Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DEPARMENT OF JUSTICE
-versus-
DINA C. PEREZ,
Respondent,
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
1.
KONTRA SALAYSAY as being the truth and nothing but the truth on
the transaction that occurred between the former and complainant;
2.
same
is
of
no
moment,
because
respondent
nevertheless,
amount
of
ONE
HUNDRED
FORTY
THOUSAND
PESOS
3.
been her stand, the only thing is that the complainant wants to impose
an interest that is shocking, immoral and contrary to public policy. While
it may be true that the parties herein may stipulate on the amount of
interest to be paid. It does not mean that the respondent is not without
remedy to contest the unreasonable interest. Respondent is not reneging
on her contractual obligation but she want to make it clear, that like the
complainant who has the right to collect, she too has the corresponding
right to question the extremely unconscionable interest impose on her ;
4.
did not submit a fake title as collateral. Transfer certificate of Title No.
897787, she used as a collateral intact and is with the Registry of Deeds
of the Province of Cavite. To prove respondents good faith, she wrote a
letter to the Registry of Deeds for the Province of Cavite, requesting for a
2
5.
Respondent
was
honest
in
so
admitting
it
to
the
complainant. Why would she now claim that respondent fake a title? It
seems that complainant getting too far to criminally induct respondent
for a crime she did not commit. For sure, contracting a loan is not a
criminal offense. No law says that such act is criminal.;
6.
Yes
respondent
do
ignored
the
calls
of
complainant
sometimes, but the same is not avoidance to pay the loan, but simply to
prevent the complainant from hurling unsavory language to respondent.
Complainant was to insistent to charge a unconscionable and shocking
interest and respondent was an unwilling victim to fall into this prey.
Respondent was greatly in need and such should not he taken against
her, if she swallowed an interest against her will;
7.
8.
All told, the case for estafa be should be dismissed for lack of
Respectfully submitted,
DINA C. PEREZ
Affiant