Republic of the Philippines)

Quezon City )S.S.

AFFIDAVIT COMPLAINT

I, NOEL M. LUZUNG, of legal age, Filipino, and a resident of Brgy. San Agustin, City
of San Fernando Pampanga after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, hereby
depose and states that:

1. I am presently an employee and authorized representative of 123 Bus Line, Inc.,

who has been duly authorized to file this complaint for FALSIFICATION OF PRIVATE
DOCUMENT on behalf of 123 Bus Line, Inc. (hereafter, “bus company”), a corporation duly
organized under Philippine laws and with business address at Barangay Dolores, City of San
Fernando, Pampanga against a certain EIAN CHAN, of legal age and a resident of Brgy. Dagat
dagatan, Tondo, Manila and a certain FAYE MANIKIS, of legal age, Filipino, and a resident of
97 harvard St., G. Rodriguez, Cubao, Quezon City, as evidenced by a Secretary’s Certificate, a
copy of which is attached as Annex “A”;

2. As part of standard operational procedures, employees of the bus company are

issued identification cards (hereafter, “IDs”) which bear the authenticated signature of our
President and General Manager Bernardo Bernarda, Jr. Employees are required to use and
exhibit their IDs during work hours;

3. On August 18, 2001, the bus company filed a criminal complaint against EIAN
CHAN for estafa through misappropriation of company. The Office of the City Prosecutor of
Quezon City found probable cause to charge him for Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1 (b) of
the Revised Penal Code. EIAN CHAN was terminated from his employment for the said offense;

4. However, it has come to our collective knowledge that EIAN CHAN and his
cohort FAYE MANIKIS continue to loiter around the bus terminal infront of Ali Mall at Araneta
Center, Cubao, as barkers for several bus companies there;

5. I also learned that CHAN and MANIKIS were able to procure the production of
their own 123 Bus Line company IDs despite the fact that they are not presently employed by the
bus company;

6. I learned that they procure the fabrication of their falsified IDs from a quick
service ID maker somewhere in Cubao. Worse, they have even induced and enticed some
employees of 123 Bus Lines, Inc. to order from them unauthorized PVC-type, (ATM card-
looking) IDs for profit. Attached as Annex B, C and D are affidavit of just some of those
employees who can attest that Ragas and Toledo are engaged in the said illegal activity;

6. Recently, CHAN and MANIKIS even used the said falsified IDs in the baseless,
unfounded and unsubstantiated illegal dismissal case which they filed against the bus company.
Attached as Annex E is a copy of the Position Paper which they filed in the “EIAN CHAN and
FAYE MANIKIS vs 123 Bus Lines, Inc. and Bernardo Bernarda, Jr.”, docketed as NLRC RAB
No. NCR Case No. NCR-12-34567-08, with the National Labor Relations Commission.
Attached as part of the annexes are photocopies of their falsified IDs;
7. In their Reply to the said Position Paper, a copy of which is attached as Annex F,
the respondents therein asserted that the 123 Bus Line IDs which were exhibited as proof of
employment of CHAN and MANIKIS are actually fabricated and falsified;

8. Quoted hereunder are the allegations of the respondents in the said Reply, which
are also relevant for purposes of the present criminal complaint:

1
“The identification cards are fabricated and falsified.

To underscore their malicious scheme, complainants have resorted to

procuring the production of their own identification cards despite the fact that
they are not employees and are not authorized to secure identification cards for
themselves.

Complainants have apparently ordered the fabrication of their

identification cards from a quick-service ID maker somewhere in Cubao. In fact,
they have even enticed some employees of PP Bus Lines, Inc. that they can get
new IDs fro them. Attached as Annexes A, B, C, and D are affidavits of these
employees who can attest that the IDs of the complainants are not genuine and
that the complainant Ragas even volunteered to some employees that he can get
for them modern-looking IDs for P150.00, apparently at a profit of P50 per ID. It
was a money-making scheme for complainant Ragas.

A comparison of the complainants’ identification cards and the

identification cards of five (5) genuine employees of the 123 Bus Line, Inc. would
instantly reveal the following glaring differences:

a. The complainants’ IDs apparently are of the modern, PVC type while the
genuine 123 Bus Line, Inc. employees’ IDs are of the old-fashioned,
laminated plastic type;

b. The complainants’ IDs have a different format that the genuine 123 Bus
Line, Inc. employees’ IDs, as follows:

1. The complainants’ IDs display their signatures at the back portion

while the genuine employees’ IDs display their signature at the front
portion.

2. The complainants’ IDs show that their names and position are not
typewritten but neatly printed while the genuine employees’ IDs show
that their names and positions are typewritten and skewed.

3. The complainants’ IDs show that the personal information are not
typewritten but neatly printed while the genuine employees’ IDs show
that their personal information are typewritten and skewed.
4. The fonts and sizes of the text of CHAN and MANIKI’s IDs and
genuine employees’ IDs are remarkably different.

c. CHAN and MANIKIS used the business name “123 BUS LINE” in their
IDs. On the other hand, the genuine employees’ IDs clearly sport the
correct business or corporate name of the bus company, “123 BUS LINE,
INC.”

Attached as Annexes E, F, G, and H are photocopies of genuine company

IDs. Respondents are ready to present the original for comparison with the
original of the complainants’ IDs.”

(underscoring ours)

9. It was also pointed out in the said Reply that CHAN and MANIKIS likewise

2
presented a fabricated and falsified cash voucher, to wit:

“The cash voucher is likewise fabricated and falsified.

Again, the complainants’ malicious ways are shown when they presented
a fabricated and falsified cash voucher just to establish that they are employees
of the bus company.

Unfortunately for the complainants, their attempt at falsification is quite

glaring. Again, a comparison of complainants’ cash voucher vis-a-vis the genuine
company cash voucher would reveal that there are a noticeable dissimilarities
and differences between the two.

For instance:

a. The complainants’ cash voucher does not display the bus company name,
office address and telephone while the genuine company cash voucher
display such vital information.

b. The fonts and the sizes of the text used for both cash vouchers are
different.

c. The complainants’ cash voucher does not show any signature in the space
reserved for “approved” while the genuine company cash voucher shows
the signature of the bus company president.

d. The complainants’ cash voucher refers to “PP Bus Line” while the
genuine cash voucher refers to “PP Bus Line, Inc.”.

Attached as Annexes J and K are photocopies of genuine company cash

vouchers. Respondents are also ready to present the originals thereof for
comparison with the original of the alleged cash voucher in the possession of the
complainants.”

(underscoring ours)

10. By reason of the said unlawful acts of Gaudencio Ragas and Rolando Toledo,
they have committed Falsification of Private Documents punishable under Article 172 of the
Revised Penal Code, to wit:

Article 172. Falsification by private individuals and use of falsified

documents. - The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum
periods and a fine of not more than 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon:

1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the falsifications

enumerated in the next preceding article in any public or official document or
letter of exchange or any other kind of commercial document; and

2. Any person who, to the damage of a third party, or with the intent to
cause such damage, shall in any private document commit any of the acts of
falsification enumerated in the next preceding article.

Any person who shall knowingly introduce in evidence in any judicial

3
 proceeding or to the damage of another or who, with the intent to cause such
damage, shall use any of the false documents embraced in the next preceding
article, or in any of the foregoing subdivisions of this article, shall be punished by
the penalty next lower in degree.

(underscoring ours)

The elements of the crime of falsification of private document (Art. 172 (2)) are:

1. That the offender committed any of the acts of falsification, except those in paragraph 7,
enumerated in Art. 171.
2. That the falsification was committed in any private document.
3. That the falsification caused damage to a third party or at least the falsification was
committed with intent to cause such damage.

11. It is clear that CHAN and MANIKIS have falsified the company IDs and the
cash voucher to falsely establish employment with the bus company and to falsely claim
backwages, damages and attorney’s fees from the bus company. As a result, the bus company
incurred litigation expenses and attorney’s fees to defend itself from the unfounded illegal
dismissal complaint; and

12. I am executing this Complaint-Affidavit to prove the truth and veracity of the
aforecited facts for the purpose of filing a criminal complaint for Falsification of Private
Documents against EIAN CHAN, Jr. and FAYE MANIKIS.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ___th day of December,
2008 at Quezon City.

NOEL M LUZUNG
Affiant

SUBSCRIPTION/CERTIFICATION

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ____th day of December 2008 at

Quezon City. I hereby certify that I have personally examined the affiant and that I am satisfied
that she has voluntarily executed and has fully understood the contents of her affidavit-
complaint.

ASST. CITY PROSECUTOR