Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 122 views

    Estafa bp22 - Counter Affidavit

    Uploaded by

    Rommel Dela Cruz
    Cristina Binarao was charged with estafa and BP 22 for issuing postdated checks with insufficient funds to a lender. In her counter-affidavit, she claims: (1) The charges are false and a misunderstanding, as she borrowed in good faith from the lender; (2) The amount borrowed was misstated as Php250,000 when it was Php50,000; (3) She issued postdated checks at the lender's insistence knowing there were insufficient funds; and (4) The transaction was a civil contract dispute, not criminal, and the charges should be dismissed for lack of merit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Estafa bp22 - Counter Affidavit

    Uploaded by

    Rommel Dela Cruz
    122 views2 pages
    Cristina Binarao was charged with estafa and BP 22 for issuing postdated checks with insufficient funds to a lender. In her counter-affidavit, she claims: (1) The charges are false and a misunderstanding, as she borrowed in good faith from the lender; (2) The amount borrowed was misstated as Php250,000 when it was Php50,000; (3) She issued postdated checks at the lender's insistence knowing there were insufficient funds; and (4) The transaction was a civil contract dispute, not criminal, and the charges should be dismissed for lack of merit.

    Original Description:

    counter-affidavit

    Original Title

    estafa bp22- counter affidavit

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Cristina Binarao was charged with estafa and BP 22 for issuing postdated checks with insufficient funds to a lender. In her counter-affidavit, she claims: (1) The charges are false and a misunderstanding, as she borrowed in good faith from the lender; (2) The amount borrowed was misstated as Php250,000 when it was Php50,000; (3) She issued postdated checks at the lender's insistence knowing there were insufficient funds; and (4) The transaction was a civil contract dispute, not criminal, and the charges should be dismissed for lack of merit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    122 views2 pages

    Estafa bp22 - Counter Affidavit

    Uploaded by

    Rommel Dela Cruz
    Cristina Binarao was charged with estafa and BP 22 for issuing postdated checks with insufficient funds to a lender. In her counter-affidavit, she claims: (1) The charges are false and a misunderstanding, as she borrowed in good faith from the lender; (2) The amount borrowed was misstated as Php250,000 when it was Php50,000; (3) She issued postdated checks at the lender's insistence knowing there were insufficient funds; and (4) The transaction was a civil contract dispute, not criminal, and the charges should be dismissed for lack of merit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES .

    )
    PASAY CITY METRO MANILA…….) S.S.

    COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT

    I, CRISTINA S. BINARAO, of legal age, Filipino with postal address at No. 742-E
    Rodriguez, Brgy. 165, Malibay, Pasay City, after having duly sworn to in accordance
    with law do hereby depose and state THAT:

    1. I was charged with ESTAFA & B.P. 22 before the office of the City Prosecutor
    of Pasay and the same was subjected to a Preliminary Investigation;

    2. All the charges filed against me were all lies and bereft of truth when in truth it
    was a case of misunderstanding between the complainant and the
    respondent;

    3. The truth of the matter is that the complainant is engaged in a lending


    business with 5 to 6% monthly interest;

    4. That at first, I was able to borrow money from the complainant with no
    collateral and in GOOD FAITH I was able to pay the complainant the amount
    I owed to her together with its interest;

    5. That in Paragraph 15 of the “ Affidavit- Complaint” complainant alleged that I


    was able to borrow the amount of Php250,000 as shown in the evidence
    submitted as “Annex “D" which is misplaced for as I recall, the amount was
    only Php50,000.00 and not P250,000.00 and clearly shows that the
    complainant altered the amount by inserting number “2” to make it
    Php250,000.00 wherein the complainant is criminally liable for falsification
    and perjury;

    6. That sometime on the moth of September 2021, complainant asked for the
    issuance of postdated checks in favor of the latter but I declined considering
    that complainant was also aware that the subject checks has no fund at all
    but the latter insist that there was no problem with her if the checks has no
    fund and further told that she will not use the same for legal purposes but only
    for the assurance of my loan to her which I obliged to issue the checks
    (undated) in favor of the complainant;

    7. That the complainant deposited all checks to her bank account well knowing
    that the checks(undated) were no fund at all and much worse, complainant
    was the one who put all the dates on the said checks as can be seen in our
    own naked eyes the difference of the digits between the dates of the check
    and the amounts written on;

    8. In the crime of estafa, by postdating or issuance of bad checks, deceit and


    damage are essential elements of the offense, (U.S vs. Rivera, 23 Phil. 383-
    390) and have to be established with satisfactory proof to warrant conviction.

    Art. 315 of RPC as amended by RA 4885. Payment of Pre-existing obligation


    not covered- Art. 315, as amended by R.A. 4885, does not cover checks
    issued in payment of pre-existing obligations again relying on the concepts
    underlying the crime of estafa through false pretense or deceit or false
    pretense must be prior to or simultaneous with the commission of the fraud
    9. In the present case, the respondent are not liable criminally for estafa and
    should be dismissed for the transaction made by respondent to the
    complainant was a “CONTRACT OF LOAN” which can be settle civilly in the
    proper Court;

    10. As for the B.P, 22 it should be dismissed also considering that there was no
    deceit committed by the respondent considering that the complainant is fully
    aware that the postdated check issued by the respondent in favor of the
    complainant has no funds at all from the beginning but merely for the
    assurance that the amount loaned by the respondent to the complainant will
    be settled.

    11. I am executing this Counter-Affidavit to attest to the truth of all the foregoing
    facts and asking the Honorable Prosecutor to dismiss the charges filed
    against the respondent for lack of merit.

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this 23 rd day


    of August,2022 at Pasay City, Metro manila

    CRISTINA S. BINARAO
    Respondent

    SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 23 rd day of August, 2022 at


    Pasay City, Metro Manila.

    Asst. City Prosecutor

    You might also like