REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
MANILA CITY

BEN ANG,
Complainant,

- versus – I.S. No. XV-08-INV-12G-1111

For: Adultery

RUFFA MAE LANDI ANG and

MACHETE KURACHA,
Respondents.
x------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Respondents, through undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Office,

respectfully move for the reconsideration of the Resolution dated 20 March 2013, and

which was received on 1 April 2013 (copy of which is attached as ANNEX “A”) and in

support thereof, respectfully states:

1. In the Resolution dated 20 March 2013, the Honorable Office of the City
Prosecutor of Muntinlupa City ruled:

“WHEREFORE, In view of the foregoing, there is sufficient ground

to believe that probable cause exists against Respondents for
committing seven (7) counts of adultery. It is thus recommended that
Informations for seven (7) counts of adultery under Article 333 of the
RPC be filed against Respondents with a recommended bail of P10,000
for each count.”
 2. It is respondents’ humble position that the Honorable Office committed serious

error in rendering the above-cited resolution, and the ground in support of this

position, shall be discussed in the course of this Motion for Reconsideration.

GROUND FOR RECONSIDERATION

The Honorable Office committed serious error in finding that probable cause
exists against the Respondents for committing seven (7) counts of adultery.

DISCUSSION

The Honorable Office committed

serious error in finding that probable
cause exists against the Respondents
for committing seven (7) counts of
adultery.

The Complainant, through the pieces of evidence he submitted, failed to prove

that the Respondents’ committed the crime of adultery. It is axiomatic that in the said

crime, sexual intercourse is an essential element for its consummation. This, the

complainant has failed to prove.

A careful scrutiny and perusal of the assailed Resolution will show that the

Honorable Office arrived at its conclusion based on the photographs submitted as

evidence by the complainant, the printed airline tickets and the testimony of his brother

Baw Ang. Respondents’ submit that these pieces of evidence are clearly insufficient to

prove probable cause.

 In Cruz vs. People1, the Supreme Court ruled that;

“It is settled that the conduct of a preliminary investigation, which is

defined as "an inquiry or proceeding for the purpose of
determining whether there is sufficient ground to engender a
well-founded belief that a crime cognizable by the Regional Trial
Court has been committed and that the respondent is probably
guilty thereof, and should be held for trial," is, like court
proceedings, subject to the requirements of both substantive and
procedural due process. This is because, a preliminary investigation
is considered as a judicial proceeding wherein the prosecutor or
investigating officer, by the nature of his functions, acts as a quasi-
judicial officer.” (Emphasis supplied)

Thus, it is clearly stated that in a preliminary investigation, the finding of

probable cause must comply with the requirements of the law, both substantive and

procedural. The photographs submitted by the complainant do not comply with the

requirements of the law. They are not sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that

the Respondents had sexual intercourse. As stated in Respondent Machete’s Counter-

Affidavit (attached hereto as “Annex A”), he admitted that he has been a homosexual

and that both Respondents have been childhood friends. Furthermore, Respondent

Machete even adduced evidence in support of his homosexuality, a photograph of him

and his partner.

Even assuming arguendo that Respondent Machete is not a homosexual, the

photographs still cannot be considered as sufficient to indicate that the Respondents

engaged in sexual intercourse. In the case of US vs. Rosal2, the Supreme Court stated

1
G.R. No. 110436. June 27, 1994.
2
G.R. No. 4557. November 24, 1908.
that, “In order to justify a conviction upon circumstantial evidence, the combination of

circumstances must be such as to leave no reasonable doubt in the mind as to the

criminal responsibility of the accused.”(Emphasis supplied). At the present case, the

photographs merely showed that both Respondents were seen kissing and together for

many instances. Will that be necessary to show that both had sexual intercourse? It is

not. As previously stated, Respondent Machete and Ang have been childhood friends

and it is of no surprise that a jealous husband would infer that they are committing

sexual intercourse. It is of common knowledge that we live in a society less conservative

than that of the past where men and women were separated from each other in social

events in order to avoid any suspicion of mischief. Thus, the inescapable conclusion is

that the photographs are useless, insubstantial and worthless in determining whether

the Respondents had sexual intercourse.

The assailed Resolution also relied on the fact that the complainant saw airline

tickets for Hong Kong issued to the Respondents and also that the complainant’s

brother saw the Respondents in Marco Polo Hotel. Again, this is insufficient to prove

anything that will lead to the conclusion that the Respondents have committed

adultery. The fact that the Respondents have been close friends will no longer be

discussed at this fact has already been mentioned.

In the attached Counter-Affidavit of Respondent Machete, he previously stated

that he and Respondent Ang have been business partners engaged in the manufacture
and distribution of “Rough Rider Jeans.” As business partners, it is only natural for

them to go on business trips. As a matter of fact, the reason why Respondents went to

Hong Kong was because of the Rough Rider Jeans Convention as evidenced by the

letter of invitation (attached as “Annex B” hereto). Furthermore, the Respondents did

not have the same room in the said hotel as evidenced by the hotel receipt (attached as

“Annex C” hereto). Thus, the testimony of Baw Ang, which is merely circumstantial

and not corroborated by other evidemce, does not deserve credence and should have

been disregarded by the Honorable Office.

Thus, based on the foregoing, the inescapable conclusion is that the Honorable

Office of the City Prosecutor failed in finding probable cause against the Respondents.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed for that the

Resolution dated 20 March 2013 which was received on 1 April 2013 be

RECONSIDERED.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the circumstances are likewise prayed for.

Muntinlupa City for Manila 5 April 2013