Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice
National Prosecution Office
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
Tagum City

________________________ NPS Docket No._______________

Complainant,
-versus-

_____________________,
Respondent. FOR: Roberry
x---------------------------------------x

RESPONDENT’S COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT

COMES NOW RESPONDENT, ______________, unto this Honorable

Office, most respectfully avers that:
1. Respondent is of legal age, Filipino, married, and a resident
____________, after having been sworn to in accordance with law,
do hereby depose and declare that:
2. This Counter-Affidavit is submitted in compliance with the Order
from this Honorable Office received by the Respondent on 26
December 2019, giving the Respondent until 06 January 2020 to
submit her Counter-Affidavit;
3. Responent filed before the Honorable Office a Motion for extension to
file Counter-Affidavit dated 7 January 2020, asking for additional ten
(10) days to file and submit Respondent’s Counter-Affidavit until or
on January 17, 2020;
4. Respondent categorically states that:

a. She did not commit the crime charge against her;

b. The act of the complainant of initiating the instant case against

Respondent has caused mental anguish, extreme anxieties,
sleepless nights and besmirched reputation on her and her
family;

c. The Respondent hereby states that the instant complaint of the

Complainant is a perjurious, malicious, felonious, baseless,
unfounded, and unjust fabrication of facts, thus, Respondent
pray for the dismissal of the present complaint filed agaisnt
her.

d. Complainant maliciously and falsely accused Respondent by

imputing her to a crime that she never carried out nor
perpetrated.

1|Page
 RELEVANT ANTECEDENT FACTS:

5. Respondent was hired by Complainant to be a service crew in

_________. She was employed for two (2) years since August 2017
until the time she was dismissed and terminated by the Complainant;

6. Respondent was the only non-relative employee of Complainant since

the rest of the service crew were blood related to the Complainant;

7. Being a service crew, her task was to attend the needs of every
customers and follow directives of the complainant being her
employer;

8. For two years that Respondent worked with Complainant, this is the
first time that she was implicated of a crime allegedly robbing
Complainant which Respondent vehemently denied;

9. The truth of the matter is that on 08 November 2019 at 6 O’Clock in

the evening, while Respondent was busy attending the needs of the
customers, her attention was called by the Complainant;

10. Being the employer of the Respondent, she then went to the
Complainant. The latter ordered Respondent to get her cellphone in
her car which was parked outside _______. Consequently,
Comlainant gave the car keys to the Respondent;

11. The Complainant’s car was parked at about five meters away from
the _____which is accessible to the public. Respondent acting on the
said order of the Complainant went to the car and open it using the
keys that Complainant gave her;

12. Respondent only followed what Complainant ordered her to do by

opening the car through the car keys freely given to her by the
Complainant and get the cellphone inside the car. However,
Respodent did not find any cellphone the reason why she went back
to the _______ and give the car keys to the Complainant and told
her that her cellphone was not in the car;

13. Respondent strongly denied the allegations of the Complainant

that she took the car keys without her consent since it was the
Complainant herself who handed the car keys to the Respondent;

14. The attached photos of the cctv footage of Respondent depicting

that she went to the car of Complainant were only fragments of the
cctv footage showing that Respondent went to the car;

2|Page
15. Because the Respondent was the only employee who is not a
relative of the Complainant, she was then accused of the one who
stole the car keys and allegedly took the money of the Complainant;

16. However, despite having no knowledge of the accusation against

her, Respondent rendered her duty on 09 November 2019 in DINE
HUB. While working, Respondent received a text message from an
unknown number threatening her life and that she was taking drugs.
Though Respondent was scared, she ignored the same considering
she did not do anything. Attached is a copy of the text message and
marked as ANNEX “A”;

17. Respondent continued working in _______ until she received

several text messages on 11 November 2019 from unknown number
that she was directed not to work in _______ but when Respondent
replied the said number did not message back. Respondent ignored
such text and still rendered duty in ______ since she was not
personally dismissed by the Complainant. Respondent even texted
her co-employees to verify the information she received but her co-
employees have no knowledge and were also shocked upon learning
the said text message. Attached are the copies of the text messages
and marked as ANNEX “B”, “C”, “D” and “E”;

18. Respondent still continued rendering her duty in the ______ even
if she received incessant text messages from unknown number
disallowing her to work. To verify such information, Respondent also
texted Complainant but there was no reply. Attached are copies of
the text messages and marked as ANNEX “F” and “G”;

19. There were days that she did not worked because of the text
messages she received but her co-employees informed her that
presence in DINE HUB is needed the reason why she opted to work;

20. On 19 November 2020, Respondent received a text message from

Complainant directed her to appear before her office at
_______________. Respondent on the same day went to the
aforecited office address and upon entering the office she saw all of
the relatives of the complainant gathered inside the room, without
any words Complainant suddenly slapped Respondent and forced her
to admit to stealing her money;

21. Respondent was shocked when she was slapped by the

Complainant. Worse, she was accused of something she did not do.
On that instant, she was dragged and forced to ride in Complainant’s
car even if she was resisting but she was forcibly taken inside the car
and she was brought to the police station;

22. However, upon reaching the police station the investigating officer
already left. Respondent was then allowed to go home on that day.

3|Page
 Respondent could still remember the trauma she experienced in the
hands of the Complainant;

23. On 26 November 2019, Respondent received a notice from

Barangay Apokon inviting her presence for a conference with
Complainant to be held on 28 November 2019. In order to clarify and
defend Respondent’s reputation on the allegations against her, she
appeared on the mentioned date but Complainant did not attend the
conference. Attached are the copies of the notice and minutes issued
by the Barangay Apokon and marked as ANNEX “H” and “I”;

ARGUMENTS and DISCUSSIONS

24. Accordingly, this subject Complaint for Roberry againts

Respondent, _________ , should be DISMISSED on the following
ground:

I.

RESPONDENT DID NOT COMMIT ANY VIOLATION AS PROVIDED UNDER

ARTICLE 302 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE FOR THE CRIME OF
ROBERRY;

RESPONDENT DID NOT COMMIT ANY

VIOLATION AS PROVIDED UNDER ARTICLE
302 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE FOR THE
CRIME OF ROBERRY

25. The elements of Robbery under article 302 of the Revised Penal
Code are the following:

1. That the offender entered an uinhabited place or a building

which was not a dwelling house, not a public building or an
edifice devoted to religiuos worship;

2. That any of the following circumstances was present:

Xxx
c. the entrance was effected through the use of false keys
picklocks or other other similar tools

Xxx

3. With intent to gain, the offender took therefrom personal

property belonging to another.

26. Under the law, the uninhabited place under this article includes
but not limited to uninhabited building which is not a dwelling house,

4|Page
 public building, or edifice for worship, warehouse, vessel such as
frieght car or store;

27. In the instant case, the allegation that the Respondent stole the
car keys of the Complainant and used it to gain entrance to the motor
vehicle (private car) and allegedly took the money were all fabricated
stories which the Respondent strongly denied;

28. First, not all of the elements of robbery can be found in the present
case. One of the essential requisite of robbery under Article 302 is
that the malefactor enters the building or dependency, where the
object to be taken is found. Article 302 clearly contemplates that the
malefactor should enter the building. If the culprit did not enter the
building there is no robbery. (The People of the Philippines vs
Jaranilla, G.R No. L-28547, February 22, 1974)

29. The term “building” in Article 302, formerly 512 of the old Penal
Code, was construed as embracing any structure not mentioned in
Article 299 (meaning not inhabited house or edifice devoted to
worship or dependency thereof) used for storage and safekeeping of
personal property. (The People of the Philippines vs Jaranilla, G.R No.
L-28547, February 22, 1974)

30. In the instant case, the motor vehicle (private car) where the
alleged money was taken is not considered a building within the
meaning of Article 302. Not being a building, it cannot be said that
the Respondent entered the same in order to commit the robbery
using a false keys;

31. Under the law, the false keys are genuine keys stolen from the
owner or any keys other than those intended by the owner for use in
the lock. The keys contemplated under the law must be stolen and
the same must be used to open a house and not any furniture;

32. In the present case, Respondent never took the car keys without
the consent of the Complainant. In fact, it was the Complainant
herself who handed the car keys to Respondent with the instruction
to get the cellphone of Complainant placed inside the car.

33. Granting arguendo that all of the elements were present, the case
against the Respondent should not prosper as she never committed
the charge against her. She was just falsely implicated by the
Complainant because of the cctv footage. Complainant was fully
aware that Respondent can be seen in the cctv footage since
Complainant was the one who instructed Respondent to get her
cellular phone inside her car. She even handed to Respondent the car
keys to gain access to the car. It does not necessarily mean that it
was the Respondent who stole the money placed inside
Complainant’s car;

34. On final Note, herein RESPONDENT _________ if any, is a victim

of false accusation, worse than losing her employment and is now
being implicated and dragged in this criminal complaint;

5|Page
 35. It is most respectfully prayed unto this Honorable Office that the
instant case be DISMISSED for insufficient evidence and lack of merit
and that corresponding RESOLUTION be issued finding no probable
cause to prosecute RESPONDENT ________for Robbery;

36. I am executing this counter-affidavit to refute all the imputations

of wrongdoings against me, to inform the concerned authorities and
this Honorable Office of the foregoing facts and to attest to the truth
thereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ______,

_____, Philippines.

CLARISAS B. DEMDOM
Respondent

SUSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ______ at_____,

Philippines. I hereby certify that I have examined the affiant personally and
that I am satisfied that she voluntarily executed this affidavit and understood
the contents of her Counter-Affidavit.
.

Copy furnished:

ELIZABETH LASQUITE BULADACO

Blk 1 Lot 33, North Eagle 2, Brgy. San Miguel
Tagum City, Davao del Norte

6|Page