Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Department of Justice
National Prosecution Service
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
Manila
x…………………………...x
COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT
I, IBRAHIM T. MAMANTUC, JR., of legal age, married, and with residence or postal
address at 1029 Marquez St., Ph 5 Gatchalian, Manuyo 2, Las Pinas City after having been duly
sworn to in accordance with law, hereby depose and say that:
1. To begin with, I have learned about Globrec Manpower Services, Inc., through the
person in the name of Nancy Benabenti and someone named Remy since they are the
one who processed the papers of my relatives who went abroad to Middle East.
2. That, On November 2013, A friend from Dubai came and asked me to look for an
agency to process his job orders and I recommended Globrec Manpower Services,
Inc. to do the processing.
4. That, The Elements of Estafa by means of deceit under Article 315 more particularly
in Paragraph 2 (a) of RPC are as follows:
b. That such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or
executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud.
c. That the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act,
or fraudulent means, that is, he was induced to part with his money or
property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means.
5. That, Paragraphs 11, 15 and 16 contains allegations of the first element of Estafa by
means of “false pretenses” which is the existence of a false pretense, fraudulent act or
fraudulent means.
6. That, Paragraphs 11 and 15 use the phrases “deception and fraud” and “fraud and
deception” respectively. These phrases refer to the acts imputed to respondent in
paragraph 16 which are the “false representation” employed on Abdullah that the
respondents have the authority to recruit and deploy Filipino workers to him and the
“false representation” applied to KSA Embassy that the respondent was authorized to
act on behalf of GMSI with respect to the stamping of 3 passports.
8. That, Paragraphs 7, 14 and 15 is allegations of the fourth element of Estafa under Art.
315 (2a) of the Revised Penal Code which is “damages”. Respondent admits that
allegation in paragraph 7 that the KSA Embassy suspended the transactions of GMSI
with its offices but denies the claim that GMSI incurred damages due to the
suspension by the KSA Embassy of its transactions. GMSI submitted no evidence of
the existence of the transactions pending at the time of the suspension and the extent
of the damages corresponding to each of the transactions suspended.
Respondent further denies the allegation in the same paragraph 15 that it incurred
damages when it paid Abdullah the amount of $14,000.00 in order for the KSA
Embassy to lift the order of suspension on its transactions as this payment is not
substantiated by any receipt or other documentary evidence. The truth is that
Abdullah refused to be reimbursed the said amount and insisted only on having his
transactions processed.
Assuming that such damages were substantiated, they are not the kind of damages
contemplated by the Revised Penal Code. The damages contemplated are those which
arise when the offended party parts with his money as a result of the commission of
fraud or false pretenses. Here, the damages that could have been incurred by GMSI
do not result from any fraud but rather from the unilateral suspension made by the
KSA Embassy on its transactions.
9. That, the undersigned counsel discovered that prior approval of the Department of
Labor and Employment for the appointment of personnel as required under Art. 29 of
the Labor Code have not been secured in the case of respondent. However, it is
respectfully submitted that the requirement presupposes the existence of an employer-
employee relationship between the agency and the appointee. Assuming that the
requirement applies squarely to an agent under a contract of agency, the responsibility
for the omission lies more on GMSI which is presumed to be more knowledgeable of
the requirements prescribed by the Labor Code on recruitment and placement
activities.
10. That, The respondent denies the allegation in paragraph 16 that Respondent has no
authority to recruit for the same reasons discussed in paragraph 6 of this counter-
affidavit. Hence, the ruling of the Supreme Court in a plethora of illegal recruitment
cases that persons who give the impression of having the ability to send workers
abroad for employment thereby commit the offense of illegal recruitment does not
find application to respondent's case.