Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice
CITY PROSECUTION OFFICE
Dipolog City

TERESA BRIGET T. KUAN, I.S. No. IX-O3-INV-20L-00958

Complainant,

-versus- For:

CHERIE NAZARIO-OMANDAM Falsification of Documents

Respondent.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

This examination is conducted over the person of CHERIE

NAZARIO-OMANDAM, Filipino, married, and a resident of Kuan
Compound, M. H. del Pilar Street, Estaka, Dipolog City. The examination
was conducted by Atty. Kwin Loch O. Febra in her law office with
temporary address at Suite 1&2 Ranillo Building, Malvar Street, Miputak
Dipolog City.

CHERIE NAZARIO-OMANDAM is answering the questions asked

of her, fully conscious that she does so under oath, and that she may face
criminal liability for false testimony or perjury.

After CHERIE NAZARIO-OMANDAM was sworn to an oath in

accordance with law, the following are her answers to the questions asked of
her.

JUDICIAL COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT

I, CHERIE NAZARIO-OMANDAM, of legal age, Filipino,

married, with residence and postal address at 558 Kuan Compound, M. H.
del Pilar Street, Estaka, Dipolog City, after having been sworn to an oath in
accordance with law, do hereby depose and say:

1. QUESTION: Do you prefer this examination to be conducted in

English or in Bisaya?

ANSWER: For purposes of this Counter Affidavit, I prefer the

examination to be in Bisaya.

2. Q: Unsa man imong tumong sa paghimo aning Counter Affidavit?

(What is your purpose in executing this Counter Affidavit?)

A: Naghimo ko aning affidavit para pahimakakan ang mga

klarong bakak nga gihimo ni Teresa Briget Kuan (“Briget” for
 Judicial Counter Affidavit of
CHERIE NAZARIO-OMANDAM
Page 2 of 10

brevity) batok kanako sa iyang Complaint Affidavit. (I am

executing this instant affidavit to rebut the blatant lies made by Teresa
Briget Tacujan Kuan (“Briget” for brevity) against me in her
Complaint Affidavit.)

3. Q: Unsa man imong relasyon sa nagreklamo? (How are you related

to the complainant?)

A: Anak na siya sa akong first cousin nga si Jaime Kuan. (She is

the daughter of my first cousin, Jaime Kuan.)

4. Q: Unsa man kuno nga dokumento ang imong gi-peke matod pa

sa nagreklamo? (What is this document that you have allegedly
falsified, according to the complainant?)

A: Ang Acknowledgement Receipt nga iyang gi-attach sa iyang

Complaint Affidavit isip Annex – “A-4”. Matod pa niya, ako
kunong gi-suhid iyang pirma sa maong dokumento. (An
Acknowledgment Receipt that she attached in her Complaint Affidavit
as Annex – “A-4”. According to the complainant, I forged her
signature on said receipt.)

5. Q: Akong ipakita ning dokumento imong gihisgotan sa taas isip

Acknowledgment Receipt. Kaila ka aning dokumentoha? (I am
now showing to you the abovementioned attached Acknowledgment
Receipt. Do you recognize this document?)

A: Oo, mao na ang dokumento nga Acknowledgment Receipt nga

among pinirmahan, kami mga naka-pangalan diha. (Yes, that is
the Acknowledgment Receipt that we, the named parties thereon,
signed.)

6. Q: Sa maong resibo, naay pirma sa taas sa ngalan nga Teresa

Briget Tacujan Kuan. Kinsang pirma ana? (On said receipt, a
signature is found on top of the name TERESA BRIGET TACUJAN
KUAN. Whose signature is that?)

A: Pirma n ani Briget. (That is Briget’s signature.)

7. Q: Nganong kabalo man ka? (How did you know?)

A: Kita ko pag-pirma niya anang resiboha. Dayon pod, si Ma.

Mesalina Ruiz (“Ruiz” for brevity) ug si Leizl Arañas, kita anang
higayona sa pagpirmahay anang resiboha. Gani, naghimo ug
affidavit si Ruiz para ana nga akong i-attach diri isip Annex –
“1”. (I saw her when she affixed her signature over the receipt in
 Judicial Counter Affidavit of
CHERIE NAZARIO-OMANDAM
Page 3 of 10

issue. Further, Ma. Mesalina M. Ruiz (“Ruiz” for brevity) and Liezl
Arañas witnessed the signing thereof by Bridget, herself, on the said
Acknowledgment Receipt in issue. In fact, Ruiz executed a Judicial
Affidavit to that effect, herewith attached as Annex – “1”.)

8. Q: Kinsa ma’y naghimo anang Acknowledgment Receipt? (Who

prepared this Acknowledgment Receipt?)

A: Ako. (It was me.)

9. Q: Nganong naghimo man ka anang resibo? (Why did you prepare

such document?)

A: Para magpamatuod nga nibayad ko ni Briget ug Bayntemil ka-

pesos para sa Donor’s Tax sa akong igsuon nga si Suzy Nazario-
Adriatico. Mao man pod na ang naka-butang sa Acknowledgment
Receipt. (For proof of payment of the TWENTY THOUSAND
PESOS (Php 20, 000) that I handed to Briget in person for the
payment of Donor’s Tax over the share of my sister, Suzy Nazario-
Adriatico. Such fact is also found on the Acknowledgment Receipt
itself.)

10.Q: Nakabantay ko nga naay sinulat nga petsa, 2 April 2019 sa tuo
nga taas dapit sa Acknowledgment Receipt. Kinsang agi ana? (I
noticed that there is a handwriting of a date, specifically 2 April 2019,
on the top-right portion of the attached Acknowledgment Receipt.
Whose handwriting is that?)

A: Akoa. (That is mine.)

11.Q: Nganong naghimo man ka anang sinulat? (Why did you make
such insertion?)

A: Kay ag sa higayon nga naghimo kog Demand Letter para sa

nagreklamo, naambit nako nga wala diay petsa tong
Acknowledgement Receipt nga akong gi-hawiran. Naghimo man
gud kog Acknowledgment Receipt kay sa gidugayon sa panahon
sukad nihatag ko niyag Php 20, 000, wala gyud ko niya pakit-a ug
resibo nga nabayad na niya to sa BIR, bisan pag Kapila na nako
siya balik-baliki ug pangayo wa gyud siyag gipakita nako. (While I
was drafting a Demand Letter addressed to herein complainant, I
realized that the Acknowledgment Receipt in my possession is not
dated. I wrote herein complainant a demand letter because for a very
long time after I handed her the P20, 000, she never presented to me
any document or receipt that she indeed paid the same to the BIR,
 Judicial Counter Affidavit of
CHERIE NAZARIO-OMANDAM
Page 4 of 10

even after repeated verbal demands, no such proof of payment was

ever shown to me.)

Tinud-anay lang, daghan akong kopya gihimo sa maong

Acknowledgtment Receipt ug sila tanan wa gyuy petsa. Akong i-
attach diri ang laen nga kopya sa maong resibo isip Annex – “2”,
ug diri makita nga walay petsa nakabutang. (To be candid, I made
multiple copies of the subject receipt and all of them are not dated.
Hereto attached as Annex – “2” is another copy of said document,
without any dates indicated.)

12. Q: Ngano man nimo gibutang ang petsa nga 2 April 2019 sa
resibo? (Why then did you write 2 April 2019 on the receipt in
issue?)

A: Kutob sa akong mahinumdoman, dungan among paghatagay

ug pirmahay ni Briget ug ang Contract to Sell ni Briget pod ug sa
akong ig-agaw nga si Jose Kuan (“Dodoy” for brevity). Sa
hinungdan nga di nako kahinumdom sa eksakto nga petsa sa
transaksyon, nangutana kong Dodoy kung nahunimdoman niya
ang maong petsa. Nangita dayon siya sa iyang mga papeles dayon
gi-ignan niya ko ng basi kuno sa Acknowledgment Receipt nil ani
Briget, mao kuno to ang petsa, 2 April 2019. (As far as I can
remember, my transaction with Briget occurred on the same day as the
execution of the Contract to Sell between said complainant and my
cousin Jose Kuan (“Dodoy” for brevity). Due to the fact that I could
not remember the exact date of said transaction, I asked Dodoy if he
could remember the date thereof. He then looked for his files and told
me such date (2 April 2019) based on an Acknowledgment Receipt
between him and herein complainant.)

Karon bag-ohay lang, nangayo ko ni Dodoy ug kopya adtong

Acknowledgment Receipt nga iyang gihimong basehan sa petsa
nga 2 April 2019, akong i-attach diri isip Annex – “3” ang maong
resibo nila. Sa pagkatinuod, nisalig rako sa giingon ni Dodoy,
dayon akong gibutang ang maong petsa sa Acknowledgment
Receipt nga akong gi-hawiran sa maayong panghuna-huna. (Very
recently, I asked Dodoy a copy of such Acknowledgment Receipt
wherein which he based the 2 April 2019 date, I hereby attach as
Annex – “3” said receipt. Truthfully, I relied on the statements made
by Dodoy, henceforth, I entered said date in good faith on the
Acknowledgment Receipt I possessed.)

13.Q: Sa tubag ni Briget sa pangutana sa nol 4, gi-ekxplekar niya

didto ngano nga dili kuno iyangtinuod pirma tong sa dokumento.
Unsa man imong masulti bahin ani? (In Briget’s answers to
 Judicial Counter Affidavit of
CHERIE NAZARIO-OMANDAM
Page 5 of 10

question no. 4, she explained how the signature on the document in

issue was not her real and actual signature. What can you say about
this?)

A: Nanguti nalang nas Briget anang mga ginagmay para sa iyang

pagka-desperadang ma-suportaan iyang bakak. Common man
gyud nga mag-lahi lahi ang strokes sa atong pirma. Ato pod i-
konsiderar ang mga butang nga nagpalibot sa pagpirma sama sa
type sa ballpen gi-gamit, or naghanig bas a ilawom sa dokumento
atol pagpirma, kung nagdali ba ang nagpirma, ug daghan pang
uban. (Briget is just nitpicking on minute details in her desperate
efforts to support her fabricated stories. It is indeed common for one’s
signature to vary in strokes. Considerations should also be made as to
the circumstances surrounding the affixing of the signature such as the
type of pen used, whether a lining was utilized underneath the
document during signing, whether or not the signatory was in a hurry,
among many others.)

Ako gani, isip depositor sa bangko, sigi kog pabalik-balikom ug

usob ug pirma kay usahay malahi ang strokes sa pirma,
hinungdan para lahi ang itsura sa akong pirma sa usual. Ug sa
tinuod lang, daghan pod kong kaila nga mao pod ang
eksperyensya. (I myself, being a depositor in a bank, frequently
experienced being repeatedly asked to redo my signature because of
variation of strokes found thereon, which essentially make my
signature appear slightly different than usual. And quite frankly, I also
know lots of people who experienced the same.)

Mubalik ta sa tubag ni Briget sa pangutana sa no. 4 sa iyang

affidavit, dili gyud katuohan iyang mga gipanulti. Kung lantawon
nato tanan niyang pirma gi-presentar, ang kalahian sa mga pirma
kay klaro kaayo. Gani, ang pinaka-klarong lahi-lahi iyang pirma
kay makita rapod sa iyang mga ID nga gi-attach isip Annexes –
“B&C”, iyang PhilHealth ID ug Driver’s License. Sa unang ID,
makita nga ang kurba sumpay sa letra niyang N kay lapas sa
tanan letra sa iyang pirma. Pero sa ika-duhang ID, ang kurba
sumpay sa iyang letrang N kay tupong ug ni-sapaw na sa iyang
letrang T ug B. ang kalahian sa duha ka maong pirma kay
grabehay ka-klaro nga dili na kinahanglan ug eksperto pa para
makita kini. (Going back to Briget’s answers to question no. 4 in her
affidavit, her claims are incredulous. If we examine closely the
specimen signatures she showed in her attachment, the variations
thereon is very apparent. In fact, an obvious disparity is found on both
Identification Cards she attached as Annexes – “B & C”, her
Philhealth ID and Driver’s License, respectively. In the former, the
curve attached to the letter “N” is above all the letters found in her
 Judicial Counter Affidavit of
CHERIE NAZARIO-OMANDAM
Page 6 of 10

signature. However, on the latter, the curve attached to the letter “N”
is leveled with letters “T” and “B” of her signature. The disparity
between the mentioned signatures is indisputably manifest that even
the untrained eye can detect the stark difference.)

Dayon, matod pa sa iyang Incident Report Form nga iya rapong

gi-attach isip Annex – “D”, gi-tambagan siya gikan sa Prosecutors
nga magkuha ug sertipikasyon nga gi-examine sa expert ang
maong issue nga dokumento, ug i-refer kuno iyang kaso sa NBI
kay ilang opisina naay naatasan nga seksyon para mag-examine
sa mga ingana nga issue sa dokumento. Pero wa niya tumana ug
arogante siyang nipadayon ug sumbong batok nako, sumbong nga
way basehan. (Furthermore, in the Incident Report Form she attached
as Annex – “D”, she was advised as per the Prosecutors to obtain a
certification from an expert to examine the questioned documents,
as well as to refer her case to the NBI being the office equipped
with the section designated to examine the document in issue.
However, she ignored the same and arrogantly proceeded to filing a
complaint against me grounded upon her unsubstantiated allegations.)

14. Q: Sa tubag ni Briget sa pangutana no. 10, ni-angkon siya nga

naka-dawat ug Php 20, 000 gikan nimo para sa share sa imong
igsuon sa Donor’s Tax. Unsa imong ma-ingon bahin ani? (In
Briget’s answers to question no. 10, she admitted to having received
the amount of Php 20, 000 from you for your sister’s share of the
Donor’s Tax. What can you say about this?)

A: Pirting uyona gyud nako anang iyang mga pag-angkon. Sakto

na, nakadawat gyud siya gikan nako ug Php 20, 000, in behalf sa
akong igsuon para sa iyang Donor’s Tax. Unya mao sad na ang
unod sa Acknowledgment Receipt nga iyang gi-lalis. Sa pagka-
eksplekar sa akong abogado nako, ang par. 2 Art. 172 sa atong
Revised Penal Code nag-ingon nga kinahanglan naay damage or
bisan naay intensyon para maka-damage para makasala ug
Falsification of Private Documents. (I could not agree more with her
admission. That is correct, she did receive Php 20, 000 from me, in
behalf of my sister, for the payment of Donor’s Tax. Essentially, that
is the contents of the Acknowledgment Receipt that she is disputing.
As previously explained to me by my counsel, the law under Art.
172 par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code requires damage, or at least
an intent to cause damage, in order to commit the crime of
Falsification of Private Documents.)

Mao nga, ibutang lang nato nga ako kunohay gipirmahan iyang
ngalan, o gi-ilisan nako ang petsa niini, dili gihapon ma-lalis nga
wala koy makuha ug wala poy mawala ni Briget kung mu-awat ko
 Judicial Counter Affidavit of
CHERIE NAZARIO-OMANDAM
Page 7 of 10

sa iyang pirma o magbutang ug sayop nga petsa. (Henceforth, even

assuming arguendo that the signature found on such affidavit is
forged or the date thereon is altered, it is still indubitable that I stand
to benefit nothing nor will Briget sustain damage in my act of
forging the complainant’s signature or in entering a wrong date
thereon.)

Pero balikon nako nga ang pirma sa maong resibo kay kang
Briget gyud. Mao na ang tinuod nga tindugan nako ug sa akong
mga witness. Nipirma gyud na siya sa atubangan namong tanan,
para ipamatuod nga naka-dawat siyag kwarta. Pero si Briget, way
gi-hawiran nga ebidensya o mga witness para maka-suporta nga
dili siya ang nagpirma sa maong dokumento. (However, allow me
to reiterate that the signature found on the receipt is in fact Briget’s.
That is a fact that me and my witness will attest to. She signed in front
of all of us, acknowledging receipt of money. Briget, on the other
hand, holds no other evidence nor any witness, to support her
allegations that she did not sign the document.)

15. Q: Base ana, unsa man imong masulti kabahin anang

gipasakahan kag sumbong ni Briget? (That being said, what can
you say about the fact that Briget filed this instant complaint against
you?)

A: Wala’y laen rason aning kasoha kon dili i-harass ko ug akong

igsuon. Lapas sa issue aing sumbonga kay ang issue ni Briget sa
akong igsuon kabahin sa yuta. Para ma-mubo, naglalis na sila
tungod kay kini si Briget nagtukod sa yuta sa akong igsuon, nga
pirting klaroha ang pagkalapas. Naa na karon sa Barangay ang
ilang property dispute. Ako lang klaruhon pag-ayo nga kaning
sumbong gi-file ni Briget pagkahuman niya nahibalo nga
gipatawag siya sa barangay sa akong igsuon. Ang tinuod kay
gihimo ni Briget ug leverage ning sumbonga batok sa claim sa
akong igsuon sa iyang yuta. Siguro nag-huna huna siyag mapugos
ug atras akong igsuon, mao ng naghimo-himo siyag sturya. (This
complaint serves no other purpose than to harass me and my sister.
Beyond the issues presented in this complaint is a deeper set of
property dispute between my sister and herein complainant. To
summarize the said dispute, Briget built a house that manifestly
encroached upon the lot of my sister. There is now a case pending
before the Barangay of Katipunan for the property dispute that I have
previously mentioned. If I may stress that this instant case was filed
after the fact that she learned that she was being summoned in the
barangay for a case against my sister. The fact of the matter is that
Briget is using this instant complaint as a leverage against my sister’s
property claim. Possibly thinking that Briget might coerce my sister
 Judicial Counter Affidavit of
CHERIE NAZARIO-OMANDAM
Page 8 of 10

into backing down from her rightful claim over the land, Briget then
concocted stories into filing a complaint against me.)

Kani si Briget, ni-claim gani ni siya under oath, atubangan sa

Honorable Judge sa Branch 8, nga kuno registered nurse siya.
Ang kopya sa Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN) adtong
higayon nga gi-presentar siya isip witness kay akong i-attach diri
as Annex “4”, ug ang iyang bakak nga testimonya ng ani-claim
siyang isa siya ka-registered nurse kay akong markahan ug
Annex – “4-A”. Kami sa Kuan kahibalo mi nga dili siya isa sa
daghang nurse sa among dako nga pamilya. Gani, akong gi-
beripika iyang status isip Registered Nurse sa Philippine
Regulation Commission (PRC) online verification, dayon klaro
gyud ang nakabutang didto nga wala silay records niya nga nurse
siya. Akong i-attach diri ang screen capture sa online verification
gikan sa PRC isip Annex – “5”. Kung makapamakak si Briget
nanumpa ug atubangan sa Judge para sa pinaka-simple nga
pangutana, samot nang makapamakak gyud siya sa iyang
Complaint Affidavit. (Briget even claimed under oath, before the
Honorable Judge of Branch 8, that she is a registered nurse. A copy of
the Stenographic Notes over the presentation of her person as a
witness is hereto attached as Annex – “4”, and her false testimony
claiming that she is a registered nurse is hereby marked as Annex –
“4-A”. Us, the Kuan family very well know that she is not one among
the many nurses within our extended family. In fact, I have verified
her status as a Registered Nurse through the Philippine Regulation
Commission (PRC) online verification, it explicitly says that they
have no records of her being a nurse. Attached herewith is a screen
capture of the Official Online Verification website of the PRC as
Annex – “5”. If Briget can lie under oath before the presence of a
Judge over the simplest question, all the more that she can lie in her
complaint affidavit.)

16. Q: Unsa pa man imong ma-sulti, if naa? (What else do you have to
say, if any?)

A: Maayo nga atong tagaan ug pagtagad nga ang mga pasangil ni

Briget nako kay puros ra gyud sturya nga walay laen ebidensya
pram aka-suporta niini. Usob, sap ag-eksplekar sa akong
abogadon nako, ang mga ebidensya nga puros ra sturya kay dili
tagaan ug pagtagad kay kaning sturya dali ra himuon, samot na
sa mga tawong maot ug tumong. Tungod niana, ug ang tinuod nga
walay damage nahitabo sa nagsumbong, ug wala koy intensyon
bisag gamay mu-himo ug falsification, dili mu-tindog ning
sumbong ni Briget bisan pa ug sa ebidensya nga gitawag ug
probable cause. (It bears stressing that the allegations hurled against
 Judicial Counter Affidavit of
CHERIE NAZARIO-OMANDAM
Page 9 of 10

me by herein complainant are all verbal claims with no other

evidence to corroborate the same. Again, as previously explained to
me by my counsel, it is a settled jurisprudence that testimonial
evidence is not given much weight especially because testimonies
are easily concocted by people who are moved by ill-motive.
Taking into consideration the foregoing, coupled with the absence of
damage to the complainant and mens rea to commit falsification, the
instant complaint made by Briget will not stand even at the instance of
probable cause.)

17. Q: Unsa man imong pangayuon sa Honorable City Prosecutor’s

Office para ani nga reklamo? (What then do you ask before the
Honorable City Prosecutor’s Office for this instant complaint?)

A: Akong i-hangyo unta nga kaning sumbong nga Falsification of

Documents kay ma-dismis base kay walay probable cause ug
walay cause of action batok kanako. (I most respectfully pray
before that the case filed against me for Falsification of Documents be
dismissed for lack of probable cause and absence of cause of action.)

IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto affixed my signature this

th
28 day of December 2020, in the City of Dipolog, Philippines.

CHERIE NAZARIO-OMANDAM
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 28th day of

December 2020 in Dipolog City, affiant exhibited to me her GSIS Card no.
61073102340 as competent evidence of identity.

OLIVE CORRINE N. OLVIS-LACAYA

Notary Public, until Dec. 31, 2021
Doc. No. ____; for the Cities of Dipolog & Dapitan
Page No. ____; & the Province of Zamboanga del Norte
Book No. 14; Notarial Com. Serial No. ZDN-DPL-012-2020
Series of 2020. IBP Lifetime No. 015182, 6/15/2016, Pasig City
PTR No. 7740695, 1/3/2020, Dipolog City, Z.N.
Roll No. 65120, June 17, 2016
Suite 1 & 2, Ranillo Bldg., Malvar St., Dipolog City

ATTESTATION
 Judicial Counter Affidavit of
CHERIE NAZARIO-OMANDAM
Page 10 of 10

I, KWIN LOCH FEBRA, of legal age, Filipino, married, and with

office address at Suite 1&2 Ranillo Building, Malvar Street, Miputak,
Dipolog City, do certify that:

1. I have faithfully recorded the questions asked of the witness

and the corresponding answers given; and

2. Neither I nor any other person then present and assisting them
coached the witness regarding the latter’s answers.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have affixed my signature this

_______________________in Dipolog City.

KWIN LOCH O. FEBRA

Counsel for the Respondent
Roll of Attorneys No. 70891
IBP No. 112288 – 01/24/20
PTR No. 7740773 – 01/06/2020
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0029729

SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this 28th day of December

2020 in Dipolog City, affiant who is personally known to me and exhibiting
to me her IBP ID with no. 70891as competent proof of identity.

OLIVE CORRINE N. OLVIS-LACAYA

Notary Public, until Dec. 31, 2021
Doc. No. ____; for the Cities of Dipolog & Dapitan
Page No. ____; & the Province of Zamboanga del Norte
Book No. 14; Notarial Com. Serial No. ZDN-DPL-012-2020
Series of 2020. IBP Lifetime No. 015182, 6/15/2016, Pasig City
PTR No. 7740695, 1/3/2020, Dipolog City, Z.N.
Roll No. 65120, June 17, 2016
Suite 1 & 2, Ranillo Bldg., Malvar St., Dipolog City