Affidavit

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
Parañaque City
ARLYN PARREÑO
Complainant,
____________________________
- versus - For: Trespass to Dwelling under Art.
280 of the Revised Penal Code
FATIMA SANTOS- PARREÑO,
WILMA SANTOS-JAVIER and
EMMA SANTOS-PILON.
Respondents.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT
ARLYN PARREÑO
Complainant,
____________________________
- versus - For: Trespass to Dwelling under Art.
280 of the Revised Penal Code
FATIMA SANTOS- PARREÑO,
WILMA SANTOS-JAVIER and
EMMA SANTOS-PILON.
Respondents.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT
1. That my son, Jan Andrew, is also married to Fatima Santos-

Parreño.1
2. On April 11, 2018 at around 3:00 p.m., I was appalled when I

received a knock on the gate of our residence in Block 6 Lot 3 Pili St., Phase 4,
Multinational Village, Parañaque. When I opened the gate, a woman named Joan
Abad2 introduced herself as a social worker from the Department of Social
Welfare and Development-Paranaque. 3 Outside our gate, I also noticed Fatima
1
Hereafter, “Fatima.”
2
Hereafter, “Ms. Abad.”
3
Hereafter, “DSWD.”
1
and her two sisters, Wilma Santos-Javier 4 and Emma Santos-Pilon,5 were also
along with members of the Philippine National Police Special Weapon and
Tactics (PNP-SWAT), much to my surprise.
3. While Ms. Abad was explaining to me the reason for their visit and
the process to be undertaken concerning Sofia Reine’s custody, 6 Fatima forced
her way to our house and rushed to our living room against my will and then
abruptly took the two-year old baby. This was confirmed by Ms. Abad in her
statement7 when she said that:
Kami ay nakarating sa bahay ni Mr. Jan Andrew Parreno at kami

ay pinagbuksan ng gate. Unang pumasok ang ina ng bata na si Fatima R.
Santos.
4. When I recognized that that officers of the DSWD were at my gate,

I did not hesitate to open the same as a sign of courtesy to public officials. But it
did not in any way give permission to Fatima and/or her sisters to force their way
into our house.
5. In order to assert more force, Fatima was accompanied by her

sisters Wilma and Emma, who likewise feloniously and forcefully entered our
dwelling place against my express prohibition. Fatima sped out holding Sofia
Reine in her hand. She even had members of Philippine National Police Special
Weapon and Tactics (PNP-SWAT) join her in her patently illegal mission.
6. Later on, we found out that Fatima called Raffy Tulfo’s program
and made it appear that we have taken Sofia Reine as a hostage. The staff of the
said program then called the Department of Social Welfare and Development 8
Office. Ms. Abad, Social Welfare Office II, explained to them that they cannot
unilaterally take custody of Sofia Reine since the law requires that the other
party, specifically the side of the father be given an opportunity to be heard and
that there is a procedure to follow in custody cases.
7. and her two sisters, Wilma Santos-Javier 9 and Emma Santos-Pilon,10
were also along with members of the Philippine National Police Special Weapon
and Tactics (PNP-SWAT), much to my surprise.
4
Hereafter, “Wilma.”
5
Hereafter, “Emma.”
6
Attached and marked as Annex “B” is a copy of the letter dated April 16, 2018 issued by Social
Welfare Officer Julichie Palen and noted by Officer-in-Charge Marissa Escalera.
7
Attached and marked as Annex “C” is a copy of the statement of Ms. Abad.
8
Hereafter, “DSWD.”
9
10
11
2
9. and her two sisters, Wilma Santos-Javier 13 and Emma Santos-

Pilon,14 were also along with members of the Philippine National Police Special
Weapon and Tactics (PNP-SWAT), much to my surprise.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
3
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
4
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
5
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
6
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
7
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
8
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
9
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
10
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
11
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
12
75. Contrary to Fatima’s allegations, there was no hostage taking or

kidnapping to speak of. Since Fatima abandoned Sofia Reine in 2016, we did not
prohibit Fatima from visiting her child for we know and recognize her right as a
mother. Even if Fatima denied Sofia Reine the care and protection by reason of
her tender age, we do not wish to cause any alienation between Sofia Reine and
Fatima. Despite her abandonment, Fatima remained welcome to visit Sofia Reine
anytime she wishes to.
76. In fact, Fatima even visited our house last April 3, 2018 to celebrate
Sofia Reine’s birthday. If it were true that our family has taken Sofia Reine as
hostage, then why did Fatima join us for merriment on April 3. And if Fatima
really believed that we “kidnapped” Sofia Reine, she had all the opportunity to
file a case for kidnapping, yet she did not do so. The reason for this is because
Fatima’s allegations of hostage taking is a mere fabrication.
77. Our generosity was repaid with disdain and evident bad faith.
Fatima along with her sisters forcefully took Sofia Reine without any legal order
and in clear violation of our right to privacy in our dwelling place.
78. My counsel explained to me Art. 280 of the Revised Penal Code

which states, in part, that:
Art. 280. Qualified Trespass to Dwelling. – Any private person who

shall enter the dwelling of another against the latter’s will, shall be
punished by arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.
79. As explained further by my counsel, the elements of the offense are

as follows: (a) the offender is a private person; (b) he enters the dwelling of
another; and (c) such entrance is against the latter’s will.
80. Facts would show that Fatima and her sisters are private persons
who entered our dwelling. Furthermore, their entry was definitely against my
will. I was informed by my counsel regarding the case of People vs. Olimpio De
Peralta145 where the Supreme Court ruled that:
143
144
145
G.R. No. L-17332, August 17, 1921.
13
In order that this crime may exist it is necessary that the entrance
should be against the express or presumed prohibition of the occupant,
and the lack of permission should not be confused with prohibition. In
the decisions of the courts of Spain, as well as in those of this jurisdiction,
it has been held uniformly that this crime is committed when a person
enters another's dwelling against the will of the occupant, but not when
the entrance is effected without his knowledge or opposition.
81. After receiving the knock, I just opened a small portion of our gate
as any prudent person would do. I was then talking to the social worker who
remained to be outside our house. Taking advantage of their strength in
numbers, Fatima and her sisters forced their way through our gate and then our
house in their successful illegal attempt to abduct Sofia Reine. Their entry was
evidently against my will and I expressly prohibited them from entering our
dwelling place.
82. Lastly, as relayed to me by my counsel, the Supreme Court held in

the case of People vs. Ernie Lapan146 that:
Likewise, the trial court erred in disregarding morada which

aggravated the offense inasmuch as the crime took place and was
committed by the accused-appellant in the house of the victims. The
accused-appellant showed greater perversity in his deliberate invasion of
the tranquility and privacy of the Parnala's domicile.
83. Clearly Fatima and her sisters did not only abuse her right in
unilaterally assuming custody over Sofie Reine without any court imprimatur,
she likewise violated the privacy and tranquility of our dwelling place, an
offense for which they must be allowed to account for.
84. I am executing this affidavit to attest to file a formal complaint for

Trespass to Dwelling under Art. 280 of the Revised Penal Code against Fatima
Santos, Wilma Santos-Javier and Emma Santos-Pilon all residents of #85 P.
Oliveros St., Cupang, Antipolo City and/or for whatever legal purpose/s it may
serve.
85. This Complaint-Affidavit is executed to attest to the truth of the

foregoing and to prove to this Honorable Office that there is adequate basis to
charge respondents herein for alleged violation of Art. 280 of the Revised Penal
Code.
AFFIANT SAYS NOTHING FURTHER.
146
G.R. No. 88300, July 6, 1992.
14
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this ___
day of May, 2018 in the City of Parañaque, Philippines.
ARLYN PARREÑO
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN before me on this_______ day of May, 2018

at Parańaque City, Philippines.
Investigating Prosecutor
I hereby certify that I have personally examined the complainant and that
I am convinced that the foregoing is her true and voluntary act and deed.
Investigating Prosecutor
15

Affidavit

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Affidavit

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

1. That my son, Jan Andrew, is also married to Fatima Santos-

2. On April 11, 2018 at around 3:00 p.m., I was appalled when I

Kami ay nakarating sa bahay ni Mr. Jan Andrew Parreno at kami

4. When I recognized that that officers of the DSWD were at my gate,

5. In order to assert more force, Fatima was accompanied by her

9. and her two sisters, Wilma Santos-Javier 13 and Emma Santos-

75. Contrary to Fatima’s allegations, there was no hostage taking or

78. My counsel explained to me Art. 280 of the Revised Penal Code

Art. 280. Qualified Trespass to Dwelling. – Any private person who

79. As explained further by my counsel, the elements of the offense are

82. Lastly, as relayed to me by my counsel, the Supreme Court held in

Likewise, the trial court erred in disregarding morada which

84. I am executing this affidavit to attest to file a formal complaint for

85. This Complaint-Affidavit is executed to attest to the truth of the

AFFIANT SAYS NOTHING FURTHER.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN before me on this_______ day of May, 2018

Você também pode gostar