Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5













The People, by the undersigned prosecutors, and unto this Honorable Court, respectfully
submits this Memorandum as follows:
In the complaint filed by Jemuel Bayot, the defendant was then allegedly accused with
Estafa under Article 315 (b) of the Revised Penal Code. The defense humbly states and
takes the position that it has presented competent witnesses, clear, convincing and
sufficient evidence to prove that accused is not guilty of committing the crime charged

and that the prosecution miserably failed to present any evidence that could even raise a
proof beyond reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the herein accused of the offenses
charged. The Supreme Court has once said that At any rate, any reasonable doubt must be
resolved in favor of the accused. Indispensable for conviction is
. . . such proof to the "satisfaction of the court, keeping in mind the presumption of
innocence, as precludes every reasonable hypothesis except that which it is given to
support. It is not sufficient for the proof to establish a probability, even though strong,
that the fact charged is more likely to be true than the contrary. It must establish the truth
of the fact to a reasonable and moral certainty a certainty that convinces and satisfies
the reason and the conscience of those who are to act upon it." (Manahan Jr. vs. CA,
G.R. No. 111656)
In order that this honorable court may be enlightened and guided in the judicious
disposition of the above-entitled case, cited hereunder the material, relevant and pertinent
facts of the case to wit:
1. Accused is Cesar Pulga Parado, sixty five (25) years old, single and a resident of Block
3B, Lot 32, Granseville Subdivision, Cabuyao City Laguna while plaintiff is Jemuel
Ambagan Bayot, forty two (30) years old, a businessman, married and a resident of 2222
Brgy. Manggahan, Gen. Trias, Cavite;
2. Plaintiff and defendant have been known for business for at least two (2) years.
Plaintiff alleges that due to the failure of the accused to pay the amount stipulated in the
promissory note executed on January 12, 2015 for the payment of arrears for the months
February to December 2014 already constitute deceit, despite his knowledge of business
bankruptcy of the herein defendant;
3. Just before the alleged information, defendant was a lessee of stall D,ABC Building
owned by the plaintiff located at 1111 Heneral Luna St., Brgy. Pinyahan, Gen. Trias,
Cavite, lease from which starts on December 13, 2013, evidenced by a contract of lease;
4. The defendant failed to pay the monthly rental of Twenty Thousand Pesos (Php
20,000) for the months February 2014 to December 2014 due to loss of capital
investment and bankruptcy which prompts the defendant to execute a promissory note on
January 12, 2015 that the arrears unpaid for the rentals shall be paid on March 31, 2015;
5. The defendant made it known lately to the plaintiff the reasons why the amount has not
been paid as stipulated in the promissory note which were due to factual circumstances
that said payment will come the sale of the defendants personal properties, in which it
failed to materialize;
6. The defendant on the night of April 01, 2015 together with male friends took the

property inside the rented stall in good faith on the belief that the same can be sold and be
used as payment for the unpaid rentals;
7. According to the plaintiff, that the defendant by means of fraud and deceit changed his
residence address where in fact and without malicious intent defendant moved to another
place due to seeking of new business opportunities that might give him a source of
income and to recover from the loss I have incurred from previous business endeavor and
find means to obtain money for the payment of the unpaid rentals, the defendant did not
maliciously evaded his payment of the unpaid rentals, in fact there is a clear showing that
the defendant is doing his best to recover from his bankruptcy and decided to sell his
personal properties for the payment of the unpaid rentals;
8. The defendant requested for the extension of payment but the same failed due to the
refusal of the plaintiff even at his honest belief that the defendant suffers turmoil due to
bankruptcy and clear showing that the defendant is exerting more efforts to pay the
9. Plaintiff alleged that the defendant did not attend the three (3) invitation letters for
mediation sent by the Barangay, which the defendant did not received a copy of any from
the Barangay;

1. Whether or not the defendant is guilty of estafa under Article Article 315 (b) of the
Revised Penal Code
1. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant employed fraud and deceit in not paying the the
unpaid rentals by means of a promissory note and by moving to other place just to evade
the same.
Our laws on Estafa with Abuse of Confidence under Article 315 (b) of the Revised
Penal Code state the following elements:
The elements of estafa with abuse of confidence under this provision are as follows:
1. That money, goods, or other personal property be received by the offender in trust, or
on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to
make delivery of, or to return, the same;

2. That there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the

offender; or denial on his part of such receipt;
3. That such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and
4. That there is a demand made by the offended party to the offender.
First Element - In the case at hand, that the property is being rented by the defendant in
consideration of monthly rental payment, it is not received by trust nor for commission or
for administration. It may fall under under the obligation to return the same in which it is
clear in this case that the defendant as a lessee did not maintain himself in possession and
enjoyment of the leased property. In fact, the defendant upon failure to pay the arrears of
the rental immediately terminated his business operation and did not enjoy the use of the
leased premises when he closed the same for bankruptcy reasons. The plaintiff was
informed of the circumstances happened and when he demanded for the termination of
the lease contract and conveying the property to him, the defendant did not failed to do
Second Element - That there is no misappropriation or conversion of such money or
property by the defendant as evidenced of his voluntary act of not occupying the said
leased property at the time his business was bankrupt and when it was closed for the same
reason. Denial even of the defendants liability or payment of his obligation has not be
Third Element - That it will not prejudiced the plaintiff since there is no denial and
Fourth Element - While it is true that a demand was made by the plaintiff, ti as made as
a demand for the payment of the promissory note and not for the denial to return the
2. It is not sufficient to say that the transfer of the defendants location was made to
defraud the plaintiff in order to evade the payment of the arrears but it was done without
malicious intent under the belief in good faith of the defendant that he could look for a
recovery and means to obtain money for the payment of the amount which he requested
for extension of payment from the plaintiff.
3. That it is unjust that due to the knowledge and honest belief of the plaintiff that the
defendant has no more to lean on his financial needs and is suffering under the pain and
turmoil of bankruptcy he failed to consider of giving an extension of payment despite
also the clear showing that the defendant is exerting all his efforts to sell his personal
properties to satisfy his demands. The defendant is even offering himself if the plaintiff
could take benefit or made as a payment of all his remaining personal belonging
including all operational materials and equipment left at the rented stall of the defendant
but the plaintiff failed to consider.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed for of this Honorable Court that judgment be
rendered ordering the acquittal of the defendant.
Defendant likewise prays for costs and for such other and further relief as this honorable
court may deem just and equitable in the premises.
Respectfully submitted.
General Trias, Cavite, Philippines, May 15, 2016.
Counsel for Defendant
Floor, No floor, Makatao, General Trias Cavite
IBP Lifetime No. 12345; 1/1/2015
PTR No. 12345; 1/1/2015
Roll of Attorney No. 2015-12345
MCLE Compliance No. III 12345

Copy Furnished:
Counsel for Petitioner
Unit, No Unit, Makabayan, Dasmarinas Cavite