Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
Makati City

ORIENTAL GROUP
INTERNATIONAL TECH INC.,
thru its authorized representative,
RAUL BARQUE y ARSUE,
Complainant,
NPS No. XV-05-INV-18A-0237
- versus - For: Qualified Theft

BIENVENIDO BARTE y
HERMOSA,
Respondent.

COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT

I, BIENVENIDO BARTE y HERMOSA, of legal age, Filipino

and a resident of Block E4, Lot 9, San Lorenzo Ruiz 1, Dasmariñas,
Cavite, hereby state that:

1. I am the respondent in the instant case for qualified theft

under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code.

2. The elements of qualified theft, punishable under Article

310 in relation to Articles 308 and 309 of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC), are:

(a) The taking of personal property;

(b) The said property belongs to another;

(c) The said taking be done with intent to gain;

(d) It be done without the owner's consent;

(e) It be accomplished without the use of violence

or intimidation against persons, nor of force
upon things; and
 (f) It be done under any of the circumstances
enumerated in Article 310 of the RPC, i.e.,
with grave abuse of confidence.

3. It appears from the complaint-affidavit that my

culpability in the instant case is based on the following allegations:

(a) I allegedly prepared a gate pass addressed to

Techzone Condominium Building
Administration Office for the pull out of
assorted scrap wire and debris, construction
junk materials and broken chairs.1

(b) The gate pass, which was noted by Mr. Raul

Barque and signed by Mr. Wilson Ong,
included three (3) rolls of SCRAP wire colored
red, yellow and blue allegedly unknown to
the abovementioned signatories.2

(c) Complainant company allegedly owns the

SCRAP wires because it was considered paid
by the company.3

4. I deny the charges against me. They are malicious and

baseless.

5. First. Complainant DID NOT OWN the scrap wires.

They were owned by CTRL Construction Company (CTRL Manager)
based on the letter dated 14 March 2016 signed by Engr. Larry
Sumat.4

6. If complainant indeed owned the scrap wires, they

should have presented a receipt or any proof of ownership of the said
wires but they failed to do so. All they have are baseless claims. They
JUST ASSUMED that they own the scrap wires without any proof of
ownership.

7. Second. Based from the letter dated March 14, 2016

signed by Engr. Larry Sumat, I am authorized to pull out the wires
from the project by the CTRL Manager. Moreover, the letter also

1
Affidavit of Complaint dated 24 January 2018, page 1, paragraph 2.
2
Affidavit of Complaint dated 24 January 2018, page 1, paragraph 3.
3
Affidavit of Complaint dated 24 January 2018, page 1, paragraph 6.
4
The letter dated 14 March 2016 is attached herein as Annex A.

PAO-HMS 2
proves that the same was given to me by the CTRL Manager, AND
NOT BY COMPLAINANT.

8. Third. The subject wires were SCRAP WIRES or

construction JUNK materials. They were for disposal already. Thus,
they are definitely not priced at Three Thousand Pesos (P3,000.00)
each.

9. Fourth. This case was maliciously filed as I just filed a

complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of salary and other
benefits against the complainant before the National Labor Relations
Commission on 14 December 2017.5

10. Fifth. Complainant failed to substantiate its allegations,

e.g., that I stole the wires, that I altered or tampered the gate pass,
that the three (3) rolls of wires were not included in the gate pass
when I sought approval of the same, etc.

11. Aside from bare allegations, complainant did not provide

any proof that I altered or tampered the gate pass. Neither did
complainant submit the written affidavits of the two (2) signatories
who allegedly confirmed that the three (3) rolls of wires were not
included in the gate pass when I sought approval for it.

12. As explained to me by my counsel, bare allegations,

unsubstantiated by concrete evidence, are not equivalent to proof.6

13. In view of the foregoing, I humbly request the dismissal

of the instant complaint against me, which is clearly malicious. As I
was made to understand, "the purpose of preliminary investigation is
not only to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender
a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the
respondent therein is probably guilty thereof ... [but also] for the
purpose of securing the innocent against hasty, malicious and
oppressive prosecution, and to protect him from an open and
public accusation of a crime, from the trouble, expense and anxiety
of a public trial.”7

14. The filing of this complaint is clearly a harassment suit

against me. I therefore reserve my right to file appropriate charges
against complainant.

5
A copy of the said complaint is attached herein as Annex B.
6
Domingo vs. Robles, G.R. No. 153753, March 18, 2005.
7
Okabe v. Judge Gutierrez, G.R. No. 150185, May 27, 2004. Emphasis supplied.

PAO-HMS 3
 15. I attest to the truthfulness of my statements herein and I
respectfully pray that the instant charge against me for qualified theft
be DISMISSED.

BIENVENIDO BARTE y HERMOSA

Affiant

Assisted by: Public Attorney’s Office (PAO)

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 26 th day of April

2018 in the City of Makati, Philippines. I hereby further certify that I
have personally examined the affiant and I am satisfied that he
voluntarily executed and understood this affidavit.

HON. RENATO M. PAMBID

Senior Assistant City Prosecutor
Makati City

PAO-HMS 4