Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice
NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE, REGION III
OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR
Malolos City, Bulacan

ROWENA FERRER, ET. AL.

Complainants,

NPS DOCKET No. III-04-INV-19L-05609

TO 05671
- versus - For: Syndicated Estafa

HON. MA. CLARA B. DELA CRUZ

ASST. CITY PROSEC.

JENNIFER B. CERBITO, GERLIE M.

DAWAL, FELIX R. BALATAN, FELDA
M. MACARAEG, EDOVEJIS O. EALA,
CRISTINA MAGSINO, MANUEL T.
MANZANO, JR., JOEL ESCODERO,
ROSALINA TY, HELENA E.
CASTILLO, ROGER S. BRIGOLA,
ADELINA F. MADRIA, EMMA L.
MANALES, VILMA T. PIO, MA.
JONAH B. PATALITAN, MARK
JAYSON PASCUAL, SALVACION H.
MANJAC, SHEILA MARIANO,
FELICIDAD DIAZ, ADORACION
GARCIA, GEMMA COMIA, HERNANI
B. PANGANIBAN, RICARDO
DESIERTO, LOURDES SALARZA,
ADORACION GARCIA, RICARDO
DESIERTO, AND MARILYN CRUZ,
Respondents.
x-----------------------------x

COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT
I, FELICIDAD C. DIAZ, senior citizen, widow, Filipino, and with
residence and postal address at B2, L7 Doña Marciana Subdivision,
Ugong, Valenzuela City, after having been duly sworn to in
accordance with law, hereby deposes and states THAT:

1|Page
 I. PREFATORY STATEMENT

1] I am one of the Respondents charged in the above-captioned

criminal complaint filed by the Complainants for the alleged
commission of the non-bailable crime of Syndicated Estafa
punishable under Article 315 paragraph 1 (b) and paragraph 2 (a) of
the Revised Penal Code (hereafter “RPC”) in relation to Section 1 of
Presidential Decree No. 1689 (hereafter “P.D. No. 1689”).

2] I have authorized my co-respondent, JENNIFER B.

CERBITO as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact, for me and in my
name, place and stead, to do and perform the signing/filing of this
counter-affidavit. A copy of the Special Power of Attorney attached
hereto as Annex “1.”

3] For purposes of this action, I may be served with the

affidavits of Complainants and the orders, notices, and other
processes of this Honorable Office in relation to the captioned case
through the address of my counsel below:

ATTY. AMADO S. SANDEL, JR.

Crossing Mart, McArthur Highway,
Biñang 2nd, Bocaue, Bulacan
Cell Phone no.: (0917)587-5397
Email: asandeljr_and_partners@ yahoo.com.ph

4] According to Complainants, I represented myself as the

owner of a particular parcel of land where Cris Ville Balatan
Homeowners Association is located. Furthermore, in order that I
could collect and exact money from the members of the said
association in the guise of monthly amortization, I and my co-
respondent Rosalina Ty entered into a Memorandum of Agreement
(paragraph no. 26 of complaint-affidavit). Additionally, I collected
money not only from the members of Cris Ville Balatan Homeowners
Association, but from Felix R. Balatan and Jennifer B. Cerbito as well
(paragraph no. 27 of complaint-affidavit).

5] I vehemently deny the false and misleading allegations of

the Complainants that I, together with the other Respondents herein,
have committed any criminal act or conspired to commit such criminal
act or violated Article 315 paragraph 1 (b) and paragraph 2 (a) of the
RPC in relation to Section 1 of P.D. No. 1689. The truth of the matter
is that which is discussed hereunder.

2 of 14 | P a g e COUNTER – AFFIDAVIT OF FELICIDAD DIAZ

 II. COUNTER-STATEMENT OF FACTS

6] I am the registered owner of a parcel of land situated at

Barangay Tigbe, Norzagaray, Bulacan consisting an area of One
Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty-Four square meters and Fifty
decimeters (1,954.50 sqm.) Before its subdivision into thirty-four (34)
smaller lots, it is covered by TCT No. T-335961 (M) of the Register of
Deeds of Bulacan (Meycauyan Branch) hereafter referred to as
“Norzagaray Property.” A copy of which is hereto attached as
Annex “2.”

7] On or at about the year 2006 or even prior thereto, some

members of Cris Ville Balatan Homeowners Association, comprising
of 34 families, informally settled and built their respective dwellings in
my Norzagaray Real Property located at Barangay Tigbe,
Norzagaray, Bulacan. Among these 34 families are the families of
Complainants Sergio I. Torres, Jr. and Rogelio P. Torres.

8] It is noteworthy that the rest of the Complainants in this case

are presently occupying the real property of Hiyas Banking
Corporation. Also being sued in this criminal complaint through its
manager – Respondent Marilyn Cruz.

9] So that these 34 families will be able to acquire ownership of

the respective portions of my Norzagaray Property that they have
been occupying, these 34 families made an appeal that my
Norzagaray Property be placed under the coverage of the Philippine
Government’s Community Mortgage Program of the Social Housing
Finance Corporation.1

10] I yielded to the appeal of these 34 families who informally

settled and built their respective dwellings in my Norzagaray Property
way back the year 2006 or even before that.

11] Unfortunately, the application for coverage of my

Norzagaray Property within the Philippine Government’s Community
Mortgage Program of the Social Housing Finance Corporation failed
1
The Community Mortgage Program (CMP) is a mortgage financing program of
the Social Housing Finance Corporation (SHFC) which assists legally organized
associations of underprivileged and homeless citizens to purchase and develop a
tract of land under the concept of community ownership. The primary objective of
the program is to assist residents of blighted areas in owning the lots they
occupy, or where they choose to relocate to and eventually improve their
neighborhood and homes to the extent of their affordability
(https://www.bir.gov.ph/index.php/rulings-and-legal-matters/community-
mortgage-program-cmp.html)
3 of 14 | P a g e COUNTER – AFFIDAVIT OF FELICIDAD DIAZ
to materialize partly because of the adamant refusal of Complainants
to cooperate with the officers as well as perform their duties as
members of Cris Ville Balatan Homeowners Association.

12] Consequently, I opted to sell my Norzagaray Real Property

occupied by the 34 families under a direct sale scheme instead of
asking them to demolish their houses and vacate my Norzagaray
Real Property. The pertinent portion of my letter-offer to sell dated 14
April 2015 reads as follows:

“It’s been 9 years of waiting since 2006 we had executed a

Memorandum of Agreement with regards to my property covered by
TCT No. T-335961 (M) occupied by your members. We had agreed
to sell/purchase the above described property through the CMP of the
Social Housing Finance Corporation but as to my regret it seems that
I am waiting for nothing.”

xxxx

“Further, if your members wish to materialize your struggle for

secured land tenure, I am open for Direct Sale Scheme. Since I’ve
waited for how many years, I want the setting price to be One
Thousand Five Hundred per square meter, a 50% down payment and
the remaining balance payable within 6 months.”

“If you are still interested, visit me in my residence. If not, I will be

forced to offer the property to anybody of interest or have it mortgage
to the fullest amount offered.”

A copy of the above-quoted letter-offer to sell is hereto attached

as Annex “3.”

13] Finding my offer considerably beneficial to the welfare of

the 34 families, Cris Ville Balatan Homeowners Association
authorized its former President - Jennifer B. Cerbito to sign a
Memorandum of Agreement for and in-behalf of Cris Ville Balatan
Homeowners Association.

14] The Memorandum of Agreement (hereafter referred to as

“April 2015 Contract to Sell”) between me and Cris Ville Balatan
Homeowners Association was signed on 28 April 2015. The pertinent
portion of the April 2015 Contract to Sell states as follows:

“4. That the LANDOWNER shall execute the necessary ABSOLUTE

DEED OF SALE upon full payment of the each member occupying the
subject property individually (in case that LRA approved technical
description is not available at the time of payment, an acknowledgement
of full payment will be issued temporarily until such time that a
technical description is made available for the execution of Absolute
Deed of Sale)”

4 of 14 | P a g e COUNTER – AFFIDAVIT OF FELICIDAD DIAZ

 A copy of the Memorandum of Agreement (“April 2015 Contract
To Sell”) is hereto attached as Annex “4.”

15] Listed in paragraph no. 6, page no. 2 of the April 2015

Contract to Sell are the names and respective home lot area
occupied by each of the 34 families among whom are the families of
Complainants Sergio I. Torres, Jr. and Rogelio P. Torres.

16] The selling price per square meter of land as well as period
and manner of payment as provided for in the April 2015 Contract to
Sell are summarized hereunder as follows:

16.1] Php 1,000.00 per square meter.

16.2] Down payment of twenty percent (20%) of the total

contract price upon signing of the April 2015 Contract to
Sell. The remaining eighty percent (80%) of the total
contract price is payable over a one - year period
commencing on 17 June 2015 and ending on 17 May 2016.

16.3] Late payment will be charged with an interest rate of

five percent (5%) per month. Nevertheless, I have never
enforced this late payment charge.

16.4] The monthly payment for the respective occupied

home lot area shall be deposited by each of the 34 families
among whom are the families of Complainants Sergio I.
Torres, Jr. and Rogelio P. Torres into my MetroBank
Savings Account Number 179-3-17936197-4.

16.5] A photocopy of the deposit slip shall be furnished to

Respondent Jennifer B. Cerbito every after a deposit has
been made by each of the 34 families among whom are the
families of Complainants Sergio I. Torres, Jr. and Rogelio
P. Torres in the aforesaid MetroBank Savings Account
number as proof that payment has been made.

16.6] One-time payment upon signing of the April 2015

Contract to Sell, as follows:

16.6.1] Five Thousand Pesos (Php5,000.00)

representing survey fee payable by each of the 34
families among whom are the families of

5 of 14 | P a g e COUNTER – AFFIDAVIT OF FELICIDAD DIAZ

 Complainants Sergio I. Torres, Jr. and Rogelio P.
Torres; and
16.6.2] Seven Thousand Pesos (Php7,000.00)
representing segregation of title fee payable by each
of the 34 families among whom are the families of
Complainants Sergio I. Torres, Jr. and Rogelio P.
Torres.

17] Subsequent to the signing of the April 2015 Contract To

Sell, my Norzagaray real property was subdivided into 34 smaller
lots that correspond to the total land area occupied by each of the 34
families among whom are the families of Complainants Sergio I.
Torres, Jr. and Rogelio P. Torres. The respective transfer
certificates of title of these 34 smaller lots were issued by the
Register of Deeds of Bulacan (Meycauyan Branch) under my name
and my son, Jonathan C. Diaz, as co-owners.

18] Unfortunately, Complainants Rogelio P. Torres and Sergio

I. Torres, Jr. utterly disregarded their respective contractual
obligations to pay the purchase price within the agreed one-year
period (17 June 2015 – 17 May 2016) provided for under the April
2015 Contract to Sell. As of 17 May 2016, the outstanding obligation
of Rogelio P. Torres amounts to Php 93,102.65 while that of Sergio I.
Torres, Jr. amounts to Php 122,380.72.

19] I sent demand letters dated 19 April 2017 to Complainants

Rogelio P. Torres and Sergio I. Torres, Jr. at their respective
postal/residence addresses giving them sixty (60) days reckoned
from date of receipt of the demand letters to settle their respective
outstanding obligations. Otherwise, the April 2015 Contract to Sell
will be canceled. These demand letters were received on 23 April
2017.

20] The pertinent portion of my demand letters (attached

hereto as Annex “5” up to Annex “6”) reads as follows:

“Nais kung ipabatid sa iyo na kung hindi pa rin

mabayaran ang kabuuang halagang nakaatang sa lupang
nasasakupan ng iyong tahanan sa loob ng nabanggit na
animnapung (60) araw, ako ay mapipilitang pawalang bisa
ang kasunduan ng bilihan para sa x x x metrong parisukat na
kinatitirikan ng inyong bahay.”

“Sana hindi masayang ang pagnanais ko at ng inyong

pamunuan, Cris Ville Balatan Homeowners Association, na

6 of 14 | P a g e COUNTER – AFFIDAVIT OF FELICIDAD DIAZ

 matugunan ang pagkakaroon ninyo ng sariling titulo sa lupang
ngayon ay kinatatayuan ng iyong tahanan.”

21] Despite the forewarning of cancellation of the April 2015

Contract to Sell articulated in my demand letters dated 19 April 2017,
Complainants Rogelio P. Torres and Sergio I. Torres, Jr. refused and
up to this date continuously refuse to perform their respective
contractual obligation to pay.

22] Let it be underscored that more than three years had

already elapsed from the serviced of my demand letters dated 19
April 2017. Nevertheless, Complainants Rogelio P. Torres and
Sergio I. Torres, Jr. have yet to pay heed to the:

22.1] demand to settle in full their respective long

overdue financial obligations; and

23.2] cautionary advice of cancellation of the April 2015

Contract to Sell should the obligation to settle in full the
long-overdue financial obligation is not complied with.

23] Exasperated with the long fruitless wait and downhearted

with the manifest breached by Complainants Rogelio P. Torres and
Sergio I. Torres, Jr. of their contractual obligation to pay as provided
for under the terms and conditions of the April 2015 Contract to Sell, I
sent to Complainants Rogelio P. Torres and Sergio I. Torres, Jr. a
Notice of Cancellation of the 28 April 2015 Memorandum of
Agreement by Notarial Deed dated 8 September 2017. These notices
were received on 23 September 2017.

Copies of the Notice of Cancellation of the 28 April 2015

Memorandum of Agreement by Notarial Deed dated 8 September
2017 attached hereto as Annex “7” and Annex “8”).

24] The pertinent portion of the Notice of Cancellation of the 28

April 2015 Memorandum of Agreement by Notarial Deed dated 8
September 2017 reads as follows:

“Sa kadahilanang tapos na ang takdang panahon na dapat

ninyong mabayaran ang x x x kinatitirikan ng inyong bahay, kayo
ay pinadalhan ko ng demand letter na may petsa ika-19 ng Abril
2017 at doon ay nakasaad na binibigyan ko kayo ng animnapung
(60) araw simula sa pagkakatanggap ninyo ng nabanggit na
demand letter upang mabayaran ang kabuuang halagang x x x
Salaping Pilipino. Ang nabanggit na demand letter ay dinala sa
inyong tirahan at ito ay natanggap noong ika-23 ng Abril 2017.

7 of 14 | P a g e COUNTER – AFFIDAVIT OF FELICIDAD DIAZ

 Nakasaad din sa nabanggit na demand letter na kung hindi
pa rin mabayaran ang kabuuang halagang nakaatang sa lupang
nasasakupan ng iyong tahanan sa loob ng nabanggit na
animnapung (60) araw, ako ay mapipilitang pawalang bisa ang
kasunduan ng bilihan para sa x x x kinatitirikan ng inyong bahay.

Sa kadahilanang hindi kayo tumalima sa sinasaad ng

nabanggit na demand letter, ikinalulungot kung ipabatid na
pinawawalan bisa ko na ang kasunduan ng bilihan para sa x x x
kinatitirikan ng inyong bahay.

Kalakip ng liham kung ito ang tatlong pahinang

AFFIDAVIT OF CANCELLATION OF MEMORANDUM OF
AGREEMENT DATED 28 APRIL 2015.”

25] Thenceforth, Notice to Vacate dated 15 January 2018

within fifteen (15) days from date of receipt of the said Notice were
served to Complainants Rogelio P. Torres and Sergio I. Torres, Jr.
on 27 January 2018 (copies attached hereto as Annex “9” and
Annex “10”). Nevertheless, Complainants Rogelio P. Torres and
Sergio I. Torres, Jr. never vacated my Norzagaray real property,
neither did they perform their respective obligated under the April
2015 Contract to Sell.

III. ARGUMENTS and DISCUSSION

A. THERE IS NO
COMMISSION OF ESTAFA
UNDER ARTICLE 315, PAR.
1(b) OF THE REVISED
PENAL CODE

26] Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines

states that:

“Article 315. Swindling (estafa). x x x

“x x x the fraud be committed by any of the following means:

“1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely: xxx

“(b) By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of

another, money, goods, or any other personal property received
by the offender in trust or on commission, or for
administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty
to make delivery of or to return the same, even though such

8 of 14 | P a g e COUNTER – AFFIDAVIT OF FELICIDAD DIAZ

 obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond; or by
denying having received such money, goods, or other property.
x x x”

27] The Supreme Court, through Chief Justice Diosdado

Peralta, in the case of Norma C. Gamaro and Josephine G. Umali
vs. People of the Philippines (GR 211917, 27 February 2017),
discussed thoroughly the elements of Estafa through
misappropriation, viz:

“The elements of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1 (b)

are as follows: (1) that money, goods, or other personal
properties are received by the offender in trust, or on
commission, or for administration, or under any other
obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return,
the same; (2) that there is a misappropriation or conversion of
such money or property by the offender or a denial of the
receipt thereof; (3) that the misappropriation or conversion or
denial is to the prejudice of another; and (4) that there is a
demand made by the offended party on the offender. x x x”

“The failure to return upon demand the properties which

one has the duty to return is tantamount to appropriating the
same for his own personal use. x x x”

“The words convert and misappropriate connote the act of

using or disposing of another’s property as if it were one’s own,
or of devoting it to a purpose or use different from that agreed
upon. To misappropriate for one’s own use includes not only
conversion to one’s personal advantage, but also every attempt
to dispose of the property of another without right. In proving
the element of conversion or misappropriation, a legal
presumption of misappropriation arises when the accused fails
to deliver the proceeds of the sale or to return the items to be
sold and fails to give an account of their whereabouts.”

28] In the present case, it is very apparent that I never

received from any of the Complainants a sum of money, goods, or
other personal properties in trust, or on commission, or for
administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to
make delivery of, or to return, the same. From these considerations,
any misappropriation of money, goods, or other personal properties
of the Complainants would be unfounded and illogical.

29] At this point it is well to note that Complainant Rogelio

Torres parted with its money in the amount of Php11,400.00 as
evidenced by a Metro Bank deposit slip (Annex “XX” of Complaint-

9 of 14 | P a g e COUNTER – AFFIDAVIT OF FELICIDAD DIAZ

Affidavit and hereto attached as Annex “11”) with the following
notation as part of his initial compliance with his contractual
obligations provided for under the April 2015 Contract to Sell (Annex
“4”), viz:

“Deposit slip mula kay Rogelio Torres bilang kabayaran sa

lupang inaangkin ni Felicidad Diaz.” (emphasis supplied)
30] All told, the hard and indelible truth remains that there is
utmost impossibility for me to commit any fraudulent act against any
of the Complainants who are presently occupying the real property
owned by Hiyas Banking Corporation given the absolute absence of
any relationship between them and me. Neither with Complainants
Rogelio P. Torres and Sergio I. Torres, Jr. for my transaction with
them is purely one of sale.

B. THERE IS NO
COMMISSION OF ESTAFA
UNDER ARTICLE 315, PAR.
2(a) OF THE REVISED
PENAL CODE

31] Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines

states that:

“Article 315. Swindling (estafa). x x x

“x x x the fraud be committed by any of the following means:

“2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or

fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud:

“(a) By using a fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess

power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency,
business or imaginary transactions; or by means of other
similar deceits.”

32] In sustaining a conviction under this provision of the

Revised Penal Code, the Supreme Court in the case of Maria C.
Osorio vs. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 207711, 02 July 2018)
held that the following elements must concur

(a) [T]hat there must be a false pretense or fraudulent

representation as to his power, influence, qualifications,
property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions;

10 of 14 | P a g e COUNTER – AFFIDAVIT OF FELICIDAD DIAZ

 (b) that such false pretense or fraudulent representation was
made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud;

(c) that the offended party relied on the false pretense,

fraudulent act, or fraudulent means and was induced to part with
his money or property; and

(d) that, as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.

33] Contrary to Complainants’ false and misleading
allegations, I never gave any false pretense, nor had I acted
fraudulently, nor had I employed fraudulent means. Otherwise
stated, there is no more need for me to sweet-talk Complainants into
purchasing my Norzagaray real property inasmuch as they have
already built their respective houses thereat.

34] As such, it cannot be said that any false pretense,

fraudulent act or fraudulent means was made or executed prior to or
simultaneously with the execution of any agreement between the
Complainants and me. There was no commission of fraud.

35] Lastly, no damage was suffered by Complainants. In the

present case, it is me that suffered damage and not the
Complainants. It is significant to stress that for a minimum
continuous period of fourteen long years, Complainants Rogelio P.
Torres and Sergio I. Torres, Jr. has been enjoying the benefits of
occupying my Norzagaray property without fulfilling their obligation to
pay. Worst, they still have the audacity to sue me for Syndicated
Estafa.

C. I AM NOT LIABLE FOR

SYNDICATED ESTAFA

36] Complainants falsely accuses me, and the other

Respondents in this case of committing Syndicated Estafa

37] Instructive at this point is the 2018 Delfin Lee case 2 where
an elaborate dissertation on syndicated Estafa is found. The
pertinent portions of the decision of the Supreme Court read as
follows:
2
Consolidated case of HDMF vs. Sagun (G.R. No. 205698, 31 July 2018), DOJ vs. Sagun (G.R.
No. 205780, 31 July 2018), DOJ vs. Delfin Lee (G.R. No. 209424, 31 July 2018), HDMF vs.
Globe Asiatique Realty (G.R. No. 209424, 31 July 2019), People vs. Alvarez (G.R. No. 209446,
31 July 2019), HDMF vs. Alvarez (G.R. No. 209489, 31 July 2018), HDMF vs. Delfin Lee (G.R.
No. 209852, 31 July 2018), DOJ vs. Delfin Lee (G.R. No. 210095, 31 July 2018), People vs. Lee
(G.R. No. 210143, 31 July 2018), HDMF vs. Dexter Lee (G.R. No. 228452, 31 July 2018), People
vs. Dexter Lee (G.R. No. 228730, 31 July 2018), Salagan vs. People and HDMF (G.R. No.
230680, 31 July 2018)

11 of 14 | P a g e COUNTER – AFFIDAVIT OF FELICIDAD DIAZ

 A syndicate is defined by P.D. No. 1689 as consisting of
five or more persons formed with the intention of carrying out
the unlawful or illegal act, transaction, enterprise or scheme.
The Court has clarified in Remo v. Devanadera that in order
for any group to be considered a syndicate under P.D. No.1689 -

x x x [T]he perpetrators of an estafa must not only

be comprised of at least five individuals but must have also
used the association that they formed or managed to
defraud its own stockholders, members or depositors.
(boldfacing and underscoring supplied) Thus:

On review of the cases applying the law, we note that the

swindling syndicate used the association that they
manage to defraud the general public of funds contributed to
the association. Indeed, Section 1 of Presidential Decree
No. 1689 speaks of a syndicate formed with the intention of
carrying out the unlawful scheme for the misappropriation of
the money contributed by the members of the association. In
other words, only those who formed [or] manage
associations that receive contributions from the general
public who misappropriated the contributions can commit
syndicated estafa x x x. (Emphasis supplied).

xxxx

Dissecting the pronouncement in Galvez for our present

purposes, however, we are able to come up with the following
standards by which a group of purported swindlers may be
considered as a syndicate under PD No. 1689:

1. They must be at least five (5) in number;

2. They must have formed or managed a rural

bank, cooperative, "samahang nayon," farmer's association or
any other corporation or association that solicits funds from the
general public.

3. They formed or managed such association with

the intention of carrying out an unlawful or illegal act,
transaction, enterprise or scheme i.e., they used the very
association that they formed or managed as the means to
defraud its own stockholders, members and depositors.
(boldfacing and underscoring supplied)

38] It is noteworthy that I am not a member of Cris Ville

Balatan Homeowners Association, Inc. neither did I perform any role
in its organization.

12 of 14 | P a g e COUNTER – AFFIDAVIT OF FELICIDAD DIAZ

 39] My dealings with Cris Ville Balatan Homeowners
Association, Inc. although inevitable are confined solely with my
desire to collect the payment for my Norzagaray property where 34
members of the said association informally settled in 2006 or even
prior to said year. A laborious process that I have been enduring for
the past 14 years and this resulted to continuing damage and
prejudice on my part as a landowner.

40] It is likewise readily apparent that membership to the Cris

Ville Balatan Homeowners Association, Inc. are exclusive to the
homeowners of Cris Ville Balatan located at Brgy. Tigbe,
Norzagaray, Bulacan. Therefore, it is irrefutable that this exclusivity
in membership is not the “general public” mentioned under Section 1
of P.D. No. 1689.

41] Section 1 of P.D. No. 1689 reads as follows:

Section 1. Any person or persons who shall

commit estafa or other forms of swindling as defined
in Article 315 and 316 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, shall be punished by life imprisonment to
death if the swindling (estafa) is committed by a
syndicate consisting of five or more persons formed
with the intention of carrying out the unlawful or
illegal act, transaction, enterprise or scheme, and the
defraudation results in the misappropriation of money
contributed by stockholders, or members of rural
banks, cooperative, "samahang nayon(s)", or farmers
association, or of funds solicited by
corporations/associations from the general public
(boldfacing supplied).

42] As expounded upon earlier, I have not committed Estafa

through misappropriation [Article 315 par. 1(b)] neither Estafa by
means of deceit [Article 315 par. 2(a)] of the RPC. If there is no
finding that a crime punishable under Article 315 par. 1(b) or Article
315 par. 2(a) has been committed, it is only logical that the charge of
syndicated Estafa against me must fail.

IV. CONCLUDING STATEMENT

43] This Counter-Affidavit is being executed to attest to the

truth of the foregoing allegations and to refute the contention of

13 of 14 | P a g e COUNTER – AFFIDAVIT OF FELICIDAD DIAZ

Complainants that I violated Article 315 par. (2)(a)(b) of the Revised
Penal Code.

44] I respectfully reserve the right to supplement this Counter-

Affidavit and to submit corroborating affidavits and other documents
as may be necessary during the proceedings.

FELICIDAD C. DIAZ
Respondent/Affiant

For:

JENNIFER B. CERBITO
Attorney-in-Fact

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, on November

_____ 2020 in the City of Malolos, Bulacan.

_____________________
Public Prosecutor

CERTIFICATION

This is to certify that I have personally examined the affiant and

that I am satisfied that she voluntarily executed and understood her
Counter-Affidavit.

_____________________
Public Prosecutor

14 of 14 | P a g e COUNTER – AFFIDAVIT OF FELICIDAD DIAZ