You are on page 1of 7

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
MANDAUE CITY PROSECUTION OFFICE
MANDAUE CITY

JESSIE DOE,
Complainant,

-VERSUS- I.S. No. 01


23459 - 90

JUAN YLAD
Respondents.
x-------------------------------------------------x

COUNTER AFFIDAVIT

I, JUAN YLAD, of legal age, married, Filipino, and a resident of,


M.C. Briones St., Maguikay, Mandaue City, after having been
sworn in accordance with law, respectfully states that -

1. The instant criminal complaint is a malicious, baseless,


felonious, unfounded, and unjust fabrication of the
Complainant intended to compel Respondent to return his
VISA Application fees worth Php 25,000.00;

2. The Respondent categorically states that:


a. He did not commit any of the illegal acts alleged by the
Complainant;
b. The act of the Complainant in initiating this Complaint
against the Respondent, has caused mental anguish,
anxiety, sleepless nights, and besmirched reputation on
the part of the Respondent;
c. The Respondent shall file a counter-charge for PERJURY
against the Complainant for the false and malicious
accusations he has instigated against the Respondent.

3. The truth of the matter herein this case, is that, Respondent


is a bona fide businessman engaged in the tourism sector,
including the processing of VISA applications to the United
States, certain countries in Europe and Saudi Arabia, whose
business operates under the name of Green Pasture
Worldwide Tours and Consultancy 1, duly registered with the
Department of Trade and Industry DTI. A copy of the DTI
Certificate of Registration is hereto attached as Annex 1
and made an integral part hereof. It is not engaged in the
placement and recruitment of workers contrary to
Complainants allegations, thus it has no POEA registration;

4. Respondent first met Complainant last March 23, 2011 when


he was introduced as a friend by Respondents cousin,
Andrew Ylad. According to Andrew, Complainant was an
engineer who was looking for employment opportunities
abroad. As the Complainant heard from Andrew that part of
Respondents business include the processing of VISAs, he
asked if Respondent could help him find an employer in
Saudi Arabia;

5. As it was not part of Respondents business, he explained to


Complainant that only registered recruitment and placement
agencies could help him with such matter. Being not one, I
could not help him secure employers, but merely to secure
VISAs;

6. Respondent thoroughly explained such to Complainant, and


the latter made an impression that he understood such. It
was not five (5) years later until Respondent and
Complainant met again after the latter sent a private
message to Respondent in Facebook requesting for a
business meeting at Starbucks Ayala. Because Respondent
thought it would be fruitful, he agreed to meet Complainant;

7. Upon meeting, Complainant asked for my help in processing


his VISA application to Saudi Arabia. Contrary to his
allegations in paragraphs 5-9 of the Complaint, Respondent
1 Hereafter Green Pastures.
never offered a job to the Complainant. Instead, during the
meeting, he informed Respondent that after several
applications, he was directly hired as an engineer by ARA BU
Utilities and Services,2 a company based in Saudi Arabia;

8. Per Complainant, ARA BU directly hired him as Engineer and


will be paid SAR 105,524 per year, with free board and
lodging. However, as pre requisite to employment, they have
to secure their own VISA. As such, he requested
Respondents help to assure that he secure the needed VISA;

9. Respondent explained to Complainant that securing a VISA


cannot always be 100% assured, as it all depends on the
applicant and the embassy or consul. But, as he insisted, and
as Respondent is engaged in the business of helping people
secure VISAs, Respondent agreed;

10. Thus, after their meeting at Starbucks, they proceeded


to the Respondents office in Ouano Buiding, M.C. Briones
St., Maguikay, Mandaue City, where Complainant was given
the requirements and explained the process;

11. On the process, Respondent asked Complainant if he


was certain about ARA BU and its legitimacy. Complainant
said that he was, because he knows certain friends who are
already working with the company. Trusting him,
Respondent never bothered to check the legitimacy or the
existence of ARA BU;

12. Contrary to Complainants allegations that he was


asked to pay Php 100,000.00, he was only made to pay the
amount of Php 25,000.00 which covers the VISA fees,
documentary requirements, and service fees for the
processing of his VISA. As he needed a working VISA, a
higher fee was required from Complainant compared to the
regular rates for tourist and student VISAs. A copy of the
2 Hereafter ARA BU.
official receipt for the amount of Php 25,000 dated
November 23, 2016 is attached hereto as Annex 2. Aside
from the Php 25,000.00, Respondent has not received any
other amount from the Complainant;

13. Respondent never issued any other receipts aside from


above mentioned. Thus, Complainants receipt is a forgery
and a sham. As evidence of this fact, attached is a copy of
Green Pastures Official Receipts3 which contain Control
Numbers as mandated by the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
The Complainants alleged Official Receipt on the other
hand has no control number.

14. There is also no truth to Complainants allegation that


Respondent made him leave his job, the truth being that
he was unemployed when he approached the Respondent
asking help for his VISA application;

15. To continue, Respondent admits Complainants


allegations in paragraph 16-17 of the Complaint as these
are part of the requirements for VISA Application.
Consequently, Complainant had to go through the same.
There is however no truth to the latters allegation that his
passport would follow thereafter, for he already had one
even before he applied for a VISA, a passport being a
necessary requirement for the same. Such inconsistency
only bolster the fact that Complainant is making up all of
these accusations against the Respondent. A copy of his
passport issued on October 25, 2015 is attached hereto as
Annex 4;

16. On December 7, 2016, The Embassy of Saudi Arabia


communicated the rejection of Complainants VISA
Application based on the fact that ARA BU was an inexistent
company in Saudi Arabia having been closed down in May
2012. This was communicated to the Complainant, which

3 Attached hereto as Annex 3.


the latter took awfully. The Complainant accused the
Respondent that it was the latters fault why his VISA was
denied. Respondent carefully explained to the Complainant
that ARA BU simply did not exist, and for that his VISA
application was denied;

17. Complainant would not have any of the explanation,


instead he demanded that the Php 25,000.00 he paid be
returned. Respondent explained that the same is not
possible, as the money had already been spent for
expenses related to his VISA application. As a
consequence, he threatened to expose Respondent as
fraud, and file a criminal case for Illegal Recruitment and
Estafa;

18.There is also no truth to Complainants claim that Green


Pastures office is open for renting. As to date, Green
Pasture continued to hold office at the same location as
evidenced by the Lease Agreement attached hereto as
Annex 5 with Paabangan Co.;

19.From the circumstances above, there is no basis to hold


Respondent liable for Estafa by means of deceit, as these
acts fail to constitute the elements for the said crime. As
held by the court in the case of Rosita Sy v. People of the
Philippines,4, the elements of estafa by means of deceit are
the following, viz.: (a) that there must be a false pretense
or fraudulent representation as to his power, influence,
qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or
imaginary transactions; (b) that such false pretense or
fraudulent representation was made or executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (c) that
the offended party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent
act, or fraudulent means and was induced to part with his
money or property; and (d) that, as a result thereof, the
offended party suffered damage.
4 G.R. No. 183879, April 14, 2010
20. In this case, Respondent never represented that it could
offer overseas employment to the Respondent. From the
very beginning, Respondent had explained that what it can
only assist the Complainant in his VISA application.
Respondent made it clear from the very beginning that
VISA application and overseas employment are two very
different things. Respondent was authorized to do the first,
but not the other. Having made no representations, the
second element finds no relevance herein. Also,
Complainant never relied on the Respondent, for
Complainant had assured Respondent that it had a direct
employer who assured him of employment after obtaining
a working VISA. If indeed, there was any
misrepresentation, it was not committed by Respondent,
but some other person who offered employment to
Complainant when there was none. Having failed to meet
the other elements, damages suffered by Complainant
becomes immaterial;

21. From the foregoing, it is clear that a case for Estafa


cannot prosper. And so, Respondent, prays that this case
be dismissed for utter lack of basis, and all other equitable
reliefs prayed for.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set my hand this


_____ day of February, 2017 at Cebu City, Philippines.

JUAN YLAD
Respondent

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ____ day of


October, 2012 at Mandaue City, Philippines; affiant exhibited to
me his ________________________ with No. ______________ and issued
by the ______________________________ as competent evidence of
identity.
City Prosecutor