REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
QUEZON CITY

RODERICK VON CABINTA MARQUEZ,

Complainant,

- versus - NPS DOCKET NO.: _____________________

For: ESTAFA UNDER PARAGRAPH 2 (d),
ARTICLE 315 OF THE REVISED PENAL
CODE and VIOLATION OF BATAS
PAMBANSA BLG. 22

JOHN MARTIN B. RODICA,

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

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT

I, RODERICK VAN CABINTA MARQUEZ, of legal age,

Filipino, married and with residence address at Block 8, Lot
12, Phase 2, Avida Settings, Paliparan Road, Molino IV, Bacoor
City, Cavite, after having been duly sworn in accordance with
law, depose and state:

1. Sometime in January 2017, I met respondent JOHN

MARTIN B. RODICA (“Mr. Rodica”), who represented himself
as the Founder/Owner of YECPH ASSOCIATION, INC., a
corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the
Republic of the Philippines with business address at 100K
Tower, 2nd floor, Kamias Road, Quezon City.

2. Mr. Rodica informed me that his company is need of

cash to finance his businesses and requested me if I could
extend him a short term loan for his self-published book
printing. Further, Mr. Rodica represented to me that he will
issue post-dated checks to cover his loan obligation with an
assurance that they are fully funded upon their due dates.

1
 3. Because of the foregoing assurances, I agreed to lend
Mr. Rodica the initial amount of Three Hundred Thousand
Pesos (P300,000.00) on 13 January 2017 which I personally
delivered in his office in Kamias, Quezon City. Upon receipt
thereof, Mr. Rodica and I executed a Loan Agreement and he
issued to me thirteen (13) post-dated checks drawn against his
account with Security Bank – Cubao Branch.

A copy of the Loan Agreement is hereto attached as

Annex “A”.

4. A few months after, Mr. Rodica again requested for

another loan to finance his short term cash requirements for a
water business expansion in the amount of Seven Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P700,000.00). Just like the first loan, he
represented that he will issue post-dated checks to cover his
loan obligation with an assurance that they are fully funded
upon their due dates.

5. Thus, on 23 March 2017, I gave said amount to Mr.

Rodica and we executed another Loan Agreement. As
promised, he issued seven (7) post-dated checks covering the
monthly interest and the principal amount and drawn against
his account with Security Bank – Cubao Branch.

A copy of said agreement is hereto attached as Annex “B”.

6. The last five (5) post-dated checks that Mr. Rodica

issued for his first loan were dishonored by the drawee bank
when presented for payment for reason “Account Closed”, to
wit:

Bank Check No. Amount Date of Check

Security Bank 0000770110 P 24,000.00 October 13, 2017
Security Bank 0000770111 P 24,000.00 November 13, 2017
Security Bank 0000770112 P 24,000.00 December 13, 2017
Security Bank 0000770113 P 24,000.00 January 13, 2018
Security Bank 0000770102 P 300,000.00 January 13, 2018
Total P 396,000.00
============

Copies of the dishonored checks are hereto attached as

Annexes “C”, “D”, “E”, “F” and “G”.

7. Likewise, the last two (2) post-dated checks for the

second loan were dishonored by the drawee bank when
presented for payment for reason “Account Closed”, as follows:

2
 Bank Check No. Amount Date of Check
Security Bank 0000770108 P 80,000.00 September 14, 2017
Security Bank 0000770109 P 700,000.00 September 14, 2017
Total P 780,000.00
============

Copies of the dishonored checks are hereto attached as

Annexes “H” and “I”.

8. As a result of the dishonor of said checks, I was

defrauded in the total amount ONE MILLION ONE HUNDRED
SEVENTY SIX THOUSAND PESOS (P1,176,000.00).

9. I made several verbal demands to Mr. Rodica to settle

the value of his dishonored checks but he repeatedly ignored
it. Hence, I was constrained to seek the services of a lawyer to
initiate the proper legal action against Mr. Rodica.

10. A formal Notice of Dishonor with Demand to Pay was

sent to Mr. Rodica which he personally received. However, he
failed and continuously failed to heed the same.

A copy of said letter with proof of receipt are hereto

attached as Annexes “J” and “J-1”.

11. Clearly, from the foregoing, Mr. Rodica is liable for

the following crimes, to wit:

11.1. Estafa by post-dating a check or issuing a check

in payment of an obligation under paragraph 2(d),
Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code:

“x x x

2. By means of any of the following false

pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the
fraud:

xxxx

(d) By postdating a check, or issuing a

check in payment of an obligation when the
offender had no funds in the bank, or his funds
deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the
amount of the check. The failure of the drawer of
the check to deposit the amount necessary to
cover his check within three (3) days from
receipt of notice from the bank and/or the payee
or holder that said check has been dishonored

3
 for lack or insufficiency of funds shall be prima
facie evidence of deceit constituting false
pretense or fraudulent act.

11.2. Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22

(Bouncing Check Law)

“Section 1. Checks without sufficient

funds. - Any person who makes or draws and
issues any check to apply on account or for
value, knowing at the time of issue that he does
not have sufficient funds in or credit with the
drawee bank for the payment of such check in
full upon its presentment, which check is
subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for
insufficiency of funds or credit or would have
been dishonored for the same reason had not
the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered
the bank to stop payment, shall be punished by
imprisonment of not less than thirty days but
not more than one (1) year or by a fine of not
less than but not more than double the amount
of the check which fine shall in no case exceed
Two Hundred Thousand Pesos, or both such fine
and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.

The same penalty shall be imposed upon

any person who, having sufficient funds in or
credit with the drawee bank when he makes or
draws and issues a check, shall fail to keep
sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover
the full amount of the check if presented within
a period of ninety (90) days from the date
appearing thereon, for which reason it is
dishonored by the drawee bank.

Where the check is drawn by a

corporation, company or entity, the person or
persons who actually signed the check in behalf
of such drawer shall be liable under this Act.

12. In view of the foregoing, I am formally charging for

JOHN MARTIN B. RODICA for violation of Estafa punishable
under Paragraph 2 (d), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code
and for Violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang No. 22, who may
be served with Subpoena at –

100K TOWER, 2ND FLOOR,

100 KAMIAS ROAD, QUEZON CITY

4
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hands
this 25th day of May 2018 in Quezon City.

RODERICK VON CABINTA MARQUEZ

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 25 th day of

May 2018 in Quezon City. Further, I hereby certify that I have
personally examined the affiant and I am fully satisfied that he
has read and understood his Complaint-Affidavit and that he
has freely and voluntarily executed the same.

Assistant City Prosecutor