Trigger warning: physical violence

Filipino socialite and philanthropist Tessa Prieto has formally accused her former partner, Angel Chua, a Cebu-based figure in the construction industry, of physical abuse.

Prieto, a personality who has been in the public eye for years, filed a legal complaint accusing Chua of violating the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act (VAWC) of 2004 or Republic Act No. 9262.

Prieto submitted her complaint-affidavit and swore before the Makati Prosecutor’s Office on July 17, 2024.

This legislation defines violence as any act or a series of acts “causing physical harm to the woman or her child” or “placing the woman or her child in fear of imminent physical harm.” (RA 9262, Section 5)

The elements of the crime include: “The woman is either the wife or former wife of the offender, or is a woman with whom the offender has or had sexual or dating relationship, or is a woman with whom such offender has a common child. As for the woman’s child or children, they may be legitimate or illegitimate, or living within the family abode.”

Finally, the violence has resulted in physical, sexual and psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse.

TESSA PRIETO’S COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT on physical abuse

Tessa Prieto’s legal complaint details a series of violent encounters that allegedly unfolded over the course of her 11-month relationship with Angel Chua.

According to Prieto, one of the most alarming incidents occurred in July 2023, when a heated verbal argument turned physically violent.

Prieto, in a recorded interview with PEP.ph (Philippine Entertainment Portal), described how she tried to de-escalate their fights, which she said had become increasingly violent.

She recalled moments when, she also alleged, objects were hurled at her during their altercations and where she suffered direct physical harm in the end.

“But I didn’t want to aggravate her because I knew our fights were already getting more and more violent. Nagtatapon na ng [#@!!!] until she finally really hit me na.”

The tension in their relationship grew in the following months, according to Prieto’s complaint-affidavit, with the added circumstance of her Rufino-Prieto family voicing strong disapproval of her involvement with Chua.

She cited an incident in December 2023 when, in an attempt to break away, she retrieved her passport and fled Cebu, where Chua was based and where Prieto had joined her.

By Prieto’s telling, Chua followed her to Manila 10 days later, convincing her to reconcile, with Chua purportedly saying she would make efforts to gain the approval of the Prieto family.

Prieto said she resisted initially, but fearing the emotional consequence of another confrontation, admitted that she gave in eventually.

“Oh my god, I don’t know. So, anyway, I escaped. I really escaped from Cebu. But sometime I got the usual awa, and I got scared because she wasn’t, I said, ‘No worries about not paying me.’ So, anyway, January, kind of made up, but I said, ‘I’ll keep it low. My family’s already disinherited me’ or whatever like that.”

However, Prieto’s complaint-affidavit alleged, the cycle of abuse continued, with Chua being physically violent.

Citing another incident, Prieto described how Chua recorded a video of herself assaulting Prieto.

The recording captured Chua acknowledging her act of physical violence, justifying it as a consequence of Prieto’s actions.

Prieto also claimed Chua made disturbing remarks, threatened legal action, and coerced Prieto into submission.

At one point, Prieto said, she was physically overpowered, pushed onto a bed, and struck on the face.

She added that Chua further humiliated her by forcibly placing fingers in her mouth while making degrading accusations related to Prieto’s past relationship.

The encounter, alleged Prieto, left her pleading for help, but her attempts to de-escalate the situation were met with more intimidation.

She also claimed that Chua ordered her to delete the video permanently.

Prieto narrated that she acted like she was complying but secretly saved a copy of the incriminating video.

In her complaint-affidavit, Prieto went on to say that she managed to send a copy to a trusted friend as a precautionary measure.

She also stated that she was willing to present the evidence, but she wanted it done in a controlled environment to protect her privacy.

“She was getting physical na, throwing [#@!!] until one day… and I know her… I know how to… She’s already in her fury like that. I can step down. But then this time, I did not.

“I said, like, she opened my phone. I said, like, ‘You cannot touch my phone,’ because she keeps getting phone and stuff like that.

“She was, like, ‘You do a character assassination to me.’ I said, like, ‘What? But you’re, like, hitting me!’

“She already hit me. As in, I had pasa and stuff.

“So, she got my phone, got it on video, and says, like, ‘I’m Angel Chua and I’m hitting you, Tessa Prieto, only because you,’ not naman that I deserve it, ‘but to show you that it’s your fault that I am in this situation, that I can,’ you know, blah, blah, blah.

“And then I said, ‘Are you going to sue me?’ And then she said, like, ‘I’m going to sue you if you’re going to sue me.’

“Then she pins me down, strangles me on video, ha? It’s my phone!

“And she puts her two fingers inside me [referring to the mouth] to say, ‘Do you wanna [#@@!!?], my ex-guy. And I said, like, she has a [##@@!!!] fetish na, di ba? She’s just, I don’t know.

“And then I said, like, then I realized, oh my god, I better, like, survival mode. I said, ‘Sorry.’

“And then, you know, she said, ‘Oh, you say sorry, huh?’ She said, ‘Oh, you really deserve, you really deserve that I hit you, huh?’ Parang ganon, huh. ‘You understand now? You understand?’

“And then after that, she said, ‘Delete that video!’ So, I deleted it, but I didn’t delete it permanently.

“I went kunyari crying, crying, crying, went straight to the banyo. I passed the video to my friend. And then I went back, and she said, like, ‘Delete it permanently.’ So I deleted it permanently.”

In her interview with PEP, Prieto also recounted the physical toll of the abuse, stating that she sustained bruises not only on her neck and arms but to her self-worth.

“I don’t mind sharing the video of the file. There’s only one part, I’ve got a bomba so just cover your eyes.

“I said like, Oh my god. As in like, wow, best dramatic actors. I mean like, Oh my God. In the beginning, it’s just like, we’re just arguing. Oh my god. You can’t even watch it. Oh my god, ang pangit ko pala.

“I don’t know how these actresses can look even beautiful in that violent scene. Pero grabe.”

Claiming that her legal action was motivated not by financial gain but by the need for “justice,” Prieto explicitly stated that what she was seeking from the court was “jail time” for Chua.

Prieto acknowledged the legal complexities surrounding her complaint, as the law primarily dealt with male perpetrators of violence against women.

Despite this, her legal team asserted that the abuse she suffered in the hands of her former female partner met all the legal definitions outlined under the VAWC Act.

“For the VAWC—and I’m suing her for jail time. I’m not suing her for money. In fact, the VAWC daw is like PHP2,000 bail. But then it’s also—no. And my lawyer is not even charging me because she goes, like, ‘Oh my god, normally the VAWC is like violence against women by a man.’“

She added: “My mom doesn’t want me to sue, but I told her, you know, I just need to protect myself and to give a voice of justice to every other person.”

Tessa’s mother is Marixi Rufino Prieto, a philantrophist whose portfolio includes ownership of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.

As legal proceedings progress, Prieto tells PEP she remains firm in seeking justice, saying she wants to bring focus on the experiences of women in abusive relationships—regardless of the gender of their abuser.

MAKATI CITY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE RESOLUTION

Chua did not file a counter-affidavit to refute Prieto’s allegations.

Two months after Prieto filed her complaint, the fiscal issued a resolution.

On September 25, 2024, the Makati Prosecutor’s Office issued an order charging Chua with violation of Section 5(a) of the Anti-VAWC Act.

Signed by Assistant City Prosecutor Jed Velasquez, the Order resolved that Prieto was able to “duly establish the physical harm” inflicted on her by Chua on January 30, 2024, while the couple was billeted at a Makati hotel.

The fiscal cited Prieto’s video as sufficient evidence.

The video, wrote the fiscal, showed that Chua “clearly physically assaulted” Prieto by “slapping her and forcing her fingers into complainant’s mouth repeatedly.”

The fiscal, however, did not find sufficient cause to charge Chua “with other violations of R.A. No. 9262” due to lack of evidence.

Still according to the fiscal, Prieto failed to submit proof of her allegation that Chua owed her a substantial amount of money for at least two purchases that Prieto cited in her affidavit.

The resolution also indicated that the bail for Chua for causing physical harm to Tessa amounted to PHP2,000.

ANGEL CHUA’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Angel Chua, for her part, firmly denied all allegations outlined in Prieto’s complaint, asserting that they were false and misleading.

While she did not submit a counter-affidavit, Chua’s arguments were listed in a Motion For Reconsideration filed later by her legal team.

The Motion for Reconsideration challenged the credibility of Prieto’s claims, particularly the accusation that Chua violated the Anti-VAWC Act on January 30, 2024.

Chua claimed that the video evidence Prieto presented to support this claim may have been altered, pointing to what she described as a pattern of dishonesty in Prieto’s affidavit.

As part of her defense, Chua presented additional footage and photographs taken shortly after the alleged incident, which, according to Chua, directly contradicted Prieto’s claim of abuse.

She highlighted images of them together that same day, arguing that these images showed no signs of distress or conflict between the couple.

Furthermore, Chua cited Prieto’s activities in the days that followed, including Prieto dancing and golfing with her son on February 1, 2024, as further proof that no physical incapacity resulted from the supposed altercation.

Chua also claimed that the complaint was financially motivated.

She alleged that Prieto was attempting to pressure her, even after their relationship had ended, into continuing financial support.

She pointed to shared expenses they had previously covered together, including the monthly amortization for a luxury vehicle.

Additionally, Chua claimed, Prieto had simply become upset over her involvement with other women, particularly after learning about Chua’s international travels with them.

Chua’s counsel formally filed the Motion for Reconsideration on October 28, 2024, the second working day following the suspension of government work in the National Capital Region due to Typhoon Kristine.

The filing was initially set for October 25, 2024, in accordance with procedural deadlines, but was delayed as government offices were closed from October 23 to October 25.

Chua’s legal team claimed that the motion had been prepared for submission on October 23 but was postponed due to circumstances beyond their control.

Given these arguments, Chua’s legal team urged the fiscal to reconsider the resolution, claiming that key pieces of evidence and counter-arguments had not been thoroughly examined during the preliminary investigation.

Chua maintained that a more comprehensive review would have resulted in the dismissal of Prieto’s complaint.

FISCAL JUNKS ANGEL CHUA’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

The fiscal denied Chua’s motion for reconsideration.

On December 27, 2024, the Makati City Prosecutor’s Office issued a decision denying Chua’s motion for reconsideration, stating that the respondent failed to provide sufficient grounds to “warrant the reversal of the assailed Resolution.”

It concluded that Chua also failed to identify which part of the assailed Resolution was not backed by law of fact, or where the Office “erred when it found her liable.”

The Office underscored that the right to appeal was not an inherent or “natural right” under the principles of due process.

The Office explained that the right to appeal was “merely a statutory privilege” to be exercised within the confines of the law, and any failure to meet the legal requirements for such an appeal shall result in the loss of that right.

As a result, the resolution stated, Chua’s motion was denied on procedural grounds alone.

In her motion, Chua claimed that Prieto’s allegations were false.

Chua presented photographs to support the argument that following the alleged incident at a Makati hotel—where the violation was supposed to have occurred—both Chua and Prieto were photographed in separate locations, apparently celebrating and enjoying each other’s company.

However, the Prosecutor’s Office determined that these photographs, while showing a seemingly happy atmosphere, did not invalidate the allegations of physical assault.

The mere existence of these images, which depicted what appeared to be a normal, affectionate relationship, could not “obliterate or negate the act of assault,” the resolution noted.

The Prosecutor’s Office concluded that the pictures were insufficient to “refute the fact of physical assault against complainant.”

Strengthening its resolution, the Prosecutor’s Office pointed to the video provided by Prieto, which depicted a scene where Chua was slapping Prieto and Chua had her fingers forcibly shoved into Prieto’s mouth while the latter was clearly seen crying.

Still based on the resolution, the video was deemed a critical piece of evidence in the legal complaint that could not be disregarded or minimized by later images of happy moments.

Addressing the matters raised by Chua—particularly the photos, the video, and the social media conversations between complainant and respondent— the fiscal stated that these were all considered part of the defense.

These were therefore issues, the fiscal stated, more appropriately addressed during a full trial, where both parties could present their arguments and evidence in greater detail.

The fiscal reiterated that these matters of defense were not grounds to reverse or modify the earlier decision.

Saying it had considered relevant arguments, evidence, and legal principles, the Makati City Prosecutor’s Office determined that there was no substantial reason to alter or reverse its initial resolution.

Consequently, Chua’s motion for reconsideration was firmly denied.

ANGEL CHUA FILES APPEAL BEFORE DOJ

Chua refused to back down.

On January 16, 2025, Chua’s lawyer filed a Petition For Review before the Department of Justice, insisting that there were “errors” in the fiscal’s decision to charge her with physical abuse.

In her petition, Chua claimed that the video submitted by Prieto as proof of the alleged abuse had not been properly authenticated.

She argued that, based on the Rules of Electronic Evidence, it did not meet the specific requirements for electronic evidence to become admissible in court.

An Affidavit of Evidence that establishes “facts of direct personal knowledge of the affiant or based on authentic records,” Chua’s lawyers argued, should have been included in the complaint-affidavit.

In her petition, Chua reiterated her allegation that Tessa’s “primary motivation” in filing a suit was to coerce Chua into “continuing the financial support I previously provided in the relationship.”

On January 28, 2025, the Makati Regional Trial Court granted Chua’s petition to temporarily suspend and defer her arraignment.

Penned by Presiding Judge Liza Marie Tecson-Picardal, the decision said that the accused’s petition was granted to avoid preempting the DOJ decision and to avoid the conflict of a trial should Prieto’s complaint against Chua get dismissed.

The court also ordered that the hearing scheduled on February 6, 2025 be moved to April 25, 2025.

On January 30, following the court order, Chua’s lawyer submitted before the court a compliance document noting that a timely petition for review had been filed before the DOJ.