Republic of the Philippines
Department of Justice Office
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
Quezon City
s
Complainant,
-versus-
For: Qualified Theft Under Art. 310
of the Revised Penal Code
Respondent,
x--------------------------------------------
x
COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT
I, Respondent MARC ANGELO Y. PETIPET, Filipino, with
residence at No. 86, Pitong Bahay Street, Maligaya, Caloocan City, do
hereby state under oath that:
1. I was formerly employed by herein Complainant RBG Industrial
Works and Development Corporation (“RBG” or “Complainant”) as
Project Engineer from on or about the latter half of May 2018 to 16
September 2019.
2. Despite being employed as such Project Engineer, the
responsibilities and obligations of the same were not clearly
communicated to me upon RBG’s engagement of my services.
Likewise, no employment contract, nor pre-employment orientation,
was ever given to me detailing my actual job responsibilities and
engaging my services, the fact being:
2.1. That my services
were engaged by
Complainant when Mr. SOFRONIO A. GRIMALDO
(“Grimaldo),
RBGGeneral Manager1 & herein
RBG
representative, called
1
As disclosed in Par. 2 of Complainant’s Annex “A”.
1
me after I was referred to him by a former employer and
was asked to start work immediately;
2.2. I had no participation in the laying down of
management policies and to hire or discipline employees
or effectively recommend such actions, nor did I regularly
have access to, or handle, significant amounts of RBG’s
money or property;
2.3. All the instructions given to me were on a
dayto-day basis and were limited to overseeing the work
being done and actually completed in any given project,
along with reporting the same to clients and RBG Officers,
including GRIMALDO.
3. I vehemently deny that I did any of the acts stated in the
Complaint-Affidavit. As will be narrated below, this criminal
complaint was filed as an act of retaliation or, worse, to apply pressure
on me for filing a labor complaint against Complainant.
4. At the onset, I deny that I was on Absent without Official Leave
(AWOL) from 16 September 2019; the fact of the matter is as that:
4.1. I reported to RBG’s Office on the morning of 16
September 2019 and from the said premises, I went to one
of the Project Sites in Quezon City as part of my duties that
day;
4.2. As I was on my commute to the site, I received
a text message2 from GRIMALDO, with a time stamp of
“916 13:17” clearly reflecting 16 September 2019, 1:17 PM,
the contents of which are reproduced below:
“Pete hwag ka na muna punasok (sic)
tatawagan na lang kita kapag kailangan mo na
ako.salamat. (sic)”3
5. It is evident thus that I did not go AWOL nor did I ever intend
to discontinue my employment with Complainant; rather, it was
Complainant’s act, through its General Manager, no less, which led
2
3
Annex “1”
Emphasis supplied.
2
me to discontinue reporting to work until “kailangan mo na ako” which
obviously was a typographical error and the real intent was to say
“until my services were needed again”. Moreover, Complainant failed
to show any iota of evidence in its Complaint-Affidavit to
support his bare assertion that I was habitually absent or negligent as
regards my duties.
6. On 06 November 2019, I filed a complaint for “Termination,
Separation Pay, 13th Month Pay” 4 at the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC).
6.1. My acts of reporting to work on the morning of
16 September 2019; GRIMALDO’s directive that I no longer
report to work until further notice; filing an Illegal
Termination case at the NLRC and lack of any evidence
showing that I was habitually absent or negligent prior to
16 September 2019 all show that I was never on AWOL or
intended the same.
7. Two (2) days after I filed the labor complaint, I received
Complainant’s Notice of AWOL,5 sent in an obvious belated attempt
to give a semblance of regularity as regards my termination after filing
suit at the NLRC;
7.1. To reiterate, I filed the NLRC Complaint on 06
November 2019, the Notice of which was sent the same day
through private courier6 and received by the Complainant
on 7 November 20197;
7.2. The Notice of AWOL, while dated 05
November 2019, was sent only on 07 November 20198 or
two (2) days from the alleged date of the letter. It bears
stressing that this was also the date the NLRC Notice was
received by the Complainant;
7.3. The Notice of AWOL sought an explanation for
my alleged absence which began 16 September 2019, or
4
Annex “2”
Complaint-Affidavit, Annex “B”
6
Annex “3”
7
Annex “4”
8
Complaint-Affidavit, Annex “C”
5
3
about fifty (50) days prior. No explanation was provided
why Complainant took that long to issue the notice.
7.4. On 08 November 2019, I received the Notice of
AWOL and replied to the same via email9 on even date.
8. With respect to the allegation that I stole tools and equipment,
damaged and abandoned a car assigned for my use, as well as
“sabotaged the computer system” of RBG by deleting files and
changing passwords, I strongly deny all of such.
9. The allegation that I stole “ONE (1) PIECE HIGH TECH
METER” is completely fictitious. The fact of the matter is that the said
item has been missing from the Office since November 2018. This is
supported by the sworn statement of IMELDA RODRIGUEZ10 (“Arch.
Rodriguez”), former Architect of Complainant.
9.1.
Paragraph 3 of her Affidavit states:
“3. Na ang high tech meter na nawawala
ay matagal na naming hinahanap mula pa
noong Nobyembre 2018. Ito ay naitanong
naming magkakaopisina na sila
Marc Angelo Petipet, Mart Garcia, Joel Julius
Imperial, at Marites Baba , sa isa’t isa, kung
amin bang naitabi ba ito, ngunit di rin nila alam
kung nasaan ang nasabing bagay.”11
9.2. As such, their allegation that I stole the said
item is an impossibility since the same has been missing
since November 2018, almost a full year before I was
illegally terminated;
9.3. The contents of Arch. Rodriguez’s affidavit
mirrors my response12 to Complainant’s Notice of AWOL
wherein they alleged that I stole the same;
9
Annex “5”
Annex “6”
11
Emphasis supplied.
12
Annex “6-1”
10
4
9.4. Moreover, Arch. Rodriguez states that among
those who were looking for the high tech meter since
November 2018 is MARITESS BABA herself, the affiant in
Annex “D” of RBG’s Complaint-Affidavit;
9.5. Likewise, had they even suspected me of
stealing the same, they could have sent me a disciplinary
letter or reprimand for its loss or deducted the necessary
amounts from my wages, the fact that none was forwarded
to support such a serious claim is glaring.
10. As regards the Toyota Corolla with plate number UPD 396,
while I sometimes used the same in the performance of my functions
as a Project Engineer, the same was never assigned solely to me nor
used without the approval of the Complainant;
10.1. The Complainant did not even give any
documentary proof such as an assignment or transmittal
that the same was issued solely to me or under my care
during my employment with RBG, as it only presented the
assertion13 of DANILO DELA CRUZ (“DELA CRUZ”) who
is the current Head Mechanic of RBG;
10.2. Likewise, the other attachments pertinent to
the car show no connection between myself and the
vehicle, rather both 14 Annexes show ownership over the
same, which is not at issue herein;
10.3. Contrary to Dela Cruz’s claim that the vehicle
was assigned to me, Engineer Joel Julius Imperial (“Engr.
Imperial”), a former Project Engineer of RBG, states15 that
he used a red pickup truck and a silver sedan, the latter
being the vehicle allegedly assigned to me, when Engr.
Imperial said:
“4. Na ang mga sasakyang aking
ginagamit ay kulay pulang pickup, at silver na
kotse, na madalas ay sira sa kadahilanang may
kalumaan na ang mga sasakyang ito.”16
13
Complaint-Affidavit, Annex “F”
Complaint-Affidavit, Annexes “F-1” and “F-2”.
15
Annex “7”
16
Emphases supplied.
14
5
10.4. Further, Engr. Imperial attests that he saw the
subject vehicle parked at RBG’s Garage since on or about
the second week of August 201917;
10.5. Until Engr. Imperial’s last day of work at RBG
on 07 September 2019, he states to have never seen the
vehicle working, and when he returned to the RBG Office
to claim his 13th month pay, the subject vehicle was still
parked therein:
“8. Na hindi ko na nakitang umandar ang
sasakyang Toyota Corolla hanggang sa
huling araw ko sa trabaho noong Setyembre 7, 2019.
9. Na nakita kong nakaparada sa garahe
ng RBG ang Toyota Corolla na kulay silver
noong kami ay kumuha ng 13th month pay
noong ika-4 ng Nobyembre taong 2019.”
10.6. Because the Toyota Corolla had not been
working, I was constrained to tag along with
Complainant’s trucks on my way to the project sites or
commute by public transport to the same, as I was doing at
around noon of 16 September 2019, leaving me with no
opportunity to use, much less take, the Toyota Corolla;
11. Based on the foregoing, it is clear that from around the 2nd week
of August until 07 September 2019, the subject vehicle was not in
working condition;
11.1. On 04 November 2019, the subject vehicle was
once again seen parked at RBG’s premises;
11.2. From 08 September 2019 until my last day of
work with RBG on 16 September, Complainant presented
no proof that the vehicle was once again issued to me or
placed under my care, nor was it even in running
condition;
17
Par. 6, Annex “7”
6
11.3. As such, there is absolutely no proof that I was
driving the Toyota Corolla on 16 September 2019, thus
leaving me with no opportunity to take the said vehicle;
11.4. Another conspicuous omission is the date,
time, and detailed location as to when and where the
vehicle, which I allegedly abandoned, was found. None is
contained in RBG’s Notice of AWOL, nor in Annex “F” of
the Complaint-Affidavit;
11.5. It is to be reiterated, however, that Engr.
Imperial found the subject vehicle parked within RBG’s
premises on both 07 September 2019 and 4 November 2019.
12. Based on Par. 9 of the Complaint-Affidavit mentioning RBG’s
lawyers, it is evident that Complainant has easy access to legal
assistance and representation, however, it is striking that no Police
Report or even a blotter was ever presented by RBG as regards the
allegedly stolen vehicle. The action, or lack thereof, pursued by the
Complainant in the face of its vehicle being stolen is contrary to human
experience.
13. Likewise, despite having lawyers at its disposal, the
Complainant presented no pictures or any documentation as to the
condition of the vehicle upon its claimed recovery was put forward by
Complainant. To stress, not even the date, time and location, as to the
alleged recovery of the vehicle was even put on record making an
intelligent defense as to these points an impossibility.
14. To summarize my defenses as to the allegedly stolen vehicle, the
vehicle was no longer in working condition around a month before I
was illegally terminated as testified to by Engr. Imperial which caused
me to commute to the project site on 16 September 2019, making it
impossible for me to have possession over the vehicle on the day I
allegedly stole it;
14.1. There is no Police Report or any documentary
evidence suggesting that the vehicle was stolen and
subsequently found, contrary to human experience, much
less for businesses alleging to be victims of theft by
employees;
14.2. The Complaint, and its Annexes, contains no
date, time and specific location as to when and where the
7
Toyota Corolla was recovered making an intelligent
defense as to the same impossible;
14.3. On 04 November 2019, Engr. Imperial saw the
vehicle parked within the premises of RBG;
14.4. Aside from the Affidavit of DELA CRUZ 18 ,
Complainant presented no evidence placing the Toyota
Corolla in my possession from 16 September 2019 until 4
November 2019.
15. I also ardently deny the allegation that I “sabotaged” RBG’s
computer system by changing passwords and deleting “various
items” as such is blatantly false.
16. It is alleged that on 20 October 2019, it was discovered that I did
the alleged acts in the previous paragraph and was able to do the
same since I was the one who closed down the Office’s general
computer systems on 16 September 201919;
16.1. This is patently untrue since as mentioned in
Par. 4.2. of this Counter-Affidavit, GRIMALDO texted me,
in effect, that my services were no longer needed at 1:17PM
of 16 September 2019;
16.2. After receiving the same, I continued to the
Project Site and headed home at around 3:00PM, never
returning to the Office;
16.3. As such it is clear that I had no opportunity to
“sabotage” the Complainant’s computer systems, leaving
my files intact as I mentioned in my response 20 to
Complainant’s Notice of AWOL.
17. Likewise, the claim that my purported acts of sabotaging
Complaint’s computer system were only discovered on 20 October
2019, or more than a month since I left is beyond belief;
18
Complaint-Affidavit, Annex “F”
Complaint-Affidavit, Annex “E”, Par. 11
20
Annex “5-1”
19
8
17.1. As alleged in Par. 6 of the Complaint-Affidavit,
my alleged acts of sabotaging the computer system
prevented RBG from opening its computers and accessing
the internet;
17.2. If such was the effect of my alleged acts, this
only means that RBG was operating without any access to
the internet nor ability to open its own computers for more
than a month before they discovered that I “sabotaged” the
computer system, this is highly unlikely;
17.3. Given the Complainant’s version of facts, RBG
would have the Honorable Prosecutor believe that its
business operations continued per usual for more than a
month without computers or internet access before
discovering the acts imputed against me.
18. I am also categorically denying that I stole all the other items
alleged to have been stolen by me;
18.1. In addition to the allegations refuted above,
Complainant claims that I stole the following items:
1.
One oxygen tank;
2.
Two LPG tanks;
3.
Three meters welding cable; 4. 100 pcs.
scaffolding; and 5. One circular saw.
18.2. It is obvious that RBG’s assertion that the above
items were stolen by me is a mere afterthought to try to
add to the items I allegedly took as these items were absent
or not included in its Notice of AWOL, allegedly dated 05
November 2020;
18.3. My last day of service was 16 September 2019,
admitting for argument’s sake that the Notice of AWOL
was executed on 05 November 2019, it just means that fifty
(50) days have elapsed from my termination until the
signing of the Notice of AWOL, yet the five items listed
above were never mentioned to have been taken by me;
18.4. It is therefore surprising that in its
ComplaintAffidavit on 27 November 2019, RBG has now
9
added another five (5) items alleged to have been stolen by
me;
18.5. Similar to all the assertions made by
Complainant, the manner, time, and date of my alleged
acts of stealing the items in Par. 18.1. herein are absent and
couched in general accusations. A certification of the
Complainant’s property custodian allegedly proves my
accountability for these items but neither this certification
nor any proof of my receipt of the items were presented;
18.6. These make my preparation of a more detailed
and informed defense impossible.
19. Given the general manner that the allegations were made, it is
also inexplicable how Complainant arrived at the alleged loss of
P500,000.00 purportedly caused by me.
20. Moreover, the areas of RBG’s premises pertinent to the
Complaint, such as the engineering department offices where I was
stationed at the office, the garage, the “talyer,” the warehouse where
all the equipment allegedly stolen by me are housed, as well as the gate
of Complainant’s premises, are all protected by CCTV.
21. It is, thus, peculiar that no such video evidence was ever attached
by the Complainant when the same is readily-available to them, the
presence of which will greatly strengthen their case.
22. Complainant, however, rests its case on the unsupported
statements of affiants, current employees of Complainant, who are all
too willing to execute supporting affidavits considering that they rely
on RBG for their respective livelihoods and can hardly be considered
to be impartial witnesses.
23. Given all the foregoing, it is clear that I did not steal anything
from the Complainants, thus the Complaint against me for Qualified
Theft is without basis.
24. Stemming from the absence of the taking of RBG properties
imputed to me, all the other elements of Qualified Theft consequently
have no leg to stand on. I, thus, implore this Honorable
Office to dismiss this complaint for utter lack of merit,
TO THE TRUTH OF THE FOREGOING, I have signed this
Counter-Affidavit this ___th of February 2020.
10
_____________________________
MARC ANGELO Y. PETIPET
Respondent-Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me on this ____ day of
February in Quezon City, Republic of the Philippines. I HEREBY
CERTIFY THAT I HAVE PERSONALLY EXAMINED THE AFFIANT
AND AM SATISFIED THAT HE VOLUNTARILY EXECUTED AND
UNDERSTOOD HIS COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT.
___________________________________________
MA. CECILIA GERTRUDES R. SALVADOR
Assistant City Prosecutor
11