REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES .

)
PASAY CITY METRO MANILA…….) S.S.

COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT

I, CRISTINA S. BINARAO, of legal age, Filipino with postal address at No. 742-E
Rodriguez, Brgy. 165, Malibay, Pasay City, after having duly sworn to in accordance
with law do hereby depose and state THAT:

1. I was charged with ESTAFA & B.P. 22 before the office of the City Prosecutor
of Pasay and the same was subjected to a Preliminary Investigation;

2. All the charges filed against me were all lies and bereft of truth when in truth it
was a case of misunderstanding between the complainant and the
respondent;

3. The truth of the matter is that the complainant is engaged in a lending

business with 5 to 6% monthly interest;

4. That at first, I was able to borrow money from the complainant with no
collateral and in GOOD FAITH I was able to pay the complainant the amount
I owed to her together with its interest;

5. That in Paragraph 15 of the “ Affidavit- Complaint” complainant alleged that I

was able to borrow the amount of Php250,000 as shown in the evidence
submitted as “Annex “D" which is misplaced for as I recall, the amount was
only Php50,000.00 and not P250,000.00 and clearly shows that the
complainant altered the amount by inserting number “2” to make it
Php250,000.00 wherein the complainant is criminally liable for falsification
and perjury;

6. That sometime on the moth of September 2021, complainant asked for the
issuance of postdated checks in favor of the latter but I declined considering
that complainant was also aware that the subject checks has no fund at all
but the latter insist that there was no problem with her if the checks has no
fund and further told that she will not use the same for legal purposes but only
for the assurance of my loan to her which I obliged to issue the checks
(undated) in favor of the complainant;

7. That the complainant deposited all checks to her bank account well knowing
that the checks(undated) were no fund at all and much worse, complainant
was the one who put all the dates on the said checks as can be seen in our
own naked eyes the difference of the digits between the dates of the check
and the amounts written on;

8. In the crime of estafa, by postdating or issuance of bad checks, deceit and

damage are essential elements of the offense, (U.S vs. Rivera, 23 Phil. 383-
390) and have to be established with satisfactory proof to warrant conviction.

Art. 315 of RPC as amended by RA 4885. Payment of Pre-existing obligation

not covered- Art. 315, as amended by R.A. 4885, does not cover checks
issued in payment of pre-existing obligations again relying on the concepts
underlying the crime of estafa through false pretense or deceit or false
pretense must be prior to or simultaneous with the commission of the fraud
9. In the present case, the respondent are not liable criminally for estafa and
should be dismissed for the transaction made by respondent to the
complainant was a “CONTRACT OF LOAN” which can be settle civilly in the
proper Court;

10. As for the B.P, 22 it should be dismissed also considering that there was no
deceit committed by the respondent considering that the complainant is fully
aware that the postdated check issued by the respondent in favor of the
complainant has no funds at all from the beginning but merely for the
assurance that the amount loaned by the respondent to the complainant will
be settled.

11. I am executing this Counter-Affidavit to attest to the truth of all the foregoing
facts and asking the Honorable Prosecutor to dismiss the charges filed
against the respondent for lack of merit.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this 23 rd day

of August,2022 at Pasay City, Metro manila

CRISTINA S. BINARAO
Respondent

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 23 rd day of August, 2022 at

Pasay City, Metro Manila.

Asst. City Prosecutor