Professional Documents
Culture Documents
-versus-
xx
and that the prosecution miserably failed to present any evidence that could even raise a
proof beyond reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the herein accused of the offenses
charged. The Supreme Court has once said that At any rate, any reasonable doubt must be
resolved in favor of the accused. Indispensable for conviction is
. . . such proof to the "satisfaction of the court, keeping in mind the presumption of
innocence, as precludes every reasonable hypothesis except that which it is given to
support. It is not sufficient for the proof to establish a probability, even though strong,
that the fact charged is more likely to be true than the contrary. It must establish the truth
of the fact to a reasonable and moral certainty a certainty that convinces and satisfies
the reason and the conscience of those who are to act upon it." (Manahan Jr. vs. CA,
G.R. No. 111656)
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
In order that this honorable court may be enlightened and guided in the judicious
disposition of the above-entitled case, cited hereunder the material, relevant and pertinent
facts of the case to wit:
1. Accused is Cesar Pulga Parado, sixty five (25) years old, single and a resident of Block
3B, Lot 32, Granseville Subdivision, Cabuyao City Laguna while plaintiff is Jemuel
Ambagan Bayot, forty two (30) years old, a businessman, married and a resident of 2222
Brgy. Manggahan, Gen. Trias, Cavite;
2. Plaintiff and defendant have been known for business for at least two (2) years.
Plaintiff alleges that due to the failure of the accused to pay the amount stipulated in the
promissory note executed on January 12, 2015 for the payment of arrears for the months
February to December 2014 already constitute deceit, despite his knowledge of business
bankruptcy of the herein defendant;
3. Just before the alleged information, defendant was a lessee of stall D,ABC Building
owned by the plaintiff located at 1111 Heneral Luna St., Brgy. Pinyahan, Gen. Trias,
Cavite, lease from which starts on December 13, 2013, evidenced by a contract of lease;
4. The defendant failed to pay the monthly rental of Twenty Thousand Pesos (Php
20,000) for the months February 2014 to December 2014 due to loss of capital
investment and bankruptcy which prompts the defendant to execute a promissory note on
January 12, 2015 that the arrears unpaid for the rentals shall be paid on March 31, 2015;
5. The defendant made it known lately to the plaintiff the reasons why the amount has not
been paid as stipulated in the promissory note which were due to factual circumstances
that said payment will come the sale of the defendants personal properties, in which it
failed to materialize;
6. The defendant on the night of April 01, 2015 together with male friends took the
property inside the rented stall in good faith on the belief that the same can be sold and be
used as payment for the unpaid rentals;
7. According to the plaintiff, that the defendant by means of fraud and deceit changed his
residence address where in fact and without malicious intent defendant moved to another
place due to seeking of new business opportunities that might give him a source of
income and to recover from the loss I have incurred from previous business endeavor and
find means to obtain money for the payment of the unpaid rentals, the defendant did not
maliciously evaded his payment of the unpaid rentals, in fact there is a clear showing that
the defendant is doing his best to recover from his bankruptcy and decided to sell his
personal properties for the payment of the unpaid rentals;
8. The defendant requested for the extension of payment but the same failed due to the
refusal of the plaintiff even at his honest belief that the defendant suffers turmoil due to
bankruptcy and clear showing that the defendant is exerting more efforts to pay the
plaintiff;
9. Plaintiff alleged that the defendant did not attend the three (3) invitation letters for
mediation sent by the Barangay, which the defendant did not received a copy of any from
the Barangay;
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. Whether or not the defendant is guilty of estafa under Article Article 315 (b) of the
Revised Penal Code
ARGUMENTS
1. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant employed fraud and deceit in not paying the the
unpaid rentals by means of a promissory note and by moving to other place just to evade
the same.
Our laws on Estafa with Abuse of Confidence under Article 315 (b) of the Revised
Penal Code state the following elements:
The elements of estafa with abuse of confidence under this provision are as follows:
1. That money, goods, or other personal property be received by the offender in trust, or
on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to
make delivery of, or to return, the same;
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed for of this Honorable Court that judgment be
rendered ordering the acquittal of the defendant.
Defendant likewise prays for costs and for such other and further relief as this honorable
court may deem just and equitable in the premises.
Respectfully submitted.
General Trias, Cavite, Philippines, May 15, 2016.
ATTY. JUAN DELA CRUZ
Counsel for Defendant
Floor, No floor, Makatao, General Trias Cavite
IBP Lifetime No. 12345; 1/1/2015
PTR No. 12345; 1/1/2015
Roll of Attorney No. 2015-12345
MCLE Compliance No. III 12345
Copy Furnished:
ATTY. JUANA CHANGE
Counsel for Petitioner
Unit, No Unit, Makabayan, Dasmarinas Cavite