Republic of the Philippines

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF METRO MANILA

NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
QUEZON CITY BRANCH ____

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

- versus – Crim. Case No.

____________
For: Violation of B.P. Blg.
22 (5 COUNTS)

ANGELINE ______________,
Accused.
x-------------------------x

COUNTER – AFFIDAVIT WITH

COMPLIANCE

Accused, _____________________, through undersigned counsel,

respectfully submits her Counter-Affidavit with Compliance, in conformity
with the Order made by this Honorable Court in open court during the
hearing on ____________________, and in support thereof, states:

1. In compliance with the Order of this Honorable Court, Accused

hereby manifests that she transferred residence last _________________to
the following address:

C/O ________________________
____________________________
, TAGUIG CITY

2. In reply to the Supplemental Complaint – Affidavit of Private

Complainant _______________________, Accused hereby denies the charge
that she is liable for violating Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22) on any of the
five (5) counts involved in this case.

3. In the said Complaint – Affidavit of Mr. ________ claimed that

Accused entered into with him the following contracts:

1
 a. Investors Agreement dated _______________ in the amount of
Fifty Thousand Pesos (PhP50,000) (Annex “A” of the
Complaint);
b. Investors Agreement dated ________________ in the amount
of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (PhP100,000.00) (Annex “B”,
supra.);
c. Investors Agreement also dated _____________ in the amount
of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (Ph200,000.00) (Annex “C”,
supra.);
d. Investors Agreement dated _____________ in the amount of
One Hundred Thousand Pesos (PhP100,000.00) (Annex “D”,
supra.);
e. Investors Agreement dated ______________ in the amount of
Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (PhP200,000.00) (Annex “E”,
supra.);
f. Investors Agreement dated ___________ in the amount of One
Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (PhP1,500,000.00)
(Annex “F”, supra.);

4. The said Agreements stipulate that the premise of the contract

is “(r)egarding an investment of the Investor to ________________”.

5. According to the Investors Agreement, in consideration of the

investment made by Mr. __________, Accused was supposed to pay him
the following:
a. Repayment of Investment; and,
b. Profit participation of Six Percent (6%) monthly interest.

6. Note that Mr. __________ claimed the series of investment

agreements made by the parties were continuously made from
________________ to ____________________, for a total of six (6) contracts
in the aggregate amount of Two Million One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos
(PhP2,150,000.00). Assuming arguendo this statement to be true, Mr.
_________ must have handsomely received some returns to his investment
for him to be investing from PhP50,000.00 in ___________ to
PhP1,500,000.00 in _______________.

7. Mr. ____________ then continued in his Supplemental

Complaint-Affidavit that Accused returned checks which she originally
issued in his favor and replaced them with the subject checks of this

2
present proceedings, namely, BDO Check Nos. ___________ - _________ in
the total amount of PhP______________.

8. In this regard, Accused vehemently denies having issued

checks in consideration of the Investors Agreement (Annexes “A” to “F”
supra). Such an act is highly inconsistent with the concept of an
investment, which, as a principle, is a contract where the money or other
resources of the parties are placed in a common enterprise for the purpose
of seeking profit. Naturally, while profit is what the parties are seeking in
an investment contract, the possibility of loss is always present, as neither
of the parties can absolutely predict events that may arise in the future
which may affect the viability of the enterprise ventured into by them.

9. In this sense, it is highly inconsistent for Accused to be issuing

checks in consideration of the investment. While the said Agreements
mentioned of the repayment of the investment and a return of 6% monthly
interest, such considerations are always premised on the viability of the
business, consistent with the idea of an investment.

10. Insofar as the subject checks are concerned, i.e., BDO Check
Nos. _________ to _____________, assuming arguendo Accused have issued
such checks, the fact is, they were issued NOT for value because of the fact
that the profit to be realized from the common enterprise the parties were
supposed to have entered into have not yet been realized.

11. In the case of Irma Idos vs. CA (G.R. No. 110782, 25 September
1998), the Supreme Court ruled that absent any showing that checks issued
were for value, the issuer cannot be made liable for violating B.P. 22.

12. In the said case, a partner in a partnership that is in the process

of winding-up who issued a check in favor of his other partner that
represents the share of the payee/partner from the partnership assets after
dissolution did not violate B.P. 22 when the said check was dishonored
upon presentation for payment. The reason for this is that such check was
issued not for value as the assets were then still be liquidated. In said case,
the Supreme Court said:

“The more tenable view, one in favor of the accused, is that the
check was issued merely to evidence the complainant’s share in
the partnership property, or to assure the latter that he would

3
 receive in time his due share therein. The alternative view that
the check was in consideration of a "buy out" is but a theory,
favorable to the complainant, but lacking support in the record;
and must necessarily be discarded.

For there is nothing on record which even slightly suggests that

petitioner ever became interested in acquiring, much less
keeping, the shares of the complainant. What is very clear
therefrom is that the petitioner exerted her best efforts to sell
the remaining goods and to collect the receivables of the
partnership, in order to come up with the amount necessary to
satisfy the value of complainant’s interest in the partnership at
the dissolution thereof. To go by accepted custom of the trade,
we are more inclined to the view that the subject check was
issued merely to evidence complainant’s interest in the
partnership. Thus, we are persuaded that the check was not
intended to apply on account or for value; rather it should be
deemed as having been drawn without consideration at the
time of issue.

Absent the first element of the offense penalized under B.P. 22,
which is "the making, drawing and issuance of any check to
apply on account or for value", petitioner’s issuance of the
subject check was not an act contemplated in nor made
punishable by said statute.”

13. In the present case, a similar situation exists where the checks
that were purportedly issued by Accused were for the purpose of covering
the supposed investment and the profit to be shared by the parties from the
common enterprise engaged by the investment. Hence, the checks issued
were not intended to be on account or for value. Not being so, the first
element of B.P. 22, i.e., “the making, drawing, and issuance of any check to
apply on account or for value” is absent. Accused, therefore, cannot be
made liable for B.P. 22.

14. Further, it is respectfully submitted that the notice of dishonor

dated 04 June 2018, attached as Annex “L” supra, cannot be considered as
relevant or material considering that the checks subject of such letter were
not even issued for value. Hence, it has no probative value at all.

4
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this

Honorable Court that this Counter Affidavit with Compliance be noted and
made part of the records.

Other reliefs, just and equitable under the premises, are likewise
prayed for.

_____________ City for Quezon City, 16 November 2011.

LAWYER SIGNATORY PART

COPY FURNISHED:

1.

2.

EXPLANATION

The foregoing pleading is being served through registered

mail/electronic mail/accredited courier to the other party/parties on
account of lack of manpower, the distance between the offices of the
parties, and the ongoing COVID-19 restrictions on mobility.

NAME LAWYER WITH SIGNATURE

5
 VERIFICATION and CERTIFICATION OF
NON-FORUM SHOPPING

I, _____________________, of legal age, Filipino, with postal address

at _______________________________, after having been duly sworn in
accordance with law, hereby depose that:

1. I have caused the preparation of this Counter – Affidavit With

Compliance, read and understood the same and hereby declare that
the contents thereof are true and correct of my own personal
knowledge and/or based on authentic and official records.

2. I certify that I have not heretofore commenced any action or filed

any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-
judicial agency and, to the best of my knowledge, no such other
action or claim is pending therein.

3. If I should hereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim

has been filed or is pending, I shall report that fact within five (5)
days therefrom to this Honorable Court.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ________

day of ___________________ in _______________ City.

___________________
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ________ day of

_________________ in _____________ City, affiant exhibited to me her
Driver’s License No. _______________ valid until _____________, known to
me and to me known personally to be the same person who executed the
foregoing instrument.
Notary Public
Doc. No. ________;
Book No. ________;
Page No. ________;
Series of 2021.