Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR Baguio City

AGNES

F. AMPO, Complainant,

NPS. No. INV-10FOR ESTAFA

- versus ARIES DE LA CRUZ, Respondent. x ------------------------ x

ESOLUTION

We sent the Respondent the requisite ten-day subpoena, dated February 2010, for him to answer the charges and submit his controverting evidence. The return of the subpoena states that the subpoena was served at Respondents last known address, but that he had moved to another residence and had not left any forwarding address.

Section 3, paragraph (d) of Rule 112 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure
provides: x x x (d) If the respondent cannot be subpoenaed, or if subpoenaed, does not submit counter-affidavits within the ten (10) day period, the investigating officer shall resolve the complaint based on the evidence presented by the complainant. x x x

Further, Section 17 of Part III of the Rules on Procedure in the Investigation, Prosecution and Trial of Criminal Cases, provides: x x x SEC. 17. Where Respondent cannot be subpoenaed If a respondent cannot be subpoenaed, as, for instance, he transferred residence without leaving any forwarding address, the Investigating prosecutor shall base his resolution on the evidence presented by the complainant. x x x

Pursuant to the provisions of the Rules that we afore-quoted, this case is therefore being resolved on the bases of the unrefuted evidence on record, which manifests the existence of probable cause against the Respondent for the crime of ESTAFA.

The Revised Penal Code punishes as Estafa under Art. 315, 1 (b) when the felon, with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, misappropriates or converts, to the prejudice of another, money 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 obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond.

In the case at bar, it is not refuted that the Respondent, salesman of the Philippine Spring Water Resources Inc. (PSWRI), was entrusted to deliver/sell Nature Spring Non-Returnable Bottled Water and to collect payments, as well as to remit his collections to the Branch Cashier at the end of each days route. An audit conducted by the companys auditors r eveal that Respondent failed to remit his total collections in the amount of P 61,115.30, and which he refused to settle despite written and verbal demands, to the prejudice of the Complainant.

Resolution: NPS No. INV-10-

Page Two (2)

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully recommended that the Respondent ARIES DE LA CRUZ be charged with ESTAFA under Article 315, 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code, under the Information attached for approval.

Baguio City, Philippines, February 25, 2010.

CONRADO VILLAMOR CATRAL, Jr. 3rd Assistant City Prosecutor

Roll No. 39383 IBP Lifetime No. 01877 MCLE Compliance No. III-003290, May 8, 2009

APPROVED:

ALFREDO R. CENTENO City Prosecutor Roll No. 24118 IBP Lifetime No. 01074 MCLE Compliance No. III-003285, May 8, 1009

Copy Furnished: - Ma. Agnes Ampo, c/o Phil. Spring Water Resources Inc., Mandaue, Cebu City - Aries De la Cruz, 10-3A Leonor Rivera St., Baguio City