Engr.

A vs B Page

Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice
NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
General Santos City

Engr. A NPS DOCKET NO.:

Complainant, XII-_______________

- versus - - for -

B USURPATION OF REAL RIGHTS

Respondent. IN PROPERTY PUNISHED
UNDER ARTICLE 312 OF ACT
NO. 3185 OTHERWISE KNOWN
AS THE REVISED PENAL CODE
OF THE PHILIPPINES AS
AMENDED.
x--------------------------------------------x

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT

I, John Philip Esto, of legal age, Filipino, residing at Brgy.

Calumpang, General Santos City, where I may be served with subpoenas and
other court processes, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with
law, hereby state THAT:

1. The respondent in the above-captioned case is Mr. B, of legal age,

residing at Villa Carolina Subdivision, Villa Arevalo District, Iloilo City,
where subpoenas and other court processes may be served;

2. The Complainant and respondent entered into a contract of partnership

involving the operation of C Bar at Mandurriao, Iloilo City, the copy of
which is within the custody of the respondent;

3. As early as December 2019 the complainant started to put up

capitalization for the renovation. The same capitalization was used to
purchase sound systems, fixtures, initial inventory of stocks, and payroll
of staff, such capitalization came in periodically up to May 2020;

4. However, the business venture was suspended because of the COVID-19

Pandemic where lockdowns started in March 2020;

5. Respondent being the business partner of the complainant, the latter

deferred to the former’s sound discretion in the operation of the business
Engr. A vs B Page

as he believes that the respondent will take care of the business diligently
and protect everyone’s interest;

6. But to the complainant’s surprise, he received a demand letter from D

and E, through Atty. F, for the alleged unpaid rentals and utilities of the
premises where the C Bar is to be located. Attached and marked as
Annex “A”;

7. Complainant replied through Atty. G that as to his recollection, he has no

dealings with a certain D and E but only with the respondent. It turns out
that D and E are the children of the respondent. Attached is the reply
letter of the complainant marked as Annex “B”;

8. The agreement between the complainant and respondent is that the latter
will have a share in the business's profits in consideration of the
decreased rental amount. But to the shock and disconcertment of the
complainant, the respondent and his associates, in a clear display of bad
faith, took over the operation of the business and renamed it to “H BAR”;

9. In response to the act committed by the respondent in taking over the

business, the complainant through Atty. King. demanded that the
respondent account and return all the profits that he and his associates
have earned from the time they took over the operations of the business
using the capital provided by the complainant including inventory and
equipment. Attached is the letter demand prepared by said counsel
marked as Annex “C ”;

10. As of 16 September 2022, the complainant has disbursed an amount that

came from General Santos City of not less than FIFTEEN MILLION
PESOS(P15,000,000.00) for capitalization. TEN MILLION NINE
HUNDRED TWENTY-FOUR THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED
EIGHTY-SIX AND 84/100 (P10,924,886.84) of which are supported by
receipts as shown in the summary of expenses prepared by the
complainant marked as Annex “D” to “D-“; the remaining FOUR
MILLION SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED
THIRTEEN AND 16/100 (P4,075,113.16) consisted of wines
amounting to (P2,000,000.00), sounds system amounting to
(P1,000,000.00), fixtures and furniture amounting to (P1,075,113.16) all
of which came from General Santos City which is in the custody of the
respondent. A photo of which are marked as Annex “E” to “E-5 “;
Engr. A vs B Page

11. In Jose Paulo Legaspi y Navera vs People of the Philippines 1the court
held that:

“The elements of estafa through

misappropriation under Article 315, paragraph
1(b) are: (a) the offender's receipt of money,
goods, or other personal property in trust, or on
commission, or for administration, or under any
other obligation involving the duty to deliver, or to
return, the same; (b) misappropriation or
conversion by the offender of the money or
property received, or denial of receipt of the
money or property; (c) the misappropriation,
conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another;
and (d) demand by the offended party that the
offender returns the money or property received.”
12. In this case, all the elements estafa through misappropriation under
paragraph 1(b) are present. First, the respondent has received, through
money transfer, the money given by the complainant which was
intended for the capital of C Bar;

13. Second, there is a misappropriation or conversion on the part of the

respondent when he took over the business to the exclusion of the
complainant and renamed the same to “H Bar”; Third, the
misappropriation or conversion committed by the respondent is
prejudicial to the complainant as he suffered damages in the amount of
not less than Fifteen Million (P15,000,000.00). The money, which came
from General Santos City, given by the complainant was supposed to be
for C Bar which the parties agreed upon and not for H BAR which was
operated by the respondent;
14. Fourth, the complainant made a demand against the respondent here in
General Santos City when it engaged the services of a counsel, and such
counsel then sent a demand letter to the respondent dated 16 September
2022. Thus, all the elements constituting the crime of estafa through
misappropriation under paragraph 1(b) are committed by the respondent;

15. Also in Carmen Liwanag vs CA2 the court held that

“When money or property had been received

by the partner for a specific purpose, and he later

1
Jose Paulo Legaspi y Navera vs People of the Philippines GR No. 225753 dated October 15, 2018

2
Carmen Liwanag vs CA G.R. No. 114398. October 24, 1997
Engr. A vs B Page

misappropriated it, such partner is guilty of

estafa”

16. Here, the capitalization, which comes from General Santos City, given
by the complainant to the respondent was for the specific purpose of
establishing the C Bar, however, the defendant misappropriated it when
it operated its H BAR, hence, he is liable for estafa;

17. As to the jurisdiction of this case, in Ruel Francis M. Cabral vs Chris S.

Bracamonte3 the court held that:

“For jurisdiction to be acquired by courts

in criminal cases, the offense should have been
committed or any one of its essential ingredients
should have taken place within the territorial
jurisdiction of the court.”

22. Also, in Solemnidad M. Buaya vs Hon. Wenceslao M. Polo & Country

Bankers Insurance Corporation4, the court ruled that:

“Besides, the crime of estafa is a continuing

or transitory offense which may be prosecuted at
the place where any of the essential elements of
the crime took place. One of the essential elements
of estafa is damage or prejudice to the offended
party. The private respondent has its principal
place of business and office at Manila. The
failure of the petitioner to remit the insurance
premiums she collected allegedly caused damage
and prejudice to private respondent in Manila.”

23. The complainant sustained damages here in General Santos City when
the respondent failed to make an accounting to the complainant in
General Santos City. Hence, the venue for the purposes of filing the case
is in General Santos City.

PRAYER

3
Ruel Francis M. Cabral vs Chris S. Bracamonte GR No. 233174 dated January 23, 2019

4
Solemnidad M. Buaya vs Hon. Wenceslao M. Polo & Country Bankers Insurance Corporation GR No. L-
75079 1989 January 26
Engr. A vs B Page

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing and in the interest of justice,

it is respectfully prayed before this Honorable Office that an information for
estafa through misappropriation under paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal
Code be filed against the respondent.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature

this _______________ at General Santos City, Philippines.

ENGR. A
Affiant
_________________________

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ____________, at

General Santos City Philippines, I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE
PERSONALLY EXAMINED THE AFFIANT AND THAT I AM
SATISFIED AND FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT AFFIANT HAS FULLY
READ AND UNDERSTOOD THE CONTENTS OF THIS AFFIDAVIT.