Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 58 views

    Motion For Reconsideration Tecson

    Uploaded by

    Jerson
    The complainant filed a motion for reconsideration of a resolution finding no probable cause in a complaint against the respondent for estafa. The complainant argues that evidence shows the respondent admitted owing PHP 250,000 and that their transaction was a business partnership, not a loan, so probable cause exists for estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Motion For Reconsideration Tecson

    Uploaded by

    Jerson
    58 views7 pages
    The complainant filed a motion for reconsideration of a resolution finding no probable cause in a complaint against the respondent for estafa. The complainant argues that evidence shows the respondent admitted owing PHP 250,000 and that their transaction was a business partnership, not a loan, so probable cause exists for estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.

    Original Title

    MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION TECSON

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The complainant filed a motion for reconsideration of a resolution finding no probable cause in a complaint against the respondent for estafa. The complainant argues that evidence shows the respondent admitted owing PHP 250,000 and that their transaction was a business partnership, not a loan, so probable cause exists for estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    58 views7 pages

    Motion For Reconsideration Tecson

    Uploaded by

    Jerson
    The complainant filed a motion for reconsideration of a resolution finding no probable cause in a complaint against the respondent for estafa. The complainant argues that evidence shows the respondent admitted owing PHP 250,000 and that their transaction was a business partnership, not a loan, so probable cause exists for estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 7

    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

    National Prosecution Service


    Department of Justice
    OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR
    Imus Cavite

    MARINELLA A. TECSON
    Complainant

    NPS Docket No. 221-332


    -versus- For: ESTAFA under ART. 315
    (a) (b) of the Revised Penal
    Code of the Philippines, as
    amended.

    MARICAR C. DIGO
    Respondent.
    x—--------------------------------------x

    MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

    COMES NOW the undersigned private complainant unto this


    Honorable Provincial Prosecutor of Cavite, most respectfully states
    that:
    PREFARATORY STATEMENT

    The determination of the existence of Probable cause lies within


    the discretion of the prosecutor officer after conducting a preliminary
    investigation in accordance with the guidelines set forth under
    Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.

    Prosecutors however, are not given an unregulated authority to


    determine the existence of probable cause. They must abide by the
    cardinal rules of justice and fair play.

    TIMELINESS OF THIS ACTION

    1
    On April 22, 2024, the complainant received a copy of resolution
    issued by the Honorable Office finding the complaint as lack probable
    cause to indict the respondents herein, with this the complainant has
    until May 7, 2024 to file this motion.

    GROUNDS FOR THE FILING OF THE MOTION FOR


    RECONSIDERATION

    Complainant move for the reconsideration of the resolution of


    the investigating public prosecutor finding the complaint as lack of
    probable cause.

    With all due respect, the Honorable Prosecutor erred in finding


    that the complaint be dismissed well in fact, it is clear that during
    the transaction made by both parties, the evidence provided by the
    complainant, the respondent feloniously and criminally defrauded
    the complainant, by admitting all the allegations on her “under oath
    sinumpaang paglalagom salaysay” dated March 26, 2024.

    ARGUMENTS

    First and foremost, the prosecution really established the


    facts of the case as to whether the accused misappropriated a certain
    amount of money base on the substantial evidence submitted before
    this honorable office, well in fact in her sinumpaang paglalagom
    salaysay (respondent affidavit) paragraph 4, 5, 6, she stated “ parag
    4: ang buong katotohanan sa pangyayaring ito ay si Bb. Tecson
    ang siyang lumapit sa akin upang mag-alok o magtinda ng
    cellphone at alahas sa aking mga customer o kakilala” – on this
    stipulation on her affidavit, it established the real identity of our
    transaction from the very onset that we are partners and far from the
    concluded resolution that it is a matter of loan.

    2
    From the very onset, the complainant supplied numbers of
    cellphone and accessories to the respondent and it’s up to the
    respondent how she will sell it. Well in fact the respondent are very
    knowledgeable on all the customers she is related with. from the very
    onset the respondent is the one who find numbers of customer who
    will avail our services.

    Parag 5: Na sa aking pagtaya, ang kabuuang halaga ng


    cellphone at alahas na nabili ko o naibigay ni Bb. Tecson ay
    umabot sa halagang Php. 250,000.00 at kabuuang halaga iyon ay
    nakapagbigay ako o nakapaghulog sa kaniya ng humigit
    kumulang sa halagang Php. 225,000.00”, Herein, complainant
    vehemently refutes all of the above contentions by the
    respondent except for 250,000.00, all statements are absolutely
    hearsay, first and foremost if the respondent made into account that
    she paid all the necessary amount she mentioned, she will provide a
    concrete evidences (example: acknowledgement receipt or any paper
    signed by yours truly) to prove her claim, she admitted that she owed
    a certain amount of 250,000.00 pesos as admission to her liability
    but a certain statement that she paid the same, are considered as an
    alibi just to cross her liability and fraudulent act.

    Well in fact, she cannot provide a witnesses or customer who


    availed such aforesaid object as she fully knows that all customers
    are already paid to her account, well in fact all my witnesses are
    considered as her customer who revealed the exact testimony as they
    are already paid to the respondent. With this matter, the attached
    sinumpaang salaysay of all the witnesses on my complaint affidavit
    as well as the additional witness attached on this motion can be
    considered as a clear and concise testimony that the respondent
    absolutely violated the crime of Estafa my misappropriating my
    money on her personal used. Therefore, her evidence cannot be

    3
    admitted due to lack of merit to substantiate her claims, the evidence
    is a mere scrap of paper done by the respondent to cross her own
    liability. On her sinumpang salaysay it substantiate the clearness
    that she is liable to pay the amount of 250,000.00 well in fact I have
    done a favorable amount on her part for the amount of 220,000.00
    as a big discount on her liability. Please see attached copies of
    sinumpaang salaysay of Claudeth and Domingo to support my claim
    which are marked as ANNEX “A-series”, to form part hereof.

    To analyze the substantial claim of the respondent on her


    sinumpaang salaysay, it is true that all statement are mere hearsay
    and cannot be admitted as a valid testimony as the real facts only on
    that affidavit is that she owed a certain amount of money amounting
    to 250,000.00 which the complainant ADMITTED. Therefore, the
    statement she provided can be considered as a valid evidence on my
    part to prove her own liability.

    It is not true also that our transaction be considered as a simple


    loan, well in fact, from the very start, we are partner in business, she
    is not the one who availed my services but she is the one who find a
    customer to sell the foregoing prestation. Her own responsibility was
    to remit only the payment of all the customer she transacted with but
    to no avail.

    It can also be clearly seen on our attached conversation how I


    transacted smoothly on our partnership and how I well collected or
    demanded some payment on her own position which are marked as
    ANNEX “B-series”, to form part hereof.

    Well in fact the prosecution must determine the aggravating


    circumstances in this case, due to the fact that it was cleared that

    4
    the main intention of the respondent herein was to defraud the
    complainant.
    All told, the prosecution maintains integrity on the illegal act of
    the respondent. There can be no other doubt how the fraudulent act
    occurred as it was.

    From the very start, a mere transaction of the complainant with


    the accused really proves the veracity of the fraudulent, MOST
    PROBABLY the ADMISSION of the respondent on her sinumpaang
    salaysay that she is certainly owed a sum of money amounting to
    250,000.00 for which she did not attached any evidences to prove
    her claim that it was paid duly signed by the complainant herein.

    Even there was no contract at hand from the very start, it was
    clearly stated under the evidences (both in the part of the
    complainant and the respondent) that the action of the transaction
    base on the foregoing are well substantiated by the complainant base
    on the real facts provided. Violation of Art 315 a(b) already exist as
    the respondent made an admission on her under oath sinumpaang
    salaysay that she is liable for a certain amount of 250,000.00 for she
    misappropriated on her personal used.

    Nothing can be clearer than the fact that probable caused exist
    to reverse the resolution made last April 05, 2024.

    I, therefore, most respectfully pray unto this HONORABLE


    OFFICE that the RESOLUTION made be reversed, amend and set
    aside for Violation of ART 315 A(B) OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE
    as there is more than probable cause for her indictment.

    5
    I am executing this Motion for Reconsideration to attest the
    truth of the foregoing declarations and to support my complaint for
    Violation of ART 315. A(B) against Maricar C. Digo.

    This motion is filed in good faith and solely for the foregoing
    reason.

    PRAYER
    WHEREFORE, premises considered it is most respectfully
    prayed of this Honorable Office that the Resolution made last April
    05, 2024 be reversed.

    Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise
    prayed for.
    Respectfully submitted this May 6, 2024 at Imus City Cavite.

    MARINELLA A. TECSON
    Private Complainant

    SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 6th day of April


    2024 in Imus Cavite Philippines. Affiant exhibited to me her
    competent evidence of identity as UMID ID: 0111-3283962-1.

    Doc No. _____ NOTARY PUBLIC


    Page No. ____
    Book No. ____
    Series of 2024

    EXPLANATION
    Copy of the Motion is served to adverse party via registered mail
    /LBC due to distance and unavailability of the complainant to effect
    personal service.

    MARINELLA A. TECSON
    Private Complainant

    6
    Copy furnished

    MARICAR C. DIGO
    Pugad Baboy Brgy. Capipisa Tanza Cavite

    You might also like