Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE
OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR
Province of Iloilo
Iloilo City

BARTOLOME BODIONGAN and

LILIBETH GONZALES,
Complainant, NPS DOCKET NO. VI-11-INV-17G-
00544

-versus- For: Violation of Art 315 No. 2 (d) of

the RPC (Estafa)

ROGELIO LESONDATO, ET. AL.,

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

RESOLUTION

The respondents LORD CHIRSTIAN ROBEL LESONDATO, ROMER

LESONDATO, ROGELIO LESONDATO, and BELINDA LEOSDATO were charged
of the crime of ESTAFA under Art 315 No. 2 (d) of the RPC in a complaint
filed by ATTY. HECTOR P. TEODOSIO for and in behalf of the complainants.

In support of their complaint, the herein complainants attached the

following documents;

1. Affidavit of Bartolome Bodiongan with annexes

2. Affidavit of Lilibeth Gonzales with annexes
3. Reply Affidavit of Bartolome Bodiongan with annexes
4. Reply Affidavit of Lilibeth Gonzales with annexes

Statement of Facts

Based on the preliminary investigation conducted, the facts of the case

are stated hereunder:

That sometime in June 2015, in Pototan,

Iloilo, the respondents approached complainant,
Bartolome Bodiongan to borrow the amount of
P500,000.00. The complainant gave the amount in
cash Five Hundred Thousand Pesos, after he was
assured by the respondents that the twenty four
(24) checks post-dated every 12 th day of the
month, drawn and signed by Lord Christian
Lesondato, from the BDO Account No.
000788024665 under Account Name Lord Christian
Robel O. Lesondato or Romer O. Lesondato, will be
funded upon due. The loaned amount was received
by respondents, namely, Lord Christian, Rogelio
and Belinda, all surnamed Lesondato.
 The first three checks (Check No.s,
0000921286, 00000921287, and 00000921288)
were deposited into the account of complainant
Bartolome Bodiongan, which was then dishonored
by PNB Pototan Branch as the BDO Checking
Account of Lord Christian Lesondato/ Belinda
Lesondato were already closed.

A letter of demand dated November 12,

2016, by counsel of complainant, informed the
respondents that the checks were dishonored as
the account was closed and demanded that they
pay the amount due on the checks. The Lesondato
spouses and their children refused to receive said
letter and refused to pay the obligation.

That the respondents has failed to deposit

the amount necessary to cover the checks within
three (3) days from receipt of notice made through
repeated letters of demand by the complainant’s
counsel, that said checks had been dishonored for
lack of funds due to the account being closed.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

In the Judicial Affidavit of Lord Christian Robel O. Lesondato, he has

admitted that he owns a franchising business and that his parents, Rogelio
and Belinda Lesondato, and his brother Romer Lesondato, has no
involvement or participation with said business. He further admitted that
since year 2013, he has been borrowing money from the complainants, with
amounts payable in monthly installments of 12, 24, or 36 months. He further
stated that the only evidence of the loan transaction was the checks issued
by him as payment. Lastly, he alleges that the checks subject of the
complaint were actually pre-existing debts subject of payment prior to the
June 2015 loan transaction stated in the complaint.

In the Judicial Affidavit of Romer Lesondato, he has claimed that he

does not know the complainant Bartolome Bodiongan and has not made any
transaction with the latter. In addition, the Judicial Affidavits of Rogelio and
Belinda Lesondato alleged that they have no transaction with the
complainants and that there was no promissory note or loan agreement
signed by him/herself and the complainants in June 2015.

In their individual reply-affidavit, complainants agreed that there is no

evidence of the loan transactions as the Lesondato Family has been loaning
from them money for a while now and that tthey gave them the P500,000.00
loan only on the respondents assurance that the 24 post-dated checks issued
simultaneously will be funded on the respective due dates.

Analyses/Findings and Recommendations

Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code specifically state as follows:

“Article 315. Swindling (estafa). - Any person who

shall defraud another by any of the means
mentioned hereinbelow xxx
 xxx the fraud be committed by any of the following
means:

2. By means of any of the following false pretenses

or fraudulent acts executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:

(d) By post-dating a check, or issuing a check in

payment of an obligation when the offender
therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of
the check. The failure of the drawer of the check to
deposit the amount necessary to cover his check
within three (3) days from receipt of notice from
the bank and/or the payee or holder that said
check has been dishonored for lack of insufficiency
of funds shall be prima facie evidence of deceit
constituting false pretense or fraudulent act. (As
amended by R.A. 4885, approved June 17, 1967.)

Loan per se does not exempt a criminal from indictment for estafa so
long as it can be proved, as is the factual mileu in the instant case, that the
motive behind such a transaction was deceit, swindling and malice on the
part of the debtor/respondent.
In People vs Virginia Baby P. Montaner1 and Cajigas v. People2, the
Court discussed that 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.

As stated in the case of People vs Virginia Baby P. Montaner3, the

Court said that it was evident that Solis would not have given ₱50,000.00
cash to appellant had it not been for her issuance of the 10 Prudential Bank
checks. These postdated checks were undoubtedly issued by appellant to
induce Solis to part with his cash. However, when Solis attempted to encash
them, they were all dishonored by the bank because the account was already
closed. xxx Appellant wishes to impress upon the Court that she voluntarily
parted with her blank but signed checks not knowing or even having any hint
of suspicion that the same may be used to defraud anyone who may rely on
them. Verily, appellant’s assertion defies ordinary common sense and human
experience.

Further, in the case of Cajigas v. People4, the Court discussed that a

customary practice between parties, such as the case between the parties in
the instant case, that the issuance of the check as payment for the
transaction meant that the delivery of the checks and the subject of the
transaction is done simultaneously.

“Since Daisy would not have parted with the jewelries had it not
been for Luz's issuance of the subject postdated checks, the checks
were clearly issued as inducement for the surrender by Daisy of the
jewelries.25 The issuance of the checks was simultaneous to the
delivery of the jewelries. It was a customary practice between the
parties that Luz had to issue checks as payment for the jewelries she
1
G.R. No. 184053, August 31, 2011
2
G.R. No. 156541, February 23, 2009
3
G.R. No. 184053, August 31, 2011
4
G.R. No. 156541, February 23, 2009
 purchased from Daisy. Daisy also testified that she accepted the
checks as payment for the jewelries precisely because Luz assured her
that the checks were funded and would not bounce.26 Relying on such
assurance, Daisy even negotiated some of the checks to her jewelry
suppliers.27”

As in this case, the Twenty Four (24) post-dated checks were not
denied to be drawn and signed by Lord Christian Robel O. Lesondato from
BDO Account No. 000788024665 under Account Name Lord Christian Robel
O. Lesondato or Romer O. Lesondato and that indeed the account for which
thses checks are drawn are indeed closed accounts. The facts of the case
before us squarely fall under the crime of Estafa contemplated under Art. 315
No. 2 (d). The complainants would not have given the amount of
P500,000.00 to the respondents had it not for the simultaneous issuance of
post-dated checks as security for the obligation. Further, upon notice to the
respondents that the checks they have drawn was a closed account, they did
not deposit the amount to cover said checks within three (30 days from
receipt of notice, which constitutes as prima facie evidence of deceit
constituting false pretense or fraudulent act.

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is most respectfully

recommended that an information for the crime of crime of Estafa
contemplated under Art. 315 No. 2 (d) be filed against the respondents LORD
CHIRSTIAN ROBEL LESONDATO, ROMER LESONDATO, ROGELIO
LESONDATO, and BELINDA LEOSDATO.

Iloilo City, Iloilo.

SUSTANITA G. ORLEANS
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor
APPROVED BY:

Chief Provincial Prosecutor