REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
CITY OF MUNTINLUPA
BRANCH _69_
TAILOR FINE GARMENTS INC.,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL CASE NO. _12345_
For: Collection of Sum of
Money with Damages

- versus -

EMPEROR
Defendants.
x-------------------------------------x

COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT
I, The Emperor, after having been sworn in accordance with law, and by way of
counter-affidavit to the complaint-affidavit filed by TAILOR GARMENTS INC, to this
Honorable Office, most respectfully depose and state that:
1.
That I am the same person who is charged with the said non-payment
of the required sum of money and damages for services rendered by the plaintiff filed
before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Muntinlupa City. Docketed under the Civil Case
no. 12345
2.
The assertions of the plaintiff are true but only for the said non-payment
but are justified due to the followingI, the most Honored and Beloved Emperor, Direct descendant of the
Sun King and Moon queen, had employed plaintiff to sew a clothing
suitable for wearing in the in the annual Emperors Day Parade.
However, when such garments were delivered to him, the suit was the
wrong color and the wrong size and appeared to have been previously
worn. Plaintiff then did additional work on the garments and delivered
such to the Palace in the morning of the parade, alleging that such
garments were made of the miracle Fabric. I, however did not
appreciate the fabric but was made to believe by the plaintiff by
explaining that it was so unusually sheer and that it looked nothing but in
fact was special, unique and one of a kind. Due to his persuasions I was
made to accept such clothing and wore it during the parade. That during
the parade I was subject to scorn, ridicule, embarrassment and

humiliation. Therefore, I refused to pay the agreed amount due in the

agreement due to the fact that the Plaintiff failed to deliver me a suitable
clothing at the proper time.
3.
Complainant claims that I should be charged of Perjury because instead
of 6 payroll registers the admitted truth is that my letter of 04 April 2003 mentions
only 5 payrolls dated Feb. 16-28, Mar. 01-Mar. 15; Mar. 16-Mar. 31; April 01-April 15;
and April 16-Arpil 30. The inclusion of MS. JOSE in the Feburary 1-15 payroll was
discovered later thus she was made to explain about this irregularity in a letter dated
June 20, 2003.
4.
At the outset, it must be stated that not all mistakes or falsities in sworn
statements constitute the felony of perjury. An objective appreciation of the entirety of
the complaint-affidavit will clearly show that the statement of the number 6 instead of
5 is an honest typographic mistake and that the mistake is not on a material issue. In
fact, I clarified this in my subsequent reply-affidavit submitted in the same case on
march 2, 2004, as follows:
16. I take exception to the unkind words and imputations of
respondent that I allegedly made malicious fabrications as regards par. 2
& 3 (mistakenly written by my counsel as par. 3 & 4, but without any
intention of committing perjury) of my complaint-affidavit. The
number 6 stated in paragraph 3 was obviously a typographical
error made in the course of preparation of the draft of my complaint
by my counsel as there is no reason to make a fabrication as to the
number of payroll registers mentioned in the letter of April 4, 2003.
The letter itself mentions five payroll periods thus the allegation in
my complaint-affidavit should have been 5 and not 6 payroll
periods ad Ms. BRUHA was asked to explain about the payroll
period February 1-15, 2003 in a later letter dated June 20, 2003. The
alleged fabricated statement should be read in conjunction with
par. 7 of my complaint, to wit:
It must be emphasized that Ms. BRUHA did not remit Ms. JOSES
supposed pay for February 1-15, 2003. This fact negates the contention
of respondent BRUHA that she kept the unclaimed payroll in her vault.
The said paragraph was likewise quoted by respondent in par. 4.06
of her counter-affidavit, but she emphasized instead the first sentence
thereof in an effort to show that I tried to mislead this Honorable Office.
Obviously, it is respondent and her counsel who wants to mislead this
Honorable Office by turning an ember into a needless fire. If there was
really want of good faith on my part, I should not have stated the
quoted paragraph. The fact that I did not attach my 04 April 2003 is
of no moment, as it is my view that the same is not that material to
the instant case unlike in the labor case. Besides, it would be
useless for me to conceal the same since in the first place,
respondent herself has a copy thereof, not to mention that said
letter formed part of public records when it was attached as part of
the position paper filed before the NLRC, to which anyone can have
access to.
5.
At the risk of being repetitious, it bears reiterating that if I really intended
to impress upon this Honorable Office that as of my 04 April 2003 letter, I already

required Ms. BRUHA to explain MS. JOSEs inclusion in 6 payroll periods (which
includes the 1-15 February 2003 payroll), I would not have made said allegation in
Paragraph 7 of my complaint-affidavit which reads While my letter asking for an
explanation on the irregularity mentioned only the payroll periods starting
February 16-28, 2003, she should have also remitted the February 1-15 pay if it is true
that she just kept the money in her personal vault. There is no pretension that my
said letter included the payroll period February 1-15. On the contrary, this is a
statement of the truth that my letter did not mention payroll period February 1-15.
6.
Alas and alack, Ms. BRUHA, understandably because she cannot
invoke a plausible defense in the estafa case, magnified such honest mistake, obviously
as a leverage against herein respondent. As if, complainant BRUHA is too perfect not
to commit mistakes. In her counter-affidavit in the estafa case, respondent mistakenly
stated under oath that Annex 9 of her counter-affidavit is a written explanation she
submitted on 26 June 2003 but her Annex 9 is dated July 15, 2003. But unlike
complainant BRUHA, we all understand that it was a simple mistake, which every
human being is prone to commit. No one is infallible and not every mistake constitutes
a crime.
7.
In any event, the allegations in the complaint-affidavit MISERABLY
FAILED to show that Perjury was committed. While it is true that I executed a
complaint-affidavit in the estafa case against Ms. BRUHA and that it was made before
Prosecutor Alexander Q. Suarez, the purported false allegation is NOT MATERIAL IN
ORDER TO PROVE THE COMMISSION OF ESTAFA BY MEANS OF DECEIT and
THERE WAS NO WILLFUL AND DELIBERATE ASSERTION OF A FALSEHOOD ON
MY PART.
7.1

Apparently, complainant BRUHA is of the impression that had the statement

been 5 payroll registers and not the mistaken 6 payroll registers, there is no estafa.
She is of the mistaken belief that the estafa being charged in the complaint is the failure
to return the amount of P4,700.00 together with the amount of P23,500. Thus, it was
necessary for me to say 6 instead of 5 so that my complaint-affidavit can make a
case of estafa. The absurdity is obvious.

7.2

It must be emphasized that Ms. Garcia was charged by the school of having
committed ESTAFA BY MEANS OF DECEIT, in the consummation of which, under the
circumstances in the case, DEMAND IS NOT A NECESSITY OR AN ELEMENT thereof
unlike in Estafa by means of abuse of confidence. What is important is the presence of
the element of DECEIT (fraudulent representation). To reiterate, the elements of said
estafa are as follows: a) that there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or
fraudulent means; b) that the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means muyst
be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; C0
that the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or
fraudulent means, thatis, he was induced to part with his money or property because of
the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means; and d) that as a result thereof,
the offended party suffered damages. In Balitaan vs. CFI of Batangas1, it was held
that To sustain a conviction for estafa under par. 2(a), x x x deceit or false
representation to defraud and the damage caused thereby must be proved. And no
demand is necessary.

7.3

There is no truth to complainant Garcias malicious insinuation that the

assertion under oath of 6 payrolls is willful and deliberate as can be observed from the
fact that I did not attach the said letter. The reason why the letter of April 4, 2003 was

not even attached as an annex to the complaint is simply because demand is not
necessary since Ms. BRUHA used fraud or deceit. Even if we will consider
jurisprudence on estafa by abuse of confidence, the Supreme Court ruled in U.S. vs.
Asensi2, that When money or property is received by means of fraud and false
representation, a demand for the return of the same is not necessary in order to
constitute the crime of estafa.
7.4

Evidently, there is no necessity for me to make it appear, as

complainant BRUHA suggests, that as early as 04 April 2003, I required Ms.
BRUHA to make an accounting of Ms. JOSEs inclusion in 6 payroll periods,
including that of 1-15 February 2003 and that she allegedly failed to return Ms.
JOSEs salary for 1-15 February 2003 together with her salary for 16 February-30
April 2003. It is of no moment whether or not I required her to make an accounting of
the subject purported salary nor whether the show cause letter was issued on 04 April
2003 or 23 June 2003, as it is not a material matter to the charges against Ms. BRUHA

7.5

For purposes of perjury, the matter is material when it is directed to prove a

fact in issue3. In the estafa case filed by GOGO COLLEGE the fact in issue is whether
or not Ms. BRUHA committed the crime charged by including the names of the
separated employees in the schools payroll registers; processing the payment of their
supposed salaries; and appropriating the money to the damage and prejudice of the
school. The letter of April 4, 2003 finds significance in an administrative proceeding
such as in the termination from employment of Ms. BRUHA, but not in a criminal case
for estafa committed by deceit. It is not therefore important to prove in the estafa case
that on April 4, 2003, I required Ms. BRUHA to account for the irregular payrolls
including the pay period February 1-15, 2003. Stated otherwise, even if my
allegation in the questioned paragraph 3 of my complaint-affidavit will be entirely
omitted, the stubborn fact remains that the complaint-affidavit is sufficient to
support the charge of estafa by deceit.
8.
It is most respectfully submitted that I cannot be held liable for violation of
Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code. Not even probable cause exists to support the
filing of an information against me. x x x Although there is no general formula or fixed
rule for the determination of probable cause since the same must be decided in the light
of the conditions obtaining in given situations and its existence depends to a large
degree upon the finding or opinion of the judge conducting the examination, such a
finding should not disregard the facts before the judge nor run counter to the
clear dictates of reason. x x x The judge or fiscal, therefore, should not go on with
the prosecution in the hope that some credible evidence might later turn up
during the trial for this would be a flagrant violation of a basic right which the
courts are created to uphold. It bears repeating that the judiciary lives up to its
mission by vitalizing and not denigrating constitutional rights. So it has been before. It
should continue to be so.(Salonga v. Cruz-Pao)4
Additionally, in Cojuangco Jr. v.
government,5 the Supreme Court held:

Presidential

Commission

on

Good

x x x Indeed, a preliminary investigation is in effect a realistic

judicial appraisal of the merits of the case. Sufficient proof of the guilt
of the accused must be adduced so that when the case is tried, the
trial court may not be found as a matter of law to order an acquittal. x x
x (emphasis supplied)
9.
The allegations of complainant fall short of establishing probable cause
against me. It is foreseeable that the court will, as a matter of law, be compelled to

order an acquittal. Consequently, the State should be saved the trouble of prosecuting
innocent persons and thus serves the purpose of preliminary investigation.
x x x The purpose of preliminary investigation us to secure the
innocent against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution, and to
protect him from an open and public accusation of a crime, from the trouble,
expense, anxiety of a public trial, and also to protect the state from useless
and expensive trials. x x x (Trocio v. Mantas)6
x x x However, in order to satisfy the due process clause it is not
enough that the preliminary investigation is conducted in the sense of
making sure that a transgressor shall not escape with impunity. A
preliminary investigation serves not only the purpose of the State. More
important, it is part of the guarantees of freedom and fair play which are
birthrights of all who live in our country. It is therefore, imperative upon the
fiscal or judge as the case may be, to relieve the accused from the
pain of going through trial once it is ascertained that the evidence is
insufficient to sustain a prima facie case or that no probable cause
exists to form a sufficient belief as to the guilt of the accused.
(Salonga v. Cruz-Pao)7
10.
Above premises considered, the mistake in the complaint-affidavit is an
honest typographic error on an immateaial issue. The contents of the same affidacit
clearly show that the 6 should have been 5. This mistake was clarified by the
undersigned in a subsequent affidavit filed in the same case.
11.
Evidently, the instant complaint is nothing but a sham compliant intended
to harass, vex and intimidate me. It is therefore prayed that the instant affidavitcomplaint ought to be, as it should be, DISMISSED for lack of factual and/or legal basis.
12.
I am executing this Counter-Affidavit to attest to the truth of the foregoing
and in support of my prayer for the dismissal of the complaint.
AFFIANT FURTHER SAYETH NAUGHT.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this 10 th day of March
2004 at Las Pias City.

MODESTO PRIETO
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 10th day of March 2004 at Las
Pias City. I futher certify that I have personally examined the affiant and that I am
satisfied that he has executed this Counter-Affidavit and has understood the contents
hereof of his own personal knowledge.

CYNTHIA MADAMBA-LUANG
Administering Prosecutor