Reply - Affidavit.docx

Republic of the Philippines Department of Justice Office of the Public Prosecutor Binangonan, Rizal

FERDINAND SOLLESTRE, Complainant, Crim. Case No. ________ - versus -

For: Violation of Article 315 Par. 2 (a) of Revised Penal Code

MANUEL A. LARITA, WILFREDO A. LARITA and MARIAN A. LARITA, Respondents. x-----------------------------x REPLY-AFFIDAVIT I, FERDINAND C. SOLLESTRE, of legal age, single, Filipino citizen and a resident of No. 716 Metropolis Avenue, Sitio Pedro Cruz, Brgy. Pag-asa, Binangonan, Rizal, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, hereby depose and state that: 1. A careful perusal of the counter-affidavit submitted and executed by respondents Manuel A. Larita and Wilfredo A. Larita evidently reveals that there is no denial of the material allegations contained in the complaint-affidavit against them; 2. Contrary to the allegations of respondents in paragraph 3 of their counter-affidavit, respondents convinced the complainant to invest in LMA BUILDERS AND SUPPLY (hereinafter referred to as “LMA”), with a promise that they will incorporate the same and that the complainant will become LMA’s stockholder and member of the board of directors upon investment. In fact, respondents even asked the complainant to get the necessary Forms at Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC, for brevity) in order to process LMA’s incorporation. However, after receipt of all 1

the said Forms and complainant’s capital investment in the total amount of One Million Three Hundred Thirty Seven Thousand Pesos (Php 1,337,000.00), the respondents still failed to incorporate LMA and their promise that complainant will become a stockholder and member of the board of directors never materialized/happened;

3. Further, as regards the Transfer Certificate of Title No. 103712 (viz. Annex “1” of the counter-affidavit), in the name of Marian A. Larita, said title was governed by a separate agreement, particularly, Deed of Real Estate Mortgage executed between herein complainant and respondent Marian A. Larita. Thus, the aforementioned TCT No. 103712 has no connection with the instant case, more so, contrary to the respondents allegations that said title was a Return of Investment.

Copy of the said Deed of Real Estate Mortgage dated ________ is hereto marked as Annex “1” and made integral part hereof; 4. The false pretenses made and offered by the respondents, being the sole basis why the complainant entrusted his hard earned money did not materialize even after the lapse of the period written in the final demand letter (viz. Annex “C” of the complaint-affidavit). Moreover, whenever the complainant tries to settle the matter, the respondents cannot be located and nowhere to be found; 5. Complainant’s main concern is the promise by respondents that LMA will be turned into a corporation and that he will become a stockholder and member of the board of directors upon payment of his capital investment. Respondents used convincing words and even asked the complainant to get the Forms at the SEC for LMA’s incorporation. However, it all turned out to be false and misrepresentation; 6. Based from the foregoing discussions and the Complaint-Affidavit filed by the complainant, it is crystal clear that probable cause exists to warrant the filing of ESTAFA by means of False Pretenses or Fraudulent Acts as defined and punished under Art. 315 Paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code against the respondents.

2

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this ___ day of March, 2019 at Binangonan, Rizal.

FERDINAND C. SOLLESTRE Complainant-Affiant

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES) MUNICIPALITY OF BINANGONAN)S.S. PROVINCE OF RIZAL

)

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this __

day of March, 2019 at Binangonan, Rizal.

_________________________ ASST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

CERTIFICATION

This is to CERTIFY that I have personally examined the affiant and I am satisfied that he voluntarily executed and understood his reply-affidavit.

3

ASST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

4