Republic of the Philippines
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
SAN DIEGO CITY
NARCISA B. CRISPIN,
Complainant, I.S. No. 01-2345
vs. For: RAPE
PLACIDO P. TALES,
Respondent.
x-----------------------------------x
COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT
I, PLACIDO P. TALES, Filipino, 22 years of age, single, and currently
residing at Sulok St., Brgy. Kalye, San Diego City, after having been duly sworn
to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and state that:
1. I am the respondent in the above-captioned case;
2. I have received a Subpoena with an attached Complaint-Affidavit filed by
Narcisa B. Crispin dated 25 February 2025 from this Honorable Office
on 27 February 2025;
3. The Subpoena states among others that I have ten (10) days to submit
my Counter-Affidavit from the date of receipt. Hence, I submit this on 28
February 2025, well-within the period required;
4. I am vehemently denying the charges levelled against me by the
Complainant;
5. The truth of the matter being the following:
a. On January 5, 2025, I was at my work and did not go home to
my house.
i. In November 2024, as a construction worker, I was offered
to work at Brgy. Daan, San Francisco City, to build a
condominium unit. The project required us workers to stay
within close proximity to the construction site to guard the
raw materials to be used in construction from being stolen.
ii. Part of our contract is that we can stay at our workplace to
sleep and rest. Therefore, I have decided to go home every
two (2) weeks to lessen my expenses in traveling back and
forth.
iii. My workplace and the place where the alleged rape incident
happened, at No. 1 Barako St., Brgy. Liblib, San Diego City,
are about 100 kilometers apart.
iv. I went home last January 1, 2025, four days before the
incident. I left the next day, January 2, 2025, after
celebrating the New Year’s with my family.
v. I went back to work on January 2, 2025 and spent the next
two weeks in San Francisco City. As I have mentioned, I only
come home every two weeks. On January 17, 2025, I
reached home by 10:00 in the evening. After a long day of
work and travel, I went straight to bed.
vi. Whenever I would go home, I would only stay to get my
laundry done and rest. I never stayed long in my house.
Everytime I leave home, I go to the grand terminal of San
Diego City to meet with my co-worker, then travel back to
my workplace. This was routine for me, for working for
almost two years at my job.
vii. I am executing this Counter-Affidavit to prove that on
January 5, 2025, I was working at our construction site in
Brgy. Kalye, San Francisco City, which is 100 kilometers
away from Brgy. Liblib, San Diego City, where the alleged
rape incident occurred. Hence, it was physically impossible
for me to be at Brgy. Kalye, San Diego City on the said date.
viii. An Affidavit of my co-worker/colleague is attached hereto
as Annex “1” to attest to the fact that I was at work on 5
January 2025. Additionally, the attendance sheet on the said
date from the company is attached hereto as Annex “2.”
b. The complainant failed to prove a clear, accurate, and reliable
identity that I committed the allegations in the complaint.
i. The location of the identified scene of the alleged crime
happened was dark and not well-lighted during the time of
the incident.
ii. The victim’s description of the assailant is general which
only pertains to the height of the assailant. The only physical
description she provided, which is the 6 feet tall height, does
not also match my actual height of 5’0.
iii. There were also no CCTV cameras present at complainant’s
street address or anywhere near complainant’s house to
prove that I perpetrated the act.
iv. In the case of People vs Meneses (G.R. No. 111742, March
26, 1998), the prosecution failed to paint a crystal-clear
picture of the environment by which Christopher could have
made an accurate and reliable identification of the attacker.
Christopher's testimony being improbable, is not credible.
Evidence is credible when it is "such as the common
experience of mankind can approve as probable under the
circumstances. We have no test of the truth of human
testimony, except its conformity to our knowledge,
observation, and experience."
v. In the case of People vs Ansano (G.R. No. 232455, December
2, 2020), the Supreme Court emphasized that the conviction
of a crime rests on two bases: (1) credible and convincing
testimony establishing the identity of the accused as the
perpetrator of the crime; and (2) the prosecution beyond
reasonable doubt that all elements of the crime are
attributable to the accused. The Court further noted that
although the commission of the crime can be established,
there can be no conviction without proof of identity of the
criminal beyond reasonable doubt.
c. There is no proof that the lacerations suffered by the
complainant, as shown in the Medico-legal certification
attached in her complaint affidavit, specifically ‘Annex B’ were
inflicted by the respondent.
i. In the recent case of People vs Amarela (G.R. No. 225642-43,
January 17, 2018), the Supreme Court held that while
insofar as the evidentiary value of a medical examination is
concerned, a medico-legal report is not indispensable to the
prosecution of a rape case, it being merely corroborative in
nature. However, in the same way, a medicolegal's findings
can raise serious doubt as to the credibility of the
alleged rape victim (Emphasis Ours).
ii. As stated in the complaint affidavit, the complainant was
examined immediately after she was seen unconscious and
naked. However, the Medico-Legal Certification stated that
she was treated and EXAMINED at San Diego Doctor’s
Hospital on February 23, 2025, forty-eight (48) days after
the commission of the alleged crime. Hence, there was an
inconsistency between the complaint affidavit and what was
stated in the Medico-Legal Certification issued to the
complainant.
iii. The said medico-legal certification contained that there was
a shallow-healed laceration at the 3 o’clock and 8 o’clock
position. Still, it was not stated therein that the said
laceration could be at least forty-eight (48) days old from
the time of injury considering its state - shallow.
iv. In the case mentioned at ‘c (i)’ of this counter-affidavit, it
was also held by the Supreme Court that the most common
sites for laceration were determined. In rape cases,
lacerations were most commonly located in these areas: (1)
one laceration at 6 o'clock position in 42.02% of cases; (2)
two lacerations at 5 and 7 o'clock positions in 24.55% cases;
(3) three lacerations at 3, 6 and 9 o'clock positions in
45.36% of cases; and (4) four lacerations at 3, 5, 6 and 9
o'clock positions in 25% of cases. However, the finding in
the Medico-Legal Certification in question was at the 3
o’clock and 8 o’clock position.
d. The medical findings do not corroborate the allegations made
in the complaint affidavit as the physical injuries from the
stomach punch and defense wounds were not reflected in it.
i. The complainant claims in her complainant affidavit that
she was punched in her stomach, however; the medico-legal
certificate dated 24 February 2025 would reflect that the
complainant had no pertinent physical findings/or physical
injuries/or scars resulting from the alleged punch.
ii. While one may argue that bruises may fade away within two
(2) weeks without treatment. More severe bruising and
hematomas may last a month or longer. In the present case,
the complainant alleged that she lost consciousness after
she was punched. This could indicate a more serious
internal injury, such as internal bleeding or organ damage
which typically heals for months. An Affidavit of a Doctor is
attached hereto as Annex “3” to attest to the fact that serious
internal injuries, such as internal bleeding or organ damage
typically heal for months.
iii. Moreover, the complainant claims that the perpetrator
aimed his weapon twice against her; however, the
medico-legal certificate dated 24 February 2025 would
reflect that the complainant had no defense wound. Defense
wounds are the injuries sustained by the victim as he/she is
trying to instinctively protect/defend himself/herself
against an attack by the assailant (self-protection). It results
in an immediate and instinctive reaction of the victim in
order to protect themselves during an assault.
iv. The complaint affidavit also narrates that the accused were
able to kick the perpetrator in his genitals. However, the
result of my Annual Physical Exam dated January 07, 2025,
shows no bruise, effect, or complications that would suggest
being kicked. The result of my Annual Physical exam is
attached hereto as Annex “4” to attest to the fact that I don’t
have any bruises on my genitals or scratches on any part of
my body. Additionally, the Affidavit of my Examining
Physician is attached hereto as Annex “3” and Annex “5” to
verify the veracity of the above mentioned facts.
e. The complainant’s claims are likewise unrealistic and beyond
human experience, making them highly improbable and
unreliable.
i. First, the claim that the complainant, after enduring forced
penile penetration, was about to turn her back to comply
with the alleged perpetrator’s demand yet still managed to
deliver a precise and forceful kick to his genitals at the last
moment defies natural human reflexes and reactions. If she
were truly terrified, subdued by force, and in a
compromised position, executing such a well-timed and
coordinated movement would be highly improbable. A
victim in such a position would have limited mobility and
balance, making an effective kick unlikely.
ii. Second, the complainant alleges that she was overpowered
by an armed assailant who had already successfully raped
her before she managed to fight back by kicking him.
However, if she had indeed struck him in the genitals,
forceful enough to cause pain, the natural and medically
documented response in males would be immediate and
excruciating agony, often leading to temporary paralysis or
incapacitation. Under such circumstances, it is highly
implausible that the assailant would have had the strength,
stability, and presence of mind to instantly retaliate with a
precise and forceful punch strong enough to render her
unconscious. The intense pain should also have given her an
opportunity to escape rather than be further harmed.
iii. In People v. Parazo (G.R. No. 116436, September 12, 1997),
the Supreme Court ruled that “evidence to be believed must
not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but it
must also be credible by itself, and must conform to the
common experience and observation of mankind.” It
recognized the need to carefully scrutinize testimonies
containing implausible or unnatural events that deviate
from normal human experience or behavior.
f. Lastly, the allegations stated in the Affidavit-Complaint filed by
Narcissa B. Crispin are mere malicious fabrications which may
have been spurred by the bitter feud between her mother and I.
i. The said feud stemmed from my monetary obligation to her
mother which I failed to pay in full last year.
ii. Her mother repeatedly hurled verbal threats against me and
my family.
iii. Her mother further warned that she would get back to me in
whatever way possible.
iv. The instant case may have been instigated by the
Complainant’s mother.
6. Therefore, there is no truth to the allegations of Narcisa that I pulled,
threatened, and forced her to go inside her house to rape her on January
5, 2025.
7. I executed this counter-affidavit to attest to the truth of the foregoing
facts and to impugn the crime of rape which is being charged against me
by complainant Narcisa B. Crispin.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 27th day of
February 2025, in Kidapawan City
PLACIDO P. TALES
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 27th day of February,
2025 in the City of San Diego. I hereby certify that I examined the affiant and I
am satisfied that he voluntarily executed this Counter-Affidavit.
SEBASTIAN MICHAELIS A. HASTINGS
ASSOCIATE CITY PROSECUTOR
