Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR
ILOCOS SUR
Candon Sub-Office, Candon City, Ilocos Sur

RHASIE ZAMORA y SALARZON,

Complainant,

I.S. No. I-03-INV-20B-0007723456

- versus - For: Violation of RA 8042

APPLE SAQUITON y SOCLO De RUGUIAN,

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

COUNTER - AFFIDAVIT

I, APPLE SAQUITON y SOCLO De RUGUIAN, of legal age,

Filipino, married, and a resident of Barangay Agdeppa, Bangar, La Union,
after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby depose
and say:

1. That I am the Respondent in the above entitled case. I strongly

DENY the baseless and malicious accusations against me, the same being
the product of Complainant’s unmerited imagination with the sole intent to
put me into ridicule, scorn and humiliation in order to perforce and realize
her egoistic evil objectives;

2. At a glance, the criminal complaint is but a useless piece of paper

without no probative value. Complainant is trying to build a case out of
nothing at the expense of the orderly administration of justice;

3. At the outset, I would like to inform the investigating prosecutor

that I am a peace loving and law abiding citizen with no criminal records in
our barangay and never in my wildest dream would I ever commit or attempt
to commit any wrongdoing which may put my honor and reputation into bad
light;
4. There is no truth in the allegation that I illegally recruited the
Complainant for employment abroad. These are pure lies so to speak for the
truth of the matter is hereunder set forth;

5. On September 05, 2019, herein complainant approached me

through Facebook messenger asking me if I know someone working in
Dubai and told me that she is looking for an easy way to secure such
employment. I told her that I have friends working in employment agencies
under United Arab Emirates (UAE) government;

Page1
 6. On October 01, 2019, complainant again sent me a message
signifying her intent to apply for employment in Dubai and asked me if I
could recommend her to one of my friends. Thereafter, I learned that she
was introduced to a certain Maribeth, who happened to work for an
employment agency based in Dubai and can help facilitate the complainant’s
application and agreed to let Maribeth process her application. She then sent
her requirements for employment abroad which includes her Philippine
Passport (old) which was still valid at the time of her employment
application and was used in processing her Visa (Annex “__”);

7. After processing everything, Maribeth sent me a message informing

me that the flight of herein complainant was scheduled on November 06,
2019 which I relayed to the latter attaching therein her flight ticket (Annexes
“__”);

8. On November 06, 2019, the complainant was able to leave the

Philippines as scheduled without encountering any problems with her
documents;

9. However, on November 07, 2019, I received a message from

Maribeth that the Malaysian Immigration denied the complainant from
boarding the connecting flight to Dubai due to a conflict in her documents.
She was supposed to be transferred from the Philippines to Kuala Lumpur
then, Kuala Lumpur to Dubai;

10. It appears that the main reason for the non-deployment of the
complainant was due to an inconsistency in her travel documents. Further
scrutiny by the Malaysian Immigration reveals conflicting documents were
used. Her old passport was the one used in her application for employment
in Dubai hence the same was used in her application for Visa but during her
departure, complainant used her newly issued passport (Annexes “__”);

11. Notwithstanding this unfortunate turnout, the complainant’s

employment in Dubai did not cease its availability as there was still a chance
for her to be actually deployed, she just needs to submit her new Philippine
Passport to be utilized in the application of a new visa and wait in the
meantime in Malaysia. The processing time for which will take least three
(3) to five (5) days but still within the 60-day validity of her Overseas
Employment Contract;

12. Initially, complainant agreed to wait in Malaysia. Meanwhile, I

out of pity asked my friend named Florence V. Marzo in Malaysia to allow
the complainant to stay with him for the mean time while her documents
were being processed to which she agreed;

13. On November 08, 2019, my friend fetched complainant at the

airport and stayed at my friend’s apartment for a few days. I immediately

Page2
extended financial assistance to my friend to cover complainant’s expenses
while in Malaysia and would check her from time to time (Annexes “__”);

14. However, on November 11, 2019, the complainant sent me a

message informing me of her decision to fly back to the Philippines and that
her husband already bought a plane ticket for her. Hence, she opted to pass
on the employment opportunity, and instead flew back to the Philippines,
and eventually leaving the 60-day period to expire;

15. In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Antonio Nogra (G.R.
No. 170834, August 29, 2008), the Supreme Court has held that, to prove the
accused’s liability under Section 6 (l) of R.A. No. 8042, the law requires that
“not only that the failure to deploy be without valid reason as determined by
the Department of Labor and Employment, the law likewise envisions that
there be independent evidence from the DOLE to establish the reason for
non-deployment, such as the absence of a proper job order. No document
from the DOLE was presented in the present case to establish the reason for
the accused's failure to actually deploy private complainants.” (emphasis
supplied);

16. Thus, it is incumbent upon the complainant to clearly establish

that her failure to be deployed was without valid reason by presenting an
independent evidence showing that the prospective employment of the
complainant was non-existent at all. Absent this showing presupposes that
the non-deployment of the complainant was for a valid reason, considering
that everything would point into the actual deployment of the complainant
were it not for reasons imputable to her;

17. The claim for the reimbursement of expenses incurred by the

complainant in her documentation and processing for purposes of
deployment under Section 6 (m) of R.A. No. 8042, should likewise fail as it
is dependent on the fact that the non-deployment was without the worker’s
fault which she failed to establish. Further, all the expenses incurred by the
complainant during her pre-deployment was shouldered by the employer;

18. In the instant case, to indict me of a wrong which I did not commit
would result to injustice. Laws and jurisprudence dictates us that a
preliminary investigation is intended to protect the accused from the
inconvenience, expense and burden in defending himself in a formal trial
unless the reasonable probability of his guilt shall have been first ascertained
in a fairly summary proceedings by a competent officer. It is also intended to
protect the State from having to undergo useless and expensive trials.
(Trocio vs. Manta, 118 SCRA 241);

19. In another case, the High Court pronounced that the purpose of
concluding a preliminary investigation “is to secure the innocent against
hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution, and to protect him from an
open and public accusation of a crime and from the trouble and expense of
public trial”;

Page3
 20. To repeat, and while denying the material allegations in the
Complaint, there is no iota of evidence for purposes of establishing probable
cause. While the investigating prosecutor is bound to prosecute those who
are shown to be guilty of a crime, it is equally his duty not to prosecute
when after an investigation, the evidence is not sufficient to establish a
prima facie case. (Monfort III vs. Salvatierra, 517 SCRA 44);

21. As a final note, I therefore strongly suggest with due respect to the
investigating prosecutor to look upon with favor my defenses for the sake of
truth and in my simple quest for justice, hence, I earnestly ask for the
dismissal of the case for utter lack of probable cause.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature

this __ day of March 2020, at Sta. Cruz, Ilocos Sur.

APPLE SAQUITON y SOCLO De RUGUIAN

Respondent

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ___ day of March

2020. I hereby further certify that I have personally examined the affiant and
that she fully understood the contents hereof.

Copy furnished:

RHASIE ZAMORA y SALARZON

Page4