Republic of the Philippines

Sixth Judicial Region

Regional Trial Court
Branch 38
Iloilo City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

CRIMINAL CASE NO. E-300-19

- versus - For: ESTAFA (Article 315, paragraph
2(a) of the Revised Penal Code as
amended by Section 85 of R.A. No.
10951)
MARCO Z. OSMEÑA
Accused,
x------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PROSECUTION

COMES NOW the Complainant, by Counsel, unto this Honorable Court,

hereby most respectfully submit the following memorandum and alleged that:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

Complainant comes before this Honorable Office to file this complaint,

seeking redress and justice against the person who have been involved in this
scheme of fraudulent acts or deceit to acquire a large sum of money from her
which as a result thereby had suffer major loss and damage. It is expected that as
an insurance company, commitment to the principles of service, integrity, and
professionalism while providing their valued clients the highest quality of service
is a must. Thus, the employee must do its duty and utmost responsibility of
familiarizing themselves with the company’s rules and regulations especially those
related to proper conduct and behavior. There must be observance of their
commitment on the protection of their clients’ interest.

Ultimately, the Honorable Court must realize that the accused in this case
clearly and unequivocally committed the offense charged against him and is under
Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code. Hence, there must be the guarantee of the
orderly dispensation of justice
 TIMELINESS

The Order to submit memorandum was made during the arraignment of the
case (November 11, 2018) requiring parties to submit the same within 30 days,
thus, the due date is December 11, 2019.

BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS

This case is for violation of Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal
Code as amended by Sec. 85 of R.A. No. 10951. The Information states:

In and about sometime in February 19, 2018, in the City of

Iloilo, the said accused, Marco Z. Osmeña, did there and then
willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously defraud Carla Castro in the
following manner, to wit:

The said accused by means of false manifestations and

fraudulent representations, which he made to said Carla E. Castro
prior to and even simultaneous with the commission of the fraud to
the effect that her money, if invested with Manulife, will earn 15%
interest semi-annually and by means of other similar deceits, induced
and succeeded in inducing the said Carla E. Castro to give and
deliver as in fact she gave and delivered to the accused the total
amount of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (PhP250,000.00) on
the strength of the manifestations and representations of said accused
well-knowing that the said manifestations and representations were
false and fraudulent and were made solely for the purpose of
obtaining, as in fact he did obtain, the total amount of Two Hundred
Fifty Thousand Pesos (PhP250,000.00), which amount once in his
possession with intent to defraud willfully, unlawfully, and
feloniously misappropriated, misapplied and converted the same to
his own personal use and benefit to the damage and prejudice of
Carla Castro in the aforesaid amount of PhP250,000.00 in Philippine
Currency.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”

The prosecution presented Carla E. Castro, Private Complainant and Jaime

Dela Fuente, Manager of Manulife Iloilo Branch, as witnesses;

The defense presented Marco Z. Osmeña as witness;

 ISSUE

WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUSSED IS GUILTY OF ESTAFA FOR

VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 315, PARAGRAPH 2(A) OF THE REVISED
PENAL CODE AS AMENDED BY SECTION 85 OF R.A. 10951.

ARGUMENT

THE ACCUSSED IS GUILTY OF ESTAFA FOR VIOLATION OF ARTICLE

318 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE

I. OSMEÑA COMMITTED ESTAFA BY MEANS OF DECEIT

UNDER ARTICLE 318 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE WHICH
IS NECESSARILY INCLUDED IN THE CRIME OF ESTAFA BY
MEANS OF DECEIT UNDER ARTICLE 315 SECTION (2)(A) OF
THE REVISED PENAL CODE

In Estafa by means of deceit under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised

Penal Code, the element of deceit consisting of the false pretense or
representation must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Otherwise,
criminal liability will not attach. In Aricheta v People, the accused was
charged of estafa for selling property that she previously sold to a third
party. She allegedly misrepresented to the buyer that she was still the
owner at the time of the sale. In acquitting the accused, the Court found
that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged false representation she
made. It can be gleaned from the allegations in the information that the
petitioner was charged with Estafa for allegedly selling to private
complainant the subject property knowing fully well that she had already
sold the same to a third party. From this, it is therefore clear that the
supposed false representation or false pretense made by the petitioner to
private complainant was that she was still the owner of the property when
she sold it to private complainant.

In this case, although there is no proof that accused used a fictitious

name or pretended to possess power, influence, qualifications, property,
credit, agency, or business in soliciting private complainant’s money,
accused committed false representations which fall beyond the scope of
“other similar deceits” under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal
Code. The phrase “other similar deceits” in Article 315(2)(a) of the
Revised Penal Code has been interpreted in Guinhawa v People as
limited to acts of the same nature as those specifically enumerated. Under
the principle of ejusdem generis, “other similar deceits” cannot be
construed in the broadesr sense to include all kinds of deceit. Hence,
accused’s reliance on the paragraph 2(a) of Article 315 of the Revised
Penal Code is misplaced.
 Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code is broad in application. It is
intended as a catch-all provision to cover all other kinds of deceit not falling
under Articles 315, 316, and 317 of the Revised Penal Code.

For an accused to be held criminally liable under Article 318 of the

Revised Penal Code, the following elements must exist: (a) the accused
makes a false pretense, fraudulent act, or pretense other than those in
[Articles 315, 316, and 317]; (b) such false pretense, fraudulent act or
pretense must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud; and (c) as a result, the offended party suffered
damage or prejudice.

All the elements of Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code are present in
this case. Accused in soliciting private complainant’s money, falsely
represented that it would be invested in Manulife. This false representation
is what induced private complainant to part with her funds. Since accused
deviated from what was originally agreed upon by placing the investment in
another company, private complainant’s insurance policies lapsed.

In Sales v. Court of Appeals, the accused was charged with estafa by

means of deceit under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code. She was
convicted of other deceits under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code. In
holding that there was no violation of the accused's constitutional right to be
informed of the accusation against her, this Court held that the elements of
the crime of other deceits under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code also
constitute one (1) of the elements of estafa by means of deceit under Article
315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code.

Due to this fact, Osmeña should be convicted of an offense proved

provided that it is included in the charge of an offense charged which is
included in that which is proved.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the prosecution earnestly prays

that the accused MARCO OSMEÑA y ZUÑIEGA be adjudged and declared
beyond reasonable doubt for violating Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code
which is included in the crime of estafa under Article 315 Section 2(a) of the
Revised Penal Code.

The prosecution prays for such other reliefs and remedies that are just
equitable under the premises.
 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Iloilo City, Philippines this 28th day of October, 2019.

ATTY. JANNA MARIE NIÑA G. LINAUGO

Private Prosecutor
2nd Floor, RBC Supermart Bldg.,
Plaridel St., Iloilo City, Iloilo
Roll No. 48920 admitted May 3, 2004
IBP No. 062466 1/4/2019 at Iloilo City
PTR No. 8347015
Issued Jan. 3, 2019 at Iloilo City
MCLE Comp. No. V-0000523 issued Sept. 5, 2013

NOTICE

Clerk

ATTY. SANDRO B. CRUZ

Clerk-of-Court

Copy Furnished:

ATTY. ALYCCA B. VILLARUEL

Counsel for the Accused
Villaruel Law Office
Room 27, G/F Lopez Arcade,
E. Lopez St., Jaro, Iloilo City