REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
CEBU CITY

Mico P. Go,
Complainant,

-versus- NPS No. VII-01-INV-13C-

01234
For: Violation of BP
BLG.22
Tony A. Gomez,
Defendant,

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

COUNTER AFFIDAVIT

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )

CITY OF CEBU ) S.S.

I, Tony A. Gomez, Filipino, of legal age, single with

postal address 21-5 Junquera Street, Cebu City, after
having been duly sworn to in accordance with law,
respectfully state that:

1. I am the Defendent in the above captioned case

for Violation of BP 22.

Page 1 of 5
2. Before proceeding any further, the Respondent
hereby states that the instant complaint of the
Complainant Mico P. Go, is a perjurious,
malicious, felonious, baseless, unfounded and
unjust FABRICATION by the Complainant.
3. The Defendant categorically denies issuing a
worthless check. The account of Defendant was
closed due to the loss of trust in the bank
which continued to encash the checks despite
the fulfillment of the main contract with
Complainant.
4. The true facts of the case are enumerated and
discussed herein below.

CHRONOLOGY OF RELEVANT FACTS AND EVENTS

5. Complainant was a childhood friend of Defendant

who issued a personal check, BPI Check No.
1806064, to Defendant for a Personal Loan.
6. Complainant, after 1 year and a half, on
February 1, 2017, realized the danger of the
post-dated checks made over the span of 3 years
and approached Defendant to pay the remaining
balance in cash. Complainant made a formal
letter to Defendant reflecting these concerns,
as attached herein Annex A.
7. Defendant, having come across good fortune,
decided to repay the kindness of his friend and
made good this request, by paying the remaining
balance in cash. This payment is acknowledged
in writing by the Complainant, to which the
receipt is attached herein as Annex B, signed

Page 2 of 5
 by both parties and the Secretary of
Complainant, Miss Rachel Co.
8. However, on October 23, 2018, Defendant found
out that the checks have continued to be
encashed and immediately ordered a stoppage
payment. Eventually, the Defendant, having lost
trust with the Bank, closed that account.
Attached herein as Annex C-1 the correspondence
with the Complainant regarding this matter, and
Annex C-2 with the bank.
9. Further, the supposed Registry Receipt only
reflects a signature of one Reya Madrial, who
Defendant admits was employed as a maid in
Defendant’s house. However, she left her post
after asking for leave during the Christmas
holidays, during the time the Written Notice
was supposedly sent by Complainant Mico P. Go.
But Reya Madrial no longer returned and
Defendant has lost all communications with her.
Thus, Defendant has to deny the claim of
Complainant of the sent Written Notice of
Dishonor. This fact only gives credence to the
absurdity of Complainant’s assertions.

LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE ON VIOLATION OF BP 22

10. Defendant avers that the dishonor of the

November check, BDO Check 123789, was due to a
valid reason, thus the 3rd element of the
Violation of the BP 22 law is not satisfied. As
pronounced by Supreme Court, “The elements of
the offense under Section 1, BP Blg. 22, are:

Page 3 of 5
 (1) the making, drawing and issuance of any
check to apply to account or for value; (2) the
maker, drawer or issuer knows that at the time
of issue he does not have sufficient funds in
or credit with the drawee bank for the payment
of such in full upon presentment; and (3) the
check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee
bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or
would have been dishonored for the same reason
had not the drawer, without any valid reason,
ordered the bank to stop payment. (People vs.
Laggui, 171 SCRA 305, 310 [1989])
11. Further, it is averred that the complaint
should not prosper because a written notice of
dishonor was not received by Defendant, which
only supports the contention of Defendant that
this complaint is merely baseless and
malicious.

Supreme Court has ruled that, “Absent proof that

the accused received such notice, a prosecution
for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law cannot
prosper.” (Justice Panganiban, Third Division,
Betty King v. People, G.R. No. 131540, December
2, 1999.)

WHEREFORE, in the interest of justice, it is

respectfully prayed that the instant criminal
complaint be DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Page 4 of 5
FURTHER, the respondent respectfully prays for such
and other reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable
in the premises.

Cebu City, 17th of March 2019.

Tony A. Gomez
Defendant
21-5 Junquera Street
Brgy. 23, Cebu City

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me in Cebu City on

17th of March 2019.

Administering Assistant City Prosecutor

Copy Furnished:

Mico P. Go
Complainant
18 Alcantary Street,
Cebu City

Page 5 of 5