Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice
Office of the City Prosecutor
Manila

JUSTINE PHILIP BAYOCOT y GUMUGDA,

DARWIN GANZA y BAAY, IRISH EUGENE
BULAGNIR Y CIPRIANO, LUISA BOLOSAN y
GUIAS and CELMA LATOZA ABASTAS,
Complainants.

-versus-

S-ROLDAN CORDEZ y QUINE,

Respondent.
x----------------------------------------x

RESOLUTION

This resolves the complaint for ESTAFA filed by JUSTINE PHILIP BAYOCOT y
GUMUGDA, DARWIN GANZA y BAAY, IRISH EUGENE BULAGNIR y CIPRIANO,
LUISA BOLOSAN y GUIAS and CELMA LATOZA ABASTAS against S-ROLDAN
CORDEZ y QUINE.

In their joint complaint affidavit, the complainants alleged that in or about during
the month of October 2018 up to February 2019, they paid and delivered to the
respondent the amount of Forty Thousand Pesos (Php 40,000) each as apprenticeship
fee relying in the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and endorsement between their
school (Philippine Nautical and Technological Colleges (PNTC)) and RQC Maritime
Services. However, on the promised dates of their departure, the respondent failed to
send the complainants in their trainings. Despite several demands, the respondent failed
to return the consideration they have paid.

The elements of Estafa under 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code are namely:
(1) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit; and (2)
the offended party, or a third party suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary
estimation. (People v. Tolentino, G.R. No. 208686, July 1, 2015)

Furthermore, in Dy v. Lopez, G751 SCRA 59 (2008), the Supreme Court said:

Deceit as an element of estafa is a specie of fraud. It is actual fraud which consists of any
misrepresentation or contrivance where a person deludes another, to his hurt. There is
deceit where one is misled – by guile, trickery, or by other means — to believe as true
what is really false.
 In the case at bar, the respondent represented himself to the complainants to have
the capacity to send them aboard to ship. His assurance made the complainants pay the
apprenticeship fees required in exchange for the promised trainings. The elements of
deceit and damage for this form of estafa are indisputably present.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully recommended that

INFORMATION for the crime of ESTAFA be filed against S-ROLDAN CORDEZ y QUINE.

Manila, November 11,2019.

GIL B. MENDOZA
Senior Assistant City Prosecutor
Member, Ninth Division
MCLE Compliance VI No. 0002031
Issued on March 27, 2017

Copy Furnished:
1) Justine Philip Bayocot y Gumugda – Block 93 Lot 16 Zone 10, Brgy. Sampaloc IV,
Baitista Property, Dasmarinas City, Cavite
2) Darwin Ganza y Baay – Block 48 Lot 2, Phase 4, Brgy. Fatima III, Dasmarinas
City, Cavite
3) Irish Eugene Bulagnir y Cipriano – Block 58 Lot 1 Villa Modena, Villagio Ignatius,
Buena Vista I, General Trias, Cavite
4) Luisa Bolosan y Guias – Block 26 Lot 15, Villa Luisa Homes, Phase 3, Mango St.,
San Agustin III, Dasmarinas City, Cavite
5) Celma Latoza Abastas – Block 33 Lot 28 Brgy. Victoria Reyes, Dasmarinas City,
Cavite
6) S-Roldan Cordez y Quine – SMDC Green Reaidences Condominium, 49th Floor
Avenue, Malate, Manila