Republic of the Philippines)

City of Paranaque)s.s

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT

I, FRANKLIN HERNANDEZ, of legal age, Filipino, married, with

office address at 8496 Ease Service Road KM. 17 South Super
Highway Brgy. San Martin De Porres, Paranaque City, after having
been sworn to in accordance with the law hereby depose and state
THAT:

1. I am formally charging herein Respondent SIEGFRED

ENZO PELEGRINO (“Respondent” for brevity) for the
Crime of Estafa, specifically defined and penalized under
subdivision No. 2, par. (a) and (d) of Art. 315 of the Revised
Penal Code;

2. The abovementioned charge was committed in the manner

mentioned in the following paragraphs;

3. Respondent SIEGFRED ENZO PELEGRINO may be

served with subpoenas and other processes of this
Honorable Office at:

a) Office address at 903 B West Tower PSE Building,

Ortigas Center, Pasig City; and

b) Residence at Lot 15, Block 8 Christineville Subd., San

Jose, Rodriquez, Rizal;

4. While I can be served with summons and other legal

processes at the above-mentioned address;

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The factual circumstances supporting my charge against herein

respondents are as follows:

5. I am the owner of FH3 Intelcom Enterprises, Incorporated

(“FH3” for brevity) with business address at 8496 Ease
Service Road KM. 17 South Super Highway Brgy. San
Martin De Porres, Paranaque City. To prove this, a copy of
the DTI Registration of FH3 Intelcom Enterprises,
Incorporated is attached herein as Annex “A”.

Complaint-Affidavit
1
Hernandez vs. Pelegrino
 6. On _____, 2016, the respondent approached my EVP/GM
Shirley Rubi ( “Rubi” for brevity) as he was interested to
engage our services and lease our billboard.

7. The Respondent projected himself as a businessman of

good rapport. Among the documents to establish his
credibility, he introduced himself as Chief Executive Officer
of Frontrow Media International Incorporated (“Frontrow”
for brevity) located at 903 B West Tower PSE Building,
Ortigas Center, Pasig City. To prove this, a copy of the
Articles of Incorporation of Frontrow Media International
Incorporated is attached herein as Annex “B”.

8. The Respondent represented himself of having full

authority of Frontrow and expressed his capacity to pay for
our services when it falls due.

9. After establishing his credibility, the Respondent seeked

my company’s services and wished to lease a billboard for
his client’s products;

10. Trusting his representations and assurances, I

approved the said lease of our Single Face photographic
billboard located at C5 Bagong Ilog, Pasig city in his favor.

11. On 27 July 2016, a Billboard advertising contract for

lease was executed between my company, FH3, and
Frontrow, represented by the herein Respondent. To prove
this, a copy of the Billboard advertising contract between
FH3 and Frontrow dated 27 July 2016 is attached herein
as Annex “C”.

12. In the said lease agreement, the details of the said

lease agreement is a follows:

Subject of Lease Single face photographic

billboard located at C5
Bagong Ilog, Pasig City
Duration A period of six (6) months
from execution of agreement
Monthly rental Php224,000.00
Total contract amount Php1,344,000.00

Complaint-Affidavit
2
Hernandez vs. Pelegrino
 13. As payment for the said monthly rentals, the Respondent
transmitted to my company, six (6) Asian United Bank
Checks Tektite branch, PSE, Ortigas, Pasig checking
account number 082-01-000095-1 under the name of
Frontrow Media International Incorporated checks:

Check number Amount (Php)

214,000.00
214,000.00
214,000.00
214,000.00
214,000.00
79396 214,000.00

14. However, a check of the Respondent dated 03 March

2017 dishonored for the reason “Drawn Against Insufficient
Funds” when the same was deposited at FH3’s Metrobank
account located at East Service Road Bicutan Paranaque
Branch, which is within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Office. A Copy of the Frontrow’s unfunded AUB Check
issued by the herein Respondent with Check number
79396 dated March 3, 2017 is attached herein as Annex
“D”.

15. As a result of Respondents’ lapses and delays,

Respondents deceived the Complainant and obtained a
total amount TWO HUNDRED FOURTEEN THOUSAND
PESOS (Php214,000.00).

16. To the dismay of suffering pecuniary damage due to the

said amount, my collecting officer,________, made several
verbal demands.

17. However, the Respondent failed to make good his

obligation to pay the said obligation despite the verbal
notices of Dishonor of the abovementioned check.

18. When these demands were unavailing, sometime in

March 2017, I consulted my lawyer as to file appropriate
charges against the Respondent;

Complaint-Affidavit
3
Hernandez vs. Pelegrino
 19. My counsel suggested to first send a demand letter to
the Respondent before resorting to any drastic measures
or legal actions;

20. Following this advise and with my conformity, Rubi sent

a demand letter to the respondents demanding her to pay
the total amount of TWO HUNDRED FOURTEEN
THOUSAND PESOS (Php214,000.00). A Copy of the said
demand letter dated 20 March 2017 is hereto attached as
Annex “E”;

21. On 23 March 2017, my staff personally served the said

Demand Letter to the respondent and was received by
Ms.Cara Dy. A Copy of the signature of receipt of Cara Dy
in the said demand letter dated 20 March 2017 is hereto
attached as Annex “E-1”;

22. Even for the sake of redundancy and diligent

attempts to serve the same, the demand letter was sent
through registered mail. A copy of the respective Registry
Receipt RD 714 814 830 ZZ dated 28 March 2017 and
Return card are hereto attached as Annex “F-1” and series.

23. After weeks of waiting, Respondent still unjustifiably

refused to comply with their obligation neither did he try to
amicably settle the same which only bolsters the fact that
they deliberately intended to greatly prejudice the
Complainant.

24. Upon our inquiry as to the proper charge against the

respondent, our lawyer informed me that the appropriate
charge against the Respondents is Crime of Estafa,
specifically defined and penalized under subdivision No. 2,
par. (d) of Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code.

ALL ELEMENTS OF ESTAFA ARE PRESENT IN THIS CASE

25. Article 315 Paragraph 2(a) and (d) of the Revised Penal
Code provides:

“ART. 315. Swindling (estafa). – Any

person who shall defraud another by any
of the means mentioned herein below x x
x:

x xxx
Complaint-Affidavit
4
Hernandez vs. Pelegrino
 2. By means of any of the following false
pretenses or fraudulent acts executed
prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud:

(a) By using a fictitious name, or falsely

pretending to possess power,
influence, qualifications, property,
credit, agency, business or imaginary
transactions; or by means of other
similar deceits.
x xxx

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

26. The elements of Estafa under paragraph 2(a), Article

315 of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) there must be a
false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means, (2) such
false pretense, fraudulent acts of fraudulent means must
be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of fraud, (3) That the offended party must have
relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent
means, that is, he was induced to part with his money or
property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act or
fraudulent means; and (4) as a result thereof, the offended
party suffered damage.

27. In this case, Respondent deviously and deceitfully made

me believe that he duly represented Frontrow Inc. and as
such, has the financial capacity to properly fund the checks
he issued. However, the respondent’s mispresentation of
financial capacity to make good his obligation was nothing
but a plot to extort money from me.

Complaint-Affidavit
5
Hernandez vs. Pelegrino
 28. While the Elements of Estafa under paragraph 2(d),
Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) the
postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an
obligation contracted at the time the check was issued; (2)
lack of sufficiency of funds to cover the check; and (3)
damage to the payee1;

29. In this case, Respondent is guilty for the offense of

Estafa by postdating a check. Respondent, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously defraud me by the respondent’s
fraudulent act that issuing Frontrow’s unfunded AUB
Check issued (Check number 79396 dated March 3, 2017
attached herein as Annex “D”) were fully funded. Knowing
fully well that the said check has no funds and indeed when
it was presented for payment, the same was dishonored by
the drawee bank by reason of Drawn Against Insufficient
Funds and despite notice and demand respondent failed
and refused to pay the value thereof to the damage and
prejudice to me;

30. In view of the foregoing, it is indubitable thatall the

elementsof ESTAFA byFalse Pretenses under subdivision
No. 2, paragraph (a) and (d) of Article 315 are present;

31. I reserve my right to file an additional charge against

herein Complainant and member/officers of Frontrow
Media International Incorporated before the Securities and
Exchange Commission and/or other administrative or
quasi-judicial bodies.

32. I am executing this affidavit to attest to the truth of the

foregoing facts and to pave the way for the prosecution of
Respondent SIEGFRED ENZO PELEGRINO for theCrime
of Estafa, specifically defined and penalized under
subdivision No. 2, par. (a) and(d) of Art. 315 of the Revised
Penal Code or any criminal case appropriate on the acts
committed by the RESPONDENT against me, and to attest
to the truth.

33. Due to abovementioned crime committed against me,

the Respondent managed to deceive me a total amount
TWO HUNDRED FOURTEEN THOUSAND PESOS
(Php214,000.00) excluding the legal expenses I was
forced to avail of for this instant case.

1
People of the Philippines vs. Virginia Baby P. Montaner, G.R. No. 184053, August 31, 2011.
Complaint-Affidavit
6
Hernandez vs. Pelegrino
 34. I am executing this affidavit to attest to the truthof the
foregoing facts and circumstances and for all legal intents
and purposes it may serve.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand this ____ day

of _________________, 2017 at _____________________,
Philippines.

_______________________
FRANKLIN HERNANDEZ
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this ____ day of

_______________, 2017 at _____________________, Philippines.

ASST. CITY PROSECUTOR

I hereby certify that I personally examined the affiant and I am

convinced that the forgoing affidavit is his voluntary act and deed and
that he understood contents thereof.

ASST. CITY PROSECUTOR

Complaint-Affidavit
7
Hernandez vs. Pelegrino