This Study Resource Was: Counter-Affidavit
This Study Resource Was: Counter-Affidavit
Department of Justice
National Prosecution Service
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
Santiago City
-o0o-
ROMEO A. MARCELO
Respondent,
x---------------------------------------------x
COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT
m
Nicolas Zamora St., Pritil, Tondo, Manila, after having been sworn to in accordance with
law, hereby depose and state:
er as
co
eH w
1. That I am the same person executing this Counter-Affidavit;
o.
rs e
3. That on October 20, 2020, I received the Subpoena of this Honorable Office
aC s
friends;
b. That he offered me to buy his trailer bed and trailer truck in the amount
sh
https://www.coursehero.com/file/73153209/Roxanne-April-B-Lawad-counter-affidavitpdf/
7. That on account of security, I requested for an Acknowledgment Receipt to
the private-complainant to prove my payment but I was told by
Robert Leonardson that he cannot issue me the receipt until my full payment
is made. He asserts further that we are friends anyway;
8. That for the second time around, I used the trailer truck on September 2019,
and therefrom, I discover the damage in the said vehicle;
9. I then sought for the help of a mechanic for him to determine the extent of
damage and deficiencies in the truck and to my astonishment, I was told that
the damage has long been present;
10. I outrightly informed the private-complainant upon perceiving the news but
unfortunately, I was told to undertake the responsibility and to assent with its
“AS IS” condition;
11. Considering the enormous amount that I have already spent for the trailer
m
er as
truck, I asked Robert Leonardson if he, in any way could reimburse me of my
expenses for repair and deduct it instead from my remaining balance of
co
eH w
ONE HUNDRED TWELVE THOUSAND PESOS (Php112,500.00);
o.
rs e
12. Finding merit on the proposal, the private-complainant then agreed and
ou urc
13. Upon sight, Robert Leonardson was not persuaded of the amount indicated in
the receipts and henceforth, denied my reimbursement claims;
ed d
ar stu
bounce;
Th
15. With this, I did no longer deposit funds adequate to back-up the checks which
I previously issued to private-complainant because I could no longer collect
sh
16. I was charged of the crime for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 which
elements constitute the following:
https://www.coursehero.com/file/73153209/Roxanne-April-B-Lawad-counter-affidavitpdf/
bank for the payment of the check when presented for
payment; and,
17. On this note, the case should be DISMMISED on its face for the reason
hereunder discussed:
18. The I, Romeo A. Marcelo, respondent in this case asserts the DISMISSAL of
the criminal case against me on the basis that I have already PAID IN FULL
the amount of the dishonored checks PRIOR TO THE FILING OF
INFORMATION IN COURT;
m
19. Well-settled is the rule in Lim v. People of the Philippines, where the Court
states that:
er as
co
eH w
“xxx considering that the money value of the two checks issued by
o.
petitioner has already been effectively paid two years before the
rs e
20. Clearly then, upon my showing of good faith that I have already settled my
aC s
then it is but JUST and EQUITABLE that herein respondent shall NOt be
convicted or sentenced in the criminal charge for violation of B.P. Bilang 22.
ed d
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 24th day of October
2020 at Santiago City, Philippines.
ar stu
ROMEO A. MARCELO
Respondent
is
T.I.N. 123-456-789
Th
https://www.coursehero.com/file/73153209/Roxanne-April-B-Lawad-counter-affidavitpdf/