Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
Antipolo City

HENRY B. GIRAY, JR.

Complainant,

-versus- NPS DOCKET NO.____________

FOR: VIOLATION OF THE
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1612
OR THE ANTI-FENCING LAW OF
1979

JEREMIAH LOPEZ, GHENELLE

MORALES and one named
“ALLAN”,
Respondents.
x---------------------------------------------x

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

CITY OF ANTIPOLO ) S.S.

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT
I, HENRY B. GIRAY JR., of legal age, married, Filipino and with
residential address at 5650 Bluebird St. Meralco Village, Mahabang
Parang, Angono, Rizal, after having been sworn to in accordance with
law hereby depose and state that:

1.) I am charging the Respondents JEREMIAH LOPEZ,

GHENELLE MORALES and one named “ALLAN” (hereinafter referred
to as “Respondents” for brevity), Filipino citizens, all of legal age and
with address known to me at Junmar Homes, Brgy. Dalig 1, Antipolo City,
of the crime of FENCING, defined and penalized under P.D. 1612 or the
Anti-Fencing Law of 1979, committed as follows:

a.) On 28 July 2017, I have noticed that my mountain bike with

Specialized brand which I bought from Abu Dhabi when I
was an OFW, and my son's BMX bicycle was missing, which
obviously was stolen from our front yard where those
bicycles are parked.
 A copy of the papers pertaining to the bicycle as proof that it
is indeed my personal property is hereto attached as
ANNEX “A”.

b.) Accordingly, I reported it in the barangay of Mahabang

Parang on the same day that I noticed that the bicycles were
missing.

c.) Incidentally, my brother whom I informed about the theft,

went to our house with my son's BMX bicycle. According to
him, he saw the bike from someone named “Clark” who
resides in Duraville Homes II, Mahabang Parang , Angono,
Rizal. According to Clark, the bike was given to him by
another boy just to look after it temporarily. However, it
turned out that it was Clark who stole the bicycles from our
residence.

d.) Thus, I filed a case for theft against Clark before the
Tanggapan ng Punong Barangay of Mahabang Parang who in
turn set the case for hearing on 10, 17, 24 and 31 August
2017, respectively. However, before the hearing set on 17
August 2017, Clark told me that my mountain bike was sold
to Respondent Jeremiah.

The Notice of Hearing or “Patawag” are hereto attached as

ANNEXES “B” and “C” and made an integral part hereof.

Likewise, the affidavit or the Sinumpaang Salaysay executed

by CHARLES JOSEPH “Clark” CATANGUI, with the assistance
of his father, stating the incidents on how the mountain bike
came to the possession of the Respondents is hereto
attached as ANNEX “D”.

e.) At the same day, we went to Respondent Jeremiah's house to

retrieve my mountain bike. It turned out that the
Respondent bought my bike from Clark for P4,000. During
our conversation, Respondent Jeremiah requested to give
him until 23 August 2017, Wednesday, to return the bike to
me as according to him, the bike was in Bulacan. Though
against my will, I gave him time to retrieve my bike since I
was open to enter into an amicable settlement and not to
bring the matter in court to save both of us from more
trouble and inconvenience.

f.) When 23 August 2017 came, I went again to Respondent

Jeremiah’s house to get my bike as we have previously
agreed. However, Respondent Jeremiah twisted his

Complaint-Affidavit
Giray vs. Morales; For Violation of the Anti-Fencing Law
Page 2 of 4
 statement and told me that the bike was not with him since
it was not him who bought the bike from Clark in the first
place, but his boss, herein Respondent Ghenelle Morales. He
asked me to wait for this woman who will come to their
house at that day. I patiently waited, and she arrived
together with a man, herein Respondent Allan. They refused
to return my bike and asked me to bring with them the boy
who sold the bike to them. Respondent Allan even said
“Magkita-kita na lang tayo sa korte” if Clark would not
talked to them. I told them that the next day will be our next
hearing for the theft case and they are free to attend to be
able to talk personally with Clark and his father.

g.) However, they did not bother to come and talk to Clark and
his father for amicably settling the dispute. Clark and his
father were willing to give back the payment made by the
Respondents just to end the issue. But, the Respondents still
refused to return my bike for an obvious reason that they
want to be benefited at my expense. They might have
learned how much my bike actually cost.

h.) In fact, on 28 August 2017, I asked the assistance of a police

officer named PO Garin, to go to the Respondents’ address
to get my bike, but again, they refused to give it back. PO
Garin gave them 72 hours within which to return the bike.
He even invited them to go to the tanggapan ng punong
barangay to discuss the matter, to which they obliged and
said that they will follow. However, Clark’s father and I
waited for hours but they did not arrived.

2.) P.D. 1612 or otherwise known as the Anti-fencing Law,

specifically define the word fencing as, to wit:

"Fencing" is the act of any person who, with intent to gain

for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess,
keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and
sell, or in any other manner deal in any article, item, object
or anything of value which he knows, or should be known to
him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the
crime of robbery or theft.

3.) In the instant case, the Respondents new at the outset that
the item they bought from Clark was just stolen since Clark verbally told
them. Even assuming that they did not know at first that the bicycle they
bought was stolen, their denial to return the same after knowing that
the bicycle is a subject of thievery, aggravates their act. For the law
specifically defines that the mere possession of the item which is a

Complaint-Affidavit
Giray vs. Morales; For Violation of the Anti-Fencing Law
Page 3 of 4
subject of robbery or thievery is the primary evidence of fencing as
provided in Sec. 5 of P.D. 1612, to wit:

Section 5. Presumption of Fencing. Mere possession of any

good, article, item, object, or anything of value which
has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be
prima facie evidence of fencing.

4.) I am executing this affidavit to attest to the truth of the

foregoing and in order to charge Respondents for the violation of the
ANTI-FENCING LAW committed against me, to my damage and
prejudice.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this

____ day of ____________________ 2017 in Antipolo City.

HENRY B. GIRAY, JR.

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ____ day of

__________________ 2017 in the Antipolo City.

ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that I have personally examined the affiant and

that I am satisfied that she fully understands and voluntarily executed
this affidavit.

ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR

Complaint-Affidavit
Giray vs. Morales; For Violation of the Anti-Fencing Law
Page 4 of 4