Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
National Capital Judicial Region
Pasay City
Nicanor Reyes
Plaintiff,
Criminal Case No. _____
- Versus - For: Estafa
Pedro Santos
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff, through the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully
submit and present this Memorandum and aver that:
THE PARTIES
1. Plaintiff Jane Doe is of legal age, single, and residing on 111 Doa Victoria St. Tinajeros,
Pasay City, where she may be served with legal processes and notices issued by this
Honorable Court;
2. Respondent Pedro Santos is of legal age, married, and residing on 111 Don Vi Street,
San Juan, Metro Manila, and may be served with legal processes and other judicial
notices thereto.
THE FACTS
3. According to Plaintiff, she assumed post as branch manager in the Pasig branch of
Bank ABC after Respondent, the previous branch manager, had been absent without
official leave for a period of one week.
4. Plaintiff subsequently discovered that client Juan Dela Cruzs account is still past due
with respect to a loan transaction amounting to Php 180, 000.
5. Plaintiff immediately went to the client, Juan Dela Cruz to question and confirm the
amount due against him but the client told Plaintiff that such loan was already fully paid by
him as evidenced by a deposit slip given by the previous manager.
6. Juan Dela Cruz handed the deposit slip to the Plaintiff and the latter saw that such
deposit slip is actually signed by the previous manager, although not machine validated.
7. Juan Dela Cruz further stated that the deposit slip was given to him by the previous
manager personally at his house after he had given the latter the amount of money due
against his account.
8. Plaintiff claims that it is not a standard procedure of their bank for a branch manager to
go to the clients house to collect payment and issue deposit slip as receipt of the money
paid by the client.
9. Plaintiff further states that the previous manager did not deposit the amount paid by
Juan Dela Curz personally to him, resulting to the clients still past due account.
10. Plaintiff testifies that respondents absences without official leave began after this
transaction between him and Juan Dela Cruz transpired.
ISSUE OF THE CASE
Whether or not respondent committed estafa given the facts established above?
DISCUSSION
1. Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code on deceit/swindling (estafa) provides any person
who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned therein shall be punished by the
penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum
period, if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos,
and if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be
imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the
total penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years; provided that the fraud
be committed by any of the following means:
1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:
(b) By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods, or
any other personal property received by the offender in trust or on commission, or
for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery
of or to return the same, even though such obligation be totally or partially
guaranteed by a bond; or by denying having received such money, goods, or other
property.
2. In the case at bar, failure of the previous manager to deposit the amount of money paid
by the client named Juan Dela Cruz to the latters account and without even giving notice
to the bank or to the client as to where the money is, as well as his act of being absent
without official leave after this transaction transpired, constitutes misappropriation of
money received in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any other
obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same, as it is well
established from the facts above that the previous manager had the duty to the bank to
deposit the amount of money paid by the client, to such bank, but which he failed to do.
PRAYER
ALL TOLD, this Memorandum is submitted. Other reliefs just and equitable are also
prayed for. Manila, March 11, 2017.
PRECIOUS LOREN L. SANCHEZ
Counsel for the Petitioner
18 Doa Victoria St. Tinajeros,
Quezon City
preciouslorenlsanchez@yahoo.com
IBP Lifetime No. 886729 /01-25-12 /Q.C.
PTR No. 6229988B /01-26-12 /Q.C.
Roll No. 46372
MCLE Compliance No. III-0015986 May 7, 2010
Copy Furnished:
ATTY. JEFFREY A. ARCHER
Counsel for Petitioner
Unit 1200, Tall Building Condominium
Espaa, Manila
