the questioned resolution.

Hence, we say respectfully:

OPENING BACKGROUND ANALYSIS

THE INTRINSIC HATRED OF A MORALLY

DEPRAVED MOTHER AND HER LESBIAN
LOVER AGAI NST ACCUSED MANNY REY

The family of MANNY REY was once a well-knit and happy family until
one day, sometime in April of the year 2010, the wife, ERLIZA LAWRENCE REY,
ventured into debauchery and maintained an illicit relationship with a lesbian
lover, a certain MA. GUIA SENDICO. Of course they were caught by the
husband MANNY REY, the accused.

The peace turned to turmoil. The daughters JEAN ERL and CHER
ADELINE, the present private complainant, as expected sided with their father.
ERLIZA sought pardon promising reformation and change. She was forgiven and
everything went well again.

4
 But the calm did not endure. ERLIZA carried on with the deceitful
relationship with the tomboy lover. They were caught again and this time the
lesbian was hurt by MANNY REY. ERLIZA attempted to stab him but one
daughter JEAN ERL who happened to be present grabbed a knife and defended
her father.

To make a long story short, ERLIZA left home but she filed cases against
MANNY REY for alleged violation of R.A. 9262 and for SEXUAL
MOLESTATIONS against his daughters. The daughters once more came to the
rescue of their father and told the truth.

In JULY 16, 2010 the daughters JEAN ERL and CHER ADELINE REY,
the present complainant, submitted a sworn statement that they were NEVER

SEXUALLY MOLESTED by heir father MANNY REY. Their statements

were SUBCRIBED AND SWORN to before Asst. Pros. MAHARLIKA

RAMON OAFERINA II. As is normal and required, the prosecutor must have
reminded the affiant-daughters to tell the truth and upon satisfaction that they did,
he administered the oath. The City Prosecution Office of Naga City, acting on the
daughters’ statements DISMISSED the cases against MANNY REY.

THUS, the wife ERLIZA and the tomboy lover left for abroad together. But,
inculcated in their psyche is EXTREME HATRED against MANNY REY and
because of this intense and passionate revulsion there is no denial that they
craved his death or imprisonment to put him out of the way.

A BRIEF PREFACE

Courteously, we seek permission to reiterate here the same prefatory

statements that we have submitted with the prosecutors’ office to remind them
that justice is done not only by convicting the accused but also by acquitting the
innocent. Especially in cases where NO BAIL is recommended it is required that
the sentinels of the just rights of the people and guardians of the law must be
accurately careful in resolving criminal issues else a travesty looms close by.
This is so because here the accused is immediately subjected to stern and
critical punishment even before trial where his guilt has to be proven beyond
reasonable doubt. We do this because we believe that the preliminary
investigation conducted where probable cause was found is a farce and the
prosecutor violated all rules in the book and we will explain how.

5
 In short, the INVESTIGATOR in this case, intentionally or otherwise, failed
to apply a profound, immersed and accurate assessment of the factual and
authentic situations or state of affairs that surround or adjoin the unbelievable,
irritating and ill motivated accusations of CHER ADELINE REY, the private
complainant.

Doubtless, the INVESTIGATOR, from day one, already assumed that

there is truth in the accusations even before the clarificatory questioning where
he required a stenographer to take notes when the complainant was asked to
give answers for more than two hours and no stenographer when he somehow
entertained the respondent for 15 minutes more or less. We submit it is plainly
perceptible that his mind is focused not in finding the truth as to which of the
contradictory versions of accused and accuser is fact. He is more attracted by
the jurisprudences he cited and obviously he devised means to make them
applicable to these cases. This is not how truth is ascertained or how justice is
done. It is hence our humble submission that despite the investigating
prosecutor’s knowledge of the antecedents that would free the respondent from
responsibility, he merely closed his mind and found PROBABLE CAUSE relying
on jurisprudences that finds no application in these cases. This is a sad day for
justice and the required impartiality for its fortification.

We submit this is not the manner by which justice is attained and served.
From the INVESTIGATOR’S discussion, it is perceived and distinguished that
this bias against accused, pre-stored in his psyche and consciousness led him to
find probable cause in a straight jacket.

Hence, we respectfully contend that it is only the wisdom of this Honorable

DOJ that is not yet plagued with prejudice and partiality, may justice be obtained
by way of granting our Petition for Review. We say so immediately because the
complainant in these cases grumbles against alleged incidents that according to
her occurred years back or in 2006, 2008 and 2009 while the TRUTH is,

sometime in JULY 16, 2010, the same complainant and her sister JEAN ERL
REY, in defending their own father against the immorality of her mother,
submitted with the City Prosecution’s Office a sworn declaration (under oath) that
the accusations against their father that the former sexually molested them DID
NOT HAPPEN and are UNTRUE.

6
 The prosecutor before whom CHER ADELINE REY, the specific
complainant here, took her oath is no less than Assistant Prosecutor
MAHARLIKA RAMON OAFERINA, the same prosecutor who found probable

cause against the “father” (MANNY REY) in whose favor the sworn statement
was then executed. To show to this Honorable DOJ evidence to this effect,

accused is attaching hereto as ANNEX “C” hereof a copy of the statement

of complainant CHER ADELINE REY duly subscribed and sworn to before

Assistant Prosecutor MAHARLIKA RAMON OAFERINA.

These voluntary declarations of CHER ADELINE REY and JEAN ERL

REY, were believed by the prosecutor’s office, sworn to before them and used by

them to free the accused (MANNY REY) from the false accusations of sexual
molestation. WORST, the very same Assistant Prosecutor before whom CHER
ADELINE and JEAN ERL REY swore to the truth of their statements that their
father MANNY REY never sexually molested them is no less than Assistant
Prosecutor MAHARLIKA OAFERINA, the same investigator who found probable
cause now against the accused. WE submit this is mind-boggling.

Therefore, with due respect, we pose this query, can a prosecutor who
appears to be fascinated by jurisprudences sans connection or application to the
case at hand and who personally knows the antecedent facts that an accusation
is preposterous and incredible likely to be credible in his finding of probable
cause? HENCE, we restate humbly that in this case, as will be shown again, the
private complainant who is no less than a disgruntled, weird and deceptively livid
daughter whose routine acts are off the wall, must not be believed in her
incredible tales especially against the backdrop of clear evidence that she
cuddled a deep ill motive that ripened into grim hate against her own father.

This hatred is fanned more by the manipulation and inducements of an

immoral mother who is under the hegemony of a lesbian lover.

Ergo, if the investigator is skilled and fair, her sad stories will merit no
honest belief from him because antecedent undeniable events show without
doubt that CHER ADELINE intrinsically lied in her false and biased complaints.
Very sad, this is known to the prosecutor but, for strange reasons, he shirks the
truth.

7
 This Honorable DOJ will also readily see that the investigator did not
deeply assess or adeptly scrutinize the veracity of complainant’s fictional stories.
He swallowed them hook, line and sinker so that when he eventually cited
several jurisprudences, the same do not actually apply to the true facts of these
cases. The validity of the jurisprudences is not questioned but the actual facts of
these cases as imagined by the complainant upon whom the jurisprudences are
supposed to apply are extraneous and detached from the true facts.

Yet, alas, it is wide open that the investigator, despite the inconsistencies
not only in the testimony of the accuser CHER ADELINE REY, gone wild, but in
the indicated conflicting circumstances that gravitates around each incident
subject of the accusations, still considered them as clad with probable cause.

Forced, we have to say that the INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED violated

every rule in the prosecutors’ MANUAL.

So we state …

THE HEAVY-HANDED FINDING OF PROBABLE

CAUSE BY A SEEMINGLY INEPT INVESTIGATOR

On June 14, 2013, Prosecutor Oaferina called the parties for a clarificatory
hearing. Under the Rules of Court, the investigating prosecutor may set a hearing
for clarificatory questioning within 10 days from the submission of the counter-
affidavit/s and other documents or from the expiration of the period of their
submission, to propound clarificatory questions to the parties or their witnesses if
he believes that there are matters which need to be inquired into personally by
him.
In said hearing, the parties shall be afforded the opportunity to be present
but without the right to examine or cross-examine. If they so desire, they may
submit written questions to the investigating prosecutor who may propound such
questions to the parties or witnesses concerned.

On said date, however, respondent who came to the Office of the City
Prosecutor not a minute late, was made to wait outside for about a couple of
hours. It was only after the two-hour waiting time that he was informed that
questioning to the private complainant, who was then assisted with a counsel,
was already done.

8
 He was then entertained by the investigating prosecutor for only about
fifteen (15) minutes and then he was asked to leave without even asking
clarificatory questions or allowing respondent to respond to any additional matter
raised during the process which the good prosecutor calls clarificatory hearing.

Said incident should invite suspicion on how the investigating prosecutor

handled or mishandled the cases. He did not even afford herein respondent of
the chance to confront the complainant. Respondent was deprived of the chance
to put in the records answers to the fabricated lies because there was no record
or transcript of stenographic notes when he was called by the good prosecutor.
And respondent was denied access to such record until now.

As a matter of policy embodied in the Manual for Prosecutors which was

published by the Department of Justice, the investigating prosecutor may record
the facts and issues clarified and/or the questions asked and answer/s given
during the clarificatory questioning which shall be signed by the parties
concerned and/or their respective counsels. Said notes shall form part of the
official record of the case. This is important because parties who desire to file an
appeal or petition for review of the investigating prosecutor’s resolution may, at
their option, cite specific portions of the oral testimony of any parties/witnesses
by referring to the notes taken by the investigating prosecutor. Unfortunately for
the respondent, who is being charged of cases including that where no bail is
recommended, the incident which the “good” prosecutor calls clarificatory hearing
no record or notes were taken either because of negligence or ignorance of the
written policies of the National Prosecution Service, or by intentionally discarding
the same. In either case, the investigating prosecutor simply did not do his job by
the book.

In the resolution of the cases, marred with “cut and paste” of jurisprudence, it
would readily show that the “good” prosecutor has already in his mind a tailored
fit discussion. Selected facts were included in the resolution and juxtaposed to
with some jurisprudence.

From the lengthy “cut and paste” discussion, the investigating prosecutor
miserably failed to consider the guiding principles in reviewing rape cases as
articulated by the Supreme Court in People of the Philippines versus Joel
Lamarroza, November 24, 1998, citing People of the Philippines versus Subido,
253 SCRA 196 (1996). Considering the severity of the penalties prescribed for
rape, the following doctrinal principles were provided:

9
 1. An accusation for rape can be made with facility, it is difficult to prove but
more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove;

2. In view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons
are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized
with extreme caution;

3. The evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and
cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of evidence for the
defense.

Having said the foregoing, it has become both amusing and sad how the
good prosecutor may face the altar of justice to say that these very serious
cases, albeit UNTRUE, were righteously investigated by him with no other aim
except to lay before the courts the clean facts cautiously and circumspectly
brought into being in an honest preliminary investigation.

In the meanwhile, the respondent’s life has irrationally dimmed and he can
only look up to a Good judgment of the DOJ in finding merit to our petition for
Review to right the wrong he had discriminatorily suffered.

Hence, we restate here what we have already relayed to the prosecution’s

office that only fell on deaf ear and blind mind as follows:

“We believe, honestly and compellingly that the task and duty of PUBLIC
PROSECUTORS is not only to prosecute a case or convict an accused but
primarily to see to it that JUSTICE is done to everyone. This DID NOT HAPPEN
in this particular preliminary investigation where probable cause is found
anchored on ineptitude and callous mind-set.

We humbly contend that a prosecutor who dismisses a case because he

deeply examined the evidence and found basis or substance that justice will be
better served if respondent is bailed out of a possible finding of probable cause
and saved from the rigors of unnecessary trial, the burdens and pains that
pointlessly incommode his life, is more noble and dignified than one who
regularly and customarily find probable cause to imprison the respondent
especially when NO BAIL is available. This does not seem to be absorbed by the
prosecutor.

10
 With due respect, we will attach hereto documents, affidavits and
resolutions that will EXPLAIN FULL WELL that the accusation was resorted to
and insisted on despite its being UNTRUE because of the shocking and horrific
character of the complainant as shown in actual incidents.

Doubtless, complainant CHER ADELINE ostensibly has a wild and

strange mind aggravated by unwell and untamed motives. The evidences that we
are attaching hereto will prove, without doubt, that her conduct is essentially
bereft of any moral fiber.

HENCE, she is an INCREDIBLE WITNESS narrating an incredible story.

AND, the INVESTIGATOR, seemingly forgetful, feeble and pathetic believed the
fantasy and found probable cause. We therefore look forward to the wisdom of
this Department of Justice.

OUR PETITION FOR REVIEW

THUS, we seek a review of the RESOLUTION finding probable

cause because, with due respect, we have examined painstakingly the

RESOLUTION of the INVESTIGATING PROSECUTOR and we found that said
resolution ignored and closed its eyes to the patent incredibility of the
complainant.

Without malice, we have to say that the well-regarded investigator simply

look right through the absurd and inconceivable falsehoods in the sad stories of
the private complainant who was undoubtedly, soliciting amelioration from the
guardians of the law, then the prosecutor ventured to resolve the presence of
PROBABLE CAUSE. At the risk of being repetitious, accused state again that the
finding of probable cause by the INVESTIGATOR rests on quicksand because

said investigator himself is aware that the complaints are untrue and they were

belied by the complainant herself before him under oath in July

16, 2010.

In brief, the INVESTIGATOR assumed the truth of the story from the
beginning but that upon the other hand, the investigating prosecutor, although
appearing to have only glanced over the positive evidence of the
respondent/accused, actually snubbed the relevance and credibility of his claims.

11
THUS, accused found NO JUSTICE in the PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION.
Inevitably, there is one last hope for justice … a PETITION FOR REVIEW
upon which the accused may only rely on.

BRIEFLY
THE INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED BY THE
PROSECUTOR FINDING PROBABLE CAUSE
AGAINST THE ACCUSED MANNY REY FOR
FIVE (5) CRIMINAL OFFENSES, DISCUSSED

Humbly, we invite attention to the FINDINGS of the good INVESTIGATOR

who did not, in the least, even try to weigh the narrations of the complainant
whether they are believable or not.

So, we mention briefly that PROSECUTOR found probable cause as

follows:

* SEXUAL ABUSE

That sometime in 2006, complainant averred that, while she was

sleeping inside a room at No. 60 Dayangdang, Naga City, respondent allegedly
was kneading her thighs and that the same act was repeated several times.

Unfortunately, this alleged offense purportedly happened sometime in 2006

without mentioning the month or date of the alleged commission of the felony.
This is exactly ONE YEAR. And, one year consists of 12 months.

Doubtless, it is almost impossible for the accused to GUESS when that

alleged incident happened so that it is almost impossible to present an intelligent
defense especially when there is actually nothing to remember. Thus, this is an
accusation of SEXUAL MOLESTATIONS apparently converted by the

RESOLUTION into SEXUAL ABUSE.

But, the INVESTIGATING PROSECUTOR OAFERINA already knew that

CHER ADELINE swore BEFORE HIM that no sexual molestation by her father

MANNY REY happened to her. But, MR. OAFERINA reasoned that CHER

ADELINE lied before him because of “FEAR” and the “SAFETY OF HER

MOTHER”. This is ridiculous because Mr. OAFERINA himself knew at that time
that CHER ADELINE, the complainant, was yet in favor of her father MANNY
REY.

12
 AND, without blinking an eye the distinct investigating prosecutor
MAHARLIKA RAMON C. OAFERINA II, found PROBABLE CAUSE for FIVE
COUNTS of SEXUAL MISDEEDS when actually, by the COMPLAINT
AFFIDAVIT of CHER ADELINE REY, there were only four dates where she
complained for alleged sexual molestations. 6 counts were discussed but only 5
cases were filed.

They are -

* SEXUAL ABUSE

CHER ADELINE averred that sometime in June 2008, complainant

MANNY REY allegedly went inside her room. Then, CHER ADELINE continued
that MANNY REY inserted a tape of a BOLD MOVIE so that she may watch it.
From her own version she said that her mother was merely outside baking a
cake. Then, in order that NO ONE MAY HEAR HER SHOUTS OF PROTESTS,
her father increased a lot the volume of the TV.

The foregoing version of a story of CHER ADELINE is not only

UNTRUTHFUL but RIDICULOUS. Imagine, her mother is just outside the room
baking cake and the volume of the bold movie was so increased that it would be
heard outside purportedly to prevent anyone to hear the conversations or even
screams inside the room. Probably the screams or conversations inside the room
may not be heard because it is the high volume of the TV that is heard.

BUT, WHAT WILL BE HEARD OUTSIDE considering that the movie

inserted is a bold movie. Is it not the impious, irreverent and arousing “ohs”

and “ahs” of the sexually aroused actors and actresses nearing their

“CLIMAX”?

From this alone it is clear that no father would molest her daughter or
anyone almost in the presence of his wife. But, the prosecutor did not even blink
an eye to believe the tale that proceeded from an incredible source. This
accusation is merely a part of a series of fabrications invented by a mischievous
mind of a girl branded by no less than a lady prosecutor of the City as one whose
character lacks moral fiber.

13
 * QUALIFIED RAPE

That sometime in August 2009, (no specific date) respondent

allegedly committed rape against complainant when the latter was watching TV
inside her parents’ bedroom when allegedly MANNY REY suddenly locked the
room and increased the volume of the TV. This is also hard to believe because
the event that allegedly transpired is very important to her. It is an event that she
ought not to forget. But in her complaint she did not cite any specific date and
time.

These matters are very important, and being so, she can’t be expected to
forget them. This fact alone is a sure badge of her incredibility. This is not
believable. But, the prosecutor believed in the incredibility of the story and found
probable cause.

Then complainant further said in her affidavit that respondent allegedly

mounted her and forced her to grasp and fondle his penis. Complainant also
claimed that respondent removed her panty and forcibly spread her legs and
then forcibly inserted his penis into her vagina where complainant felt severe
vaginal pain.

The accused had explained this incongruous situation in his SWORN

AFFIDAVIT submitted as COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT with the prosecution’s office.
With due respect, instead of arguing long and burden this court, accused humbly

requests that he be allowed to attach such COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT of

MANNY REY as ANNEX “D” hereof. The narration therein by the accused is
more COMPLETE.

* QUALIFIED RAPE BY SEXUAL ASSAULT

That sometime in October 2008, while complainant and her sister were
sleeping, complainant alleged that she felt pain in her vagina and that she was
surprised and shocked because she saw respondent seated beside her while
respondent was inserting his finger in her vagina.

The situation as narrated is definitely bizarre and nonsensical. Nobody in

his right mind, especially a father, would try to molest her daughter sleeping side
by side with another daughter.

14
 Besides, it is informed that CHER ADELINE and JEAN ERL have no
specific room in the house at No. 32-3, Dayangdang St., Naga City. When they
are there, they sleep in the room with MANNY’s sister, MA. PORFERIA and
CINDY. Again, the narration of CHER ADELINE here is a FALSEHOOD. But,

again, accused MANNY REY’s COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT attached as ANNEX

“D” explains that the story is merely invented by CHER ADELINE’s weird mind
pushed by her hate now against her own father as goaded by her mother from
whom she now rely for financial support and her lesbian lover who are both living
abroad.

* ATTEMPTED RAPE BY SEXUAL ASSAULT

That sometime in December 24, 2009, on the eve of the Christmas

celebration, complainant alleged that the respondent switched off the light of the
house, stood in front of her and lower his pants and brief and she further claimed
that respondent grabbed her hair and tried to insert his penis into her mouth.
Said incident allegedly happened at their residence at. No. 60 Dayangdang St.,
Naga City where the accused allegedly accompanied complainant as she said,
she would get money to buy firecrackers.

This is false.

If it is true that there were already antecedent incidents that happened

before December 24, 2009, why would CHER ADELINE still trust her father to go
to that house, alone, where she may again be sexually molested. The series of
alleged incidents appears to be ridiculous to be believed.

What is true, without further argument, is what maybe seen in a picture

that, with due respect, we are attaching hereto as ANNEX “E”. There are two

pictures in this ANNEX “E”. The two (2) pictures depict a happy family and a
happy CHER ADELINE. Said picture was taken exactly on December 24, 2009 at
almost midnight during a party at house No. 32-A, Dayangdang.

No doubt, CHER ADELINEs’ story is bereft of any possibility of belief.

YET, based from the foregoing, the Investigator concluded in his

RESOLUTION and said, to wit:

15
 “This very same fear for her and her mother’s life

was the reason why the complainant made an

untrue statement in her affidavit that her father

did not molest her and her sister Bubbles. This

fact was stated by the complainant during the

clarificatory hearing conducted on June 14,

2013.”

With due respect, we submit that the above-mentioned allegations are

definitely UNTRUE. For, how can Asst. Prosecutor OAFERINA deny it when
CHER ADELINE took her oath before him DENYING that she was sexually
assaulted or molested by his father, the accused MANNY REY? Why must the
INVESTIGATOR search for a reason to justify a blatant denial by CHER
ADELINE? This, too, is a sign of absurdity.

So we say, on July 16, 2010 the complainant CHER ADELINE REY,

herself, made an Affidavit that totally contradicts her statement as found in her

Complaint-Affidavit dated March 22, 2013, to wit:

“That it is not true that my father molested me

and my sister Jean Erl. In fact this issue has been

settled already by the family and we deny such

allegation and Jean Erl (Bubbles) even told our
mother “Mama di man po baga kami nagsabi ng
ganyan.” During the time that she brought up that
incident my father called for a family conference
and resolved the issue.”

Such affidavit was made by the complainant when her mother filed a case
against the respondent. In fact, the sister of the complainant, namely JEAN ERL
made a detailed account of what happened during the quarrel of the respondent
and ERLIZA, his wife. The sister of the complainant even said that she defended
the respondent and stopped her mother from hurting his father.

16
 The full and detailed account in the SWORN STATEMENTS made by the
complainant in 2010 before Assistant Prosecutor MAHARLIKA RAMON

OAFERINA could not have been made on account of fear and are

found to be credible since these were the reasons why such case

was dismissed by the Prosecution’s Office of Naga City.

Furthermore, the statement of the complainant that she has no knowledge

of the illicit relation of her mother with a lesbian is a TOTAL FALSITY. There
were several testimonies, statements and affidavits to establish the fact that the
complainant had a first hand knowledge of her mother’s affair with another

woman, a TOMBOY.

The mere fact that the complainant would lie about the relationship of her
mother would altogether question and taint her other statements that were
contradictory as to what she previously testified before the same Investigator
who took her statement in July of the year 2010. We have a dictum in law that

sates that falsity in one is falsity in all.

CHER ADELINE is all along conscious of her statement subscribed and

sworn to before Asst. Pros. OAFERINA in 2010. At that time, she was still siding
with her father in the quarrel against her mother who has an illicit relation with a
lesbian or a TOMBOY.

Hence, Pros. OAFERINA cannot now feign that CHER ADELINE gave

and swore to that statement in 2010 ”out of fear” and “to save her

mother” as Pros. Oaferina said so in his RESOLUTION finding probable cause.

We maintain, it would be the apex of hypocrisy if Pros., OAFERINA would

insist that he believed the complainant that such statement was given “out of

fear “ and to “protect her mother”. We could not believe that the
investigator would be so myopic and appear thoughtless that he would insist that
the said statement was given under the above-mentioned condition. Definitely,
he knew that that is not the case. He knew because the City Prosecution’s Office
dismissed the case against MANNY REY for sexual molestation because there
was NO TRUTH TO THE ACCUSATIONS against MANNY REY and this was
based on the statements under oath of both CHER ADELINE and JEAN ERL
sworn to before Pros. OAFERINA.

17
 NOW, such statement of the private complainant of July 16, 2010 being
the TRUTH, then there is NO POSSIBILITY that accused committed acts of

sexual molestations PRIOR to July 16 2010. We submit this is elementary.

“FALSUS IN UNO, FALSUS IN OMNIBUS”

(FALSITY IN ONE IS FALSITY IN ALL)

There is a doctrine in law whereby a falsehood, especially when made

under oath, would render all the other allegations of the same narrator, speaker
or affiant as incredible. They ought not to be believed. One lie will render all
statements of the same person who made the falsehood as unbelievable.
This is a rule observed by ALL COURTS OF LAW and a duty of all officers
of the court to follow and abide by. In this case, there is NO DOUBT, that CHER
ADELINE REY, sometime in July 16, 2010 executed a sworn declaration to the
effect that, although repetitious now -

“That it is not true that my father molested me and my

sister Jean Erl. In fact this issue has been settled already

by the family and we deny such allegation and Jean Erl

(Bubbles) even told our mother “Mama di man po baga kami

nagsabi ng ganyan.” During the time that she brought up

that incident my father called for a family conference and

resolved the issue.”

To emphasize more, yet at the risk of being repetitious, Prosecutor

OAFERINA now tenaciously holds that CHER ADELINE’S STATEMENT of July

16, 2010 is FALSE because the same prosecutor said in his RESOLUTION that
…
“This very same fear for her and her

mother’s lives was the reason why the complainant

made an untrue statement in her affidavit that her

father did not molest her and her sister Bubbles. This fact

was stated by the complainant during the clarificatory

hearing conducted on June 14, 2013.”

18
 Therefore, it cannot now be denied that Prosecutor OAFERINA already

knew during his called “CLARIFICATORY CONFERENCE” on JUNE 14, 2013

at 10:00 in the morning that CHER ADELINE lied under oath. The
esteemed prosecutor, despite such knowledge of a falsity under oath continued
to BELIEVE CHER ADELINE.

On the other hand, MANNY REY’s defense was considered by him as

already discarded by the Supreme Court and he cited several jurisprudences.
We submit this is utterly iniquitous. The INVESTIGATOR ought to have followed
the basic rules. In RESOLVING the case he ought to have followed the principle

of “falsity in one is falsity in all”.

Assistant Prosecutor MAHARLIKA OAFERINA is even REMISS in his

sworn duties as such prosecutor. Here he has a case where an affiant
committed PERJURY. He knew it because it was BEFORE HIM that CHER
ADELINE subscribed and swore to the PERJURY.

So, WHY DID NOT PROS. OAFERINA FILE A CASE FOR

PERJURY AGAINST CHER ADELINE FOR LYING IN HER SWORN

STATEMENTS GIVEN AND SWORN TO BEFORE HIM ON JULY 16,

2010?

AND, sad to note, the defenses made by the respondent was totally
disregarded by the Investigator and were not even considered in the
determination of the truthfulness of the statements made by the complainant.
Hence, the sole basis for the determination of probable cause against the
respondent is the complaint affidavit of CHER ADELINE which OAFERINA even
failed to assess intensely and truly.

It is ELEMENTARY, according to the High Court that the crime of RAPE is

committed usually without witnesses except the alleged victim and the accused.
It is hence, very difficult to prove.

But, it is even harder for the respondent or accused to defend. And, worst,
since it is not a bailable offense, the accused stands to suffer immediately and
long until his innocence is eventually proved. This is not how justice is
administered in this country.

19
 THE FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS AND
ILL MOTIVES OF THE COMPLAINANT

To provide clarity to the Honorable DOJ in the hope that our petition for
review will find merit respondent also narrates hereunder the factual antecedents
and distinctly enumerate the ILL MOTIVES of the complainant.

Long ago, the REY family was a well-knit and happy family. The children
CHER ADELINE and JEAN ERL grew up cared for but spoiled when the father,
the accused herein was well off.

Then, as to be expected in life a stark incident occurred. The wife of the

accused namely ERLIZA L. REY ventured into an illicit, immoral and intimate
relationship with a lesbian lover.

One day, about May 15, 2010, when MANNY REY arrived home he
caught his wife in a very compromising situation with her lesbian lover. MANNY
had prior suspicions and later on knowledge of this illicit relationship of his wife
because his two daughters relayed it to him.

So, as expected, trouble began to invade the peaceful family. MANNY

REY became angry and a squabble ensued between MANNY and MA. GUIA
SENDICO, the tomboy. At that particular instance, JEAN ERL who was present
sided with her father and in the course of her anger, she wrestled down MA.
GUIA SENDICO to the floor. The tomboy ran away.

The particular incident happened at the residence of Manny Rey’s in-laws

at No. 60, Dayangdang, Naga City. After the tomboy left, ERLIZA L. REY his
wife, humbled herself and pleaded for pardon. She promised that from that day
on she will amend her crooked ways. MANNY REY was willing to forgive her. So
everything was well again.

However, about June 17, 2010, MANNY REY caught her again and
also as expected, there was trouble. Fortunately, no serious consequences took

place. However, about June 21, 2010, MANNY REY arrived home and he
caught his wife “texting” the lesbian lover. MANNY REY confiscated the
cellphone and he was able to read the communications between his wife and the
lesbian.

20
 This provoked trouble when ERLIZA REY took hold of a sharp instrument
but the daughter JEAN ERL REY rushed towards the kitchen and took hold of a
kitchen knife. She hurried to the sala and warned her mother ERLIZA in the
dialect as follows: “Porbaran mong saksakun si Papa ta gagadanon ta ka”.
(You try to stab PAPA and I will kill you.) This shows that there was no cause for
fear on the part of the daughter because at that time they were siding with their
father.

To make a very long story short, the herein accused requests permission

to attach hereto MANNY REY’S “ENTRY OF APPEARANCE AND BRIEF

MANIFESTATION OF COUNSEL” together with all the attachments thereto as

ANNEX “F”. With the attachment of ANNEX “F” the Honorable DOJ may be
provided with a REFERENCE in case it so desires to verify specific matters.

The trouble of the family continued. At such time, CHER ADELINE and
JEAN ERL were yet staying at No. 60. Dayangdang, Naga City. But then, about
July 6, 2010, MANNY REY received a SUBPOENA requiring him to file counter-

affidavit because he was being charged for MALTREATMENT IN RELATION

TO R.A. 9262 and SEXUAL MOLESTATIONS allegedly committed against

her daughters CHER ADELINE and JEAN ERL.

On July 16, 2010, CHER ADELINE and JEAN ERL separately

executed SWORN STATEMENTS insisting that the said acts of molestation

against them did not happen. They subscribed and sworn to the truth of their

statements before Assistant Prosecutor MAHARLIKA OAFERINA.

Before this prosecutor, they claimed that their sworn statements contain the truth.

This means that there was no fear on their part posed by the accused MANNY
REY when they executed their respective statements under oath. Neither was

there any instance that they made the statements to protect their mother.

Because of the charges of sexual molestations, representatives of the

DSWD came. The DSWD interviewed the two daughters. They intended to take
them into the DSWD’s custody. The daughters however refused.

21
 On July 7, 2010, the mother of MANNY REY and grandmother of CHER

ADELINE and JEAN ERL, namely SHIRLEY REY, together with his sister, MA.
PORFERIA a.k.a. WITWIT and CHER ADELINE went to Bantay Familia. And
CHER ADELINE voluntarily submitted herself for interview.

The interview was confidentially conducted. However, after the interview,

Bantay Familia thru SHIELA CONDINO and EVANGELINE MANALO of DSWD
suggested that they will conduct another interview at the residence of MANNY
REY at No. 32-3 Dayangdang, Naga City.

The SWORN STATEMENT of SHIRLEY REY, grandmother of CHER

ADELINE is attached hereto as ANNEX “G”. This affidavit is enlightening.

After a few days, the said representatives of Bantay Familia and DSWD
interviewed the sisters CHER ADELINE and JEAN ERL. Aside from the
interview, it was suggested that CHER ADELINE and JEAN ERL be brought to
NBI Naga City for physical and medical examination.

It turned out after the medical examination that there are healed

lacerations found at the vagina of CHER ADELINE. When asked how it

came about, she explained that she had an intimate friend and there were
intimate incidents between them that probably caused the healed lacerations.

A medical result was issued by the NBI Naga City. This medical

result is humbly requested to be attached and mark as accused ANNEX “H”.

It is therefore definite that MANNY REY is not the cause of the findings of the
healed lacerations in the vagina of CHER ADELINE.

Therefore, it only follows that the recent medical certificate presented

by CHER ADELINE before Assistant Prosecutor Oaferina was merely a rehash

of that medical certificate issued by the NBI finding such healed lacerations on
her vagina. From the DSWD and the NBI, they returned to the house at No. 32,
Dayandang, Naga City.

22
 With due respect, accused respectfully pleads to stop here his narrations
of the antecedent events as it might burden much this Honorable Department of
Justice.

Instead, may we, with due respect, refer to the attachments we have

made in “ENTRY OF APPEARANCE AND BRIEF MANIFESTATION OF

COUNSEL”, (ANNEX “F”), the AFFIDAVIT OF CHER ADELINE, ANNEX

“F-1” MANNY REY’s COUNTER AFFIDAVIT and ANNEX “F-2” PICTURES of

MANNY REY’S family showing CHER ADELINE on December 24, 2010,

ANNEX “F-3” is the statement of the grandmother SHIRLY REY and

ANNEX “F-4” is the MEDICAL RESULT issued by the NBI confirming healed

lacerations on the vagina of CHER ADELINE, ANNEX “F” is the ENTRY OF

APPEARANCE and BRIEF MANIFESTATION of counsel where there are
important attachments that may also be made reference by this Honorable DOJ.

To complete the version of the accused, may we also attach hereto his

“FINAL MANIFESTATION” so that in determining whether there is or there is

no probable cause, the Honorable Court may be provided with a reference so

that doubts may be dispelled. This too is attached as ANNEX “I”.

So, from that day on JEAN ERL and CHER ADELINE left the house at No.
60, Dayangdang, Naga City and they lived with their father at No. 32,
Dayangdang, Naga City. In that house also lived their father’s sisters and a few
friends of their father’s sisters.

THE ILL MOTIVES OF CHER ADELINE

The rift between MANNY REY, on the one hand, and ERLIZA REY and
MA. GUIA SENDICO, the tomboy, on the other hand, continued and as it
worsened the wife ERLIZA and her tomboy lover left for abroad. They stayed and
worked at Taiwan. In the meanwhile, the good relationship between the two
daughters and their father MANNY REY continued.

The latter was then well off when he was yet managing the STL. However,
when it was stopped, MANNY REY encountered monetary difficulties so that he
could no longer provide for the luxuries and caprices of his daughters.

23
 To clarify to the Honorable DOJ, the ILL MOTIVES of CHER ADELINE
against the accused, the statement of the accused himself respecting such evil
motive is copied hereunder:
“I like to emphasize, based on the facts mentioned
above, that at first my daughter CHER ADELINE was on
my side in the squabble between me and my wife. As a
matter of fact I have been giving them almost all that
they ask and need. I like to show to them that even if
their mother is no longer with us, I am capable of giving
them all their needs that even exceeded what other
parents would no longer give their children.

In short, unfortunately, I SPOILED my children.

One time CHER ADELINE even asked me to give her
more than P200,000.00 for expenses for (OJT) ON THE
JOB TRAINING in Mariners Polytechnic Colleges to go
to the United States.

When I tried to refuse because then my source of

revenue (STL OPERATION) was stopped, she began to
hate me saying, OK, if you cannot give me I will ask help
from others, apparently from her mother. I was hurt by
this and there was already a distance between me and
her.

Then, about September 29, 2012, my sister

“MANAY”, (MA. PORFERIA REY) was able to find out
from her IPAD that was used by JEAN ERL (BUBBLES)
that my daughters were contracting the tomboy. I became
very angry and chided my daughters. That night I told
them, in a confrontation … “PWEDE MAN KAMONG
MAG-CONTACT KI MAMA NINDO BAKO LANG SA
HAYOP NA TOMBOY NA IYAN TA IYO BAGA IYAN
ANG “CAUSE” KAN PAGSUWAYAN MI NI MAMA
NINDO.”

Then about October 2012, at the CWC Capitol, I

told them “IBALIK KO NA KAMO KI MAMA NINDO…
NI SINGKONG DULING MAYO KAMONG KAKUKUA
SAKUYA. KUN HABO NA KAMO SAKUYA HABO NA
MAN AKO SAINDO. PUON SA PAGKA-PUON KAMO
AN PIG-AASIKASO KO… AASIKASUHON KO NA
MAN AN BUHAY KO.”

24
 This sowed a deep seated hate in CHER ADELINE
and BUBBLES. Then, they were ready to admit, believe
and follow again whatever dictates their mother would
instruct them to go. They already sided with their mother
and the tomboy.

This angered me that I told them as follows: “…

maglipat na kamo sa balyong harong… ki lola nindo…
pero gusto kong maka-ulay si mama nindo nganing
malinaw… ta habo ko nang makadangog pa nin kun anu-
anong tataramon kaya kaulayon ko si MAMA nindo.”

So, I and my daughters talked. They said that they

will leave the house on October 30, 2012 and they will
transfer from the house at No. 32-3 Dayangdang to the
house at No. 60, the house of their grandmother.

But I know that they already harbored ill feelings

against me because, firstly, I would not provide anymore
their luxuries and secondly they are now wholly
dependent on the support of their mother who lives
abroad. They are now also under the control of the
lesbian lover of their mother as found out by “MANAY in
the electronic messages in the IPAD used by BUBBLES.

This finding sparked the turmoil that now inhabit

our lives … my daughters and I.

The foregoing is the poignant background that

prompted the complainant to gather strength of will to
file these dirty, false and licentious accusations. She is
acting under the direction of my wife and her tomboy
lover. Both of them hated me much. And, all of them are
very vocal that they wanted to see me in jail. There is no
more parental respect or justice here.”

AGAIN, the Honorable Court will kindly note that the offenses were
allegedly committed in the years 2006, 2008 and 2009. The cases filed included
charges of SEXUAL MOLESTATIONS against the two (2) daughters namely
CHER ADELINE and JEAN ERHL. This included incidents during the years
2006, 2008 and 2009. Because these charges are false, the two (2) daughters,
CHER ADELINE and JEAN ERHL, executed SWORN STATEMENTS before
Asst. Pros OAFERINA to the effect that they were NOT in fact molested by their
father.

25
 These very important factors were supposed to have been considered in
the determination of PROBABLE CAUSE but they were simply waylaid by the
stubbornness of the prosecutor to file INFORMATIONS based on the fictions
relayed by CHER ADELINE.
Very apparently, the esteemed prosecutor stands in shining shield to
protect the virtues of Filipino womanhood regardless of whether or not the basic
story is true or false, regardless of his own knowledge that the accuser is a LIAR
because it was BEFORE HIM that she swore to said lies. BUT, now the
INVESTIGATOR reasons that “This very same fear for her and her mother’s
lives was the reason why the complainant made an untrue statement in her
affidavit that her father did not molest her and her sister Bubbles.”

With due respect, something is wrong here somewhere.

We contend therefore that the only evidence that the private complainant
submitted with the investigating prosecutor is her wild story and a medical
certificate which is a repetition of what has already been determined by the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) per recommendation for examination by
the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) some years ago.

FINALLY, the accused seeks the truth and justice. He did not find calm in the
truth because it was not provided by the preliminary investigation. The said
proceeding is muddled. Thus, he trusts that a free, unbiased and judicious
REVIEW by the DOJ is his only hope for a just administration of justice.

WHEREFORE, accused prays that such REVIEW the RESOLUTIN finding

probable cause be reversed and the respondent be freed from this very apparent
INJUSTICE.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. July 6, 2013 at Naga City.

GUALBERTO C. MANLAGÑIT
Attorney’s Roll No. 17869
PTR No. 7216601 – 9 March 2012
IBP No. 886897 – January 2, 2013
MCLE No. IV-0007825 – Sept. 2012
Diamond St., Filoville Subd.,
Calauag, Naga City
COPY FURNISHED:
CITY PROSECUTION OFFICE
City of Naga

BY REGISTERED MAIL

26
EXPLANATION: Presently, in view of lack of personnel copy of this PETITION
FOR REVIEW is furnished the City Prosecution’s Office by way of REGISERED
MAIL.
GUALBERTO C. MANLAGNIT
Republic of the Philippines )
City of Naga )

VERIFICATION

I, MANNY Z. REY, after being sworn to in accordance with law, hereby

depose and state that:

1. I am the accused in the cases of People vs. Manny Rey for:

IS NO. V-05-INV-13C-0148
For: RAPE

IS NO. V-05-INV-13C-0149
For: RAPE

IS NO. V-05-INV-13C-0150
For: ACTS OF LASCVIOUSNESS

IS NO. V-05-INV-13C-0150
For: ATEMPTED RAPE

2. I caused the preparation of the foregoing pleading.

3. I have read the same and the facts stated therein are true and correct of
my own personal knowledge and/or on the basis of copies of documents
and records in my possession.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this

_____________________ at Naga City, Philippines.

MANNY Z. REY
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this ____ day of ____________

2013 at Naga City, Philippines by affiant MANNY Z. REY who is personally
known to me to be the same person who executed the foregoing Verification and
exhibiting his I.D. No. A8453643, Firearm License Card with Control No. I-
F021570.

Doc. No. ________;

Page No. ________;
Book No. ________;

27
Series of 2013.

28