REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
CITY OF MANILA

PHIL LENDING 101

CORPORATION, as
represented by its Attorney-in-
Fact, CRISTINA CASANOVA,
NPS ______________________
Complainant,
FOR: Violation of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22 and Estafa
-versus-

PIO T. TING, JR.,

Respondents,

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT
I, CRISTINA M. CASANOVA, Filipino, of legal age, for and in
behalf of private complainant PHIL LENDING 101 CORPORATION
(“Phil Lending”), as its duly appointed representative and Attorney-in-
Fact1, with address c/o Phil Lending at 3 rd Floor, Ermita Center
Building, 1350 Roxas Boulevard, Manila, under oath, hereby depose
and state:

PARTIES

1. Private complainant Phil Lending is a corporation duly

organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Republic
of the Philippines and with principal office address at 3 rd Floor, Ermita
Center Building, 1350 Roxas Boulevard, Manila. It is being
represented herein by its Attorney-in-Fact, CRISTINA M. CASANOVA
(“Casanova”), Filipino, of legal age and with the same office address.

For purposes of the instant proceedings, Phil Lending may be

served with copies of subpoenas, pleadings, motions, manifestations
and other papers or documents, as well as all notices and process
issued, and all orders, resolutions, and other forms of adjudication
promulgated or rendered by this Honorable Office, including the
filings of the other parties, thru its legal counsel, CHAVEZ MIRANDA

1
A photocopy of the Secretary’s Certificate attesting to the adoption of a
Board Resolution authorizing Cristina M. Casanova to represent PhilLending as
its Attorney-in-Fact in connection with this case is attached hereto as Annex “A”.
1
ASEOCHE LAW OFFICES, at the 8th Floor, One Corporate Plaza,
845 Arnaiz Avenue, San Lorenzo Village, Makati City.

2. Respondent PIO T. TING, JR. (“Ting”) is Filipino, of legal

age, married and a resident of 25 Narra Rd., L&S Subd., Sto.
Domingo, Angeles City.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

3. On 08 August 2017, respondent Ting and his wife,LUZ J.

TING, entered into a Promissory Note for Loan Agreement with Phil
Lending2 wherein Ting and his wife, for value received, jointly and
severally, promised to pay the principal amount of the loan extended
by Phil Lending to the spouses, including interest thereon.

4. On even date, respondent Ting and his wife, in

furtherance of their loan agreement, also executed a Disclosure of
Loan Credit Transaction3, wherein the payment terms and conditions
of their loan are more specified in detail. Ting and his wife agreed to
pay Phil Lending a total amount of Pesos: Sixteen Million Eight
Hundred Thousand (PhP 16,800,000.00), Philippine Currency, in
twenty-two (22) installment payments of Pesos: Seven Hundred
Thirty Thousand Four Hundred Thirty-Five (PhP 730,435.00),
Philippine Currency, and one (1) installment payment of Pesos:
Seven Hundred Thirty Thousand Four Hundred Thirty (PhP
730,430.00), Philippine Currency.

5. As a result, Phil Lending released to respondent Ting the

amount of Pesos: Fifteen Million (PhP 15,000,000.00), Philippine
Currency. Simultaneous to the release of this amount, in furtherance
of the Promissory Note for Loan Agreement, respondent Ting, issued
the following China Banking Corporation (“Chinabank”) Checks in
favor Phil Lending in the latter’s office at Manila City:

Check No. Due Date Amount in PhP

0002284101 8/20/2017 730,435.00
0002284102 8/30/2017 730,435.00
0002284103 9/5/2017 730,435.00
0002284104 9/10/2017 730,435.00
0002284105 9/20/2017 730,435.00
0002284106 9/30/2017 730,435.00
0002284107 10/5/2017 730,435.00
2
A photocopy of the Promissory Note for Loan Agreement dated 08
August 2017 is hereto attached as Annex “B”.
3
A photocopy of the Disclosure of Loan Credit Transaction 2017 is hereto
attached as Annex “C”.
2
 0002284108 10/10/2017 730,435.00
0002284109 10/20/2017 730,435.00
0002284110 10/30/2017 730,435.00
0002284111 11/5/2017 730,435.00
0002284112 11/10/2017 730,435.00
0002284113 11/20/2017 730,435.00
0002284114 11/30/2017 730,435.00
0002284115 12/5/2017 730,435.00
0002284116 12/10/2017 730,435.00
0002284117 12/20/2017 730,435.00
0002284118 12/30/2017 730,435.00
0002284119 1/5/2018 730,435.00
0002284120 1/10/2018 730,435.00
0002284121 1/20/2018 730,435.00
0002284122 1/30/2018 730,435.00
0002284123 2/8/2018 730,435.00

6. However, contrary to respondent Ting’s representations

that the aforementioned checks will be funded and honored on their
respective due dates, Checks Nos. 0002284104 and 0002284105,
having an aggregate amount of Pesos: One Million Four Hundred
Sixty Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy (PhP 1,460,870.00), upon
presentment for payment, were respectively dishonored on 09
September 2017 and on 20 September 2017, both for having been
drawn against a closed account.4

7. On several occasions, Phil Lending tried to demand from

respondent Ting payment of his loan obligation, including the amount
of the dishonored checks. However, respondent still refused to pay
the same. Phil Lending was then left with no other recourse but to
engage the services of Chavez Miranda Aseoche Law Offices (“CMA
Law”), to assist in holding respondent Ting responsible for issuing the
aforesaid bouncing checks.

8. On 02 December 2017, CMA Law, through a private

detective agency,was able to personally serve the notice of dishonor
and demand letter to respondent Ting, which he read, although he
refused to sign and receive the same. However, respondent’s wife
signed and revived a copy of the notice of dishonor and demand
letter on 06 December 2017.5

4
Photocopies of Checks Nos. 0002284104 and 0002284105, including the
dorsal portion thereof, is hereto attached, respectively as, Annexes “D”, “D-1”,
“E” and “E-1”.
5

A photocopy of Danilo Gopez Bolilan, Jr.’s Affidavit of Service dated 26

February 2018, is hereto attached as Annex “H”.

3
 9. Respondent Ting, clearly was able to receive the notices
of dishonor and demand letters because on 08 December 2017,
Chavez Miranda Aseoche Law Offices received a reply 6 from
respondent Ting asking for additional time to pay his loan obligation.

DISCUSSION

10. Until today, respondent Ting failed to make good the value
of the subject checks, in clear violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.

11. To be liable for violation of B.P. 22, the following essential

elements must be present: (1) the making, drawing, and issuance of
any check to apply for account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the
maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have
sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of
the check in full upon its presentment; and (3) the subsequent
dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or
credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without
any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.

12. Pertinently, Section 2 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22,

provides:

Section 2. Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds. - The

making, drawing and issuance of a check payment of which is
refused by the drawee because of insufficient funds in or credit with
such bank, when presented within ninety (90) days from the date of
the check, shall be prima facie evidence of knowledge of such
insufficiency of funds or credit unless such maker or drawer pays
the holder thereof the amount due thereon, or makes arrangements
for payment in full by the drawee of such check within (5) banking
days after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by
the drawee.

13. Indeed, a simple perusal of the antecedent facts and

documents presented clearly shows that respondent Ting violated
B.P. Blg. 22.

14. First, respondent Ting issued the checks to be applied for

his loan obligation. Second, respondent knew that the account had
insufficient funds for the payment of the checks issued. In fact, his
account was closed. The checks issued were subsequently
dishonored when presented for payment within ninety (90) days from
the respective due dates thereof.

6
A photocopy of the Letter dated 07 December 2017, is hereto attached
as Annex “I”.
4
 15. Clearly, respondent Ting issued the subject checks
without sufficient funds in violation of B.P. 22 as evidenced by the fact
that he said checks were dishonored upon presentment and that he
failed to make good on the value thereof even after the lapse of five
(5) from notice of dishonor.

16. Also, the foregoing acts committed by respondent Ting

constitute the crime of Estafa as defined and penalized under Article
315, Paragraph 2. (a) & (d), of the Revised Penal Code. Consider the
following circumstances:

16.1. To be liable for Estafa under paragraph 2(a), Article

315 of the Revised Penal Code, the following elements must
concur: (a) that an accused defrauded another by abuse of
confidence, or by means of deceit; and (b) that damage and
prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused the
offended party or third person.7

16.2 Further, the elements of estafa under paragraph

2(d), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) the
postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation
contracted at the time the check was issued; (2) lack of
sufficiency of funds to cover the check; and (3) damage to the
payee.8

17. In this instant case, respondent Ting’s guilt beyond

reasonable doubt for estafa under paragraph 2(a) & (d) is established
after he issued the subject checks knowing fully that these were not
funded, thus causing it to be dishonored upon presentment for
payment.

18. From the circumstances narrated above, it was evident

that the Private Complainant would not have given Pesos: Fifteen
Million (PhP 15,000,000.00), Philippine Currency to respondent Ting
had it not been for his issuance of the twenty-three (23) Chinabank
checks and his promise and commitment that these would be
honored upon presentment for payment. These postdated checks
were undoubtedly issued by respondent Ting to induce the Private
Complainant to part with its money. However, when the Private
Complainant attempted to encash them, they were all dishonored by
the bank because the account was already closed.

7
Sy v. People, G.R. No.183879, April 14, 2010

8
Cajigas v. People, G.R. No. 156541, February 23, 2009, 580 SCRA 54,
63
5
 19. When respondent Ting chose to ignore the Private
Complainant’s demand for him to make good the subject checks and
pay his loan obligation, such action gave rise to a prima
facie evidence of deceit, which is an element of the crime of estafa,
constituting false pretense or fraudulent act as stated in the second
sentence of paragraph 2(d), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. 9

20. The Private Complainant wishes to impress upon the Court

that it voluntarily parted with its money believing respondent Ting’s
representations that the aforementioned checks will be funded and
honored on their respective due dates, not knowing or even having
any hint of suspicion that the same may be used to defraud anyone
who may rely on them.

21. I have caused the execution of the foregoing Complaint-

Affidavit, read and fully understood the contents thereof which I
hereby attest and affirm as true and correct on the bases of my own
personal knowledge and authentic records, to seek the indictment
and prosecution of respondent PIO T. TING, JR. for two (2) counts of
violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 and one (1) count of Estafa as
defined and under Article 315, Paragraph 2. (a) & (d), of the Revised
Penal Code.

AFFIANT FURTHER SAYETH NAUGHT.

In witness whereof I hereunto set my hand this 02 day of March

2018 at the Office of the City Prosecutor, Manila City.

CRISTINA M. CASANOVA
Affiant

CERTIFICATION

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 2 nd day of

March 2018, at the Office of the City Prosecutor, Manila City, affiant
exhibited to me her ________________, issued at ______________,
on _________________________________.

9
Ibid.
6
 I FURTHER CERTIFY that I have personally examined the
affiant and that I am satisfied that she has executed this Complaint-
Affidavit and has understood the contents hereof of his own personal
knowledge.