Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
Baguio City

Manuel Carbonnel Sta. Maria

and
Priscilla Pomar Sta. Maria,
                            Complainants,

-versus- NPS DOCKET NO. 19-1856-INV

For: Qualified Theft

Corazon Garcia Fabro,  

                            Respondent.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT

I, CORAZON GARCIA FABRO, Filipino, of legal age, married, and a

resident of Paltingan, Ambiong, La Trinidad, Benguet, after being duly sworn
in accordance with law, do hereby depose and state the following:

1. I am the respondent in the instant complaint;

2. I was an employee of Spinners World Laundry Shop (Shop for brevity)

owned by the complainant’s son, Mark Sta. Maria (Sir Mark for brevity);

3. I commenced training on July 20, 2018 and was then assigned to one of
its dropping centers;

4. Subsequently, Sir Mark assigned and entrusted me the position of

secretary with the main office at Camp 7, Baguio City;

5. I was under the direct employ and supervision of Sir Mark, until his
departure to Dubai on July 6, 2019, from which the complainants
assumed supervision over the Shop;
1
6. I vehemently deny the allegations in the complaint filed against me for
being false, malicious, unfounded, and unjust, the truth of the matter
being that:

6.1. As to the allegations that I did not remit the payments

corresponding to the receipts on the dates alleged in the complaint
due to the absence of Sir Mark’s initial signatures, the same is
false and without factual basis;

6.1.1. The receipts provided by the complainants dated April and

May 2019 are inconsistent with the dates alleged in the
complaint. The complainants stipulated that the alleged acts
were committed on May and June 2019, thus conflicting with
the receipts attached therein;

6.1.2. It has been a continued practice, as instructed by Sir Mark, that

upon receiving payment from the Shop’s clients, to stamp, date
and place our initial signature on the receipts;

6.1.3. Whenever Sir Mark visits the office, I provide him the said
receipts for him to sign and examine;

6.1.4. However, Sir Mark infrequently visits the office because he is

unavailable or otherwise occupied due to the demanding nature
of his work, and thus could not sign the said receipts;

6.1.5. Due to his infrequent visits, he no longer requires that such

receipts be initially signed by him provided that we stamp,
date, and sign the same;

6.2. With regard to the monitoring records mentioned in the complaint,

such is in the form of a notebook containing a list of the receipts

2
 that any employee in the office or dropping centers may
accomplish, and thus is not my sole responsibility;

6.2.1. The said records were neither fully accomplished by the

previous secretaries;

6.2.2. Due to the demanding nature of my work, I could not

undertake to constantly complete the said records;

6.2.3. On the dates alleged in the complaint, I informed the

complainant, Manuel Carbonnel Sta. Maria, that I could not
accomplish the records because of workload, to which he
acknowledged;

6.3. As to remittances, all dropping centers, including the main office,

are provided with brown envelopes where we place daily
remittances, thereafter to be handed to Sir Mark’s driver, Allan
Panesa, and delivered to the former’s residence;

6.3.1. Prior to his departure to Dubai on July 6, 2019, all remittances

are delivered exclusively to Sir Mark and not to the
complainants;

6.3.2. By all means, on the dates alleged on the complaint, I remitted

the amounts in compliance with the procedure that we
normally undertake as previously mentioned;

6.3.3. Further, it is in the ordinary course of business to submit a

monthly report inclusive of daily sales, incoming and outgoing
funds, and a petty cash report as to the materials purchased that
were necessary for the operations of the Shop;

3
 6.3.4. As secretary, I ensure that the monthly report be properly
submitted to Sir Mark for him to scrutinize;

6.3.5. On the alleged dates in the complaint, Sir Mark did not inform
me of any discrepancy or inconsistencies in relation to the
receipts and the remittances, including the lack or absence of
his signatures on the receipts;

6.4. As to the allegations that I ordered sacks of soap and fabric

conditioners beyond the supposed limit stated in the complaint,
these are mere conjectures and thus considered false and without
factual basis;

6.4.1. As secretary, my only duty with regard to such is to

communicate with the people who deliver the sacks of soap
and fabric conditioners through text messages or calls as to the
quantity of the materials to be delivered;

6.4.2. The person assigned to inform me of the said quantity is

Frenny Yadao, an employee of the Shop, who is directly
tasked with the laundry. Thus, orders would depend upon his
request;

6.4.3. The orders are also based on the requests made by the previous
supervisors, to which I likewise conform to;

6.5. On July 19, 2019, the complainants maliciously accused me of

stealing from the Shop to which I denied since their accusations
were baseless and derogatory. The complainant, Priscilla Pomar
Sta. Maria, uttered imputations against me causing dishonour and
contempt not only to me but to my family;

4
 6.6. With respect to my failure to appear during barangay hearings,
proper notice was not given thus negating the complainants’
allegations of my lack of participation therein;

6.6.1. I received a call informing me that a case was filed by the

complainants against me with Barangay Camp 7, Baguio City.
During that time, I was at Nueva Ecija attending the wake of
my relative;

6.6.2. I was not given any formal notice nor was I served any
summons by the said barangay to inform me of the nature of
the charges and the period of time to be complied with;

6.6.3. I then notified Sir Mark of the complaint filed by his parents
against me. He instructed me not to appear since no proper
notice was given;

6.6.4. Sir Mark informed me that he will take charge of the situation
to convince his parents to withdraw the case. According to
him, his parents have no standing to file a case against me
knowing that I was under Sir Mark’s employ;

6.7. A few weeks from the said encounter with Sir Mark, I was
surprised upon notice that a complaint for Qualified Theft was
filed against me, notwithstanding his remark, and that to my
knowledge, such filing may be unknown to him;

7. Hence, from the foregoing, we can neither speculate on the purpose of

the monthly reports, inventories, physical receipts, and remittances nor
surmise on the stories behind them.

8. Clearly, there was a failure on the part of the complainants to prove by

direct or sufficient circumstantial evidence to support their claim of

5
 Qualified Theft, other than the absence of Sir Mark’s signatures which
may be considered as a fair and regular occurrence in the ordinary course
of business of the Shop;

9. Neither was there any proof shown as to missing funds or materials

belonging to the Shop, just mere conjectures, speculations, and
suppositions of indemnity that is nonexistent;

10.Further, I raise good faith as a defense. The term good faith is ordinarily
used to describe the 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 through technicalities of
law, together with absence of all information, notice, or benefit or belief
of facts which render transaction unconscientious 1.
Good faith is a question of intention. While this is something internal,
ascertaining one’s intention must rely on one’s conduct and outward
acts, and not on his own self-serving assertions of good faith. 2

11.Therefore, I did not signify any act that would negate my good faith
towards the Shop nor with its dealings and transactions. I have no hand
in taking the alleged unremitted funds nor did I use the same for my
personal gain since I live a humble life and with no financial burden;

12.Finally, The Supreme Court also held that “while probable cause should
be determined in a summary manner, there is a need to examine the
evidence with care to prevent material damage to a potential accused’s
constitutional right to liberty and the guarantees of freedom and fair
play and to protect the State from the burden of unnecessary expenses in
prosecuting alleged offenses and holding trials arising from false,
fraudulent or groundless charges3;
1
Blacks Law Dictionary, sixth edition, 1990 at 693 (underscoring supplied), citing Efron vs. Kalmanovitz,
249 Cal.App. 187, 57 Cal.Rptr. 248, 251; Leung Yee vs. Frank L. Strong Machinery Co., 37 Phil. 644 (1918);
Fule vs. Legare, 117 Phil. 368 (1963).
2
Gabriel vs. Mabanta, G.R. No. 142403, March 26, 2003, 399 SCRA 573.
3
People of the Philippines vs. Ernesto L. Deos Santos G.R. No. 220685, November 29,2017

6
 13.I am executing this counter-affidavit to attest to the truth of the foregoing
statements and to support the dismissal of the complaint filed against me.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this 15th day

of October, 2019 at Baguio City, Philippines.

Corazon Garcia Fabro

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ___ day of October, 2019 in

the City of Baguio, Philippines. I hereby certify that I have personally
examined the affiant and I am satisfied that she voluntarily executed and
understood the foregoing counter-affidavit.