REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
ANGELES CITY

ROWENA FERNANDEZ,
Complainant-Affiant,
-versus- IS No._________
For: ESTAFA and
FALSIFICATION OF
DOCUMENT (CONSPIRACY)
LOURDES VALERIO, and
MARIA GRACIA ANDAYA LOOT,
Respondents.
x ----------------------------x

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT

I, ROWENA FERNANDEZ, of legal age, married, Filipino,

and currently residing at Villa Portobello Subd., Dau, Mabalacat
City, Pampanga, after duly sworn to in accordance with law, do
hereby depose to state:

1. That I am instituting this criminal complaint against

LOURDES VALERIO, of legal age, Filipino and residing at #118
Velasquez St., San Francisco Mabalacat Pampanga, and MARIA
GRACIA ANDAYA LOOT, of legal age, Filipino, and residing at
Blk 29 Lot 1-2 NV 16, Brgy. Atlu-Bola, Mabalacat City,
Pampanga;

2. On March 25, 2015, I bought a property covered by

TCT No. 193727 from Respondent Lourdes Valerio. As proof of
my purchase, a copy of TCT No. 193727 is attached herein as
Annex “A”;

3. It is to be noted that the transaction was finalized

through a deed of sale made and executed in the office of Atty.
Anthonie Langit in Angeles City. A copy of the Deed of Sale
shall be attached herein as Annex “B”;

4. Few minutes after signing the said Deed of Sale in

Angeles City, Lourdes Valerio then referred respondent Loot,
who was a witness to the said deed of sale, to undertake the
transfer of the title in my name. The former said that the latter

1
is an experienced broker who is knowledgeable about the
process of transferring titles;

5. Respondent Loot affirmed that the she is an

experienced broker and she has the capability, knowledge and
resources in the process of transferring the titles;

6. Since Lourdes Valerio is my cousin, I trusted her

referral, and hired the services of respondent Loot. The said
transaction took place in Angeles City;

7. I even asked respondent Loot to process one (1)

other property covered by TCT No. 622943-R which I obtained
earlier in 2014 from Rosana Valerio. A copy of TCT No.
622943-R and the Deed of Sales are attached herein as Annex
“C” with sub marking;

8. I have paid a total of Four Hundred Ninety Thousand

Pesos (P490,000.00) to respondent Loot covering her service
fees and “transfer expenses”. Copies of the receipts are
attached herein as Annex “D”;’

9. On April 27, 2015, I acquired three (3) more

properties covered by TCT Nos. 176236, 617283-R, and
617262-R. Copies of the said TCTs and their respective Deeds
of Sale are attached herein as Annexes “E”, “F” and “G”
respectively;

10. Since I was led to believe in the credibility of

Respondent Loot, I also asked her to process the transfer of
these three additional titles;

11. Respondent Loot asked for additional P200,000.00 to

process the transfer of the three additional titles but
unfortunately, I cannot find the receipt for the said amount.

12. In December 2015, respondent gave me the five (5)

TCTs which appear to have been transferred under my name.
Copies of 4 out of the 5 spurious titles are attached herein as
Annex “H” with sub markings;

13. Sometime in 2018, I tried to obtain certified copies

of two of my titles, TCT No. 045-2015008774 (which emanated
from TCT No. 176236) and 045-2015005874 (which emanated

2
from TCT 193727) with the Registry of Deeds (RD) of Angeles
City. To my surprise, the titles are not under my name;

14. When I showed my two titles to the RD, the same

were declared by the RD of Angeles City as spurious. A copy of
the certification made by the RD of Angeles City is attached
herein as Annex “I”;

15. I was then informed that the property covered by

TCT No. 193727 (the property I acquired from respondent
Valerio) has been a subject of a Motion for Execution dated
February 3, 2014 due to a Compromise Agreement dated June
28, 2014. Copies of the said Motion for Execution and
Compromise Agreement shall be attached herein as Annexes
“J” and “K” respectively;

16. However, there was no annotation at the back of the

title at the time when the said property was sold to me by
Respondent Lourdes, nor did she inform me about the
Compromise Agreement and the Motion for Execution;

17. I was also informed that on March 19, 2015, a writ

of execution was issued by the MTC of Angeles City, and that
on July 10, 2015, an auction sale of the said property was held
wherein NCR Construction Supply Inc. was the highest bidder.
Copies of Writ of Execution dated March 19, 2015, Minutes of
the Auction Sale dated July 10, 2015, and the Certificate of
Sale dated July 14, 2015 are attached herein as Annexes “L”,
“M” and “N” respectively;

18. Clearly, Respondent Valerio conspired with

Respondent Loot to hide and conceal the pending execution of
the property;

19. Respondent Valerio vouched Respondent Loot’s

services in order for the former have control over “transfer” of
the property;

20. I confronted both the respondents regarding the

falsification issue, and only Respondent Loot admitted to her
fraudulent actions. Respondent Loot even promised to
reimburse the amount I paid her. A copy of her handwritten
promissory note and credit breakdown is attached herein as
Annex “O”;

3
 21. However, several months have passed, and no
reimbursement was given by respondent Loot;

22. On December 4, 2018, I tried to settle the issue with

respondent Loot in a mediation proceeding held in the Office of
the Punong Barangay at Barangay Atlu-Bola, but to no avail. A
copy of the Certificate to File Action from the Office of the
Punong Barangay is attached herein as Annex “P”;

23. On January 03, 2020, and again on January 10,

2020, Mabalacat City Police Station sent an Invitation Letter,
this time to both the respondents;

24. However, the respondents did not heed to the said

invitation. Copies of Mabalacat City Police Station’s Invitation
Letters to the Respondents is attached herein as Annex “Q”
with sub marking;

25. So, through my counsel, I sent each of the

respondent, on their last known address, a demand letter but
to no avail. Copies of demand letters send to Respondent Loot
and Valerio are attached herein as Annex “R” with sub
marking;

26. In the said demand letter, I only asked for the

amount of P 100,000.00 just to settle issue immediately and
extrajudicially. However, the respondents decided not to,
therefore, I am now collecting the whole amount of P
490,000.00;

27. Based on the said facts, I was informed by my

counsel that the respondents may be held liable under Article
315 of the Revised Penal Code or Estafa to wit:

“Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). — Any person who shall

defraud another by any of the means mentioned
hereinbelow shall be punished by:

1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence,

namely:

(b) By misappropriating or converting, to

the prejudice of another, money, goods, or any
other personal property received by the
offender in trust or on commission, or for

4
 administration, or under any other obligation
involving the duty to make delivery of or to
return the same, even though such obligation
be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond; or
by denying having received such money, goods,
or other property.”

28. In order to prosecute and to convict the respondents

of the said crime, the following requisites must be present:

a) That money, goods, or other personal property be

received by the offender in trust, or on commission,
or for administration, or under any other obligation
involving the duty to make delivery of, or return,
the same;
b) That there be misappropriation or conversion of
such money or property by the offender, or denial
on his part of such receipt;
c) That such misappropriation or conversion or denial
is to the prejudice of another;
d) That there is demand made by the offended party
to the offender.

29. All of the foregoing is present. For the first element,

the respondents, through fraud, insidious words and
machinations, was able to convince me in parting with my
money in the amount of Four Hundred Ninety Thousand Pesos
(P 490,000.00) which Respondent Loot received under the
obligation to transfer and deliver the titles under my name;

30. Furthermore, they procured spurious titles, and even

put one of the properties in execution without my knowledge or
consent. I was tricked by the respondents in to thinking that
title in my possession is a legitimate title;

31. As for the second element, there was indeed a

misappropriation. According to the Supreme Court in the case
of Magtira v. People, G.R. No. 170964, March 7, 2012, to wit:

“Misappropriation as an element of the offense

of estafa connotes an act of using, or disposing of,
another’s property as if it were one’s own, or of
devoting it to a purpose or use different from that
agreed upon. We have previously held that the failure

5
 to account upon demand for funds or property held in
trust without offering any satisfactory explanation for
the inability to account is circumstantial evidence of
misappropriation.”

32. In the case at bar, the respondents failed, in several

occasions, to return the total amount of Four Hundred Ninety
Thousand (P490,000.00) which they misappropriated for their
own personal use, thus, there is a presumption of
misappropriation on their part;

33. For the third element, such misappropriation is to my

damage and prejudice. I availed of the respondent’s services
expecting to reap its full benefits, however it never
materialized. Worst, they even gave me a spurious title;

34. For the last element, that there was demand made
by the offended party to the accused. Such has also been
complied with. In the case of Asejo v. People, G.R. No.
157433, July 24, 2007, to wit:

“With regard to the necessity of demand, we agree

with the CA that demand under this kind of estafa
need not be formal or written. The appellate court
observed that the law is silent with regard to the form
of demand in estafa under Art. 315 1(b), thus:
When the law does not qualify, we should not qualify.
Should a written demand be necessary, the law would
have stated so. Otherwise, the word "demand" should
be interpreted in its general meaning as to include
both written and oral demand. Thus, the failure of the
prosecution to present a written demand as evidence
is not fatal”

35. In the case at bar, there were several oral demands

made to the respondents. Furthermore, it was even ruled by
the Supreme Court in Tubb v. People, G.R. No. L-9811, April
22, 1957, that a mere query about the money entrusted is
already tantamount to demand sufficient to satisfy such
requisite in the crime of Estafa;

36. However, although previously established that such

is not required, to show good faith, I, through my counsel, sent
formal demand letter to the respondent. Thus, clearly
satisfying the last requisite of Estafa.

6
 37. I was also informed that the respondent may be held
liable under Article 172 in connection with Article 171(1)(6)(7)
of the Revised Penal Code or Falsification of Public Document
to wit:

“Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or

notary or ecclesiastic minister. — The penalty of
prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos
shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or
notary who, taking advantage of his official position,
shall falsify a document by committing any of the
following acts:

1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting,

signature or rubric;
6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine
document which changes its meaning;
7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document
purporting to be a copy of an original document when
no such original exists, or including in such a copy a
statement contrary to, or different from, that of the
genuine original”

“Art. 172. Falsification by private individual and use of

falsified documents. — The penalty of prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods and
a fine of not more than P5,000 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;”

38. In the case of Tanenggee v. People of the

Philippines, the elements of Falsification of Public Documents
under Art. 172 of the RPC, to wit:

“The elements of falsification of documents

under paragraph 1, Article 172 of the RPC are: (1)
that the offender is a private individual or a public
officer or employee who did not take advantage of
his official position; (2) that he committed any of
the acts of falsification enumerated in Article 171
of the RPC; and, (3) that the falsification was

7
 committed in a public, official or commercial
document.”

39. All of the elements are present in this case. The

respondents are private individuals. They also procured a fake
and spurious copy of the titles. Finally, the document is a
Transfer Certificate Title, which is a public document;

40. It is to be noted that Respondent Valerio was

included in this complaint for conspiring with Respondent Loot;

41. According to Art. 8 of the Revised Penal Code there

is conspiracy when, to wit:

“Article 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony. -

Conspiracy and proposal to commit felony are
punishable only in the cases in which the law specially
provides a penalty therefor.
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to
an agreement concerning the commission of a felony
and decide to commit it.
There is proposal when the person who has decided to
commit a felony proposes its execution to some other
person or persons.”

42. In the case at bar, it was evident that respondent

Valerio has something to do with the Estafa and Falsification.
She was the one who referred Respondent Loot to handle the
transfer of the said titles;

43. Respondent Valerio convinced me that I can trust

Respondent Loot with my money and property which
unfortunately resulted to my damage and prejudice;

44. Furthermore, she was the one who benefited with

the non-transfer and procurement of false titles as Respondent
Valerio was able to subject the property covered by TCT No.
193727 in an execution proceeding.

45. I also filed a separate Estafa case against

Respondent Valerio pertaining to a different act of deceit she
committed against me;

46. I am executing this Affidavit to attest to all the

above facts and allegations in order to support my complaint

8
against Maria Gracia Andaya Loot and Lourdes Valerio for
ESTAFA and FALSIFICATION OF A PUBLIC DOCUMENT
and/or any offense they may stand charged and for other
legal purposes it may serve.

IN TRUTH WHEREOF I have hereunto signed my name

below this 29th day of May 2020 in Angeles City, Philippines.

ROWENA FERNANDEZ
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 29th day of

May 2020 in Angeles City by ROWENA FERNANDEZ to be the
same person who personally signed before me the foregoing
affidavit and acknowledged that she executed the same.