Rejoinder to Reply Affidavit

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES DEPARMENT OF JUSTICE

OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR OF CAVITE HALL OF JUSTICE COMPOUND, AGUINALDO HIGHWAY, IMUS CAVITE ARACELI H. PURI, Complainant, NPS Docket No. IV-03—INV10F2634

-versus-

DINA C. PEREZ,

Respondent,

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

REJOINDER TO REPLY AFFIDAVIT I, DINA C. PEREZ, Filipina, of legal age and presently residing at Lot 3, Fatima II, City of Dasmariñas, after having been sworn on oath in accordance with law, depose and say:

1.

That respondent herein reiterates what she stated in her

“KONTRA SALAYSAY” as being the truth and nothing but the truth on the transaction that occurred between the former and complainant;

1

2.

That what occurred sometime in September 3, 2009, was a

case of a simple loan were the complainant lend money to respondent with a side agreement for interest and a collateral that I must be emphasize that if there was any error in the description of the collateral the

same

is

of

no

moment,

because

respondent

nevertheless,

acknowledged her indebtedness. In fact, respondent was pushed against the wall, since complainant after agreeing to lend the amount of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P200,000.00) only gave the respondent the

amount

of

ONE

HUNDRED

FORTY

THOUSAND

PESOS

(P140,000.00). Stating that the amount of SIXTY THOUSAND PESOS (P60,000.00) was deducted to cover the interest for THREE MONTHS (3), complainant justified such deduction as being legal ;

3.

That respondent do not deny her indebtedness, this has

been her stand, the only thing is that the complainant wants to impose an interest that is shocking, immoral and contrary to public policy. While it may be true that the parties herein may stipulate on the amount of interest to be paid. It does not mean that the respondent is not without remedy to contest the unreasonable interest. Respondent is not reneging on her contractual obligation but she want to make it clear, that like the complainant who has the right to collect, she too has the corresponding right to question the extremely unconscionable interest impose on her ;

4.

That contrary to the claim of the complainant, respondent

did not submit a fake title as collateral. Transfer certificate of Title No. 897787, she used as a collateral intact and is with the Registry of Deeds of the Province of Cavite. To prove respondent’s good faith, she wrote a letter to the Registry of Deeds for the Province of Cavite, requesting for a 2

Certification as to whether or not TCT No. 897787 is existing. This is to belie the accusation of the complainant that respondent was deliberately faking a document; Copy of the said letter is here fore attached as Annex “A.”;

5.

That for the crime of estafa in general to exist, its basic

element of deceit, must have to be shown or proven. In the case at her, respondent did not employ deception to complainant to acquire a loan. Complainant know at the start of the transaction that what was used as a collateral for the loan transaction was not yet in the name of respondent.

Respondent

was

honest

in

so

admitting

it

to

the

complainant. Why would she now claim that respondent fake a title? It seems that complainant getting too far to criminally induct respondent for a crime she did not commit. For sure, contracting a loan is not a criminal offense. No law says that such act is criminal.;

6.

Yes

respondent

do

ignored

the

calls

of

complainant

sometimes, but the same is not avoidance to pay the loan, but simply to prevent the complainant from hurling unsavory language to respondent. Complainant was to insistent to charge a unconscionable and shocking interest and respondent was an unwilling victim to fall into this prey. Respondent was greatly in need and such should not he taken against her, if she swallowed an interest against her will;

7.

That from the facts herein presented, it is immaculately clear

that no probable cause exist to criminally indirect herein respondent for the crime of estafa. No prima-facie evidence of deceit was proven by the complainant. Admittedly, respondent may be held civilly liable, not 3

criminally liable. Respondent is willing to pay, but the payment must be reasonable and made within the parameters of decency and morality;

8.

All told, the case for estafa be should be dismissed for lack of

legal and factual basis.;

Respectfully submitted, DINA C. PEREZ Affiant

4