REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

CITY OF TACLOBAN ) S.S

COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT

I, LOUSIANNA ALBAMOS, of legal age, married, and a

resident of Brgy. 106, Kawayan, Tacloban City, after being duly
sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose and state that:

1. I am the respondent in the case of Estafa filed by

complainant GRETHEL NOBIES; and

2. The complaint is a malicious, baseless, felonious,

unfounded, and unjustified fabrication by the Complainant
intended to recover a sum of money amounting to ₱
700,000.00 for the sale of two (2) cars allegedly taken by
me in acting as the Complainant’s agent.

3. I categorically state that:

a. I did not commit any of the illegal acts alleged by the

Complainant;
b. The act of the Complainant in initiating this Complaint
against me has caused mental anguish, anxiety,
sleepless nights, and besmirched reputation on my part;
c. I shall soonest file a counter-charge for PERJURY against
the Complainant to serve as an example to society and
in the interest of justice.

4. The truth of the matter herein this case, is that:

a. I neither expressly nor impliedly assented to act as

Complainant’s agent in her business. There was neither
proposal nor discussion to act as Complainant’s agent in
her buy and sell business.
b. I have known the Complainant only on December 1,
2020 when I assisted my two (2) “balikbayan” friends,
namely THEODORA D. BAUTISTA and FAUSTINA C.
SALVACION, who were looking for a second-hand car to
be used by them while on vacation here in Tacloban
City, who are then the buyers of the said two (2)
second-hand cars;
c. The Complainant and the two (2) buyers agreed to delay
the payment for they (buyers) will have to test drive first
Page 1 of 6
 and have the cars examined/checked by a competent
mechanic considering of the cars’ status.
d. I was requested by the Complainant to be the one to
sign the acknowledgment receipt for her to have an easy
contact with the two (2) buyers, who happened to be
my friends, considering that they are not residents of
Tacloban City; and
e. I sent an email to the Complainant informing her that
the buyers of the second-hand cars have already paid.
The said information was based on the message from
my two (2) friends that they have already paid the ₱
700,000.00 to the Complainant’s bank account.

5. As to Number 5 of the Judicial Affidavit Complaint, that

December 1, 2020 was the very first time I met the
Complainant for she was the one who entertained us as her
customers, and that the alleged discussion had focused
only between her and my two (2) friends, THEODORA D.
BAUTISTA and FAUSTINA C. SALVACION, who at that time
have interest in buying her two (2) second-hand cars.

6. As to Number 6 of the Complaint, it was a mere allegation

that I agreed to act as Complainant’s agent and get 10%
commission in the sale of her two (2) second-hand cars. It
must be noted that the Complainant did not attach to his
Complaint any document to prove her claim. Indeed, it was
never discussed and the same would never be discussed in
any way since the Complainant was already the one directly
discussing and convincing my friends to purchase her two
(2) second-hand cars.

7. As to Numbers 9, 10 and 11 of the Complaint, the

acknowledgment receipt referred to by the Complainant
was the one whom I signed in good faith upon
Complainant’s request for her to have an easy contact with
the two (2) buyers, who happened to be my friends, for the
reason that both are not residents of Tacloban City. Also, I
unequivocally and in good faith affixed my signature in the
acknowledgment receipt for the Complainant to approve
and allow my friends (buyers) to take the cars for them to
conduct test drive and have the same examined/checked
by a competent mechanic prior payment thereof.

8. As to Numbers 12, 13 and 14, I informed the Complainant

that the buyers of her second-hand cars have already paid

Page 2 of 6
 the purchase price thereof in the amount of ₱ 700,000.00.
The said amount was not directly paid to me; instead, it
was credited to the Complainant’s bank account based on
the message forwarded to me by my friends (buyers).

9. I hereby submit to this Honorable Court the following

supporting documents to prove the veracity of the
foregoing statements and be properly marked as Exhibits,
viz.:

a. Exhibit “1” – Copy of the Acknowledgment Receipt dated

December 1, 2020 to prove the contents thereof that the
transaction was neither an agency nor a sale of the two
(2) second-hand cars but merely an acknowledgment
that I have received the said cars and that I will serve as
the contact person of my two (2) friends (the buyers);
b. Exhibit “2” – Printed email thread from my two (2)
friends (the buyers) informing me that the amount of ₱
700,000.00 was deposited by them to the Complainant’s
bank account; and
c. Exhibit “3” – Judicial Affidavit of THEODORA BAUTISTA
proving that they are (together with FAUSTINA C.
SALVACION) the actual buyers of the subject cars and
the same were already paid in its full consideration on
December 20, 2020 to the Complainant’s bank account.

10. There is no basis to hold me liable for Estafa by means of

abuse of confidence, as manifested by the Complainant in
her Complaint. In the case of ROSITA SY vs. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 183879, April 14, 2010
discussed the ways of committing the felony of estafa,
thus:

X x x.

The sole issue for resolution is whether Sy should be held

liable for estafa, penalized under Article 315, paragraph
2(a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

Swindling or estafa is punishable under Article 315 of the

RPC. There are three ways of committing estafa, viz.: (1)
with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence; (2) by means
of false pretenses or fraudulent acts; or (3) through
fraudulent means. The three ways of committing estafa
may be reduced to two, i.e., (1) by means of abuse of
confidence; or (2) by means of deceit.
Page 3 of 6
 The elements of estafa in general are the following: (a)
that an accused defrauded another by abuse of
confidence, or by means of deceit; and (b) that damage
and prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused
the offended party or third person.

The act complained of in the instant case is penalized

under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the RPC, wherein
estafa is committed by any person who shall defraud
another by false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed
prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the
fraud. It is committed by using fictitious name, or by
pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications,
property, credit, agency, business or imaginary
transactions, or by means of other similar deceits.

The elements of estafa by means of deceit are the

following, viz.: (a) that there must be a false pretense or
fraudulent representation as to his power, influence,
qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or
imaginary transactions; (b) that such false pretense or
fraudulent representation was made or executed prior to
or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (c)
that the offended party relied on the false pretense,
fraudulent act, or fraudulent means and was induced to
part with his money or property; and (d) that, as a result
thereof, the offended party suffered damage.

X x x.

11. The case of JOY LEE RECUERDO vs. PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 168217, June 27, 2006, held
that “there can be no estafa if the accused acted in good
faith because good faith negates malice and deceit
(People vs. Ojeda, G.R. Nos. 104238-58, June 3, 2004,
430 SCRA 436).” 

“x x x.

There can be no estafa if the accused acted in good faith

because good faith negates malice and deceit (People vs.
Ojeda, G.R. Nos. 104238-58, June 3, 2004, 430 SCRA
436). Good faith is an intangible and abstract quality with
no technical meaning or statutory definition, and it
encompasses, among other things, an honest belief, the
Page 4 of 6
 absence of malice and the absence of design to defraud or
to seek an unconscionable advantage.  X x x. It implies
honesty of intention and freedom from knowledge of
circumstances which ought to put the holder upon
inquiry. The essence of good faith lies in an honest belief
in the validity of ones right, ignorance of a superior claim,
and absence of intention to overreach another (Philippine
National Bank v. De Jesus,  G.R. No. 149295, September
23, 2003, 411 SCRA 557, 561). In People v. Gulion, 402
Phil. 653 (2001),  the Court held that:

Good faith is a defense to a charge of Estafa by postdating

a check. This may be manifested by the accused’s offering
to make arrangements with his creditor as to the manner
of payment or, as in the present case, averring that his
placing his signature on the questioned checks was purely
a result of his gullibility and inadvertence, with the
unfortunate result that he himself became a victim of the
trickery and manipulations of accused-at-large.

X x x.”

12. Nothing in the record proves that I committed any of the

essential elements of Estafa as defined by the Revised
Penal Code.

13. From the foregoing, it is clear that a case of Estafa cannot

prosper. And so, I pray that this case be DISMISSED for
utter lack of merit, and all other equitable reliefs prayed
for.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature

on this 4th day of December 2021 at Tacloban City, Philippines.

(Sgd)
LOUSIANNA ALBAMOS
Respondent/Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 4 th day of

December 2021 at Tacloban City. I further certify that I have
personally examined the affiant and that I am satisfied that she has
voluntarily executed and fully understood the content of her Counter-
Affidavit.

Page 5 of 6
 (Sgd)
HON. MAKKI SENSILLO
Asst. City Prosecutor

Copy Furnished:

GRETHEL NOBIES
Complainant
Paraiso, San Jose,
Tacloban City

Page 6 of 6