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 respondents 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 husbands 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 Rotas 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 Rotas 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