Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CIVIL CASE NO. _____________________

Respondent, CA-G.R. CEB-CR-HC NO. 01930
RTC CASE NO. 01, 0101-A, 0102 & 0103

- versus -

JOHN PAUL ATUP,

Petitioner.

PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI

(Under Rule 45)

COMES NOW SOLE PETITIONER JOHN PAUL ATUP, through the undersigned
counsel, unto the Honorable SUPREME COURT, respectfully avers:

Prefatory Statement

The highest tribunal has enunciated in two cases that a penalty imposed
that is not in accordance to law even if the person entitled to invoke the same did
not file an appeal, can be corrected and the reason being that said penalty can
never become final and executory for it failed to conform to the penalty
prescribed by law, and that it is the duty of the Court to have it conformed with
law, to wit:

“However, where the penalty imposed on the co-accused who did

not appeal was a nullity because it was never authorized by law, that
penalty imposed on the accused who did not appeal can be
corrected to make it conform to the penalty prescribed by law, the
reason being that, said penalty can never become final and
executory and it is within the duty and inherent power of the Court
to have it conformable with law.” --- People of the Philippines, plaintiff-
appellee vs. Arnulfo Barro et al., G.R. No. 118098, August 17, 2000 reiterated in
the case of Efren S. Almuete, petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, respondent,
G.R. No. 179611, March 12, 2013

1|Page
 The Honorable Supreme Court is the last and only resort available to the
accused in this case, to wit:

Moreover, the filing of the case directly with this Court runs afoul of the
doctrine of hierarchy of courts. Pursuant to this doctrine, direct resort from the
lower courts to the Supreme Court will not be entertained unless the
appropriate remedy cannot be obtained in the lower tribunals. This Court is a
court of last resort, and must so remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the
functions assigned to it by the Constitution and immemorial tradition. 

for the appellate court also turned its back on the accused John Paul Atup for
reason of the belated raising of the matter of the error in the imposition of
penalty that did not consider his minority.

Nature of the Petition

The present Petition is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of

the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure assailing the RESOLUTION of the Honorable
Court of Appeals dated March 31, 2016 (Annex A), RESOLUTION of the same
appellate court dated August 16, 2016 (Annex B) and May 27, 2015 (Annex C),
rendered in CA-G.R. CEB-CR-HC NO. 01930: People of the Philippines vs. Jairus
Atup & John Paul Atup, on matters of Question of Law.

The Honorable Court of Appeals resolved to dismiss the appeal for failure of
herein petitioner John Paul Atup and his brother Jairus Atup to file their
appellants brief within the reglamentary period and deny the Motion for
Reconsideration dated April 5, 2016 filed by petitioner John Paul Atup (Annex D)
sustaining the earlier Resolution of the honorable appellate court dismissing the
appeal of petitioner and not considering his motion for reconsideration the
dispositive portion provides as follows:

The Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated May 27, 2015

“ WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, for failure of the

accused-appellants to file their required brief, this case is considered
ABANDONED, and is hereby ordered DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 50,
Section 1(e), in conjunction with Rule 124, Section 8, of the Rules of
Court.”

2|Page
 The Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated March 31, 2016

“The Court resolved to:

1) NOTE and CONSIDER as sufficient notice, the Notice of Resolution
dated May 27, 2015 sent to Atty. Bayani S. Atup, counsel for accused
John Paul Atup and Jairius Atup, which was receive but no date was
indicated per registry receipt.

2) NOTE that neither motion for reconsideration nor appeal to the

Supreme Court was filed per CMIS Verification dated March 15,
2016.

3) For failure to assail this Court’s Resolution dated May 27, 2015
despite due notice, the said resolution has now become final and
executory on July 2, 2015. Accordingly, the corresponding Entry of
Judgment may now be issued and recorded in the Book of Entries of
Judgment of the Court.”

The Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated August 16, 2016

“The Court resolved to:

1. NOTE the following:

a. ENTRY OF JUDGMENT issued by this Court on March 31,
2016;
b. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION of the May 27, 2015
Resolution filed by accused-appellant John Paul Atup through
counsel;
c. Tracer-reply dated May 20, 2015 from the Postmaster of the
Bureau of Posts of Cebu City, reporting to this Court that the
mail matter with registered letter no. 3439, containing the
May 27, 2015 Resolution, addressed to Atty. Bayani S. Atup,
was received by one Melvert Pianar on June 23, 2015; and
d. COMMENT to the Motion for Reconsideration of the May 27,
2015 Resolution filed by plaintiff-appellee, through the OSG.

2. DENY the MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION of the May 27, 2015

Resolution filed on April 5, 2016 by accused-appellant John Paul
Atup through counsel, for being filed out of time since it was filed
only in 287th day from receipt of notice of the May 27, 2015
Resolution by his counsel, Atty. Bayani S. Atup.”

3|Page
and thereby also sustaining the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 51,
Carmen, Bohol, in Criminal Case Nos. 01, 0101-A, 0102 & 0103, the dispositive
portion of said decision (Annex E) reads as follows:

“ WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered

finding accused Ronde Estorba a.k.a. Rondy Estorba, John Paul Atup, Jairius Atup
a.k.a. Julius Atup and Luwell Gamalo GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Rape in Criminal Case No. 0101 and the Court hereby sentences each
of said accused to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. Said accused are
further ordered to indemnify Zita Maranga, jointly and severally the amount of
P100,000.00 as moral damages.

In Criminal Case No. 0101-A, the Court finds accused Ronde Estorba a.k.a.
Rondy Estorba, John Paul Atup, Jairius Atup a.k.a. Julius Atup and Luwell Gamalo
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape, and the Court hereby
sentences each of said accused to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua.
Said accused are further ordered to indemnify Zita Maranga, jointly and severally
the amount of P100,000.00 as moral damages.

In Criminal Case No. 0102, the Court finds accused John Paul Atup
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Frustrated Murder under
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as Amended by R.A. No. 7659, in relation
to Articles 6 and 50 of the Revised Penal Code, the Court hereby sentences said
accused to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from 17 years, 4
months and 1 day to 20 years of Reclusion Temporal Maximum. Said accused is
further ordered to indemnify Zita Maranga the amount of P5,905.00 as actual
damages and P50,000.00 as moral damages. Accused Ronde Estorba a.k.a.
Rondy Estorba, Jairius Atup a.k.a. Julius Atup and Luwell Gamalo are ACQUITTED
of the crime charged because of reasonable doubt.

In Criminal Case No. 0103, the Court finds accused Ronde Estorba a.k.a.
Rondy Estorba GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with
Homicide punishable under paragraph 1 of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code
as Amended, and the Court hereby sentences said accused to suffer the penalty
of Reclusion Perpetua. Said accused is hereby further ordered to indemnify the
heirs of Albert Balaba the amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages and
P50,000.00 in the form of death indemnity.

Accused John Paul Atup, Jairius Atup a.k.a. Julius Atup and Luwell Gamalo
are ACQUITTED of the crime charged because of reasonable doubt.

SO ORDERED.” (Bold texts supplied for emphasis)

II

Material dates
(Timeliness of the Filing of the Petition)

4|Page
 On April 4, 2016, petitioners through the undersigned counsel, received the
RESOLUTION of the Honorable Court of Appeals dated March 31, 2016 declaring
that the filed appeal of petitioner/accused John Paul Atup is deemed abandoned
and ordered dismissed for failure to file an Appellant’s brief within the time
prescribed by the rules (Annex A).

On April 5, 2016, herein petitioners filed with the Honorable Court of

Appeals the petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration dated April 5, 2016 (Annex
D).
On August 26, 2016, herein petitioners received the Resolution of the
Honorable Court of Appeals dated August 16, 2016 (Annex B), thus, giving herein
petitioner until September 10, 2016 within which to file the present petition
pursuant to Section 2 of Rule 45, wherein petitioner is given fifteen (15) days from
receipt of the denial of their motion for reconsideration within which to file with
the Honorable SUPREME COURT a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.

Considering that the present petition is filed before September 10, 2016,
the same is clearly shown that the present petition is filed within the prescribed
period as mandated by the rules.

III

Attachments

Herein petitioner is attaching the Original/Certified True Copies of the

following documents:

1. As Annex A is the original copy of the Resolution of the Honorable Court

of Appeals dated March 31, 2016;

2. As Annex B is the original copy of the Resolution of the Honorable Court

of Appeals dated August 16, 2016;

3. As Annex C is the original copy of the Resolution of the Honorable Court

of Appeals dated May 27, 2015;

4. As Annex D is the original copy of the Motion for Reconsideration of the

Resolution Ordering the Dismissal of the case for cause of
accused/petitioner dated April 5, 2016.

5|Page
 5. As Annex E is the certified true copy of the Decision in Criminal Case
Nos. 01, 0101-A, 0102 & 0103 of the Regional Trial Court Branch 51,
Carmen, Bohol.

6. As Annexes F, F1 is the certified true copy of the Birth Certificate of

accused-petitioner John Paul Atup submitted as his exhibit 8, and the
Certification of the honorable Court of Appeals that said document is a
faithful reproduction or genuine copy of the Birth Certificate of accused
on file with the records of the case now with the Court of Appeals.
IV
The Parties

Petitioner-accused John Paul Atup is a Filipino of legal age, single, now of

legal age, is one of the accused in criminal case entitled People of the Philippines
vs. Ronde Estorba, John Paul Atup and Jairius Atup, Sodum Decasa and Lowell
Gamalo, and presently interred/incarcerated at the National Bilib Prison at
Muntinlupa City, Metro Manila, Philippines.

Respondent is the People of the Philippines duly represented by the Office

of the Solicitor General with office address at 134 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi
Village, Makati City, Philippines.

V
Statement of the Matters Involved,
and Facts of the Case

Petitioner, in this case, is charged and found guilty of Rape in Criminal Case
No. 0101 and 0101-A and the Court a quo sentenced petitioner to suffer the
penalty of Reclusion Perpetua in both cases.

In Criminal Case No. 0102, herein petitioner was also found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of frustrated murder and sentenced to suffer the
penalty of an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from 17 years, 4 months
and 1 day to 20 years of Reclusion Temporal Maximum.

Finding that it was already impossible to cause the reversal of the decision
on appeal, herein petitioner learned to accept his fate and found it futile to
pursue the appeal for factual evidence presented by the State was very
overwhelming to hope for a reversal of the appealed decision without realizing at
first that there was something wrong about the decision since it failed to take into
6|Page
account the evidence adduced by here petitioner pointing to his minority at the
time of the commission of said crimes.

Believing honestly that the decision has already become final, and no
longer appealable, herein petitioner and the undersigned counsel bitterly
accepted the result of the decision and lost all hope of changing the plight of
herein accused/petitioner even though the fact that the minority of herein
petitioner was not considered in arriving at the imposed penalties.
However, when petitioner’s counsel received the honorable Court of
Appeals Resolution dated March 31, 2016 on April 5, 2016, the same happened to
come across the decision of the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of People
of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee vs. Arnulfo Barro et al., G.R. No. 118098,
August 17, 2000 reiterated in the case of Efren S. Almuete, petitioner, vs. People
of the Philippines, respondent, G.R. No. 179611, March 12, 2013, wherein from
the gist of said decision if the imposed penalty is erroneous, for failure to consider
the privilege mitigating circumstance of minority, that the decision can never
become final, and that even if the accused did not appeal the decision the said
erroneous decision can still be revisited and corrected in order to conform with
the law.

Thus, petitioner seeing a little hope bravely filed his motion for
reconsideration to the Resolution of the Honorable Court of Appeal dated March
31, 2016 invoking the spirit of the law and the decision of the highest tribunal in
case of Barro, and hoping that said court will allow the revisiting and re-opening
of the questioned decision only for the purpose of rectifying the erroneous
imposed penalties.

In the said Motion for Reconsideration, herein petitioner posits that the
Honorable Court of Appeals still has in its power and jurisdiction to rectify the said
patent error of the decision for said imposed penalty is erroneous, and therefore
not final, and could still be made to conform the law.

However, the honorable court of appeals denied the motion for

reconsideration per its Resolution dated August 2, 2016, citing that the filing of
the same is 287 days late, and stick to the strict application of the rules and threw
fate of herein petitioner to the four winds of nature.

Thus, the present petition is filed.

VI

Reasons or Arguments Relied on for the Allowance of the Petition

7|Page
 A. The Honorable Court of Appeals made an error of law in
denying the motion for reconsideration of petitioner for
purposes of re-opening the portion of the decision wherein
the same is patently erroneous for failure to take into
consideration the minority of the accused.

B. The Honorable Court of Appeals erred when it failed to

realize that decisions in criminal cases that imposes
penalties that is/are not in conformity of law never ripen
into a final decision, and should have been revisited and
reconsidered.

VI (A)

Arguments/Discussion

The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in

denying the motion for reconsideration of
petitioner for purposes of re-opening the
portion of the decision wherein the same is
patently erroneous for failure to take into
consideration the minority of the accused,
and that decisions in criminal cases that
imposes penalties that is not in conformity
of law never ripen into a final decision, and
should have been revisited and
reconsidered.

In this petition, petitioner/accused John Paul Atup is not questioning the

matter of whether he is guilty or not of the crime charged but on whether a
person who was still a minor when he committed the offense do not deserve to
have a second chance in life by allowing him the personal privilege mitigating
circumstance of minority that was not considered by the Court a quo in imposing
penalty to herein accused for the crimes that he has committed, and whether the
honorable Court of Appeals should have set aside technical rules in order to
revisit the questioned decision that herein petitioner is vigorously claiming to be
patently erroneous, and should have been amended to conform with law.

8|Page
 The crimes to which herein accused-petitioner John Paul Atup was
convicted for were perpetrated on October 7, 1997, herein accused-petitioner
who was born on March 24, 1981 was only Sixteen (16) years old as evidenced by
his offered exhibit 8, his Certificate of Birth.

As such even if herein accused is truly guilty of the crime charge, his
personal privilege mitigating circumstance of minority was unjustly not
appreciated by the Court a quo when it imposed the questioned penalties, thus,
herein accused-petitioner is asking by this petition for review that said penalties
be revisited and re-opened for the same are not in conformity of the express
mandate of the law.

Thus, although herein accused-petitioner and his counsel knew fully well
that herein accused-petitioner should face the consequence of his actions, and in
fact have already accepted the fact that it was a futile exercise to even file an
appellants brief for the factual evidence submitted by the state is almost
impossible to dispute on appeal, by stroke of luck herein accused-petitioner’s
counsel happened to have by accident come across the decisions of the
Honorable Supreme Court in the cases of People of the Philippines, plaintiff-
appellee vs. Arnulfo Barro et al., G.R. No. 118098, August 17, 2000 reiterated in
the case of Efren S. Almuete, petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, respondent,
G.R. No. 179611, March 12, 2013, that gave herein accused-petitioner a light of
hope that could better the present plight of the accused-petitioner.

Thus, although the questioned decision of the Court a quo has already
become final, and the dismissal of the appeal of accused-petitioner was so
warranted by the rules, and cannot fault the Appellate Court in ordering the
dismissal of said appeal, but, herein accused-petitioner is questioning the decision
of the Appellate Court in refusing to revisit the penalties imposed against herein
accused-petitioner notwithstanding the fact that petitioner’s minority was not
taken into consideration.

As pointed out in the Motion for Reconsideration of herein petitioner, the

penalties imposed against herein accused/petitioner by the Court a quo are as
follows:

a. For being found guilty of the crime of two counts of rape with the
use of force and intimidation, with the help of each other,
accused-appellant-movant John Paul Atup was imposed the
penalty of Reclusion Perpetua in both Criminal Case No. 0101 and
0101-A; and

9|Page
 b. For being found guilty of the crime of Frustrated Murder on the
person of victim Zita Maranga, herein accused-appellant-movant
John Paul Atup was imposed the penalty of 17 years, 4 Months
and 1 day to 20 years of Reclusion Temporal Maximum.

Evidently, the above cited penalties failed to take into consideration the
privilege mitigating circumstance of minority of herein petitioner since at the time
he committed the crime he was only sixteen years old.

As pointed out in petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, the correct

penalty as mandated by law and taking into consideration the privilege mitigating
circumstance of minority of the accused/petitioner the same should only be:

a. The next lower penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, which is Reclusion

Temporal medium. Thus, the penalty that should have been imposed is
a penalty maximum from 14 years, 8 months and 1 day to 17 years and
4 months for each of the two counts of rape.

b. The fact that herein accused-appellant-movant is only 16 years old when

he committed the crime, the imposed penalty of the questioned
decision of maximum penalty of Reclusion Temporal Maximum, which is
17 years, 4 months and 1 day to 20 years, should only be the imposable
penalty of one degree lower or prision mayor at its maximum of 10
years and 2 day to 12 years.

In the decision of the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of People of the
Philippines, plaintiff-appellee vs. Arnulfo Barro et al., G.R. No. 118098, August 17,
2000 even though the accused Joel Barro did not file an appeal, thus, making the
decision final and executory against him, and yet the Honorable Supreme Court
ruled to rectify the patent error in the imposed penalty under the ratio decidendi
that erroneous penalty can never become final, to wit:

However, where the penalty imposed on the co-accused who did not appeal
was a nullity because it was never authorized by law, that penalty imposed on
the accused who did not appeal can be corrected to make it conform to the
penalty prescribed by law, the reason being that, said penalty can never
become final and executory and it is within the duty and inherent power of the
Court to have it conformable with law.| (People v. Barro, Sr., G.R. No. 118098,
[August 17, 2000], 392 PHIL 857-876)

It is the hope of herein accused-petitioner in filing the present petition that

spirit that moved the Highest Court in rectifying the erroneous penalty imposed in
the Barro case be also allowed application in his case even though his appeal was
already dismissed.
10 | P a g e
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, on the basis of the foregoing facts, laws and arguments, it is

respectfully prayed of the Honorable Supreme Court that it considers the present
petition with all tolerance and leniency, and that an order be issued:

1. CORRECTING the imposed penalty against herein petitioner John Paul

Atup, and affording him privilege mitigating circumstance of minority
since he was only 16 years of age at the time of the alleged commission
of the crime, and an amendatory order be issued imposing the correct
penalty of:

 Reclusion Temporal at its medium period or 14 years, 8

months and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months for each of the
two counts of rape; and

 Prision mayor at its maximum of 10 years and 2 day to 12 years.

2. Petitioner John Paul Atup prays for such other relief that is just and
reasonable under the premises.

Cebu City (for Manila), Philippines. September _____, 2016.

SENINING (+) BELCINA ATUP ENTISE LIMA-LIMA

JUMAO-AS BANTILAN ACLAN CONDAT & ASSO.
Counsels for Accused-Appellant-Movant John Paul Atup
2nd Floor Z. Plaza Building, D. Jakosalem Street
Barangay Zapatera, Cebu City, Philippines

By:

BAYANI S. ATUP
Attorney’s Roll No. 41994
MCLE Compliance No.V-0003582
IBP No. 037(temp.) issued on January 19, 2016, Cebu
PTR No. 6660049, issued on Jan. 11, 2016, Cebu Prov.
Notary Public Serial No.088-09

VERIFICATION & CERTIFICATE OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

11 | P a g e
 I, JOHN PAUL ATUP under oath depose and say that:

1. I am the petitioner in the above-entitled case; I have caused the

preparation of the foregoing Petition for Review on Certiorari (under
Rule 45); I have read and understood the allegations therein and hereby
certify that the same are true and correct based on our own personal
knowledge or based on authentic documents;

2. I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the

same issues before this Honorable Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals,
or different division thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; and that no
such action or proceeding is likewise pending therein; and should we
thereafter learn that a similar action of proceeding has been filed or is
pending before the Honorable Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or
different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, we
undertake to promptly inform the aforesaid courts and other tribunal or
agency thereof within five (5) days from such knowledge.

3. I certify as to the material dates and facts:

a. On April 4, 2016; petitioners received the Resolution of the

Honorable Court of Appeals both dated March 31, 2016;

b. On April 5, 2016, herein petitioner filed a Motion for

Reconsideration to the aforesaid Resolution of the Court of
Appeals.

c. On August 26, 2016, herein petitioner thru counsel received the

Resolution of the Honorable Court of Appeals denying his motion
for reconsideration thereby granting to herein petitioner until
September 10, 2016 within which to the file present petition.

JOHN PAUL ATUP

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ________ day of

_____________________ 2016 in the City of Cebu, Philippines. Affiants is
personally known to me because he has been my client on the subject case since
the time he was arraigned, and because he is my own nephew.

12 | P a g e
 PROOF OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

Copy received by:

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
BY REGISTERED MAIL WITH EXPLANATION

I, NOEL PERALES, of legal age being the messenger of ATTY. BAYANI S. ATUP
with address at 2F Z Plaza Building, D. Jakosalem Street, Barangay Zapatera, Cebu
City, Philippines, after having sworn to in accordance with law, hereby depose and
says:

On _________________________________, I served a copy of the

following pleading/paper by registered mail in accordance with Section 7, in
relation to Section 11, both of Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure:

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Respondent

- versus -

JOHN PAUL ATUP

Petitioner

Petition for Review on Certiorari (Under Rule 45)

SC CV ______________________________
CA – G.R.-CEB-CR-HC NO. 01930
RTC CASE NO. 01, 0101-A, 0102 & 0103

13 | P a g e
By depositing a copy thereof in the Post Office, in a sealed envelope plainly
addressed to the party(ies) or his/her/their counsel(s) at his/her/their
residence(s)/office(s) listed hereunder, with postage fully prepaid per registry
receipt number(s) indicated opposite his/her/their names(s) and the original
receipt(s) being attached to the original of the pleading mailed, and with
instructions to the postmaster to return the mail to the sender after ten (10) days
if undelivered, to wit:

Name Address Receipt No.

Atty. Dionis P. Jacobe OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

134 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village
1229 Makati City

Atty. Michael Doria Counsel for Accused Ronde Estorba

Sierra Bullones, Bohol 6320

Atty. J. Albert P. Tinampay TINAMPAY LEGAL CLINIC

4-A, Gallares St., Tagbilaran City, Bohol 6300

The Clerk of Court Court of Appeals, Cebu Division,

Special Former Special 19th Division
Happy Valley, Cebu City, 6000

The Presiding Judge Regional Trial Court Branch 51

Carmen, Bohol 6319
Philippines, 6000

The Director Bureau of Corrections

New Bilibid Prison
1776 Muntinlupa City

The Clerk of Court Supreme Court of the Philippines

Manila, Philippines

Furthermore, as required under Section 11 of the same Rule, I submit the

following explanation as to why (_______) personal filing in court (________)
personal service of the aforesaid pleading/paper was not resorted to:

(______) personal service cannot be effected within the deadline;

(______) the address(es) of the party(ies)/counsel(s) is/are far from that of

our law office;

(______) our law firm does not have sufficient personnel to effect personal
service of all the numerous pleadings its prepares everyday;

14 | P a g e
 (______) other reasons
___________________________________________________

________________________________________
NOEL PERALES

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ________ day of

______________________ 2016 in the City of Cebu, Philippines, affiant exhibited
to me his Community Tax Certificate No. _________________________________
issued at ________________________________________ issued on
_____________________________________, and his valid identification
document known as
________________________________________________________.

15 | P a g e