Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

CITY OF MUNTINLUPA ) S.S.

AFFIDAVIT-COMPLAINT

I, Franklin Eestsernon, of legal age, Filipino, married


with business address at Phase 9. Block 41 Package 3-C Maharlika St.,
Bagong Silang, Caloocan City after having been sworn under oath do
hereby depose and state that:

1. I am accusing NYMROD TALA –OC a resident of Block


5, Lot 5 Greenleaf Classic I, Brgy. Kaypian, san Jose del Monte Bulacan
where he can be served with legal processes of the crime of ESTAFA
under the Revised Penal Code;

2. The crime of estafa was committed on April 26, 2018 at


Caloocan City when accused Tala-oc went to complainant’s residence
at Phase 9. Block 41 Package 3-C Maharlika St., Bagong Silang,
Caloocan City and convinced him to invest in his company called J2N
IT Consultancy Services. In their discussion, complainant was
convinced invest in the respondent’s company in the amount of FIVE
HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS ( Php 500,000.00 ).

3. To close the agreement, complainant and respondent


entered into an agreement denominated as Investment Contract
hereto attached as ANNEX “A”. In said contract, acknowledges receipt
of the amount of Php 500,000.00 and that he is to receive 5%
equivalent to Ph 25,000.00 monthly for the use of his money starting
May 26, 2018 until September 2018 and on October, 2018 the full
amount of Php 500,000.00.

4. Thereafter respondent paid the agreed interest for the first


three months from May to July 2018. However, on August 2018,
respondent failed to pay the succeeding months. Complainant called
the respondent and demanded that he make good his obligation but
to no avail. Respondent kept making promises.

5. And on October 26, 2018, the period to pay the Php


500,000.00 became due. As feared by the complainant, the respondent
failed to pay the principal amount on the agreed date. The following
day complainant decided to put in writing his demand attached as
ANNEX “B” upon the respondent Tala-oc to settle his obligation again
to no avail. Respondent only made empty promises. That months had
passed complainant started calling respondent but he does not answer.
He would only reply through text messages and continue to make
promises.

6. That upon inquiry, complainant found out the respondent’s


company ( J2N IT Consultancy Services ) closed and that it transferred
somewhere else. The fact that respondent closed its company without
informing the complainant is in bad faith Complainant could no longer
reach the respondent and he refuses to communicate.

7. Feeling aggrieved complainant was constrained to hire the


services of a counsel. Hence on December 2, 2018 a demand letter
hereto attached as Annex “C” was sent and it was received by the wife
of the complainant Ms. Devie Tala-oc. Complainant waited for any
response, but respondent communicated only thru text. Attached as
ANNEX “D- D- 12” are screen shot copies of the exchanged of text
messages from the time respondent failed to settle his obligation.

8. Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code on deceit/swindling


(estafa) provides any person who shall defraud another by any of the
means mentioned therein shall be punished by the penalty of prision
correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum
period, if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not
exceed 22,000 pesos, and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the
penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum
period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total
penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years;
provided that the fraud be committed by any of the following means:
1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:
X x x.
(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.
2. 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.
X x x.

9. Article 316 (other forms of swindling) of the Revised Penal


Code 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 be imposed
upon “any person who, to the prejudice of another, shall execute any
fictitious contract.”

10. Article 318 (other deceits) of the Revised Penal Code


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 be imposed upon any person who shall defraud or
damage another by “any other deceit not mentioned in the preceding
articles of this chapter.”

11. In the instant case, the laws stated are applicable.


Respondent defrauded the complainant by enticing him of investing in
his company when the company only short-lived. The company was
used merely to lure the complainant in parting with his hard earned
money. Money that complainant was saving for his son.

12. That when respondent closed his company he has the


obligation to make delivery of or to return the money invested. He
could have at least presented an accounting of how the money was
spent or whether it had earned or not. Neither of these things were
done. Respondent, through fraudulent means, was able to
misappropriate or convert, to the prejudice of the complainant his Php
500,000.00 which was supposedly entrusted to respondent as an
investment, and that he has the corresponding duty to return the
same. Complainant entered into an investment contract with the
respondent however the investment turned out as a ruse. Respondent
misappropriated and converted the money he received for his own
personal gain to the detriment and prejudice of herein complainant.

PRAYER.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that after


notice and hearing the respondent be indicted for ESTAFA to
protect/preserve the right/interest of the complainant to recover his
claim of Five Hundred thousand Pesos (P500,000.00), plus exemplary
damages of P100,000.00, moral damages of P100,000.00, attorney’s
fees of P125,000.00 plus 5% of the recoverable amounts, and costs of
suit.

FRANKLIN ESTERNON
Complainant

SUBSCRIBED and sworn to before in Caloocan City me this ___


day of January 21, 2019, affiant/complainant showing his official
identification document as stated above.

Administering Assistant City Prosecutor

Оценить