Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
SONIA BALAGTAS,
Accused.
x---------------------------------------x
Page
3. Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code lists down the
elements of the crime of Estafa with abuse of confidence as follows:
(1) that the money, goods or other personal property is
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 demand by the
offended party to the offender (Abelardo Jandusay vs. People of
the Philippines, G.R. No. 185129, 17 June 2013).
4. The first element is not present as the amount of P200,000.00
subject of this case was not received by the accused in trust, or for
compensation, or for commission, or under any other duty to return
the said amount.
4.1 The accused admitted that she received the said amount
from the private complainant. However, she was under no obligation
to keep the amount in trust for the private complainant. The same
was intended for the payment of the companys income tax for the
year 2007 and for the services of its accountant.
4.2 The prosecution failed to prove that the accused was
under a fiduciary obligation to administer the said sum of money. It
was likewise unable to prove that the accused was under any other
fiduciary obligation to make delivery of or to return the same.
4.3 It is apparent from the evidence presented, or from lack
thereof, that the prosecution failed to establish the first element of
the offense charged.
5. The second element is not present as there
misappropriation or conversion of the amount involved.
was
no
5.1
The prosecution failed to prove either by direct evidence
or
by
circumstantial
evidence
that
the
accused
misappropriated or converted the amount that she received
from the private complainant.
Page
5.2
The Supreme Court held in the case of Crisanta B.
Bonifacio vs. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 153198, 11
July 2006) that the essence of estafa under Article 315 (1)(b),
RPC is the appropriation or conversion of money or
property received, to the prejudice of the owner. The words
convert and misappropriate connote an act of using or
disposing of anothers property as if it were ones own, or of
devoting it to a purpose or use different from that agreed
upon.
5.3
The witness for the prosecution merely deduced that
since the accused failed to give any liquidation report, the
latter misappropriated the amount she received. The
conjecture of the said witness cannot be considered evidence
equivalent to proof.
5.4
In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Bernardo
Quidato, Jr., the Supreme Court ruled that suspicion, no
matter how strong, should not sway judgment. As such,
the deductions and surmises of the witnesses of the
prosecution as to how the accused disposed of the money
should not be given credence by this Honorable Court.
6. The third element is not present as there is no proof that the private
complainant was prejudiced by the alleged misappropriation of
conversion.
6.1
In the absence of proof of misappropriation or
conversion, it logically follows that the private complainant
was not prejudiced.
6.2
Again, the prosecution failed to adduce evidence that the
company was prejudiced by the alleged acts of the accused.
The allegations of the companys officers that the accused
never returned the money are mere hearsay. Such claims were
never corroborated in open court.
6.3
Section 36, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court
provides that a witness can testify only to those facts
which he knows of his personal knowledge. The testimony
Page
Page
Page
17.
The Supreme Court held in the case of Mauricio Manliclic vs.
Modesto Calaunan (G.R. No. 150157, 25 January 2007) that
objection shall be made at the time when an alleged inadmissible
document is offered in evidence; otherwise, the objection shall be
treated as waived, since the right to object is merely a privilege
which the party may waive.
18.
The evidence presented by the defense, which the prosecution
failed to object to, is sufficient proof that the accused did not
commit the crime charged and that she did not misappropriate the
money of the private complainant. The Tax Clearance issued by the
Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) to Visatech Integrated Corporation
on 12 June 2008 and admitted in evidence as Exhibit 1 is
sufficient proof that the accused made the required payment as
there was no listed tax liability. A Certified True Copy of BTR-BIR
Payment Slip under Account No. 072-800015 formally admitted in
evidence as Exhibit 5 is likewise proof that the accused made
payment of the 2007 income tax of the private complainant.
19.
Assuming arguendo that both parties were able to adduce
evidence to support their claims, the equipoise rule or
equiponderance doctrine provides that where the evidence of the
parties in a criminal case is evenly balanced, the constitutional
presumption of innocence should tilt the scales in favor of the
accused (Dominador Malana vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
173612, 26 March 2008). Thus, where the inculpatory facts and
circumstances are capable of two or more explanations one of
which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the
other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not
fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to
support a conviction (People of the Philippines vs. Servando
Saturno, G.R. No. 126959, 28 March 2001).
20.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court held in the case of Intestate
Estate of Manolita Gonzales vda. De Carungcong vs. People of the
Philippines (G.R. No. 181409, 11 February 2010) that all doubts
must be resolved in favor of the accused. Under the principle of in
dubio pro reo, when in doubt, rule for the accused.
21.
The evidence offered by the prosecution was insufficient to
shatter the presumption of innocence accorded to the accused by
Page
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully
prayed that this Motion for Reconsideration be granted and the
assailed Decision be reversed, set aside or vacated.
Other reliefs as may be just and equitable under the
circumstances are likewise prayed for.
Respectfully submitted: 27 November 2015, Quezon City.
The Law Firm of
By:
Page