You are on page 1of 9

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT


NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 26, MANILA

JEFFREY L. MEDINA, doing


business under the name and style
JLM CUSTOMS BROKERAGE,
Plaintiff,

-versus- Civil Case No. 16-135991

CONRADO BALTAZAR PEŇA, JR.,


Defendant.
x----------------------------------------------x

JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT
-------------------------------------------

I. The Examination of the witness, JEFFREY L. MEDINA, was done, and


his testimony taken, by Atty. Kenneth C. Radaza at the latter’s office located
at Suite 501 Legaspi Towers 200, 107 Paseo de Roxas, Legaspi Village,
Makati City on June 11, 2018.

II. Purpose of the Offer of Testimony:

1. To prove the relevant circumstances surrounding the transaction


subject matter of this case which are of personal knowledge to the
witness;

2. To prove the amount involved and the damage caused to the plaintiff
by the defendant as a result of the latter’s fraudulent conduct;

3. To explain the details of the entries in the Acknowledgment Receipts


relevant to the transaction subject matter hereof;

4. To corroborate the statements of other witnesses;

5. To prove other relevant matters.


1
III. Questions and Answers:

1. Q: Can you tell us please your name, age, address and present
occupation?
A: My name is Jeffrey L. Medina, of legal age, Filipino citizen, single
and with office address at 232-B, Regina Building, Escolta, Manila. I
am a customs broker and own JLM Customs Brokerage;

2. Q: Are you aware and fully conscious that you are testifying under oath
and that you may face criminal liability for false testimony or perjury
in the event that it is established that your testimonies are in fact lies
and falsehood?
A: Yes sir, I am aware and fully conscious that my answers to your
questions are under oath and that I can be prosecuted criminally for
false testimony or perjury for any falsehood that I will offer in answer
to your questions.

3. Q: As a customs broker, what do you do?


A: As a customs broker, I facilitate the entry of my client’s imported
cargoes though various Philippine ports as well as the release thereof
from said ports. Among the services that I provide to my clients is
cargo handling, which includes settlement of all fees and charges on
the cargoes with shipping lines and storage facilities;

4. Q: Do you know the defendant in this case?


A: Yes sir.

5. Q: Why do you know him?


A: Because we contracted his services to secure the release of our client’s
container vans from the custody and premises of SITC Container Line
in Manila;

6. Q: To whom specifically did these container vans belong?


A: To our client, Plasticbags, Inc.;

7. Q: How many container vans were involved?


A: ten (10) container vans;

8. Q: Do you have proof to establish the existence of those container vans?


A: Yes sir. We have documents from the Bureau of Customs reflecting
that those cargoes are contained in ten (10) 40-footer containers.

9. Q: If those documents would be shown to you, would you be able to


identify the same?
A: Yes sir.

10. Q: I am showing to you two (2) documents from the Bureau of Customs,
are these the same documents you are referring to?
2
A: Yes sir.

-Mark the documents “B-2” and “B-3,” respectively.

11. Q: Why did SITC Container Line release the container vans immediately
to you or to your client’s representatives?
A: SITC Container Lines withheld the release of the container vans
pending payment of demurrage and storage fees amounting to Ten
Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00) in total for those cargoes;

12. Q: Why did you or your client not pay the amount you mentioned right
away to secure the release of the container vans?
A. We found the aforesaid fees and charges too high and wanted to
negotiate with SITC Container Lines for a lower amount;

13. Q: What then did you do?


A: Because we thought the amount was unreasonably high, I requested
my father, who is my silent partner in this business, to look for a
person who knew some people in SITC Container Lines and who has
the necessary power and influence to convince SITC Container Lines’
management to lower the charges to a more acceptable level;

14. Q: What did your father do?


A: After a while, my father informed me that a person named Conrado
Baltazar Peña, Jr., the defendant in this case, whom he knew from
before, has represented to him that he knew the officers of SITC
Container Lines and that he has the necessary power and influence
over them. He asserted that he can easily have the demurrage fees and
storage costs, including arrastre fee, reduced to just Three Million Six
Hundred Eleven Thousand Pesos (P3,611,00.00) – that is Three
Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P3,500,000.00) for storage
costs and demurrage and One Hundred Eleven Thousand Pesos
(P111,000.00) as arrastre fee;

15. Q: What was reaction to this?


A: We found defendant’s representation attractive and decided to retain
his services and went along with his plan trusting fully well in his
ability to settle our concern;

16. Q: What then did you do?


A: We then scheduled a meeting with him at our office in Escolta, Manila
on May 8, 2015. Present during the meeting were my father Joel
Medina, our Administrative Manager, Ms. Remelyn P. Mesia, myself
and, of course, the defendant. During our discussion, the defendant
again asserted that he has the necessary power and influence over
some officers of SITC Container Lines considering that they are in the
same industry and know each other very well. He confidently claimed
that he can absolutely have the fees and charges reduced to just Three
3
Million Six Hundred Eleven Thousand Pesos (P3,611,00.00) and
secure the release of the ten (10) container vans;

17. Q: And how did the meeting go?


A: The defendant, my father and I all agreed that defendant’s fees shall
be Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) to be paid to him on
a success fee basis – that is upon the complete release of all the ten
(10) containers. The entire Three Million Five Hundred Thousand
Pesos (P3,500,00.00) was intended to cover the storage costs and
demurrage and was supposed to be paid by respondent directly to
SITC Container Lines, and the One Hundred Eleven Thousand Pesos
(P111,000.00) was supposed to be paid to the arrastre operator;

18. Q: What did you do next?


A: Convinced that defendant was true to his words, we personally handed
over to him in cash during our meeting on May 8, 2015 in our office
in Escolta, Manila the amount of Two Million Five Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P2,500,000.00) as partial payment of the Three
Million Six Hundred Eleven Thousand Pesos (P3,611,00.00) that he
asked to secure the release of the ten (10) container vans from SITC
Container Lines. It was my father who personally gave to him the
amount of cash aforementioned in the presence of everyone in the
meeting, which respondent claimed to be intended for the payment of
storage costs and demurrage. We promised to give him the balance the
following day;

19. Q: What is your proof that you indeed gave money to defendant?
A: We have him sign an Acknowledgment Receipt in our presence
simultaneous with us giving him the money.

20. Q: If that Acknowledgment Receipt would be shown to you, would you


be able to identify the same?
A: Yes sir.

21. Q: I am showing to you an Acknowledgment Receipt previously marked


as Exhibit “A-2” and “A-3,” is this the same Acknowledgment
Receipt you are referring to?
A: Yes sir.

22. Q: At the bottom portion of this document is a signature marked as


Exhibit “A-3,” do you know whose signature is this?
A: That is defendant’s signature.

23. Q: Why do you know that the same is his signature?


A: I was present when he signed that document.

24. Q: And then what happened after your meeting with the defendant on
May 8, 2015?

4
A: The next day, May 9, 2015, we again met at our office in Regina
Building, Escolta, Manila. The same people were present during the
meeting - my father, Ms. Mesia, respondent and myself. As promised,
we completed the payment to him by handing over to him One
Hundred Eleven Thousand Pesos (P111,000.00) in cash and One
Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) in the form of check (Eastwest Bank
0637328).

25. Q: Do you have proof to show that you indeed give those money and
check to defendant?
A: Yes sir.

26. Q: What proof do you have?


A: We also asked him to sign an Acknowledgment Receipt and we had
the check that we handed over to him, as well as his identification
card, photocopied for our records.

27. Q: If that Acknowledgment Receipt would be shown to you, would you


be able to identify the same?
A: Yes sir.

28. Q: I am showing to you and Acknowledgment Receipt previously marked


as Exhibits “A-4” and “A-5,” is this the same Acknowledgment
Receipt you are referring to?
A: Yes sir.

29. Q: At the bottom portion of this document is a signature marked as


“Exhibit A-5,” do you know whose signature is this?
A: That is defendant’s signature.

30. Q: Why do you know that the same is his signature?


A: I was present when he signed that document.

31. Q: You also mentioned about you giving a check to defendant and having
it photocopied beforehand, as well as a photocopy of his identification
card, if that check and photocopy of identification card would be
shown to you, would you be able to identify the same?
A: Yes sir.

32. Q: I am showing to you a check in the amount of One Million


(P1,000,000.00) Pesos, and a photocopy of the identification card of
the defendant, which were previously marked as Exhibits “A-6” and
“A-7” and “A-8” and “A-9,” are these the documents you mentioned?
A: Yes sir.

33. Q: Going back to the Acknowledgment Receipts marked as Exhibits “A-


2” to “A-5,” I noticed that the name of the defendant is written after
the word “Payor” in both Acknowledgment Receipts, can you explain
to this court why it appears from the face of the document that it was
5
the defendant who gave out money rather than him receiving money
from you?
A: Because we were just starting in the brokerage business, we lack
appropriate forms for every transaction, and the form that we use
sometimes does not exactly reflect accurately the nature and
circumstances of the transactions that we do. While on the face of the
Acknowledgment Receipts it may initially give the impression that it
was defendant who gave us the money, the truth of the matter is that it
was us who gave money to the defendant. As a matter of fact, we
asked him to sign on the Acknowledgment Receipts (see bottom right
portion beside the caption “Signature”) as proof of his receipt of the
sum of money aforementioned from us, and his signed the documents
in our personal presence. As may be noted, those signatures are
identical to the signature appearing on defendant’s Postal
Identification Card (See Exhibit “A-8”). There is no logic in defendant
affixing his signature on the Acknowledgment Receipt if it were him
who gave money to us. Moreover, the purpose of the payment after
the caption “Particulars” clearly showed what the money was for and
such purpose is consistent with what we have been saying all along
that we contracted defendant’s services to secure the release of our
client’s containers from SITC Containers Lines;

34. Q: Do you have further proof to substantiate what you have just stated?
A: As proof of the foregoing facts, I am presenting three (3) other
examples of Acknowledgment Receipts reflecting payments that we
made and yet the payee’s name is placed after the caption “Payor,”
similar to what happened with our transaction with respondent. As
may be noted at the bottom portion thereof with a caption “Paid By”
there are identical signatures appearing thereon indicating who paid
the money. Those signatures belong to our Administrative Manager
Ms. Remelyn P. Mesia. I know her signature because I have asked her
to sign many documents in my presence in many instances in the
course of her employment with us;

-mark the first document as “B-4,” the signature of Ms. Mesia


beside the caption “Paid by” as “B-5” and the signature beside the
caption “Signature” as “B-6”; the second document as “B-7,” the
signature of Ms. Mesia beside the caption “Paid by” as “B-8” and
the signature beside the caption “Signature” as “B-9”; and the
third document as “B-10”; the signature of Ms. Mesia beside the
caption “Paid by” as “B-11” and the signature beside the caption
“Signature” as “B-12.”

Thus, while we were the one who paid or give out the money in those
instances mentioned earlier, the “Payor” as appearing on those
Acknowledgment Receipts were actually the payees in those
transactions. The same thing happened in the Acknowledgment
Receipts (Exhibits “A-2” to “A-5”) that we asked the respondent to
sign;
6
Moreover, whenever we received money from clients or from
anybody for that matter, we also use the same Acknowledgment
Receipt form. To prove the same, I am presenting two (2) more
examples of our copy of the Acknowledgement Receipts that we used
to acknowledge our receipts of money. As may be noted on those
documents, the payor signed under the caption “Paid By” and our
Administrative Manager Ms. Remelyn P. Mesia signed under the
caption “Signature.” In those instances, we were the ones who
received the money, unlike in this transaction with respondent.

-mark the first document as Exhibit “B-13,” the signature beside


the caption “Paid by” as Exhibit “B-14,” and the signature beside
the caption “Signature” as Exhibit “B-15; the second document as
“B-16,” the signature beside the caption “Paid by” as B-17,” and
the signature of Ms. Mesia beside the caption “Signature as
Exhibit “B-18.”

Moreover, I was present when my father personally handed over our


money to defendant. I know this fact of my own personal knowledge
having witnessed the entire events with my own eyes. Besides, it does
not make sense for us to go after defendant and go through the
tedious, lengthy and expensive process of litigation in order to hold
him to account criminally (we filed separate criminal case docketed
as Crim. Case No. 16-324743, RTC Br. 54 Manila for estafa) and
civilly if it was indeed him who paid us money. It will only expose us
to counter suit, which is of course necessarily to our damage and
prejudice.

35. Q: After receiving the monies from you, what did defendant do?
A: After the defendant received the two (2) tranches of money on May 8
and 9, 2015, he suddenly disappeared. We went both to his house and
office several times but we failed to see him. We then went to SITC
Container Lines to find out if he had settled the storage costs and
charges with said entity but we found out that he did not do so and the
ten (10) containers that we were trying to release were still with SITC
Container Lines yard. We also discovered that he falsely represented
to us having power and influence over the concerned officials of SITC
Container Lines as he was not even known to those officers that we
talked to. After our meeting with these officers, we were able to
ascertain that he was not in a position to influence the officers into
reducing the storage costs and demurrage as he has not had any
working relationship with them before. He was not even known to
them;

36. Q: How did you feel about what happened?

7
A: I suffered mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings and
moral shock because of what defendant did. I lost my credibility to
my client, Plasticbags, Inc.; my name was completely tarnished
resulting in me failing to secure any further business with the latter;
my reputation was totally damaged in the industry. For quite
sometime, I could not sleep, I could not eat, and rarely went out of the
house because of the depressing development in my business. I was
only starting and very new to customs brokerage, and I did not
anticipate such failure early on;

37. Q: What did you do then?


A: Having left without anymore recourse, I retained the services of a
lawyer in the person of Atty. Kenneth C. Radaza for an agreed
attorney’s fees of P500,000.00 plus appearance fees of P5,000.00 per
appearance.

38. Q: If you are going to quantify, how much would you ask this court to
award to you?
A: I pray that defendant be ordered to pay me the amount of Two Million
Six Hundred Eleven Thousand Pesos (P2,611,000.00) plus interest at
the legal rate as and by way of actual damages.

In both cases, defendant should be ordered to pay plaintiff moral


damages of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00), exemplary damages
of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) and attorney’s fees in the
amount of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).

Defendant should likewise be ordered to pay for the cost of suit.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this


_________________ in Makati City.

JEFFREY L. MEDINA
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _________________


affiant exhibiting to me his Driver’s License which is valid until _____________.

Doc. No. ________;


Page No. ________;
Book No. ________;
Series of 2018
ATTESTATION

I, KENNETH C. RADAZA, under oath, do hereby state that:

8
1. I personally conducted the examination of Jeffrey L. Medina on June
11, 2018 at my office in Makati City;

2. In this regard, I faithfully recorded the questions that I asked and the
corresponding answers that she gave to those questions;

3. Neither I nor any other person coached the witness with regard to the
answers that Jeffrey L. Medina gave to my questions.

I am executing this Affidavit to attest to the truth of the foregoing.

KENNETH C. RADAZA

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ________________ affiant


exhibiting to me his IBP Card showing his Roll of Attorney’s No. 44434.

Doc. No. _______;


Page No. _______;
Book No. _______;
Series of 2018.

You might also like