REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
Manila

ALAN MANLY SY,

Complainant,

I.S. No. _______________________

-versus – For: Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg.
22, otherwise known as “Anti-
Bouncing Checks Law” and Estafa
under the Revised Penal Code

ALBERT MATA CHING,

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

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT

I, ALAN MANLY SY, of legal age, Filipino, married and with

address at No. 168 ITC Compound, Canumay East, Valenzuela City, after

having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, hereby depose and

state:

1. I am a businessman and the Complainant in the above-

captioned case.

2. Respondent ALBERT MATA CHING is of legal age and with

residence address at No. 45 Sta. Rosa St., San Francisco Del Monte, Quezon

City, where he may be served with subpoena and other process by this

Honorable Office.
 [2 ]

3. Sometime in August 2011, Respondent obtained a loan from

me in the amount of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00). In order to

convince me to grant him the said loan, Respondent simultaneously issued

a post-dated check dated 28 August 2011 and guaranteed me that it would

be honored when presented for payment on its due date, the details of

which are as follows:

Date Bank Account Check No. Amount

No.
28 August 2011 Metropolitan 007-004- 0044745416 P1,000,000.00
Bank & Trust 53452-9
Company

Copy of the Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company check is attached

hereto and made an integral part hereof as Annex “A”.

4. The above-stated check was duly signed by Respondent in

my presence and personally handed to me at Golden Fortune Seafood

Restaurant T.M. Kalaw Avenue Branch, Manila, within the jurisdiction

of this Honorable Office.

5. On 28 October 2011, I deposited the check in my account with

Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company Roosevelt Branch, Quezon City.

However, on 02 November 2011 or after three (3) working days from the

date of deposit, a bank officer from the said branch of Metropolitan Bank

& Trust Company informed me that the drawee bank dishonored the

aforementioned check due to a discrepancy in Respondent’s signature, as

evidenced by the words “Signature Irregular” stamped on the frontal

 [3 ]

portion of said check. This is also evidenced by a Notice sent by

Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company stating that the reason for the return

is “signature irregular”.

Copy of the Notice is attached hereto and made an integral part

hereof as Annex “B”.

6. I was surprised to learn that the said check was dishonored

due to irregular signature considering that it was signed in my presence by

Respondent himself. Without any time to waste, I immediately confronted

Respondent of the said dishonor and demanded him to make an

arrangement for the payment of his loan obligation of One Million Pesos

(P1,000,000.00) in full. Despite notice of dishonor of the subject check and

repeated demands made upon Respondent to pay or make good the full

value of the dishonored check, Respondent still failed and refused and

continued to fail and refuse to pay the value of the subject check in the

total amount of ONE MILLION PESOS (Php1,000,000.00), to my damage

and prejudice.

7. Respondent clearly deceived me to part with my money. By

signing a check and delivering the same to me in order to convince me to

grant him the loan, I parted with my money and gave him One Million

Pesos (P1,000,000.00). This certainly constitutes false pretense and

deceitful acts. Had the Respondent not assured me that the check he

issued would be paid upon presentment, I would certainly not have

extended him the loan. His deliberate use of signature different from his
 [4 ]

actual signature, knowing that the bank would not honor it, clearly shows

that the Respondent intended and maliciously deceived me into granting

him a loan of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) without any intention of

paying for the same, to my damage and prejudice.

8. In view thereof, I was constrained to refer this matter to my

lawyer who sent Respondent a Demand Letter dated 09 January 2013,

demanding the full payment of his obligation in the amount of ONE

MILLION PESOS (P1,000,000.00), exclusive of interests, and to make good

the value of the check issued by him, within five (5) days from receipt of

said letter. Respondent received the aforementioned Demand Letter on 10

January 2013.

Copies of the Demand Letter sent by the Complainant and

Acknowledgment Receipt are attached hereto and made integral parts

hereof as Annexes “C” and “D”, respectively.

9. Instead of complying with the demand, Respondent sent a

reply to my Demand Letter through his counsel Quiason Makalintal Barot

Torres Ibarra & Sison. In the said Reply dated 21 January 2013, Respondent

admitted having issued the subject check and in fact, even confirmed that

he ordered the bank to stop its payment.

Copy of the Reply dated 21 January 2013 is attached hereto and

made an integral part hereof as Annex “E”.

 [5 ]

10. Despite such clear admission that he issued the subject check,

he failed to inform the representative of Metrobank that it was actually his

signature and simply allowed the dishonor of the check. Clearly, from the

very start, Respondent, in issuing a worthless check, had no intention of

paying me the loan he obtained.

11. To this date, Respondent’s obligation to me remains unpaid.

Despite several repeated demands, Respondent failed and refused, as it

continues to fail and refuse to pay his overdue and outstanding obligation,

to my damage and prejudice.

12. Respondent is therefore liable for violation of Batas Pambansa

Blg. 22 (B.P. 22) under Section 1 thereof, which states that “Any person who

makes or draws and issues any check to apply on account or for value, knowing at

the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee

bank for the payment of such check in full upon presentment, WHICH CHECK

IS SUBSEQUENTLY DISHONORED BY THE DRAWEE BANK for

insufficiency of funds or credit OR WOULD HAVE BEEN DISHONORED

FOR THE SAME REASON HAD NOT THE DRAWER, WITHOUT ANY

VALID REASON, ORDERED THE BANK TO STOP PAYMENT, shall be

punished x x x.”

13. Similarly, by deceiving me to grant him the loan in exchange

for the post-dated check which Respondent never intended to pay from

the very beginning, I incurred pecuniary damages in the amount of One

 [6 ]

Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00). By lending the said amount, Respondent

enjoyed the use of my money to my own loss and detriment.

14. In the case of Rosita Sy vs. People Of The Philippines (G.R. No.

183879; April 14, 2010) the Honorable Supreme Court had the occasion to

rule the elements of estafa by means of false pretense as follows:

“The elements of estafa by means of deceit are the

following, viz.: (a) that there must be a false pretense

or fraudulent representation as to his power, influence,

qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or

imaginary transactions; (b) that such false pretense or

fraudulent representation was made or executed 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”

15. To reiterate, had it not been for the fraudulent representations

of Respondent that the issued check would be honored when presented for

payment, I would certainly not have extended him the loan. To be sure, by

reason of such intentional and deceitful act of the Respondent, I suffered

material damage and prejudice, for which Respondent should be held

liable.
 [7 ]

16. I am executing this Complaint-Affidavit to attest to the truth of

the foregoing statements and for the purpose of charging Respondent

ALBERTO MATA CHING with violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22,

otherwise known as the “Anti-Bouncing Checks Law” and Estafa under

the Revised Penal Code.

AFFIANT FURTHER SAYETH NAUGHT.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunder set my hand this 3rd

day of July 2014, Quezon City.

ALAN MANLY SY
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 3rd day of July 2014.

HON. ASST. CITY PROSECUTOR

CERTIFICATION

I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE EXAMINED THE AFFIANT

AND THAT I AM SATISFIED THAT HE VOLUNTARILY EXECUTED
AND UNDERSTOOD THE CONTENTS OF HIS COMPLAINT.
[8 ]

HON. ASST. CITY PROSECUTOR