You are on page 1of 4

Republic of the Philippines National Capital Judicial Region METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT Marikina City, Branch 75

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, versus MA. ZENAIDA C. CRISTI, 'ccused! (########################################( Cri inal Case No! "7#5$%%5#7&


), ZENAIDA CARINAN CRISTI, of legal age,

arried and *ith per anent residence

at No! $"+ Bagong ,ilang ,t!, Parang, Marikina City, after having been s*orn to in accordance *ith la*, do hereby depose and state that-


) specifically deny the allegations of private co plainant Rodolfo Matthe*s in the .st paragraph of his Co plaint#'ffidavit *here he stated that y other /lisa

Carinan 0 ortgaged in favor of co plainant a parcel of land covered by 1C1 No! &25$5+ located at $"+ Bagong ,ilang ,t!, Parang, Marikina for 3N/ 45N6R/6 7)718 1435,'N6 P/,3, 9Php .5","""!"":! Being part o*ner of the

property, the accused Ma! ;enaida Carinan Cristi, dra*n and issued ten 9.": checks in the a ount of ,even 1housand 7ive 4undred Pesos 9Php 7,5""!"": per check, payable to co plainant, to be due every .7 th of the the onth!< 1he truth of

atter is that privately co plainant fraudulently conceals the *hole truth and y other and y siblings and ), as co#o*ners of the

did not disclose that property, e(ecuted the P.5","""!""=

ortgage to secure the pay ent of the loan of


Private co plainant like*ise did not disclose that he even filed a Petition for /(tra>udicial 7oreclosure *ith the Regional 1rial Court of Marikina City, in order to foreclose on the ortgage! 4o*ever, for ine(plicable reasons, he did not

pursue the foreclosure proceedings but instead fraudulently and deceptively enticed y incapacitated other and sister Narissa 4ayno to sign a 6eed of

'bsolute ,ale over the

ortgaged property, as settle ent for our loan=


's a result,

y la*yer told

e that private co plainant is in estoppel to charge

e for violation of BP $$! )t *ould appear that private co plainant secured the settle ent of our loan by entering into a fraudulent purchase of our property! 's a result of the said fraudulent purchase, he *as able to secure a ne* 1ransfer Certificate of 1itle fro the Registry of 6eeds of Marikina City=


Private co plainant relied on the said 6eed of 'bsolute ,ale and ne* 1ransfer Certificate of 1itle *hen he filed an e>ect ent case entitled 0 ,ps! Rodolfo Matthe*s ? @eticia Matthe*s vs! /lisa Carinan and Narissa 4ayno<, before the Metropolitan 1rial Court of Marikina City, Branch 75, under Civil Case No! "5# 7A"A! 1he said e>ect ent case *as ruled in his favor=


7urther ore, it should be clarified that ) issued the checks not as pay ent for the loan but only as additional security for the pay ent of the loan=


Moreover, assu ing arguendo that private co plainant is not in estoppel in denying the settle ent of the loan by virtue of the purchase of the property, still ) can not be held liable for Biolation of BP $$ because the crucial ele ent of notice of the dishonor is not present=


) have never been personally and actually notified of the dishonor of the said allegedly bad checks before the private co plainant filed the cri inal co plaint


e! 1hus, ) specifically deny the allegations of the private co plainant in

the $nd paragraph of his Co plaint#'ffidavit= and



e(ecuting this Counter#'ffidavit to attest to the veracity of the foregoing e!

state ent of facts and to rebut the charges against

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, ) have hereunto set our hands this + th day of March $""+ in Marikina City, Philippines!



SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before e this +th day of March $""+ and ) hereby attest that ) have personally e(a ined the affiant *ho ad itted to e that she has read and understood all the allegations in her Counter#'ffidavit!

'ssistant City Prosecutor

Copy furnishedOffi ! of t"! Cit# P$o%! &to$ T"! La' Fi$( of Ha)itan* F!$$!$* C"an Ta+a,an* Pat$ia$ a - A%%o iat!% Private Prosecutor C7 ,enor )van 6e Palacio Bldg! .2+ Malakas ,t!, 6ili an DueEon City E.PLANATION ' copy of the foregoing Counter-Affidavit *as filed *ith the 4onorable Court and *as served upon the private prosecutor in lieu of personal service in vie* of the pro(i ity of the offices of the parties and the i practicability of personal service!