REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
MUNTINLUPA CITY

ALASKA MILK CORP.,

Complainant,

- versus - Case No.________________

For: Estafa under Article 315,
Paragraph 2(a), or Other Forms
of Swindling under Article 316,
Paragraph 5, of the Revised
Penal Code
FERNANDO S. AREVALO, doing
business under the name and style
of HAZARD WASTE
MANAGEMENT SERVICES,
EDLOR RUF V. RODRIGUEZ,
FROILAN S. AREVALO, and
MANUEL FUNA, JR.,
Respondents.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT

I, TEODORO L. RUIZ, JR., Filipino, of legal age, with office

address at 6/F Corinthian Plaza, 121 Paseo de Roxas, Makati City,
under oath, state that:

1. I am the Director for Human Resources of Alaska Milk

Corporation (“AMC”), a corporation duly organized and existing
under the laws of the Republic of the Philippines. I may be served
with notices, orders, resolutions, and other processes in this case at
c/o Esguerra & Blanco Law Offices, 4th Floor S&L Building, Dela Rosa
cor. Esteban Streets, Legaspi Village, Makati City.
 2

2. I have been authorized1 by AMC to file this criminal

complaint for Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised
Penal Code, or Other Forms of Swindling under Article 316,
paragraph 5 thereof, against respondents Edlor Ruf V. Rodriguez
(“Rodriguez”), Hazard Waste Management Services’ (“HWMS”)
registered owner and General Manager, Fernando S. Arevalo
(“Fernando”), Froilan S. Arevalo (“Froilan”) and Manuel J. Funa, Jr.
(“Funa”) for: (a) deliberately and fraudulently misrepresenting to
AMC that HWMS would haul, transport, treat and properly dispose
AMC’s industrial waste water through Hazchem, Inc. (“Hazchem”);
and (b) maliciously accepting, and refusing to return, the
compensation paid by AMC to HWMS and/or respondents for
services which they did not actually perform.

3. AMC is a domestic corporation primarily engaged in the

business of producing, processing, manufacturing, packing, buying
and selling on wholesale basis, food products, including milk and
dairy products.2 AMC operates a manufacturing plant located at
Magsaysay Road, Barangay San Antonio, San Pedro, Laguna (the
“SPL Plant”).

4. In the course of AMC’s industrial operations, it generates

hazardous waste materials which needs to be properly transported
and treated prior to disposal. HWMS, through its General Manager
Fernando, represented itself as an entity engaged in the business of
hauling, transporting,3 as well as treating and disposing toxic and
hazardous wastes. Thus, HWMS offered its services for the hauling
and transportation of AMC’s industrial wastes, as well as the
treatment and proper disposal thereof through Hazchem, an entity
engaged in the treatment of waste water. On 29 July 2015,
respondents Rodriguez and Funa, as AMC’s Safety, Health and
Environmental (“SHE”) Manager and HWMS’ Marketing Officer,
respectively, allegedly conducted a pre-treatment audit and ocular

1 A copy of the “Secretary’s Certificate” embodying the resolution of the Board of

Directors of the Corporation is attached as Annex “A” hereof.
2 AMC’s Amended Articles of Incorporation is attached as Annex “B” hereof.

3 Copies of HWMS’ Portfolio and DTI Certificate of Registration are attached as Annexes

“C” and “D” hereof, respectively.

 3

inspection of Hazchem’s treatment facilities in Brgy. Makiling,

Calamba City, Laguna.4

5. Thereafter, respondents falsely represented to AMC that

HWMS has the capacity, and will actually, haul and deliver AMC’s
hazardous waste materials to Hazchem for proper treatment before
disposing the same. On the basis of respondents’ representations, and
Rodriguez’s assurance and endorsement, AMC issued several
“Purchase Orders” in favor of HWMS, addressed to Funa.5 As
HWMS’ marketing officer, Funa was responsible for ensuring that the
hauling and disposal of AMC’s wastewater would be done in
accordance with said Purchase Orders. To be sure, Funa did not
refute the description of services to be performed in the Purchase
Orders which clearly indicates HWMS’s undertaking to haul,
transport, treat and dispose AMC’s industrial waste water.

6. AMC’s reliance on respondents’ representations is

evidenced by the execution of a tripartite “Memorandum of
Agreement” (“MOA”) on 10 November 2015 with HWMS and
Hazchem for the transportation, treatment and disposal of industrial
waste materials from its SPL Plant.6 Under said Agreement, HWMS,
though its General Manager Fernando, expressly represented and
undertook to handle the transportation of AMC’s hazardous
industrial waste materials to Hazchem’s treatment facilities for
proper treatment and disposal.7

7. As can be gleaned from the “Endorsement Forms” signed

by respondent Rodriguez, the latter endorsed for payment HWMS’
supposed “transportation treatment and proper disposal of
prescribed industrial hazardous wastes.”8 Relying on Rodriguez’s
endorsements, AMC tendered, and HWMS accepted, payments for
services purportedly rendered by the latter in the total amount of

4 A copy of the Rodriguez’s Visit Report for HWMS is attached as Annex “E” hereof.
5 Copies of Purchase Order Nos. 4500035824, 4500035332, 4500036408, 4500036835 and
4500037144 are attached as Annexes “F” to “F-4” hereof.
6 A copy of the MOA is attached as Annex “G” hereof.

7 Article I, Paragraph A of the MOA.

8 Copies of the Endorsement Form signed by Rodriguez are attached as Annexes “H”

series.
 4

Php37,260,995.20, as shown by the following Official Receipts9 issued

by respondent Froilan, HWMS’ cashier and/or representative, in
favor of AMC:

Official Receipt No. Amount

1320 Php3,093,156.00
1322 1,506,560.00
1330 3,107,280.00
1334 1,435,940.00
1340 7,571,899,94
1351 6,701,602.59
1356 4,311,421.62
1359 4,343,600.79
1368 1,115,937.23
1376 4,073,597.00
Total Php37,260,995.20

8. Upon investigation, however, AMC was surprised to

learn that HWMS did not actually perform the services for which it
was paid. Instead of delivering AMC’s industrial waste materials to
Hazchem’s facilities for proper treatment and disposal, HWMS
indiscriminately unloaded and haphazardly discharged these waste
materials at a dumpsite in Cabuyao, Laguna, in complete disregard
of its obligations under the abovementioned Purchase Orders and
MOA.

9. Furthermore, in a letter dated 10 March 2016,10 Hazchem,

through its President and Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”), Ms. Claire
G. Frias (“Frias”), confirmed that none of the industrial waste
materials which HWMS supposedly hauled and transported from
AMC’s SPL plant were delivered to Hazchem’s facilities for proper
treatment and disposal.

10. Thus, in a letter dated 11 April 2016,11 AMC demanded

the return of the amount erroneously paid to HWMS for the
supposed hauling, transportation, treatment, and disposal of its
industrial waste materials. Despite AMC’s lawful demand,

9 Copies of the O.R.s are attached as Annexes “I” to “I-9” hereof.

10 A copy of which is attached as Annex “J” hereof.
11 A copy of which is attached as Annex “K” hereof.
 5

respondents unjustifiably refused to return said payments, to AMC’s

damage and prejudice.

Respondents are criminally liable for

Estafa under Article 315, paragraph
2(a) of the Revised Penal Code.

11. I was informed that for the charge of estafa under Article
315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code to prosper, the
following elements must be present: 12

(1) there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent

means;

(2) such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must

be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud;

(3) the offended party must have relied on the false pretense,
fraudulent act or fraudulent means, that is, he was induced
to part with his money or property because of the false
pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; and

(4) as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.

12. In this case, all the above elements are present. There was
false pretense when Rodriguez, Fernando, Froilan, and Funa
represented that HWMS would haul, transport, cause the treatment
through Hazchem, and properly dispose AMC’s industrial waste
water. Yet, HWMS did not do these acts. Such false pretense induced
AMC to engage the services HWMS and pay the latter for the
services which respondents represented that HWMS would do, to
AMC’s damage and prejudice.

13. Furthermore, it cannot be denied that Rodriguez acted in

collaboration and conspiracy with Fernando, Froilan, and Funa when
he falsely endorsed HWMS to perform the subject services. He also
facilitated AMC’s payments to HWMS despite his knowledge that
the latter deliberately failed to perform the services agreed upon.

12 People v. Espino, G.R. No. 188217, 3 July 2013.

 6

Certainly, Rodriguez cannot feign ignorance since it was incumbent

upon him, as AMC’s SHE Manager, to ensure that the waste water
were properly hauled, transported, treated and disposed of by
HWMS through Hazchem. To be sure, when Rodriguez falsely
misrepresented to AMC that respondents will haul and properly
dispose its waste water after treatment through Hazchem, he was
acting in concert with respondents to facilitate the fraud committed
against AMC.

Respondents are also criminally

liable for Other Forms of Swindling
under Article 316, paragraph 5 of the
Revised Penal Code.

14. In the alternative, I was advised that respondents can be

held criminally liable for Other Forms of Swindling under Article 316
par. 5 of the Revised Penal Code.13

15. I was informed that for the crime of Other Forms of

Swindling to arise, there must have been deceit or fraud in the
acceptance of payment for unperformed labor or services.14

16. It was further explained to me that in Gonzaludo v. People

of the Philippines,15 the terms “fraud” and “deceit” are defined as
follows:

[F]raud in its general sense is deemed to comprise anything

calculated to deceive, including all acts, omissions, and
concealment involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust, or

13
Other forms of swindling. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and
medium period and a fine of not less than the value of the damage caused and
not more than three times such value, shall be imposed upon:

5. Any person who shall accept any compensation given him

under the belief that it was in payment of services rendered or labor
performed by him, when in fact he did not actually perform such
services or labor.

14Id.
15G.R. No. 150910, 6 February 2006. See also Alcantara v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
147259, 24 November 2003; People v. Balasa, G.R. No. 106357, 3 September 1998.
 7

confidence justly reposed, resulting in damage to another, or by

which an undue and unconscientious advantage is taken of
another. It is a generic term embracing all multifarious means
which human ingenuity can device, and which are resorted to by
one individual to secure an advantage over another by false
suggestions or by suppression of truth and includes all surprise,
trick, cunning, dissembling and. any unfair way by which another
is cheated. And deceit is the false representation of a matter of fact
whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or
by concealment of that which should have been disclosed which
deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon
it to his legal injury.

17. AMC made the foregoing payments under the mistaken

belief that HWMS actually performed the hauling, transportation,
treatment, and disposal of AMC’s industrial waste materials in
accordance with the above-mentioned purchase orders and the
parties’ MOA. Respondents, on the other hand, through HWMS’
cashier Froilan, accepted payments despite HWMS’ nonperformance
of the services agreed upon. Furthermore, respondents, especially
Funa cannot disclaim knowledge thereof, since it was incumbent
upon the latter to ensure that the services were carried out in
accordance with the parties’ agreement.

18. Despite their failure to render the services agreed upon,

respondents deliberately concealed such fact, and unjustly accepted
compensation for unperformed labor. Furthermore, respondents
maliciously refused to return said payment to AMC despite lawful
demand, thereby causing pecuniary loss and damage to the latter in
the amount of Php37,260,995.20.

19. According to information, Rodriguez resides in Block 4,

Lot 6, Rosas Street. Camella Homes, Bacoor, Cavite.

20. Fernando resides in B-18 L23 Mahogany Villas, Lococ,

Calamba City, Laguna, and holds office at 165 Isagani St., Rizal
Village, Alabang, Muntinlupa City. Froilan and Funa may likewise
be notified and served copies of this Complaint-Affidavit at 165
Isagani St., Rizal Village, Alabang, Muntinlupa City.
 8

21. I am executing this Complaint-Affidavit to attest to the

truth of the foregoing statements, and for the purpose of filing a
criminal complaint for Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the
Revised Penal Code, and Other Forms of Swindling under Article
316, paragraph 5 thereof, against respondents Edlor Ruf V.
Rodriguez, Fernando S. Arevalo, Froilan S. Arevalo, and Manuel J.
Funa, Jr.

TEODORO L. RUIZ, JR.

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this __ day of May

2020 in ____________.
______________________________
Assistant City Prosecutor

I hereby certify that I have personally examined the affiant of

the above affidavit and I am fully satisfied that he understands and
voluntarily executed the same.

______________________________
Assistant City Prosecutor
E:\Users\XRQ\Documents\Alaska\Edlor\Complaint Affidavit HWMS v.2.doc