You are on page 1of 3

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Department of Justice
NATIONAL PROSECUTION OFFICE
PROSECUTION OFFICE
City of Mandaue
ANNALYN A PACQUIAO,
Complainant,
NPS VII-13-INQ-161-672
-versusFOR : MALICIOUS
MISCHIEF
SPS. NILA ROSALES y DUMABOC
Respondents.
x--------------------------------/

VERIFIED MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION
RESPONDENTS by counsel state:
1. Respondents received on 17 November 2016 the
Resolution dated 28 October 2016 of this Honorable Office
charging the respondents with Malicious Mischief.
2. Respondents did not receive any subpoena in connection with
this case;
3. Feeling the angst of injustice upon receipt of the Resolution
dated, Respondents beg for reconsideration where
reconsideration is due;
4. In this motion for reconsideration, respondents ask that that the
Resolution be reconsidered;
5. Worthy to mention is the fact that respondents have a pending
case against the complainant before Branch 2, MTC, Mandaue
City, Cebu;
6. Notwithstanding, complainants arguments are bereft of factual
and legal bases. The charges are not only largely baseless but
also legally ludicrous, let alone motivated by revenge to make
even with the respondent;
7. Respondents used to be lessees of the complainant for three
years. Respondents started leasing last July 8, 2012 and
1|Page

terminated their lease on March 6, 2016. During the effectivity


of the lease, there had been damages in the leased premises
and respondents have time and again requested the
complainant to make necessary repairs over the leased
premises, but, to no avail;
8. It is axiomatic that the lessor must see that the
enjoyment is not interrupted or disturbed, either by others acts
or by his own. By his own acts, because, being the person
principally obligated by the contract, he would openly violate it
if, in going back on his agreement, he should attempt to render
ineffective in practice the right in the thing he had granted to the
lessee; and by others acts, because he must guarantee the
right he created, for he is obligated to give warranty in the
manner set forth in Article 1553, and, in this sense, it is
incumbent upon him to protect the lessee in the latters
peaceful enjoyment1. This covers the obligation on the part of
the complainant to make necessary repairs on the premises
leased by the respondents;
9. The alleged damage or destruction on the leased
premises were caused not by deliberate intent on the part of the
respondents but because of the failure on the part of the
complainant to make repairs thereto. It has always been
regarded of the essence of this felony that the offender should
have not only the general intention to carry out the felonious act
but that he or she should act under the impulse of a specific
desire to cause damage to anyones property.
10. The prosecution of the Respondents will not give justice to
the lessees who are not only less fortunate for not having a roof
under the sun but are also oppressed by the rich.
WHEREFORE, complainant prays for reconsideration of
Resolution dated October 28, 2016, in that, the case for
malicious mischief be dismissed, and for other reliefs just and
equitable under the premises.
November 24, 2016, Cebu City.
QUIANOLA & WAGAS LAW
Counsel for the Accused
Anecita Bldg., Capitol Site
Osmea Blvd., Cebu City 6000
Telefax No. 2541884
1 Manresa; CMS Investment & Mgt. Corp. v. IAC, 139 SCRA 75.

2|Page

By:

ATTY. DARLING CHYRMYTH WAGAS


Attorneys Roll No. 64015- Apr. 27, 2015
IBP No.: 1029024-Cebu City Chapter
PTR No.: 10346770-January 8, 2016
MCLE Compliance Exempted
Email: pactacogens@gmail.com
Copy furnished:
Annalyn Pacquiao

3|Page