Republic of the Philippines)

Quezon City )S.S.

AFFIDAVIT COMPLAINT

I, NOEL M. LUZUNG, of legal age, Filipino, and a resident of Brgy. San

Agustin, City of San Fernando Pampanga after having been duly sworn to in
accordance with law, hereby depose and states that:

1. I am presently an employee and authorized representative of 123

Bus Line, Inc., who has been duly authorized to file this complaint for
FALSIFICATION OF PRIVATE DOCUMENT on behalf of 123 Bus Line, Inc.
(hereafter, “bus company”), a corporation duly organized under Philippine laws
and with business address at Barangay Dolores, City of San Fernando,
Pampanga against a certain EIAN CHAN, of legal age and a resident of Brgy.
Dagat dagatan, Tondo, Manila and a certain FAYE MANIKIS, of legal age,
Filipino, and a resident of 97 harvard St., G. Rodriguez, Cubao, Quezon City,
as evidenced by a Secretary’s Certificate, a copy of which is attached as Annex
“A”;

2. As part of standard operational procedures, employees of the bus

company are issued identification cards (hereafter, “IDs”) which bear the
authenticated signature of our President and General Manager Bernardo
Bernarda, Jr. Employees are required to use and exhibit their IDs during work
hours;

3. On August 18, 2001, the bus company filed a criminal complaint

against EIAN CHAN for estafa through misappropriation of company. The
Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City found probable cause to charge
him for Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code.
EIAN CHAN was terminated from his employment for the said offense;

4. However, it has come to our collective knowledge that EIAN CHAN

and his cohort FAYE MANIKIS continue to loiter around the bus terminal
infront of Ali Mall at Araneta Center, Cubao, as barkers for several bus
companies there;

5. I also learned that CHAN and MANIKIS were able to procure the
production of their own 123 Bus Line company IDs despite the fact that they
are not presently employed by the bus company;

6. I learned that they procure the fabrication of their falsified IDs

from a quick service ID maker somewhere in Cubao. Worse, they have even
induced and enticed some employees of 123 Bus Lines, Inc. to order from them
unauthorized PVC-type, (ATM card-looking) IDs for profit. Attached as Annex
B, C and D are affidavit of just some of those employees who can attest that
Ragas and Toledo are engaged in the said illegal activity;

6. Recently, CHAN and MANIKIS even used the said falsified IDs in
the baseless, unfounded and unsubstantiated illegal dismissal case which they
filed against the bus company. Attached as Annex E is a copy of the Position
Paper which they filed in the “EIAN CHAN and FAYE MANIKIS vs 123 Bus
Lines, Inc. and Bernardo Bernarda, Jr.”, docketed as NLRC RAB No. NCR Case

1
No. NCR-12-34567-08, with the National Labor Relations Commission.
Attached as part of the annexes are photocopies of their falsified IDs;
7. In their Reply to the said Position Paper, a copy of which is
attached as Annex F, the respondents therein asserted that the 123 Bus Line
IDs which were exhibited as proof of employment of CHAN and MANIKIS are
actually fabricated and falsified;

8. Quoted hereunder are the allegations of the respondents in the

said Reply, which are also relevant for purposes of the present criminal
complaint:

“The identification cards are fabricated and falsified.

To underscore their malicious scheme, complainants have

resorted to procuring the production of their own identification cards
despite the fact that they are not employees and are not authorized
to secure identification cards for themselves.

Complainants have apparently ordered the fabrication of their

identification cards from a quick-service ID maker somewhere in
Cubao. In fact, they have even enticed some employees of PP Bus
Lines, Inc. that they can get new IDs fro them. Attached as Annexes
A, B, C, and D are affidavits of these employees who can attest that
the IDs of the complainants are not genuine and that the
complainant Ragas even volunteered to some employees that he can
get for them modern-looking IDs for P150.00, apparently at a profit
of P50 per ID. It was a money-making scheme for complainant
Ragas.

A comparison of the complainants’ identification cards and

the identification cards of five (5) genuine employees of the 123 Bus
Line, Inc. would instantly reveal the following glaring differences:

a. The complainants’ IDs apparently are of the modern, PVC

type while the genuine 123 Bus Line, Inc. employees’ IDs are
of the old-fashioned, laminated plastic type;

b. The complainants’ IDs have a different format that the

genuine 123 Bus Line, Inc. employees’ IDs, as follows:

1. The complainants’ IDs display their signatures at the back

portion while the genuine employees’ IDs display their
signature at the front portion.

2. The complainants’ IDs show that their names and position

are not typewritten but neatly printed while the genuine
employees’ IDs show that their names and positions are
typewritten and skewed.

3. The complainants’ IDs show that the personal information

are not typewritten but neatly printed while the genuine
employees’ IDs show that their personal information are
typewritten and skewed.
4. The fonts and sizes of the text of CHAN and MANIKI’s IDs
and genuine employees’ IDs are remarkably different.

2
 c. CHAN and MANIKIS used the business name “123 BUS LINE”
in their IDs. On the other hand, the genuine employees’ IDs
clearly sport the correct business or corporate name of the bus
company, “123 BUS LINE, INC.”

Attached as Annexes E, F, G, and H are photocopies of

genuine company IDs. Respondents are ready to present the original
for comparison with the original of the complainants’ IDs.”

(underscoring ours)

9. It was also pointed out in the said Reply that CHAN and MANIKIS
likewise presented a fabricated and falsified cash voucher, to wit:

“The cash voucher is likewise fabricated and falsified.

Again, the complainants’ malicious ways are shown when

they presented a fabricated and falsified cash voucher just to
establish that they are employees of the bus company.

Unfortunately for the complainants, their attempt at

falsification is quite glaring. Again, a comparison of complainants’
cash voucher vis-a-vis the genuine company cash voucher would
reveal that there are a noticeable dissimilarities and differences
between the two.

For instance:

a. The complainants’ cash voucher does not display the bus

company name, office address and telephone while the
genuine company cash voucher display such vital information.

b. The fonts and the sizes of the text used for both cash
vouchers are different.

c. The complainants’ cash voucher does not show any signature

in the space reserved for “approved” while the genuine
company cash voucher shows the signature of the bus
company president.

d. The complainants’ cash voucher refers to “PP Bus Line” while

the genuine cash voucher refers to “PP Bus Line, Inc.”.

Attached as Annexes J and K are photocopies of genuine

company cash vouchers. Respondents are also ready to present the
originals thereof for comparison with the original of the alleged cash
voucher in the possession of the complainants.”

(underscoring ours)

10. By reason of the said unlawful acts of Gaudencio Ragas and

Rolando Toledo, they have committed Falsification of Private Documents
punishable under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code, to wit:

3
 Article 172. Falsification by private individuals and use of
falsified documents. - The penalty of prision correccional in its
medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than 5,000
pesos shall be imposed upon:

1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the

falsifications enumerated in the next preceding article in any public
or official document or letter of exchange or any other kind of
commercial document; and

2. Any person who, to the damage of a third party, or with the

intent to cause such damage, shall in any private document commit
any of the acts of falsification enumerated in the next preceding
article.

Any person who shall knowingly introduce in evidence in any

judicial proceeding or to the damage of another or who, with the
intent to cause such damage, shall use any of the false documents
embraced in the next preceding article, or in any of the foregoing
subdivisions of this article, shall be punished by the penalty next
lower in degree.

(underscoring ours)

The elements of the crime of falsification of private document (Art.

172 (2)) are:

1. That the offender committed any of the acts of falsification, except those
in paragraph 7, enumerated in Art. 171.
2. That the falsification was committed in any private document.
3. That the falsification caused damage to a third party or at least the
falsification was committed with intent to cause such damage.

11. It is clear that CHAN and MANIKIS have falsified the company IDs
and the cash voucher to falsely establish employment with the bus company
and to falsely claim backwages, damages and attorney’s fees from the bus
company. As a result, the bus company incurred litigation expenses and
attorney’s fees to defend itself from the unfounded illegal dismissal complaint;
and

12. I am executing this Complaint-Affidavit to prove the truth and

veracity of the aforecited facts for the purpose of filing a criminal complaint for
Falsification of Private Documents against EIAN CHAN, Jr. and FAYE
MANIKIS.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ___th day of

December, 2008 at Quezon City.

NOEL M LUZUNG
Affiant

4
 SUBSCRIPTION/CERTIFICATION

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ____th day of December

2008 at Quezon City. I hereby certify that I have personally examined the
affiant and that I am satisfied that she has voluntarily executed and has fully
understood the contents of her affidavit-complaint.

ASST. CITY PROSECUTOR