Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice
National Prosecution Service
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
City of Manila

STARLA DE CHAVEZ,
Complainant,

I.S. No. __________

For: Estafa under Art. 315,
Par. 1(B)) and Unjust
- versus -
Vexation under Art.
287 of the Revised
Penal Code.

PO2 JERRY YAN,

Respondent.
x----------------------------------------x

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT

I, STARLA DE CHAVEZ, of legal age, Filipino, married

and with residence and postal address at 818 Bagong Pag-Asa
Street, Ermita, Manila, after being sworn to in accordance with
law, do hereby depose and state:

1. Respondent, PO2 JERRY YAN, is of legal age,

Filipino and with postal address at Regional
Headquarters Support Group, Camp Bagong Diwa,
Lower Bicutan, Taguig City;

2. Sometime in May 2018, RESPONDENT came to me

to borrow the amount of One Hundred Fifty
Thousand Pesos (Php 150,000.00) with interest at
the rate of Ten Thousand Pesos (Php 10,000) per
month;

3. Agreeing to lend him the said amount, I sent my god

daughter, MARIMAR REYES to the bank to deposit
the money. On May 24, 2018, Marimar Reyes went
to Bank of the Philippine Islands and deposited the
amount of Seventy Thousand Pesos (Php 70,000.00)
in the account of RESPONDENT;
 Attached herein and marked as “ANNEX A” is a
photocopy of the Deposit Slip dated May 24, 2018 to
Savings Account Number 111222333, and made an
integral part hereto;

4. A few days thereafter, RESPONDENT came to my

place of residence to get the remaining amount of
the money he wishes to loan;

5. Since RESPONDENT cannot alight his vehicle, I

volunteered to come out of my house. I went inside
his car and handed to him the amount of Eighty
Thousand Pesos (Php 80,000.00);

6. RESPONDENT promised that he would begin paying

the loan on June 2018 such amount and on such
dates convenient for him. It was further agreed by
us that the interests earned by the loan shall be
paid directly to my mother. Despite the perfection of
a loan contract, the same was not reduced to
writing because being a member of the Philippine
National Police, I trusted RESPONDENT to make
good his promise of paying me back;

7. Sometime in June, the first month which

RESPONDENT is obliged to make payment,
RESPONDENT went to the residence of my mother.
However, he handed no money to my mother as
payment to the loan. Instead, RESPONDENT gifted
my mother some bread he bought;

8. When I returned to the Philippines, I confronted

RESPONDENT regarding his non-payment of the
loan, as promised. RESPONDENT replied that his
service firearm was stolen from him;

9. Surprised, I confronted him by asking why should

he purchase a new firearm when he can apply for
the issuance of a new service firearm;

10. RESPONDENT further reasoned out that the loss of

a service firearm has a corresponding penalty and
that the same can gravely affect his promotion as a
police officer;
11. RESPONDENT even had the audacity to confess to
me that he intends to alter the serial number of the
firearm he will be purchasing to make it appear that
the same is the service firearm he lost;

12. Thereafter, I made several verbal demands to

RESPONDENT for the payment of the loan. The
mere mention of interest irks RESPONDENT which
resulted in him raising his voice at me;

13. Eventually, RESPONDENT blocked me from Viber

and Facebook Messenger to prevent me from
reminding him of his loan obligation;

14. This prompted me to seek assistance from the

National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) in
determining the whereabouts of RESPONDENT. I
personally went to NAPOLCOM sometime in March
2019;

15. While inside Camp Bagong Diwa, I was able to

contact the mobile number of RESPONDENT. I
asked where I can find his office. However,
RESPONDENT refused to inform me the location of
his office;

16. Nevertheless, I found the office of RESPONDENT

through the help of the other members of the PNP in
Camp Bagong Diwa;

17. I reminded RESPONDENT to settle his overdue loan.

I even presented to him a written contract
stipulating the terms of our agreement. However,
RESPONDENT refused to sign one on account that
would not be executed infront of a notary public;

18. Angered by his refusal, I told him that I would go

directly to NAPOLCOM. He told me to stop and
convinced me to meet him at the nearest Starbucks
while he finishes his work;

19. RESPONDENT met me at Starbucks. He promised

that he would settle the loan on June 2019 because
 the money was invested in a condominium unit
mortgaged to him;

20. From June to August 2019, I repeatedly demanded

from RESPONDENT payment for the loan. However,
RESPONDENT always had an excuse such as too
much work, stress, and exhaustion, among others;

21. Apart from my verbal demands, I continuously

texted RESPONDENT and earnestly waited for his
reply until late in the evening. On July 27, 2019,
RESPONDENT replied to my message already late in
the evening while he was at the wake of our
highschool batchmate;

22. Much worse, RESPONDENT sent me several

pictures of the corpse of our batchmate. The images
he sent truly bothered me;

23. Very much irked by his immaturity, I told him that I

would call him at 1 o’clock in the morning.
RESPONDENT refused to answer my calls until
eventually, he blocked my number to prevent me
from calling him further;

24. I was forced to seek the assistance of a lawyer in

filing a case against RESPONDENT;

25. Hence, this present Complaint.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION:

UNJUST VEXATION

26. Citing Guevarra in Maderazo vs. People of the

Philippines,1 the Supreme Court declared that the
second paragraph of Article 287 is broad enough to
include any human conduct which, although not
productive of some physical or material harm, could
unjustifiably annoy or vex an innocent person.

27. For a conviction for Unjust Vexation to be made, the

paramount question to be considered is whether the
offender’s act caused annoyance, irritation, torment,

1
G.R. No. 165065; September 26, 2006.
 distress or disturbance to the mind of the person to
whom it is directed.2

28. Thus, a person may be held criminally liable for

Unjust Vexation for any human act which caused to
the mind of another person annoyance, irritation,
torment, distress or disturbance of the mind
although there is no physical or material injury
caused;

29. In this present complaint, there is sufficient

probable cause to hold that RESPONDENT had
committed the crime of Unjust Vexation;

30. On July 29, 2019, RESPONDENT sent to me several

pictures of the corpse of our deceased highschool
batchmate. These photographs were sent to me
without me requesting nor my consent;

31. I was so shocked to have seen the photographs. The

image was so disturbing especially considering that
it was past 1:00 in the morning when the night is at
its darkest. The images haunted me so much;

32. His acts of teasing me by sending those pictures

were so annoying and irritating. It was so childish
and immature. It was completely out of hand
considering that RESPONDENT is a member of the
Philippine National Police;

33. The act of RESPONDENT of sending me pictures of

a deceased person caused me so much annoyance
and irritation which caused me to feel severely
distressed and disturbed. For this reason, there is
probable cause that RESPONDENT had committed
the crime of Unjust Vexation under Article 287 of
the Revised Penal Code.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION:

ESTAFA Under Article 315 Par. 1(B)

34. The Revised Penal Code defines the crime of Estafa

through Abuse Confidence as:

2
People vs. Reyes; 60 Phil. 369 (1934).
 “Article 315. Swindling (estafa).

x x x x the fraud be committed by any of the

following means:

1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence,

namely:

x x xx

(b) 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 obligation be totally or partially
guaranteed by a bond; or by denying having
received such money, goods, or other property.

x x x.”

35. Thus, the elements of estafa under Article 315,

paragraph 1 (b) are as follows:

(1) that money, goods, or other personal

properties are 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;

(2) that there is a misappropriation or conversion

of such money or property by the offender or a
denial of the receipt thereof;

(3) that the misappropriation or conversion or

denial is to the prejudice of another; and

(4) that there is a demand made by the offended

party on the offender.

36. In this present Complaint, all the elements for the

crime of Estafa are present.

37. First Element. It is without doubt that

RESPONDENT borrowed money from me in the
 total amount of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos
(Php 150,000.00) comprising of a bank deposit on
May 24, 2018 in the amount of Seventy Thousand
Pesos (Php 70,000.00) and physical hand-over
sometime in June 2018 in the amount of Eighty
Thousand Pesos (Php 80,000.00);

38. By the contract of loan, one of the parties delivers to

another money or other consumable thing, upon the
condition that the same amount of the same kind
and quality shall be paid.3 Being a contract of loan,
the debtor had the obligation to return the money
on the date agreed upon by the Parties. In this case,
RESPONDENT promised to begin payment of the
obligation on June 2019. However, no payment of
the principal or the interest was made. To this day,
RESPONDENT had not paid a single centavo of his
legal obligation;

39. Second Element. The second element of

misappropriation or conversion has been defined in
this wise:

The words "convert" and "misappropriate" connote

the 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, but
also every attempt to dispose of the property of
another without right. In proving the element of
conversion or misappropriation, a legal presumption
of misappropriation arises when the accused fails to
deliver the proceeds of the sale or to return the
items to be sold and fails to give an account of their
whereabouts.4 (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

40. By June 2018, RESPONDENT already had the

obligation to turn over the money he had to me.
However, as admitted by RESPONDENT, the money
was used to invest in a condominium unit
mortgaged to him. Thus, there is indeed
misappropriation of the money loaned by
RESPONDENT;

3
Civil Code, Article 1933.
4
Soledad Tria vs. People of the Philippines; G.R. No. 204755; September 17, 2014.
 41. It should be duly noted that there was no agreement
that the money will be used for investment.
RESPONDENT admitted back in June 2018 that the
his purpose of borrowing the money is for the
purchase a firearm to replace his stolen service
firearm;

42. Third Element. Without a doubt we incurred

damages as a result of the acts of RESPONDENT.
Damage as an element of estafa may consist in (1)
the offended party being deprived of his money or
property as a result of the defraudation; (2)
disturbance in property right; or (3) temporary
prejudice.5

43. Because of the continuous and unjustified refusal of

RESPONDENT to settle his obligation, I am denied
of my right to make use of my hard earned money.
This is especially true considering that the amount
loaned is of great value which my husband and I
could have used for more important and serious
matters. The act of RESPONDENT deprived me and
my husband of the lawful use of the money loaned;

44. Clearly we incurred damages because

RESPONDENT had deprived us of our money as a
result of his defraudation. It further disturbed our
property right over said money to spend of it for our
personal use.

45. Furthermore, injury was caused because of lost

earnings from the interests agreed upon between
me and RESPONDENT. To date, the money loaned
would have earned from June 2018 of at least One
Hundred Seventy Thousand Pesos. Thus I incurred
loss of profit from the transaction;

46. Fourth Element. Several demands towards

RESPONDENT was made by me beginning June
2018 when RESPONDENT failed to pay the loan and
instead gave only bread to my mother. Contrary to
what we agreed upon. Further, I even had to locate
the office of RESPONDENT in Camp Bagong Diwa to
make my demands. Furthermore, there were several
text messages and phone calls made by me

5
Tony Tan vs. People of the Philippines; G.R. No. 153460; January 29, 2007.
 demanding for the payment of the loan. The most
prominent of which was on July 29, 2019 – the day
RESPONDENT was at the wake of our deceased
highschool batchmate;

47. It is the policy of the State to promote a high

standard of ethics in public service. Public officials
and employees shall at all times be accountable to
the people and shall discharge their duties with
utmost responsibility, integrity, competence, and
loyalty, act with patriotism and justice, lead modest
lives, and uphold public interest over personal
interest.6

48. Public Officials7 such as RESPONDENT is mandated

by law to uphold public interest over their personal
interest. However, it is RESPONDENT himself who
has failed to uphold the law in failing to settle his
obligation. The high regard given to public officers
must be protected by all government employees.
However, RESPONDENT failed miserably at this
aspect;

49. The high respect I gave RESPONDENT which

acceded me to grant the loan to him is the sole
basis to trust him that he will make good of his
promise to pay his monetary obligation. Should he
have not been a member of the Philippine National
Police, I would have given stricter terms under our
loan agreement;

50. His stature as a police officer was my sole

consideration for me to part ways with my money.
The high regard demanded by law from
RESPONDENT was what prompted me to trust him
that he will faithfully and voluntarily undertake his
obligation. However, RESPONDENT gravely abused
such confidence.

AFFIANT FURTHER SAYETH NAUGHT

6
Section 2, Republic Act No. 6713 otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public Officers and Employees.
7
R.A. No. 6713, Section 3 Paragraph B "Public Officials" includes elective and appointive officials and
employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the career or non-career service, including military
and police personnel, whether or not they receive compensation, regardless of amount. (emphasis and
underscoring supplied).
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
this _____ day of November, 2019 at the City of Manila,
Philippines.

STARLA DE CHAVEZ
Affiant

CERTIFICATION

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _____ day

of November, 2019 at the City of Manila, Philippines. I hereby
certify that I have personally examined the above-named
Affiant and that I am satisfied that she voluntarily executed
and understood the foregoing Complaint-Affidavit.

_________________________
Asst. City Prosecutor