Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MATILDA BRUHA,
Complainant,
I.S. No. 04-0303
For: Perjury
COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT
I, MODESTO PRIETO, after having been sworn in accordance with law, and
by way of counter-affidavit to the complaint-affidavit filed by MATILDA BRUHA, to
this Honorable Office, most respectfully depose and state that:
1.
The instant case arose from the complaint-affidavit for estafa I executed
as representative of GOGO COLLEGE against MATILDA BRUHA (complainant
herein) on 14 January 2004 docketed as I.S. No. 04-0088. For an obvious and
harmless typographic error, complainant Garcia charges me of Perjury, to wit:
Par. 4. The above-quoted allegations makes (sic) it
appear that in so far as Ms. Juliet JOSE was concerned, I
was required by MR. MODESTO PRIETO, in his letter of
04 April 2003, to explain [JOSES] inclusion in the payroll
register for six (6) payroll periods. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of
the Complaint-Affidavit make it appear that prior to 04 April
2003, MR. PRIETO had already discovered Juliet JOSE
included in six (6) payroll periods and accordingly directed
me to account for the six (6) payroll periods including the
payroll period of 1-15 February 2003. The CompliantAffidavit, at paragraph 6, thereafter alleges that I, on 8 April
2003 remitted to Ms. Cristobal the supposed salaries of
Ms. JOSE from February 16-April 30, 2003.
The
Complaint-Affidavit, at paragraph 7, underscores that Ms.
BRUHA did not remit Ms. JOSE supposed pay for
February 1-15, 2003.
Par. 6. Through paragraphs 2, 3, 6 and 7 of his
Complaint-Affidavit, MR. PRIETO maliciously wanted to
impress upon the Honorable City Prosecutor that as of 4
April 2003, he had already directed the undersigned to
explain the inclusion of Ms. JOSE in the payroll of 1-15
February 2003 and to account for the amount of P4,700.00
pertinent to said payroll period. MR. PRIETO further
2
is whether or not Ms. BRUHA committed the crime charged by including the
names of the separated employees in the schools payroll registers;
processing the payment of their supposed salaries; and appropriating the
money to the damage and prejudice of the school. The letter of April 4,
2003 finds significance in an administrative proceeding such as in the
termination from employment of Ms. BRUHA, but not in a criminal case for
estafa committed by deceit. It is not therefore important to prove in the
estafa case that on April 4, 2003, I required Ms. BRUHA to account for the
irregular payrolls including the pay period February 1-15, 2003. Stated
otherwise, even if my allegation in the questioned paragraph 3 of my
complaint-affidavit will be entirely omitted, the stubborn fact remains
that the complaint-affidavit is sufficient to support the charge of estafa
by deceit.
8. It is most respectfully submitted that I cannot be held liable for violation of
Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code. Not even probable cause exists to support
the filing of an information against me. x x x Although there is no general formula or
fixed rule for the determination of probable cause since the same must be decided in
the light of the conditions obtaining in given situations and its existence depends to a
large degree upon the finding or opinion of the judge conducting the examination,
such a finding should not disregard the facts before the judge nor run counter
to the clear dictates of reason. x x x The judge or fiscal, therefore, should not go
on with the prosecution in the hope that some credible evidence might later
turn up during the trial for this would be a flagrant violation of a basic right
which the courts are created to uphold. It bears repeating that the judiciary lives
up to its mission by vitalizing and not denigrating constitutional rights. So it has
been before. It should continue to be so.(Salonga v. Cruz-Pao)4
Additionally, in Cojuangco Jr. v. Presidential Commission on Good
government,5 the Supreme Court held:
x x x Indeed, a preliminary investigation is in effect
a realistic judicial appraisal of the merits of the case.
Sufficient proof of the guilt of the accused must be
adduced so that when the case is tried, the trial court
may not be found as a matter of law to order an
acquittal. x x x (emphasis supplied)
9. The allegations of complainant fall short of establishing probable cause
against me. It is foreseeable that the court will, as a matter of law, be compelled to
order an acquittal. Consequently, the State should be saved the trouble of
prosecuting innocent persons and thus serves the purpose of preliminary
investigation.
x x x The purpose of preliminary investigation us to
secure 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, anxiety of a public trial, and also to protect the
state from useless and expensive trials. x x x (Trocio v.
Mantas)6
x x x However, in order to satisfy the due process
clause it is not enough that the preliminary investigation is
conducted in the sense of making sure that a transgressor
MODESTO PRIETO
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 10 th day of March 2004 at Las
Pias City. I futher certify that I have personally examined the affiant and that I am
satisfied that he has executed this Counter-Affidavit and has understood the
contents hereof of his own personal knowledge.
CYNTHIA MADAMBA-LUANG
Administering Prosecutor