REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
PASIG CITY, BRANCH 68

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Complainant,

-versus- Criminal Case No. 109865-68

For: Violation of B.P. 22

LENY U. AFABLE
LOISA H. VILLAFLOR,
Accused.
x……………………………………………………..x

COMMENT / OPPOSITION
(TO THE PROSECUTION’S FORMAL OFFER OF EVIDENCE)

The accused, through the undersigned counsel de officio, unto this

Honorable Court, by way of Comment / Opposition to the Prosecution’s Formal
Offer of Documentary Evidence, respectfully states:

Exhibit A to A-1 ……………. Admitted as to its existence, the same

being part of the records of these cases. All other purposes are hereby denied for
being self-serving.

Exhibit B to B-2 ……………. Admitted as to its existence, the same

being part of the records of these cases. The purpose for which it is being offered
is hereby denied for being self-serving.

Exhibit C to C-3 …………….. Admitted as to the existence, the same

being part of the records of these cases. All other purposes for which they are
being offered are hereby denied for being self-serving.

Exhibit D to D-3 …………….. Admitted as to the existence, the same

being part of the records of these cases. All other purposes for which they are
being offered are hereby denied for being self-serving.

Exhibit E to E-3 …………….. Admitted as to the existence, the same

being part of the records of these cases. All other purposes for which they are
being offered are hereby denied for being self-serving.
 Exhibit F to F-3 …………………… Admitted as to its existence, the same
being part of the records of these cases. The purpose for which it is being offered
is hereby denied for being self-serving.

Exhibit G to G-1 …………………… Vehemently denied and objected by

the accused for the reason that the accused never received said demand letter
personally and actually. It is to be noted that B. P. 22 or the Bouncing Check Law
explicitly provides in Sec. 2 the receipt of such notice by the accused personally or
actually.

Exhibit H to H-1 …………………… Vehemently denied and objected by

the accused for the reason that the accused never received said demand letter
personally and actually. It is to be noted that B. P. 22 or the Bouncing Check Law
explicitly provides in Sec. 2 the receipt of such notice by the accused personally or
actually.

Exhibit I to I-1 …………………… These documents are being objected

by the accused due to the fact that they were not properly identified by Mr.
Rommel Dela Cruz since he was not presented during the trial. Hence, the said
Affidavit of Service as well as the signature affixed over the printed name of Mr.
Rommel Dela Cruz are denied for being hearsay.

Exhibit J to J-1 …………………… Admitted as to its existence, the

same being part of the records of these cases. The purpose for which it is being
offered is hereby denied for being self-serving.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed unto

the Honorable Court that the foregoing Comment/Opposition be considered in

the evaluation of the merits of the above-entitled case.

It is likewise prayed for such other relief as may be just and equitable

under the premises.

Pasig City, March 28, 2012.

 Department of Justice
PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
3/F DSWD Rescue Center Bldg.,
City Hall Complex, Pasig City

By:

CHARISSE KAY J. DEL CAMPO

Public Attorney I
Roll No. 59693
IBP No.887299
Admitted to the Bar 2011

Cc:

Hon. Pedro M. Oribe

Public Prosecutor
Office of the City Prosecutor
Pasig City