Estafa (deceit/swindling) under Art. 315, Rev.

Penal Code
For legal research purposes of my readers, may I share the jurisprudential part of a motion for
reconsideration I have just filed with the office of the city prosecutor of a city in southern Metro
Manila seeking the indictment for estafa of the respondent therein. The investigating fiscal had
earlier indicted the respondent only for violation of BP Blg. !"ouncing check law#. I felt that
the respondent should "e likewise indicted for $stafa under %rt. &'( of the )ev. Penal *ode. I
removed all references to names of parties and the like.
M!"# $R REC#%"&ERA!"#
T+$ *,MP-%I.%.T, "y counsel, respectfully states/
'. ,n Marc' (), (*1( the complainant received via registered mail a copy of the )$0,-1TI,.,
dated March '&, 2', dismissing the complaint for 03.4I*%T$4 $0T%F% and indicting the
respondent 5 5 5 merely for violation of B.P. Blg. .
The '(
th
day of the complainant to file this motion e5pires on A+ril 11, (*1(.
,ence, t'is -otion.
. The complainant su"mits that the resolution erred in not indicting 5 5 5 at the very least for the
felony of regular or ordinar. E%!A$A under Art. 315 of t'e Rev. Penal Code !assuming,
arguendo, that P4 '678, re/ 0yndicated $stafa does not apply in the instant case#.
The complainant agrees, though, that 5 5 5 was correctly indicted for violation of B.P. Blg. .
!%s of this date, the complainant has paid the re9uisite filing and docket fees with the ,ffice of
the *lerk of *ourt of the Metropolitan Trial *ourt of 5 5 5 *ity, in the amount of -ore t'an
P/5, ***.**, so that the said case for violation of 0.P. 0lg. (( may forthwith proceed with
dispatch in the said *ourt#.
&. The complainant hum"ly su"mits that the resolution erred in finding that there was no estafa
!whether syndicated or regular:ordinary# "ecause the transaction was a simple loan; that what
motivated the complainant to issue his checks was not the malice or deceit of 0,. "ut the
complainant<s desire for interest inco-e.
The complainant will not contest anymore the issue of %.ndicated Estafa under P.4. .o. '678
"ut will simply focus herein on the sole issue of w'et'er or not 1 1 1 s'ould 'ave 2een
li3ewise indicted for t'e felon. of rdinar./Regular Estafa under Art. 315, Rev. Penal
Code.
4. The resolution failed to appreciate the points of law and fact raised "y the complainant in his
)eply=%ffidavit, to wit/
> 5 5.
4. Likewise, the resolution erred in not appreciating the proofs of deceit/malice described
in the Complaint as alleged bythe complainant, to wit:
> 5 5.
5. The complainant does not hae the duty to submit proofs of the none!istence of the
alleged ! ! ! "#$%&CT. 'ufficie it to state that upon the presentation by the complainat
in his Complaint of concrete allegations aboput the clear use by ! ! ! of the ! ! !
"#$%&CT as her e!press e!cuse to e!act money from the complainant, the ()#*&+ $,
&-.*&+C& had shifted to ! ! ! to proe the e!istence of the said "ro/ect to show the
purity of her intentions and conscience. (ut ! ! ! failed to do this.
0. L$1+ per se does not e!empt a criminal from indictment for estafa so long as it can be
proed, as is the factual mileu in the instant case, that the motie behind such a
transaction was deceit, swindling and malice on the part of the debtor/respondent.
2. 3e repeat hereinbelow what we had argued in our preious pleadings before this
4onorable $ffice.
5. .n the case of L.(&#1T1 16(.T$, (1'.L.$ 16(.T$, and C#.'1+T$ 16(.T$ s.
"&$"L& $, T4& "4.L."".+&' and C$)#T $, 1""&1L', 7.#. +o. 892:92, ,ebruary
8:, 9;;<, it was held that in the prosecution for &stafa under 1rticle :85, paragraph 9=a>
of the #"C,?8@ it is indispensable that the element of deceit, consisting in the false
statement or fraudulent representation of the accused, be made prior to, or at least
simultaneously with, the deliery of the thing by the complainantA and that false
pretense or fraudulent act must be committed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud, it being essential that such false statement or representation
constitutes the ery cause or the only motie which induces the offended party to part
with his money. Thus:
B! ! !.
The elements of &stafa by means of deceit, whether committed by false pretenses or
concealment, are the following C =a> that there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act
or fraudulent means. =b> That such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means
must be made or e!ecuted prior to or simultaneous with the commission of the fraud.
=c> That the offended party must hae relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or
fraudulent means, that is, he was induced to part with his money or property because of
the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means. =d> That as a result thereof, the
offended party suffered damage.?9@
.n the prosecution for &stafa under 1rticle :85, paragraph 9=a> of the #"C,?:@ it is
indispensable that the element of deceit, consisting in the false statement or fraudulent
representation of the accused, be made prior to, or at least simultaneously with, the
deliery of the thing by the complainant.
The false pretense or fraudulent act must be committed prior to or simultaneously with
the commission of the fraud, it being essential that such false statement or
representation constitutes the ery cause or the only motie which induces the offended
party to part with his money. .n the absence of such reDuisite, any subseDuent act of the
accused, howeer fraudulent and suspicious it might appear, cannot sere as basis for
prosecution for estafa under the said proision.?4@
In the case at bar, the records would show that PSI was given assurance by petitioners
that they will pay the unpaid balance of their purchases from PSI when the CCTDs
with petitioners banks, the ural !ank of !anate, Inc" #!!I$ and%or the ural !ank
of &eon, Inc" #!&I$, and issued under the name of PSI, would be presented for
payment to !!I and !&I which, in turn, will pay the amount of deposit stated
thereon" The amounts stated in the CCT*s correspond to the purchase cost of the
machineries and eDuipment that coEpetitioner (asilio 1mbito bought from "'. as
eidenced by the 'ales .noices presented during the trial. .t is uncontroerted that "'.
did not apply for and secure loans from #((. and #(L.. .n fine, "'. and coEpetitioner
(asilio 1mbito were engaged in a endorEpurchaser business relationship while "'. and
#((./#(L. were connected as depositorEdepository. It is likewise established that
petitioners employed deceit when they were able to persuade PSI to allow them to pay
the aforementioned machineries and e'uipment through down payments paid either
in cash or in the form of checks or through the CCTDs with !!I and !&I issued in
PSIs name with interest thereon" It was later found out that petitioners never made
any deposits in the said !anks under the name of PSI" In fact, the issuance of CCTDs to
PSI was not recorded in the books of !!I and !&I and the Deputy &i'uidator
appointed by the Central !ank of the Philippines even corroborated this finding of
anomalous bank transactions in her testimony during the trial" ?5@
1s borne by the records and the pleadings, it is indubitable that petitioners
representations were outright distortions of the truth perpetrated by them for the sole
purpose of inducing PSI to sell and deliver to co(petitioner !asilio )mbito machineries
and e'uipments. "etitioners knew that no deposits were eer made with #((. and
#(L. under the name of "'., as represented by the sub/ect CCT*s, since they did not
intend to deposit any amount to pay for the machineries. "'. was an innocent ictim of
deceit, machinations and chicanery committed by petitioners which resulted in its
pecuniary damage and, thus, confirming the lower courtsF finding that petitioners are
guilty of the comple! crime of &stafa through ,alsification of Commercial
*ocuments.
G ! !.H
'2. %rticle &'( of the )evised Penal *ode on deceit:swindling !estafa# provides any
person who shall defraud another "y any of the means mentioned therein shall "e punished "y
the penalty of prision correccional in its ma5imum period to prision mayor in its minimum
period, if the amount of the fraud is over ',222 pesos "ut does not e5ceed ,222 pesos, and if
such amount e5ceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall "e imposed in
its ma5imum period, adding one year for each additional '2,222 pesos; "ut the total penalty
which may "e imposed shall not e5ceed twenty years; provided that the fraud "e committed "y
any of the following means/
'. ?ith unfaithfulness or a"use of confidence, namely/
> 5 5.
!"# By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods, or any other
personal property received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or
under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same, even
though such o"ligation "e totally or partially guaranteed "y a "ond; or "y denying having
received such money, goods, or other property.
. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud/
!a# By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications,
property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar
deceits.
> 5 5.
(a) By pretending to have bribed any Government employee, without preudice to the action for
calumny which the offended
party may deem proper to bring against the offender. !n this case, the offender shall be
punished by the maximum period of the penalty.
!"# By post"dating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender had
no funds in the bank, or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of
check. #he failure of the drawer of the check to deposit the amount necessary to cover his
check within three ($) 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. (&s amended by 'epublic &ct
(o. )**+, approved ,une -., -/0..)
'2.'. %rticle &'6 !other forms of swindling# of the )evised Penal *ode provides that the penalty
of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods and a fine of not less than the value of the
damage caused and not more than three times such value, shall "e imposed upon @any person
who, to the preudice of another, shall execute any fictitious contract.1
'2.. %rticle &'7 !other deceits# of the )evised Penal *ode provides that the penalty of arresto
mayor and a fine of not less than the amount of the damage caused and not more than twice such
amount shall "e imposed upon any person who shall defraud or damage another "y 2any other
deceit not mentioned in the preceding articles of this chapter.1
8. In PEP5E $ !,E P,"5"PP"#E% vs. 6"R7"#"A 0A08 P. M#!A#ER, 7.R. #o.
194*53, %ugust &', 2'', the accused was convicted for the crime of $stafa as defined and
penaliAed under paragraph !d#, %rticle &'( of the )evised Penal *ode. The Information alleged
that on or a"out May 'B, '886 in the Municipality of 0an Pedro, Province of -aguna and within
the jurisdiction of this +onora"le *ourt accused Cirginia !Ba"y# P. Montaner did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud one )eynaldo 0olis in the following manner/ said
accused "y means of false pretenses and fraudulent acts that her checks are fully funded draw,
make and issue in favor of one )eynaldo 0olis ten !'2# Prudential Bank *hecks, all having a
total value of FIFT3 T+,10%.4 P$0,0 !P(2,222.22# and all aforesaid checks were postdated
Dune 'B, '886 in e5change for cash knowing fully well that she has no funds in the drawee "ank
and when the said checks were presented for payment the same were dishonored "y the drawee
"ank on reason of @%**,1.T *-,0$4E and despite demand accused failed and refused to pay
the value thereof to the damage and prejudice of )eynaldo 0olis in the aforementioned total
amount of P(2,222.22.
> 5 5.
The *ourt cited Paragraph !d#, %rticle &'( of the )evised Penal *ode provides/
%)T. &'(. Swindling (estafa). F %ny person who shall defraud another "y any of the
means mentioned herein"elow 5 5 5/
5 5 5 5
. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts e5ecuted prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud/
5 5 5 5
!d# By postdating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an o"ligation when the
offender had no funds in the "ank, or his funds deposited 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 !&# days from receipt of notice from the "ank and:or the payee or
holder that said check has "een dishonored for lack or insufficiency of funds shall "e prima facie
evidence of deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act.
%ccording to the *ourt, the elements of estafa under paragraph !d#, %rticle &'( of the
)evised Penal *ode are/ !'# the postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an o"ligation
contracted at the time the check was issued; !# lack of sufficiency of funds to cover the check;
and !&# damage to the payee.?0@
In the said case, the prosecution sufficiently esta"lished appellant<s guilt "eyond
reasona"le dou"t for estafa under paragraph !d#, %rticle &'( of the )evised Penal *ode.
%ccording to 0olis<s clear and categorical testimony, appellant issued to him the '2 postdated
Prudential Bank checks, each in the amount of P(, 222.22 or a total of P(2, 222.22, in his house
in e5change for their cash e9uivalent.
From the circumstances, the *ourt held that it was evident that 0olis would not have
given P(2, 222.22 cash to appellant had it not "een for her issuance of the '2 Prudential Bank
checks. These postdated checks were undou"tedly issued "y appellant to induce 0olis to part
with his cash. +owever, when 0olis attempted to encash them, they were all dishonored "y the
"ank "ecause the account was already closed.
0olis wrote appellant a demand letter dated ,cto"er '&, '886 which was received "y
appellant<s hus"and to inform appellant that her postdated checks had "ounced and that she must
settle her o"ligation or else face legal action from 0olis. %ppellant did not comply with the
demand nor did she deposit the amount necessary to cover the checks within three days from
receipt of notice. This gave rise to a prima facie evidence of deceit, which is an element of the
crime of estafa, constituting false pretense or fraudulent act as stated in the second sentence of
paragraph !d#, %rticle &'( of the )evised Penal *ode.
> 5 5.
'2. In the case of BETTY GABIONZA AND ISABELITA TAN, PETITIONERS, VS.
COURT OF APPEALS, LUKE ROXAS AND EVELYN NOLASCO,
RESPONDENTS, [G.R. No. 161057, S!"#$% 1&, &00'(, it was held that Bt o 2e
clear, it is +ossi2le to 'old t'e 2orrower in a -one. -ar3et +lace-ent lia2le for estafa if t'e
creditor was induced to e1tend a loan u+on t'e false or fraudulent -isre+resentations of
t'e 2orrower:; that @such estafa is one "y means of deceitE; that @the "orrower would not "e
generally lia"le for estafa through misappropriation if he or she fails to repay the loan, since the
lia"ility in such instance is ordinarily civil in natureE, e5cept when deceit is present, of course.
Thus/
@5 5 5.
?e can thus conclude that the 4,D )esolution clearly supports a prima facie finding that the
crime of estafa under %rticle &'( !# !a# has "een committed against petitioners. 4oes it also
esta"lish a prima facie finding that there has "een a violation of the then=)evised 0ecurities %ct,
specifically 0ection G in relation to 0ection (6 thereofH
0ection G of Batas Pam"ansa Blg. 'B6, or the )evised 0ecurities %ct, generally re9uires the
registration of securities and prohi"its the sale or distri"ution of unregistered securities.
I8J
The
4,D e5tensively concluded that private respondents are lia"le for violating such prohi"ition
against the sale of unregistered securities/
)espondents )o5as and .olasco do not dispute that in '887, %0B "orrowed funds a"out B22
individual investors amounting to close to PG "illion, on recurring, short=term "asis, usually &2
or G( days, promising high interest yields, issuing therefore mere postdate checks. 1nder the
circumstances, the checks assumed the character of Kevidences of inde"tedness,K which are
among the KsecuritiesK mentioned under the )evised 0ecurities %ct. The term KsecuritiesK
em"odies a fle5i"le rather than static principle, one that is capa"le of adaptation to meet the
countless and varia"le schemes devised "y those who seek to use the money of others on the
promise of profits !68 %m Dur d, p. 62G#. Thus, it has "een held that checks of a de"tor received
and held "y the lender also are evidences of inde"tedness and therefore KsecuritiesK under the
%ct, where the de"tor agreed to pay interest on a monthly "asis so long as the principal checks
remained uncashed, it "eing said that such principal e5tent as would have promissory notes
paya"le on demand !Id., p. 626, citing 1ntied 0tates v. %ttaway !4* -a# '' F 0upp 67#. In the
instant case, the checks were issued "y %0B in lieu of the securities enumerated under the
)evised 0ecurities %ct in a clever attempt, or so they thought, to take the case out of the purview
of the law, which re9uires prior license to sell or deal in securities and registration thereof. The
scheme was to
designed to circumvent the law. *hecks constitute mere su"stitutes for cash if so issued in
payment of o"ligations in the ordinary course of "usiness transactions. But when they are issued
in e5change for a "ig num"er of individual non=personaliAed loans solicited from the pu"lic,
num"ering a"out B22 in this case, the checks cease to "e such. In such a circumstance, the checks
assume the character of evidences of inde"tedness. This is especially so where the individual
loans were not evidenced "y appropriate de"t instruments, such as promissory notes, loan
agreements, etc., as in this case. Purportedly, the postdated checks themselves serve as the
evidences of the inde"tedness. % different rule would open the floodgates for a similar scheme,
where"y companies without prior license or authority from the 0$*. This cannot "e
countenanced. The su"se9uent repeal of the )evised 0ecurities %ct does not spare respondents
)o5as and .olasco from prosecution thereunder, since the repealing law, )epu"lic %ct .o. 7B88
known as the K0ecurities )egulation *ode,K continues to punish the same offense !see 0ection 7
in relation to 0ection B&, ).%. .o. 7B88#.
I&2J
The *ourt of %ppeals however ruled that the postdated checks issued "y %0B+I did not
constitute a security under the )evised 0ecurities %ct. To support this conclusion, it cited the
general definition of a check as Ka "ill of e5change drawn on a "ank and paya"le on demand,K
and took cogniAance of the fact that Kthe issuance of checks for the purpose of securing a loan to
finance the activities of the corporation is well within the am"it of a valid corporate actK to note
that a corporation does not need prior registration with the 0$* in order to "e a"le to issue a
check, which is a corporate prerogative.
This analysis is highly myopic and ignorant of the "igger picture. It is one thing for a corporation
to issue checks to satisfy isolated individual o"ligations, and another for a corporation to e5ecute
an ela"orate scheme where it would comport itself to the pu"lic as a pseudo=investment house
and issue postdated checks instead of stocks or traditional securities to evidence the investments
of its patrons. The )evised 0ecurities %ct was geared towards maintaining the sta"ility of the
national investment market against activities such as those apparently engaged in "y %0B+I. %s
the 4,D )esolution noted, %0B+I adopted this scheme in an attempt to circumvent the )evised
0ecurities %ct, which re9uires a prior license to sell or deal in securities. %fter all, if %0B+ILs
activities were actually regulated "y the 0$*, it is hardly likely that the design it chose to employ
would have "een permitted at all.
But was %0B+I a"le to successfully evade the re9uirements under the )evised 0ecurities %ctH
%s found "y the 4,D, there is ultimately a prima facie case that can at the very least sustain
prosecution of private respondents under that law. The 4,D )esolution is persuasive in citing
%merican authorities which countenance a fle5i"le definition of securities. Moreover, it "ears
pointing out that the definition of KsecuritiesK set forth in 0ection of the )evised 0ecurities %ct
includes Kcommercial papers evidencing inde"tedness of any person, financial or non=financial
entity, irrespective of maturity, issued, endorsed, sold, transferred or in any manner conveyed to
another.K
I&'J
% check is a commercial paper evidencing inde"tedness of any person, financial or
non=financial entity. 0ince the checks in this case were generally rolled over to augment the
creditorLs e5isting investment with %0B+I, they
most definitely take on the attri"utes of traditional stocks.
?e should "e clear that the 9uestion of whether the su"ject checks fall within the classification
of securities under the )evised 0ecurities %ct may still "e the su"ject of de"ate, "ut at the very
least, the 4,D )esolution has esta"lished a prima facie case for prosecuting private respondents
for such offense. The thorough determination of such issue is "est left to a full="lown trial of the
merits, where private respondents are free to dispute the theories set forth in the 4,D )esolution.
It is clear error on the part of the *ourt of %ppeals to dismiss such finding so perfunctorily and
on such flimsy grounds that do not consider the grave conse9uences. %fter all, as the 4,D
)esolution correctly pointed out/ KITJhe postdated checks themselves serve as the evidences of
the inde"tedness. % different rule would open the floodgates for a similar scheme, where"y
companies without prior license or authority from the 0$*. This cannot "e countenanced.K
I&J
This conclusion 9uells the stance of the *ourt of %ppeals that the unfortunate events "efalling
petitioners were ultimately "enign, not malevolent, a conse9uence of the economic crisis that
"eset the Philippines during that era.
I&&J
That conclusion would "e agreea"le only if it were
undisputed that the activities of %0B+I are legal in the first place, "ut the 4,D puts forth a
legitimate theory that the entire modus operandi of %0B+I is illegal under the )evised 0ecurities
%ct and if that were so, the impact of the %sian economic crisis would not o"viate the criminal
lia"ility of private respondents.
> 5 5.
It is inelucta"le that the 4,D )esolution esta"lished a prima facie case for violation of %rticle
&'( !#!a# of the )evised Penal *ode and 0ections G in relation to (6 of the )evised 0ecurities
%ct. > 5 5
> 5 5.E
''. I. FI.$, respondent 5 5 5 must "e indicted at the least for the felony of ordinar./regular
E%!A$A under %rt. &'(, )ev. Penal *ode.
;,ERE$RE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that resolution, dated March
'&, 2', "e reconsidered and that a new resolution "e issued F1)T+$) indicting 5 5 5 for the
felony of regular:ordinary $0T%F% under %rt. &'(, )ev. Penal *ode. Involving the two checks
issued "y the complainant to satisfy the total claim of the complainant in the amount of 3ive
4illion 5esos (5+, 666,666.66), plus exemplary damages of 5-66, 666.66, moral damages of
5-66, 666.66, attorney7s fees of 5-8+, 666.66 plus +9 of the recoverable amounts, and costs of
suit.
-as Pinas *ity, %pril '2, 2'.
5A%ER#A C<E6A=MERCA&ER
5A; $$"CE%
*ounsel for the *omplainant
1nit '(, 0tar %rcade. *.C. 0tarr %ve.
Philamlife Cillage, -as Pinas *ity 'BG2
Tel. .o. 7B(GG&; Fa5 .o. 7G6(&8.
MA#<E5 >. 5A%ER#A >R.
)oll .o. &&6G2, G:B:7(
IBP -ifetime Mem"er .o. '82B
IBP -eyte *hapter
PT) '2772B, ':'7:', -as Pinas *ity
M*-$ *ompliance .o. IC='&6, :&:''
*c/
? 1 1 a3a 1 1 1
)espondent
c:o 5 5 5 Inc.
5 5 5 5
5 5 5 *ity
)eg. )ec. .o.
4ate P,
*lient
File *opy
E?P5A#A!"#
% copy hereof is served on respondent 0,. via registered mail due to the lack of staff
and time of undersigned counsel at this time. Thanks you.

Manuel >. 5aserna >r.
I'J %rt. &'(. Swindling (estafa). F %ny person who shall defraud another "y any of the means mentioned herein
"elow . . .
5 5 5
. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts e5ecuted prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud/
!a# By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, 9ualifications, property, credit,
agency, "usiness or imaginary transactions, or "y means of other similar deceits.
IJ R.R. Paredes v. Calilung, M.). .o. '(62((, March (, 22B, ('B 0*)% &68, &8&.
I&J %rt. &'(. Swindling (estafa). F %ny person who shall defraud another "y any of the means mentioned herein
"elow . . .
5 5 5
. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts e5ecuted prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud/
!a# By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, 9ualifications, property, credit,
agency, "usiness or imaginary transactions, or "y means of other similar deceits.
IGJ Aricheta v. People, M.). .o. 'B(22, 0eptem"er ', 22B, (&& 0*)% 68(, B2G.
I(J Rollo, pp. '7G='7B.
I6J Cajigas v. People, M.). .o. '(6(G', Fe"ruary &, 228, (72 0*)% (G, 6&.
Estafa and 0lg. ((@ Co-+laint w/ laws and Auris+rudence.
. wish to share a criminal complaint for &stafa and (" 99 that . prepared recently, with
focus on the legal research aspect thereof, for the information of my regular readers, to
wit:
#&")(L.C $, T4& "4.L."".+&'
OFFICE OF T)E CITY PROSECUTOR
G ! ! C.TI
X * *,
Complainant, ..'. +o. JJJJJJJ
E ersus E ,or: &'T1,1
and (.". (lg. 99.
X * *
+)lias, * * *-,
#espondent.
!EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
CO.PLAINT/AFFIDAVIT
T)E UNDERSIGNED CO.PLAINANT respectfully alleges:
8. CO.PLAINANT. C The complainant is ! ! !, of legal age, married, ,ilipino and, for
purposes of this criminal complaint, with postal address at:
X * *
9. RESPPONDENT. C The respondent is ! ! !, aka, of legal age, married, !!! national,
and with the following three =:> addresses, where summons and notices may be sered,
to wit:
G ! !.
:. NATURE OF T)E CRI.INAL CO.PLAINT. E This is a criminal complaint for
*ST)+) and for iolation of !"P" !lg" ,, inoling the sum of +ive -illion Pesos
#P.,///,///"//$ arising from arious checks issued by the respondent to the
complainant.
4. ULTI.ATE FACTS.
G ! !.
4.88. ,or the record, and to form part hereof, by incorporation and reference, attached hereto
are copies of the following supporting documents, to wit:
G ! !.
5. DISCUSSION.
APPLICABLE LAWS
5.8. 1rticle :85 of the #eised "enal Code on deceit/swindling =estfa> proides any person
who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned therein shall be punished by
the penalty of prision correccional in its ma!imum period to prision mayor in its
minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is oer 89,;;; pesos but does not e!ceed
99,;;; pesos, and if such amount e!ceeds the latter sum, the penalty proided in this
paragraph shall be imposed in its ma!imum period, adding one year for each additional
8;,;;; pesosA but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not e!ceed twenty
yearsA provided that the fraud be committed by any of the following means:
8. 3ith unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:
G ! !.
=b> (y misappropriating or conerting, to the pre/udice of another, money, goods,
or any other personal property received by the offender in trust or on
commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation
involving the duty to mae delivery of or to return the same, een though
such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a bondA or by denying haing
receied such money, goods, or other property.
9. (y means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts e!ecuted
prior to or simultaneously "ith the commission of the fraud:
=a> (y using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess po"er, influence,
#ualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary
transactions, or by means of other similar deceits$
G ! !.
%a& By pretending to have bribed any 'overnment employee, "ithout
pre(udice to the action for calumny "hich the offended
party may deem proper to bring against the offender$ In this case, the
offender shall be punished by the ma!imum period of the penalty$
=b> By post)dating a chec, or issuing a chec in payment of an obligation
"hen the offender had no funds in the ban, or his funds deposited therein
"ere not sufficient to cover the amount of chec$ *he failure of the dra"er
of the chec to deposit the amount necessary to cover his chec "ithin
three %+& days from receipt of notice from the ban and,or the payee or
holder that said chec has been dishonored for lac of insufficiency of
funds shall be prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense or
fraudulent act$ %As amended by -epublic Act .o$ /001, approved 2une 34,
3564$&
1$7$ 1rticle :80 =other forms of swindling> of the #eised "enal Code proides that the
penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods and a fine of not less than
the alue of the damage caused and not more than three times such alue, shall be
imposed upon Bany person "ho, to the pre(udice of another, shall e!ecute
any fictitious contract$8
5.:. 1rticle :85 =other deceits> of the #eised "enal Code proides that the penalty of
arresto mayor and a fine of not less than the amount of the damage caused and not more
than twice such amount shall be imposed upon any person who shall defraud or damage
another by 9any other deceit not mentioned in the preceding articles of this
chapter$8
5.4. ,urther, (.". (lg. 99 =(ouncing Checks Law> proides:
5.4.8. 1ny person who makes or draws and issues any check to apply on
account or for alue, knowing at the time of issue that he does not
hae sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the
payment of such check in full upon its presentment, which check is
subseDuently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of
funds or credit or would hae been dishonored for the same reason
had not the drawer, without any alid reason, ordered the bank to
stop payment, shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than
thirty days but not more than one =8> year or by fine of not less than
but not more than double the amount of the check which fine shall
in no case e!ceed Two 4undred Thousand pesos, or both such fine
and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.
5.4.9. The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who haing
sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank when he makes or
draws and issues a check, shall fail to keep sufficient funds or to
maintain a credit to coer the full amount of the check if presented
within a period of ninety =<;> days from the date appearing
thereon, for which reason it is dishonored by the drawee bank.
5.4.:. 3here the check is drawn by a corporation, company or entity, the
person or persons who actually signed the check in behalf of such
drawer shall be liable under this 1ct.
5.4.4. The making, drawing and issuance of a check payment of which is
refused by the drawee because of insufficient funds in or credit with
such bank, when presented within ninety =<;> days from the date of
the check, shall be prima facie eidence of knowledge of such
insufficiency of funds or credit unless such maker or drawer pays
the holder thereof the amount due thereon, or makes arrangements
for payment in full by the drawee of such check within five #.$
banking days after receiving notice that such check has not been
paid by the drawee.
5.4.5. .t shall be the duty of the drawee of any check, when refusing to
pay the same to the holder thereof upon presentment, to cause to be
written, printed or stamped in plain language thereon, or attached
thereto, the reason for draweeKs dishonor or refusal to pay the same:
Provided, That where there are no sufficient funds in or credit with
such drawee bank, such fact shall always be
e!plicitly stated in the notice of dishonor or refusal. .n all
prosecutions under this 1ct, the introduction in eidence of any
unpaid and dishonored check, haing the draweeKs refusal to pay
stamped or written thereon, or attached thereto, with the reason
therefor as aforesaid, shall be prima facie eidence of the making or
issuance of said check, and the due presentment to the drawee for
payment and the dishonor thereof, and that the same was properly
dishonored for the reason written, stamped or attached by the
drawee on such dishonored check.
5.4.0. +otwithstanding receipt of an order to stop payment, the drawee
shall state in the notice that there were no sufficient funds in or
credit with such bank for the payment in full of such check, if such
be the fact.L
5.5. (" (lg. 99 enumerates the elements of the crime to be
=8> the making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply for account or
for alueA
=9> the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue
he does not hae sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the
payment of the check in full upon its presentmentA and
=:> the subseDuent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for
insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason had not
the drawer, without any alid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.
There is deemed to be a prima facie eidence of knowledge on the part of
the maker, drawer or issuer of insufficiency of funds in or credit with the
drawee bank of the check issued if the dishonored check is presented
within <; days from the date of the check and the maker or drawer fails to
pay thereon or to make arrangement with the drawee bank for that
purpose.
5.5.8. The statute has created the prima facie presumption eidently
because LknowledgeL which inoles a state of mind would be
difficult to establish. The presumption does not hold, howeer,
when the maker, drawer or issuer of the check pays the holder
thereof the amount due thereon or makes arrangement for payment
in full by the drawee bank of such check within 5 banking days after
receiing notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee
bank. 'ection 9 of (.". (lg. 99 clearly proides that this
presumption arises not from the mere fact of drawing, making and
issuing a bum checkA there must also be a showing that, within fie
banking days from receipt of the notice of dishonor, such maker or
drawer failed to pay the holder of the check the amount due thereon
or to make arrangement for its payment in full by the drawee of
such check.
LA*ES* APPLICABLE 2:-ISP-:;E.CE< ES*A=A
5.0. .n PEOPLE OF T)E P)ILIPPINES 01. VIRGINIA BABY P. .ONTANER,
G.R. No. 1'2053, 1ugust :8, 9;88, the accused was conicted for the crime of &stafa
as defined and penaliMed under paragraph 9=d>, 1rticle :85 of the #eised "enal Code.
The .nformation alleged that on or about 6ay 82, 8<<0 in the 6unicipality of 'an "edro,
"roince of Laguna and within the /urisdiction of this 4onorable Court accused -irginia
=(aby> ". 6ontaner did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud one
#eynaldo 'olis in the following manner: said accused by means of false pretenses and
fraudulent acts that her checks are fully funded draw, make and issue in faor of one
#eynaldo 'olis ten =8;> "rudential (ank Checks, all haing a total alue of ,.,TI
T4$)'1+* "&'$' ="5;,;;;.;;> and all aforesaid checks were postdated %une 82,
8<<0 in e!change for cash knowing fully well that she has no funds in the drawee bank
and when the said checks were presented for payment the same were dishonored by the
drawee bank on reason of B1CC$)+T CL$'&*H and despite demand accused failed and
refused to pay the alue thereof to the damage and pre/udice of #eynaldo 'olis in the
aforementioned total amount of "5;,;;;.;;.
To e!culpate herself from criminal liability, accused -irginia (aby ". 6ontaner denied
the allegations that she issued ten =8;> checks in priate complainantFs faor claiming
that the ten =8;> checks were borrowed from her by one 6arlyn 7alope because the
latter needed money. 'he gae the ten checks to 7alope, signed the same albeit the
space for the date, amount and payee were left blank so that the checks cannot be used
for any negotiation. 'he further told 7alope that the checks were not funded. 3hen she
learned that a case was filed against her for estafa, she confronted 6arlyn 7alope and
the latter told her that money will not be gien to her if she will not issue the said
checks. 'he has no knowledge of the notice of dishonor sent to her by priate
complainant and claimed that her husband, who supposedly receied the notice of
dishonor left for abroad in %uly 8<<0 and returned only after a year, that is, in 8<<2.
.n a *ecision dated 1pril 5, 9;;:, the trial court conicted appellant for the crime of
estafa as defined and penaliMed under paragraph 9=d>, 1rticle :85 of the #eised "enal
Code and sentenced her to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from twele
=89> years of prision mayor as minimum to twentyEtwo =99> years of reclusion perpetua
as ma!imum and to indemnify complainant #eynaldo 'olis in the amount of
"5;,;;;.;;.
1ppellant eleated the case to the Court of 1ppeals but the aderse ruling was merely
affirmed by the appellate court in its *ecision dated ,ebruary 89, 9;;5.
4ence, appellant interposed an appeal before the 'upreme Court and put forth a single
assignment of error: T4& T#.1L C$)#T 7#1-&LI &##&* .+ ,.+*.+7 T4&
1CC)'&*C1""&LL1+T 7).LTI (&I$+* #&1'$+1(L& *$)(T $, T4& C#.6&
$, &'T1,1 )+*&# 1#T.CL& :85, "1#. 9 =*> $, T4& #&-.'&* "&+1L C$*&.
1ppellant maintains that she entrusted the sub/ect checks, purportedly signed in blank,
to 6arilyn 7alope =7alope> out of pity in order for the latter to secure a loan. Thus,
there is purportedly no certainty beyond reasonable doubt that she issued the checks
purposely to defraud #eynaldo 'olis ='olis> into lending her money. 'he further claims
that no transaction had eer transpired between her and 'olis. 1dmitting that she may
hae been imprudent, she nonetheless insists that her simple imprudence does not
translate to criminal liability.
The 'upreme Court was not persuaded.
The Court cited "aragraph 9=d>, 1rticle :85 of the #eised "enal Code proides:
1#T. :85. Swindling #estafa$. C 1ny person who shall defraud another by any of
the means mentioned hereinbelow ! ! !:
! ! ! !
9. (y means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts e!ecuted
prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:
! ! ! !
=d> (y postdating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when
the offender had no funds in the bank, or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient
to coer the amount of the check. The failure of the drawer of the check to deposit the
amount necessary to coer his check within three =:> days from receipt of notice from
the bank and/or the payee or holder that said check has been dishonored for lack or
insufficiency of funds shall be prima facie eidence of deceit constituting false pretense
or fraudulent act.
1ccording to the Court, the elements of estafa under paragraph 9=d>, 1rticle :85
of the #eised "enal Code are: =8> the postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an
obligation contracted at the time the check was issuedA =9> lack of sufficiency of funds to
coer the checkA and =:> damage to the payee.?8@
.n the said case, the prosecution sufficiently established appellantFs guilt beyond
reasonable doubt for estafa under paragraph 9=d>, 1rticle :85 of the #eised "enal
Code. 1ccording to 'olisFs clear and categorical testimony, appellant issued to him the
8; postdated "rudential (ank checks, each in the amount of "5,;;;.;; or a total of
"5;,;;;.;;, in his house in e!change for their cash eDuialent.
,rom the circumstances, the Court held that it was eident that 'olis would not
hae gien "5;,;;;.;; cash to appellant had it not been for her issuance of the 8;
"rudential (ank checks. These postdated checks were undoubtedly issued by appellant
to induce 'olis to part with his cash. 4oweer, when 'olis attempted to encash them,
they were all dishonored by the bank because the account was already closed.
'olis wrote appellant a demand letter dated $ctober 8:, 8<<0 which was receied
by appellantFs husband to inform appellant that her postdated checks had bounced and
that she must settle her obligation or else face legal action from 'olis. 1ppellant did not
comply with the demand nor did she deposit the amount necessary to coer the checks
within three days from receipt of notice. This gae rise to a prima facie eidence of
deceit, which is an element of the crime of estafa, constituting false pretense or
fraudulent act as stated in the second sentence of paragraph 9=d>, 1rticle :85 of the
#eised "enal Code.
1s for appellantFs claims that she merely entrusted to 7alope the blank but
signed checks imprudently, without knowing that 7alope would gie them as a
guarantee for a loan, the Court iewed such statements with the same incredulity as the
lower courts.
&idence, to be belieed, must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible
witness, but it must be credible in itself C such as the common e!perience and
obseration of mankind can approe as probable under the circumstances. The Court
has no test of the truth of human testimony, e!cept its conformity to our knowledge,
obseration and e!perience. 3hateer is repugnant to these belongs to the miraculous
and is outside /udicial cogniMance.?9@
1ppellant wished to impress upon the Court that she oluntarily parted with her
blank but signed checks not knowing or een haing any hint of suspicion that the same
may be used to defraud anyone who may rely on them. -erily, appellantFs assertion
defies ordinary common sense and human e!perience, the Court stated.
6oreoer, the Court added, it is elementary that denial, if unsubstantiated by
clear and conincing eidence, is negatie and selfEsering eidence which has far less
eidentiary alue than the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmatie
matters.?:@ .t agreed with the lower courts that appellantFs bare denial cannot be
accorded credence for lack of eidentiary support. 1s aptly noted by the trial court,
appellantFs failure to produce 7alope as a witness to corroborate her story is fatal to her
cause. .n all, the Court of 1ppeals committed no error in upholding the coniction of
appellant for estafa. 4ence, the 'upreme Court 1,,.#6&* the two decisions of both
the trial court and the appellate court.
LA*ES* APPLICABLE 2:-ISP-:;E.CE< B$P$ BL'$ 77
5.2. .n EU.ELIA R. .ITRA 01. PEOPLE OF T)E P)ILIPPINES 456
FELICISI.O S. TARCELO, G.R. NO. 171202, 89:; 5, &010, the petitioner
&umelia #. 6itra #-itra$ was the Treasurer, and ,lorencio L. Cabrera =deceased>, %r.
was the "resident, of Lucky +ine Credit Corporation #&0CC$, a corporation engaged in
money lending actiities. (etween 8<<0 and 8<<<, priate respondent ,elicisimo '.
Tarcelo #Tarcelo$ inested money in L+CC. 1s the usual practice in money placement
transactions, Tarcelo was issued checks eDuialent to the amounts he inested plus the
interest on his inestments by 6itra and Cabrera, were issued by L+CC to Tarcelo.
3hen Tarcelo presented these checks for payment, they were dishonored for the
reason Baccount closed.H Tarcelo made seeral oral demands on L+CC for the payment
of these checks but he was frustrated. Constrained, in 9;;9, he caused the filing of seen
informations for iolation of (atas "ambansa (lg. 99 =(" 99> in the total amount of
"<95,;;;.;; with the 6TCC in (atangas City.
1fter trial on the merits, the 6TCC found 6itra and Cabrera guilty of the charges
and ordered them to respectiely pay the mandated fines for each iolation and with
subsidiary imprisonment in all cases, in case of insolvency and it further ad/udged
them ciilly liable and ordered them to pay, in solidum, priate complainant ,elicisimo
'. Tarcelo the amount of NINE )UNDRED T<ENTY FIVE T)OUSAND PESOS
+P7&5,000.000-.
6itra and Cabrera appealed to the (atangas #TC contending that: they signed
the seen checks in blank with no name of the payee, no amount stated and no date of
maturityA they did not know when and to whom those checks would be issuedA the seen
checks were only among those in one or two booklets of checks they were made to sign
at that timeA and that they signed the checks so as not to delay the transactions of L+CC
because they did not regularly hold office there. The #TC affirmed the 6TCC decision.
6eanwhile, Cabrera died. 6itra alone filed a petition for reiew with the Court of
1ppeals claiming, among others, that there was no proper serice of the notice of
dishonor on her. The Court of 1ppeals dismissed her petition for lack of merit.
6itra went up to the 'upreme Court on a petition for reiew and submitted the
issues: <)ET)ER OR NOT T)E ELE.ENTS OF VIOLATION OF BATAS
PA.BANSA BILANG && .UST BE PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT AS AGAINST T)E CORPORATION <)O O<NS T)E CURRENT
ACCOUNT <)ERE T)E SUB8ECT C)ECKS <ERE DRA<N BEFORE
LIABILITY ATTAC)ES TO T)E SIGNATORIES= 456 <)ET)ER OR NOT
T)ERE IS PROPER SERVICE OF NOTICE OF DIS)ONOR AND DE.AND
TO PAY TO T)E PETITIONER AND T)E LATE FLORENCIO CABRERA, 8R.
The 'upreme Court denied the petition.
The Court held that a check is a negotiable instrument that seres as a substitute
for money and as a conenient form of payment in financial transactions and
obligations. The use of checks as payment allows commercial and banking transactions
to proceed without the actual handling of money, thus, doing away with the need to
physically count bills and coins wheneer payment is made. .t permits commercial and
banking transactions to be carried out Duickly and efficiently. (ut the conenience
afforded by checks is damaged by unfunded checks that adersely affect confidence in
our commercial and banking actiities, and ultimately in/ure public interest.
(" 99 or the (ouncing Checks Law was enacted for the specific purpose of
addressing the problem of the continued issuance and circulation of unfunded checks by
irresponsible persons. To stem the harm caused by these bouncing checks to the
community, (" 99 considers the mere act of issuing an unfunded check as an offense
not only against property but also against public order.?4@ The purpose of (" 99 in
declaring the mere issuance of a bouncing check as malum prohibitum is to punish the
offender in order to deter him and others from committing the offense, to isolate him
from society, to reform and rehabilitate him, and to maintain social order.?5@ The
penalty is stiff. (" 99 imposes the penalty of imprisonment for at least :; days or a fine
of up to double the amount of the check or both imprisonment and fine.
'pecifically, !P ,, proides:
'&CT.$+ 8. Checks 3ithout 'ufficient ,unds. N 1ny person who makes or
draws and issues any check to apply on account or for alue, knowing at the time of
issue that he does not hae sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the
payment of such check in full upon its presentment, which check is subseDuently
dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or would hae been
dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any alid reason, ordered
the bank to stop payment, shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than thirty
days but not more than one =8> year or by a fine of not less than but not more than
double the amount of the check which fine shall in no case e!ceed Two 4undred
Thousand "esos, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who, haing sufficient funds
in or credit with the drawee bank when he makes or draws and issues a check, shall fail
to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to coer the full amount of the check if
presented within a period of ninety =<;> days from the date appearing thereon, for
which reason it is dishonored by the drawee bank.
3here the check is drawn by a corporation, company or entity, the person or
persons who actually signed the check in behalf of such drawer shall be liable under this
1ct.
'&CT.$+ 9. &idence of Onowledge of .nsufficient ,unds. N 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 =<;> days
from the date of the check, shall be prima facie eidence 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 fie =5> banking days after receiing notice that such check has not been
paid by the drawee.
6itra posited in the petition that before the signatory to a bouncing corporate
check can be held liable, all the elements of the crime of iolation of (" 99 must first be
proen against the corporation. The corporation must first be declared to hae
committed the iolation before the liability attaches to the signatories of the checks.
The Court stated that it found itself unable to agree with 6itraFs posture. The
third paragraph of 'ection 8 of (" 99 reads: L3here 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 1ct.L This proision recogniMes the reality that a
corporation can only act through its officers. 4ence, its wording is uneDuiocal and
mandatory C that the person who actually signed the corporate check shall be held
liable for a iolation of (" 99. This proision does not contain any condition,
Dualification or limitation.
The Court cited the case of &lamado v" Court of )ppeals,?0@ where it ruled that
the accused was liable on the unfunded corporate check which he signed as treasurer of
the corporation. 4e could not inoke his lack of inolement in the negotiation for the
transaction as a defense because (" 99 punishes the mere issuance of a bouncing check,
not the purpose for which the check was issued or in consideration of the terms and
conditions relating to its issuance. .n this case, 6itra signed the L+CC checks as
treasurer. ,ollowing &lamado, she must then be held liable for iolating (" 99.
1nother essential element of a iolation of (" 99 is the drawerFs knowledge that
he has insufficient funds or credit with the drawee bank to coer his check. (ecause this
inoles a state of mind that is difficult to establish, (" 99 creates the prima facie
presumption that once the check is dishonored, the drawer of the check gains knowledge
of the insufficiency, unless within fie banking days from receipt of the notice of
dishonor, the drawer pays the holder of the check or makes arrangements with the
drawee bank for the payment of the check. The serice of the notice of dishonor gies
the drawer the opportunity to make good the check within those fie days to aert his
prosecution for iolating (" 99.
6itra alleged that there was no proper serice on her of the notice of dishonor
and, so, an essential element of the offense is missing. This contention, the Court said,
raised a factual issue that was not proper for reiew. .t is not the function of the Court to
reEe!amine the finding of facts of the Court of 1ppeals. $ur reiew is limited to errors of
law and cannot touch errors of facts unless the petitioner shows that the trial court
oerlooked facts or circumstances that warrant a different disposition of the case?2@ or
that the findings of fact hae no basis on record. 4ence, with respect to the issue of the
propriety of serice on 6itra of the notice of dishonor, the Court gies full faith and
credit to the consistent findings of the 6TCC, the #TC and the C1.
The defense postulated that there was no demand sered upon the accused, said
denial deseres scant consideration. "ositie allegation of the prosecution that a
demand letter was sered upon the accused preails oer the denial made by the
accused. Though, haing denied that there was no demand letter sered on 1pril 8;,
9;;;, howeer, the prosecution positively alleged and proved that the
#uestioned demand letter "as served upon the accused on April 3>, 7>>>,
that "as at the time they "ere attending Court hearing before Branch I of
this Court$ .n fact, the prosecution had submitted a Certification issued by the other
(ranch of this Court certifying the fact that the accused were present during the 1pril
8;, 9;8; hearing. 3ith such straightforward and categorical testimony of the witness,
the Court beliees that the prosecution has achieed what was dismally lacking in the
three =:> cases of Betty ?ing, @ictor *ing and Caras C eidence of the receipt by
the accused of the demand letter sent to her. The Court accepts the prosecutionFs
narratie that the accused refused to sign the same to eidence their receipt thereof. To
reDuire the prosecution to produce the signature of the accused on said demand letter
would be imposing an undue hardship on it. 1s well, actual receipt acknowledgment is
not and has neer been reDuired of the prosecution either by law or /urisprudence.
?emphasis supplied@
3ith the notice of dishonor duly sered and disregarded, there arose the
presumption that 6itra and Cabrera knew that there were insufficient funds to coer the
checks upon their presentment for payment. .n fact, the account was already closed.
To reiterate the elements of a iolation of (" 99 as contained in the aboeEDuoted
proision, the Court said, a iolation e!ists where:
8. a person makes or draws and issues a check to apply on account or for alueA
9. the person who makes or draws and issues the check knows at the time of issue that he
does not hae sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the full payment of
the check upon its presentmentA and
:. the check is subseDuently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or
credit, or would hae been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without
any alid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment. ?5@
The Court added that there was no dispute that 6itra signed the checks and that
the bank dishonored the checks because the account had been closed. +otice of dishonor
was properly gien, but 6itra failed to pay the checks or make arrangements for their
payment within fie days from notice. 3ith all the aboe elements duly proen, 6itra
cannot escape the ciil and criminal liabilities that (" 99 imposes for its breach.?<@
0. PRAYER.
<)EREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that after notice and
hearing the respondent be indicted for &'T1,1 and -.$L1T.$+ $, (.". (L7. 99 to
protect/presere the right/interest of the complainant to recoer his claim of =ive
Aillion Pesos %P1,>>>,>>>$>>&, plus e!emplary damages of P3>>,>>>$>>,
moral damages of P3>>,>>>$>>, attorneyBs fees of P371,>>>$>> plus 1C of
the recoverable amounts, and costs of suit$
G ! ! City, $ctober 85, 9;88.
G ! !
Complainant
LT$ *rierFs License +o.
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
&!piring on JJJJJJJJJ
1ssisted (y:
LASERNA CUEVA/.ERCADER LA< OFFICES
Counsel for the Complainant
)nit 85, 'tar 1rcade. C.-. 'tarr 1e.
"hilamlife -illage, Las "inas City 824;
Tel. +o. 529544:A ,a! +o. 54095:<.
.ANUEL 8. LASERNA 8R.
#oll +o. ::04;, 4/92/55
.(" Lifetime 6ember +o. 8<;2
.(" Leyte Chapter
"T# 8;80<;<, 8/2/88, Las "inas City
6CL& Compliance +o. .-E8:90, 9/:/88
SUBSCRIBED and sworn to before in 6untinlupa City me this JJJ day of
$ctober 9;88, affiant/complainant showing his official identification document as stated
aboe.
)dministering )ssistant City Prosecutor
A55*1, >A? "o >L>, 19!%4.
I'J Cajigas v. People, M.). .o. '(6(G', Fe"ruary &, 228, (72 0*)% (G, 6&.
IJ People v. Garin, GB6 Phil. G((, GBG !22G#; People v. Samus G&B Phil. 6G(, 6(8
!22#.
I&J Gom!a v. People, M.). .o. '(2(&6, 0eptem"er 'B, 227, (6( 0*)% &86, G22, citing People
v. "ag!anua, M.). .o. '&&22G, May 2, 22G, G7 0*)% 6'B, 6&2.
[4] #o$ano v. "artine$, &2 Phil. G26, G7 !'876#.
[5] Rosario v. Co, M.). .o. '&&627, %ugust 6, 227, (6& 0*)% &8, (&.
[6] &&B Phil. '(&, '62 !'88B#.
[7] American %ome Assurance Compan& v. Chua &67 Phil. (((, (68 !'888#.
[8] Rigor v. People, G7( Phil. '(, '&8 !22G#.
[9] In Gosiaco v. Ching, M.). .o. 'B&72B, %pril '6, 228, (7( 0*)% GB', G7&, we held an
accused corporate officer free from civil lia"ility for the corporate de"t after the lower court
ac9uitted the accused of criminal lia"ility under BP . .ote that this is a totally different case
from the present case as the issue here is "oth criminal and civil lia"ility.
Estafa@ sa-+le counter=affidavit
'elow is a sample counter(affidavit prepared !& Att&. "anuel ). #Aserna )r. involving *stafa
undergoing preliminar& investigation !efore an investigating prosecutor in "etro "anila. +he
facts part thereof are omitted. ,nl& the jurisprudential part thereof is retained for legal research
purposes of the visitors of this law !log.
)$P1B-I* ,F T+$ P+I-IPPI.$0
4$P%)TM$.T ,F D10TI*$
$$"CE $ !,E C"!8 PR%EC<!R
> 5 5 *IT3
? 1 1,
*omplainants,
I0 .o. 5 5 5
= versus F
Estafa
? 1 1,
)espondents.
5============================5
>"#! C<#!ER=A$$"&A6"!
$ !,E RE%P#&E#!% ? 1 1
T+$ 1.4$)0IM.$4 RE%P#&E#!% respectfully state/
'. A&M"%%"#% A#& &E#"A5%.
> 5 5. !omitted#
(. &"%C<%%"#
9.8. The releant proisions of the #eised "enal Code on estafa =deceit/swindling> are as
follows:
1rticle :85. 'windling =estafa>. N 1ny person who shall defraud another by any of the
means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:
8st. The penalty of prision correccional in its ma!imum period to prision mayor in its
minimum period, if the amount of the fraud is oer 89,;;; pesos but does not e!ceed
99,;;; pesos, and if such amount e!ceeds the latter sum, the penalty proided in this
paragraph shall be imposed in its ma!imum period, adding one year for each additional
8;,;;; pesosA but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not e!ceed twenty years.
.n such case, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and
for the purpose of other the proisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision
mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be.
9nd. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the
amount of the fraud is oer 0,;;; pesos but does not e!ceed 89,;;; pesosA
:rd. The penalty of arresto mayor in its ma!imum period to prision correccional in its
minimum period, if such amount is oer 9;; pesos but does not e!ceed 0,;;; pesosA
and
4th. (y arresto mayor in its medium and ma!imum periods, if such amount does not
e!ceed 9;; pesos, proided that in the four cases mentioned, the fraud be committed by
any of the following means:
8. 3ith unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:
=a> (y altering the substance, Duantity, or Duality of anything of alue which the
offender shall delier by irtue of an obligation to do so, een though such obligation be
based on an immoral or illegal consideration.
=b> (y misappropriating or conerting, to the pre/udice of another, money, goods, or any
other personal property receied by the offender in trust or on commission, or for
administration, or under any other obligation inoling the duty to make deliery of or
to return the same, een though such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a
bondA or by denying haing receied such money, goods, or other property.
=c> (y taking undue adantage of the signature of the offended party in blank, and by
writing any document aboe such signature in blank, to the pre/udice of the offended
party or of any third person.
9. (y means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts e!ecuted prior to
or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:
=a> (y using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence,
Dualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means
of other similar deceits.
=b> (y altering the Duality, fineness or weight of anything pertaining to his art or
business.
=c> (y pretending to hae bribed any 7oernment employee, without pre/udice to the
action for calumny which the offended party may deem proper to bring against the
offender. .n this case, the offender shall be punished by the ma!imum period of the
penalty.
=d> (y postEdating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the
offender had no funds in the bank, or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to
coer the amount of check. The failure of the drawer of the check to deposit the amount
necessary to coer his check within three =:> 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 eidence of deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent
act. =1s amended by #epublic 1ct +o. 4555, approed %une 82, 8<02.>
=e> (y obtaining any food, refreshment or accommodation at a hotel, inn, restaurant,
boarding house, lodging house, or apartment house and the like without paying
therefor, with intent to defraud the proprietor or manager thereof, or by obtaining credit
at a hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding house, lodging house, or apartment house by the
use of any false pretense, or by abandoning or surreptitiously remoing any part of his
baggage from a hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding house, lodging house or apartment
house after obtaining credit, food, refreshment or accommodation therein without
paying for his food, refreshment or accommodation. =1s amended by Com. 1ct +o. 852.>
:. Through any of the following fraudulent means:
=a> (y inducing another, by means of deceit, to sign any document.
=b> (y resorting to some fraudulent practice to insure success in a gambling game.
=c> (y remoing, concealing or destroying, in whole or in part, any court record, office
files, document or any other papers.
G ! !.
.. In the case of &"#"%" A; a.k.a. !#8 7 vs. PEP5E $ !,E P,"5"PP"#E%, 7R
#o. 19(()B, Marc' (/, (*1*, the elements of $stafa were discussed "y the 0upreme *ourt, thus/
> 5 5 .
The elements of *stafa under %rticle &'(, Paragraph '!B# of the )evised Penal *ode are/
!a# that money, goods or other personal property is received "y the offender in trust or on
commission, or for administration, or under any other o"ligation involving the duty to make
delivery of or to return the same.
!"# that there "e misappropriation or conversion of such money or property "y the offender,
or denial on his part of such receipt
!c# that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and
!d# there is demand "y the offended party to the offender.
The first element of *stafa under %rticle &'(, Paragraph '!B# is the receipt "y the offender of the
money, goods, or other personal property in trust or on commission, or for administration, or
under any other o"ligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same.
> 5 5.
?e ne5t turn to the second element of *stafa under %rticle &'(, Paragraph '!B# namely,
prejudice and the third element, therein of misappropriation.
The essence of *stafa under %rticle &'(, paragraph '!"# is the appropriation or conversion of
money or property received to the prejudice of the owner. The words @convertE and
@misappropriateE connote an act of using or disposing of another<s property as if it were one<s
own, or of devoting it to a purpose or use different from that agreed upon. To misappropriate for
one<s own use includes not only conversion to one<s personal advantage, "ut also every attempt
to dispose of the property of another without right.
> 5 5.
(.3. In the case of R%"!A %8 vs. PEP5E $ !,E P,"5"PP"#E%, 7.R. #o. 1939)/, A+ril
14, (*1* discussed the ways of committing the felony of estafa, thus/
> 5 5.
The sole issue for resolution is whether 0y should "e held lia"le for estafa, penaliAed under
%rticle &'(, paragraph !a# of the )evised Penal *ode !)P*#.
0windling or estafa is punisha"le under %rticle &'( of the )P*. There are three ways of
committing estafa, vi$./ !'# with unfaithfulness or a"use of confidence; !# "y means of false
pretenses or fraudulent acts; or !&# through fraudulent means. The three ways of committing
estafa may "e reduced to two, i.e., !'# "y means of a"use of confidence; or !# "y means of
deceit.
The elements of estafa in general are the following/ !a# that an accused defrauded another "y
a"use of confidence, or "y means of deceit; and !"# that damage and prejudice capa"le of
pecuniary estimation is caused the offended party or third person.
The act complained of in the instant case is penaliAed under %rticle &'(, paragraph !a# of the
)P*, wherein estafa is committed "y any person who shall defraud another "y false pretenses or
fraudulent acts e5ecuted prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. It is
committed "y using fictitious name, or "y pretending to possess power, influence, 9ualifications,
property, credit, agency, "usiness or imaginary transactions, or "y means of other similar deceits.
The elements of estafa "y means of deceit are the following, vi$./ !a# that there must "e a false
pretense or fraudulent representation as to his power, influence, 9ualifications, property, credit,
agency, "usiness or imaginary transactions; !"# that such false pretense or fraudulent
representation was made or e5ecuted prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the
fraud; !c# that the offended party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means
and was induced to part with his money or property; and !d# that, as a result thereof, the offended
party suffered damage.
> 5 5.
(.4. In the case of $RA#C"%C R. 55AMA% and CARME5"!A C. 55AMA% vs. !,E
,#RA05E C<R! $ APPEA5%, 0RA#C, BB $ !,E RE7"#A5 !R"A5
C<R! $ MACA!" C"!8 and !,E PEP5E $ !,E P,"5"PP"#E%, 7R #o. 14/599,
August 1B, (*1*, it was held, among other things, that 4%M%M$ is an element of estafa, thus/
> 5 5.
%rticle &'6 !# of the )evised Penal *ode states/
%)T. &'6. ,ther forms of swindling. F The penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium
periods and a fine of not less than the value of the damage caused and not more than three times
such value, shall "e imposed upon/
5 5 5
. %ny person who, knowing that real property is encum"ered, shall dispose of the same,
although such encum"rance "e not recorded;
5 5 5
In every criminal prosecution, the 0tate must prove "eyond reasona"le dou"t all the elements of
the crime charged and the complicity or participation of the accused.
For petitioners to "e convicted of the crime of swindling under %rticle &'6 !# of the )evised
Penal *ode, the prosecution had the "urden to prove the confluence of the following essential
elements of the crime/
'. that the thing disposed of "e real property;
. that the offender knew that the real property was encum"ered,
whether the encum"rance is recorded or not;
&. that there must "e e5press representation "y the offender that the real property is free from
encum"rance; and
G. that the act of disposing of the real property "e made to the damage of another.
,ne of the essential elements of swindling under %rticle &'6, paragraph , is that the act of
disposing the encum"ered real property is made to the damage of another. In this case, neither
the trial court nor the *% made any finding of any damage to the offended party. .owhere in the
4ecision of the )T* or that of the *% is there any discussion that there was damage suffered "y
complainant %vila, or any finding that his rights over the property were prejudiced.
,n the contrary, complainant had possession and control of the land even as the cases were "eing
heard. +is possession and right to e5ercise dominion over the property was not distur"ed.
%dmittedly, there was delay in the delivery of the title. This, however, was the su"ject of a
separate case, which was eventually decided in petitioners< favor.
If no damage should result from the sale, no crime of estafa would have "een committed "y the
vendor, as the element of damage would then "e lacking. The inevita"le conclusion, therefore, is
that petitioners should "e ac9uitted of the crime charged.
> 5 5. !underscoring supplied#
.(. There is no proof that the respondents intentionally, maliciously and feloniously deceived the
association. )espondents 5 5 5 and 5 55 signed the 9uestioned check as authoriAed "ank
signatories of the association.
!-ote. )espondent 5 5 5 did not sign the check. +e did not participate in the 9uestioned
transactions in any manner#.
.(.'. There is no proof that the respondents damaged the association "y using, malversing or
converting the 9uestioned amount to their own personal use.
.(.. )espondents 5 5 5 and 5 5 5 simply transferred the amount to the name of the new *ooperative
I. M,,4 F%IT+ in accord with the formal manifestation, mandate, order, wish, and desire of
the mem"ers of the association who had formed a new *ooperative and who had mandated the
association to transfer its funds, assets, concessions, and contracts association to the new
*ooperative.
.(.&. M,,4 F%IT+ is a defense in malum en se, such as estafa. This is too "asic and too elementary
a doctrine that it does not re9uire jurisprudential citations. %t any rate, the following cases are
cited/
PEP5E $ !,E P,"5"PP"#E% vs. CRA A0E55A >E&A, 7.R. #os. 1*4(39=59, >une
(**4, on M,,4 FI%T+ as a defense in estafa and mala en se.

> 5 5.
/*C*I+ A-/ /A"AG* AS *#*"*-+S ,0 *S+A0A
1nder paragraph !d# of %rticle &'( of the )P*, as amended "y )% G77(, the elements of estafa
are/ !'# a check is postdated or issued in payment of an o"ligation contracted at the time it is
issued; !# lack or insufficiency of funds to cover the check; !&# damage to the payee thereof.
&eceit and da-age are essential ele-ents of t'e offense and -ust 2e esta2lis'ed 2.
satisfactor. +roof to warrant conviction. Thus, the drawer of the dishonored check is given
three days from receipt of the notice of dishonor to cover the amount of the check. ,therwise a
prima facie presumption of deceit arises.
The prosecution failed to prove deceit in this case. The prima facie presumption of deceit was
successfully re"utted "y appellant<s evidence of good faith, a defense in estafa "y postdating a
check. Mood faith may "e demonstrated, for instance, "y a de"tor<s offer to arrange a payment
scheme with his creditor. In this case, the de"tor not only made arrangements for payment; as
complainant herself categorically stated, the de"tor=appellant fully paid the entire amount of the
dishonored checks.
It must "e noted that our )evised Penal *ode was enacted to penaliAe unlawful acts accompanied
"y evil intent denominated as crimes mala in se. !'e +rinci+al consideration is t'e e1istence
of -alicious intent. There is a concurrence of freedom, intelligence and intent which together
make up the @criminal mindE "ehind the @criminal act.E Thus, to constitute a crime, the act must,
generally and in most cases, "e accompanied "y a criminal intent. Actus non facit reum nisi
mens sit rea. #o cri-e is co--itted if t'e -ind of t'e +erson +erfor-ing t'e act
co-+lained of is innocent. %s we held in +a!uena vs. Sandigan!a&an 123 SCRA 441 567789./
The rule was reiterated in People v. Pacana, although this case involved falsification of pu"lic
documents and estafa/
@,rdinarily, evil intent must unite with an unlawful act for there to "e a crime. Actus non facit
reum nisi mens sit rea. There can "e no crime when the criminal mind is wanting.E
%merican jurisprudence echoes the same principle. It adheres to the view that criminal intent in
em"eAAlement is not "ased on technical mistakes as to the legal effect of a transaction honestly
entered into, and there can "e no em"eAAlement if the mind of the person doing the act is
innocent or if there is no wrongful purpose.
> 5 5. (underscoring supplied).
!y )nalogy1
FRANCISCO .. LECAROZ 456 LENLIE LECAROZ, vs$ SANDIGANBAYAN
456 PEOPLE OF T)E P)ILIPPINES, G.R. No. 130'7&, .4%@A &5, 1777, re:
"#')6"T.$+ $, 7$$* ,1.T4.
G ! !.
The rule is that any mistake on a doubtful or difficult Duestion of law may be the basis of
good faith. .n Cabungcal v" Cordova, 0o" &(23456, 52 7uly, 2436, 22 SC) .86, we
affirmed the doctrine that an erroneous interpretation of the meaning of the proisions
of an ordinance by a city mayor does not amount to bad faith that would entitle an
aggrieed party to damages against that official. 3e reiterated this principle in -abutol
v" Pascual which held that public officials may not be liable for damages in the discharge
of their official functions absent any bad faith. Sanders v" 9eridiano II e!panded the
concept by declaring that under the law on public officers, acts done in the performance
of official duty are protected by the presumption of good faith.
G ! !.
.(.G. > 5 5.
.(.(. > 5 5.
.6. > 5 5.
.B. In the case of PEP5E $ !,E P,"5"PP"#E% vs. $E5"C"A# A#A0E .
CAP"55A#, 7.R. #o. 1)/*33 , %e+te-2er B, (*1*, where conspiracy was not proved, the
0upreme *ourt held, thus/
: ; ;. ?hile conspiracy was alleged in the Informations, it was not esta"lished during the trial.
*onspiracy as a "asis for conviction must rest on nothing less than a moral certainty. *onsidering
the far=reaching conse9uences of a criminal conspiracy, the same degree of proof necessary in
esta"lishing the crime is re9uired to support the attendance thereof, i.e., it must "e shown to e5ist
as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the offense itself. ?hile conspiracy need not
"e esta"lished "y direct evidence, it is nonetheless re9uired that it "e proved "y clear and
convincing evidence "y showing a series of acts done "y each of the accused in concert and in
pursuance of the common unlawful purpose.
In the present case, there is want of evidence to show the concerted acts of appellant, *onrada
and Felicita !al"eit already discharged# in pursuing a common design N to ro" 1y. The
prosecution in fact appears to have a"andoned the theory of conspiracy altogether, no evidence
thereof having "een presented. A!sent proof of conspirac& appellant ma& onl& !e held
accounta!le for acts that are imputa!le to him with moral certainty.
> 5 5.
.7. I. T+$ *%0$ ,F R%"E D<"&E! 6%. PEP5E $ !,E P,"5"PP"#E%, 7.R. #. 1)*(9/,
APR"5 9, (*1*, IT ?%0 +$-4, T+10/
*onspiracy must "e proved as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the offense itself
for it is a facile device "y which an accused may "e ensnared and kept within the penal fold. In
case of reasona"le dou"t as to its e5istence, the "alance tips in favor of the milder form of
criminal lia"ility as what is at stake is the accused<s li"erty. ?e apply these principles in this
case.
> 5 5.
*onspiracy e5ists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a
felony and decide to commit it. The essence of conspiracy is the unity of action and purpose. Its elements,
like the physical acts constituting the crime itself, must "e proved "eyond reasona"le dou"t. ?hen there is
conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.
*onspiracy can "e inferred from and esta"lished "y the acts of the accused themselves when said acts
point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interests. +owever, in
determining whether conspiracy e5ists, it is not sufficient that the attack "e joint and simultaneous for
simultaneousness does not of itself demonstrate the concurrence of will or unity of action and purpose
which are the "ases of the responsi"ility of the assailants. ?hat is determinative is proof esta"lishing that
the accused were animated "y one and the same purpose.
> 5 5.
There is no 9uestion that Ka person may "e convicted for the criminal act of another where, "etween them,
there has "een conspiracy or unity of purpose and intention in the commission of the crime charged.K It is,
likewise, settled that Kto esta"lish conspiracy, it is not necessary to prove previous agreement to commit a
crime, if there is proof that the malefactors have acted in consort and in pursuance of the same o"jective.K
.evertheless, Kthe evidence to prove the same must "e positive and
convincing. %s a facile device "y which an accused may "e ensnared and kept within the penal fold,
conspiracy re9uires conclusive proof if we are to maintain in full strength the su"stance of the time=
honored principle in criminal law re9uiring proof "eyond reasona"le dou"t "efore conviction.K
> 5 5.
Moreover, although the appellant and his co=accused acted with some degree of simultaneity in attacking
the deceased, nevertheless, the same is insufficient to prove conspiracy. The rule is well=settled that
Ksimultaneousness does not of itself demonstrate the concurrence of will nor the unity of action and
purpose which are the "asis of the responsi"ility of two or more individuals.K To esta"lish common
responsi"ility it is not sufficient that the attack "e joint and simultaneous; it is necessary that the assailants
"e animated "y one and the same purpose. In the case at "ar, the appellant )aymundo Cistido and the
accused Pepito MontaOo, did not act pursuant to the same o"jective. Thus, the purpose of the latter was to
kill as shown "y the fact that he inflicted a mortal wound "elow the a"domen of the deceased which
caused his death. ,n the other hand, the act of the appellant in giving the deceased one fist "low after the
latter was sta""ed "y the accused Pepito MontaOo N an act which is certainly unnecessary and not
indispensa"le for the consummation of the criminal assault N does not indicate a purpose to kill the
deceased, "ut merely to Kshow offK or e5press his sympathy or feeling of camaraderie with the accused
Pepito MontaOo. Thus, in People vs. Portugue$a, this *ourt held that/
> 5 5.
By and large, the evidence for the prosecution failed to show the e5istence of conspiracy which,
according to the settled rule, must "e shown to e5ist as clearly and convincingly as the crime itself. In the
a"sence of conspiracy, the lia"ility of the defendants is separate and individual, each is lia"le for his own
acts, the damage caused there"y, and the conse9uences thereof. ?hile the evidence shows that the
appellant "o5ed the deceased, it is, however, silent as to the e5tent of the injuries, in which case, the
appellant should "e held lia"le only for slight physical injuries.
?e reach the same conclusion here. For failure of the prosecution to prove conspiracy "eyond
reasona"le dou"t, petitioner<s lia"ility is separate and individual. > 5 5.
.8. > 5 5..
.'2. The respondents reserve the right to file a 01PP-$M$.T%- %FFI4%CIT 5 5 5.
.''. The respondents reserve the right to file a )$D,I.4$)=%FFI4%CIT.
P R A 8 E R
;,ERE$RE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the instant criminal
complaint "e 4I0MI00$4 for lack of merit.
$urt'er, the respondents respectfully pray for such and other reliefs as may "e deemed just
and e9uita"le in the premises.
> 5 5 *ity, 5 5 5.

? 1 1 1 1 1
Res+ondent Res+ondent
? 1 1
Res+ondent
01B0*)IB$4 and sworn to "efore me on 5 5 5 in 5 5 5 *ity.
Assistant Cit& Prosecutor