You are on page 1of 5


PLEADINGS Atty. H. Tolentino

Sarah Joyce R. Calica Chedelle Fatima C. Florido Marie Rojan S. Padua Martha Rose C. Serrano BLOCK G01

People of the Philippines vs. Jaime Dimasalang Criminal Case No. 07-250045
March 29 2006, in the City of Manila Philippines, Jaime Dimasalang, stabbed Dexter Dimasalang, his nephew, in the neck with an ice pick. However, the stab was not fatal. The police report suggested that Jaime Dimasalang be charged with frustrated murder. But according to the Prosecutor, the respondent should only be indicted for attempted murder because the stab wound on the neck, which is admittedly a vital part of his body, was not fatal and could not cause his death. The Prosecutor also cited People vs. Pilones, quoting, Even if the victim was wounded but the injury was not fatal and could not cause his death, the crime would still be attempted. 24 July 2007, a warrant of arrest was issued for Jaime Dimasalangan. 28 July 2008, Jaime Dimasalang is still at large, and in order to obviate the indefinite pendency of the case, the records were momentarily archived. A new warrant of arrest was issued against the accused.

CIVIL CASE No. 93-682203 For: Sum of Money with damages Merced (Nena) Ramos vs. Atty. Carlos G. Serapio and Khalil Carlos Serapio
Facts of the Case: That sometime in august, 1991, the defendant Atty. Carlos G. Serapio borrowed from the plaintiff the sum of 170,000.00 which he represented part of it will be used by him and, therefore, his personal obligation, while another portion will be used by his son, defendant Khalil Carlos Teilhard Tantoco Serapio. As evidence of said indebtedness the herein defendants executed a sale with right of Repurchase in favor of the plaintiff, acknowledging their indebted ness of P170,000 and offering as security therefor the parcel of land in Brgy. Catmon Sta. Maria , Bulacan, embraced by TCT No. T120626, which is registered in the name of the defendant Khalil Carlos Teilhard Serapio which the plaintiff accepted. In the said sale with Right of Repurchase it was stipulated that after a period of five months from date of its execution, or on or about January 15, 1992, the original amount loaned by the defendant will become due and payable this time in the amount of P221,000.00 inclusive of the additional interest rate of 30% of the purchase price which will likewise be the reselling price for the property that was the subject of the purchase. After the expiration of the five-months period stipulated in the contract, the defendants failed and refused to pay the entire amount of their obligation to the plaintiff. The plaintiff through her Attorney- In Fact, made several verbal and written demands upon the defendants to pay their outstanding obligation to the plaintiff, but the defendants failed and refused to pay their indebtedness. The plaintiff was then advised by Atty. Rogelio T. Caragdag, that she cannot possibly consolidate and register the sale agreement with the Register of Deeds because of certain legal infirmities, defects and inadequate documents, which vastly disappointed the plaintiff. It turned out now, that defendant Atty. Serapio had made use and/or abused his knowledge of law to misrepresent to and deceive the plaintiff loaning him the amount of P170,000 .00 but which document cannot be registered due to certain legal infirmities. On September 27, 1993, after referring to another counsel, the outstanding unpaid obligation of the defendants to the plaintiff amounted to P1, 199,354.85 inclusive of interest as stipulated in the agreement.

The defendants then still failed and refused to pay their indebtedness to plaintiff without any valid or justifiable reason.

Prayer: To render judgment in favor of the plaintiff and to pay to the plaintiff the following amounts: 1. The sum of P1,199,354.85 as of September 27, 1993 as actual damages. 2. The sum of P50, 000.00 as exemplary damages 3. The sum of P50,000.00 as attorneys fees 4. To pay litigation expenses and the cost of suit.

ANSWER: 1. The purpose of the said loan was for the down payment on a townhouse that the mother of Khalil Carlos Teilhard had purchased. 2. The Sale with right to repurchase was a mere evidence of indebtedness and was offered in good faith. 3. The defendant Carlos Serapio explained the legal status of the property which served as evidence of indebtedness and guarantee for the original loan 4. The defendant was actually willing to take necessary legal steps to cause the title to be transferred to the real party in interest when the former failed to come-up with the amount of the loan except that her daughters, Mari and Ana were collecting in her behalf expressed lack of interest on the property. 5. The defendant Carlos Serapio produced and paid on several occasions the amount of P65, 000.00 6. The communications bogged down and continuing payments stopped only when one of the daughters Mari, resorted to insults, foul language, ugly accusations and other similar acts. 7. The insistence on consolidation of title was ether a mere legal plot to collect or an after thought that came when cash payments stopped. 8. Defendant acted in good faith and he reiterated that he would have been willing to take legal steps to cause the transfer of his sons property in the same way that he did so the property adjoining it in favor of another creditor. Prayer: 1. Dismiss the complaint for lack of merit 2. Order the payment of one peso for damages to the defendants or such amount as the court may see fit 3. Cause the complaint to cease and desist from insulting means in the enforcement of their rights 4. Pay the costs of litigation

JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS The case has been settled through the Affidavit of Desistance. ORDER Acting in the joint motion to dismiss filed by the plaintiff and the defendants and finding the same to be well taken the same is hereby granted. CASE Dismissed.