You are on page 1of 3

That sometime during the latter part of 1997, and for sometime prior or subsequent

thereto, in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the said accused, conniving, confederating and mutually helping with one
another, having received in trust from Trans Eagle Corporation a luxury car known as
Jeep Cherokee Sport 4wd valued at P1,199,520.00 with the agreement that they would
sign the document of sale if they are interested to buy the same and with the
obligation to return the said car to Trans Eagle Corporation if they are not interested,
the said accused, once in possession of the said luxury car, far from complying with
their obligation, with deliberate intent, with intent to gain, with unfaithfulness and
grave abuse of confidence, did then and there misappropriate, misapply and convert
into their own personal use and benefit the same or the amount of P1,199,520.00
which is the equivalent value thereof, and inspite of repeated demands made upon
them to let them comply with their obligation to return the luxury car, they have failed
and refused and instead denied to have received the luxury car known as Jeep
Cherokee Sport 4WD and up to the present time still fail and refuse to do so, to the
damage and prejudice of Trans Eagle Corporation in the amount aforestated.
ESTAFA- ART. 315 pp 1(b) – misappropriation

“Ordinarily, evil intent must unite with an unlawful act for there to be a crime.
Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea . There can beno crime when the criminal mind is
wanting.”American jurisprudence echoes the same principle. It adheres to the view that criminal
intent in embezzlement is not based ontechnical mistakes as to the legal effect of a transaction
honestly entered into, and there can be no embezzlement if the mind of theperson doing the act is
innocent or if there is no wrongful purpose.X x x.
(underscoring supplied).

Provisional Dismissal
Sec. 8. Provisional dismissal. – A case shall not be provisionally
dismissed except with the express consent of the accused and with
notice to the offended party.
The provisional dismissal of offenses punishable imprisonment
not exceeding six (6) years or a fine of any amount, or both, shall

which requires moral certainty. Reyes. for. The prosecution evidence has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. DISCUSSION A. . 2. The accused respectfully submits that the prosecution evidence has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that. Absent the moral certainty that accused-appellant caused the death of the victim. when there is equilibrium in the evidence presented by both sides. Only by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Custodio. Moral certainty has been defined as "a certainty that convinces and satisfies the reason and conscience of those who are to act upon it" (People vs. the Honorable Court has grossly misappreciated and misinterpreted the evidence on record resulting in a grave miscarriage of justice. 23 SCRA 1301 [1967]). the Honorable Court has grossly misappreciated and misinterpreted the evidence on record resulting in a grave miscarriage of justice. With all due respect. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is needed to overcome the presumption of Innocence (People vs. in such a situation. acquittal perforce follows. With respect to offenses punishable by imprisonment of more than six (6) years. Lavarias. the offense has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. 60 SCRA 126 [1974]). may the presumption of innocence be overcome (People vs. GROUNDS FOR THE OMNIBUS MOTION The accused seeks a RECONSIDERATION of the Decision on the following grounds: 1. 47 SCRA 289 [ 1972]). the CONSTITUTIONAL PRESUMPTIOM OF INNOCENCE should tilt the balance of the scale in favor of the acquittal of the accused. their provisional dismissal shall become permanent two (2) years after issuance of the order without the case having been revived. with all due respect. which is the quantum of evidence required to convict an accused.become permanent one (1) year after issuance of the order without the case having been revived.

Accused-appellant’s guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt (People vs. 2000]. No. Courts should be guided by the principle that it would be better to set free ten men who might be probably guilty of the crime charged than to convict one innocent man for a crime he did not commit. Tagudar [G. 130588. 58 SCRA 323 [ 1974]). People v.R. . Melo. Maliwanag. otherwise. [En Banc. June 8. the Court would be left without any other recourse but to rule for acquittal.