Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 73 views

    People v. Mcmahon-Counter Affidavit

    Uploaded by

    Amado Vallejo III
    Stephanie McMahon is charged with three counts of violating the Bouncing Checks Law for issuing post-dated checks to Roman Reigns that bounced. In her counter-affidavit, she denies the accusations and provides her version of events. She explains that she met Roman online in 2014 and he supplied her with cellphones to sell. When she needed more phones, they entered a contract where she paid with post-dated checks. However, some of the phones were not brand new as promised, so she asked Roman to replace them before she paid. When he did not, the checks bounced. She maintains her innocence and requests acquittal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People v. Mcmahon-Counter Affidavit

    Uploaded by

    Amado Vallejo III
    73 views6 pages
    Stephanie McMahon is charged with three counts of violating the Bouncing Checks Law for issuing post-dated checks to Roman Reigns that bounced. In her counter-affidavit, she denies the accusations and provides her version of events. She explains that she met Roman online in 2014 and he supplied her with cellphones to sell. When she needed more phones, they entered a contract where she paid with post-dated checks. However, some of the phones were not brand new as promised, so she asked Roman to replace them before she paid. When he did not, the checks bounced. She maintains her innocence and requests acquittal.

    Original Description:

    this is a counter affidavit

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Stephanie McMahon is charged with three counts of violating the Bouncing Checks Law for issuing post-dated checks to Roman Reigns that bounced. In her counter-affidavit, she denies the accusations and provides her version of events. She explains that she met Roman online in 2014 and he supplied her with cellphones to sell. When she needed more phones, they entered a contract where she paid with post-dated checks. However, some of the phones were not brand new as promised, so she asked Roman to replace them before she paid. When he did not, the checks bounced. She maintains her innocence and requests acquittal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    73 views6 pages

    People v. Mcmahon-Counter Affidavit

    Uploaded by

    Amado Vallejo III
    Stephanie McMahon is charged with three counts of violating the Bouncing Checks Law for issuing post-dated checks to Roman Reigns that bounced. In her counter-affidavit, she denies the accusations and provides her version of events. She explains that she met Roman online in 2014 and he supplied her with cellphones to sell. When she needed more phones, they entered a contract where she paid with post-dated checks. However, some of the phones were not brand new as promised, so she asked Roman to replace them before she paid. When he did not, the checks bounced. She maintains her innocence and requests acquittal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 6

    People v.

    STEPHANIE MCMAHON 1
    For: Violation of BP 22

    Republic of the Philippines


    First Judicial Region
    Municipal Trial Court Br. 4
    Baguio City

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES


    Plaintiff,

    For: Violation
    of B.P. 22
    (Bouncing
    Checks Law)

    Versus

    STEPHANIE MCMAHON,
    Accused.
    x-----------------------------------------------------------x

    COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT

    I, STEPHANIE MCMAHON, of legal age, single,


    Filipino citizen and a resident of Giling, Rosales city,
    Pangasinan after having duly sworn to in accordance with
    law hereby depose and state that:
    :

    (1) I am the respondent in the aboveentitled case. I vehemently deny the


    accusations hurled against me, the same being

    People v. STEPHANIE MCMAHON 2


    For: Violation of BP 22

    a product of fabrication by the complainant


    which the latter designed to accuse and
    implicate me to an offense which I did not and
    will never commit;

    (2) That the circumstances that led to the


    filing of this case are as follows:

    In 2014, I met ROMAN REIGNS (ROMAN, for brevity)


    through the internet, at the social media of Facebook.
    He sent me messages and he was very friendly.

    We enjoyed chatting and sending messages with


    each other, and I was entertained by his
    approachability. He said that he owns a cellphone shop
    and he sometimes supplies to cellphone shops
    throughout Baguio city, and that he wants me to be his
    friend.

    A few months thereafter, we met, together. He was very


    energetic in person, and sort of Palakaibigan, so he
    was able to get my confidence;

    ROMAN, all throughout the time, told me that he


    wanted to branch out and be a supplier also to
    Pangasinan of cellular phones, and that since I supply
    cellular phones to Rosales city, Pangasinan I then
    approached him to give me cellular phones to supply
    cellular phone shops in Rosales city, Pangasinan;

    Sometime in July, 2014, I approached ROMAN in his


    house at Happy Homes, Magsaysay avenue, Baguio City. I
    humbly asked that he give me 1 crate containing
    different kinds of brand new cellular phones, since the
    cellular phone shops needed it. He then gave me a
    crate containing brand new cellular phones.

    People v. STEPHANIE MCMAHON 3


    For: Violation of BP 22

    I was then able to pay him for the cellular phones.


    However, again, from December 2014 to June, 2015,
    I needed more cellular phones so asked him to supply
    again. He then agreed and so we entered into a
    contract of sale attached herein as annex A. He seemed
    so very trustworthy, financially trustworthy too, but I
    committed a grave mistake.
    `As payment, I issued several post-dated checks,
    with the following details, viz:

    METROBANK of BAGUIO CITY, is the drawee


    bank.
    1
    2
    3

    Account No.

    Account Name

    007-13551118-4
    007-13551118-4
    007-13551118-4

    Stephanie Mcmahon
    Stephanie Mcmahon
    Stephanie Mcmahon

    Check
    No.
    310638
    5
    310638
    2
    310638
    4

    Date
    Jul. 9,
    2015
    Jul 11,
    2015
    Jul. 13,
    2015

    Amount
    (Pesos)
    300,000.
    00
    300,000.
    00
    100,000.
    00

    At the time that I issued the said checks, I assured


    ROMAN that said checks are good checks and would be
    covered by sufficient funds when presented for payment;
    A copy of the subject checks are hereto attached as
    Annexes1 B, C and D of this Counter-Affidavit.
    On the dates of the checks maturity, ROMAN
    presented these to the bank for payment the following
    checks, to wit:
    METROBANK of Baguio City, is the drawee bank.
    Account No.

    111B-1
    BA

    Account Name

    Check No.

    Date

    11Check
    No. 3106385 (Metrobank, as the drawee bank)
    Check No. 3106384
    3106382 (Metrobank, as the drawee bank)

    Amount

    People v. STEPHANIE MCMAHON 4


    For: Violation of BP 22
    1
    2
    3

    007-135-51118-4
    007-135-51118-4
    007-135-51118-4

    (Pesos)
    3106385
    Jul. 9, 2015
    53,500
    Stephanie Mcmahon
    3106382
    Jul. 11, 2015
    21,400
    Stephanie Mcmahon
    3106384
    Jul. 13, 2015
    10,500
    Sum: SEVEN HUNDREN THOUSAND PESOS (P700,000.00)
    Stephanie Mcmahon

    But I already said to him that he should not present the check
    since it will be insufficient to cover the 2 crates I ordered since
    I will carry the cash in hand to pay him as evidenced by this
    acknowledgement receipt herein attached as Annex E.

    Furthermore, I demanded ROMAN to replace some of


    the cellular phones since it was not brand new, some
    were only sealed in the boxes but when it was inspected,
    it is undeniably not brand new, so when he demanded
    payment, I asked him to replace some cellular phone
    which he did not heed therefore I did not pay him. I
    trusted him, to honor the contract but he destroyed my
    trust for defrauding me and supplying not brand new
    phones, but used phones.
    There was also a mediation in a Lupon, but it was in
    vain, hence, a certificate to file action was issued to me.
    After the case is filed against me, ROMAN kept his
    distance from me. I tried to contact him, to replace the
    cellular phones and I will pay him, but he always ignor my
    calls and every time I go to his house, he does not answer
    my knock and shouts.

    The summary of annexes are hereto tabulated, as follows:

    Annex

    Description

    Deed of Sale

    Check No. 3106385 (Metrobank, as the drawee bank)

    Check No. 3106382 (Metrobank, as the drawee bank)

    Check No. 3106384 (Metrobank, as the drawee bank)

    People v. STEPHANIE MCMAHON 5


    For: Violation of BP 22

    Acknowledgement Receipt

    Certificate to File Action

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most


    respectfully prayed of the Honorable Municipal Trial Court
    in the City that after trial on the merits, Honorable
    Municipal Trial Court in the City of Baguio will Acquit
    STEPHANIE MCMAHON for the crime of three (3) counts
    of violation of B.P. 22.
    27

    th

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand this


    day of July, 2015 in Baguio City, Philippines.
    STEPHANIE MCMAHON
    Defendant
    ID 59495860

    Republic of the Philippines


    Province of Benguet
    City of Baguio
    x-----------------------------x

    )
    )
    ) s.c.

    SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, this 27th day of July,


    2015 in Baguio City, Philippines.

    People v. STEPHANIE MCMAHON 6


    For: Violation of BP 22
    This is also to certify that I have personally examined herein affiant
    and that I am satisfied that she voluntarily executed and understood her
    statements herein.
    Doc. No. 34;
    Page No. 22;
    Book No. 12
    Series of 2015
    Pangasinan

    Atty. Mary Rose Paus


    Notary Public for and in Rosales city,
    Commission expires on 31 December

    2016
    Roll of Attorneys No. 55661
    IBP Lifetime Member No. 4590754
    PTR O.R. No. 6978354. Feb. 7, 2015

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy