Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region

Metropolitan Trial Court
Branch 96
Mandaluyong City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

-versus- Crim. Case No. M-MND-19-04033-CR

For: Violation of B.P. 22

LEA V. GUEVARRA,
Accused.
x---------------------------------------x
Republic of the Philippines )
Mandaluyong City ) SC

Counter Affidavit

I, LEA V. GUEVARRA, of legal age, Filipino, whose residence

and postal address at Block 16, Lot 19, Berlin Street, Villa Olympia,
Phase 1A, San Pedro, Laguna, after having been sworn to in
accordance with law, do hereby depose:

1. I am the accused person in the above-cited case for Violation of

Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.

2. On June 19, 2019, Honorable Judge John Benedict D. Medina

issued an order which states that:

Xxx On the basis of the documents attached to the

Information filed by the Office of the City
Page3

Prosecutor of Mandaluyong City, this Court finds

 that the above-mentioned case is governed by the
Rule on Summary Procedure.

Thus, accused is hereby directed to submit their

counter-affidavit and the affidavit/s of their
witness/es, as well as any evidence in his behalf,
serving copies thereof on the private complainant
and the Office of the City Prosecutor not later than
ten (10) days from receipt of this Order. The
Prosecution may file a reply affidavit of the defense
pursuant to Section 12 of the aforesaid rule. xxxx

3. Thus, this Counter-Affidavit.

4. That there was a payment made for the consideration of the

mentioned purchases of materials from Hydrotek, Inc.

5. A photocopy of the Official Receipt No. 5183 duly issued by

Hydrotek, Inc. in the sum of Thirty One Thousand Sixty Seven
Pesos (Php31,067.00) is hereto attached as Annex “A.”

6. A cash payment of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos

(Php200,000.00), as evidenced by deposit slip dated November
16, 2017 is hereto attached as Annex “B”;

7. That the instant complaint for violation of BP 22 should be

outrightly dismissed and does deserve scant consideration for
the reason that it falls short for the standard or elements
required in order for the BP 22 to stand. The elements of the
offense under Section 1 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 are:

(1) Drawing and issuance of any check to apply on

account of for value;
(2) Knowledge by the maker, drawer or issuer that at
the time of issue he did not have sufficient funds in or
credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such
check in full upon presentment; and
(3) Said check is subsequently dishonoured by the
drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, or would
have been dishonoured for the same reason had not the
Page3

drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to

 stop payment (Caras vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
129900, 2 October 2001)

8. Section 2 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 provides as follows:

Sec. 2. Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds. -

The making, drawing and issuance of a check payment of
which is refused by the drawee because of insufficient
funds in or credit with such bank, when presented within
ninety (90) days from the date of the check, shall be
prima facie evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of
funds or credit unless such maker or drawer pays the
holder thereof the amount due thereon, or makes
arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such
check within (5) banking days after receiving notice that
such check has not been paid by the drawee.

9. Under Section 2, it is presumed that the check which was

refused payment by the drawee bank was evidence of
knowledge of insufficiency of funds or credit. However, it is
required that there is a Notice of Dishonor made upon the one
who issued the check. In other words, Section 2 provides that
there must be written notification of the dishonour made to the
issuer of the check. The notice of dishonour should then inform
the issuer that he has five (5) days to make good the amount of
the check.

10. In the instant case, not all of the elements can be found on the
complaint. Hence, it must be dismissed.

11. It must be noted that the “Notice of Dishonour of a check to the

maker must be in writing. A mere oral notice to the drawer or
maker of the dishonour of his check is not enough.” (Bax vs.
People, G.R. No. 149858, 5 September 2007).

12. The Notice of Dishonour must be actually received by the

issuer of the check. In the instant case, the complaining witness
did not assert or prove any evidence showing that he has sent
Notice of Dishonour and it was personally received by the
accused. What was sent to the accused was a Demand Letter by
Page3
 the lawyer and not the Notice of Dishonour as it is a requisite in
establishing the elements of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.

13. That even assuming all the elements of Violation of Batas

Pambansa Blg. 22 are present in the instant case, the offense of
BP 22 cannot hold for the simple reason that the consideration
of the check or obligation to pay the sum of money are partially
paid in “cash” as evidenced by the cash deposit dated
November 11, 2017 hereto attached.

14. Furthermore, the accused asked or requested for the balance be

made in an instalment basis and return the unused checks but
the private complainant did not bother to response.

15. Had it been that the private complainant replied and accept
instalment payment scheme for the balance the obligation has
been long completely paid.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I sign this Counter-Affidavit on this ____

of July 2019 in the City of Mandaluyong, Metro Manila.

LEA V. GUEVARRA
Accused

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this ____ of July,

2019 in the City of Mandaluyong. Further, I certify that I examined
the affiant and I am satisfied that he caused the preparation of the
foregoing counter-affidavit, read and understood the same, and that
it is his voluntary act and deed.

Administering Officer
Page3