Counter-Affidavit BP. 22
Sample Counter Affidavit...
Republic of the Philippines National Capital Judicial Region METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT Marikina City, Branch 75
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, versus
Criminal Case No. 07-52665-74
MA. ZENAIDA C. CRISTI, Accused. x----------------------------------------x
I, ZENAIDA CARINAN CRISTI, of legal age, married and with permanent residence at No. 209 Bagong Silang St., Parang, Marikina City, after having been sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose and state that:
I specifically deny the allegations of private complainant Rodolfo Matthews in the 1st paragraph of his Complaint-Affidavit where he stated that my mother Elisa Carinan “mortgaged in favor of complainant a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 435259 located at 209 Bagong Silang St., Parang, Marikina for ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (Php 150,000.00).
Being part owner of the
property, the accused Ma. Zenaida Carinan Cristi, drawn and issued ten (10) checks in the amount of Seven Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (Php 7,500.00) per check, payable to complainant, to be due every 17 th of the month.” The truth of the matter is that privately complainant fraudulently conceals the whole truth and did not disclose that my mother and my siblings and I, as co-owners of the property, executed the mortgage to secure the payment of the loan of P150,000.00;
Private complainant likewise did not disclose that he even filed a Petition for Extrajudicial Foreclosure with the Regional Trial Court of Marikina City, in order to foreclose on the mortgage. However, for inexplicable reasons, he did not pursue the foreclosure proceedings but instead fraudulently and deceptively enticed my incapacitated mother and sister Narissa Hayno to sign a Deed of Absolute Sale over the mortgaged property, as settlement for our loan;
As a result, my lawyer told me that private complainant is in estoppel to charge me for violation of BP 22. It would appear that private complainant secured the settlement of our loan by entering into a fraudulent purchase of our property. As a result of the said fraudulent purchase, he was able to secure a new Transfer Certificate of Title from the Registry of Deeds of Marikina City;
Private complainant relied on the said Deed of Absolute Sale and new Transfer Certificate of Title when he filed an ejectment case entitled “ Sps. Rodolfo Matthews & Leticia Matthews vs. Elisa Carinan and Narissa Hayno”, before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Marikina City, Branch 75, under Civil Case No. 057808. The said ejectment case was ruled in his favor;
Furthermore, it should be clarified that I issued the checks not as payment for the loan but only as additional security for the payment of the loan;
Moreover, assuming arguendo that private complainant is not in estoppel in denying the settlement of the loan by virtue of the purchase of the property, still I can not be held liable for Violation of BP 22 because the crucial element of notice of the dishonor is not present;
I have never been personally and actually notified of the dishonor of the said allegedly bad checks before the private complainant filed the criminal complaint 2
against me. Thus, I specifically deny the allegations of the private complainant in the 2nd paragraph of his Complaint-Affidavit; and
I am executing this Counter-Affidavit to attest to the veracity of the foregoing statement of facts and to rebut the charges against me.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set our hands this 9 th day of March 2009 in Marikina City, Philippines.
MA. ZENAIDA CARINAN CRISTI Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 9th day of March 2009 and I hereby attest that I have personally examined the affiant who admitted to me that she has read and understood all the allegations in her Counter-Affidavit.
Assistant City Prosecutor
Copy furnished: Office of the City Prosecutor The Law Firm of Habitan, Ferrer, Chan Tagapan, Patriarca & Associates Private Prosecutor GF Senor Ivan De Palacio Bldg. 139 Malakas St., Diliman Quezon City EXPLANATION A copy of the foregoing “Counter-Affidavit” was filed with the Honorable Court and was served upon the private prosecutor in lieu of personal service in view of the proximity of the offices of the parties and the impracticability of personal service.