Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region

National Prosecution Service
Office of the City Prosecutor
Valenzuela City

REGINA SALVADOR,
Complainant,

XV-17-INV-20G-452
versus For: Estafa and Violation
of B.P. 22

MA. ROSARIO CORTEZ,

RAQUEL ALMEIDA,
Respondents.
x-------------------------------------------x

JOINT REJOINDER-AFFIDAVIT

WE, Respondents, MA. ROSARIO CORTEZ and RAQUEL ALMEIDA

hereby file this Rejoinder to Complainant's Reply and state:

1. Complainant's Reply fails to refute the defense statements raised by

the Respondents in their Counter-Affidavit. The matters contained in the Reply do
not at all reinforce or support Complainant’s allegations that the crimes of estafa
and BP 22 violation have been committed against her person and that she, as an
offended party, has cause of criminal action against Respondents.

2. Under Article 315, 2 (b) of the RPC on Estafa, the critical element is
the existence of false pretense or fraudulent act committed before or
contemporaneous to the commission of the fraud. This element is not present in
this case as amplified in the Joint Counter-Affidavit by Respondents, para. 15,
among others:

"SALVADOR admitted in her Affidavit-Complaint that I had been a

regular customer of hers for some time. Besides, SALVADOR acknowledged
the usual payment arrangement for our transactions with her. It was either cash or
the use of checks from customers. In essence, SALVADOR was very much
aware of the scheme of using checks for purchases of goods from her. The
purchase or sale arrangements are already in place and known beforehand to
SALVADOR before she took any action. SALVADOR was never
misled or deceived by any scheme that would entice her to part away with the
iron rods. What indeed prompted SALVADOR to deliver the iron rods to
William Cheung through me was the presence of the checks which came to
her possession. These checks being part and parcel of our usual procedures in
concluding customer transactions, prodded SALVADOR to sell the iron
rods.

Page | 1
 3. As regards the charge of a BP 22 violation, Complainant likewise
admitted in her Reply that Respondent Cortez never issued the checks, and that the
real issuer was a person named William Cheung. This admission confirms the fact
that we are not the proper parties to be charged with a violation of BP 22. We are
complete strangers to the issued checks, which bounced or returned unpaid by the
clearing bank. A BP 22 violation is totally inapplicable in this case.

4. Complainant now alleges that Respondents gave her an assurance that

the checks were good and funded. We vehemently deny this allegation for being
totally unfounded. We certainly could not vouch for the funding of checks drawn
on deposit accounts owned and operated by third parties.

5. It is incumbent upon Complainant to verify if the checks she received

in exchange for the iron rods she was selling are properly issued and against the
delivery of goods. Complainant should have performed due diligence on the issuer
in the absene of any security against the delivery of the iron rods. Complainant
cannot lay the blame on Respondents for her own lack of concern to her own
affairs. Complainant is a businesswoman who must have known that she stands to
lose the iron rods if the checks prove to be unfunded. Her failure ot take
precaution in the conduct of her business affairs is her fault alone.

6. The allegation of conspiracy to defraud Complainant is also not borne

out by the facts. A close perusal of Annex 1 series of the Reply points to the lack
of evidence that the Respondents are committing the crime of estafa. Conspiracy to
commit a crime must be proven clearly by specific acts amounting to fraud or
deceit. There is nothing in Annex 1 to support this claim.

7. We reiterate to the Honorable Office that no probable cause exists to

warrant a finding that we committed the criminal offenses of Estafa and BP 22
Violation. Any liability, if any, by the Respondents, in this case, is purely civil, not
criminal.

8. The Honorable Office should spare us the hardship and anxiety of a

public trial. The primary purpose of this preliminary investigation will be achieved
by an outright dismissal of SALVADOR's unfounded suit.

We jointly execute this Counter-Affidavit to attest to the truth of the

foregoing and to cause the dismissal of the criminal charges against us for lack of
merit.

MA. ROSARIO CORTEZ, RAQUEL ALMEIDA

Respondent Respondent

Page | 2
 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this __ day of Septebmer 2020
in Valenzuela City. I hereby certify that I have personally examined the
respondent-affiants and that I am satisfied that she voluntarily executed and
understood their joint Counter-Affidavit.

Investigating Prosecutor

Copy furnished:

REGINA SALVADOR
No. 6th Street, Fedel 2
Gen. T. de Leon
1442 Valenzuela City

Page | 3