Scribd
Upload
35 views

WRL0003

This document is a counter affidavit filed in response to a criminal complaint of estafa (fraud). It denies the allegations in the complaint and provides the respondent's version of events. Specifically, it states that the complainant introduced herself as a jewelry seller offering credit and discounts to teachers. The respondent applied for this credit in 2012 but denies allegations of fraud. It claims the complaint is perjurious and intended to humiliate and embarrass the respondent and their family.

Uploaded by

Shan Khing
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
35 views

WRL0003

This document is a counter affidavit filed in response to a criminal complaint of estafa (fraud). It denies the allegations in the complaint and provides the respondent's version of events. Specifically, it states that the complainant introduced herself as a jewelry seller offering credit and discounts to teachers. The respondent applied for this credit in 2012 but denies allegations of fraud. It claims the complaint is perjurious and intended to humiliate and embarrass the respondent and their family.

Uploaded by

Shan Khing
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Republic of the Philippines)

:
In the City of Pagadian)S.s.
x-----------------------------------/
COUNTER AFFIDAVIT
I, MERIAN S. PASIGMA, Filipino of legal age, married and resident of
Poblacion, Margosatubig, Zamboanga del Sur, after having duly sworn to in
accordance with law, do hereby depose and avers that;

1.

I am the respondent in IS. CASE NO. IX-09-INV-16C-00115, entitled People


of the Philippines versus Merian S. Pasigma, for Estafa and as such, I
vehemently deny all the allegations contained in the Affidavit-Complaint;

2.

The instant complaint is a perjurious, malicious, felonious, baseless,


unfounded and unjust fabrication by the private complainant intended to
humiliate and embarrassed me and my family;

3.

The allegation/Question and Answer No. 1, in the Affidavit-Complaint that I


defrauded private complainant is hereby denied for being a mere conclusion of
law; as to the rest of the allegation as to my personal circumstances is hereby
admitted;

4.

The allegation/Question and Answer No. 2 as to the date I obtained a


jewelries credit is hereby admitted; the rest of the allegation is hereby denied for
lack of knowledge sufficient to form belief as to the falsity of the statements;

5.

The allegation/Question and Answer No. 3, of the Affidavit-Complaint is


hereby denied; the truth of the matter being that, sometime in 2012, private
complainant AZECUNES S. GUBANTES, a resident of A and B Subdivision,
Lower Torno, Dipolog City went to Margosatubig Central School, Margosatubig,
Zamboanga del Sur;

6.

Private complainant then introduced herself in front of the faculty members


inside the faculty room of Margosatubig Central School as a business woman;
that she was selling jewelry items on credit and on discounted price;

7.

I then applied privates complainant sale on credit of her jewelry items; at


first,

The obligation to return the thing must be contractual but without transferring to
accused ownership of the thing.
When ownership is transferred to recipient, his failure to return it results in
civil liability only

Art. 1477. The ownership of the thing sold shall be transferred to the vendee upon
actual or constructive delivery thereof
Thing received under a contract of sale on credit

The Trust Receipts Law punishes the dishonesty and abuse of confidence
in the handling of money or goods to the prejudice of another regardless
of whether the latter is the owner or not. The law does not seek to
enforce payment of the loan, thus, there is no violation of the
constitutional provision against imprisonment for non-payment of debt.
(People vs. Hon. Nitafan and Betty Sia Ang, 207 SCRA 726 (1992
The transaction is a simple loan when the goods subject of the agreement
had been purchased and delivered to the supposed entrustee prior to the
execution of the trust receipt agreement. The acquisition of ownership
over the goods before the execution of the trust receipt agreement
makes the contract a simple loan, regardless of the denomination of the
contract. (Colinares vs. Court of Appeals, 339 SCRA 609 (2000))
when the goods subject of the agreement were not intended for sale or
resale, the transaction cannot be considered a trust receipt but a simple
loan, where the liability is limited to the payment of the purchase price.
(Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Perez, G.R. No. 166884, June 13,
2012)
When both parties entered into an agreement knowing fully well that the
return of the goods subject of the trust receipt is not possible even
without any fault on the part of the trustee, it is not a trust receipt
transaction penalized under Sec. 13 of PD 115 in relation to Art. 315, par.
1(b) of the RPC, as the only obligation actually agreed upon by the
parties would be the return of the proceeds of the sale transaction. This
transaction becomes a mere loan, where the borrower is obligated to pay
the bank the amount spent for the purchase of the goods. (Hur Tin Yang
vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 195117, August 14, 2013)

The transaction does not fall under PD 115. (Colinares v. CA, G.R. No. 90828, Sept. 5, 2000,
Consolidated v. CA, G.R. No. 114286, Apr. 19, 2001)

Note: In these cases, the execution of a TR was made after the goods covered by it had been
purchased, making the buyer the owner thereof. The transaction does not involve a trust receipt but
a simple loan even though the parties denominate the transaction as one of a trust receipt.

You might also like