You are on page 1of 22

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT


BRANCH 21, QUEZON CITY



PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES


-versus-


ANNA S. KALAW,
Accused.






CRIM. CASE NO. 138570

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


MEMORANDUM

Accused, ANNA S. KALAW, by counsel, respectfully states:


PREFATORY STATEMENT

A cardinal rule of evidence in criminal law is that the degree of proof
required to convict an accused must be proof beyond reasonable doubt and the
conviction must be based on the strength of the prosecution's evidence and cannot
rely on the weakness of the evidence for the defense. Any circumstance which
casts doubt on one's guilt should be resolved in favor of acquittal out of fealty to
the constitutional mandate that an accused shall be presumed innocent until the
contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt.


SAMPLE MEMORANDUM
Sections 1AA and 1C, UST Faculty of Civil Law (AY 2011-2012)
Legal Writing Class Atty. Marian Joanne K. Co-Pua

2
In the case at bar, the accused was charged for committing the crime of
perjury in failing to disclose a certain real property registered under her name in
her Statement of Assets Liabilities and Networth (SALN) while she was still
working in the government. Instead of conducting a fair and evenhanded
preliminary investigation, the prosecution never gave the accused any opportunity
to explain how said real property was registered in her name and why she failed to
disclose it in her SALN prior to the filing of a criminal case in court.

In court, the prosecution simply presented a records officer of the Land
Registration Authority to testify that the same real property is registered in the
name of the accused, nothing more, nothing less. On the other hand, accused
candidly testified that the same real property was registered in her name only as a
sort of security or mortgage to the loan of a certain individual from her who
remains to be the true owner of the property and that she failed to disclose the
same real property in her SALN since she sincerely and honestly believed that she
does not have any obligation to do so considering that she is not the true owner of
the said real property. This was corroborated by the positive, unflinching, and
consistent testimonies of two other witnesses who are privy to the transaction.

Without a doubt, the accused cannot be adjudged guilty of the crime of
perjury based on the evidence presented by the prosecution. Any conviction must
be based on the strength of the prosecutions evidence and not on the weakness of
the defense. The slightest doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused. As
adequately proven, accused did not commit any willful and deliberate assertion of
a falsehood in failing to disclose the same real property in her SALN considering

SAMPLE MEMORANDUM
Sections 1AA and 1C, UST Faculty of Civil Law (AY 2011-2012)
Legal Writing Class Atty. Marian Joanne K. Co-Pua

3
that she sincerely and honestly believed that she has no obligation to do so since
the said property was only registered in her name as a sort of security or mortgage
to a particular loan. Hence, the accused should be acquitted of the crime charged
on reasonable doubt.


STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

The facts of the case are simple and undisputed.

The present criminal case for perjury arose from a complaint filed with the
Office of the Ombudsman for the alleged failure of accused Anna S. Kalaw, as
then Chief Revenue Officer IV of the BIR National Office, to disclose in her
Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth (SALN) for the year ending 31
December 2002 certain real properties and various vehicles registered under her
name and that of her spouse.

The Office of the Ombudsman gave due course to the complaint.
However, the Order directing the accused to submit her counter-affidavit was not
duly served upon her. The accused thus never had the opportunity to refute the
allegations against her and/or to present controverting evidence.

In a Resolution dated 27 September 2006, which was approved by
Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez on 29 March 2007, the Office of the
Ombudsman found probable cause for the crime of perjury against the accused for

SAMPLE MEMORANDUM
Sections 1AA and 1C, UST Faculty of Civil Law (AY 2011-2012)
Legal Writing Class Atty. Marian Joanne K. Co-Pua

4
her failure to declare a certain real property covered by TCT No. N-224468
registered under her name in her SALN for the year ending 31 December 2002
and directed the filing of the necessary Information in Court. The other charges
were dismissed for lack of evidence.

On 11 May 2007, the Office of the Ombudsman filed an Information for
perjury against the accused before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) Branch
41 of Quezon City. Upon learning of the aforesaid criminal case, the accused
posted the necessary bail for her provisional liberty and attempted to have a
reinvestigation of the same criminal case but to no avail.

On 14 October 2008, the prosecution presented Ms. Pacita S. Aquino, a
record officer of the Land Registration Authority, as its only witness. Ms. Aquino
merely identified TCT No. N-224468 which bears the name of Ms. Kalaw as the
registered owner after which the prosecution rested its case.

The accused maintains that she is not the true and real owner of the real
property covered by TCT No. N-224468 registered under her name. The said real
property was only registered in her name sometime in 2001 as sort of a security or
mortgage for the loan of a certain Ms. Gloria Reynoso from her which reached
the amount of PhP350,000.00, upon the intervention of Ms. Eva Mendoza albeit
without any documentary support. In fact, the accused never exercised any acts of
ownership nor actually possessed the same real property. Thus, the accused
sincerely and honestly believed that she has no obligation to disclose the same
property in her SALN.

SAMPLE MEMORANDUM
Sections 1AA and 1C, UST Faculty of Civil Law (AY 2011-2012)
Legal Writing Class Atty. Marian Joanne K. Co-Pua

5
On 17 February 2009, the accused presented Ms. Eva Mendoza, the
person who introduced the accused to Ms. Gloria Reynoso, to testify as to the
events that transpired among them concerning the real property covered by TCT
No. N-224468. Ms. Mendoza testified in open court that the real property
covered by TCT No. N-224468 was only registered in the name of the accused as
sort of a security or mortgage to the loan obligations of Ms. Reynoso from the
accused.

As the accused is about to present Ms. Gloria Reynoso, the true and real
owner of the real property now covered by TCT No. N-224468, the prosecution,
through Ombudsman Prosecutor Bonifacio Rizal, manifested that they are willing
to stipulate as to the testimony of Ms. Reynoso, which is that the real property
covered by TCT No. N-224468 was only registered in the name of Ms. Kalaw only
as a security or mortgage to the loan and the Ms. Reynoso is the true and real
owner of the same property, to which the accused agreed.

On 26 May 2009, the accused herself took the witness stand and testified in
open court that the real property covered by TCT No. N-224468 was only
registered in her name as a security or mortgage to the loan of Ms. Gloria Reynoso
and that she is not the owner of the same real property. Thus, accused did not
commit willful and deliberate falsehood when she did not disclose the same real
property in her SALN since she sincerely and honestly believed that she has no
obligation to do so not being the owner of the same property. Thereafter, the
accused likewise rested her case.


SAMPLE MEMORANDUM
Sections 1AA and 1C, UST Faculty of Civil Law (AY 2011-2012)
Legal Writing Class Atty. Marian Joanne K. Co-Pua

6
The Honorable Court then gave the parties a period of thirty (30) days
within which to submit their respective memoranda. Hence, the Memorandum
for the accused.


ISSUES


I

WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUSED COMMITTED THE
CRIME OF PERJURY PUNISHABLE BY ARTICLE 183 OF
THE REVISED PENAL CODE.


II

WHETHER OR NOT THE PROSECUTION WAS ABLE
TO PROVE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE
ACCUSED COMMITTED THE CRIME OF PERJURY
PENALIZED BY ARTICLE 183 OF THE REVISED PENAL
CODE.



ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS

ACCUSED DID NOT COMMIT THE
CRIME OF PERJURY IN FAILING TO
DISCLOSE A CERTAIN REAL
PROPERTY IN HER SALN. THERE
IS NO WILLFUL AND DELIBERATE
FALSEHOOD ON THE PART OF
THE ACCUSED.


The crime of perjury is penalized under Article 183 of the Revised Penal
Code, which provides as follows:

SAMPLE MEMORANDUM
Sections 1AA and 1C, UST Faculty of Civil Law (AY 2011-2012)
Legal Writing Class Atty. Marian Joanne K. Co-Pua

7

ARTICLE 183. False Testimony in Other
Cases and Perjury in Solemn Affirmation. The
penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to
prisin correccional in its minimum period shall be
imposed upon any person who, knowingly making
untruthful statements and not being included in the
provisions of the next preceding articles, shall testify
under oath, or make an affidavit, upon any material
matter before a competent person authorized to
administer an oath in cases in which the law so
requires.

Any person who, in case of a solemn
affirmation made in lieu of an oath, shall commit any
of the falsehoods mentioned in this and the three
preceding articles of this section, shall suffer the
respective penalties provided therein. (Emphasis
supplied)


Based on the foregoing, perjury is defined as the willful and corrupt
assertion of a falsehood under oath or affirmation administered by authority of law
on a material matter.
1
Similarly, as can be gleaned from the same afore-quoted
provision, the elements of perjury are as follows:

(a) That the accused made a statement under oath
or executed an affidavit upon a material matter.
(b) That the statement or affidavit was made
before a competent officer, authorized to receive and
administer oath.
(c) That in the statement or affidavit, the accused
made a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood.
(d) That the sworn statement or affidavit
containing the falsity is required by law or made for a
legal purpose. (Emphasis supplied)
2




1
See Monfort III, et al. v. Salvatierra, et al., G.R. No. 168301, 05 March 2007.
2
Id.

SAMPLE MEMORANDUM
Sections 1AA and 1C, UST Faculty of Civil Law (AY 2011-2012)
Legal Writing Class Atty. Marian Joanne K. Co-Pua

8
The crime of perjury, particularly the third element thereof as cited above,
requires that the accused had willfully and deliberately asserted a falsehood. A
mere assertion of a false objective fact is not sufficient. The assertion must be
deliberate and willful.
3
Hence, good faith or lack of malice is a valid defense vis-a-
vis the allegation of deliberate assertion of falsehood in perjury cases.
4


In Villanueva v. Secretary of Justice
5
, the Supreme Court had an occasion to
rule that a mere assertion of a false, objective fact, a falsehood, is not enough to
warrant a finding of perjury. Moreover, the Supreme Court laid down two
essential elements of proof for perjury: (1) the statement made by the defendants
must be proven false; and (2) it must be proven that the defendant did not believe
those statements to be true. The said case law reads in part as follows:

A mere assertion of a false objective fact, a
falsehood, is not enough. The assertion must be
deliberate and willful. Perjury being a felony by dolo,
there must be malice on the part of the accused.
Willfully means intentionally; with evil intent and legal
malice, with the consciousness that the alleged
perjurious statement is false with the intent that it
should be received as a statement of what was true in
fact. It is equivalent to "knowingly." "Deliberately"
implies meditated as distinguished from inadvertent
acts. It must appear that the accused knows his
statement to be false or as consciously ignorant of its
truth.

Perjury cannot be willful where the oath is
according to belief or conviction as to its truth. A false
statement of a belief is not perjury. Bona fide belief in
the truth of a statement is an adequate defense. A false
statement which is obviously the result of an honest
mistake is not perjury.


3
Id.
4
Id; See also Villanueva v. Secretary of Justice, infra.
5
G.R. No. 162187, 18 November 2005.

SAMPLE MEMORANDUM
Sections 1AA and 1C, UST Faculty of Civil Law (AY 2011-2012)
Legal Writing Class Atty. Marian Joanne K. Co-Pua

9
There are two essential elements of proof for
perjury: (1) the statement made by the defendants must
be proven false; and (2) it must be proven that the
defendant did not believe those statements to be true.
(Emphases supplied)


In the case at bar, while the accused failed to disclose the real property
covered by TCT No. N-224468 registered under her name in her SALN, the
same omission is not without any valid reason or justification. Certainly, such
failure to disclose the same real property in her SALN is not willful and deliberate,
and most certainly not made with malice, evil intent or bad faith. If at all, accused
acted with utmost good faith since she sincerely and honestly believed that she
does not have any obligation to disclose the same real property in her SALN
considering that she is not the true owner of the same property and that it was
registered in her name merely in order to serve as a sort of security or mortgage to
the loan of Ms. Gloria Reynoso. In fact, it is worthy to stress that the accused has
never set foot on the same real property covered by TCT No. N-224468 not even
once nor she ever exercised any possessory or ownership acts over the said real
property.
6


Evidently, the two essential elements of proof of perjury as laid down in
Villanueva v. Secretary of Justice
7
have not been met. First, the statement of the
accused in her SALN cannot be said to be false in the first place since she is not
the true owner of the said real property as the same property was registered in her
name only as a sort of security or mortgage to the loan of Ms. Gloria Reynoso and
therefor the accused has no obligation to disclose the same property in her SALN.

6
See TSNs of 17 February and 26 May 2009 hearings.
7
Supra.

SAMPLE MEMORANDUM
Sections 1AA and 1C, UST Faculty of Civil Law (AY 2011-2012)
Legal Writing Class Atty. Marian Joanne K. Co-Pua

10
Second, assuming ex gratia argumenti that the statement of the accused in her
SALN is false, accused is certainly acting with utmost good faith when she did not
disclose the real property covered by TCT No. N-224468 considering that she
sincerely and honestly believed that she has no obligation to do so as it was
registered in her name only as sort of security or mortgage to the loan of Ms.
Gloria Reynoso. In other words, the accused believed in good faith that all of her
statements in her SALN are true and correct.

The foregoing indisputable facts are supported by the positive, consistent,
uniform and coherent testimonies of the three witnesses presented by the defense,
which includes the accused herself.

As candidly testified by the accused herself, she is not really the true owner
of the real property covered by TCT No. N-224468 considering that it was
registered in her name only as an accommodation to Ms. Gloria Reynoso, or a sort
of a security or mortgage to the loan of Ms. Reynoso, and that she honestly
believed in good faith that it is not her property which is why she did not disclose it
in her SALN, to wit:

ATTY. SANCHEZ:
Q: How did the present criminal charge for
Perjury against you come about?

MS. ANNA S. KALAW:
A: As far as I know it came about when the Office
of the Ombudsman found out that I allegedly
failed to disclose the same real property in my
statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth
for the year December 2002, sir.


SAMPLE MEMORANDUM
Sections 1AA and 1C, UST Faculty of Civil Law (AY 2011-2012)
Legal Writing Class Atty. Marian Joanne K. Co-Pua

11
Q: What is this real property you are talking
about?

A: Its a 180 square meter lot in Quezon City, just
a parcel of land, sir.

Q: Now, I am showing to you a Transfer
Certificate of Title No. N-224468 registered in
the name of Anna Silverio Kalaw, the same
title which was admitted as evidence for the
prosecution as Exhibit F, what relation does
this TCT have in relation to the property that
you just mentioned?

A: Sir, this is the same property which is
registered in my name but I am not the owner
of this lot because (Emphases supplied)
8


xxx xxx xxx

Q: What can you say about the instant criminal
charge instituted by the Ombudsman against
you?

A: Sir, it is baseless and groundless because

ATTY. RIZAL:
Objection, Your Honor.

COURT:
Thats her answer, overruled.

ATTY. SANCHEZ:
Q: Why?

A: Because I am not really the true owner of this
property so I believe that this proper is really
what I mean here is I never committed any
deliberate or willful falsehood when I filed my
statement of Assets for the year December
2002, sir.

Q: Why did you say that, why did you say that you
never committed any falsehood?

A: Because I was being charge of Perjury for not
including that personal that certain property
and that certain property I really dont own

8
TSN of 26 May 2009 hearing, pages 8-9.

SAMPLE MEMORANDUM
Sections 1AA and 1C, UST Faculty of Civil Law (AY 2011-2012)
Legal Writing Class Atty. Marian Joanne K. Co-Pua

12
it actually its just an accommodation to a
very good friend, sir.

COURT:
Q: But is it under your name, the property?

A: Maam, it was in my name because the owner
of the lot suggested that it will be placed in my
name because she has a loan, she has an
outstanding loan of Php350,000.00 which I
gave to her on piece by piece and in small
portion which took about more than two years
then when she was about to get a bigger
portion like Php5,000.00, Php10,000.00 tapos
noong Php150,000.00 and kailangan niya ang
sabi niya Ms. Anna nahihiya na ako sa iyo I
might as well put this particular lot into your
name because she is using the money to
recover the properties grabbed to her there in
Quezon City, its a big portion of property.
(Emphases supplied)
9


xxx xxx xxx

ATTY. SANCHEZ:
Q: Ms. Witness, why did you not disclose the real
property in your SALN despite the fact that it
is registered under your name?

A: Because sir, I sincerely believe, I honestly
believe that it is not my lot, it was only
entrusted to me and that entitled kasi she
really have faith in me but Im not interested
in with her 10 hectares (Emphasis
supplied)
10



The afore-quoted testimony of the accused was similarly corroborated by
the testimonies of Ms. Eva Mendoza and Ms. Gloria Reynoso to the effect that the
real property covered by TCT No. N-224468 is not owned by the accused and that
the same was registered in the name of the accused only to serve as a sort of

9
TSN of 26 May 2009 hearing, pages 11-13.
10
TSN of 26 May 2009 hearing, page 22.

SAMPLE MEMORANDUM
Sections 1AA and 1C, UST Faculty of Civil Law (AY 2011-2012)
Legal Writing Class Atty. Marian Joanne K. Co-Pua

13
security or mortgage to the loan of Ms. Reynoso thus the accused has no obligation
to disclose the same in her SALN, viz:
ATTY. SANCHEZ:
Q: Do you know the reason why Ms. Kalaw is
presently being charge for the crime of
Perjury?

MS. EVA MENDOZA
A: Yes sir, because in her Statement of Assets and
Liabilities she did not include her asset located
at Quezon City when she was still in the
government.

Q: What is this property, what is the nature of this
property, where is it exactly located?

A: It is located at Pook Pag-asa, Quezon City, sir.

Q: Now, Im showing to you a copy of Transfer
Certificate of Title No. N-224468 registered in
the name of Anna Kalaw, is this the same title
covering the property?

A: Yes sir, this is the one.

ATTY. SANCHEZ
Your Honor, Im showing to the counsel for
prosecution for verification the same title is the
one they offered as Exhibit F.

ATTY. RIZAL:
Yes.

ATTY. SANCHEZ
Q: Do you know the reason how Ms. Kalaw
acquired the same property covered by

A: She never acquired the property it was just a
security for a loan, sir.

Q: So, what do you mean, how did this property
how was the said property registered under her
name?

A: It was registered under her name because Ms.
Reynoso has a big loan, it was Ms. Reynoso
who is the real owner of the said property, sir.


SAMPLE MEMORANDUM
Sections 1AA and 1C, UST Faculty of Civil Law (AY 2011-2012)
Legal Writing Class Atty. Marian Joanne K. Co-Pua

14
Q: Can you please recount for this Honorable
Court the circumstances how Ms. Kalaw and
Ms. Reynoso met?

A: I was the one who introduced Anna Kalaw to
Ms. Reynoso because at that time Ms. Reynoso
needs big amount of money, it was only a
staggered loan, sir.

Q: So, what happened next after you introduced
them?

A: She extended loan to her, sir.

Q: How much is the loan?

A: Around Php350,000.00 sir. (Emphases
supplied)
11


xxx xxx xxx

COURT:
The testimony of witness Eva Mendoza is
terminated. The witness is through with her
testimony, other witness? Are you going to
present the accused?

ATTY. SANCHEZ:
For the next hearing, the real owner Gloria
Reynoso Your Honor. I think that will be on
March 3.

COURT:
March 3 as scheduled.

ATTY. RIZAL:
Can we stipulate the issue Your Honor.

COURT:
Are you ready to stipulate on that, that the
nature of testimony of the other witness

ATTY. SANCHEZ:
Whether Your Honor, the certification

COURT:
Are you willing to stipulate that your next
witness Ms. Reynoso will corroborate the

11
TSN of 17 February 2009 hearing, pages 4-6.

SAMPLE MEMORANDUM
Sections 1AA and 1C, UST Faculty of Civil Law (AY 2011-2012)
Legal Writing Class Atty. Marian Joanne K. Co-Pua

15
testimony of Eva Mendoza and that the nature
of her testimony will be the fact that she is the
real owner?

ATTY. RIZAL:
I think that

COURT:
To corroborate the testimony of Eva Mendoza.

ATTY. SANCHEZ:
Yes Your Honor, to the effect that will be
the testimony.

COURT:
Okay, so, that you will dispense the testimony
of

ATTY. SANCHEZ:
Yes, Your Honor.

COURT:
Okay, the parties stipulated that the next
defense witness in the person of Gloria
Reynoso will corroborate the testimony of Eva
Mendoza relative to the transaction regarding
the registration of the title in the name of Anna
Kalaw. Accordingly, the testimony of Gloria
Reynoso is hereby dispensed with. So who will
be your next witness on March 3, the accused?

ATTY. SANCHEZ:
Yes Your Honor. (Emphases supplied)
12



It is inevitable that any judgment in this case must bear down on the
stipulated but uncontroverted testimony of Ms. Gloria Reynoso that she is the real
owner the property covered by TCT No. N-224468 and that said property was
registered in the name of the accused only to serve as security for the loan. In the
hierarchy of evidence, this positive and categorical testimony of the witness for the
accused procedurally prevails over the bare allegations of the prosecution. Even at

12
TSN of 17 February 2009 hearing, pages 7-9.

SAMPLE MEMORANDUM
Sections 1AA and 1C, UST Faculty of Civil Law (AY 2011-2012)
Legal Writing Class Atty. Marian Joanne K. Co-Pua

16
the risk of being repetitive, this piece of evidence is uncontested there being no
countervailing evidence presented by the prosecution to disprove or confute the
same.

Clearly, the herein accused cannot be said to have committed willful and
deliberate falsehood when she failed to disclose the real property covered by TCT
No. N-224468 registered under her name in her SALN. Accused was acting with
utmost good faith when she did not include the same real property in her SALN
considering that it was only registered in her name as a security or mortgage to the
loan of Ms. Gloria Reynoso which is a recognized valid defense in cases of perjury.

THE PROSECUTION WAS NOT
ABLE TO PROVE BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT THE GUILT
OF THE ACCUSED FOR THE CRIME
OF PERJURY.

A close scrutiny of the evidence presented in this case would readily reveal
that the prosecution miserably failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of
the accused for the crime of perjury. What the prosecution was able to establish is
simply the fact that the real property covered by TCT No. N-224468 is registered
in the name of the accused
13
, nothing more, nothing less. The prosecution even
failed to present a single proof or evidence that the accused willfully and
deliberately asserted a falsehood when she failed to disclose the real property
covered by TCT No. N-224468 in her SALN.


13
Testimony of Ms. Pacita S. Aquino.

SAMPLE MEMORANDUM
Sections 1AA and 1C, UST Faculty of Civil Law (AY 2011-2012)
Legal Writing Class Atty. Marian Joanne K. Co-Pua

17
On the contrary, the defense was able to present the positive,
straightforward, consistent, uniform and coherent testimonies of three credible
witnesses all of whom testified that the real property covered by TCT No. N-
224468 is not owned by the accused and was only registered in the name of the
accused to serve as a sort of security or mortgage to the loan of Ms. Gloria
Reynoso. Hence, the accused cannot be expected to disclose the same real
property in her SALN since she does not own it in the first place. If at all, such
omission on the part of the accused is not willful and deliberate and that the
accused acted with utmost good faith in not disclosing the said real property in her
SALN since she sincerely and honestly believed that she has no obligation to do so
not being the owner of the same property.

It bears stressing that any false statement in the accuseds SALN for the year
ending 31 December 2002 is not unlawful per se as to automatically give rise that
such false statement was done with unlawful or criminal intent
14
. The dorsal
portion SALN submitted by the accused, which the prosecution offered as its
Exhibit D, itself gives the following caveat, thus:

I hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge
and information, that these are true statements of my
assets, liabilities, networth, business interest and
financial connections, including those of my spouse
and unmarried children below 18 years of age and
names of my relatives in the government as of
December 31, 2002, as required by and in accordance
with Republic Act 6713. (Emphases supplied)


14
See People v. Maj. Gen. Carlos F. Garcia, Criminal Case No. 28050, Sandiganbayan First
Division.

SAMPLE MEMORANDUM
Sections 1AA and 1C, UST Faculty of Civil Law (AY 2011-2012)
Legal Writing Class Atty. Marian Joanne K. Co-Pua

18
In other words, the filer of an SALN such as the accused cannot be held
guilty of perjury for asserting a false objective fact which she believed to be true
to the best of her knowledge and information. The false assertion must have been
done deliberately and willfully. As held in Villanueva v. Secretary of Justice
15
, a
mere assertion of a false objective fact is not enough and that perjury cannot be
willful where the oath is according to belief or conviction as to its truth, thus:

A mere assertion of a false objective fact, a
falsehood, is not enough. The assertion must be
deliberate and willful. Perjury being a felony by dolo,
there must be malice on the part of the accused.
Willfully means intentionally; with evil intent and legal
malice, with the consciousness that the alleged
perjurious statement is false with the intent that it
should be received as a statement of what was true in
fact. It is equivalent to "knowingly." "Deliberately"
implies meditated as distinguished from inadvertent
acts. It must appear that the accused knows his
statement to be false or as consciously ignorant of its
truth.

Perjury cannot be willful where the oath is
according to belief or conviction as to its truth. A false
statement of a belief is not perjury. Bona fide belief in
the truth of a statement is an adequate defense. A false
statement which is obviously the result of an honest
mistake is not perjury. (Emphases supplied)

Obviously, the prosecution failed present any proof or evidence concerning
the willful or deliberate failure on the part of the accused to disclose the real
property covered by TCT No. N-224468 registered under her name in her SALN.
All that the prosecution presented is a record officer from the Land Registration
Authority to testify that TCT No. N-224468 bears the name of the accused. But it

15
G.R. No. 162187, 18 November 2005.

SAMPLE MEMORANDUM
Sections 1AA and 1C, UST Faculty of Civil Law (AY 2011-2012)
Legal Writing Class Atty. Marian Joanne K. Co-Pua

19
never presented any evidence to show that the accused willfully and deliberately
failed to disclose the real property covered by TCT No. N-224468 in her SALN.

The prosecution cannot possibly argue its case based on the disputable
presumption that an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent without first
proving that the act is unlawful. Indeed, the same would be tantamount to putting
the cart before the horse. In order for the prosecution to utilize the same
principle, it must first show that the accused has indeed committed perjury as
punishable by Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code by exhibiting how the
elements of the same offense were complied with, which it miserably failed to do
so.

It is a basic principle in criminal law that where the evidence is capable of
two or more inferences, one of which is consistent with the presumption of
innocence and the other compatible with a finding of guilt, the court must acquit
the accused because the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and
therefore is insufficient to support a judgment of conviction. Where the evidence
on an issue of fact is in equipoise or there is doubt on which side the evidence
preponderates, the party having the burden of proof loses.
16


As the evidence in the present case can be read and interpreted either way,
accused respectfully exhorts the Honorable Court to lean in favor of the
presumption of innocence and good faith. As it is ruled, if the inculpatory facts
and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is

16
People of the Philippines v. Pabiona, et al., G.R. No. 145803, 30 June 2004.

SAMPLE MEMORANDUM
Sections 1AA and 1C, UST Faculty of Civil Law (AY 2011-2012)
Legal Writing Class Atty. Marian Joanne K. Co-Pua

20
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, and, thus, that which is favorable to the accused should be
considered.
17


Last few words. The principle has been dinned into the ears of the bench
and the bar that in this jurisdiction, accusation is not synonymous with guilt. The
proof against the accused must survive the test of reason; the strongest suspicion
must not be permitted to sway judgment. If the evidence is susceptible of two
interpretations, one consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other
consistent with his guilt, the accused must be acquitted. The overriding
consideration is not whether the court doubts the innocence of the accused but
whether it entertains a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. If there exists even one iota
of doubt, the Honorable Court is under a long standing injunction to resolve the
doubt in favor of the accused.
18



PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that
accused Anna S. Kalaw be ACQUITTED of the crime of perjury based on
reasonable doubt.



17
See Dela Cruz v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 150439, 29 July 2005.
18
See People v. Salidaga, G.R. No. 172323, 29 January 2007.

SAMPLE MEMORANDUM
Sections 1AA and 1C, UST Faculty of Civil Law (AY 2011-2012)
Legal Writing Class Atty. Marian Joanne K. Co-Pua

21
Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

Makati City for Quezon City; 24 June 2009.


SANTOS & DELA CRUZ
LAW OFFICES
Counsel for accused Anna S. Kalaw
26th
th
Floor Westfield Tower Building
Ayala Avenue corner
Rufino Avenue, Makati City
(632) 849-7303; (632) 849-9804
info@santosanddelacruzlaw.com




For the Firm:


JOSELITO T. SANTOS
IBP Lifetime Member No. 02564
PTR No. 0997791/07 January 2009/Makati City
Roll of Attorneys No. 364256
MCLE Exemption No. II-001786


ARTEMIO B. CRUZ
IBP Lifetime Member No. 05548
PTR No. 1572592/07 January 2009/Makati City
Roll of Attorneys No. 46485
MCLE Compliance No. II-0007633


WILFREDO F. SANCHEZ
IBP No. 706544/28 December 2007/Manila
PTR No. 1572594/07 January 2009/Makati City
Roll of Attorneys No. 54596
MCLE Compliance No. (N/A)









SAMPLE MEMORANDUM
Sections 1AA and 1C, UST Faculty of Civil Law (AY 2011-2012)
Legal Writing Class Atty. Marian Joanne K. Co-Pua

22



COPY FURNISHED


ATTY. BONIFACIO G. RIZAL
Office of the Ombudsman
Prosecution and Monitoring Bureau (PAMB)
4
th
Floor, Ombudsman Building
Agham Road, Diliman, Quezon City






EXPLANATION

The filing/service of this pleading to the Honorable Court/Office of the
Ombudsman is made by registered mail on account of lack of material time and
liaison staff to effect personal filing/service.

WILFREDO F. SANCHEZ