201649068-complaint-affidavit-falsification-noel.doc

Republic of the Philippines) Quezon City )S.S.

AFFIDAVIT COMPLAINT I, NOEL M. LUZUNG, of legal age, Filipino, and a resident of Brgy. San Agustin, City of San Fernando Pampanga after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, hereby depose and states that: 1. I am presently an employee and authorized representative of 123 Bus Line, Inc., who has been duly authorized to file this complaint for FALSIFICATION OF PRIVATE DOCUMENT on behalf of 123 Bus Line, Inc. (hereafter, “bus company”), a corporation duly organized under Philippine laws and with business address at Barangay Dolores, City of San Fernando, Pampanga against a certain EIAN CHAN, of legal age and a resident of Brgy. Dagat dagatan, Tondo, Manila and a certain FAYE MANIKIS, of legal age, Filipino, and a resident of 97 harvard St., G. Rodriguez, Cubao, Quezon City, as evidenced by a Secretary’s Certificate, a copy of which is attached as Annex “A”; 2. As part of standard operational procedures, employees of the bus company are issued identification cards (hereafter, “IDs”) which bear the authenticated signature of our President and General Manager Bernardo Bernarda, Jr. Employees are required to use and exhibit their IDs during work hours; 3. On August 18, 2001, the bus company filed a criminal complaint against EIAN CHAN for estafa through misappropriation of company. The Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City found probable cause to charge him for Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code. EIAN CHAN was terminated from his employment for the said offense; 4. However, it has come to our collective knowledge that EIAN CHAN and his cohort FAYE MANIKIS continue to loiter around the bus terminal infront of Ali Mall at Araneta Center, Cubao, as barkers for several bus companies there; 5. I also learned that CHAN and MANIKIS were able to procure the production of their own 123 Bus Line company IDs despite the fact that they are not presently employed by the bus company; 6. I learned that they procure the fabrication of their falsified IDs from a quick service ID maker somewhere in Cubao. Worse, they have even induced and enticed some employees of 123 Bus Lines, Inc. to order from them unauthorized PVC-type, (ATM card-looking) IDs for profit. Attached as Annex B, C and D are affidavit of just some of those employees who can attest that Ragas and Toledo are engaged in the said illegal activity; 6. Recently, CHAN and MANIKIS even used the said falsified IDs in the baseless, unfounded and unsubstantiated illegal dismissal case which they filed against the bus company. Attached as Annex E is a copy of the Position Paper which they filed in the “EIAN CHAN and FAYE MANIKIS vs 123 Bus Lines, Inc. and Bernardo Bernarda, Jr.”, docketed as NLRC RAB No. NCR Case 1

No. NCR-12-34567-08, with the National Labor Relations Commission. Attached as part of the annexes are photocopies of their falsified IDs; 7. In their Reply to the said Position Paper, a copy of which is attached as Annex F, the respondents therein asserted that the 123 Bus Line IDs which were exhibited as proof of employment of CHAN and MANIKIS are actually fabricated and falsified; 8. Quoted hereunder are the allegations of the respondents in the said Reply, which are also relevant for purposes of the present criminal complaint: “The identification cards are fabricated and falsified. To underscore their malicious scheme, complainants have resorted to procuring the production of their own identification cards despite the fact that they are not employees and are not authorized to secure identification cards for themselves. Complainants have apparently ordered the fabrication of their identification cards from a quick-service ID maker somewhere in Cubao. In fact, they have even enticed some employees of PP Bus Lines, Inc. that they can get new IDs fro them. Attached as Annexes A, B, C, and D are affidavits of these employees who can attest that the IDs of the complainants are not genuine and that the complainant Ragas even volunteered to some employees that he can get for them modern-looking IDs for P150.00, apparently at a profit of P50 per ID. It was a money-making scheme for complainant Ragas. A comparison of the complainants’ identification cards and the identification cards of five (5) genuine employees of the 123 Bus Line, Inc. would instantly reveal the following glaring differences: a. The complainants’ IDs apparently are of the modern, PVC type while the genuine 123 Bus Line, Inc. employees’ IDs are of the old-fashioned, laminated plastic type; b. The complainants’ IDs have a different format that the genuine 123 Bus Line, Inc. employees’ IDs, as follows: 1. The complainants’ IDs display their signatures at the back portion while the genuine employees’ IDs display their signature at the front portion. 2. The complainants’ IDs show that their names and position are not typewritten but neatly printed while the genuine employees’ IDs show that their names and positions are typewritten and skewed. 3. The complainants’ IDs show that the personal information are not typewritten but neatly printed while the genuine employees’ IDs show that their personal information are typewritten and skewed. 4. The fonts and sizes of the text of CHAN and MANIKI’s IDs and genuine employees’ IDs are remarkably different. 2

c. CHAN and MANIKIS used the business name “123 BUS LINE” in their IDs. On the other hand, the genuine employees’ IDs clearly sport the correct business or corporate name of the bus company, “123 BUS LINE, INC.” Attached as Annexes E, F, G, and H are photocopies of genuine company IDs. Respondents are ready to present the original for comparison with the original of the complainants’ IDs.” (underscoring ours) 9. It was also pointed out in the said Reply that CHAN and MANIKIS likewise presented a fabricated and falsified cash voucher, to wit: “The cash voucher is likewise fabricated and falsified. Again, the complainants’ malicious ways are shown when they presented a fabricated and falsified cash voucher just to establish that they are employees of the bus company. Unfortunately for the complainants, their attempt at falsification is quite glaring. Again, a comparison of complainants’ cash voucher vis-a-vis the genuine company cash voucher would reveal that there are a noticeable dissimilarities and differences between the two. For instance: a. The complainants’ cash voucher does not display the bus company name, office address and telephone while the genuine company cash voucher display such vital information. b. The fonts and the sizes of the text used for both cash vouchers are different. c. The complainants’ cash voucher does not show any signature in the space reserved for “approved” while the genuine company cash voucher shows the signature of the bus company president. d. The complainants’ cash voucher refers to “PP Bus Line” while the genuine cash voucher refers to “PP Bus Line, Inc.”. Attached as Annexes J and K are photocopies of genuine company cash vouchers. Respondents are also ready to present the originals thereof for comparison with the original of the alleged cash voucher in the possession of the complainants.” (underscoring ours) 10. By reason of the said unlawful acts of Gaudencio Ragas and Rolando Toledo, they have committed Falsification of Private Documents punishable under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code, to wit: 3

Article 172. Falsification by private individuals and use of falsified documents. - The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than 5,000 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; and 2. Any person who, to the damage of a third party, or with the intent to cause such damage, shall in any private document commit any of the acts of falsification enumerated in the next preceding article. Any person who shall knowingly introduce in evidence in any judicial proceeding or to the damage of another or who, with the intent to cause such damage, shall use any of the false documents embraced in the next preceding article, or in any of the foregoing subdivisions of this article, shall be punished by the penalty next lower in degree. (underscoring ours) The elements of the crime of falsification of private document (Art. 172 (2)) are: 1. That the offender committed any of the acts of falsification, except those in paragraph 7, enumerated in Art. 171. 2. That the falsification was committed in any private document. 3. That the falsification caused damage to a third party or at least the falsification was committed with intent to cause such damage. 11. It is clear that CHAN and MANIKIS have falsified the company IDs and the cash voucher to falsely establish employment with the bus company and to falsely claim backwages, damages and attorney’s fees from the bus company. As a result, the bus company incurred litigation expenses and attorney’s fees to defend itself from the unfounded illegal dismissal complaint; and 12. I am executing this Complaint-Affidavit to prove the truth and veracity of the aforecited facts for the purpose of filing a criminal complaint for Falsification of Private Documents against EIAN CHAN, Jr. and FAYE MANIKIS. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ___th day of December, 2008 at Quezon City.

NOEL M LUZUNG Affiant 4

SUBSCRIPTION/CERTIFICATION SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ____th day of December 2008 at Quezon City. I hereby certify that I have personally examined the affiant and that I am satisfied that she has voluntarily executed and has fully understood the contents of her affidavit-complaint.

ASST. CITY PROSECUTOR

5