REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE
PADRE FAURA ST., ERMITA, MANILA

JUANITO DALAWAHAN,
Complainant-Appellant,

F ( R ) 151714
I.S. No. X-03-INV-12K-11111

-versusALEJANDRO ALEMANYA,
Respondent-Appellee.

For: QUALIFIED THEFT

x------------------------------------------x

PETITION FOR

REVIEW

Petitioner, by counsel, to this Honorable Office, most respectfully

states:
I
PARTIES
1. Petitioner Juanito Dalawahan, of legal age, with residence at
Room A411, BSA Twin Towers, Ortigas Bank Drive cor. Julia
Vargas, Ortigas Center, Mandaluyong City. He is the private
complainant in I.S. No. XV-03-INV-12K-44444444444444 where
he charged respondent appellee with estafa and/or other
deceits in which the assailed orders were issued. He is duly
represented by the CULDERA LAW OFFICES by virtue of a
Special Power of Attorney executed and acknowledge before
Anna Karenina of the Philippine Consulate General in San
Francisco, California under O.R. No. 406; Doc. No.: 7438; Page
No. 15; Book No. XXXIII; Series of 2013. A Copy of the Special
Power of Attorney is hereto attached as Annex C. Petitioner
may be served with processes through his undersigned counsel
at his given address.
2. Respondent Appellee Alejandro Alemanya is of legal age,
married , Filipino Citizen, and a resident of No. 45 Jordan Dulo
St., Brgy. San Agustin, Novaliches, Quezon City.
1

3. Respondent CITY PROSECUTOR Anna Macatiag (Respondent

City Prosecutor, hereafter) is the Investigating Prosecutor of the
Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City, who rendered the
assailed Orders (Annexes D and G, infra). He may be served
with the Honorable Offices processes at his office at the Office
of the City Prosecutor, Quezon City.
II.
NATURE AND TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION
1. This Petition for Review, filed under
Prosecution Service Rule on Appeal, seeks to:

the National

a) nullify the RESOLUTION of the CITY PROSECUTOR dated

January 5, 2015 (Annex B, infra), a copy of which was received by
Petitioners counsel on February 10, 2015, which denied the
Complainant - Appellants MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.
b) command the Respondent CITY PROSECUTOR to file the
necessary information for ESTAFA in I.S. No. XVI-INV-11L-00478;
2. The Respondent CITY PROSECUTOR in so issuing the
assailed RESOLUTION gravely abused his discretion without
and/or in excess of jurisdiction, and violated law and
jurisprudence as discussed infra,
3. This Petition for Review is timely and seasonably filed
within the 15-day period provided for under NPS Rules on Appeal
from February 10, 2015 when Petitioners counsel received the
copy of the latest Order herein assailed, said 15-day period will
expire on February 25, 2015.

III.
STATEMENT OF THE MATTERS INVOLVED
1. On November 16, 2012, Complainant - Appellant Juanito
Dalawahan filed a case against Respondent - Appellee Alejandro
Alemanya for ESTAFA docketed as NPS No.: I.S. No. XV-03-INV12K-010246 before the OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR OF
QUEZON CITY. A copy of the COMPLAINT, and its mentioned
annexes are hereto attached marked collectively as ANNEX A
hereof;
2

2. On February 05, 2013, Respondent - Appellee Alejandro Alemanya

filed her Counter Affidavit alleging therein, among others, that
the case was filed at an improper venue and that the case must be
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. A copy of the Counter - Affidavit
is hereto attached as ANNEX B hereof;
3. On September 06, 2013, the Assistant City Prosecutor HEC Lea
Libaobao issued the first RESOLUTION dismissing Complainant Appellant Juanito Dalawahan Complaint. A copy of the September
06, 2013 RESOLUITON is hereto attached as ANNEX D hereof.
4. On November 04, 2014, Complainant Appellant Juanito
Dalawahan filed his MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Re: Order
dated September 6, 2013]. A copy of said Motion is hereto attached
as ANNEX E hereof.
5. Then, on November 13, 2012, Respondent City Prosecutor issued
the assailed RESOLUTION denying Complainant - Appellant
Juanito Dalawahan Motion for Reconsideration which was received
by the undersigned counsel on February 10, 2015. A copy of the
said RESOLUTION is hereto attached as Annex F. The
RESOLUTION of the CITY PROSECUTOR are being assailed in this
petition, for having been issued in grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction;
6. Hence, this petition assailing the said RESOLUTION dated January
05, 2015 (Annex F) on the following IV
GROUNDS
1. THE RESPONDENT ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR
COMMITTED
GRAVE
ABUSE
OF
DISCRETION
AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN
DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT FOR ESTAFA (Annex A).
2. THE RESPONDENT CITY PROSECUTOR COMMITTED
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK
OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN RENDERING HIS
RESOLUTION DATED JANUARY 5, 2015 DENYING THE
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER (Annex F).
V.
3

GROUNDS

1. Under Article 315 2(a) and 318 of the Revised Penal Code which
defines the crime of Estafa and provides for the elements thereof.
Pursuant to the law the elements of Estafa by means of deceit are
the following:
a. That there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or
fraudulent means.
b. That such pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must
be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud.
c. 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.
d. That as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damages.

2. The above dismissal was anchored that the complainant did not
rely on the misrepresentations alone but he was animated to part
with his money because of his love or empathy with the
respondent. A reading of the electronic communications shows
that the complainant was the knight-in-shining-armor of the
respondent; who desired to come to here aid to succor and liftnher
out of her troubles. The citations cited by the respondent referring
to the electronic communications show that complainant
emphatically wanted to impress upon respondent that he cared for
her and understood her situation and that he wanted to help.

3. The fact that the representations are not the sole motive for
Appellants parting with his money is evident also from the fact
that when Appellant learned or knew about Appellees
misrepresentations, he still continued to give money to her. A case
in point is in number 10 of Appellants affidavit wherein he gave
Appellee US$500.00 to get past immigration authorities and when
he found out that it was not necessary, there is no statement that
he immediately demanded the return of the amount or much less
stopped giving further amounts to Appellee.

4. With the kind indulgence of this Honorable Office we respectfully

beg exceptions to the above ruling as follows:

a. That perusal of the Complaint, the Appellee used her being a

woman to induce the Appellant to part with his money in her
favour.
b. Perusal of the Complaint, Appellee in tears told Appellant that
her estranged husband already filed an annulment against her.
Appellee said with in tears and a trembling voice that she was
bound to lose her daughters custody as well because Appellee
had no money to oppose her husbands claim for custody.
Appellee even told Appellant that with the claim for custody, the
chance to be a family will now be forever be lost. Appellee then
told Appellant that the former needed the money to pay the
services of a lawyer in the amount of Forty-Five Thousand Pesos
(Php45,000.00) by reasons of which Appellant gave the Appellee
One Thousand Eighty Five Dollars and 56/100 (US$1,085.56),
US Currency, which was approximately the fees that the
Appellee mentioned through money transfer.
c. A cursory reading of the Petition (hereto attached as Annex
G) shows that Appellees husband did not sate therein that he
was seeking the full custody of the child.
d. Clearly, Appellee falsely represented to Appellant that she would
lose her custody of her daughter in the case filed by Appellees
husband as a ruse to deceive him.
e. Further, Appellee misrepresented to the Appellant that the
father of their child abandoned their daughter, and that her
daughter met her father only twice through the internet, and
used this falsehood to extract money from the Appellant. The
truth of the matter is that Appellees husband actually met their
daughter.

5. That from the discussions private respondent employed deceit to

obtained money from the private respondent, such as she made

representation that her child will be taken by her husband, such is
a scheme employed for the respondent to part his money in her
favour. Deceit is a false representation of a matter of fact whether
by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations or
concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which
deceives of is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon
it, to his legal injury. (Uy vs. People 564 SCRA 542).

6. Respondent acquires juridical position of the thing known to him.

There is an implied contract for her to return the same thing
received in favour of the private complainant failure of which

constitutes estafa as it is a breach of the obligation to return the

same. (U.S. vs. Clarin, 17 Phil. 86)

7. From the above it is crystal clear that private complainant was

induced to extend a loan upon the false or fraudulent

misrepresentations of the respondent. (Gabioza vs. Court of
Appeals, 565 SCRA 38)

8. Appellee is likewise liable under Article 318 of the Revised Penal

Code to wit:

Art. 318. Other deceits. The penalty of arresto mayor

and a fine of not less than the amount of the damage
caused and not more than twice such amount shall be
imposed upon any person who shall defraud or
damage another by any other deceit not mentioned in
the preceding articles of this chapter.
Any person who, for profit or gain, shall interpret
dreams, make forecasts, tell fortunes, or take
advantage of the credulity of the public in any other
similar manner, shall suffer the penalty of arresto
menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos.
Other deceits are:
1. By defrauding or damaging another by any other deceit not
mentioned in the preceding articles.
2. By interpreting dreams, by making forecasts.by telling fortunes,
or by taking advantage of the credulity of the public in any ther
similar manner, for profit or gain.

9. From the foregoing any other kind of conceivable deceit may fall
under this article. S in any other cases of estafa, damage to the
offended party is required. In this case, Appellant by parting his
money in favour of the Appellee suffered damages.

10.

It is, therefore, a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack

or excess of jurisdiction and a clear disregard of the applicable law
and rule for the Respondent City Prosecutor to issue his assailed
RESOLUTION (Annexes F).
PRAYER

WHEREFORE, petitioner respectfully prays of this Honorable

Office of the Secretary of Justice and in the interest of justice, fair play
and applicable laws:
1. to reverse and set aside the assailed RESOLUTION (Annex F)
of the Respondent City Prosecutor of Quezon City;
2. to command the Respondent City Prosecutor to file the
necessary information for Estafa in I.S. No. XV-03-INV-12K444444.
Petitioner also prays for such other reliefs and remedies as may be
legal, equitable and just under the premises.
San Fernando City, La Union for Manila, Philippines. February 20,
2015.

MAGANDA LAW OFFICE

Counsel for the Complainant Appellant
Rms. 123 and 123, ABC Center
San Fernando City, La Union
Office Tel. No.: (072) 8888888
By:
JUANITA MAGANDANG MAGANDA
MCLE Compliance Certificate No. IV
Certificate No.: 0011513; 01-21-2013
IBP Lifetime NO. 12345
Roll No. 11111
PTR No. 11122
Copy Furnished:
The Clerk
Department of Justice
National Prosecution Service
Office of the City Prosecutor
Quezon City

Alejandro Alemanya
45 Jordan Dulo St., Brgy. San Agustin,
Novaliches, Quezon City
7

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

I, JUANITO DALAWAHAN, petitioner in the above-entitled Petition

for Review, under oath state that I have caused the preparation of the
foregoing Petition for Review whose contents and those of its annexes are
true and correct of my own personal knowledge and/or based on
authentic records of the case.
I further certify that:
1. I have not commenced any action or filed any claim involving
the same issues in the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals, or different
divisions thereof, or any other court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency;
2. No such action or claim is pending in the Supreme Court, Court
of Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or any other court, tribunal or
quasi-judicial agency;
3. If there is any such action or proceeding either pending or may
have been terminated, or I learn that a similar action or claim has been
filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or
different divisions thereof, or any other court, tribunal or quasi-judicial
agency, I undertake to report that fact to this Honorable Court within five
(5) days from knowledge thereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this11 th day
of February, 2015 at San Fernando City, La Union.

JUANITO DALAWAHAN
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 11h day of February,
2015, at San Fernando City, La Union by the above-named affiant
represented by his Attorney-in-Fact, who is personally known to me and
who exhibited to me her credential indicated below her name and who
attest to the truth of the foregoing.

ATTY. ATENEO LASALLELAW

Notary Public
Notarial Commission until Dec 30,2010
PTR NO. 023456/01/05/10/Makati
IBP Lifetime NO. 12345
Roll No. 11111
MCLE II Compliance No. 11111

Doc. No.: 1
Page no.:1
Book no.: II
Series of 2015
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE and EXPLANATION

I, JUANITO DALAWAHAN, the petitioner in the above-entitled

case, under oath state that:
I have served copies of the foregoing Petition by Registered Mail
with Return card to the following:
(1) Leonna Lewisssa
Respondent City Prosecutor
Department of Justice
Office of the City Prosecutor
Quezon City
As Per REGISTRY RETURN RECEIPT NO.: 12345
(2) ALEJANDRO ALEMANYA
Respondent - Appellee
45 Jordan Dulo St., Brgy. San Agustin,
Novaliches, Quezon City
As Per REGISTRY RETURN RECEIPT NO.: 23456

I have filed the Petition for Review and its annexes with the
Office of the Secretary of Justice by registered mail on February 11,
2015, in lieu of personal filing which is not practicable because of far
distance and lack of manpower.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 11th
day of February 2015, at San Fernando City, La Union.

JUANITO DALAWAHAN
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 11th day of February,

2015, at San Fernando City, La Union by the affiant who is personally
known to me and appeared personally before me and who exhibited to
me his credential indicated above.

Doc. No.: 1
Page no.:1
Book no.: II
Series of 2015

ATTY. ATENEO LASALLELAW

Notary Public
Notarial Commission until Dec
30,2010
PTR NO. 023456/01/05/10/Makati
IBP Lifetime NO. 12345
Roll No. 11111
MCLE II Compliance No. 11111

10