REPLY-AFFIDAVIT of AYAKO SASAKI
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Department of Justice
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR Lapu-Lapu City
Complainant, – versus –
GENKI, and TSUCHICHARA HIROTO,
X – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -/
NPS DOCKET No. VI-12-INV-0034718
For: Multiple Counts of Grave reats with Condition
I, AYAKO SASAKI, Japanese national, of legal age, single, and resident of Lapu-Lapu City, Cebu, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, hereby depose and state:
1. I have received a copy of and perused the Counter Affidavit1 of HIROSHI YAMANAKA (“Hiroshi”), and the Joint Counter Affidavit2 of MATSUI GENKI (“Genki”) and TSUCHICHARA HIROTO (“Hiroto”).
2. In their respective Reply-Affidavit, respondents expressed their vehement opposition to the complaints for Grave reats with Condition, defined and penalized under Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines against Genki and Hiroto for threatening to murder me, my son, and the rest of my family if I would not affix my signature on the checks which they forcibly wanted me to sign, on two (2) separate occasions; and against Hiroshi Yamanaka, for being the mastermind of the two (2) separate incidents
1 Counter-Affidavit of Hiroshi Yamanaka dated 23 July 2018.
2 Joint Counter-Affidavit of Matsui Genki and Tsuchichara Hiroto dated 20 July 2018.
of threats with condition directly participated by Genki and Hiroto, and for threatening me with a condition himself.
In their futile attempt to undermine the impact of their despicable acts and desensitize truth in itself, herein respondents retaliated with feigned denials and lame alibis, which all the more showcase their guilt.
3. Respondent Hiroshi wanted it believed that he was never responsible if respondents Genki and Hiroto ever threatened to murder me, my son, and the rest of my family if I would not affix my signature on the checks which they forcibly wanted me to sign, and that he likewise audaciously denied threatening me, my son, and family with death, at all.
4. On the other hand, respondents Genki and Hiroto asserted, though falsely, that they did not come or gravely threaten to murder me at my house at Block 11, Lot Nos. five (5) and seven (7), Pacific Villa, Santan St., Lapu-Lapu City, Cebu, on or about 21 January 2017, and that while they admitted being present in my residence later, on 05 February 2017, they claimed to have never committed any crime against me.
5. e assertions made by the respondents are all embodied in the Counter-Affidavit executed by Hiroshi, and the Joint Counter-Affidavit of Genki and Hiroto, dated 23 July 2018 and 20 July 2018, respectively.
6. Said Counter-Affidavit and Joint Counter-Affidavit had both been filed before this Honorable Office and served upon me, through counsel in response to the subpoenas issued to each of them.
7. e Counter-Affidavit and the Joint Counter-Affidavit of herein respondents, are all pro forma and considered as mere scraps of paper which all provide no legal effect. e affidavits of herein respondents were executed in gross violation of the requirements provided by the Rules of Court.
8. Under the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the respondents should, within ten (10) days from receipt of the subpoena with the complaint and supporting affidavits and documents, shall submit their respective counter- affidavits and that of their witnesses and other supporting documents relied upon for their defense. e rule, however, is explicit that the counter-affidavit which any respondent may file pursuant to the subpoena issued to him must be subscribed and sworn to before any prosecutor or government official authorized to administer oath. ese are the words embossed too clearly under Section 3, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court:
“Section 3. Procedure. — The preliminary investigation shall be conducted in the following manner:
(a) The complaint shall state the address of the respondent and shall be accompanied by the affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses, as well as other supporting documents to establish probable cause. They shall be in such number of copies as there are respondents, plus two (2) copies for the official file. The affidavits shall be subscribed and sworn to before any prosecutor or government official authorized to administer oath, or, in their absence or unavailability, before a notary public, each of who must certify that he personally examined the affiants and that he is satisfied that they voluntarily executed and understood their affidavits.
(c) Within ten (10) days from receipt of the subpoena with the complaint and supporting affidavits and documents, the respondent shall submit his counter-affidavit and that of his witnesses and other supporting documents relied upon for his defense. The counter-affidavits shall be subscribed and sworn to and certified as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, with copies thereof furnished by him to the complainant. The respondent shall not be allowed to file a motion to dismiss in lieu of a counter-affidavit.”
As clear as daylight, for a counter-affidavit to be valid, it shall be subscribed and sworn to before any prosecutor or government official authorized to administer oath.
9. In this case, however, respondents Hiroshi, Genki, and Hiroto miserably failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. e respondents’ Counter-Affidavit and Joint Counter Affidavit were never subscribed and sworn to before a prosecutor or government official authorized to administer oath.
As can be gleaned from his Counter-Affidavit, Hiroshi, for his part, executed the same before Atty. Vesmind T. Santiago, CPA, on 23 July 2018, while Genki and Hiroto subscribed their Joint Counter-Affidavit before Atty. Evangeline C. Aliman.
e respondents’ Counter-Affidavit and Joint Counter-Affidavit are utterly inadequate as to fall short of a true counter-affidavit in the legal scale.
Respondents wittingly or unwittingly failed to comply the with what is mandatorily required and have totally lost the given opportunity. Be that as it may, the respondents are bound by the legal consequences of their very own procedural blunder.
10. As it is now, the respondents failed to file a valid counter-affidavit on time while ample opportunity had been given for them to file the same and present countervailing evidence. is failure is an elephant in the room, too glaring and too outrageous to be ignored.
is premise considered, I need not even file a reply-affidavit.
11. For truth’s sake, however, I earnestly intend to express my side of the story if only to shed light on this controversy. Hence, this Reply-Affidavit.
12. As for respondent Hiroshi, far from refuting the serious allegations against him, he instead attempted to divert this Honorable Office’s attention from the genuine issues of these cases. He evaded the charges as how the guilty fled from his own crime.
13. First, Hiroshi made it appear that I was on a mission of regaining absolute control over BAYSIDE ENGLISH CEBU, Inc. (“Bayside English”) and that this case was just a means to realize such goal. is notion, however, is rather speculative and farce.
I am filing three (3) counts of Grave reats with Condition against respondent Hiroshi for the criminal violations that he committed against me. To be sure, the primordial issue here is nothing more than his guilt or innocence on the matter and not about the ownership of Bayside English.
I lodged these complaints for the reason that I had been aggrieved by his malicious acts and he must be punished therefor— not to regain ownership over Bayside English through this criminal complaint.
14. Return of control over Bayside English is not a legal consequence of the criminal complaint I filed against the respondents.
As opposed to a civil action, a criminal action is one by which the State prosecutes a person for an act or omission punishable by law.3 And the primary
3 Section 3, paragraph b, Rules of Court.
objective of any criminal action is for the perpetrator to be punished with imprisonment and/or other appropriate penalty.
15. I came before this Honorable Office to initiate criminal cases against the respondents. Respondent Hiroshi had done multiple punishable acts against the State by threatening me with condition on three (3) different instances.
Verily, what he did to me were acts that are punishable under this jurisdiction. He did not only mess with me and my private life, but with the People of the Philippines as a whole.
16. In the likely event that the complaint for three (3) counts of Grave reats with Condition would reach the trial court, and as soon as the trial of these cases would culminate, what would be there to be resolved is not the return of control over Bayside English to me or to whoever, but that of his actual guilt or innocence of the acts complained of. Such that, in case of a guilty verdict, imprisonment and/or any other appropriate penalty will be meted out on Hiroshi.
e contention that I am only after the power and control over bayside is clearly more apparent than real. Such contention is obviously nothing more than a ploy to sidetrack this Honorable Office’s focus over his despicable acts.
17. Second, respondent Hiroshi honey-coated his legal offenses by portraying that we had been good friends prior to the happening of the incidents complained of.
Respondent Hiroshi never bothered to substantially refute the charges that he ordered Genki and Hiroto to threaten me with death on two (2) occasions and that he also, on his own, threaten to murder me, my son, and family if I would not go back to Japan; he instead wasted his moment and dared to hear his own horn by depicting himself as a true and caring friend.
True, respondent Hiroshi initially appeared to be a trustworthy friend. At some point, I considered him as one but only to regret it afterwards when I discovered the true colors of the great pretender that he was. He was a wolf in a sheep’s clothing who cunningly cuddled my emotions, and when the opportune moment came for him, he betrayed me; and I never saw that coming. Hiroshi presented himself as someone you could trust and he was remarkably effective at that. I was too naive to notice early that he was into something, that he was already then sabotaging and wanting to eventually take over the management of Bayside English.
18. It is to be noted, however, that this supposed friendship that respondent Hiroshi portrayed, existed before the fact. e claimed friendship prior to his commission of the three (3) counts of Grave reats with Condition, is irrelevant and immaterial for purposes of the instant criminal complaint against him. e fact of friendship does not negate the truth that respondent Hiroshi threatened me with death three (3) times. It was precisely that very friendship that bridged him to perpetrate these odious acts against me.
19. Truth be told, when respondent Hiroshi eventually took over the management of Bayside English, he realized that I was still the one who was recognized by the bank as the authorized signatory of the school’s checking account, and that he could not make use of Bayside English’s funds without my signature. He was aching for my signature because he wanted to have the absolute power to withdraw from the account of Bayside English. Driven by his greed, he threatened me with death, and that of my son and family, just to get what he wanted.
Respondent Hiroshi inflicted so much fear upon me by ordering Genki and Hiroto to barge into my house twice and therein threaten me with death, and that of my son and family if I would not sign the checks they brought with them, so as to helplessly reduce me into his marionette. I succumbed to his terror, and I eventually signed the checks. But that was not enough for him, on or about 08 February 2017, with the same brand of terror, he, again, threatened me with death, and that of my son and family, should I not go back to Japan immediately.
20. ird, respondent Hiroshi rather paints a picture of himself as a “famous teacher”, a good man, an individual with so much concern for the students, among others. He is the opposite. He is a congenital liar who hides behind his good image if only to dissuade this Honorable Office or anyone from thinking that he was not capable of doing the crimes he had committed.
Among others, he lied through his teeth when he falsely made it appear that he was concerned about the welfare of the Korean children at Bayside English when he was not. A Skype conversation that we had shows a glimpse of his true character; at that time we had 59 students (almost students are Korean children) in Bayside English Cebu. ese were our exchanges on 23 January 2017 from 13:29 to 14:05:
“Hirokun (Hiroshi) to Ayako: I don’t need Korean. (13:29)
Just do it (kick out Korean kids) Korean Stop (Exile the Korean students)
How many times will you make me say the same thing?
You should answer for it.
If Koreans do not come, they will not die
Please say to Korean that do not come because they may die. Korean Stop
Can’t you understand!!
By the way construction is not proceeding What are you doing
Ayako to Hirokun (Hiroshi):
I don’t have money for operating funds (if the fund to use for construction)
Hirokun (Hiroshi) to Ayako:
That is your only job (paying construction fee) Idiot
Are you killing me?
What are you saying.
What is the nurse
You are a murderer
You kill (Korean children)
Sleep at construction site
Everyone die (Korean children)
You are not listening my order?
I will ruin the future of your son and your Parents
Ayako to Hirokun (Hiroshi):
I am talking about the life of the students ( Korean students) . I cannot abandon my students.”
ese were our actual messages:
Ironically, this was the conversation that I had with respondent Hiroshi , the supposed “famous teacher” and the merciful man.
21. As of 23 January 2017, we still had about thirty (30) Korean children and mothers. I told respondent Hiroshi that we had to take care of them, but he did not want to. He wanted me to tell them that they could not go back to their country. “ ey’ll all die” according to him. Of course, I did not listen to him because those students were still under my responsibility as the owner at the time of their enrollment.
22. Furthermore, he tampered the meaning of the messages which I had against him. While respondent Hiroshi impliedly admitted of having sent the subject messages, he totally altered the import of our messages just to escape from criminal liability. Among others, he stated in Annex “T” of his Counter- Affidavit dated 23 July 2017 the following:
Did you buy ticket?
Transfer is necessary, how can I pay Korean payment?
It’s Ok. No need. If you won’t go back tomorrow (to Japan), you will never go back (because she may die).
Ayako: Why no need?
Hiroshi: No need to explain (because it’s apparent from
your health condition)
And please pass the Korean money to Genki.”
e actual and unaltered interpretation of the messages that we had, however, is this:
On 08 February 2017, from 14:19 onwards:
Hiro Bayside (Hiroshi) to Ayako:
“Did you get your air ticket (for going back to Japan)”
“If you do not go back (to Japan )tomorrow, you cannot see
“Please pass your Korean money to GENKI.”
is is the screenshot of the pertinent messages that we had:
23. e phrases enclosed in parentheses “because she may die” and “because it’s apparent from your health condition” are not found in the actual exchanges. Respondent Hiroshi inserted the same. It is but his futile attempt to take the meaning out of context, and sweeten, his threatening remarks.
He just could not stop lying. Presenting these misleading interpretations through his defective Counter-Affidavit does not only insult the intelligence of this Honorable Office but likewise unduly assumes that it has none.
24. Moreover, respondent Hiroshi likewise falsely claimed in his defective Counter-Affidavit that, I quoted that the first conversation between us happened on 20 January 2017. Never did I say anything to that effect.
He categorically declared in his defective Counter-Affidavit “In her affidavit, she quoted that the first conversation between us happened on January 20, 2017. ere were actually conversations between us that occurred prior to this date.”4. But as my Complaint-Affidavit would aptly show, nowhere in its nook and cranny did I ever state that our first conversation transpired on 20 January 2017.
is is a patent display of his shenanigans. is is respondent Hiroshi making up false stories caught on paper.
25. As for respondents Genki and Hiroto, they never really had anything for an answer apart from denials, alibis, and self-serving statements.
26. First, respondents Genki and Hiroto vehemently deny the fact that they threatened me with death, and that of my son and family in my house on or about 21 January 2017. On top of their denial, respondents Genki and Hiroto cling to the alibi that they were instead at Min Tai Spa in Mabolo, Cebu City.
In People v. Peteluna5, no less than the Highest Tribunal of the land decreed that alibi and denial are frowned upon by the courts as they are deemed as weak defenses; here is how the Supreme Court’s wisdom turned into illuminating words:
“It is well-entrenched that alibi and denial are inherently weak
and have always been viewed with disfavor by the courts due to the facility with which they can be concocted. They
4 Counter-Affidavit of Hiroshi Yamanaka dated 23 July 2018, Answer No. 11, page 5. 5 G.R. No. 187048, 23 January 2013.
warrant the least credibility or none at all and cannot prevail
over the positive identification of the appellant by the prosecution witnesses.” (emphasis supplied)
In these cases, respondent Genki and Hiroto’s defenses of denial and alibi are not only intrinsically weak but, worse, they are entirely uncorroborated. Such that, respondents Genki and Hiroto could not even establish the alibi itself. While they claim to be at Min Tai Spa in Mabolo, Cebu City in the afternoon of 21 January 2017, they only have their word for it.
e utter lack in corroborative evidence that could support the defense of alibi, is nevertheless a tell-tale sign of fraud and fabrication. is is precisely what the courts of law strongly view with disfavor. As between their shopworn and my and my witnesses’ positive identification and affirmative statements, the latter necessarily deserves more faith and credence.
27. In the same vein, respondents Genki and Hiroto’s alibi cannot stand against the positive identification that I and my witnesses made. We all voluntarily declared under oath before the Honorable City Prosecutor of Lapu- Lapu City, and clearly and specifically identified them as the culprits and direct participants of the crimes committed against me. ey were positively identified to be the two (2) Japanese male individuals who forced me to sign numerous blank checks and expressed to kill me, my son and family, if would not obey them, on two (2) separate instances.
28. Second, while respondents Genki and Hiroto admit that they went to my residence sometime in the afternoon of 05 February 2017, they again openly and falsely deny committing any crime.
29. Respondents Genki and Hiroto’s denial does not lie against the positive identification that I, Benjamin L. Lobinco, and Jhan Kyle L. Bulado made. e witnesses saw them, and could speak as to how they threatened and abuse me, until I gave in.
Benjamin L. Lobinco, and Jhan Kyle L. Bulado illustrated in their Joint Judicial Affidavit dated 03 July 2018 what they witnessed, these were their exact responses to the open-ended queries:
“Q5: When did this happen?
A5: It happened in the afternoon of 05 February 2017.
Q6: Where did this happen?
A6: It occurred inside the residence of Ms. Ayako at Block 11, Lot Nos. five (5) and seven (7), Pacific Villa, Santan St., Lapu- Lapu City, Cebu. The incident transpired at the second floor of the said house.
A7: We were there present at the time of the incident and we saw, heard, and observed what Genki and Hiroto did to Ms. Ayako.
Q8: WhywereyouthereattheresidenceofMs.Ayakoatthe time of incident?
A8: We went back to Ms. Ayako’s residence at more or less one-thirty (1:30) in the afternoon after buying some groceries. As Ms. Ayako’s personal driver, I (Benjamin L. Lobingco) was there to wait for any orders from her while I (John Kyle L. Bulado) was just there to stay and supposedly rest for a while as I was then living there, as a working student.
Q9: Would you be kind enough to tell us what exactly happened?
A9: There were two (2) Japanese men who harassed, shouted, intimidated and threatened Ms. Ayako in her own residence. They spoke and shouted in the Japanese language. I (Benjamin L. Lobingco) knew them to be Genki and Hiroto, and I immediately told John Kyle L. Bulado (“Jhon Kyle”) about their respective identities.
Q10: What else did you observe?
A10: Ms. Ayako was then sitting on a couch near the center table while those two (2) men slammed the said table hard several times in front of Ms. Ayako. Genki and Hiroto wanted Ms. Ayako to sign some bank checks.
Q11: How did you know that Genki and Hiroto wanted to have those bank checks signed by Ms. Ayako?
A11: Genki and Hiroto’s actions were so telling
that they wanted Ms. Ayako to sign those checks placed on the center table fronting her. Along with their yelling, Genki and Hiroto took turns in pointing to the pile of
checks placed on the center table with a pen on top of it.”6
It is now beyond cavil that Benjamin L. Lobinco, and Jhan Kyle L. Bulado saw and identified respondents Genki and Hiroto as they were threatening me with death, and that of my son and family. Respondents Genki and Hiroto were there at my residence and they terrified me with death.
30. ird, as respondents Genki and Hiroto could not effectively hide from their denial and alibi, they instead banked on some messages that we had prior to the incident on 05 February 2017 at around one o’clock (1:00) in the afternoon.
Without, however, necessarily admitting the accuracy of the translation given by respondents Genki and Hiroto, I actually had some exchanges of electronic messages with Genki. With the ealier threats against my life, and that of my children and family, by respondents Genki and Hiroto, I decided to appear to them as normal as possible. I was enslaved by my own fear and much concern for the welfare of my family and of my own; I became docile to them. I was so afraid and helpless that I could not afford to be stubborn, so as to avoid triggering them into lodging a repeat of the traumatic experiences that I had. And yes, we had some exchange of electronic messages.
To set the records straight, never did I request Genki to bring a “check book” and have it all signed. I was reluctantly considering to sign just a few checks and personally fill out the amount thereof. ough I was then trying to protect my investments in Bayside English, and though afraid and helpless as I was, I could not also turn my back against the existing students of Bayside English. If I would not sign a check which could be used barely enough for Bayside English’s immediate administration expenses, the operations would stop and the students’ interests would be put in a certain peril. I was then willing to sign and fill out the specific amounts of only a few checks so that Bayside English would have something to use for its operations. Indeed, I was then caught between a rock and a hard fence, so to speak.
Just when I thought that respondents Genki and Hiroto would peacefully have just a few checks be signed by me, this is what happened: with very loud voices, they were shouting from the road fronting the house until they finally came inside, summoning me to go downstairs where they were at, as they did not find me anywhere on the ground floor. Genki exclaimed “Show
6 Joint Judicial Affidavit of Benjamin L. Lobinco, and Jhan Kyle L. Bulado dated 03 July 2018, p. 2-3.
up, Ayako! is is your day!” and Hiroto added “My knife will be painless, Ayako. Get down here you stupid woman! Now!”, among other related and similar remarks. en, respondent Genki and Hiroto wanted me to sign an entire book of checks instead. is is not what I was expecting at all. To my mind, I should not be signing the book of checks as respondents would surely have the absolute power of bank withdrawal and thus allow them to squander my own money at will.
I refused to sign, so they threatened the life out of me, and that of my son and family, until I gave in. It was against my will but I thought it was a little better than the alternative of death.
31. To the contrary, respondents Genki and Hiroto have it in their defective Joint Counter-Affidavit “We did not make any threat against her when she finally decided to sign the check after tiring us out with her indecisiveness. She signed it because in the first place, it was her who asked me (Genki) to bring the checks to her so that she can sign it”7.
32. e situation foisted by respondents Genki and Hiroto beggars logic and corrodes human experience.
My investments were left in the corporate fund of Bayside English. ere was no reason for me to initiate the signing of a book of checks, for why would I sign an entire book of checks when I knew that it would only vest into the respondents the unbridled authority to extract my personal investments in the company. Signing of a book of checks is tantamount to, me, personally handing at least Twenty-eight Million ree Hundred Eighty-two ousand
Nine Hundred Six Pesos (₱28,382,906.00) directly into the hands of respondents Genki and Hiroto.
33. Respondents are now taking issue on the fact that this complaint was filed more than a year after the subject criminal incidents. ey render this as one of the indicia of fraud and fabrication. is contention is not only skewed but misplaced.
34. e case of People v. Rafales8 may be significant to consider, the Supreme Court held that delay in the disclosure of a crime is not always an indication of prevarication. ough the case referred to pertained to Rape, the doctrine undeniably applies squarely in the present cases; the Supreme Court had spoken in this wise:
7 Joint Counter-Affidavit of Matsui Genki and Tsuchichara Hiroto dated 20 July 2018, p. 7. 8 G.R. No. 133477, 21 January 2000.
“BENJAMIN assails ROCHELLE’s failure to immediately disclose her alleged sexual molestations as a possible telltale mark of falsity or fabrication. But delay in the disclosure of a crime is not always an indication of prevarication. In rape cases, young girls usually conceal for sometime their ordeals due to the threats made by their assailants. In this case, ROCHELLE dared not tell anyone her ordeal because she actually feared BENJAMIN who threatened to kill her and her parents should she reveal his misdeed. Further, ROCHELLE had for quite sometime been deprived of the counsel of parents or other adults. She ran away from home, and explained this behavior as a consequence of her frequent quarrels and misunderstanding. with her siblings. It was only during her stay at the orphanage when Vicky confronted her [ROCHELLE] with tales of a child-rape victim. ROCHELLE confessed to Vicky that she was the child-race victim alluded to by her playmates Marissa, Gemma and the sisters of BENJAMIN. She revealed the details of the sexual violations quite hesitantly for she still feared BENJAMIN and his threats to kill her. These circumstances perforce satisfactorily explained and justified the two (2)-year delay in the disclosure of the crime. Besides, the prescriptive period for the filing of a rape charge is twenty years.” (emphasis supplied)
35. A slight delay in the filing of the case is even more consistent with the fear concomitant to the threats of murder that respondents subjected me with. It is rather a badge of truth and part of the natural course of things.
36. It cannot be overemphasized that I filed the criminal complaint for multiple counts of Grave reats with Condition well within the prescriptive period of twenty (20) years. In light of the prescriptive period within which to initiate this criminal complaint, it may be even considered that I filed it early on time.
Besides, I needed around a year to regain my composure, summon all my courage, and then seek for justice. As I was in a stressful situation when respondents had been threatening me with murder, I had a flight response. I was so down and worried of being murdered, or my family, that I followed respondent Hiroshi’s advice to fly back to Japan.
As time passed by, I slowly recovered from the trauma that I had in the hands of the respondents. I gathered evidence, recalled what happened, and
sought for legal advice. And so, I eventually decided to take the matter to this Honorable Office.
37. Respondents likewise projected the illusion that my own mental well-being betrayed me and that I was only delusional in perceiving that respondents indeed threatened to murder me, my son, and my family should I not sign the blank checks (conspiracy among the respondents) or should I not leave for Japan immediately (respondent Hiroshi’s own act). But respondents could not introduce any evidence to support their theory. ey could not simply put proof to where their mouth is.
Among others, respondent Hiroshi linked the bronchial asthma that I had with my ability to perceive. Yes, I had asthma but my mental faculties were intact— bronchial asthma, in medical science, is not a psychiatric condition but only a physical reaction to a stimulus. e respondents’ hypothesis is a ridiculous fallacy known in logic as non sequitor (the conclusion does not follow the stated premise), as if having bronchial asthma would necessarily undermine one’s mental stability. ere is simply no cause-and-effect correlation between the illness and the purported symptoms.
In contrast, I still vividly recall what I perceived, that is, how respondents threatened to get the life out of me, and that of my son and family.
38. It is noteworthy that while respondents are now intriguing on my state of mind when the incidents took place, I have numerous witnesses who would corroborate my own perception, and who all personally appeared and voluntarily executed their affidavits before the Office of the Honorable City Prosecutor of Lapu-Lapu City. If there is one or more parties to this case who is/are delusional, it cannot be me and my witnesses who swore in front of the authority as to the truth of our declarations.
39. I am executing this Reply-Affidavit to attest to the truth of the foregoing facts and in support of my request for the filing of the necessary Information or Informations against HIROSHI YAMANAKA, MATSUI GENKI, and TSUCHICHARA HIROTO.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature, this 17th day of August 2018 in Lapu-Lapu City, Philippines, with full understanding of the contents of the foregoing Reply-Affidavit, as the same was read, translated, and explained to me.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, this 17th August 2018, in Cebu City, Philippines, by Ayako Sasaki, who is personally known to me and is the same person who personally signed before me the foregoing affidavit.