Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Office of the City Prosecutor
Cabanatuan City
ELISEO P. DELA CRUZ,
Complainants,
-versus-

I.S. No. III-05-INV-13-C-00396


For: ESTAFA

LUZ P. DOMINGO,
Respondent.
X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

COMES NOW the undersigned complainant unto this Honorable


Office, most respectfully states that:
On July 4, 2013, this complainant personally received from the Office
of the City Prosecutor a copy of the Resolution penned by the investigating
prosecutor dated May 17, 2013;
Thus, complainant has until July 14, 2013 to submit his motion for
reconsideration. July 14, being a Sunday, complainant has until July 15, the
following working day to submit his motion as provided for by the Rules;
In the said Resolution, the Honorable Assistant City Prosecutor
Melvin R. Martinez found no probable cause to indict respondent Luz P.
Domingo for Estafa but instead recommended only the filing of three (3)
counts of Violation of Batas Pambansa 22 against respondent;
This complainant respectfully moves for the reconsideration of the
above Resolution on the ground that the evidence on hand clearly points to
the presence of the elements of Estafa in this particular complaint;
In the consolidated petitions of Gema Ilagan, Albert Cordero Sy and
Jaime Tan vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. NO. 166873, G.R. NO.
168069, and G.R. NO. 168543 promulgated on April 27, 2007, the
Honorable Supreme Court held:

Art. 315, par. 2(d) of the Revise Penal Code under which
petitioners were indicted provides:
ART. 315. Swindling (estafa). Any person who shall defraud
another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be
punished by:
xxxx
2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or
fraudulent acts executed prior 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 for lack
or insufficiency of funds shall be prima facie evidence of
deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent.
xxxx
Deceit and damage are the essential elements of
estafa. Deceit to constitute estafa under above-quoted Article
315 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code must be the efficient
cause of the defraudation. There must be concomitance:
the issuance of the check should be the means to
obtain money or property from the payer. (emphasis
supplied)

The circumstances surrounding this complaint squarely falls within


the pronouncements made in the aforementioned decision.
In this particular complaint, not only did respondent Luz P. Domingo
failed to offer controverting evidence as she failed to submit her counter
affidavit, she even
admitted clearly the fact that she asked this
complainant to exchanged theses checks for cash and that she and this
complainant had no prior dealings or transactions whatsoever before. All
these admissions were made by the respondent in the presence of the
investigating prosecutor during the first date of preliminary investigation;
Undoubtedly, all the pieces of evidence on hand, considering further
the voluntary admissions of the respondent and her willful failure to submit
her counter affidavit is more than enough to establish probable cause to

indict the respondent for Estafa defined and penalized under Art. 315, par.
2(d) of the Revise Penal Code.
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Office
to reconsider its Resolution dated May 17, 2013, thereby issuing another
finding probable cause for the crime of Estafa against respondent.
Respectfully Submitted.
Cabanatuan City, July 14, 2013.
ELISEO P. DELA CRUZ
Complainant

Copy Furnished:
Hon. Renato A. Villaroman Jr.
City Prosecutor
OCP, Cabanatuan City
Luz P. Domingo
Respondent
Brgy. Mayapyap Sur,
Cabanatuan City

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen