Republic of the Philippines
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Office of the City Prosecutor
Meycauayan City, Bulacan
EMMANUEL S. BLAS, ET AL,
Complainants,
-versus- NPS NO.
III-08-INV-17-F-00144
NORMAN GOMEZ, ET AL,
Respondents.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -x
REPLY-AFFIDAVIT
COMES NOW, complainant Emmanuel Blas, to the Honorable
Office, most respectfully states, that:
1. I am the complainant in the case above-cited;
2. I vehemently deny the allegations contained in the Counter-
Affidavits of the respondents;
3. A careful perusal of the respective counter-affidavits submitted
by the respondents would readily show that their defenses are
mere alibis;
4. In his counter-affidavit, respondent John Michael Japsay
(Japsay, for brevity) claims that on the night of the incident, he
was merely in his house when he saw respondents John-john
Gomez and Nestor Gomez running after someone;
4.1 Japsay further alleges that he followed the two and before
entering Pag-asa Street, he heard three (3) bangs and later
saw the two fleeing and ride a motorcycle manned by
respondent Nestor Gomez;
5. As for respondent Norman Gomez (Norman), he stated in his
counter-affidavit that the evidence against him are hearsay,
referring to my complaint-affidavit;
5.1 As to the affidavits of my witnesses, Norman dismisses
the same as mere fabrications;
6. In his counter-affidavit, respondent Christopher dela Cruz
(dela Cruz) maintains that my witness, Marvin Tumala,
disowned the affidavit the latter executed in my favor. Dela
Cruz further alleges that on the date of the incident, he reached
his house past 10:00 o’clock in the evening and slept;
7. For his part, respondent Nestor Gomez (Nestor) claims that on
the date of the incident, he heard gunshots, and that after trying
to find news of the same, he re-entered his house and rested;
8. To these claims of the respondents, I vehemently disagree.
9. While I do not have personal knowledge of the circumstances
surrounding my brother’s death, the declarations made by my
witness Marlon Castrence y Angeles in his “Malaya at Kusang
Loob na Salaysay” is enough to show probable cause that the
respondents are guilty of slaying my brother;
9.1 In his “Malaya at Kusang Loob na Salaysay”, Castrance
categorically stated that on the night of the incident, he
saw my brother, all bloodied, being chased by the
respondents.
9.2 After following the group and spotting them in Pag-asa 2,
he saw Nestor and Dela Cruz holding my brother;
9.3 Castrance then saw Norman shoot my brother twice at
the back of the head. When my brother was already
dying, the four respondents ran outside Pag-asa 2 on the
way to Gildik;
10. From the counter-affidavits of the respondent, it is clear that
there defenses are denials;
11. However, as held by the Supreme Court in a catena of cases,
bare denials cannot overcome positive identification. The fact
that Castrance was able to identify the respondents as the
culprits behind my brother’s dastardly killing trumps the
denials of the respondents;
12. I executed this Reply Affidavit to attest to the truth of the
foregoing, to rebut the allegations of the respondents in their
Counter-Affidavits, and to support my charges against the
respondents.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this
11th day of September 2017 here at the Meycauayan City, Bulacan.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 11th day of September 2017
here at the Meycauayan City, Bulacan. I hereby certify that I have personally
examined the affiant and I am satisfied that he understood the contents of his Reply
Affidavit and that he voluntarily executed the same.
_____________________________
Administering Officer
Copy furnished by private courier:
JOHN MICHAEL C. JAPSAY
29 Bagong Buhay, Malhacan
Meycauayan City, Bulacan
NESTOR GOMEZ
NORMAN GOMEZ
50 Pag-asa Street, Malhacan
Meycauayan City, Bulacan
CHRISTOPHER DELA CRUZ
39 Pag-asa Street, Malhacan
Meycauayan City, Bulacan
Explanation per Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Court
This is to certify that copies of the above-titled Reply-Affidavit are
being served upon the respondents by private courier due to time
constraints and the lack of necessary personnel to effect service by hand.
EMMANUEL BLAS
