AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLAINT (B) Definition & Purpose: An Affidavit of Complaint is a sworn written statement made by a complainant to initiate a criminal charge against a person. This document provides the details of the crime, the parties involved, and the circumstances of the offense. It serves as the foundation for a criminal case and is filed before a prosecutor or a court.AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLAINT (8) Republic ofthe Philippines Metropolitan Trial Court People ofthe Philippines Criminal Case No, __COMPLAINT The undersigned, Chief of Police of accuses in the municipality of Province of Philippines, the said accused did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, ‘with malice and aforethought, attacked with wounding the latter inthe producing wounds which are necessarily fatal, thereby causing the immediate death of said province of CConteary to law. 20_. Chief of Police of, SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN before me this. day of, :20in the province of Jungeo~ AFFIDAVIT OF DESISTANCE <_< Definition: t ! oe silane = BY Ne mplainant & atin witcleavoeat it In pursuing th rinierested Inpursuing the Complaint or. | ho eat rales aa nt wil ——= a Barina oie évidence.AFFIDAVIT OF DESISTANCE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES CITY OF MANILA ) SS. |, Juan del la Cruz, of legal age, single, and a resident of #123 Main St., Malate, Manila, after having duly sworn to in accordance with law hereby depose and state: That l am the complaining witness for Serious Physical Injuries against Jesus Santos inthe case entitled “People ofthe Philippines versus Jesus Santos", Criminal Case No, 12345, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch No. 11, City of Manila. That, after my sober and soul-searching assessment and analysis of the incident, I have realized that because | was mot wearing my eyeglasses and it was dark, | cannot point out beyond doubt the accused or any other person/s ‘who inflicted harm against me. That, since | could not state with certainty and without doubt the liability of Jesus Santos, infairness tahim,! am permanently withdrawing my complaint against him. clear him af whatever responsibilty or liability ta me. aThat, | hereby inform the City Prosecutor of Manila that | am withdrawing my complaint for Serious Physical Injures in Criminal Case No, 12345 entitled “People ofthe Philippines versus Jesus Santos", Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch No. 11, City of Manila. That, likewise request the Metropolitan Trial Cour, Branch No. 11, City of Manila to dismiss with prejudice the said criminal case, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, | hereby set my hand this_day of September 20__at the City of Manila. Juan de la Cruz Complaining Witness SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 22nd day of January 20__ at the Cty of Manila, Pippines. Jose P David Public Prosecutor AREPLY AFFIDAVIT Definition: A Reply, Affidavit fat) be lefined as an affidavit served in coyrt proceedings in which a deponent responds to pnother party's evidence where that party’s evidence was itsel ip fespo sé to eyidence sk ed by the party serving the reply affidavit. (bated: jay 9,(nats. OCC.) INC. KATHERINE SAN JUAN y BELANO NISSA MAQUILING y EROY JEANN LAWAT y ABELLA Respondents. Department af the Philippines DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE National Prosecution Service Hall of Justice, Capitol, Qrequigta city FOR: QUALIFIED THEFT THRU FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC/PRIVATE DOCUMENTS.REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES: PROVINCE OF MISAMIS OCCIDENTAL MUNICIPALITY OF CALAMBA ) 5.5. REPLY-AFFIDAVIT (Re. 22 October 2014 Counter-Affidavit of Respondent Nissa 2. Maquiling) COMES NOW COMPLAINANT, represented by the undersigned Bank Manager, of legal age, Filipino, single and with residence address at c/o Rural Bank of Plariclel (Misamis Occidental), Inc., Looe Proper, Plaridel, Misamis Occidental, unto this Honorable Provincial Prosecutor, most respectfully alleges, In Reply to the Counter-Affidavit of Respondent NissaZ. Maquiling, copy of which was actually received on 24 October 2014 through courier LAC, hereby depose: ‘That, Conspirsey of Respondent Nissa Z. Maquiling is supported by evidence and that absence of due diligence on the part of Respandent Nissa Z. Maquiling to deter the occurrence of losses due to the acts of her subordinate Respondent Katherine Jane B. San Juan (then Teller) having knowledge of the same is clearly an act of conspiring: ‘That, Needless to state that Respondent Nissa Z. Maquiling has knowledge of the anomalies af Respondent Katherine Jane B. San Juan when she allowed an 29 October 2013 the use of a pre-slened withdrawal slip to hide or conceal unaccounted amount or shortage; ‘That, even if the use of a pre-signed withdrawal slip had the permission by the account holder/s 2s alleged by Respondent Nissa 2. Maquiling cannot erase the illegal act she committed;That, the letter of authorization from Flora Talam was belatedly made and submitted after there was already ‘a charge against Respondents Nissa 2. Maquiling, Jean A. Lawat and Katherine Jane B. San Juan and worst of it after the act of allowing to use a pre-signed withdrawal slip had by this time transpired; That, the letter of authorization of one Flora M. Talam was dated 08 October 2014 but was subscribed and ‘sworn only on 17 October 2014 before Respondent Nissa Maquiling’s counsel Atty. Annemarie Acosta-Quiros recorded as Doc. No. 315; Page No. 63; Book No. 8 and Serias of 2014 in her (Atty. Quiros) Notarial Register; ‘That, the defense of Respondent Nissa E. Maquling, as having so many functions to perform won't justify her failure to check forged signatures and to deter the losses incurred by the Complainant; That, Respondent Nissa 2. Maqulling was not forced to pay the P70,000,00 and that there was previous ‘admission fram her that she was the one whe have used or benefited the amaunt, which admission gave the legal ground for the Complainant to demand payment of the same. In addition, if and whon she was not at fault then, she should nat allow herself to pay the amount; ‘That, Subsequent payment of Respondent Nissa Z. Maquiling won't obliterate her criminal liability. In Aurora Tamayo vs. People of the Philippines and Heirs of Pedro Sotto, G.R. No, 174698, July 28, 2008; the Court ruled that “soe, subsequent payments of the accused does not obliterate criminal liability” AND SO, glven and based on the above facts, most reputable witnesses, and overwhelming pieces of evidence duly presented, it is respectfully prayed of the Honorable Provincial Prosecutor that Respondent Nissa €, Maquiling together with the other Respondents be above-mentioned be held liable for Qualified Theft thru Falsification of Publie/Private Documents. 27 October 2022 at Calamba, Misamis Oriental, Philippines.CATHERINE X. DAGAYLOAN Affiant For the Complainant Rural Bank of Paridel( cc.) Inc. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN, to before me.on the date and place first-above writen, 2fflant declaring under oath that all the allegations n the foregoing Reply- Affidavit ae all rue and correct. | hereby certify that! have personally ‘examined the afflant and | am satisfied that she voluntarily executed and understood all the contents hereof, Doe. No. ATTY. OSCAR U. ABUZO PageNo,__; Notary Public Book No. Ccalamba, Misamis Occidental Series of 2022 Rall No. 10930218? Mo, 2068337 ‘My commission expires an Dec. 31, 2022 Explanation: Filing in Provincial Prosecutor Office and service to the adverse counsel are done thru registered mail due to distance and impracticabilty of personal service. CATHERINE D. DAGAYLOAN Copy furnished: Atty. Annemarie Acosta-Quiras Counsel for Respondents Poblacion 1, Oroquieta City