Republic of the Philippines

OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR

Makati City

BRUMANNIC IC, INC.,

Complainant,

-versus- NPS No. XV.05-INV-34-78-2020

GEORGINA D. TEVES
Respondent.
x-----------------------------------------x

REJOINDER-AFFIDAVIT
I, GEORGINA D. TEVES, after having been sworn to in

accordance with law, hereby state:

1. Cam vs. Casimiro1 held that complainant has the burden to

establish probable cause and while probable cause is determined in a
summary manner, there is a need to examine evidence with care to
prevent material damage to respondent’s constitutional right to liberty
and fair play and to protect the State from the burden of unnecessary
expenses in prosecuting cases arising from false, fraudulent and
groundless charges:

“A preliminary investigation is in effect a realistic judicial

appraisal of the merits of the case; sufficient proof of the guilt of the
criminal respondent must be adduced so that when the case is tried,
the trial court may not be bound, as a matter of law, to order an
acquittal. 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. The need for a
careful examination of the evidence is also intended to protect the
State from the burden of unnecessary expenses in prosecuting and
trying cases arising from false, fraudulent or groundless charges.

Being the complainant, petitioner had the burden of

establishing probable cause. Burden of proof is defined in Section 1,
Rule 131 of the Rules of Court as "the duty of a party to present

1 GR No. 184130, June 29, 2015; underscoring supplied

 evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or
defense by the amount of evidence required by law."

In order to engender the well-founded belief that a crime has

been committed, the elements of the crime charged should be
present. This rule is based on the principle that every crime is
defined by its elements, without which there should be – at the most
– no criminal offense.”

2. The complaint against me is aptly described on page 1,

paragraph 2 of complainant’s Reply-Affidavit as follows:

“xxx. As will be shown in the discussion below, the said

Complaint-Affidavit is replete with lies and fabricated truths
which exposes Complainant’s penchant for lying.”2

2.1. This admission readily negates probable cause and

subjects complainant’s witnesses in the persons of Mailyn
Lagundino and Gloria Cruz, including Brumannic , their
principal, to cases for perjury and damages.

3. Records nonetheless show that, even assuming for the sake

of argument that all the documents are not fabricated and there are
discrepancies therein, complainant failed to prove the essential
elements of “taking” for theft3 and “damage” for estafa.4

3.1. In my Counter-Affidavit, I pointed out that variance

of entries in certain documents is not proof of theft5 without
complainant presenting supporting documents, like deposit
slips or bank statements showing the amount actually
deposited in its bank account.6 The difference between the
amount actually collected and the amount deposited would have
been the amount taken away. But, aside from the supposed
discrepancies, complainant did not present any proof that I
took any company money.

3.2. In the Complaint-Affidavit, complainant alleged that

the amount paid by customers is to be remitted in its “bank
account.”7 But complainant did not attach to the Complaint-
Affidavit and Reply-Affidavit any bank or similar documents to

2 Underscoring supplied
3 Canceran vs. People, GR No. 206442, July 1, 2015
4 Sy vs. People, GR No. 183879, April 14, 2010
5 Counter-Affidavit, p. 7, par. 14
6 Counter-Affidavit, p. 7, par. 13
7 Complaint-Affidavit, p. 4, par. 9

2
 show the amounts remitted and deposited within a particular
period, which will then readily show the amounts not remitted
and not deposited within the same period. Complainant merely
cut and pasted in paragraphs 19, 20, 21 and 22 of its Reply-
Affidavit the tables supposedly showing the discrepancies in its
own “company books.”8 To reiterate, these alleged discrepancies
alone could never prove taking on my part or damage on the part
of complainant; otherwise, moneyed employers will use this
scheme of easy and handy filing of cases for theft or estafa to
harass its employees, like what complainant did.

3.4. Indeed, complainant’s failure to present supporting

documents means that they are prejudicial to its cause or that the
Sales and Made-to-Order Summary Report, Sales Logbook and
Company Receipts Logbook are fabricated or misinterpreted to suit
this harassment complaint.

3.5. Complainant did not even rebut that it was Ms. Tess
Balagat,9 the company accountant, not me, who caused the
deposits.

4. What is more, complainant failed to prove that payments

were actually made. The Sales and Made-to-Order Summary Report10
is not proof of actual collections also in the absence of supporting
documents, like official receipts or acknowledgment receipts (in
cases no official receipts were issued), to prove actual sales or
transactions. Without proof of actual collections, the allegation of non-
remittance becomes totally baseless.

5. At any rate, the tables for supposed unremitted collections

for 2009 and 2010 in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the Reply-Affidavit show
that payments were via checks or credit card, how can there be theft
or estafa in these instances? Complainant’s fabrication of cases against
me is manifest and this should not be tolerated but condemned.

6. The alleged theft of “two (2) 6.5. mm cultured golden

pearls worth a total of Php 7,000.00”11 is another fabrication. While
complainant alleged that “[i]n late October 2017” (the exact date was
not even mentioned) I was “caught in possession of a transparent
plastic packet containing two (2) cultured golden pearls from the
8 Reply-Affidavit, p. 5, par. 15
9 Counter-Affidavit, p. 7, par. 13
10 Attached as Annex 1 to the Affidavit of Gloria Cruz (Annex A to the Complaint-Affidavit)
11 Complaint-Affidavit, pp. 5-6, par. 15

3
inventory of the Company,”12 it did not present documentary evidence
of any investigation or report on the matter. Had there been theft
incident right in the company premises, complainant would have
reported it to authorities like the police or the barangay, but it did not.
Complainant did not also show that the alleged theft incident was at
least recorded in the company security logbook despite its claim that
the incident was witnessed by “two (2) security guards of the
Company, namely Mr. Crisanto Kabigting and Mr. Diosdado
Gelera.”13 Why did complainant not get the cultured golden pearls
back from me in October 2017 when they supposedly caught me
stealing them? And complainant’s witness in the person of Mailyn
Lagundino, who allegedly caught me stealing cultured golden pearls
in October 2017, signed a statement only after my filing of the labor
complaint.

6.1. Complainant did not even present any CCTV

recording despite the fact that cameras were all over the work
place. I am certain that the recordings, if presented, which are in
the exclusive control and possession of complainant, will prove
that the accusations against me are totally false. Complainant’s
suppression of the recordings surely means that it is adverse to its
interest if produced.14

6.2. Complainant of course attached as Annex D to its

complaint a supposed picture of cultured golden pearls. But this
picture cannot and does not in any way show that I attempted to
take them away. It is just a plain picture, without any signatures
or marks for identification or authentication. I have not seen the
actual pearls being portrayed in the picture.

6.3. While complainant alleged that in January 2018, two

months after I was caught stealing the cultured golden pearls in
October 2017, it also claimed that I voluntarily produced and
showed them to Brumannic Nic.15 If it is true that I took cultured
golden pearls of the company in October 2017, why would I keep
them right in our office for two months after I was supposedly
caught, and readily produce them when asked to do so?
Complainant’s version of the alleged theft incident negates theft
itself. This confirms complainant’s admission that “the said

12 Complaint-Affidavit, p. 6, par. 16
13 Complaint-Affidavit, p. 6, par. 16
14 Section 3 (e), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court
15 Complaint-Affidavit, pp. 6-7, pars. 16-18

4
 Complaint-Affidavit is replete with lies and fabricated truths
which exposes Complainant’s penchant for lying.”16

6.4. The most obvious proof of complainant’s fabrication

is the fact that Brumannic Nic first accused me of attempting to
steal 2 pieces of South Sea pearls, not cultured golden pearls as
alleged in the Complaint-Affidavit. Brumannic Nic’s Letter
dated January 18, 2018 (attached as Annex “B” to my Position
Paper in the labor case that was attached as Annex “1” to my
Counter-Affidavit) reads:

“18, January 2018

Dear Georgina,

I was informed that last year around 4:35 pm before going

home, you tried to take out a plastic bag containing 2 pieces of South
Sea Pearls. For this attempted act I can no longer trust you and ask
you to render your immediate resignation with Brumannic Inc.

BRUMANNIC NICIC, INC.

(Signed)
Brumannic
Pres & Gen. Mgr.”

Brumannic Nic’s Letter is again attached as Annex 1 to this

Rejoinder-Affidavit for easier reference.

But a South Sea pearl is totally different from a cultured

golden pearl and Brumannic Nic and its pawns could not
possibly interchange the two. A South Sea pearl is 10 mm and
bigger and costs at least P15,000.00 a piece. A cultured pearl, like
what is shown in the picture marked as Annex “D,” is smaller
and cheaper (at P3,500.00 per piece as alleged in the Complaint-
Affidavit) and could be bought in Greenhills. The difference
between the two is basic in jewelry industry, more so that
complainant deals designer jewelry. Even a simple Google
search shows that on the average, a South Sea pearl’s value
ranges from USD300 to USD1500. By making contradicting
claims as to what was allegedly stolen, complainant was already
confused and lost in its web of lies.

6.5. Complainant and its pawns have abused the legal

processes by filing trumped-up charges against me. Initially,

16 p. 1, par. 2; Underscoring supplied

5
 they succeeded when, for strange reasons, I did not receive any
notice that denied me the opportunity to controvert the charges.
This time, I fervently hope that this Office would see through the
evil motive behind the filing of the fabricated complaint.

7. Finally, similarly baseless is complainant’s claim that

prescription should run only in 2018 when it allegedly made the
discovery.17 Complainant claimed that it made the discovery only
after it audited its books that have been in its possession and control
since 2009 and 2010. This means that had it been true that complainant
lost millions of pesos in 2009 and 2010, it would have discovered it
years back since its books were readily available to it 9 to 10 years ago
for audit and investigation. To suddenly claim theft and estafa 9 to 10
years later and only after my filing of the labor complaint, shows that
this case was merely retaliatory and, in any event, in violation of the
rule on prescription.

8. I respectfully reiterate my prayer for the dismissal of all the

charges for lack of probable cause.

MA. GEORGINA D. TEVES

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 20th day of August

2019 in Makati City.

I hereby certify that I have personally examined the affiant and I

am convinced and satisfied that she personally read and understood
her Rejoinder-Affidavit.

Reynaldo Gener III

Assistant City Prosecutor

17 Reply-Affidavit, pp. 4-5, pars.11-14

6