Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice
Office of the Prosecutor
Manila

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Complainant,

-versus-

Accused, Ms. S

x----------------------------------------------------------x

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AFFIDAVIT

We, Mr. V and Mr. A, the undersigned, of legal age, and residents of Bacoor City,
Cavite and Dasmarinas City, Cavite respectively, accuse Ms. S of the crime of
Estafa, committed as follows:
1. In March 2018, through the initiative of Captain J., we met with Ms. S and
Mr. B to discuss investing into a diesel importation business.

2. Ms. S guaranteed us a return on investment within four (4) months.

3. We agreed to the terms and signed a memorandum of agreement with her,
which we were not given a copy of for unknown reasons.

4. Mr. V then issued a check worth Ten Million (P10,000,000.00) to Ms. S,

which was subsequently encashed by the latter and was debited to the
account of Mr. V.

5. Mr. A then issued a check worth Five Million Pesos (P5,000,000.00) which
was likewise encashed by Ms. S.

6. Simultaneous to the abovementioned checks, Ms. S issued two (2)

postdated checks dated July 2018 to Mr. V in the amount of Five Million
Pesos (P5,000,000.00) with the check numbers 002-003-004 and 003-004-
005 respectively.

7. Ms. S also issued a postdated check in the amount of Five Million Pesos
(P5,000,000.00) as assurance for the return on investment.

8. A few weeks later, we asked for an update regarding the investment, in

which we were assured by Ms. S that business was already in process.

9. Mr. V informed Ms. S that he will deposit the two postdated checks due to
financial constraints, to which Ms. S told him not to do since the checks
were not funded and would be dishonored for insufficiency of funds.

10.From July to September 2018, Mr. V tried contacting Ms. S demanding the
return of the investment in full, which the latter ignored.

11.The wife of Mr. V informed Ms. S that she will deposit the checks before
they become stale if Ms. S fails to fulfill her obligations.

12.Mr. V deposited the checks issued by Ms. S on December 18 before they

became stale.
 13.The checks were dishonored by reason of “payment stopped because it was
unfunded”.

14.Mr. A returned the postdated checks issued by Ms. S when the latter gave
him One Million Seven Hundred Thousand Pesos (P1,700,000.00) in cash.

15.Ms. S thereafter issued undated checks in the amount of One Million Pesos
(P1,000,000) and One Million One Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P1,100,000.00) to Mr. A.

16.In June 2019, Ms. S contacted us, informing us that she will settle her
obligations in full by selling her property to pay for the remaining balance
of Six Million Pesos (P6,000,000.00) to Mr. V and Three Million Three
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P3,300,000.00) to Mr. A.

17.Ms. S failed to fulfill her promise despite demand letters being sent on
December 2020 and January 15,2021.

18.On March 1, 2021, Mr. A decided to deposit the checks issued by Ms. S,
both of which were dishonored for the reason that the account was under
garnishment.

19.On March 9, 2021, we sent a Notice of Dishonor to Ms. S, but she still
failed to return the investment in full, giving excuses for her inability to
pay and asking for extensions to settle her obligations to us.

20.We are hereby executing this statement to charge Ms. S with violation of
Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code and Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.

Applicable Laws
The applicable laws to the case are as follows:
Article 315. Swindling (estafa). - Any person who shall defraud another by any of
the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:
 1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to
prision mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000
pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos, and if such amount exceeds the latter
sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum
period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty
which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in
connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed under the
provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion
temporal, as the case may be.

2nd. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium

periods, if the amount of the fraud is over 6,000 pesos but does not exceed
12,000 pesos;

3rd. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision

correccional in its minimum period if such amount is over 200 pesos but does
not exceed 6,000 pesos; and

4th. By arresto mayor in its maximum period, if such amount does not
exceed 200 pesos, provided that in the four cases mentioned, the fraud be
committed by any of the following means:
2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent
acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the
fraud:
(d) By post-dating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an
obligation when the offender therein were not sufficient to cover the
amount of the check. The failure of the drawer of the check to deposit
the amount necessary to cover his check within three (3) days from
receipt of notice from the bank and/or the payee or holder that said
check has been dishonored for lack of insufficiency of funds shall be
 prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent
act. (As amended by R.A. 4885, approved June 17, 1967.)

Ms. S committed Estafa under paragraph 2 of Art. 315 of the Revised Penal
Code, amended by R.A. 4885, which punishes the act of postdating a check
when the offender has no funds in the bank, or the funds deposited therein
were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check.

Her failure to pay after all this time despite notice from the payee that the
check has been dishonored can be held as prima facie evidence of deceit
constituting false pretense or fraudulent act.

As stated in People v. Reyes, 298 Phil. 661, to constitute estafa under this
provision, the act of postdating or issuing a check in payment of an
obligation must be the efficient cause of the defraudation; as such, it should
be either prior to or simultaneous with the act of fraud. The offender must
be able to obtain money or property from the offended party because of the
issuance of the check, whether postdated or not. It must be shown that the
person to whom the check was delivered would not have parted with his
money or property were it not for the issuance of the check by the other
party. Stated otherwise, the check should have been issued as an
inducement for the surrender by the party deceived of his money or
property and not in payment of a pre-existing obligation.

BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 22

AN ACT PENALIZING THE MAKING OR DRAWING AND ISSUANCE OF
A CHECK WITHOUT SUFFICIENT FUNDS OR CREDIT AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES.

Section 1. Checks without sufficient funds. - Any person who makes or

draws and issues any check to apply on account or for value, knowing at the
time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee
bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment, which check
is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or
credit or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer,
without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment, shall be punished
by imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not more than one (1) year or
by a fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the check
which fine shall in no case exceed Two Hundred Thousand Pesos, or both
such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.

The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who, having
sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank when he makes or draws
and issues a check, shall fail to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit
to cover the full amount of the check if presented within a period of ninety (90)
days from the date appearing thereon, for which reason it is dishonored by
the drawee bank.

Where the check is drawn by a corporation, company or entity, the

person or persons who actually signed the check in behalf of such drawer
shall be liable under this Act.

Section 2. Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds. - The making,

drawing and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the drawee
because of insufficient funds in or credit with such bank, when presented
within ninety (90) days from the date of the check, shall be prima facie
evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds or credit unless such
maker or drawer pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon, or makes
arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check within (5)
banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the
drawee.
Section 5. Liability under the Revised Penal Code. - Prosecution under
this Act shall be without prejudice to any liability for violation of any
provision of the Revised Penal Code.
 Ms. S has also committed a violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. As
stated in People v. Laggui, 171 SCRA 305, and People vs Manzanilla, 156 SCRA
279, the mere issuance of a bum check is considered a mala prohibitum. Ms. S was
well aware during the time she issued the checks that she did not have enough funds
to cover them, as she declared to Mr. V that the two postdated checks would not be
honored in a move to dissuade him from depositing them. We have already sent her
a written Notice of Dishonor, which she has received but constantly ignored.

(Sgd.) Mr. V

(Sgd.) Mr. A

JURAT
Subscribed and sworn personally before me on this 6th day of November, 2021 in
the city of Bacoor, Province of Cavite, Philippines, by Mr. V, with Driver’s
License No. D00–00–000001, issued in Dasmarinas City, Cavite, and Mr. A, with
Driver’s License No. A00–00–000002, issued in Bacoor City, Cavite.

(Sgd.) Atty. Juan Dela Cruz

IBP No. ___________
P.T.R No.______
Doc. No. ______
Page No. ______
Book No. ______
Series of 2021