REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

FIRST JUDICIAL REGION

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES
SAN FERNANDO CITY, LA UNION
Branch II

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff CRIMINAL CASE NO. 43823

-versus- for

VIOLATION OF B.P. BLG. 22

LOLITA B. SARANQUIN
Accused
X---------------------------------------x

COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT
That the undersigned is the Respondent in the instant case above-mentioned and
unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully avers:

1. That I am LOLITA B. SARANQUIN, of legal age, separated, Filipino citizen,

resident of Taboc, San Juan, La Union;

2. That I received the ORDER dated 13 May 2019 on May 23, 2019, directing the
respondent to appear and submit within (10) days upon receipt thereof to set
my Counter-Affidavit on the Complaint of Brigido Bisquera;

3. That I am the Owner/Proprietor of LBS Direct General Merchandize with office

address located at Discipulo Bldg., Sevilla Center, San Fernando City, La Union;

4. That for the purposes of this action, the Honorable Court can send and served
notices, replies and all other processes to the office address above-stated;

5. That I specifically DENY the allegation that I did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously prejudices Mr. Brigido Bisquera with regards to an
RCBC Savings Bank Check No. 0007000793 in the stipulated amount of
FOUR HUNDRED THIRTY TWO THOUSAND (Php432,000.00) pesos and
that I lack actual knowledge of the insufficiency of funds;

6. That the truth behind this is that I have already paid a total of Two hundred
twenty seven thousand and two hundred fifteen (Php 227,215.00) out of the
face value of the check as per two official receipts dated January 16, 2019 as
attached herewith as ANNEX “A” and ANNEX “B”, forms an integral part
hereof;

7. That the story behind this is that Brigido Bisquera deposited RCBC Savings (La
Union Branch) check no. 0007000793 amounting to Php432,000.00 to his
account at Rang-ay Bank, Downtown Branch, San Fernando City, La Union. He
was able to withdraw the amount of Php220,000.00 on June 27, 2018.
However, the check he deposited was returned for reason “ DRAWN AGAINST
INSUFFICIENT FUND (DAIF). On the following day June 28, 2018, the bank
 employees immediately informed him that there was an error on the withdrawal
and that the check was returned to him and the bank requested that the
amount of money in the amount of Php220,000.00 which he withdrawn should
be returned because the bank had acknowledged that they overlooked and had
committed an error on their side, attached herewith is the Demand Letter from
Rang-Ay Bank, Downtown Branch, San Fernando City, La Union as ANNEX “C”
and forms an integral part hereof;

8. That despite of the repeated demands of the bank to return the amount,
BRIGIDO BISQUERA failed to perform the demands of RANG-AY BANK;

9. That BRIGIDO BISQUERA asked me to help him on this dilemma that the bank
would sue him for an appropriate legal action should the latter fails to return
the said amount and that I responded to his call. Thus, I paid the
Php220,000.00 representing payment of the withdrawn amount made by him
and the litigation expense amounting to Php7,215.00 was all paid by me on
January 16, 2019;

10. That I told him that all the expenses of which I paid to the bank is to be
deducted on the face value of the returned check of which Brigido Bisquera
agreed;

11. That when I requested to him that the check bearing check no. 0007000793
should be returned to me immediately, Mr. Bisquera then denied my request
and insisted that he will still hold the check because I have still remaining loan
balance unsettled vis-à-vis face value of the check less the Php 227,215.00 I
paid to the bank, a total of Php204,785.00 left unsettled to him;

12. That the actual principal of the loan was only Php120,000.00 with 20%
interest per 15 days or equivalent to 360% interest per annum which ballooned
to Php432,000.00. The interest rate is unconscionable and exorbitant and
against public policy in lieu to the Truth in Lending Act;

13. That Mr. Bisquera is aware that the loan balance is only Php204,785.00 but
still in his untamed and uncontrolled mind, Mr. Bisquera still filed a case against
me and used the subject check as his evidence for Violation of B.P. 22 and
Estafa docketed as NPS Docket No. I-12-INV-19C-00097 to 00098;

14. That he should have filed a civil case against me for Collection of Sum of
Money and not a criminal case because the face value of the returned check
amounting of Php432,000.00 has been already paid partially in the amount of
Php 227,215.00;

15. That I did not received a written notice of dishonor. The lack of a written
notice is very fatal to this prosecution for it does not only supply the proof for
the second element of the crime arising from the presumption of knowledge the
law puts up but also affords the respondent the due process. The law thereby
allows me to avoid prosecution if I pay the holder of the check the amount due
thereon, or makes arrangement for the payment in full of the check by the
drawee within five banking days from receipt of the written notice that the
check had not been paid;

16. That as per certification of Barangay Taboc. San La Union dated 26 March
2019, it stated there that I WAS NOT PRESENT when the Notice of Dishonor,
Summon and Demand Letter was presented. Therefore, I did not received any
 Notice of Dishonor from the drawee bank or to Mr. Bisquera, attached herewith
certification of the barangay as ANNEX “D” and forms an integral part hereof;

17. That I was deprived of this statutory right by not giving the proper notice of
dishonor. The nature of this opportunity for me to avoid criminal prosecution
has been expounded in Lao Vs. Court of Appeals;

18. That as per B.P. 22, the following essential elements must be present: (1)
the making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for account or for
value; (2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of
issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the
payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and (3) the subsequent
dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or
dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause,
ordered the bank to stop payment.

19. That plaintiff Brigido Bisquera has a duty to prove all the elements of the
crime, including the acts that give rise to the prima facie presumption;

20. That in People of the Philippines vs. Limpangog, People of the Philippines vs.
Maraorao, the Supreme Court enunciated the time-honored principles that:

“In every criminal prosecution, the state must prove beyond reasonable
doubt all the elements of the crime charged and the complicity or
participation of the accused. The presumption of innocence of an accused in
a criminal case is a basic constitutional principle, fleshed out by procedural
rules which place on the prosecution, the burden of proving that an accused
is guilty of the offense charged by proof beyond reasonable doubts.”

That I am executing this Counter Affidavit to attest to the truthfulness of all the
foregoing facts.

In lieu of the foregoing, the undersigned prays to the Honorable Court that this
criminal case should be dismissed outright.

IN WITNESS HEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature below this ____ day
of May 2019 at San Fernando City, La Union.

LOLITA B. SARANQUIN
Defendant/ Affiant

SUBSCRIBE AND SWORN to before me this ___ day of May 2019 at San Fernando
City, La Union, Philippines.

Doc. No.:___
Page No.:___
Book No.: ____
Series of 2019