REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 193
MARIKINA
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff,
-versus- CRIM Case No.1232605
For: Theft
Dela Cruz, Nestor
accused
x-------------------------------------x
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT
OF
Dela Cruz, Nestor
This Judicial Affidavit of Dela Cruz, Nestor is executed to
Serve his direct testimony in the instant case.
I, Dela Cruz Nestor, of Legal age, married, and living at Unit
225, Denis St, New Hanover Marikina City defendant in this case,
state under oath as follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The person examining me is Atty. Jerome J. Pasajes with
office address at Paradise, New hanover Marikina City RTC. The examination
is being held at the same address. I am answering his questions fully
conscious that I do so under oath and may face criminal liability for
False testimony and perjury.
1. Q. Please state your name and other personal circumstances for the
record.
A. I am Dela Cruz, Nestor, a Filipino of legal age, married, and living at Unit
225, Denis St, New Hanover, Marikina City.
2. Q. Do you know why you here?
A. Yes, Because I am one of the defendants in this case filed by Christian
Jammir Ancot.
3. Q. Do you know Mr. Jerico Camillo?
A. No, Maam.
4. Q. But have you met him personally?
A. No, Maam.
5. Q. What is the job of your Spouse?
A. She is the Chief Operating Officer of the Trade Feferation, Inc.
6. Q. Do you know his relationship or connection with Mr. Camillo?
A. No, Maam.
7. Q. But with the best of your knowledge, what kind of transaction did your
spouse and Mr. Camillo entered into?
A. An Investment
8. Q. Do you know about the investment?
A. No, they don’t tell me about that maam.
9. Q. What is this document?
A. The checks named in my account.
10. Q. Who signed this Document?
A. Myself.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 2nd day of
September 2025.
Nestor Dela Cruz
Affiant
SWORN ATTESTATION
The undersigned hereby attests that, as counsel of the witness,
he faithfully recorded the questions he asked and the corresponding
answer of the witness and that he did not coached the witness’
answers to the questions propounded.