REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

National Capital Judicial Region

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
Makati City, Branch XX

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

Versus Criminal Case No. XX-XXX

For: Violation of BP 22

MR. HENRY CHAO,

Accused.

X--------------------------------------X

COUNTER - AFFIDAVIT

I, HENRY CHAO, of legal age, married, resident of Makati City, after having been
sworn to in accordance with law, hereby depose not guilty:

For FIVE COUNTS of BOUNCED CHECKS as defined under Batas

Pambansa (BP 22) or the Anti-Bouncing Checks Law.

Arising from, incident to or in connection with my former position as

Manager of Atlas Parts.

PURPOSE:

This COUNTER AFFIDAVIT of MR. HENRY CHAO in lieu of direct testimony is

being offered in response to the allegations in the affidavit produced by the
adversary, MR. BEN QUE against the accused, MR. HENRY CHAO.

It is respectfully prayed that this Counter Affidavit of MR. HENRY CHAO be

admitted as the Direct Examination of the accused praying further for the early
dismissal of the case due to its failure to establish sufficient proof beyond a
reasonable doubt and lack of standing to sue because of prescription.

PRELIMINARY MATTERS:

The persons examining the witness, Mr. HENRY CHAO, are Glad C. Banaag,
Jerry Mae I. Lorono and Jenny Lyn O. Mahinay of JJG Law Firm with office address at
Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines. The examination is being held at the same address.

Witness is answering the questions fully conscious of being under oath and
aware of being under pain of criminal liability for false testimony or perjury.
DIRECT EXAMINATION QUESTIONS:

1. Q: Do you swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth in this
proceeding?

A: Yes, I do.

2. Q: Please state your name and other personal information.

A: I am Henry Chao, of legal age, Filipino, married, residing at Makati City.

FACTS KNOWN TO THE WITNESS

1. Q: Do you swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth in this
proceeding?

A: Yes, I do.

2. Q: Mr. Chao, do you know Mr. Ben Que who is the complainant in this
case and, if so, under what circumstances?

A: Yes, sir. Last June 01, 2011, my former company, Atlas Parts borrowed
from him the amount of P 50,000.00, with 5% monthly interest, payable in
five (5) equal monthly installments of P 12,500.00 to pay for the company’s
stocks. As the Manager of Atlas Parts at that time, I represented the company
on that transaction.

3. Q: As alleged by the complainant, do you admit that as evidence of your

transaction you issued him five (5) NOW slips?

A: Yes, sir because to my knowledge, the account was not yet closed at that
time.

4. Q: So it is safe to say that the obligation was used by the company and
not for your personal expenses?

A: Certainly yes, sir. I do not personally own the account No. 123456
maintained at Alloyed Bank, Pasong Tamo Branch. I am but merely a
signatory as the then Manager of ATLAS PARTS. I cannot be held liable to pay
the obligation since I merely acted on behalf of the company. The case against
me is merely about the matter on the issuances. Thus, the issue on the
validity of the obligation must be filed against the company alone for
complainant to recover the amount.

5. Q: Moving on, are there any significant differences between NOW slips
and ordinary checks?

A: In my understanding, a significant difference between NOW slips and

ordinary checks is the security attached to them. NOW accounts are usually
used by companies to defray petty cash expenses and the depositor is
allowed to issue unlimited numbers of slips as opposed to the limitation of
blank checks available for ordinary checking accounts. That is why banks
advise drawers to notify them at least six (6) days prior to its due dates for
them to check the account beforehand and notify the account owner thereof.
6. Q: Considering this significant difference, what measures did you advise
the complainant whatsoever?

A: I personally informed complainant that for increased diligence considering

that it is a Negotiable Order of Withdrawal Account, the drawee bank should
be notified of the depositing of the NOW slips at least 6 days prior to its due
date as previously advised by the drawee. In addition, I also gave
complainant the company’s office address and contact number.

7. Q: In your understanding, does this qualify as a check under the

Negotiable Instruments Law?

A: Yes, sir. As bank instruments, complainant required the issuance of NOW

slips to facilitate and ensure the payment of the obligation. I agree with
complainant’s claim that the purpose of the law is to discourage the issuance
of useless checks however such cannot be true in my case because at the time
of issuance, the account was not yet closed. I issued the NOW slips relying on
the fact that the account was not closed and the NOW slips were not useless
at that time.

8. Q: Where you aware of the account’s subsequent closure and if any,

were there signs that the account could be closed soon?

A: No, sir. I could not have possibly known that because I already left the
company. Also, during the issuance of the NOW slips, the account maintained
a sufficient amount to defray the obligation as evidenced by the account
balance issued by the bank dated June 1, 2011 marked as Exhibit 1. I only
knew of the account being closed because of this complaint filed against me.

9. Q: When and where did you hand over these five (5) instruments?

A: On June 01, 2011, at the complainant's house in Mandaluyong City, after he

gave me in cash the P 50,000.00 that the company loaned.

10.Q: Do you admit that the instruments you issued are the ones presented
as evidence by the complainant?

A: Yes sir, I do.

11.Q: Complainant alleges that he personally went to your house to

demand for payment, is this true?

A: No, sir. After my resignation last June 2011, I was away on a roughly three-
month long vacation in Davao to visit my relatives and I only returned to my
house in Makati on September 12, 2011. Thus, it cannot be possible for me to
have met Mr. Que personally after the first dishonor on August 1, 2011 and
September 2, 2011. To evidence my roughly three-month long vacation, I
have presented my two-way plane ticket marked as Exhibit 2. Moreover, I
deny that I have also met personally with Mr. Que for the other dishonors.

12.Q: Taking into account your impending resignation, did you disclose to
client this information before the transaction?

A: Yes, sir. I informed him that I will be resigning on that same month from
the company due to personal reasons, and that for increased diligence
considering that it is a Negotiable Order of Withdrawal Account, the drawee
bank should be notified of the depositing of the NOW slips at least 6 days
 prior to its due date as previously advised by the drawee. In addition, I also
gave complainant the company’s office address and contact number.

13.Q: What date specifically did your resignation came into effect?

A: I have ceased to be an employee of ATLAS PARTS since June 15, 2011 after
properly turning over all my existing responsibilities at that time to the
company’s new manager.

14.Q: Complainant also alleges that he sent a formal demand letter to you
to make good your commitment on January 2, 2012, to your office
address at 007 Malugay Street, Malabon City. Is this true?

A: I do not know for sure, sir because that address was the office address of
my former company of which I am not affiliated with since mid of June 2011.

15.Q: So to conclude, you have not actually received the demand letter and
there was no way that you could have known about it because you have
nothing to do with the company anymore?

A: Yes, sir. I did not receive any demand letter and I had no knowledge of the
dishonor whatsoever.

16.Q: But complainant presented the registry receipt evidencing that they
actually sent the demand letter, how true is this?

A: It might be true that they actually sent the demand letter for the purpose
of informing me sir but other than the registry receipt, there was no further
proof that I or my former office has received the demand letter. There was
not even a return receipt carrying my signature or any that of the company’s
authorized agents. I have also been informed by my counsel that to establish
proof beyond reasonable doubt regarding my acceptance of the notice, in
addition the same receipts shall be authenticated by the mailer and executed
through an affidavit. Thus, complainant cannot properly invoke the prima
facie presumption because I had basically no knowledge of the dishonor.

17.Q: Did the company reach out to you in any way to inquire about the
issue of the dishonored slips?

A: No, sir. Immediately after my resignation, I went to Davao for a three-

month long vacation and have never heard from the company again until
now. Thus I cannot be held criminally liable because I have not actually
received the notice of dishonor and even if the company did receive the
notice, they are no longer considered as my authorized agent because I have
ceased any affiliation with them after my resignation.

18.Q: Lastly, when did the issuance actually took place?

A: Last June 1, 2011, sir. Their complaint was dated August 29, 2019 of which
my counsel also advised me that they no longer have standing to file a BP 22
case against me since the four (4) year prescription period to file has already
elapsed by then.
 I hereby declare this affidavit to attest the truth of the foregoing
circumstances and to attest to the validity and authenticity of the documents
submitted.

IN WITNESS HEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 5th day of

September 2019, in Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines.

HENRY CHAO
Affiant
CERTIFICATION

SUBSCRIBE AND SWORN to before me this 5th day of September 2019, Cagayan de
Oro City, Philippines and I hereby attest that I have personally examined the affiant who
admitted to me that he has read and understood all the allegations in her Counter-
Affidavit.

Doc No. XXX

Page No. XX NOTARY PUBLIC
Book No. XX
Series of 2019