Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice
NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE
Tacloban City Prosecutor’s Office
Justice Hall, Magsaysay Blvd., Tacloban City

SPOUSES “Y” IS NO.: 14343


Complainants,
FOR: Violation of B.P. Blg. 22 and
ESTAFA
-versus-

“M”,
Respondent
x------------------------------------------x

COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT

DEFENDANT, by the undersigned attorney and to this Honorable Office respectfully avers that:

1. Defendant admits paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 with regards the names, residences and status of the

parties, but refutes portions of other paragraphs, for lack of adequate knowledge to form as to

the truth thereof.

2. Defendant denies particularly paragraph ten (10), claiming that the defendant after notice of the

dishonored check practically abandoned to fund it. Defendant, through the internet replied

dated February 12, 2010 stating that she was not able to fund the said check due to the series of

losses suffered by her business. As a substitute, defendant will issue another check for the

payment of the said commodities. Moreover, the defendant secured an offering of twenty

thousand pesos (P20, 000.00) as a fractional payment for the commodities that were received

last January of 2010 but the latter denied the same. Photocopy of said reply letter attached as

ANNEX- “E”.

3. Defendant rejects also the contention of the plaintiff that she employed deceit in the issuance

of a dishonored check. In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Lea Sagan Juliano, the

Supreme Court held that in failing to prove the element of deceit by appellant, that prosecution

failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that appellant is guilty of Estafa under Article 315,

paragraph 2 (d), of the Revised Penal Code. With that, the appellant did not constitute

fraudulent acts that caused damages to the complainant.

1|Page
4. Defendant also denies paragraph thirteen (13) stating that the existence and amount of the

interest. The agreement was not put into writing rather making it only a verbal agreement.

WHEREFORE, defendant respectfully prays that the complaint be dismissed due to lack of merit,

with costs against the plaintiff.

Tacloban City, December 8, 2010

ATTY. GAUDENCIO A. CATUBAO JR.

Counsel for the Defendant

140-B Real Street, Tacloban City

PTR NO. 7484788/02/04

IBP OR# 143478 /11/03/09

Attys. Roll No. 62455/ May 10, 2009

MCLE COMPLIANCE NUMBER III-4874 /11/7/2009

Contact No. 327-1990

Email: gcatubao@yahoo.com

2|Page
VERIFICATION

Defendant, of legal age, after having duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. That she has caused in the preparation of the foregoing answer with defenses, and the

allegations therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge and/or based on the reliable

records.

2. That she further states that the interest was made in oral and no written agreement was

furnished between them.

Executed this 8th day of December, 2010 at Tacloban City

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this December 8, 2010 in Tacloban City, Republic of the

Philippines, affiant being personally known to me, and I certify that I have personally examined the

affiant and I am fully contented that she willfully and spontaneously executed her affidavit and fully

understood all contents thereof.

Doc No.: 48

Page No.: 44

Book No.: Y

Series of 2010

3|Page
ANNEX E

January 20, 2010

SPOUSES “Y”

69 Imelda Veteranos Extension

Tacloban City

Dear Sir and Madame:

I act contrite for the dishonor of said checks due to insufficient funds and instability of my

business. I am willing to issue another check for the said commodities amounting to one hundred

twenty-six thousand, four hundred ninety pesos (P126, 490.00) during these days.

Truly yours,

“M”

4|Page