Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice
National Prosecution Office
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
San Fernando City, La Union

STEAVEN PAOLO N. SARANQUIN,

Complainant,

-versus- NPS DOCKET NO. I-02-INV-21G-00933

and 00934

For: ESTAFA and CHILD ABUSE UNDER

SECTION 10(A) OF R.A. 7610
KRISTINA MARIE C. MABALOT,
a.k.a. “TINA SUPERIOR”,
Respondent.
x-------------------------x

COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT

I, KRISTINA MARIE C. MABALOT, of legal age, Filipino citizen, married

and a resident of and with postal address at Brgy. Ili Sur, San Juan, La Union
where I could be served with summons and other court processes relative to
the above-titled cases, after having been first duly sworn to in accordance with
law hereby depose and say:

1. That I am the accused/respondent referred to in the criminal complaints

for ESTAFA and CHILD ABUSE under Section 10(a) of R. A. 7610 docketed as
NPS Docket No. I-02-INV-21G-00933 and 00934 of the Honorable Office of
Provincial Prosecutor of San Fernando City, La Union; that I was given ten (10)
days from receipt of subpoena on July 8, 2021 or until July 18, 2021 and being
a Sunday, will have until the next working day, July 19, 2021 to file my
Counter Affidavit and supporting documents as well as the affidavits of my
witnesses, if any; that I am filing today, July 19, 2021 my COUNTER-
AFFIDAVIT before the Honorable Office of the Provincial Prosecutor as required;
thus, the filing hereof is within the reglementary period in accord with the
Rules.

2. THAT THE INSTANT CRIMINAL COMPLAINT/S ARE PERJURIOUS,

MALICIOUS, FELONIOUS, BASELESS, UNFOUNDED, AND UNJUST
FABRICATION.  

2.a. Before proceeding any further, the Respondent hereby states that
the instant complaint of the private complainant STEAVEN PAOLO N.
SARANQUIN is a malicious, felonious, baseless, unfounded and unjust
FABRICATION intended to collect money which the Respondent does not
owe him;

1|P a g e COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT OF RESPONDENT-KRISTINA MARIE C. MABALOT

 2.b. The act of the Complainant of initiating the instant case against the
Respondent, without any legal and factual basis, has caused mental
anguish, extreme anxieties, sleepless nights, and besmirched
reputation on the part of the Respondent and his family; and

2.d. The Respondent reserves the right to file an independent civil

action for TORT AND DAMAGES against the private complainant for
initiating this unjust, unfair, baseless, reckless, and irresponsible case.

3. That I vehemently DENY under oath the accusations that I committed

ESTAFA and violated R.A. No. 7610 under Section 10(a) against the private
complainant and hereby denies the allegations in his COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT
as either FALSE, INCOMPLETE, ERRONEOUS, FABRICATIONS, and does not
totally reflect the exact circumstances of the allegations; and the TRUTHS of
the matter are stated hereunder:

a) I ADMIT the allegation in ITEM NO. 1 of the Complaint-Affidavit of the

private complainant, stating that I was introduced to the private
complainant through her aunt, Perla M. Saranquin (“Perla” for
brevity) on April 28, 2020 and not May 2020; and met the private
complainant, Steaven Paolo N. Saranquin (“Paolo” for brevity) upon
instructions of Perla at her house in Brgy. Taboc, San Juan, La Union
where Paolo is also residing, and upon further instructions of her aunt
Perla turned over to me some goods she is donating for distribution to
the community as part of my disaster resiliency advocacy during this
times of the pandemic COVID-19 which Perla wanted to make her own
contribution and share in support of my advocacy’s undertaking;

and also ADMIT the rest of the allegation to the effect that I was
contracted by Perla, who is based in Hongkong to buy as needed for
Paolo and his family’s essential necessities because she knew that I
have a group doing “PasaBuy” system, which offers services to fellow
San Juaneros to buy for them essential necessities including medicines
they need that they could not access because of the ECQ status being
implemented/effected at that time in La Union, which prohibited senior
citizens, minors, and other individuals who are not APOR categorized;
and with the “PasaBUY” system, San Juaneros who saw my Facebook
posts on the same, started sending our group lists of essential goods
and necessities they need and with utmost effort, my group outsource
them from cheap but quality suppliers and deliver the goods to those
who enlisted with our “PasaBUY” system.

To prove that Perla contracted my services on several occasions to

buy for Paolo and his family’s essential necessities including cellphone
load for Paolo, attached herewith are copies of text from Perla and Paolo
to this effect and herein marked as ANNEXES “1” to “1-C”, respectively
and hereby made integral parts hereof

2|P a g e COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT OF RESPONDENT-KRISTINA MARIE C. MABALOT

 b) I DENY totally the allegations in ITEM NO. 2 of the Complaint-Affidavit
of the private complainant for being erroneous, incomplete and do not
totally reflect the exact circumstances of the allegations; the truth of the
matter is, he did not start his own “longanisa buy and sell” business
while on lockdown, the business is actually that of Perla who
manages, finances, and controls the operation (from Hongkong)
with the private complainant acting as one of her sales agent and who is
also tasked by Perla to oversee the storage of the longanisa in her house
where Paolo also lives; and just like Paolo, I was asked and offered by
Perla to be a sales agent for her “longanisa buy and sell” business
because she knew my social media reach being a volunteer and
advocate of disaster resiliency, where together with my group of
volunteers organized “STAND UP KABATAAN” movement where we
undertake distribution of donations around and within the municipality
of San Juan, La Union and being given the permit to roam around
bringing “BUHAY GULAY” food packs to frontliners that included the
BFP, MDRRMO, and the local barangay frontliners (e.g. Kagawads,
Tanods, BHWs, and the likes) everyday until the ECQ status of San
Juan, La Union was lifted.

My eventual participation in the “longanisa buy and sell”

business of Perla was an offshoot of our friendship which started early
April 2020, when she saw my posts over Facebook anent my advocacy
and the “PasaBUY” system of bayanihan, and that on April 19, 2020
asked me to give her a list of people who can not afford to buy rice at
barangay Taboc, where she volunteered to donate; and from thereon,
our friendship started to flourish up to business level.

c) I DENY totally the allegations in ITEM NO. 3 of the Complaint-Affidavit

of the private complainant for being false, erroneous, a fabrication, and
do not totally reflect the exact circumstances of the allegations; the
truth of the matter is, the longanisa Paolo alleged to have been ordered
by him is not true, because Perla is the owner of the longanisa and it
was she who orders, pays, and arranges for its delivery; and pictures
being alleged by Paolo which he allegedly posted on Facebook did not
appear on Facebook, as a matter of fact, ANNEX “C” of his complaint-
affidavit appeared FABRICATED and SPURIOUS as there are no trace/s
of digital signature to identify the same as legitimate Facebook posts.

I am attaching herewith ANNEX “C” of the Complaint Affidavit of the

private complainant and marking the same as my ANNEX “2” and
hereby made an integral part hereof.

d) I DENY the allegations made on ITEM NO. 4 of the Complaint-Affidavit

of the private complainant for lack of knowledge and/or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth that private complainant was
selling the longanisa to his clients at Two Hundred Seventy Pesos (Php
270.000 per kilo for a profit of Forty Five Pesos (Php 45.00) per kilo.

3|P a g e COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT OF RESPONDENT-KRISTINA MARIE C. MABALOT

 e) I DENY the allegations made on ITEM NO. 5 of the Complaint-Affidavit
of the private complainant for lack of knowledge and/or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth that private complainant
already sold out on May 20, 2021(!) his longanisa stocks and ordered
seventy (70) kilos of the same to be delivered on May 23, 2021(!).

For the record, my last communication with Paolo was on August 23,
2020 and with Perla was on July 23, 2020; and I have no transactions
with them afterwards and the allegations in ITEM NO. 5 appears to be
erroneous, and a fabrication (e.g. May 20, 2021, May 23, 2021); that I
have no way of verifying if the same is true or not.

HOWEVER, to set the record straight, the allegations made by

the private complainant in Item No. 5 especially on the dates
mentioned should have been May 20, 2020 and May 23, 2020,
respectively; and considering that succeeding allegations are
connected to Item No 5 herein respondent DENIES allegations for
being erroneous, incomplete and do not totally reflect the exact
circumstances of the allegations; the truth of the matter is, the
business being owned by Perla who actually manages, finances, and
controls the operation (from Hongkong) with the private
complainant acting only as one of her sales agent and who is also
tasked by Perla to oversee the storage of the longanisa in her house
where private complainant also lives; therefore, it is not true that
it was Paolo who ordered the merchandise on May 20, 2020 to be
delivered on May 23, 2020, but it was Perla who did so.

A copy of Perla’s text message over Facebook confirms that it was

Perla who paid and arranged for the subject longonisa which Paolo
claims to have ordered; and herein attached as ANNEX “3” and hereby
made integral part hereof.

f) I DENY the allegations made on ITEM NO. 6 of the Complaint-Affidavit

of the private complainant for lack of knowledge and/or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth that in the evening of May 23,
2021(!) his order of seventy (70) kilos of longanisa arrived which he
together with his friend waited at the Maharlika Highway(!) near his
house.
Again, for the record, my last communication with Paolo was on
August 23, 2020 and with Perla was on July 23, 2020; and I have no
transactions with them afterwards and the allegations in ITEM NO. 6
appears to be erroneous (e.g. Maharlika highway), and a fabrication (e.g.
May 23, 2021); that I have no way of verifying if the same is true or not.

AS IN ITEM LETTER “E”, to set the record straight, the

allegations made by the private complainant in Item No. 6
especially on the date mentioned should have been May 23, 2020;
and considering that succeeding allegations are connected to Item
No. 6 herein respondent ADMITS only the allegation that in the

4|P a g e COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT OF RESPONDENT-KRISTINA MARIE C. MABALOT

 evening of May 23, 2020 the seventy (70) kilos of longanisa
arrived and the same was heavy and needed a vehicle to ferry the
same to Perla’s house where it is being stored; but DENIES for
being erroneous, incomplete and do not totally reflect the exact
circumstances of the assertion made by the private complainant
that the seventy (70) kilos of longanisa which arrived that evening
was his own order; the truth of the matter is, the business being
owned by Perla who actually manages, finances, and controls the
operation (from Hongkong) with the private complainant acting
only as one of her sales agent and who is also tasked by Perla to
oversee the storage of the longanisa in her house where private
complainant also lives; ordered, paid, and arranged for the
delivery of the same; thus, it was Perla who owns the seventy (70)
kilos of longanisa and not the private complainant .

See attached photocopy of the screenshot of text message of Perla to

herein respondent confirming the latter’s assertions (previously attached
as ANNEX “2” in Item Letter C).

g) I ONLY ADMIT as to the allegations in ITEM NO. 7 of the Complaint-

Affidavit of the private complainant that I was using Perla’s vehicle and
it was I who helped Paolo to ferry the longanisa from the highway where
it was delivered to the Perla’s house where she stores the same; and
DENIES all the other allegations thereto for being inaccurate and do not
reflect the true circumstances of who stores the longanisa.

h) I VEHEMENTLY DENY all the allegations made in ITEM NO. 8 of the

Complaint-Affidavit of the private complainant for being totally false,
erroneous, and do not reflect the true circumstances of the transaction
anent the longanisa buy and sell business of Perla; and the truth of the
matter is, before the seventy (70) kilos of longanisa delivery arrived,
Perla and I already had an agreement that I will be allotted 50 kilos of
the delivery for resale to my regular frozen foods clients where I am also
a CDO frozen foods distributor in La Union and the rest of the delivery
will be allotted for Paolo’s reselling to his own set of clients; and there is
no truth to his allegation that the proceeds of the 50 kilos longanisa will
be returned/remitted to him because I am only accountable to Perla
with whom I am transacting business and not with Paolo who is just
like me is a mere sales agent of Perla; and I know for a fact that I am
dealing business with Perla, who owns, finances, and manages the
operation of the longanisa buy and sell business despite being based in
Hongkong.

Attached are copies of my text message conversations with Perla on

the matter including the accounting of our transactions showing that after
deducting the expenditures chargeable to Perla from the cash receipts in
my possession relative to the buy and sell business transactions I have
with her, she owes me a total of Php 16,097 (see Item M computation)
proving that there is no truth to the claim of Paolo that I have to return to
him the proceeds of the 50 kilos longanisa I took because I am
5|P a g e COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT OF RESPONDENT-KRISTINA MARIE C. MABALOT
 accountable for it to Perla and not to him and said text messages are
herein marked as ANNEXES “4 & 4-A” and “5 & 5-A”, and hereby
made integral parts hereof.

Moreover, my business dealings with Perla is not limited to

longanisa buy and sell business but with other goods/merchandise she
asked me to sell to my clients; and as a footnote to this, it is Paolo who
gets merchandise from me (e.g. CDO frozen foods) for his reselling
activities which he has not paid for since he took the products from me
in the amount of Php 5,443.00.

Attached is a copy of text messages between me and Paolo confirming

what he owes me as regards to the CDO products he got from me and
herein marked as ANNEX “6”, and hereby made integral parts hereof.

i) I DENY STRONGLY AND VEHEMENTLY entirely the claims by the

private complainant in ITEM NO. 9 of his Complaint Affidavit for being
utmost falsity, erroneous, a fabrication and for being a distortion of
facts and not reflective of the true circumstances of the real reasons for
the additional five (5) kios of longanisa being attributed to me; and the
truth of the matter is, the five (5) kilos being attributed to me are
actually samples for testing by my clients and were offered to me by
Perla charge to her account as part of my promotional effort when I
started selling for her longanisa buy and sell business, which is a
common promotional practice in food business just like with my CDO
frozen products.

To prove this point, I am attaching herewith our text message

conversation on the matter and herein marked as ANNEX “7”, and
hereby made integral part hereof.

j) I DENY all the allegations made on ITEM NO. 10 of the Complaint-

Affidavit of the private complainant for lack of knowledge and/or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth that on May 26,
2021(!) private complainant demanded from me the proceeds from the
sale of the 50 kilos longanisa I took for resale to my clients which
amounted to Php 14,850.00 and the rest of the allegations considering
that the May 26, 2021 incident did not take place.

Again, for the record, my last communication with Paolo was on

August 23, 2020 and with Perla was on July 23, 2020; and I have no
transactions with them afterwards and the allegations in ITEM NO. 10
appears to be erroneous and a fabrication (e.g. May 26, 2021); that I have
no way of verifying if the same is true or not.

AS IN ITEM LETTERS “E” & “F” and to set the record straight,
the allegations made by the private complainant in Item No. 10
especially on the date mentioned should have been May 26, 2020;
and considering that succeeding allegations are connected to Item
6|P a g e COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT OF RESPONDENT-KRISTINA MARIE C. MABALOT
 No. 10 herein respondent DENIES allegation for being erroneous,
false, and do not reflect the true circumstances on the matter
that the amount of the longanisa I took for resale to my clients
amounted to Php 14,850.00; the truth of the matter is, I only took
50 kilos for resale and not 55 kilos and the total amount should
only be Php 12,750 for the 50 kilos and not for 55 kilos and at
Php 255.00 per kilo as per my previous agreement with Perla who
is the owner of the business, and the extra 5 kilos being
attributed to me are actually free samples (ANNEX “6”) for
distribution testing to my clients as part of my initial offering of
the product for Perla to my existing client.

See attached photocopy of the screenshots of text messages between

Perla and herein respondent; Paolo and herein respondent; and vice
versa confirming the respondent’s assertion that the price per kilo should
only be at Php 255.00; marked herein as ANNEX “8” & series,
respectively and hereby made integral part hereof.

As regard to all the other allegations made on ITEM NO. 10 of the

Complaint-Affidavit of the private complainant, herein respondent
DENIES all of them for lack of knowledge and/or information to form a
belief as to the truthfulness of the same.

k-l) I ADMIT only to the allegation in ITEM NOS. 11 & 12 of the Complaint-
Affidavit of the private complainant that he ordered CDO products from
me, but denies that it was paid for by his aunt Perla because the truth
of the matter is, what Paolo ordered from me on several occasions is on
his account and in fact Perla specifically advised me that Paolo should
pay in cash if ever he gets CDO frozen foods from me and in fact his
total outstanding account to me amounts to Php 5,443.00, which
remains unpaid to date despite repeated demands for payment from
him; and DENIES all the rest of the allegations for being false,
erroneous, fabrication and do not reflect the true circumstances of the
transactions as he is not the owner of the longanisa, that I am
accounting directly with Perla (ANNEXES “3 & 3-A” and “4 & 4-A”) since
we have other business undertakings together and based on my latest
accounting, the amount of the longaniza I got taken with all the
expenditures I paid for relative to the goods I delivered to Paolo and
family as per instructions of Perla, Perla still owes me money and the
claims of Paolo that I owe him money for the longanisa I took is
misplaced and contrary to the circumstances presenting on the matter.

See attached text message of Perla advising me that Paolo should pay
in cash if ever he gets CDO frozen foods from me; and herein marked as
ANNEX “9”, and made integral part hereof.

m) I STRONGLY DENY the allegations made in ITEM NO. 13 of the

Complaint-Affidavit of the private complainant for being erroneous,
false, and do not reflect the true circumstances on the matter
that the amount of the longanisa I took for resale to my clients
amounted to Php 14,850.00 and which remains to be unpaid that
7|P a g e COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT OF RESPONDENT-KRISTINA MARIE C. MABALOT
 resulted to the closure of private complainant’s business; the
truth of the matter is, (i) I only took 50 kilos for resale and not 55
kilos and the total amount should only be Php 12,750 for the 50
kilos and not for 55 kilos and at Php 255.00 per kilo as per my
previous agreement with Perla who is the owner of the business,
and the extra 5 kilos being attributed to me are actually free
samples (ANNEX “7”) for distribution testing to my clients as part
of my initial offering of the product for Perla to my existing
clients; (ii) the allegation that I did not remit to him the amount of
Php 14,850.00 or the amount I proposed at Php 255.00 per kilo is
totally incorrect was actually accounted for with Perla, the owner
of the business and which reflected, that it was Perla who still
owes me the amount of Php 16,097.00 (ANNEX “4” & “5 - Cash on
Hand, Php 16,451.00 + 50 kilos longanisa, Php 12,750 – Total
Expenditures, Php 45,298.00); (iii) Paolo contrary to his assertion
that because of his allegation that I did not remit to him the
proceeds of the 50 kilos longanisa forced her to close his business
is incorrect, a fabrication, and misleading because on the
contrary he continued his reselling business as sales agent of
Perla’s longanisa buy and sell business other goods/merchandise
(ANNEX “10” & series).

Attached herewith are photocopies of screenshots of Paolo’s postings

on his reselling activities involving the longanisa business of Perla and
other goods/merchandise even after business relation between him and
respondent stopped did not close-shop contrary to his assertion and
herein being marked as ANNEXES “10” & series and hereby made
integral parts hereof.

n) I DENY the allegation in ITEM NOS. 14, 15, and 16 of the Complaint-
Affidavit of the private complainant that I committed acts that
constitute the crime of ESTAFA as defined under Article 315, par. 1 (b)
of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) through the employment of
unfaithfulness and abuse of confidence on the following grounds:

The elements of estafa through misappropriation under Article 315,

paragraph 1(b) are: (a) the offender's receipt of money, goods, or other
personal property in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or
under any other obligation involving the duty to deliver, or to return, the
same; (b) misappropriation or conversion by the offender of the money or
property received, or denial of receipt of the money or property; (c) the
misappropriation, conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and
(d) demand by the offended party that the offender return the money or
property received.

1. Article 315, paragraph 1(b) requires proof of receipt by the

offender of the money, goods, or other personal property in
trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any
other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or
to return the same. In other words, mere receipt of the money,
goods, or personal property does not satisfy the first element, it
must be demonstrated that the character of such receipt must
either be in trust, on commission or for administration or that
8|P a g e COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT OF RESPONDENT-KRISTINA MARIE C. MABALOT
 the accused has the obligation to deliver or return the same
money, goods or personal property received. It is therefore
essential to prove that the accused acquired both material or
physical possession and juridical possession of the thing
received.

In the case at bar, the accused in effect received the

merchandise owned by Perla only from Paolo; therefore the first
element of Estafa which required proof of receipt from the owner
by the accused cannot be had, because Paolo as private
complainant is not the owner of the goods. In other words, the
private complainant has no standing in court to charge
respondent for Estafa under Article 315, par. 1(b) because he did
not own the merchandise subject of his claim. He is in equal
footing with the accused being mere reseller of the principal
owner, Perla; thus the charge of Estafa by the private
complainant against the accused has no leg to stand on; thus,
there can be no Estafa in the absence of a fiduciary
relationship between private complainant and herein
respondent.

2. There can be no misappropriation to speak of on the part of

herein respondent and the private complainant considering that
there exist no fiduciary relationship between them; the private
complainant has no standing in court to charge respondent for
estafa under par. 1(b) because he did not own the merchandise
subject of his claim. He is in equal footing with the accused
being both reseller of the principal owner, Perla; if there is one
who can charge the respondent of estafa under par. 1(b) it is the
owner, Perla who should; and the fact that respondent made all
the necessary accounting to the satisfaction of the owner, there
can be no misappropriation to charge her of;

3. While demand need not be written, as simple inquiry or oral

demand is sufficient compliance, private complainant
nonetheless cannot demand for the return or remittance of the
proceeds of the sale of the subject longanisa being that, he is not
the owner of the same; a fact he knew from the beginning as he
is only a sales agent of her aunt Perla relative to the longanisa
buy and sell business of the latter; thus, the right to demand lies
on the principal owner, Perla and not on the private
complainant;

4. The element of prejudice to the private complainant is non-

existent. If ever there was prejudice inflicted, it should be
charged with the principal owner, Perla and not to the private
complainant as he is not the owner thereof.

o). I strongly and vehemently DENY assertion made by the private

complainant in ITEM NOS. 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, and 24 in his
Complaint-Affidavit that I am liable to Estafa in violation of Article 315,
par1(b) of the RPC, as amended for the reasons above cited.

Moreover, the reliance by the private complainant on the legal

presumption of misappropriation in Navera v. People (citing Tan v.
People) is misplaced because in the case cited, the private complainant
9|P a g e COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT OF RESPONDENT-KRISTINA MARIE C. MABALOT
 was prejudiced as a result of combined factors, economic and
circumventing the law which in the end proved disastrous on his
investment and therefore, the legal presumption of misappropriation
will not apply against the respondents since the prejudice suffered by
the private complainant was not a consequence of the respondents but
otherwise and the fact that the private complainant had all the rights
and interest to file the case against the respondent being the
owner/source of the money subject of the case. In the case at bar, the
private complainant is not the owner of the goods in subject and therefore
cannot legally demand for the return or remittance of the proceeds of the
sale of the subject longanisa from herein respondent and coupled with
the fact that there was really no misappropriation to speak of considering
that respondent to the satisfaction of the owner proved that she made an
accounting (see ANNEXS “4” & “5”) of the proceeds of her transactions
involving the merchandise which she sells for the owner, Perla; thus, the
legal presumption of misappropriation does not apply in this instant case.

AND BY WAY OF COUNTER-CHARGE, Respondent hereby adopts

and repleads all his manifestations and arguments in this Counter-
Affidavit and charges the private complainant, STEAVEN PAOLO N.
SARANQUIN (“Paolo” for brevity) for the crime of ESTAFA under
Article 315, par. 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) through the
employment of unfaithfulness and abuse of confidence and committed
as follows:
(i) That on several occasions starting May 2020 until August 2020,
Paolo withdrew on account several quantities and items of CDO
frozen food products from herein respondent (now private
complainant) for the purpose of reselling the same for profit
despite being a minor as her aunt, Perla M. Saranquin is my
business partner and supplier of longanisa for my reselling
business, I did not hesitate to give him credit believing that he is
just trying to be productive and needed some help to make it
happen;

(ii) That in the process of our business dealings, he was able to get
stocks from me on several occasions and which inventory remains
unpaid until to date despite repeated demands from me and
assurances on his part to pay his outstanding credit balance
arising from our CDO frozen foods transactions;

(iii) That to date, the amount he owes me amounts to Php 5,443.00,

which is evidenced by the summary list inventory and costs
herein attached as ANNEX “6” in my Counter-Affidavit for the
Estafa and VAWC under R.A. No. 7610 cases he filed against me;

(iv) That he received the subject goods inventory is a fact, that the
products he took from me are my own personal goods and I have
legitimate ownership of the same and therefore, there exist a
fiduciary relationship between us that requires him to
return/remit/pay back the value of the goods he took from; and

(v) That his continued disregard of my demands for payment is a

legal presumption that he misappropriated the products and/or
10 | P a g e COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT OF RESPONDENT-KRISTINA MARIE C. MABALOT
 proceeds of the sales thereof to his personal advantage and gain
to my prejudice and disadvantage.

Premises considered, STEAVEN PAOLO N. SARANQUIN

committed all the elements of ESTAFA under Article 315, par. 1(b) of
the Revised Penal Code; thus, probable cause exists to warrant his
indictment for the crime.

4. LIKEWISE, I vehemently DENY under oath the accusations that I

committed acts that would constitute the crime of Other Acts of Abuse as
defined under Section 10(a) of R. A. No. 7610 or the Special Protection of
Children against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act against the
private complainant and hereby denies the allegations in his COMPLAINT-
AFFIDAVIT as either FALSE, INCOMPLETE, ERRONEOUS, FABRICATIONS,
and does not totally reflect the exact circumstances of the allegations; and the
TRUTHS of the matter are stated hereunder:

p) I vehemently DENY have committed all the allegations in ITEM NOS. 25,
26, and 27 because the crime of ESTAFA which is being charged to
herein respondent is source from which the assertion of the private
complainant for the acts of abuse I committed to him cannot be had in
the light of the fact that respondent cannot be liable for ESTAFA in
relation to the private complainant (Paolo) on the following grounds:

p.1. She received the goods in subject from Perla through her
assigned storage keeper, Paolo;
p.2. There exists no fiduciary possession and relation between the
respondent and private complainant, Paolo;
p.3. There is no misappropriation of the proceeds of the sale in relation
to the private complainant not being the owner of the goods in subject;
and because respondent have accounted to the satisfaction of the owner
the proceeds of her transactions anent the goods she resells for the
owner, Perla;
p.4. There was no prejudice inflicted to the private complainant by the
respondent owing to the fact that the former is not the owner of the
goods in subject;
p.5. The demand to be made as contemplated by the law should be
made by the principal owner, who stands to be prejudice in the event of
misappropriation by the respondent;

Thus, the charge for the crime of Estafa against the respondent
which could not be had, cannot be the basis of private complainant’s
claim against me under R.A. No. 76 10, Section 10 (a).

q) I ADMIT only that herein private complainant is a minor and is 15 years

old as alleged in ITEM NO. 28 of his Complaint-Affidavit; and denies the
rest of the allegations contained therein.

11 | P a g e COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT OF RESPONDENT-KRISTINA MARIE C. MABALOT

 r) I vehemently DENY all the allegations in ITEM NO. 29 of the Complaint-
Affidavit of the private complainant citing the reasons enumerated in
Item “P” of the foregoing and due to lack of knowledge and information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truthfulness of the allegations made
thereon.

s) I DENY all the allegations made in ITEM NO. 30 of the Complaint-

Affidavit of the private complainant for lack of knowledge and/or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truthfulness of the
allegations made thereon.

t) I ADMIT all the allegations made in ITEM NO. 32 as to my personal

circumstances.

That I am executing this Counter-Affidavit to attest to the truth of the

foregoing statements and to ask this Honorable Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor of San Fernando City, La Union to DISMISS the above-entitled
criminal complaints for ESTAFA under par. 1 (b) and Violation of R.A.
No. 7610 under Section 10 (a) against me for lack of merit and probable
cause.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ____ day of

__________________, 2021 at _____________________.

KRISTINA MARIE C. MABALOT

Respondent

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this__day of_______________,

2021 in San Fernando City, La Union, Philippines and accused/affiant
exhibited to me her ______________________________. I further certify that I have
personally examined the Affiant/Respondent and I am satisfied that she has
executed personally and voluntarily the foregoing Counter Affidavit.

__________________________________
Hon. Assistant Provincial Prosecutor

COPY FURNISHED: (via registered mail with return card due to distance, lack of time and
delivery personnel to effect personal delivery of the same)

STEAVEN PAOLO N. SARANQUIN

Tungol & Tan Law Offices
9H Jenkinsen Tower, 80 Timog Ave.
Quezon City

12 | P a g e COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT OF RESPONDENT-KRISTINA MARIE C. MABALOT