REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
MUNTINLUPA CITY, BRANCH 113

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

-versus- CRIMINAL CASE NO. MeTC

M-65208-CR
For: THEFT

KARL MAEVEN ROSOS y LINEZO,

Accused.
x-------------------------------------------x

COUNTER AFFIDAVIT
(to the complaint filed dated October 25, 2023)

I, KARL MAEVEN L. ROSOS, of legal age, filipino,

married and with postal address at 1305 General Aguinaldo
St., Soldiers Hills 2, Barangay Almanza Uno, Las Pinas City
Cavite after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law,
hereby depose and states, that:

1. Close perusal of Complaint allegations would lead to

the following conclusions:

a. That I am the respondent/accused in the instant

case.

b. That I stole Two (2) Kilos of beef and one (1) kilo of
chicken on the aforementioned company
represented by the complainant herein.

c. That I purportedly stole the aforesaid subject

without any consent from the management.

1
 d. That the action I’ve done falls on a violation of
Qualified Theft or Theft as defined under the
Revised Penal Code.

e. At the onset, I vehemently deny and brand as

malicious baseless, unfounded and unjust
fabrications that the instant complaint has leveled
against me.

2. Before I proceed to answer the unfounded and baseless

complaint allegations made by the Complainant in his
Complaint affidavit, it is important to point out that the
allegations therein were made by him to cause confusion as to
what is the real issue in this complaint - - which is WHETHER
OR NOT I COMMITTED A THEFT UNDER ART 308 OF
REVISED PENAL CODE BASE ON THE ALLEGATIONS
STIPULATED BY THE COMPLAINANT IN HER COMPLAINT
AFFIDAVIT.

Allegations that deserve scan consideration

3. A perusal of complaint affidavit will show that in the very

first instance the complainant herein has no authority to file a
case against me as the complainant has no personal
knowledge of the case or incident that was happened.

4. In essence, the allegations made by the Complainant in

her Complaint affidavit are all misrepresentation.

5. Aside from being self-serving statements supported by

unverified and misinterpretation. All the allegation stipulated
are all FABRICATED AND FALLACIOUS.

2
 6. On the very first instance the complainant herein violated
the principles of sanctity of facts, how it was delivered and
how it is presumed to be known by the standing person
herein.

7. Wherein on the time and date of incident the

complainant herein never appeared in the investigation of the
company nor any report that was assisted by her.

8. Therefore, it is very important to note that under the

Section 36. Testimony generally confined to personal
knowledge; hearsay excluded. — A witness can testify only to
those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is,
which are derived from his own perception, except as
otherwise provided in these rules.

9. It is well defined that under the provisions of Rules of

Court, the person appeared before any court jurisdiction must
have personal knowledge base on what he/she observe to
discuss the merit of the case.

10.On the instant case, the complainant herein was only

assigned by the company to represent by means of Secretary
Certificate duly attached therewith in there Sinumpaang
Salaysay.

11.Well in fact it was not true on the very onset that I

committed a qualified theft nor theft in this case, for I was very
knowledgeable that the object found on my motorcycle was
done by my own action in good faith that I knew that it was
rejected not to commit a theft.

3
 12. I was confident on that day to be inspected as I knew
that the subject was already rejected therefore such action
was not intended to cause any confusion on my action as I
have no intention to steal any object that maybe useable on
the very instant.

13. I never committed also a theft as it was surrendered by

myself without hesitation. Therefore the elements of theft that
was defined on the ART. 308 to wit:

Art. 308. Who are liable for theft. — Theft is committed by

any person who, with intent to gain but without violence
against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall
take personal property of another without the latter's consent.

Thus the elements of theft according the Supreme

Court in Cruz v. People1; citing People v. Bago2 are:
(1) there was a taking of personal property; (2) the
property belongs to another; (3) the taking was
without the consent of the owner; (4) the taking was
done with intent to gain; and (5) the taking was
accomplished without violence or intimidation
against the person or force upon things.

14.First of all, I exerted effort to communicate with the

company to explain my side however such request has been
denied to the fact that they will call me or text me on the other
day.

1
G.R. No. 176504, September 3, 2008, 564 SCRA 99, 110.
2
G.R. No. 122290, April 6, 2000, 330 SCRA 115, 138-139.

4
 15. Well in fact there was no admin case that was conducted
against me to explain myside, knowing to the fact that, they
violated already my rights under procedural due process.
Knowing the fact that the subject was being surrendered with
no intent to gain, and it was done in good faith.

Good Faith as a defense in the crime charged. In common

usage, the term good faith is ordinarily used to describe that
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 unconscientious3.

In short, good faith is actually a question of intention.

Although this is something internal, we can ascertain a
persons intention by relying not on his own protestations of
good faith, which is self-serving, but on evidence of his
conduct and outward acts4.

16.Suddenly, I was surprised that the company represented

by the complainant herein filed a case against me on criminal
offense for my act or deed, knowing the fact that I never and
will never had an intention to gain as I did not think of a
possible scenario how I will get the subject into the outside of
the vicinity, well in fact I confidently submitted myself and my
vehicle for inspection without any hesitation.

3
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).
4
Gabriel vs. Mabanta, G.R. No. 142403, March 26, 2003, 399 SCRA 573.

5
 17.My work with the company has been the source of my
aspiration and livelihood not just for me but for my family. I
would never do any act that would jeopardize my relationship
with the company and has always strived to advance its
interest;

18.For whatever may had happened are all explainable and

are just according to the circumstances. I am hoping that my
relationship with the company will not be totally strained but
is just a mere bump on the road that will be part of my
experience working there;

19.If act had caused panic and alarm for the company, tenth
fold was felt by my family. So I hope that the Company will
understand and will give me another chance to again, gain
their trust;

20.All told, I have clearly shown the concreteness of facts on

my side.

21.Nothing can be clearer than the fact that probable cause

does not exist to warrant the filing of an information against
the respondent.

22.I, therefore, most respectfully pray that the criminal case

in violation of ART 308: THEFT OF REVISED PENAL CODE be
DISMMISED for LACK OF MERIT, LACK NOF LEGAL
STANDING OF THE COMPLAINANT TO REPRESENT THE
COMPANY AND LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE.

6
 23.I am executing this Counter Affidavit to attest the truth of
the foregoing declarations and to support my claim to dismiss
the case.

AFFIANT FURTHER SAYETH NAUGHT.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand

and affix my signature this 12th day of December, 2023, at Las
Pinas City, Metro Manila, Philippines.

KARL MAEVEN L. ROSOS

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, this December

12, 2023 at Las Pinas City, Metro Manila, Philippines. And I
hereby certify that I have personally examined the affiant and
that I am satisfied that he voluntarily executed and
understood the contents of his affidavit and the same was his
free act and deed.

Doc No. _____ Notary public

Page No. ____
Book No. ____
Series of 2023