REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
CITY OF MANILA

COMPANY A,
Complainant,

- versus -

SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP
B,
Respondent.

NPS DOCKET NO. ________

For: Estafa (Art. 315, par.
1(a))

_____________________________________________________________

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT
I, COMPANY A. (“A”), through its authorized representative
MR. X, most respectfully complain against the respondent for the
offense of Estafa (Art. 315, par. 1(a)) on the following presentation:

I.
THE PARTIES

1.1. The complainant A is a corporation duly organized and

existing under Philippine law with principal office address at 123
Wakanda St., Marvel City, and is represented herein by its Branch
Head, Mr. X (“X”).1

1
A copy of the Secretary’s Certificate attesting to A’s board resolution authorizing the filing of this
complaint, as well as the authority of its representative herein, is attached hereto as Annex “A”.
 2

1.2. The respondent in this Complaint for Estafa is Sole

Proprietorship B ("B"), a sole proprietorship organized and existing
under Philippine law with principal office address at 100 Privet Drive,
Hogsmeade City.

II.
STATEMENT OF FACTS

2.1. A is engaged in a lodging business, in the name of

“Azkaban Hotel”, located at 444 Diagon Alley City (“Azkaban Hotel –
Diagon Alley”). Sometime in October 2020, Azkaban Hotel – Diagon
Alley, were undergoing renovation. As part of the renovation plan, A,
through their Branch Head, X, aimed to replace all the old television
(“TV”) sets of the Azkaban Hotel – Diagon Alley, beginning at the
ground floor.

2.2. In December 2020, acting on the directive of X, the

purchasing officer Mr. Y (“Y”), started scouting for a TV supplier along
Do Woops and Hooligan Boulevard. He came across B while he was
canvassing for the best deal for their bulk order. At that time, B offered
the lowest price for the TV brand that the management of Azkaban
Hotel – Diagon Alley preferred, the “BERTIEBOTTS” brand. This
prompted Y to get B’s contact details.

2.3. We were later advised that the act of B also constitute as an

offense punishable under Par. 1(a), Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code,
as amended (“RPC”), thus:

Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). - Any person who shall defraud

another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be
punished by:

...

1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:

a. altering the substance, quantity, or quality of

anything of value which the offender shall deliver
by virtue of an obligation to do so, even though
such obligation be based on an immoral or illegal
consideration.

2.4. The Estafa punishable under Par. 1(a), Art. 315 of the RPC,
also known as Estafa with Unfaithfulness, has the following elements:
 3

(1) The offender has an onerous obligation to deliver something of

value;

(2) He alters its substance, quantity, or quality; and

(3) Damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused

to the offended party or third persons.2

2.5. In this offense, it is essential that there must be an existing

obligation to deliver something of value, and the offender on making
the delivery, has altered the substance, quantity, or quality of the thing
of the thing he delivered.3

2.6. Based on the foregoing, all the elements of the crime of

Estafa are present. First, it cannot be gainsaid that there is an existing
obligation between B, as seller, and A, as buyer, for the purchase and
sale of twenty-two (21) units of 32” “BERTIEBOTTS” TV with a
consideration in the amount of 100,000 Gringgots.

2.7. Second, without any consent from A, B insisted on

delivering TV units different from the one initially agreed upon by the
parties. It bears stressing that what was delivered was of poorer quality
than the one ordered by A, a fact of which can be seen in the note
reflected in the PO.

2.8. A specifically sought for the “BERTIEBOTTS” brand

because they already had an unsatisfactory experience with the
“CHOCOFROGS” brand, and yet, B delivered “CHOCOFROGS” TV
units. This is, undeniably, within the meaning of “altering the quality”
of the thing to be delivered under an existing obligation.

2.9. Third, B’s refusal to return the payment made by A despite

constant demands of A has caused pecuniary damage on the part of A,
the amount of which is capable of being determined. The check
payment of A, and the collection receipt issued by B to signify receipt of
the payment are solid proof that the actual damage caused to A is
worth 100,000 Gringgots.

2.10. Verily, respondent B should be made answerable for the

crime of Estafa under Par. 1(a), Art. 315 of the RPC since all the
elements are present in this case.

2.11. I am executing this Joint Complaint-Affidavit to attest to the

truth of the foregoing and to support A’s complaint against the above-
named respondent for Estafa (Par. 1(a), Art. 315), and/or for such other
2
REYES, The Revised Penal Code, Book Two (2021), pp. 967-971.
3
REYES, Book Two, supra at 971; People v. Gansai, C.A., 61 O.G. 3603.
 4

offenses as this Honorable Office may find warranted under the facts
and circumstances presented.

NOTHING FOLLOWS.

COMPANY A

By:

Mr. X
Branch Head of A

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ____ of January

2023 in Manila City, Metro Manila.

ASST. CITY PROSECUTOR

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have examined the complainant-

affiants, and that I am convinced that they fully understood and attest
to the truth of the foregoing Complaint-Affidavit for Estafa (Par. 1(a), Art.
315 of the RPC) against the above-named respondent.

ASST. CITY PROSECUTOR