Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Department of Justice
OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTOR
CABANATUAN CITY
PETER SICAT,
Complainant,
IS NO.: 11111
FOR: Violation of B.P. Blg. 22
-versusARNEL ROMERO,
Respondent
x------------------------------------------x
COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT
ARNEL ROMERO, by the undersigned attorney and to this
Honorable Office respectfully avers that:
1. Defendant admits paragraphs 1, 2, 3 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 4 and 5, claiming that
the defendant after notice of the dishonored check practically
abandoned to fund it. Defendant, through the internet replied
dated December 05, 2014 stating that he 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 (P25, 000.00) as
a fractional payment for the commodities that were received
last December 06, 2014 but the latter denied the same.
Photocopy of said reply letter attached as ANNEX- A.
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
2|Page
CHRIS HEMSWORTH
Doc. No. 14;
Page No. 3
Book No. 1 ;
Series of 2014.
Notary Public
Commission Serial No. 143
Until December 31, 2014
Roll of Attorney 70444
IBP No. 222 -08/21/13-Davao
PTR No. 123-08/30/13-Davao
EXPLANATION
Copy of the foregoing ANSWER was served to plaintiffs counsel
by registered mail due to time and distance constraints and for lack of
the undersigneds staff who can serve the same in person.
3|Page