Republic of the Philippines
New Era University
Professional Schools Building
Central Ave., Quezon City
Metropolitan Trial Court
Quezon City, Branch XXX
JUAN DELA CRUZ,
Complainant,
Civil Case
For: Estafa
-versus-
PEDRO REYES,
Respondent.
x--------------------------------------------x
POSITION PAPER
(for the Complainant)
Complainant,
through
the
undersigned
counsel,
unto
this
Honorable Court, most respectfully submits this Position Paper and
states THAT:
PREFATORY STATEMENT
In lieu of justice and equity, the Complainant as an individual has
a right to protect and in order to protect his right, comes to this
Honorable Court with clean hands in order to enforce his right and
prevent or redress the wrongful acts and omissions of the Respondent.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an action for ESTAFA which was filed by the Complainant
when the Respondent failed to pay him the money that he borrowed and
when the Respondent issued him bouncing checks.
THE PARTIES
Complainant Juan Dela Cruz, Filipino, of legal age, married and
having a postal address at No. 5 Silangan Village, Makati Citty where he
may be served with pleadings, motions and other court processes.
Respondent Pedro Reyes is a Filipino Citizen, of legal age with
postal address at 2010 Alexis Condominium Pasig City where he may be
served with pleadings, motions and other court processes.
STATEMENT OF THE RELEVANT
FACTS AND THE PROCEEDINGS
1.
The Respondent is indebted to the Complainant the amount of
One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P 100,000.00) to be paid in Three
months with Twenty Thousand Pesos (P 20,000.00) interest, secured
by a postdated check in the amount of One Hundred Twenty Thousand
Pesos (P 120,000.00);
2.
The postdated check was evidence which was freely entered into by
the parties on 01 February 2015, attached hereto as Annex A;
3.
One of the conditions agreed upon between the parties is that
Respondent will pay the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P
100,000.00) in Three months with fixed interest of Twenty Thousand
Pesos (P 20,000.00) ;
4. However, the defendant failed to settle his obligation within the
period agreed upon despite repeated demands ;
5. On April 25, the Complainant deposited the check but he was
informed that the Metro Bank account of the Respondent was already
closed.
6. The Complainant went immediately to the Condominium of the
Respondent but he was denied entry. According to the Security Guard,
the Defendant gave instruction that he will not receive any visitors.;
ISSUES
I.
WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A PROBABLE CAUSE TO
CHARGE RESPONDENT FOR ESTAFA; AND
II. WHETHER OR NOT THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IS
WELL ESTABLISHED.
ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION
Whether or not there is
a probable cause to charge
respondent for Estafa.
1. Clearly there is no question that the probable cause exists to
charge respondent for Estafa under Article 315 Par. 2(d) of the
Revised Penal Code based on the foregoing facts. As far as the
agreement between the complainant and respondent is concerned,
deceit was employed during the inception of the agreement by
postdating a check or issuing a bouncing check when the
respondent had no funds in the bank.
2. The crime of estafa under Article 315 Par. 2(d) By postdating a
check or issuing a bouncing check is committed based on the
following elements, to wit:
a. The offender post-dated a check, or issued a check in
payment of an obligation.
b. Such postdating or issuing a check was done when the
offender had no funds in the bank, or his funds
deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the
amount of check.
3. Respondents excuses were obviously all lies as can be gleaned
from the circumstances of the case and the fact that there is no
single evidence attached to prove her excuses of not depositing the
amount in the bank as earlier set herein;
4. Respondent's allegations failed to rebut the accusation of the
Complainant. The post-dated checks attached are not denied,
instead it bolstered the fact that there exist an obligation that was
planned to be abandoned after receipt of the thereon;
5. The mere postdating or issuing a check was done when the
respondent had no funds in the bank, or his funds deposited
therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of check makes out
a case of estafa.
6. In sum, Respondents excuses are evidentiary in nature and can
only be threshed out during a full blown hearing/trial on the
merits of this case.
Whether or not the documentary
evidence is well established.
1. The documentary evidence as oppose to a mere statement of denial
sans any proof thereof is well established that. In fact, a perusal of
the circumstances of the conduct of the Respondent for several
years
of
engaging
in
the
same
activity
involving
different
individuals with know-how on the technicalities of the law thereby
evading liability through faade of ignorance and tears. Respondent
is somewhat well versed of the constitutional provision that nobody
should be imprisoned for non-payment of debt and thus, using this
to her fullest advantage. There is indeed a dire need to curtail her
with the strong hands of the law so as not to further cause
prejudice to unsuspecting public.
2. In addition, and as a result of Respondents unlawful and
unjustified acts as provided above, Complainant was constrained to
hire the services of counsel in the amount of P50,000.00 as
attorneys fee and P3,000.00 per appearance of counsel.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is most respectfully
prayed to this Honorable Court that:
1. Judgment be rendered and ordering the respondent to pay the
amount of One Hundred Twenty Thousand Pesos (P 120,000.00) to
the complainant;
2. Respondent to pay the amount of P50, 000.00 as acceptance fee
and
P3, 000.00 per appearance or by way of and as attorneys fees;
and
3. Cost of suit.
Such other reliefs and remedies that this Honorable Court may
deem just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.
Respectfully submitted.
Quezon City, November 10, 2015.
