Prosecutor: Your Honor, we offer the testimony of Rogelio Napoles Jr.

, the private complainant in this case, to prove the

following: That he is the owner of Ibong Adarna Sand and Gravel Enterprise, that he was supplying sand and gravel to the
accused for her projects, that the accused purchased various construction materials from the private complainant for
which she issued a postdated check, that the check was deposited within ninety days from issuance and that said check
was dishonored upon presentment.

Judge: Proceed with the examination.

Prosecutor: Mr. Witness, do you remember executing an affidavit last Feb. 23, 2018?

Witness: Yes, Ma’am.

Prosecutor: If shown to you the affidavit, will you be able to identify it?

Witness: Yes, Ma’am.

Prosecutor: I am showing to you an affidavit consisting of 5 pages and dated February 23, 2018. I refer you to the 4th
page of this affidavit? Do you see this signature?

Witness: Yes.

Prosecutor: Whose signature is it?

Witness: Mine.

Prosecutor: Do you affirm the truthfulness and veracity of the judicial affidavit?

Witness: Yes, Ma’am.

Prosecutor: Your Honor, we present Exhibit “A” as the judicial affidavit of Rogelio Napoles Jr. and certify its
authenticity.

Judge: Noted.

Prosecutor: Now Mr. Witness, I am showing to you a check. Can you please tell the court the details of this check?

Witness: Check No. ____, dated November 5, 2018, paid to the order of Rogelio Napoles Jr., the amount is 400, 000
pesos. The bank is Banco De Oro.

Prosecutor: Is that check familiar to you?

Witness: Yes, Ma’am. This is the check issued to me by Norean Gabriana.

Prosecutor: Your Honor, we present Exhibit “B” as the check issued by the accused and verify its authenticity.

Judge: Noted.

Prosecutor: I am showing to you another document with a heading “Notice of Dishonor and Final Demand for
Payment”, is this document familiar?

Witness: Yes. This is the notice of dishonor and demand letter made by my private counsel and sent to Norean Gabriana.

Prosecutor: Kindly look at the last page of the document. Is the signature above the name Rogelio Napoles Jr., yours?

Witness: Yes.

Prosecutor: Your Honor, we present Exhibit “C” as the receiving copy of the notice of dishonor and final demand for
payment sent to the accused and certify its due execution and authenticity.

Judge: Noted.

Prosecutor: Mr. Witness, what is your relationship with Norean Gabriana, the named accused in your affidavit
complaint?

Witness: Ma’am, she has been my client for three years and I was supplying sand and gravel to her various projects.

Prosecutor: Is she in this courtroom?

Witness: Yes, Ma’am.

Prosecutor: Can you point, for purposes of identification of the accused, to that Norean Gabriana who is in this
courtroom?
Witness: (Points at Norean)

Court Interpreter: May we request the person being pointed at to stand and state her name.

Accused: My name is Mary Norean Gabriana.

Prosecutor: At this juncture your honor, for the record, the accused in this case has been positively identified by the
private complainant.

Judge: Noted.

Prosecutor: That is all, Your Honor.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(RE-DIRECT NAPOLES)

Prosecutor: Mr. Napoles did you comply with the request of the accused to not deposit the check before November 28,
2018?

Witness: Yes. But the funds were still insufficient.

Prosecutor: Did you comply with her request because you completely believed that she had no intention to defraud you?

Witness: No. I only complied because it’s embarrassing to refuse and I didn’t want to lose a client. That is all.

Prosecutor: Mr. Napoles, you said a while ago that you were not aware that Lito Medino is no longer the bookkeeper of
the accused.

Witness: Yes. That was not the first time that I sent a letter to Ms. Gabriana but she did not inform me at all that Mr.
Medino is no longer her bookkeeper. She should have informed me.

Prosecutor: But Mr. Witness, did you address the notice of dishonor to Mr. Medino?

Witness: No. The letter was to be sent to Ms. Gabriana and not to Mr. Medino and the address written in the letter was
her office address.

Prosecutor: So regardless of whether Mr. Medino was still her bookkeeper or not, the letter was meant to be sent to the
office of the accused?

Witness: Yes, Ma’am.

Prosecutor: No further questions, Your Honor.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prosecutor: I’m calling on Mr. Jamil Versoza.

Clerk of Court: Do you swear to tell the truth, all the truth and nothing but the truth in this case?

Witness: Yes, Maam.

Clerk of Court: Please state your name and other personal circumstances.

Witness:

Judge: Proceed.

Prosecutor: This testimony, Your Honor, is being offered to prove the fact that the witness was the bank teller who
attended to the private complainant when he tried to deposit the check and that the check was dishonored due to
insufficient funds.

Judge: Proceed with the examination.

Prosecutor: Mr. Witness, do you remember executing an affidavit last Feb. 24, 2018?

Witness: Yes, Ma’am.

Prosecutor: If shown to you the affidavit of complaint, will you be able to identify it?

Witness: Yes, Ma’am.

Prosecutor: I am showing to you an affidavit consisting of 5 pages and dated February 24, 2018. I refer you to the final
page of this affidavit. Do you see this signature?

Witness: Yes.

Prosecutor: Whose signature is it?

Witness: Mine.

Prosecutor: Do you affirm the truthfulness and veracity of the judicial affidavit?

Witness: Yes, Ma’am.

Prosecutor: Your Honor, we present Exhibit “E” as the judicial affidavit of Jamil Versoza and certify its authenticity.

Judge: Noted.

Prosecutor: Now Mr. Witness, I am showing to you Check No. _____ dated November 5, 2018, paid to the order of
Rogelio Napoles Jr. in the amount of P400,000. Is this check familiar?

Witness: Yes. That is the check presented to me by Sir Napoles last February 5, 2018.

Prosecutor: Mr. Witness, is there any markings on the check?

Witness: Yes, Ma’am. I am the one who stamped the marking on this check.

Prosecutor: Can you read to the Court the marking in said check?

Witness: DAIF

Prosecutor: What does that mean Mr. Witness?

Witness: It means “Drawn Against Insufficient Funds”.

Prosecutor: That is all, Your Honor.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(RE-DIRECT MR. VERSOZA)

Prosecutor: Mr. Versoza, you said a while ago that you don’t have a degree in Psychology.

Witness: Yes.

Prosecutor: Can you tell whether or not a person is upset?

Witness: Yes.

Prosecutor: Can you tell whether or not a person feels embarrassed?

Witness: Yes.

Prosecutor: So in other words, you don’t need a degree in Psychology to be able to determine the emotion that one is
currently experiencing?

Witness: Of course. Because the language of emotions is universal.

Prosecutor: Nothing further, Your Honor.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(FORMAL OFFER BY PROSECUTION)

Prosecutor: Your Honor, we are now resting the case for the prosecution.

Judge: How do you intend to submit your formal offer?

Prosecutor: We can now offer our evidence, Your Honor.

Judge: Proceed.

Prosecutor:
Exhibit A is the judicial affidavit of the private complainant being offered to prove that the the accused issued a useless
check and that the private complainant suffered humiliation when he tried to deposit the check.

Exhibit A-1 is the signature of the private complainant on the judicial affidavit to prove the authenticity of the judicial
affidavit.

Exhibit B is the check issued by the accused to the private complainant for the purpose of proving the fact that the accused
had issued a check during their transaction last November 5, 2018 and that said check was the same check issued by the
accused.

Exhibit B-1 is the marking stamped on the check which is being offered to prove that the check was dishonored because it
was drawn against insufficient funds.

Exhibit C is the received copy of the notice of dishonor and final demand for payment to prove that the private
complainant made an effort to notify the accused that the check was dishonored and that he made arrangements so that
the accused can comply with her payment obligation.

Exhibit C-1 is the signature of Rogelio Napoles Jr. on the notice of dishonor and demand letter to prove the due execution
and authenticity of the notice of dishonor and demand letter.

Exhibit D is the Registry Receipt Return Card to prove the fact that a certain Lito Medino received the notice of dishonor
and demand letter on February 12, 2018.

Exhibit E is the judicial affidavit executed by Jamil Versoza for the purpose of proving that the Mr. Versoza was the one
who attended to the private complainant when he presented the check and that the check was dishonored due to
insufficient funds.

Exhibit E-1 is the signature of Jamil Versoza on the judicial affidavit to prove the due execution and authenticity of the
affidavit.

Judge: Any comment?

Defense:

Judge: Acting on the formal offer of exhibits of the prosecutor and comments thereon by the defense counsel, the Court
resolves to admit all the exhibits specified by the prosecution counsel.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(MS. GABRIANA CROSS)

Prosecutor: Ms. Witness, you have stated on your judicial affidavit that you did not receive any notice of dishonor,
correct?

Witness:

Prosecutor: But you are well aware that at the time you issued the check, the account was not sufficiently funded,
correct?

Witness:

Prosecutor: So Ms. Witness, regardless of whether you have received a notice of dishonor or not, you were aware that
the check would be subsequently dishonored, correct?

Witness:

Prosecutor: You requested Mr. Napoles to deposit the check not earlier than November 28, 2018, correct?

Witness:

Prosecutor: Did you deposit any money to your account at November 28, 2018?

Witness: No, but…… ( mention about your receivables)

Prosecutor: How much was your expected receivables?

Witness:

Prosecutor: Was your total expected receivables equivalent or more than the amount specified in the check?

Witness:

Prosecutor: Nothing further, Your Honor.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(CROSS EXAMINATION LITO MEDINO)

Prosecutor: Where were you when you received the notice of dishonor?

Witness:

Prosecutor: What did you do with the notice that you received?

Witness:

Prosecutor: So in other words, you did not bring the notice with you but you left it in the office of the Adam and Eve
Construction Company?

Witness:

Prosecutor: Mr. Witness, were you acquainted with the delivery man of Mr. Napoles?

Witness:

Prosecutor: For the past three years you were the one receiving the letters of Mr. Napoles for the accused, right?

Witness:

Prosecutor: So in other words, the delivery man knew that you were the person in charge of receiving all the documents
for the accused?

Witness:

Prosecutor: That is all, Your Honor.