REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

2nd Judicial Region
Branch 5
Baguio City, Philippine

People of the Philippines,

Plaintiff,

-versus-
Criminal Case No. 143143
Violation of BP 22

MR. NAISTIR,
Accused

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

COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT OF MR. NAISTIR

DEFENDANT, by the undersigned attorney and to this Honorable Court

respectfully avers that:

1. ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS

1.1 That I am Mr. Naistir, Filipino, of legal age, single and presently residing at
#46 Brgy. P Burgos Baguio City

1.2 That I am the same person charged in Criminal Case No. 143143 for
violation of BP 22 before RTC Branch 5 of the City of Baguio.

1.3 That sometime in March 2015, I met Mr. Nagoyo during the inspirational
talk about Making Your Money Grow conference leaded by Mr. Estafador
held at Prime City Hotel Baguio City.
 1.4 That I am employed as a staff in Mysterio Investment Firm owned by Mr.
Estafador.

1.5 That I have no any knowledge and privy with the transaction happened
between Mr. Estafador and Mr. Nagoyo.

1.6 That I neither issued nor endorsed any checks to the order of Mr.
Estafador bearing my signatures.

1.7 That I was only working with Mr. Estafador for a few months and because
I needed the job so badly, Mr. Estafador me to open a BPI account which I
have done and thereafter issue checks to various persons.

1.8 That Mr. Estafador assured me that he will fund my BPI account for all the
subsequent checks I have issued.

1.9 That dated December 10, 2016, I received a notice of dishonor from Mr.
Nagoyo of the 4 checks in the total amount of Php 1,000,000 bearing my
signature with these checks which were issued by Mr. Estafador to Mr.
Nagoyo to guarantee such any transaction between them.

2. DISCUSSIONS

2.1. Section 23 of the Negotiable Instruments Law (NIL) provides:

Sec. 23. FORGED SIGNATURE, EFFECT OF. When a signature is forged or made
without authority of the person whose signature it purports to be, it is wholly inoperative,
and no right to retain the instrument, or to give a discharge therefor, or to enforce
payment thereof against any party thereto, can be acquired through or under such
signature unless the party against whom it is sought to enforce such right is precluded
from setting up the forgery or want of authority.
2.2. In the case of ASSOCIATED BANK vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS,
PROVINCE OF TARLAC and PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, G.R. No. 107382/G.R.
No. 107612 January 31, 1996, the Court discussed the concept and effect of a
check with forged signature which is similar to the instant complain-information being
filed.

A forged signature, whether it be that of the drawer or the payee, is wholly inoperative
and no one can gain title to the instrument through it. A person whose signature to an
instrument was forged was never a party and never consented to the contract which
allegedly gave rise to such instrument. 18 Section 23 does not avoid the instrument but
only the forged signature. 19 Thus, a forged indorsement does not operate as the payee's
indorsement.

The exception to the general rule in Section 23 is where "a party against whom it is
sought to enforce a right is precluded from setting up the forgery or want of authority."
Parties who warrant or admit the genuineness of the signature in question and those
who, by their acts, silence or negligence are estopped from setting up the defense of
forgery, are precluded from using this defense. Indorsers, persons negotiating by
delivery and acceptors are warrantors of the genuineness of the signatures on the
instrument. 20

2.3 In the above cited case, although the checks involved are order instruments , hence,
the following discussion is made with reference to the effects of a forged indorsement on
an instrument payable to order.

Where the instrument is payable to order at the time of the forgery, such as the checks
in this case, the signature of its rightful holder (here, the payee hospital) is essential to
transfer title to the same instrument. When the holder's indorsement is forged, all parties
prior to the forgery may raise the real defense of forgery against all parties subsequent
thereto. 22

An indorser of an order instrument warrants "that the instrument is genuine and in all
respects what it purports to be; that he has a good title to it; that all prior parties had
capacity to contract; and that the instrument is at the time of his indorsement valid and
subsisting." 23 He cannot interpose the defense that signatures prior to him are forged.
 3. PRAYER

3.1 WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the

instant criminal complaint be DISMISSED for lack of merit.

3.2 Further, the respondents respectfully pray for such and other reliefs as
may be deemed just and equitable in the premises.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 18th day of May, 2017 at
Baguio City, Philippines.

Naistir
Mr. Naistir
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 18th day of May, 2017 in Baguio City,
Philippines.

Tan
Atty. Patrick James A. Tan
Counsel for Affiant

CERTIFICATION

This is to certify that I have personally examined the herein affiant and that I am
satisfied that he voluntarily executed and understood his statementsin this
Counter Affidavit.

Tan
Atty. Patrick James A. Tan