Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
Quezon City

MARY GRACE S. EVANGELISTA,

Complainant

-versus- INQUEST NO. ______________

FOR: MURDER, VIOLATION OF
RA 6539/ CARNAPPING

ALFRED MENDIOLA AND

FERDINAND PARULAN (Under
Custody), and RAYMOND DOMINGUEZ,
(Detained, Camp Crame), ROGER
DOMINGUEZ,
Respondents.
x---------------------------------------------------x

COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT
(For: Raymond Dominguez)
“THE TRUTH SHALL SET ME FREE”

Respondent, Raymond Dominguez, (detained), under oath, states

that:

PART ONE
The Lies, The Truth, The Proof

I. THE VOLUNTARY SURRENDER

A. The Lies: That Alfred Mendiola, on the afternoon of 20 January 2011,

voluntarily surrendered to Police Chief Inspector Noel D. Nunez and

PO2 Cyrus Salvador Revis.

B. The Truth: Alfred Mendiola was unlawfully arrested; while Ferdinand

Parulan, with him, was abducted.

1
C. The Proof: (1) The medical certificates of Mendiola and Parulan both
dated 21 January 2011; (2) The handwritten letter of Mendiola dated
20 January 2011, 10:03 AM; (3) The handwritten letter of Parulan; (4)
The Affidavit of Acceptance of Voluntary Surrender dated 22 January
2011, by police officers Nunez and Revis.

THE EXPLANATION

As stated, Mendiola was unlawfully arrested, while Parulan was

abducted, on Apartment D, Greenville Subd., San Jose, San
Fernando City, Pampanga.

To cover up the unlawful arrest, Alfred Mendiola, in his own

handwriting, during captivity, was ordered to state that he had
involvement in the killing of Emerson Lozano, his driver, and Venson
Evangelista. This handwritten letter was made to appear that it was
executed on 20 January 2011, 10:03 AM, when in truth and in fact,
this was prepared after the unlawful arrest and abduction that took
place in late afternoon.

This must be the logical deduction. The handwritten letter of

Ferdinand Parulan was dated 22 January 2011 . But he was already
in police custody, and gave his written statement on 21 January
2011, at around 11:00 AM. Then what is the need for him to fear for
brothers Raymond and Roger Dominguez, and asked for police
assistance and protection.

Right after the unlawful arrest and abduction, Mendiola and Parulan
were brought to PAMPANGA CIDT, located in Brgy. Pampang,
Angeles City. They were immediately investigated, without the
assistance of counsel.

Why do we say so, that they were not assisted by counsel?

2
One. If Alfred Mendiola, right after the voluntary surrender, was
brought to Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga, then why he was
assisted by Atty. Anthony A.S. Manalang, who was a PAO Lawyer of
PAO Angeles City District Office.

Two. The extrajudicial confession on 20 January 2011 started at 9:50

PM and ended at 3:30 AM of 21 January 2011. However, the
assisting lawyer affixed his signature on the statement at exactly 1:00
PM. This only proved that it was only after the termination of the
investigation that the lawyer arrived and signed the extrajudicial
confession.

Three. Parulan, on 21 January 2011, at around 11:00 AM, with the

assistance of PAO Lawyer Rafael Mison, executed his extrajudicial
confession at the Office of PAMPANGA CIDT, Brgy. Pampang,
Angeles City, Pampanga.

By that time, there was no legal and valid reason to arrest and place
him in the custody of the CIDT.

Ferdinand Parulan was only released on 14 January 2011 by the

Bulacan Provincial Jail, as indicated in the Certification dated 24
January 2011, issued by the Provincial Jail Warden, Lt.Col. Pepito B.
Plamenco (Ret.).

On the other hand, Venson Evangelista was shot, and afterwards

burned, on 13 January 2011, and that the charred remains was
found on 18 January 2011 somewhere in Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija.

Four. The extrajudicial confession of Alfred Mendiola in San

Fernando City, and the extrajudicial confession of Ferdinand Parulan
in Angeles City [both Pampanga], were taken by the same two (2)

3
sets of investigators, SPO3 Pacquito M. Guillermo and Crime
Investigator 2 Marlon I. Sanchez.

Does it mean to say that they shuttled back and forth, San Fernando
City and Angeles City, why in the course of taking the extrajudicial
confession?

As stated earlier, the extrajudicial confession of Alfred Mendiola on

20 January 2011 started at 9:50 PM and ended 3:30 AM of the next
day. Here, he was assisted by PAO Angeles District Atty. Anthony
A.S. Manalang.

On the other hand, the extrajudicial confession of Ferdinand Parulan

on 21 January 2011 started at 11:00 AM and ended at 1:20 PM of the
same day. Here, he was assisted by PAO Angeles District Atty.
Rafael Mison.

However, from the time element, it can be easily deduced that SPO3
Guillermo and Crime Investigator 2 Marlon Sanchez, took the alleged
extrajudicial confessions on 20 January 2011, starting 9:50 PM and
ended at 3:30 AM of the next day, for both Alfred Mendiola and
Ferdinand Parulan, before the Office of PAMPANGA CIDT, Brgy.
Pampang, Angeles City, Pampanga.

To make it appear that Mendiola and Parulan were separately

executed extrajudicial confession, in San Fernando City and Angeles
City, they called on PAO Angeles City District Atty. Anthony A.S.
Manalang who affixed his signature therein at 1:00 PM, while PAO
Atty. Rafael Mison had his signature on Parulan’s extrajudicial
confession that ended at 1:20 PM of 21 January 2011.

It follows, therefore, that PAO Atty. Anthony A.S. Manalang had his
signature affixed on Mendiola’s extrajudicial confession also on 21

4
January 2011, at exactly 1:00 PM, although he did not indicate
therein the time and the date of affixing.

Right after the unlawful arrest and abduction, Alfred Mendiola and
Ferdinand Parulan, on the evening of 20 January 2011, were
immediately brought to the Office of the PAMPANGA CIDT, Brgy.
Pampang, Angeles City, Pampanga, and without the assistance of
counsel, were made to execute the supposed extrajudicial
confessions.

That is why, it was only after the termination of the investigation, that
they were submitted for medical examination, on 21 January 2011.

Alfred Mendiola was examined at J.B. Lingad Memorial General

Hospital, while Ferdinand Parulan was examined at Regional Crime
Laboratory Office 3, both situated at City of San Fernando,
Pampanga.

Why the need for them to be separately examined at a separate

medical and laboratory institution?

It calls for simple answer. That is, to make it appear, that Alfred
Mendiola and Ferdinand Parulan were both inside the apartment
when the police unlawfully arrested and abducted them.

Just imagine that Ferdinand Parulan, after his medical examination at

Regional Crime Laboratory Office 3, Camp Olivas, City of San
Fernando, Pampanga, was transported to Angeles City, to be
investigated by SPO3 Guillermo and CI 2 Sanchez who likewise
conducted investigation of Alfred Mendiola inside Camp Olivas.

If Ferdinand Parulan, at the time of the medical examination, was

already in Camp Olivas, then what is the reason for him to be brought

5
to Angeles City for investigation, by the same police officers who
were already in Camp Olivas, investigating Alfred Mendiola?

Again, the simple answer. The avoidance of the unlawful arrest and
the abduction issues, that may crop up with the illegal apprehension
of Alfred Mendiola and Ferdinand Parulan, both inside Apartment D,
Greenville Subd., San Jose, San Fernando, Pampanga.

To further justify the unlawful arrest and abduction, Police Chief

Inspector Noel D. Nunez and PO2 Cyrus Salvador Revis, on 22
January 2011, in Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga, jointly
executed “AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE OF VOLUNTARY
SURRENDER”, to have the effect that Alfred Mendiola alone, through
his handwritten letter dated 20 January 2011, 10:03 AM, and follow-
up anonymous call, voluntarily surrendered to them, and for fear of
his life, requested them to fetch him at the gate of the Greenville
Subd., San Jose, San Fernando, Pampanga, and afterwards
confessed his participation in the death of Emerson Lozano.

Actually, it was only after the forced confession in PAMPANGA CIDT

Office in Angeles City that Alfred Mendiola was brought to Camp
Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga.

It was in Camp Olivas, that Alfred Mendiola, on 21 January 2011,

11:PM, with private practitioner Atty. Noel D. Quioc, executed his
additional statement, and by this time, implicated brothers Raymond
and Roger Dominguez, among others, who burned the KIA Carnival
type vehicle, somewhere in Dinalupihan, Bataan, allegedly owned by
Emerson Lozano, based on what they heard and saw on television.

It is now clear. That, Alfred Mendiola, on his first statement dated 20

January 2011, implicated brothers Raymond and Roger Dominguez,
for the death of Venson Evangelista; and on his second statement

6
 dated 21 January 2011 he implied that Dominguez brothers have a
hand in the death of Emerson Lozano.

II. THE INVOLVEMENT OF DOMINGUEZ BROTHERS FOR THE DEATH

OF VENSON EVANGELISTA

A. The Lies: That Dominguez brothers, Raymond and Roger, planned

the carnapping, the death, by gun, and later, burning, of Venson
Evangelista;

B. The Truth: That the said Dominguez brothers, at the time of the

alleged planning and execution of the crimes, were not physically

present and that not a single witness saw them at the time of its
alleged implementation.

C. The Proof: That Raymond, on 13 January 2011, was attending court

hearing, RTC 19, Malolos City; while Roger was in Cruz Mauleon
Law Office, Cabanas Mall, Longos, Malolos City, working on the
documents for the release of his impounded vehicle at Pampanga
Provincial Police Office.

The Explanation

Alfred Mendiola, in his first statement, alleged that he was able to talk to
Venson Evangelista, the subject of which is the Toyota Land Cruiser
offered for sale to the public, on the morning of 13 January 2011.

Actually, it was Venson’s father, Arsenio “Papa Boy” Evangelista that he

talked to over the cellphone, after his text message was received by
“Papa Boy” at exactly 11:38 AM. This was the confirmation of “Papa
Boy” in his second statement dated 24 January 2011.

7
Afterwards, Raymond Dominguez gave the instruction: Jayson @Soy as
the Pajero driver, Joel as the mechanic, Rolly to aboard the Land
Cruiser if Venson agreed to a “road test” and for Alfred Mendiola to be
the prospective buyer.

Raymond Dominguez went ahead of them, to survey the area in Cubao

and to wait for them to arrive.

After 2:00 PM, same day of 13 January 2011, Alfred Mendiola, in

company of @Soy and Rolly, riding in green Pajero, left Roger’s
Greenville apartment, proceeded to SM Pampanga to pick-up Joel, the
poseur mechanic.

This CANNOT happen. Raymond Dominguez, with his lawyer Jose M.

Cruz, attended the scheduled hearing on 13 January 2011 at 8:30 AM,
before RTC 19, Malolos City, Bulacan, as reflected in the MINUTES OF
SESSION of the court. It becomes clear that Raymond, before 8:30 AM,
was already inside the court, hence, he was not around when Alfred
Mendiola contacted “Papa Boy” at around 11:38 AM of that date.

It was then physically impossible for Raymond to give instruction later,

as we said, at that time, he was inside the court, attending the hearing of
his case, docketed as Crim. Case No. 2113-M-2010 and Crim. Case No.
1469-M-2010 .

Likewise, there was no truth to the allegation that Raymond, on 13

January 2011, went ahead of Alfred Mendiola and company, the latter
leaving Roger’s Greenville apartment before 2:00 PM, taking into
consideration the travel distance between Malolos and San Fernando,
as the court session ended at almost 12:00 PM.

Nonetheless, Raymond Dominguez was not named and identified by the

witnesses when Alfred Mendiola proceeded to Venson’s house in No. 47

8
Sgt. Catalos, Brgy. Pinagkaisahan, Cubao, Quezon City. It was Alfred
Mendiola, alone, that was identified by witnesses Mary Grace
Evangelista (widow of Venson), Jojo Quiliza (Venson’s
helper/maintenance boy), Dennis Angelo Lladoc (Venson’s childhood
friend and bestfriend), Geomar Gallo (passer by).

After the said court hearing, Raymond Dominguez and his lawyer
proceeded to the law office at Cabanas Mall, Longos, Malolos City,
Bulacan, met his brother Roger, and the three (3) of them ate lunch
together at the nearby restaurant, and consumed the hours until almost
4:00 PM, afterwards they separated.

Nothing was mentioned by Alfred that he saw and met Raymond at

Cubao, before or after going to Venson’s house.

It was not clear at what time that Alfred Mendiola and company reached
a house in Mabiga, Mabalacat, Pampanga, with the Toyota Land Cruiser
driven by Joel, with Rolly on the passenger side, while Alfred and
Venson at the backseat.

Therein, Roger instructed Alfred to load two (2) car tires, two (2)
containers of gasoline, and afterwards Alfred with Roger’s girlfriend,
proceeded to SM Pampanga, riding in a Lancer car, driven by the girl.

Before leaving, Alfred saw Venson inside the Toyota Land Cruiser, with
the packaging tape on his eyes, mouth and hands. That was the last
time Alfred saw Venson.

Through Roger, as relayed by @Soy, Alfred Mendiola learned that

Venson was shot, burned and later thrown in a ricefield somewhere in
Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija.

9
Later, during the investigation, and as part of his written statement,
Alfred, identified Venson from the January 19, 2011 issue of the
Philippine Star.

Also, the identification of brothers Roger and Raymond, from the

pictures shown to him during the investigation.

That, Roger, while in Greenville apartment, took the Php3,500.00, ATM

card, DRIVER’S LICENSE, and also the license to a firearm, while the
identification card was ordered to be burned, but the wallet and slippers
of Venson remained in the said Greenville apartment.

Also noticed by him were three (3) short firearms inside the black bag,
car plates, car tires, car seats, car tools, documents pertaining to
vehicle, gasoline and packaging tape.

Are these narrations of Alfred Mendiola believable and credible enough

to be relied upon?

As repeatedly said, in legal parlance, that the statements although

credible, must likewise come from a credible mouth, to which Alfred
Mendiola does not possess.

One. When he implicated Raymond, despite his physical impossibility to

be present and planned the crime in the morning of 13 January 2011.

Two. Likewise, that of Roger who was likewise not around on the said
date.

Three. Lack of personal knowledge as to the death of Venson

Evangelista, as he was not in the company of Venson at the time of his
death.

10
 Four. The circumstances leading to the death of Venson were merely
obtained by him through other persons.

Five. Contrary to human experience, for a criminal, after the commission

of the crime, to bring with him the wallet, ATM cards and other personal
belongings of the victim, to the extent of keeping the slippers.

Six. This is not to mention the series of Estafa cases filed against him,
like Crim. Case No. 3643 and 3644-M-2004 for the crime of Theft/Estafa
which are now pending and being tried before RTC 7, Malolos, Bulacan.

Seven. There are other reasons for Alfred not to be relied upon.

IV. ON THE ILLEGALITY OF ARREST OF RAYMOND DOMINGUEZ

This the first time that a person, without warrant, was arrested inside the
Provincial Police Office, where he sought custody, not only for fear of his
life, but to avoid the news rumors that he is a subject of massive man
hunt and gone hiding because he was guilty of crimes. This what had
happened to Raymond Dominguez.

As a backgrounder, the constitution provides that no person shall be

arrested without warrant.

On the other hand, warrantless arrest, can be effected in the

circumstances enumerated under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, of
which we quote:

11
 RULE 113

ARREST

“SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.—A peace officer or a

private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an
offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable
cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped
from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final
judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has
escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another”

Raymond Dominguez, hearing news reports that he is now the subject

of massive manhunt, as he is being linked as the mastermind in the
killing of Venson Evangelista decided to voluntarily submit himself to the
custody of Bulacan Provincial Police Office, Camp Alejo Santos,
Malolos, Bulacan. At that time of his voluntarily submission assisted by
his lawyer and his mother, there was no warrant of arrest issued against
him in relation to the killing of Venson Evangelista. Neither there was a
subpoena issued to him by any prosecutor relative to a criminal charge
about the killing of Evangelista. In fact, his voluntary surrender was due
to the said news reports and for the reason that he wanted to clear his
name, as stated in his handwritten statement.

Hence, Raymond Dominguez, was surprised when, on 23 January 2011,

was arrested and forced to be brought to Camp Crame. He was
informed through his lawyers that he is being arrested for a crime to
which there is no proof that there was already a warrant of arrest issued
against him and a criminal information was filed against him.

12
 From the circumstances provided where warrantless arrest can be
effected, it is very clear that the arrest of Raymond Dominguez does not
fall under any of any of circumstances.

One. Raymond Dominguez has not committed, has not committed, was
not actually committing or was not attempting to commit an offense at
the time that the CIDT arrested him on 23 January 2011 at the Bulacan
Provincial Police Office.

Two. That there was no offense that was just committed at that time
particularly on January 23, 2011.

Three. That Raymond Dominguez when he was arrested, was not a

escapee from a penal establishment or in a place where is serving any
final judgment or temporarily confined in a place while his cases are
pending.

WHEREFORE, in the light of all the foregoing circumstances and

narration of facts and proof, herein respondent Raymond Dominguez,
most respectfully prays that the criminal complaint of which he is
charged be dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence to establish
probable cause or in the alternative, that Raymond Dominguez be
released and this case be further investigated under the regular
preliminary investigation.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, respondent, Raymond Dominguez, have

hereunto signed this ___ day of ________ 2011, here at
______________.

RAYMOND DOMINGUEZ
Respondent

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ____ day of

________ 2011 here at _____________.

_________________
Administering Officer

13
14