TO: FROM:

DAISY A. MIRANDA-GOROSPE Ramon S. Dela Cruz

Senior Assistant Provincial Prosecutor 8 Ismael St. Phase 3D,
OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTOR Sto.Nino Village, Brgy. Perez,
Meycauayan City, Bulacan Meycauayan City, Bulacan 3020

and

Nunilon I. Munez Jr./ Marilou S. Munez

7 Ismael St. Phase 3-D, Sto. Nino Village,
Brgy Perez, Meycauayan City, Bulacan 3020

June 23, 2023

SWORN COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT

I, Ramon S. Dela Cruz, the undersigned, in legal age, Filipino Citizen, a resident of 8
Ismael Street Phase 3D, Sto Nino Village, Meycauayan City, Bulacan 3020, after having
been sworn in accordance with law hereby depose and state that:

1. I, being the accused, who turned 70 years old this year, is a senior citizen whose
memory doesn't serve myself well and also suffers from hearing difficulties at the same
time currently taking maintenance medication to prevent hypertension. These trials and
court hearings are an incredibly challenging experience that someone my age should
not have to endure. I’ve been repeatedly harassed by Nunilon and Marilou Nunez by
their never ending and one after another baseless complaints against myself and
members of my family that on the other hand never fought back by filing counter
complaints against them in the hopes of just having to end this stressful proceedings
that almost cost me my life. I've attached a proof of my hearing impairment marked as
Exhibit #3.

2. In fact, I have already been scheduled to testify as a witness for my son a month prior to
the day I was actually able to do so. However, when we are driving our way to the court,
I felt and complained of having a hard time breathing, being nosy and having severe
chest pains all at the same time. My son decided to skip the hearing and take me to the
hospital due to the overwhelming increase in my blood pressure. The stress of the
thought of being on the witness stand and being interrogated in front of the court was
simply too much for me to bear. It nearly cost me my life. My son deeply regrets having
me to testify as a witness subjecting him to this never- ending chaos caused by our
neighbor. Given and knowing the fact that we failed to attend our scheduled hearing due
to my medical condition, Atty. Medina, took advantage of the situation and insisted for
the court to have a warrant of arrest issued against the my son. Few days after, a
warrant of arrest was issued but was later on lifted by the court after we were able to
prove our absence by presenting a medical certificate that I was indeed taken to the
hospital on that day that I was scheduled to testify as a witness. Attached are the
Medical Certificate Marked as Exhibit #1 and the Court Order marked as Exhibit #2 as
proof of my statement.

3. I have been consistently nervous, worried, and afraid throughout the entire process.
However, my anxiety reached even greater heights when Attorney Medina started
posing questions which seemed specifically intended to confuse an already anxious
witness to manipulate my responses according to her own intentions .
4. I did not intentionally, willfully, and knowingly offer a false statement. I might have made
a mistake, but it does not mean that I lied. The mistakes I made were the outcome of
Atty. Medina's preemptive questions. I was very nervous, uneasy, and was led to
answer confusing questions that seemed to be set up and strategically delivered to
mislead and confuse me, considering my age, health status and already nervous at that
time.

5. For a statement to be considered false and potentially subject to legal consequences, it

typically needs to be intentionally or knowingly made with the intent to deceive or
mislead. Again, I may have made a mistake, but it doesn't mean that I lied. I did not lie
and have no intention of lying at all. The mistakes I made were in answering a
preemptive question strategically delivered to confuse me on the questions being asked,
particularly if it was an innocent mistake or a result of confusion or misunderstanding.

6. Atty. Medina capitalized on the fact that our sworn joint counter affidavit did not specify a
specific time, but rather mentioned "the following day." She used this ambiguity to her
advantage, crafting questions that appeared deliberately designed to confuse the
accused and elicit a desired response that aligned with her strategy. The following
details would show how Attorney Medina strategically delivered her preemptive
questions meant to mislead and confuse me.

7. Based on the on the first paragraph of Nunilon Munez Jr. and Marilou Munez's Joint
Complaint Affidavit clause #5, my sworn counter affidavit or statement clearly stated that:

“Makikita sa Annex 1C na kinunan ko (Ramon)

po ito ng larawan gamit ang aking “cellphone”
kinabukasan, 22, June 2020, ganap na 12:24
ng tanghali: (kalakip po dito ang larawang
nakuha sa Annex 1A)”

8. Atty. Medina led me and strategically suggested answers during questioning in order to
elicit desired responses that support her assumptions. The following details would
demonstrate how Atty. Medina set up and strategically framed her questions with the
intention to confuse and mislead me into saying certain words or answering her
questions in a way that would benefit herself and her clients.

9. kindly pay attention to the difference in how Attorney Medina delivered her initial
questions compared to the way she strategically and timely delivered her preemptive
questions, deliberately designed to confuse me and elicit a desired response. This
information is indicated in the TSN dated February 28, 2023, which was provided as
Annex D-10 and highlights the impropriety of her questioning tactics. She started by:

Q: In your Pinagsamang Kontra Sinumpaang

Salaysay which you earlier identified, you said
That you took pictures the following day which
was in June 22, 2020, is that correct Mr. Witness?

A: Yes, ma’am
 I. In the same page of the TSN dated February 28, 2023 which was improvidence
ANNEX D-10, Atty. Medina already asked the same question earlier. The only
difference is that she replaced the words or phrases “the following day” to “morning,
in the morning” as the transcript stated:

Q: Now, you also said in your Pinagsamang Sinumpaang

Kontra Sinumpaang Salaysay that the following MORNING,
IN THE MORNING of the following day so that would be
June 22, 2020, you again look at the CCTV?

A: Yes, ma’am.

II. From this point onwards, Atty. Medina deliberately changed the words
“kinabukasan“ or “the following day” into “the following morning” and/or “in the
morning” as what she first state d on the TSN dated February 28, 2023 which was
marked as evidence ANNEXD-10. She delivered her next question as:

Q: What time was that IN THE MORNING?

A: In the morning mga pagka-gising ko pero iyon po ay

wala sa aking pinuntahan.

III. As far as I'm concerned, this is the part where Attorney Medina started to
viciously execute the rest of her strategy. She took advantage of the fact that I was
already nervous, confused, afraid, and under pressure all at the same time. The
question that completely overwhelmed me and put Atty. Medina in absolute control
of the cross-examination was when she called the attention of the judge and
introduced unfamiliar words that, in my nervous state, seemed to imply trouble.

IV. After having the chance to read the transcripts of the TSN dated February 28,
2023, which was marked as ANNEX D-10, it was only then that I fully remembered
and realized that my responses were not affirmative but rather nervous, uncertain,
and predominantly submissive. At that time, all I wanted was to get through the
stressful interrogation and have it over and done with. I even said 'okay' twice, as if
surrendering or simply agreeing to whatever she told me to agree on.

Q: What time was that? That is the only question.

Your honor, we move for the striking of the
latter portion.

A: Mga 8:00, okay, okay.

10. Another piece of evidence among the many other proofs that I did not intentionally
provide a false statement is that after numerous times that Atty. Medina had asked the
same question, she failed and still was unable to get the answer that she wanted as
stated on the TSN dated February 28, 2023 which was marked as evidence ANNEX D-
11:
Q: And then again you still did not take pictures at that time?

A: I took pictures and brought it to the baranggay.

11. At this point, Attorney Medina realized how she repeatedly failed to obtain or clearly
establish a definitive and affirmative 'YES' in response to her preemptive questions
regarding whether I had taken pictures in the morning or not. Despite this, she
proceeded to set up her 'bait' question in Question #3 of the same TSN dated February
28, 2023, which was marked as evidence ANNEX D-11. Please take note of how she
blatantly insisted and subtly inserted the phrase 'in the morning' in a way that she
thought would go unnoticed, but it carries suggestive undertones:

Q: Where are those pictures that you took in the morning?

A: Ah iyon pong pictures na sinsabi ninyo, pinikturan

ko po iyon ng naaayon sa aking salaysay,
pero iyong pong hinahanapninyo wala po iyon.

12. As per Google Translate, my answer to her question in English translates to: “The
pictures the you mentioned, I took pictures of it as to what’s indicated on my sworn
statement. But what you’re looking for DOES NOT EXIST.

13. My response, as stated above, clearly indicates that he actually took pictures of the
CCTV as he mentioned in my sworn statement but at the same time, also clarified
Attorney Medina's insistence and suggestions that the pictures she repeatedly claimed
were taken in the morning, DOES NOT EXIST. Simply because the truth is that I took
the pictures 12:24 PM, as stated in Nunilon Munez Jr. and Marilou Nunez's very own
Joint Complaint Affidavit clause #5. which clearly stated:

“Makikita sa Annex 1C na kinunan ko (Ramon)

po ito ng larawan gamit ang aking “cellphone”
kinabukasan, 22, June 2020, ganap na 12:24
ng tanghali: (kalakip po dito ang larawang
Nakuha sa annex A)

14. Given my old age and several health problems, my memory issues can impact a
person's ability to recall details accurately, especially in stressful situations such as legal
proceedings. By taking the initiative to write down the details, despite the risks it being
used against me, I actually took steps to mitigate the potential impact of my memory
problems to be able to provide the most accurate testimony possible. I am older and has
memory problems, as it shows my proactive approach to ensuring accurate recollection.

15. In response to clause #7 of Nunilon and Marilou Nunez’s Joint Affidavit, that I wasn’t
telling the truth; another piece of evidence among the many others was my response to
the question many times as to whether the pictures were taken in the morning and or in
the evening. Atty. Medina even called the attention of the Judge; wherein the honorable
judge himself had actually repeated and clarified the very same question in Tagalog as
what’s stated in the latter part of the TSN dated February 28, 2023 which was marked
as evidence ANNEX D-11;

Atty. Medina:

Q: Your Honor, we move for the striking for not responsive.

Court:
Sagutin nyo po iyong tanong sa inyo. Hindi kayo kumuha ng litrato sa
umaga at sa gabi?

A: Hindi po.

16. I responded or answered “Hindi po” to the honorable judge’s question simply because
the pictures where not taken neither in the morning or in the evening. The pictures were
taken at 12:24 in the afternoon of June 22, 2020. It was not taken on the time assumed
and repeatedly suggested by Atty. Medina.

17. According to my research, very little discrepancies in the exact time may not
automatically discredit a witnesses entire testimony, especially if they can provide
credible testimony about the incident itself and the day it occurred. For a statement to be
considered false and potentially subject to legal consequences, it typically needs to be
intentionally or knowingly made with the intent to deceive or mislead. I might have made
a mistake in detailing exact hours but it doesn’t change the fact that I saw everything in
my own eyes, on the very same day that the active and working CCTV was pointed at
our house and that it is the reason why and how these all started and escalated;

18. I did not lie and has no intention to lie at all. The mistake was made in answering a
preemptive question strategically delivered to confuse me with a question, particularly it
was an innocent mistake or a result of confusion or misunderstanding.

19. I was requested to provide evidence in the form of pictures taken about two years ago
and was unable to locate the specific picture due to unfamiliarity with my new cellphone,
should also be considered as a genuine mistake or difficulty rather than a deliberate
attempt to deceive or mislead. Those pictures were taken two years ago and locating
them from a new an unfamiliar cellphone while pressured and being nervous would be
very hard for me. In my opinion, what matters the most is that the copy of the pictures
taken were all submitted to the court as evidences.

20. I am 70 years old and currently experiencing a hearing problem that has affected my
ability to give testimony. However, this does not mean that my testimony is false,
especially when I was testifying as a witness for my son.

21. I am a witness in the case against my son, Ryan Irvin L. Dela Cruz, because I was
present when the incident occurred. There is no reason for me to testify falsely on his
behalf. This complaint is yet another act of desperation and an attempt to maliciously
wear us down by prosecuting baseless cases against us. They are twisting the law and
using its strength to favor their own malicious intentions.

22. During the time I was giving my statement, Attorney Medina requested the Honorable
Judge to prohibit me from looking into my notes, considering my old age and the fact
that the incident happened in 2020. As a result, it was difficult for me to recollect every
minute detail of all the events that occurred on the day of the incident.

23. Apart from the fact that the Barangay Captain is deceased, the Barangay has been
unwilling to provide the requested documents. It appears that they are biased in favor of
the Nunez family. It has been effortless for the Nunez family to have their complaints
endorsed to the honorable prosecutor's office. The numerous endorsements of
complaints against us to your office are clear evidence that the Barangay officials favor
them. We have never had the opportunity to present our side at the local level.
The Barangay staff refuses to provide us with the requested documents. Although our
request was granted twice, the copies they provided were tampered with. They altered the
dates and times to favor the Nunez family. We can present the mentioned documents if the
Honorable Prosecutor wishes. If it is possible for us to obtain a court order that would require
the provision of such documents, we would greatly appreciate it.

24. According to the available records, it is clear that the complainants are fabricating
stories and wasting the valuable time of this Honorable Office for their own benefit. This
conclusion is further reinforced by the numerous complaints previously filed against us. I
would like to emphasize to this Honorable Office that the absence of an exact time in a
statement does not imply its falsity or favoritism towards the accused.

25. It is important to clarify that any mistake that I made in stating the time was not intended
to favor the accused. In fact, as of now, the Court has not issued any judgment or
decision of acquittal concerning the case against my son, Ryan Irvin L. Dela Cruz. 26.
That the Article 184, they stated in their ‘Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay ng
Reklamo (Joint Complaint-Affidavit) is not applicable for the respondent given the fact
that he is the witness presented in the case and not the one who presented a witness;

26. That the Article 184, they stated in their ‘Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay ng
Reklamo (Joint Complaint-Affidavit) is not applicable for the respondent given the fact
that he is the witness presented in the case and not the one who presented a witness;

Considering the foregoing I respectfully pray to this Honorable Office that the
complaint against me, the undersigned respondent be DISMISSED by virtue of the foregoing
reasons.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hands this 23rd day of June 2023, at
City of Meycauayan, Bulacan. Philippines.

RAMON S. DELA CRUZ

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ____ day of ________, _____. I

hereby certify that I have personally examined the affiant, that he voluntarily executed the
foregoing Counter – Affidavit/ Answer, and that they have understood the same.

Administering Officer
Exhibit #1
Exhibit #2
Exhibit #3
Exhibit #4