Republic of the Philippines
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
City of ______________________
SHANE AMORES, I.S. NO: 0000000001
Complainant FOR: ESTAFA
[Article 315, par. 1(b),
Revised Penal Code]
-versus-
NAASON BANDILLON,
Respondent.
x-----------------------------------------------------
x
RESOLUTION
Complainant SHANE AMORES, (Shane for brevity), a resident of 455 Sampaguita St.,
Bakakeng, La Trinidad, Benguet, filed complaints for Estafa under Article 315 paragraph 1(b) of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC for brevity), against respondent NAASON BANDILLON (Naason for brevity),
a resident of 421Bougainvillea St., Bakakeng La Trinidad Benguet.
In support of her complaint, Shane attached the following documents:
1. The written agreement that was signed by Larkspur, Naason, AND Shane
2. The certificate of livestock
Statement of Facts
Based on the investigation conducted by the Police Investigator, PO2 QUALA LUMPUR, the
facts of the case are stated hereunder:
Shane owned a Brahman cow amounting to Sixty-five thousand pesos Philippine
peso (Php 65,000.00). She had entrusted the cow at the care of Larkspur, the caretaker of
the cow. Sometime in February 2020, Larkspur and Shane had a written agreement with
Naason. The agreement provides that Shane will lend the Brahman Cow to Naason for a
period of six months from the date of signing on the condition that Naason will give a
goat to Larkspur upon the expiration of the agreement. The agreement also contained that
Naason will give Larkspur a report on the condition of the cow every two weeks as it is a
precious breed. The three of them signed the agreement, with Larkspur as the witness
thereto.
Sometime in March 2020, the Philippine Government had declared an Enhanced
Community Quarantine that mandated all persons living in the Philippines to stay at
home in order to prevent being contaminated by the deadly COVID-19 virus. During this
time, Larkspur agreed that Naason will send pictures of the Brahman cow through
Facebook instead of going to Larkspur’s residence to report on the condition of the cow.
Until April 12, 2020, Naason sent the updates to Larkspur. When the Enhanced
Community Quarantine was reduced to Modified Community Quarantine, Naason simply
sent the same photo of the cow to Larkspur.
Sometime in July 2020, Larkspur, after having complied with the requirements of
a quarantine pass, immediately went to the residence of Naason on the day of the
expiration of the agreement. She demanded for the return of Shane’s cow and the
promised goat as provided in their agreement. However, Naason denied having received
the cow and having signed the agreement. He even claimed that the Shane had forged his
signature as he had been using the cow of Jaime James for the last three months.
We resolve.
Based on the evidence submitted by the parties, the undersigned finds sufficient evidence to
support the finding of probable cause to hold Respondent Naason Bandillon for having committed the
elements to commit Estafa under Article 315 paragraph 1(b) of the RPC which provides:
“Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). — Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means
mentioned herein below shall be punished by: xxx
xxx
1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely: xxx
xxx
(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 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.”
Under Article 315 (1)(b) of the RPC, the following elements must be present: (1) that money,
goods, or other personal properties are 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 to return, the
same; (2) that there is a misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender or
a denial of the receipt thereof; (3) that the misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice
of another; and (4) that there is a demand made by the offended party on the offender ( Norma C.
Gamaro and Josephone G. Umali v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 211917, February 27, 2017).
The act of Respondent in receiving the Brahman cow under the obligation of returning the
same, misappropriating the property, denying of having receipt thereof when demand was made by
the complainant constitutes the commission of a crime contemplated on the above provision of the
law.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is hereby recommended that a criminal
case for Estafa under Article 315 (1)(b) of the RPC be filed against NAASON BANDILLON there
being sufficient evidence to warrant the finding of probable cause.
(Locality), (Province) (Date)
La Trinidad, Benguet, September 4, 2020
ROSEMARIE Q. LOPEZ
Assistant City Prosecutor
Member, Fifth Division
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this ___ day of _____ 2020, in the City of
______________, Philippines.
Assistant City Prosecutor
WITNESSES:
1.DI KO ALAM
2.Others.
BAIL RECOMMENDED: ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P100,000)
ENCLS: Resolution, SS of complainant and annexes.
APPROVED FOR THE
CITY PROSECUTOR:
DIVINO M. CASTAÑEDA
Senior Assistant City Prosecutor
Chief, Sixth Division
MCLE No. III-0000388
Issued on ____________, 2020
