Original Office of The Provincial Prosecutor - Compress

ORIGINAL
Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice
NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE
OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR
Malolos City, Bulacan
MILAGROS CONCEPCION SHAREEF

Complainant,
- versus - NPS DOCKET NO. III-04-INV-20a-00460-66
OLYMPIA C. DE LEON,
Respondent.
x-----------------------x
COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT
I, OLYMPIA C. DE LEON, of legal age, married, Filipino, and a
resident of No. 1380 Molave Street, Sta. Clara, Sta. Maria, Bulacan
respectfully states that:
1] I am the respondent in this case for Estafa punishable under

Article 315, paragraph 2 (d), of the Revised Penal Code and violation
of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22).
2] On 27 February 2020, I received a subpoena from this

Office charging me of the above-stated offenses and requiring me to
submit my counter-affidavit and other supporting documents within
(ten)10 days from receipt thereof.
3] I filed a Motion for Extension of Time to file Counter-Affidavit

on 09 March 2020, stating for me to be given by this Office a 10-day
extension to file my counter-affidavit and that of my witnesses in the
instant case.
4] On 19 March 2020 was the last day for the submission of my

counter-affidavit and other supporting documents.
5] As a consequence though of the Enhanced Community

Quarantine and Stringent Social Distancing Measures implemented
over the entire Luzon effective 2:00 a.m. of 17 March 2020, I am
unable to travel from Sta. Maria, Bulacan to the City of Malolos to file
my counter-affidavit on 19 March 2020.
1 of 18| OLYMPIA DE LEON COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT
I. COMPLAINANT’S VERSION
OF EVENTS
6] According to the Complainant, sometime in the first quarter
of 2019 at Pandi, Bulacan, I allegedly offered her to invest in garment
business.1
7] Through misrepresentation that I would establish a business

under her name, Complainant allegedly entrusted to me
Php587,000.00. However, I allegedly undertook that said amount
would be returned on an installment basis. 2
8] According to Complainant, I issued six checks on 20 May

2019, totaling to Php153,666.65 in exchange for the Php587,000.00. 3
The details of the six checks are as follows:
CHECK NO. AMOUNT DATE

0000319711 Php13,333.33 30 July 2019
0000319719 Php13,333.33 30 August 2019
0000319722 Php13,333.33 30 September 2019
0000319723 Php13,333.33 30 October 2019
0000319740 Php87,000.00 31 October 2019
0000319704 Php13,333,33 30 November 2019
Php153,666.65
9] When I issued the six checks mentioned above, I allegedly

assured Complainant that all these checks would be sufficiently
funded when presented for payment.4
10] Complainant further averred that she would never entrust

the amount of Php587,000.00 to me had I not assured her that I
would return the said amount of money.5
11] On 23 December 2019, Complainant deposited all at the

same time, the six checks, as mentioned earlier, with a total face
value of Php153,666.65. After Complainant allegedly notified me
that the bank dishonored the six checks, I allegedly stopped
communicating with her. A clear indication that I defrauded her. 6
1
Paragraph 2 of Complaint-Affidavit
2
Ibid
3
Ibid
4
5
6
12] Complainant further alleged that she “recently” learned that
I established a garments business under my name instead of under
Complainant’s name. A clear indication that I misappropriated the
amount of Php587,000.00 for my benefits. 7
13] I vehemently deny, refute, and contradict the false and

misleading allegations of Complainant in her complaint-affidavit that I
committed the criminal acts attributed to me.
II. COUNTER-STATEMENT
OF FACTS
14] Even before I came to know Complainant, I have an
existing garments business situated at Mahogany St., Bunsuran 1 st
Pandi, Bulacan. It was first registered in January 2018 under the
name of my eldest daughter – Shyne Kameil Deang De Leon doing
business under the name and style – Hope’s Sports Wear. 8
15] On or at about the first quarter of 2019, Emilio Jacinto

ordered from Hope’s Sports Wear basketball uniforms. Incidentally,
Emilio Jacinto and Complainant were classmates at the Bunsuran
Elementary School. On the other hand, Emilio Jacinto, was my
classmate at the Bunsuran High School.
16] During the course of my conversation with Emilio Jacinto, I

inquired from him if he knows anybody who is in the lending
business.
17] Emilio Jacinto informed me that his former classmate at the

Bunsuran Elementary School, Complainant, in this case, is into the
lending business. He assured me that he would inform Complainant
about my intention to borrow money.
18] After a few days, Emilio Jacinto came back to my shop -

Hope’s Sports Wear. I was advised that he had already informed
Complainant that I am interested in borrowing money, and
Complainant would be expecting me to communicate with her via
messenger under the Complainant's maiden name – Mila E.
Concepcion.
19] I started communicating with Complainant via messenger

on 09 April 2019 (communications attached hereto as Annex “3”). 9
7
8
Annexes 1 and 2
9
Annexes pp. 3 to 8
20] On 01 May 2019, Complainant granted me a loan of
Php100,000.00 payable over a period of 12 months at 5% interest per
month (60% per annum). Additionally, I was asked to sign a loan
agreement, which Complainant herself prepared, and subsequently
notarized in Pandi, Bulacan on 02 May 2019. One of the witnesses in
the loan agreement is Complainant’s sister – Ofelia Concepcion
Jamisola (copy of loan agreement attached hereto as Annex “4”). 10
21] By way of security, Complainant required me to issue 12

postdated checks with face value of Php13,333.33 each for my total
obligation of Php160,000.00 (Php100,000.00 principal plus
Php60,000.00 interest for one year). Nevertheless, I was assured by
Complainant at the time of the issuance and postdating of the 12
checks that the same will never be encashed or presented to the
bank in the light of the clear provisions of paragraph no. 6 and 11 of
the notarized loan agreement Complainant herself prepared.
Complainant further assured me that the 12 postdated checks would
be returned once I have fully paid the total obligation of Php160,000.
22] As stipulated by Complainant in paragraphs no. 6 and 11 of

the aforesaid loan agreement, the total obligation of Php160,000.00
shall be paid through direct deposit to Complainant’s bank account
with Philippine Savings Bank Pulilan Branch in the amount of
Php13,333.33 every 30th day of the month starting on 30 May 2019
until 30 April 2020. Stated otherwise, Complainant has full
knowledge that the 12 postdated checks with face value of
Php13,333.33 each were not supported by sufficient funds when
these were issued. Paragraphs no. 6 and 11 of the loan agreement
provide as follows:
“6. Repayments:
Borrower will repay in the following manner:
Borrower will repay the amount of this note in 12 equal

uninterrupted monthly installments of Php13,333,33 each
on the 30th day of each month starting on the 30 th day of May
2019 and ending on 30th day of April 2020.”
x x x x
“11. Payments:
All payments due from the Borrower to the Lender under this
Agreement will be made by direct deposit to the following
bank account:
1. Account Name: MILAGROS CONCEPCION SHAREEF

10
Annexes pp. 9 to 12
2. Financial Institution: Philippine Savings Bank (PSBank,
Pulilan Branch)
3. Savings Account No. 197-361004313”
23] It is noteworthy that during my conversation with

Complainant via messenger on 09 April 2019, Complainant inquired
about my business – “ano ba yang shop mo”11
24] In reply, I furnished Complainant copy of my business

registration and pictures of my garment business shop situated at
Mahogany St. Bunsuran 1st Pandi, Bulacan, which is in operation
since January 2018.12
25] Immediately, she proposed to be a stockholder in my

garments business.13 Furthermore, Complainant sweetened her offer
by proposing to expand my garments business through the opening
of a branch at San Rafael, Bulacan.14
26] Having been enticed by Complainant’s business proposal, I

entered into a Partnership Agreement with her duly notarized on 20
May 2019 at Pandi, Bulacan. One of the witnesses in the partnership
agreement is Complainant’s sister – Ofelia Concepcion Jamisola
(copy of partnership agreement attached hereto as Annex “5”). 15
27] After the perfection of our partnership contract on 20 May

2019 in which Complainant obligated herself to infused
Php500,000.00 (Capital Contributions, page 1 of contract),
Complainant informed me that she is converting instead the
Php100,000.00 loan she granted me on 02 May 2019 as part of her
capital contribution into the partnership. In turn our original
contractual relationship of creditor-debtor was extinguished shortly by
our execution of a partnership agreement and long before the filing of
this criminal complaint with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor.
Put differently, novation transpired.
28] Although Complainant never returned my post-dated

checks (PDCs), she assured me that these PDCs would never be
encashed or presented to the bank. This assurance is buttressed by
the following facts and circumstances:
11
See Annexes p. 4 yellow highlighted portion
12
See Annexes pp. 5 to 7
13
See Annexes p.5 yellow highlighted portion
14
See Annexes p. 8 yellow highlighted portion.
15
Annexes pp. 13 to 19
FIRST: Based on paragraphs no. 6 and 11 of the
aforesaid loan agreement, the total obligation of
Php160,000.00 shall be paid through direct deposit to
Complainant’s bank account with Philippine Savings Bank
Pulilan Branch in the amount of Php13,333.33 every 30 th
day of the month starting on 30 May 2019 until 30 April
2020. Paragraphs no. 6 and 11 of the loan agreement
provide as follows:
“6. Repayments:
Borrower will repay the amount of this note in 12

equal uninterrupted monthly installments of
Php13,333,33 each on the 30th day of each month
starting on the 30th day of May 2019 and ending on
30th day of April 2020.”
x x x x
“11. Payments:
All payments due from the Borrower to the Lender

under this Agreement will be made by direct deposit
to the following bank account:
1. Account Name: MILAGROS CONCEPCION

SHAREEF
2. Financial Institution: Philippine Savings Bank
(PSBank, Pulilan Branch)
SECOND: The following checks, which are now being

presented as evidence against me in this criminal
complaint for Estafa and violation of B.P. 22, were never
deposited by Complainant on the dates that my monthly
installment of Php13,333.33 fell due, viz:
CHECK NO. AMOUNT DUE DATE

0000319711 Php13,333.33 30 July 2019
0000319719 Php13,333.33 30 August 2019
0000319722 Php13,333.33 30 September 2019
0000319723 Php13,333.33 30 October 2019
0000319704 Php13,333,33 30 November 2019
Instead, Complainant deposited these checks all at the

same time on 23 December 2019 (last working day before
Christmas), and that was after she pulled out of the
partnership in haste, leaving me alone hanging in the air.

29] On 18 June 2019 or less than a month after the signing of
our Partnership Agreement, the production section of the garments
business located at Mahogany St. Bunsuran 1 st, Pandi, Bulacan,
which is in operation since January 2018, was transferred at
Complainant’s family-owned apartment located at Riveraville
Subdivision, Bunsuran 2nd, Pandi, Bulacan.
30] At that time, one unit of the four-door apartment mentioned

in the preceding paragraph was vacant. I agreed to lease the vacant
apartment unit as well as transfer the production area upon the
suggestion of Complainant in view of the following reasons:
30.1] Compared with the location originally suggested by

Complainant, which is at San Rafael, Bulacan (please
refer to paragraph no. 25), the family-owned apartment of
Complainant located at Riveraville Subdivision, Bunsuran
2nd, Pandi, Bulacan, is nearer to my shop located at
Bunsuran 1st. Hence, coordination and supervision is
easier; and
30.2] My garments business shop located at Mahogany

St. Bunsuran 1st, Pandi, Bulacan is already cramped in
space.
31] All told, there was no criminal intent to swindle

Complainant. In fact, it was Complainant who enticed me to enter
into a partnership agreement with her.
III. ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION
THE TWO CONTRACTS

EXECUTED BY COMPLAINANT
AND RESPONDENT ARE
SHREDS OF EVIDENCE THAT
COMPLAINANT HAS FULL
KNOWLEDGE THAT ALL THE
CHECKS ISSUED BY
RESPONDENT WERE NOT
SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT
FUNDS WHEN THESE WERE
ISSUED.
A. THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT

32] As discussed in paragraph nos. 14 – 29, buttressed with
documentary evidence, Complainant’s allegations of fraud and deceit
on my part in her complaint-affidavit is a perversion of the truth, i.e.:
32.1] that it was me who made the offer for her to invest in
a garments business (paragraph 2 of complaint-affidavit);
32.2] that I was entrusted the amount of Php587,000.00

(paragraph 2 of complaint-affidavit) with a commitment that
I would return said amount on a monthly basis;
32.3] that I recently established a garments business

under my name (paragraph 2 of complaint-affidavit);
32.4] that the when I issued the checks, which are now
being used by Complainant as evidence against me, I
made an assurance that these are supported by sufficient
funds (paragraph 4 of complaint-affidavit); and
32.4] that I stopped communicating with Complainant after

she notified me that all my checks were dishonored
(paragraph 7 of complaint-affidavit).
33] It bears stressing that page number 1 (Capital

Contributions) of our duly notarized 20 May 2019 agreement clearly
provides that she will infuse Php500,000.00 into the partnership.
More importantly, there is not a single stipulation in the said
partnership agreement that I am under obligation to return on a
monthly basis any amount of money that Complainant will infuse into
the partnership.
34] It is also noteworthy that there is not an iota of evidence

proffered by Complainant to her allegation that she infused the
amount of Php587,000.00 into the partnership much less I received
such amount of money.
35] Even assuming for the sake of theoretical discussion that

Complainant infused the amount of Php587,000.00 into the
partnership, Estafa either by means of deceit or misappropriation will
not lie against me, because "partners are not liable for Estafa of
money or property received for the partnership when the business
commenced and profits accrued." (U.S. v. Clarin [G.R. No. 5840, 17
September 1910]).

36] In Clarin, four individuals entered into a contract of
partnership for the business of buying and selling mangoes. When
one of the partners demanded from the other three the return of his
monetary contribution, this Court ruled that "the action that lies with
the [capitalist] partner x x x for the recovery of his money is not a
criminal action for estafa, but a civil one arising from the partnership
contract for a liquidation of the partnership and a levy on its assets, if
there should be any." Simply put, if a partner demands his money
back, the duty to return the contribution does not devolve on the other
partners; the duty now belongs to the partnership itself as a separate
and distinct personality.
B. THE LOAN AGREEMENT
37] I do not deny that I obtained a loan of Php100,000.00 from

Complainant a few days prior to the meeting of our minds into a
partnership contract payable in 12 equal monthly installments of
Php13,333.33; and with an iniquitous, unconscionable and exorbitant
interest rate of 5% per month.16
38] After the perfection of our partnership contract on 20 May

2019 in which Complainant obligated herself to infused
Php500,000.00, Complainant informed me that she is converting
instead the Php100,000.00 loan she granted me on 02 May 2019 as
part of her capital contribution into the partnership. Although,
Complainant never returned my post-dated checks (PDCs), she
assured me that these PDCs will never be encashed or presented to
the bank. This assurance is buttressed by the following facts and
circumstances:
FIRST: Based on paragraphs no. 6 and 11 of the

aforesaid loan agreement, the total obligation of
Php160,000.00 shall be paid through direct deposit to
Complainant’s bank account with Philippine Savings Bank
Pulilan Branch in the amount of Php13,333.33 every 30 th
day of the month starting on 30 May 2019 until 30 April
2020. Paragraphs no. 6 and 11 of the loan agreement
provide as follows:
“6. Repayments:
Borrower will repay the amount of this note in 12

equal uninterrupted monthly installments of
Php13,333,33 each on the 30th day of each month
16
Medel v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 131622, 27 November 1998)
starting on the 30th day of May 2019 and ending on
30th day of April 2020.”
x x x x
“11. Payments:
All payments due from the Borrower to the Lender

under this Agreement will be made by direct deposit
to the following bank account:
1. Account Name: MILAGROS CONCEPCION

SHAREEF
2. Financial Institution: Philippine Savings Bank
(PSBank, Pulilan Branch)
SECOND: The following checks, which are now being

presented as evidence against me in this criminal
complaint for Estafa and violation of B.P. 22, were never
deposited by Complainant on the dates that my monthly
installment of Php13,333.33 fell due, viz:
CHECK NO. AMOUNT DUE DATE

0000319711 Php13,333.33 30 July 2019
0000319719 Php13,333.33 30 August 2019
0000319722 Php13,333.33 30 September 2019
0000319723 Php13,333.33 30 October 2019
0000319704 Php13,333,33 30 November 2019
Instead, Complainant deposited these checks all at the

same time on 23 December 2019 (last working day before
Christmas) and that was after she pulled out of the
partnership in haste, leaving me alone hanging in the air.
Worst of all, Complainant appropriated for her own benefit

and gain all the partnership assets maintained at their
family-owned apartment located at Riveraville Subdivision,
Bunsuran 2nd, Pandi, Bulacan without first having a proper
accounting and liquidation of the partnership affairs in
patent violation of the law and prevailing jurisprudence.
Suffice it to say that Justice J.B.L. Reyes, speaking for the

court in Magdusa, et al. v. Albaran, et al. (G.R. No. L-
17526, 30 June1962), emphasizes that “ a partner's share
can not be returned without first dissolving and liquidating
the partnership x x x In addition, unless a proper accounting
and liquidation of the partnership affairs is first had, the
capital shares of the appellees, as retiring partners, can not
be repaid, for the firm's outside creditors have preference

over the assets of the enterprise (Civ. Code, Art. 1839), and
the firm's property can not be diminished to their prejudice.”
39] Needless to say, if there is anyone between me and

Complainant who is motivated by self-interest or ill will, it is
Complainant for she patently violated the law and prevailing
jurisprudence on partnership as earlier discussed in paragraph no.
37. In furtherance of her self-interest or ill will, Complainant patently
violated Section 10 of our Loan Agreement. She should not have
exposed me to criminal prosecution until and unless she complied
with Section 10 of our Loan Agreement which provides as follows:
“10. Dispute Resolution
Where any dispute arises among the Parties as to the

performance or interpretation of the terms and
conditions, the Parties will resolve the dispute in the
following manner:
1. First, the Party raising the dispute must notify

immediately the other Party of the dispute, providing a
reasonable amount of information about the nature of
the dispute.
2. Second, the Parties will meet as soon as possible, in

person or by video conferencing, and attempt to resolve
the dispute by discussion.
3. Third, if such negotiation fails, the Parties will refer

the dispute to a mutually acceptable mediator, as soon
as possible, to be resolved in accordance with an
accepted code of mediation practice, and if they are
unable to agree on a mediator then a relevant officer of
a similar body must be requested to select a mediator
for the Parties.
4. Fourth, except for urgent rulings, only after steps (1)

(2) (3) have been followed may any of the Parties
(Lender or Borrower) turns to legal action.”
40] Instructive at this point is the decision of the Supreme Court

in Norton Resources v. All Asia Bank (G.R. No. 162523, 25
November 2009) in which case it was held that a contract is the law
between the parties, and courts have no choice but to enforce such
contract so long as it is not contrary to law, morals, good customs or
public policy. The pertinent portion of the decision states as follows:

“The agreement or contract between the parties is
the formal expression of the parties' rights, duties and
obligations. It is the best evidence of the intention of
the parties. Thus, when the terms of an agreement
have been reduced to writing, it is considered as
containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be
no evidence of such terms other than the contents of
the written agreement between the parties and their
successors in interest. Time and again, we have
stressed the rule that a contract is the law between the
parties, and courts have no choice but to enforce such
contract so long as it is not contrary to law, morals,
good customs or public policy. Otherwise, courts would
be interfering with the freedom of contract of the
parties. Simply put, courts cannot stipulate for the
parties or amend the latter's agreement, for to do so
would be to alter the real intention of the contracting
parties when the contrary function of courts is to give
force and effect to the intention of the parties.”
41] Also instructive at this point is the decision of the Supreme

Court in Pacheco v. People (G.R. No. 126670, 02 December 1999) in
said case it has been ruled that a drawer who issues a check as
security or evidence of investment is not liable for estafa. The
pertinent portion of the decision states as follows:
Estafa may be committed in several ways. One of

these is by postdating a check or issuing a check in
payment of an obligation, as provided in Article 315,
paragraph 2(d) of the RPC, viz:
Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). Any person who

shall defraud another by any of the means
mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:
xxx xxx xxx
2. By means of any of the following false

pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to
or simultaneously with the commission of the
fraud:
xxx xxx xxx
(d) By postdating a check, or issuing a

check in payment of an obligation when
the offender had no funds in the bank, or
his funds deposited therein were not
sufficient to cover the amount of the
check. The failure of the drawer of the
check to deposit the amount necessary to
cover his check within three (3) days from
receipt of notice from the bank and/or the
payee or holder that said check has been
dishonored for lack or insufficiency of
funds shall be prima facie evidence of
deceit constituting false pretense or
fraudulent act.
The essential elements in order to sustain a conviction

under the above paragraph are:
1. that the offender postdated or issued a

check in payment of an obligation contracted
at the time the check was issued;
2. that such postdating or issuing a check

was done when the offender had no funds in
the bank, or his funds deposited therein were
not sufficient to cover the amount of the
check;
3. deceit or damage to the payee thereof.
The first and third elements are not present in this case.
A check has the character of negotiability and at the
same time it constitutes an evidence of indebtedness.
By mutual agreement of the parties, the negotiable
character of a check may be waived, and the
instrument may be treated simply as proof of an
obligation. There cannot be deceit on the part of the
obligor, petitioners herein, because they agreed with
the obligee at the time of the issuance and postdating
of the checks that the same shall not be encashed or
presented to the banks. As per assurance of the lender,
the checks are nothing but evidence of the loan or
security thereof in lieu of and for the same purpose as a
promissory note. By their own covenant, therefore, the
checks became mere evidence of indebtedness. It has
been ruled that a drawer who issues a check as security
or evidence of investment is not liable for estafa
(underscoring supplied for emphasis).
C. THE CHECK WITH

FACE VALUE OF
PHP87,000.00

42] Check No. 0000319740 with a face amount of
Php87,000.00 dated 31 October 2019 was issued to Complainant in
exchange for the additional cash she infused into the partnership to
purchase the materials for the jersey ordered by Immaculate
Concepcion Child Development Center (ICCDC) of Pandi, Bulacan, a
client of the partnership.
43] She does not want to put in additional investments

supposedly in faithful compliance to our Contract of Partnership until
and unless I will issue the corresponding check for Php87,000. She
assured me that she would not deposit the check anyway. Stated
otherwise, Check No. 0000319740 with a face amount of
Php87,000.00 dated 31 October 2019 was not intended for
encashment with the bank, and Complainant has absolute knowledge
that this check was not supported by sufficient funds when I issued it.
The check was issued as an assurance that Complainant's
investment would be returned and not meant to be as payment to an
obligation.
44] This covenant between Complainant and me is supported

by the fact that this particular check covered by this criminal
complaint for Estafa and violation of B.P. 22 was never deposited
neither encashed by Complainant on 31 October 2019. Instead,
Complainant deposited this particular check in 23 December 2019
and that was immediately after she pulled out of the partnership in
haste, leaving me alone hanging in the air without first having a
proper accounting and liquidation of the partnership affairs in patent
violation of the law and jurisprudence as earlier discussed in
paragraph no. 38.
45] It would be noteworthy to mention that a drawer who issues

a check as security or evidence of investment is not liable for
estafa.17
THE ACTS OF FRAUD OR

DECEIT LEVELLED AGAINST
ME ARE ALL BRAZEN LIES
46] The following allegations of fraud or deceit in

Complainant’s complaint-affidavit defied logic and common sense as
well as contrary to the evidence on record:
46.1] The bare allegation of Complainant is that it was me

who made the offer for her to invest in a garment business
17
People v. Tugbang (G.R. No. 76212, 26 April 1991)

(paragraph 2 of complaint-affidavit). Upon the other hand,
evidence revealed that Complainant proposed to be a
stockholder in my garments business.18 Furthermore,
Complainant sweetened her offer by proposing to expand
my garments business through the opening of a branch at
San Rafael, Bulacan.19
46.2] Complainant alleged that I made her believed that I

would establish a garment business under her name. As
a consequence, Complainant allegedly entrusted to me
the total amount of Php587,000.00. Furthermore, I made
an undertaking that said amount would be returned to
Complainant on an installment basis. The following facts
and circumstances are clear testaments that these are
brazen lies:
FIRST: Complainant miserably failed to present an

iota of evidence that she in fact, entrusted to me the
staggering amount of Php587,000. What
Complainant loses sight of is that mere allegation is
not evidence and is not equivalent to proof.
SECOND: It is also not consistent with logic and

common sense that Complainant would entrust to
me Php587,000.00 for the sole purpose of
establishing a business under Complainant’s name.
Nonetheless, I am still obliged to return the
Php587,000.00 on an installment basis. This goes
against the grain of normal business practice.
46.3] Complainant alleged that she “recently” learned that

I established a garments business under my own name
instead of under Complainant’s name. A clear indication
that I misappropriated the amount of Php587,000.00 for
my own benefits.20 The following facts and circumstances
are clear testaments that these are brazen lies:
FIRST: Evidence shows that I have a pre-existing

garments business situated at Mahogany St.,
Bunsuran 1st Pandi, Bulacan, and that Complainant
is well aware of its existence. It was first registered
in January 2018 under the name of my eldest
daughter – Shyne Kameil Deang De Leon doing
business under the name and style – Hope’s Sports
18
See Annexes p.5 yellow highlighted portion
19
See Annexes p. 8 yellow highlighted portion
20
Wear.21 As discussed in sub-paragraph no. 44.1, it
was Complainant who initiated and made an offer to
invest in my garments business.
SECOND: The production area of Hope’s Sports

Wear is housed in Complainant’s family-owned
apartment located at Riveraville Subdivision,
Bunsuran 2nd, Pandi, Bulacan. Plain common
sense dictates that it is not consistent with human
nature and the normal course of things that
Complainant is totally unaware about the operations
of Hope’s Sports Wear.
46.4] Complainant alleged that she informed me that all

my checks were dishonored. Consequently, I ceased
communicating with her. This sweeping allegation,
devoid of evidentiary support, has no basis in truth and in
fact. It is highly illogical and inconsistent with the normal
course of events.
FIRST: The truth is that on 26 December 2019, I

was at the bank to claim my bank statement. It was
only then I learned that Complainant deposited all at
the same time the checks being used as evidence in
this criminal complaint.
SECOND: It is highly illogical and inconsistent with

the normal course of events for me to cut-off
communications with Complainant inasmuch as the
partnership is yet to be liquidated, and all the
production equipment of the partnership is located at
the family-owned apartment of Complainant.
THIRD: Plain common sense dictates that there is

no reason for me to cut-off communication with
Complainant and merely seal my lips whereas I was
greatly prejudiced with Complainant’s:
i] Utter display of bad faith as she reneged

on her commitment that she will never
deposit any of my checks as earlier
discussed in this affidavit. As the Supreme
Court held in Board of Liquidators v. Kalaw
(G.R. No. L-18805, 14 August 1967), bad
faith imports a dishonest purpose or some
moral obliquity and conscious doing of
21
Annexes 1 and 2
wrong; it means breach of a known duty thru
some motive or interest or ill will; it partakes
of the nature of fraud.
ii] The act of without first having proper

accounting and liquidation of the partnership
affairs is an obvious display of pre-meditated
intent to appropriate for her own benefit and
gain all the partnership assets maintained at
their family-owned apartment located at
Riveraville Subdivision, Bunsuran 2nd,
Pandi, Bulacan. In Board of Liquidators v.
Kalaw (G.R. No. L-18805, 14 August 1967).
As explained by the Supreme Court in
People v. Regato (G.R. No. L-36750, 31
January 1984), “Intention is a mental process
and is an internal state of mind. The intention
must be judged by the action, conduct and
external acts of the accused. What men do is
the best index of their intention.”
47] On the basis of the foregoing discussions, is the

indisputably vital conclusion that the allegations of Complainant do
not bear the earmarks of truth and, hence, not credible. As explained
to me by my legal counsel, the Supreme Court keenly pointed out in
People v. De Guzman that –
"The time-honored test in determining the value of

the testimony of a witness is its compatibility with
human knowledge, observation, and common
experience of man. Thus, whatever is repugnant to
the standards of human knowledge, observation and
experience becomes incredible and must lie outside
judicial cognizance. Consistently, the Court has ruled
that evidence to be believed must proceed not only
from the mouth of a credible witness but must be
credible in itself as to hurdle the test of conformity
with the knowledge and common experience of
mankind. judicial cognizance.”22
IV. CONCLUDING ARGUMENTS

AND DISCUSSION
48] The fact should not be lost sight of that the Complaint,
consisting of three pages, is filled with motherhood statements and
22
G.R. No. 192250, 11 July 2012

general averments that are not sufficient to establish the existence of
probable cause.
49] No crime has been committed in this case and it is this

Honorable Office that is tasked to shield the innocent from precipitate,
spiteful, and burdensome prosecution.23
I am executing this Counter-Affidavit to attest to the truth of the

foregoing and to cause the dismissal of the charge against me.
OLYMPIA C. DE LEON
Respondent
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, this on

_________________ 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
Copy Furnished:
MN MANUEL LAW OFFICE

COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT
MILAGROS CONCEPCION SHAREEF
Unit 8, 2nd Floor P.E.I. Building
23
Cabahug v. People (G.R. No. 132816, 05 February 2002)

No. 5 Sta. Rita (Poblacion)
Macabebe, Pampanga

Original Office of The Provincial Prosecutor - Compress

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Original Office of The Provincial Prosecutor - Compress

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ORIGINAL

Republic of the Philippines

MILAGROS CONCEPCION SHAREEF

- versus - NPS DOCKET NO. III-04-INV-20a-00460-66

1] I am the respondent in this case for Estafa punishable under

2] On 27 February 2020, I received a subpoena from this

3] I filed a Motion for Extension of Time to file Counter-Affidavit

4] On 19 March 2020 was the last day for the submission of my

5] As a consequence though of the Enhanced Community

7] Through misrepresentation that I would establish a business

8] According to Complainant, I issued six checks on 20 May

CHECK NO. AMOUNT DATE

9] When I issued the six checks mentioned above, I allegedly

10] Complainant further averred that she would never entrust

11] On 23 December 2019, Complainant deposited all at the

13] I vehemently deny, refute, and contradict the false and

15] On or at about the first quarter of 2019, Emilio Jacinto

16] During the course of my conversation with Emilio Jacinto, I

17] Emilio Jacinto informed me that his former classmate at the

18] After a few days, Emilio Jacinto came back to my shop -

19] I started communicating with Complainant via messenger

21] By way of security, Complainant required me to issue 12

22] As stipulated by Complainant in paragraphs no. 6 and 11 of

Borrower will repay in the following manner:

Borrower will repay the amount of this note in 12 equal

1. Account Name: MILAGROS CONCEPCION SHAREEF

23] It is noteworthy that during my conversation with

24] In reply, I furnished Complainant copy of my business

25] Immediately, she proposed to be a stockholder in my

26] Having been enticed by Complainant’s business proposal, I

27] After the perfection of our partnership contract on 20 May

28] Although Complainant never returned my post-dated

Borrower will repay in the following manner:

Borrower will repay the amount of this note in 12

All payments due from the Borrower to the Lender

1. Account Name: MILAGROS CONCEPCION

SECOND: The following checks, which are now being

CHECK NO. AMOUNT DUE DATE

Instead, Complainant deposited these checks all at the

6 of 18| OLYMPIA DE LEON COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT

30] At that time, one unit of the four-door apartment mentioned

30.1] Compared with the location originally suggested by

30.2] My garments business shop located at Mahogany

31] All told, there was no criminal intent to swindle

III. ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION

THE TWO CONTRACTS

A. THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT

7 of 18| OLYMPIA DE LEON COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT

32.2] that I was entrusted the amount of Php587,000.00

32.3] that I recently established a garments business

32.4] that I stopped communicating with Complainant after

33] It bears stressing that page number 1 (Capital

34] It is also noteworthy that there is not an iota of evidence

35] Even assuming for the sake of theoretical discussion that

8 of 18| OLYMPIA DE LEON COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT

B. THE LOAN AGREEMENT

37] I do not deny that I obtained a loan of Php100,000.00 from

38] After the perfection of our partnership contract on 20 May

FIRST: Based on paragraphs no. 6 and 11 of the

Borrower will repay in the following manner:

Borrower will repay the amount of this note in 12

All payments due from the Borrower to the Lender

1. Account Name: MILAGROS CONCEPCION