MEMORANDUM

COME NOW COMPLAINANT, through the undersigned counsel, unto this

Honorable Supreme Court most respectfully submit and present this Memorandum in the
above-titled case and aver that:

THE PARTIES

1. Complainant, Robert G. is of legal age, single, and residing at

Blk.____________________________, where he may be served with legal processes and
notices issued by this Honorable Court;

2. Respondent, Respondent, is of legal age, married, and residing at

_______________________________, and may be served with legal processes and other
judicial notices thereto.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. On _____(date)_____, the Complainant filed a Complaint for _____(case)___

against respondent;
2. On ____(date)_, the Respondent filed his answer against to the complaint.

Hence, the filing of the instant Memorandum.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. Plaintiff personally know Respondent, who is with the law Firm of

__________________ with the address at the __________________________________;

4. Plaintiff averred that Respondent approached him and borrowed money from the
latter, which he will use for his Election campaign, in the amount of P300,000.00;

5. Respondent admits that he approached the Plaintiff to borrow money, however, it

was his wife who initially approached the plaintiff to borrow P100,000.00 and that the
money was not used for respondent’s electoral campaign;
 6. Plaintiff obliged Respondent and in return the latter issued a posted UCPB check
No. MAG 7178613 dated February 10, 2013 in the amount of P300,000.00;

7. Respondent stressed that the check that was issued was meant for security, and
not to be encashed by the complainant;

8. When plaintiff deposited the said check, it was dishonored for the reason Drawn
Against Insufficient Fund (DAIF);

9. Respondent admit that the check was dishonored, however, respondent averred
that he never had the intention to evade his payment obligations with the plaintiff.

10.Efforts were exerted to demand the agreed amount from Respondent, but to no
avail. Months went, by Respondent never contacted the plaintiff nor tried to see the latter.
Plaintiff already tried going to the residence of Respondent in Davao City, however, no
one would answer him;

11. Respondent denied the claim above and averred that he and his wife have been
religiously paying the unconscionable interest of 5% per month (or roughly P15,000.00)
by depositing the said amount in complainant’s bank;

12.Due to the unavailability and no responses of Respondent after exerting all efforts
to demand the amount stated in the UCPB check, plaintiff filed a criminal case against
Respondent.

III. ISSUE OF THE CASE

A. WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT SHOULD BE SANCTIONED BY THE

COURT.

IV. DISCUSSION

A. It is necessary to emphasize that respondent admit to the claim that he borrowed

money from the plaintiff and issued a UCPB Check for the security for the payment his
obligation to the plaintiff. Regardless of the purpose of said loan, the fact stands that
respondent borrowed the money and issued the check.
It is also necessary to emphasize that the check was dishonored due to Drawn
Against Insufficient funds, regardless of the reason of the respondent why the check was
unfunded.
The law provides that there is a presumption that when a person issues a check, he
has knowledge that the said check has sufficient funds when the obligation fell due.
In Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao v Indian Renewable Energy Development
Agency Limited, the Supreme Court held that a dishonored post-dated cheque for
repayment of a loan which was described as security, was covered by the criminal
liability set out in Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. Section 138
provides that it is a criminal offence for a person to issue a cheque which is subsequently
dishonored from an account maintained by him or her in order to pay any amount of
money to another person from that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any
debt or other liability.
Applying the jurisprudence in this case, respondent had issued a check for the
security for the payment of his obligation to the plaintiff. There is a presumption that this
account is maintained by the respondent, thus, he has the knowledge that the said check
in the bank has sufficient funds. Thus, making him liable under Sec. 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881.
With the foregoing recognized jurisprudence, said respondent’s action may held
criminally liable.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premised considered, it respectfully prayed for that this

Honorable Court AFFIRM that plaintiff’s prayer that respondent be held criminally
liable for there is a cause of action.
Other just and equitable relief under the foregoing are likewise being
prayed for.
Respectfully submitted.