Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

Republic of the Philippines

First Judicial Region


Municipal Trial Court Br. 4
Baguio City
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Plaintiff,

For: Violation
of B.P. 22
(Bouncing
Checks Law)

Versus
STEPHANIE MCMAHON,
Accused.
x-----------------------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM
For the Defendant
COMES

NOW

THE

DEFENDANT,

through

the

undersigned

counsel, unto this Honorable Court most respectfully submits and


presents this Memorandum in the above-titled case and aver that:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On July 18 2015, Private complainant filed a case for violation of BP 22
or the bouncing checks law against herein defendant.
On July 15, 2015, defendant received summons issued by the
Honorable Court to file an answer.
On July 27, 2015, defendant filed her answer.
On August 12, 2015, preliminary conference was held in the presence
of the private complainant, defendant, and their respective counsels.
Accordingly, after presentation of evidences, the Honorable Court
ordered the parties to submit their respective Memoranda fifteen days (15)
days from notice, otherwise, the case is deemed submitted for decision.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Private complainant owned cellular phone shop in Baguio City.
Sometime on July 2014, the latter gave 2 crates containing cellular phones to
the defendant. This was covered by a deed of sale (Annex A).

Allegedly, the Checks were dishonoured by Metro Bank.


On the other hand, defendant denies the allegations of the Private
Complainant;. Defendant argues that Private complainant has no cause of
action against her. There was an agreement that the checks will not be
presented to a bank.
Defendant presented an acknowledgement receipt (Annex E) wherein it
was stipulated that the checks will not be presented to a bank and that the
private complainant should collect the sum of money to the defendant
herself.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. Whether or not the Private Complainant has cause of action
2. Whether or not the acknowledgement receipt will be admissible

ARGUMENTS
1. The plaintiff has no cause of action in commencing the case against
the defendant.
2. The acknowledgement receipt should be given credence
DISCUSSION
1.

It is necessary to emphasize that defendant had notified private

complainant that the account would be insufficient, and that he should first
go to her for the payment of the two crates since she will be holding the cash
for the payment of the 2 crates.
In the caseof Magno v. Court of Appeals ( GR 96132)wherein the court
states that knowledge of the payee of the insufficiency or lack of

funds of the drawer with the drawee bank is immaterial as deceit is


not an essential element of an offense penalized by BP Blg. 22.
We note that, however, held cases that the drawers act of
notifying the payee at the time of the issuance of the check that he

does not have sufficient funds to cover the amount of such check
may operate to absolve the drawer from liability under BP
Blg. 22. However, it must be emphasized that in said cases, the
checks were drawn and issued in good faith and without intention on
the part of their respective drawers to apply said checks for account
or for value. In Magno vs. Court of Appeals, the rubber checks were
simply issued to cover a warranty deposit in a lease contract
returnable to the drawer upon the satisfactory completion of the
entire period of lease. The drawer did not benefit from the deposit
since the checks were used only as a deposit to serve as security for
the faithful performance of the drawers obligation as a lessee of an
equipment.
In the case of the defendant, the Checks Issued is only a security for the 2
crates that she had ordered to the private complainant and has no intention
of defrauding the latter.
2.

The

second

argument

is

related

to

the

first

since

the

acknowledgement receipt contains the agreement of the party that the


checks should not be encashed since the account is not sufficient to cover
the debt. This agreement should be given credence since it shall be the
deciding factor whether defendant is liable or not for the violation of BP 22.
CONCLUSION
With the laws and jurisprudence presented, the defendant, through his
counsel believes that the Private respondent has no cause of action in filing
the suit based on checks issued by defendant.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, defendant respectfully prays to
the honorable court that judgment be rendered in his favor as follows:
1. An order be issued by this Honorable Court dismissing the
Complaint for lack of cause of action;
2. Judgment be rendered upholding the validity of defendants
acknowledgement receipt ;
4. Ordering the private respondent to pay the defendant the
amount of P30,000.00 as Attorneys Fees and to pay cost suit.
Some other relief and remedies as may be deemed just and equitable
under the premises are likewise prayed for.

Legazpi City, 1st day of October, 2012.


PAUS AND ASSOCIATE LAW
OFFICE
Counsel of the Defendant

#1 Purviner St., Giling,


Rosales city, Pangasinan

By:
ATTY. MARY ROSE PAUS

Roll of Attorneys No. 55661


IBP Lifetime Member

No. 4590754
PTR O.R. No. 6978354. Feb.
7, 2015

EXPLANATION
In compliance with Section 11, Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of Court,
personal service of copy of Trial Memorandum could not be effected except
by service through registered mail due to distance and personnel constraints.

MARY ROSE PAUS

Copy Furnished:(By Registered Mail)

Atty. Amado N. Vallejo III


Counsel for Private complainant
Rm. 1, 2/F Masonic Center
No.180 Yandoc Street, Baguio City