REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Department of Justice
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
Angeles City, Philippines

HARRY POTTER D. CRUZ NPS Doc. No. ________

Complainant,

-versus- For: THEFT (Art 308, RPC)

RONN WESLEY R. VILLANUEVA

Respondent,
x---------------------------------------------x

COUNTER – AFFIDAVIT

I, RONN WESLEY R. VILLANUEVA, of legal age, Filipino and

with residence at No. 87 Purok 3, Brgy. Sta. Monica, Sasmuan,
Pampanga, under oath hereby depose and state that:

1. I am the Respondent in the complaint filed against me by the

herein complainant Harry Potter D. Cruz on the charge of Theft.

2. At the onset, I vehemently DENY and brand as malicious,

baseless, unfounded and unjust fabrications that the instant
complaint has leveled against me.

3. The truth of the matter are as follows:

A. As to paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 in the Complaint-Affidavit, I

am denying the same for absence of personal knowledge
as to the occurrence of the said events;

B. As to the allegations contained in paragraph 5 in the

Complaint-Affidavit, I admit the same only as to the fact
that I was the security personnel on duty on February 7,
2020;

C. As to the allegations in paragraph 6, I admit the same

only as to the fact that Hermione Granger Villanueva is
my mother and is also our fellow co-worker;

D. While the allegation contained in the Complaint-Affidavit

about me having a new cellular phone is true, I
 vehemently deny the accusation that I stole it from the
complainant;

E. That on January 30, 2020, I won a contest in our

barangay and the prize of which is a cellular phone. I
immediately used the cellular phone after it was given to
me since my old cellular phone had battery issues;

F. That on the evening of February 7, 2020, I was surprised

as to the report from my mother that she was confronted
by the complainant about my possession of an alleged
stolen cellular phone when in fact, my mother knew that
my new cellular phone was the prize that I won from the
contest;

G. That on February 10, 2020, as I reported for work, I was

surprised why the complainant Harry Potter Cruz and our
team leader came to me and checked my cellular phone;

H. That at that juncture, they examined the International

Mobile Equipment Identity of the cellular phone and
together, we found out that the IMEIs of my cellular phone
are as follows:

IMEI1: 355770074116111
IMEI2: 355770074116111

I. That such IMEIs were taken note by the complainant and

our team leader and were admitted in the Complaint-
Affidavit paragraph 9;

J. As to allegation that I will not return the cellular phone to

the complainant, I admit the same as I am the rightful
owner of the cellular phone that I am in possession of;

K. As to the allegation that I did not return and report for duty
the following week, I admit the same for the fact that my
daughter got sick and I had to stay at home and take
good care of her;

4. That the accusations against me are clearly fabricated as can

be clearly seen from the documents that there are
inconsistencies in the Complaint-Affidavit and annexes of the
complainant, to wit:

A. The complainant failed to prove that the missing cellular

phone is the same cellular phone that I am in possession
of because the IMEIs that they noted when they
 examined my cellular phone, as reflected in the
Complaint-Affidavit paragraph 9, although matches the
IMEIs as per reflected in the photograph of the IMEIs of
the allegedly stolen cellular phone as can be seen in
Annex D, it does not necessarily mean that it was I who
stole the cellphone, as the same cellphone was the same
cellphone awarded to me in the contest;

B. In paragraph 10 of the Complaint-Affidavit, it was alleged

that I won the cellular phone in a computer tournament
while in paragraph 11, it was alleged that I won the same
in a contest;

C. The inconsistencies in the Complaint-Affidavit would

strengthen the belief that the allegations of the
complainant are baseless, malicious and are mere
fabrications;

5. Finally, the fact that the complainant has no police blotter

evidencing the report of the incident of his stolen cellular phone
only proves to show that his version of the story is definitely not
true and has no factual basis.

6. The Elements of Theft are not present:

A. Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code which defines theft

provides:

xxx xxx xxx

Art. 308. Who are liable for theft. — Theft is committed

by any person who, with intent to gain but without
violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon
things, shall take personal property of another without the
latter's consent.

Theft is likewise committed by:

1. Any person who, having found lost property, shall fail to

deliver the same to the local authorities or to its owner;

2. Any person who, after having maliciously damaged the

property of another, shall remove or make use of the fruits
or object of the damage caused by him; and

3. Any person who shall enter an enclosed estate or a field

where trespass is forbidden or which belongs to another
and, without the consent of its owner, shall hunt or fish
 upon the same or shall gather fruits, cereals, or other
forest or farm products.

xxx xxx xxx

Under the first paragraph of Article 308 the essential

elements of theft are (1) the taking of personal property;
(2) the property belongs to another; (3) the taking away
was done with intent of gain; (4) the taking away was
done without the consent of the owner; and (5) the taking
away is accomplished without violence or intimidation
against person or force upon things. But under paragraph
2, subparagraph (1), the elements are (1) the finding of
lost property; and (2) the failure of the finder to deliver the
same to the local authorities or to its owner.

B. Clearly in this case, however, the elements of the crime of

theft were not met and there was no substantial evidence
to corroborate the complainant’s claim.

7. For the crime of theft to prosper, it must be established beyond

doubt that the accused had the intent to steal personal
property. This animus furandi pertains to the intent to deprive
another of his or her ownership or possession of personal
property, apart from but concurrent with the general criminal
intent which is an essential element of dolo malus.

8. The intent to steal is presumed from the taking of personal

property without the consent of the owner or its lawful
possessor. As in all presumptions, this may be rebutted by
evidence showing that the accused took the personal
property under a bona fide belief that he owns the
property.

9. Exercise of the Right to Ownership and Possession as a

defense in the crime charged. The crime of theft cannot
prosper where the taker honestly believes the property is
his own or that of another, and that he has a right to take
possession of it for himself or for another, for the
protection of the latter.

10. Here, the respondent has all the means to believe that the
cellular phone was his and that he was using it as the rightful
owner thereof. Having been given to him as a prize of a
contest, he has the reasonable means to believe that no other
person was the owner thereof.
11. Good Faith as a defense in the crime charged. In common
usage, the term good faith is ordinarily used to describe that
state of mind denoting honesty of intention, and freedom from
knowledge of circumstances which ought to put the holder upon
inquiry; an honest intention to abstain from taking any
unconscientious advantage of another, even though
technicalities of law, together with absence of all information,
notice, or benefit or belief of facts which render transaction
unconscientious3.

12. In short, good faith is actually a question of intention. Although

this is something internal, we can ascertain a person’s intention
by relying not on his own protestations of good faith, which is
self-serving, but on evidence of his conduct and outward acts.

13. Here, I, as the respondent, did not purport any actuations that
would negate my good faith towards the complainant. I did not
steal nor had the intention to not return any lost item. My
conscience is clear that the missing cellular phone of the
complainant is not in my possession.

14. My work with the company has been the source of my

livelihood not just for me but for my family. I would never do any
act that would jeopardize my relationship with the company nor
with my fellow co-workers.

15. My defenses herein rest foursquare to my contentions aforesaid

and faithfully assert that I did not commit the alleged criminal
acts being imputed to me by the private complainant. It is most
respectfully prayed that the aforesaid contentions be
considered by the Honorable Investigating Prosecutor in
dismissing the complaint for utter lack of merit.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed

that the instant criminal complaint be DISMISSED for lack of merit.

FURTHER, the respondent respectfully prays for such and

other reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable in the premises.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature

this February 14, 2020, at City of San Fernando, Pampanga,
Philippines.
 RONN WESLEY R. VILLANUEVA
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 14th day of

February, 2020, at City of San Fernando, Pampanga, Philippines. I
hereby certify that I have personally examined the herein affiant and
that I am fully examined the herein affiant and that I am fully
convinced that she executed this complaint-affidavit voluntarily and
clearly understood the contents thereof.

ATTY. JUAN DELA CRUZ

Notary Public
City of San Fernando, Pampanga
Roll No.: 123456
IBP No.: 7896321
PTR No.: 654321

Doc. No. ____

Page No. ____
Book No. ____
Series of 2020