REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE
Office of the City Prosecutor
____ City

MARIA CECILIA FOSTANES,

Complainant,

-versus- Criminal Case No. ______

For: Estafa with Abuse of

Confidence

JEFFREY JOSEPH ALBEA,

Respondent.

x-----------------------------------------x

Republic of the Philippines) §

Quezon City )
 COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT

I, MARIA CECILIA FOSTANES, Filipino, of legal age, and

with mailing address c/o VALDEZ, GOMEZ & ASSOCIATES, Unit
803, Future Point Plaza 1, 112 Panay Avenue, South Triangle,
Quezon City, under oath, and with assistance, advice and
guidance of counsel, hereby depose and say:

THE PARTIES

1. Complainant MARIA CECILIA FOSTANES is of legal age,

American, married and a resident of 25 Summit St. Nyack,
New York, 10960. She may be served with Notices, Orders
and other legal processes of the Honorable Court at the
address of her Counsel of Record at VALDEZ GOMEZ AND
ASSOCIATES, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, c/o Atty. Ace M.
Gomez at Unit 803 Future Point Plaza 1, 112 Panay
Avenue, Bgy. South Triangle, Quezon City 1103.

2. Respondent JEFFREY JOSEPH ALBEA (JEF ALBEA), of

legal age, Filipino and a fashion designer with office address
at 7G Cluster 7 Greenhills Garden Square Col. Bonny
Serrano Quezon City, Metro Manila where he may be served
with summons and other legal processes of the Honorable
Court.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

3. On_____________ Complainant MARIA CECILIA FOSTANES

got engaged to be married to RENATO BLANCO on 16
December 2018.

4. Prior to the engagement, Complainant and her groom have

been together for more than ten years, before finally
deciding to tie the knot. The couple, both of Filipino
 heritage, migrated to the US and became citizens thereof,
and worked hard for a couple of years to save for the most
special day of their lives.

5. Immediately after engagement, and with hard earned money

saved for the big day, the couple started planning for their
dream wedding.

6. In preparation for their wedding, Complainant and her

groom scouted for various designers in the United States
and in the Philippines to customize the wedding attires they
envision for their special day.

7. On___________, a friend of the couple Aissa Marquez, floated

the name of Respondent JEFFREY JOSEPH ALBEA; an
established Filipino designer to the stars who has already
participated various fashion shows in Dubai and New York.

8. Complainant became interested and started researching on

the Respondent’s portfolio and visited Respondent’s official
website to take a close look at the Respondent’s design.

9. The creations featured at the Respondent’s website aptly

showcased the gowns designed and made by the
Respondent and revealed the Respondent’s attention to
detail and impeccable craftsmanship. Immediately, at first
glance of the gowns, any potential customer would be
straightaway convinced that Respondent is good at what he
does and that he will give you the value for your money.

10. On 08 March 2018, Complainant formally engaged the

services of the Respondent to design and customize twelve
gowns at Php 10,000 per piece in icy blue color with silver
accents. Complainant specified that it was going to be a
dress with fitted sleeves made of illusion net with a fully
laced bodice without any beading.

Attached herewith is the facebook communication thread of the

agreement referred to as “ANNEX____”.
Further attached is the sketch prepared by the Respondent
referred to as “ANNEX___”.

11. On the same date, Complainant signed the contract,

sent the electronic copy to the Respondent and immediately
paid the first half of the total cost of the twelve gowns
amounting to $1180 via zoom with fee transactions at a
total cost of $ 1188.85.

Attached herewith are the electronic copy of the signed contract

herein referred to as “ANNEX____” and a confirmation receipt of the
payment herein referred to as “ANNEX____” .

12. On_______ March 2018, Respondent confirmed to have

received a total of Php 60,000 from the Complainant.

Attached herewith is an acknowledgment receipt of the

Respondent herein referred to as “ANNEX____”.

13. From the time the Complainant has paid half of the
total cost of the bridesmaid’s gowns until 23 March 2018,
the Respondent became very persistent in convincing the
Complainant to let him design and make the groom’s and
groomsmen’s suits as well.

14. On 24 March 2018, Complainant finally agreed to

engage the services of the Respondent, this time, to design
and make the suits of the entourage at Php 12,000 each for
twelve suits and at Php 15,000 for the groom’s suit.

Attached herewith is the agreed design and color for the

groomsmen’s suits and that of the groom’s, herein referred to as
“ANNEX___” and “ANNEX___” .

15. Until the time Complainant went back to the United

States, Respondent has continuously and consistently made
promises and commitments to the Complainant in order to
persuade her to let the Respondent design her bridal gown.
 16. On 30 March 2018, Complainant deposited half of the
cost of the Groomsmen’s suits and that of the groom’s worth
$ 1423.64 or Php 72,000 in pesos.

17. On_____, Complainant finally agreed to engage the

services of the Respondent to make her dream wedding
gown;

18. On the same day, Complainant sent sample designs of

bridal gowns and categorically instructed for a full bodied
lace with no mention of beads and crystals in it.
Respondent suggested to put a few beads on the gown,
which was however, rejected by the Complainant.

19. Complainant even sent samples of wedding gown

designs with long sleeves to the Respondent, and
afterwards, the Respondent sent to the Complainant his
own sketch of the Complainant’s proposed gown.

Attached herewith is the design sketch by the Respondent of the

Complainant’s wedding gown referred to as “ANNEX___”.

20. On______2018, Respondent instructed the

Complainant to deposit half of the payment for the
wedding gown via their conversation in the messenger.
According to the Respondent, partial payment is needed so
that they could shop for the materials for the wedding gown
and start the embroidery work, which takes time.

21. Respondent adds that the measurements of the

Complainant are not necessary at that time if Complainant
was not yet ready because what is important was for the
materials to be purchased immediately and the start of the
embroidery work since it will take so much time to finish.

22. On______2018, Complainant paid half of the purchase

price of the wedding gown worth Php 72,000 which was sent
via Remitly.
Attached herewith is the proof of payment of the Complainant
referred to as “ANNEX___”.

Overall the payments made to the Respondent are broken down

as follows;

Items Number of Cost Total Transmittal

Pieces No.
Bridal Gown 1 159,000 159,000
Bridesmaids’ 10 10,000 100,000
Gowns
Maid of Honor 2 10,000 20,000
Groomsmen’s 12 12,000 120,000
Suits
Groom’s Suit 1 15,000 15,000
Total 444,000

Repairs Undertaken and other Miscellaneous Expenses Incurred

(please complete)

Item Number of Cost Total Official

Pieces Receipt
No.
Bridal Gown 1 30,000 (600
USD)
Train 1 10,000 (200
USD)
Repair of the
Bridesmaid’s
gowns
Purchase of
new
groomsmen’s
suits
Purchase of
groom’s new
suit

The final gowns and suits

received by the Complainant
from the Respondent were
poorly done and of very low
quality.

The Bridesmaid’s Gowns

23. The gowns of the bridesmaids arrived on__________ or

__________days delayed from the date agreed upon. Much to
the shock of the Complainant, the bridesmaids’ gowns were
of different color contrary to what was agreed upon and
from the swatch sent by the Respondent to the
Complainant.

24. The gowns were not the ones the Complainant

anticipated and it was nowhere close to the color motif.
The Respondent dyed the fabric just to get icy blue color but
was obviously unsuccessful.

25. Interestingly, only one bridesmaid’s gown had the right

fitting, that of the Complainant and Respondent’s common
friend, actress Aissa Marquez. Hence this gives the
Complainant reason to believe that Ms. Marquez’s gown was
made by the Respondent as “sample gown” and the rest
was just subcontracted.

26. The gowns delivered had loose sleeves contrary to what

was agreed upon which was of fitted sleeves. Upon opening
of the package, the beadworks immediately fell off because
the Respondent just used fabric glue instead of sewing it to
the dress. While most of the dresses had holes and tears in
it.

27. Most of the dresses too were not finished- the hems
were not closed in stitches while the armpit areas were not
closed.

28. Contrary to the agreement as well, the fabric used by

the Complainant was that of cheap jersey instead of agreed
silk, and that the illusion net that was used as base for the
lace was actually a non stretchable mesh which gave the
 entourage extreme difficulty in moving aside from the fact
that the gowns did not fit well.

Attached herewith are photos of the bridesmaids’ gowns upon

opening of the package referred to as “Annex___”.

The Maid of Honors’ Gowns

29. The gowns for the 2 Maids of Honor, just like the
bridesmaids’ gowns, did not fit and were made out of cheap
illusion net. Words could not explain the fact that it was
poorly done and obviously unfinished when delivered.

Attached herewith are photos of the Maid of Honors’ gowns

referred to as “Annex___”.

The Bridal Gown

30. Overall, the Complainant paid a total of Php 159,000

for the designer gown she ordered from the Respondent.
The said gown long been fully paid (two months prior) to the
16 December 2018 wedding.

31. The wedding gown of the Complainant, arrived only

two days prior to the wedding date.

32. When the Complainant opened the package sent by the

Respondent, she was devastated to see a very top heavy,
fully beaded bodice that when she raised the gown, the
beads started falling off. This was contrary to the design
agreed upon which full laced bodice with no beads was.

33. Upon seeing the pathetic state of her custom wedding

gown, the Complainant, then burst into tears.

34. Aside from the fact that the Respondent glued all the
beads in the bridal gown, the sleeves too were not of the
same color as that of the bridal gown. Various rips and
tears were also noticeable in the gown.
 35. The back part of the gown could also not be closed
because the holes made for the buttons were too loose and
not made of stretch material.

36. Lastly, the train that went with the package, was
simply a piece of fabric that was cut out with nothing at all.

Attached herewith are photos of the bridal gown upon opening of

the package referred to as “Annex___”.

37. Overall, the Complainant had to spend an additional

600 USD to finish the unfinished gown and to somehow
make it wearable by replacing the sleeves to match the color
of the gown, removing the beaded bodice and making it
lighter. For the train the Complainant spent an additional
200 USD to make it wearable.

38. Worse, the Complainant, instead of relaxing prior to

the wedding, had to endure sleepless nights and additional
stress just to look for a seamstress who would agree to
accept the repair works in less than two days.

39. However, despite the last minute effort of the

Complainant and additional expenses incurred to make the
gown wearable, the Complainant still had to endure the
back part of the gown which kept on opening due to its
inherent structural defect.

The Groomsmen’s Suits

40. The color of the suit was not the one agreed upon by
the Complainant and Respondent. In fact, it was the
Respondent himself who sent the Complainant the design of
the suits and with proposed color scheme.

41. Given that most of the suits delivered were not

wearable, the groomsmen were forced to buy new sets in
time for the wedding. While some had to pay for the repairs
and completion of the unfinished suits.
Attached herewith is a copy of the design and color of the suits
sent by the Respondent to the Client, referred to as “Annex___” .

42. The suits that arrived, were obviously not finished; the
hems were not sewn, and the pants did not have buttons.
Some of the suits even had loose threads dangling around.

43. The pants and the suits did not even fit the entourage.
The suits and the pants were too short for its owners.

Attached herewith are photos of the suits referred to as

“Annex___”.

None of the gowns and suits

arrived on time, despite the
fact that all have been fully
paid way ahead of schedule.

44. The contract between the Complainant and the

Respondent provides that the Respondent will collect the
first half of the payments upon signing and the last half of
the payment upon delivery.

45. The contract also provides that the gowns and suits
(all of it) will be delivered the latest, two weeks before the
wedding of 16 December 2018.

46. However, on __________ the Respondent demanded the

full payment of all the gowns and suits which was way
before the deadline.

47. On__________, or two months prior the original

deadline, the Complainant tendered her full payment
via__________, which was duly received by the Respondent.

48. Much to the disappointment of the Complainant the

bridesmaids’ gowns came in 4 days before the wedding,
while the suits of the groomsmen, suit of the groom and the
bridal gown, came 2 days before the wedding, leaving the
 Complainant, her husband, and their entourage, very little
time to have their attires repaired and completed.

49. Overall, the Complainant was misled to believe by the

Respondent that he would make the Complainant’s wedding
“most beautiful”. Respondent, abused the confidence of the
Complainant by making her believe that he is committed to
deliver high quality customs suits and gowns consistent
with his brand.

50. Instead, Respondent, gave the Complainant “designer

price” for very low quality items. Respondent capitalized on
his “high end designer reputation”.

51. The Complainant believed the Respondent’s sweet talk

and promise of impeccable craftsmanship and high quality
materials, but instead, the Respondent delivered items that
obviously the Respondent did not make and with materials
that were obviously very substandard and cheap.

52. Obviously, the Respondent just misled the

Complainant to believe that she was actually getting a
designer gown, because of the “designer price”.
Unfortunately, the Respondent took advantage of the
Complainant’s excitement for the wedding and her trust
only to get her money, no more no less.

53. Aside from the fact that the Respondent did not timely
deliver his commitments to the Complainant, what was
delivered instead were unfinished and unwearable items on
their very special day.

54. Needless to say, Complainant bride was extremely

harassed, embarrassed and stressed on the day of her
wedding.

55. During the course of the Complainant’s dealings with

the Respondent, Respondent was very reassuring and the
Complainant and her husband gave their full trust to him.
 56. Respondent reassured the Complainant and her
husband the last half of the payment will only be collected
upon delivery of the gowns & suits.

57. But on 16 October 2018, he started collecting the

remaining half of the payments so that he can start packing
the gowns giving the Complainant an impression that it was
already finished.

58. On_______________, Respondent sent the Complainant

a message via facebook messenger requesting for the
measurements of all of the entourage to be resent, for
unknown reasons.

59. It was only upon receipt of the gowns and suits that
the Complainant came to realize that the measurements
were asked to be resent by the Respondent because he has
not actually commenced making the Complainant’s orders
in the first place.

60. Quite obviously, the Respondent has misappropriated

the payments made by the Complainant for designer gowns
and suits and instead defrauded her by delivering items that
are of extremely low quality just to save face, to the
prejudice of the Complainant.

THE CHARGE

ESTAFA WITH ABUSE OF

CONFIDENCE ARTICLE 315 1 (B)
OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE

1. Article 315, paragraph 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code

provides:

ART. 315. Swindling (estafa). – Any person who shall

defraud another by any of the means mentioned herein
below.
 1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:

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;
xxx

2. The gravamen of the crime of estafa under Article 315,

paragraph 1 (b) is the appropriation or conversion of money or
property received to the prejudice of the offender.

3. In Chu v People,1 the Court said that the elements of

Estafa under this provision are as follows:

a. the offender's receipt of money, goods, or other

personal property in trust, or on commission, or for
administration, or under any other obligation
involving the duty to deliver, or to return, the same;

b. misappropriation or conversion by the offender of

the money or property received, or denial of receipt
of the money or property;

c. the misappropriation, conversion or denial is to the

prejudice of another; and

d. demand by the offended party that the offender

return the money or property received.

4. There is no denying, that based on factual

antecedents, all the elements of the crime are present in this
case.

1 G.R. No. 174113, 13 January 2016

 5. Respondent received money with a clear obligation to
use the same for the creation of the gowns and suits for the
Complainant’s wedding.

6. To reiterate, from the start, the agreement was clear

that the amount of payment was given to the Respondent for the
sole purpose of making customized gowns and suits.

7. Note that the receipt of money by the Respondent is

evinced by the attached verification slips.

8. Next, there arises a presumption that the money paid

for the sole purpose of making customized gowns and suits was
misappropriated or converted by the Respondent given that the
items actually delivered were nowhere close to the specifications
agreed upon.

9. Finally, Respondent’s failure to make good of his

promise and to even give a plausible explanation even after
making prior demands verbally or through cellular
communication, caused great damage and prejudice to the
Complainant.

CONCLUSION

10. Based on the foregoing considerations, Respondent is

clearly guilty of ESTAFA WITH ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE
UNDER ARTICLE 315 1 (A) OF RPC.

AFFIANT FURTHER SAYETH NOT.

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set our hand this
________ of December 2019, in Quezon City.

MARIA CECILIA FOSTANES

Complainant-Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _______ day of

February 2019 in Quezon City. I further certify that I have
personally examined the affiant and that I am satisfied that he
has voluntarily executed this Complaint-Affidavit and has
understood the contents hereof based on his own personal
knowledge and/or authentic records.

ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR