STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

Private Complainant Juan Dela Cruz and the Accused who were close friends had a little
misunderstanding. Complainant said that she first met the Accused as a real estate broker who helped
her in selling her house and lot in Maria Luisa Subdivision, Banilad, Cebu City. After the incident, they
became close friends and Accused even helped the Complainant when she was confined in the hospital.

Their acquaintance got blurry over a transaction that led to the filing of a criminal case. The facts
of the case states that the Private Complainant alleged that the Accused was involved in the buy and sell
business. Sometime in October 2013, Private Complainant approached the Accused and asked her to
buy her jewelries. Due to its high selling price, Accused was hesitant to purchase her jewelries. Private
Complainant then told the Accused that she can pay the jewelries in six monthly installments. Private
Complainant said that she is willing to accept postdated checks as payment of the jewelries.

The parties agreed to a contract of sale of the following jewelries:

a. a set of emerald and diamond jewelries allegedly valued at Two Hundred Eighty Thousand
Pesos (Php 280,000.00);
b. a set of sapphire and diamond jewelries allegedly valued at One Hundred Fifty-Six Thousand
Pesos (Php 156,000.00); and
c. a set of ruby diamond jewelries worth Three Hundred Forty Thousand Pesos (Php 340,000.00).

During the six-month period, Accused failed to pay her monthly dues causing Private Complainant to file
several criminal cases against her.

Despite the charges against her, Private Complainant continues to alleged that they were still friends
with the Accused and their bonding continued. During their bonding sessions, Accused offered the
Private Complainant to buy properties in order to earn commission as a real estate agent. Aside from
that, Accused told the Complainant that she was into lending business but was eventually closed due to
financial distress. This led to the Accused inviting the Complainant to invest in lending business but
Private Complainant refused due to her lack of knowledge in the business. Accused offered herself to
manage the business since she has past experiences over it and also she had a lot of previous clients.
Having said this, Private Complainant trusted the Accused to manage their lending business.

On July 6, 2014, Private Complainant allegedly sent One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php 150,000.00)
as a starting capital for their lending business evidenced by a deposit slip marked as Exhibit “A”.

After two or three months, Accused allegedly represented to her that their business was doing good
even though no liquidation and accounting of profits was presented by the Accused. The latter
requesting the Complainant not to withdrew from the business so that the profit will be added to their
investment.

Sometime in the second week of December, Accused told the Complainant that their business had
grown bigger and needs additional capital still despite having no proof of liquidation of the business.
Trusting the Accused, Private Complainant sent an additional amount of Four Hundred Thousand Pesos
(Php 400,000.00) contained in another deposit slip marked as Exhibit “B”.

After a year, with no demand and proof of their supposed lending business, Private Compainant
allegedly invested additional capital. Sometime in the 2 nd week of January 2015, Accused informed the
Complainant that they had a big client who needs a huge amount for his construction business. Without
hesitation, Private Complainant sent on January 30, 2015 an additional amount of Three Hundred
Thousand Pesos (Php 300,000.00).

A few months after her last investment, Private Complainant requested for the status of their business.
She asked the Accused to provide her with the names of their clients whose loan exceeds One Hundred
Thousand Pesos (Php 100,000.00) but no response was given by the Accused.

Having worried, on November 26, 2015, Private Complainant sent a demand letter to the Accused to
return her capital totaling Eight Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php 850,000.00). Since no reply was
given, another demand letter was sent to the Accused on December 16, 2015 to return the said amount.

Based on the facts, Private Complainant alleged that the Accused misappropriated the amount
supposedly intended for the funding of their lending business despite her trust and confidence with the
Accused and their previous charges of criminal complaints. This led to the filing of criminal case of estafa
by misappropriation.