Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

First Judicial Region
BRANCH 7
Baguio City

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

- versus - CRIM. CASE No. 41919 – R

VILLAMOR O. CASIQUIN,
Accused.
x-----------------------------------------------------x

APPELLANT’S BRIEF

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT to the HONORABLE COURT, the

accused-appellant VILLAMOR O. CASIQUIN, through the undersigned
counsel, hereby submits this Appellant’s Brief, and most respectfully states
the following:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

The Decision of the Municipal Trial Court – Branch 1 was

promulgated last 14 September 2018, finding accused-appellant guilty for
the crime of Estafa under paragraph 2(a) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal
Code.

A Notice of Appeal with Motion was filed before the lower court last
26 September 2018, with the appeal fee having been paid last 05 October
2018, due to the denial of the accused’s motion to be exempted from
payment of the same.

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Initially, herein accused-appellant, VILLAMOR O. CASIQUIN, and

ROSEMARY B. BUTAY were charged for Estafa under paragraph 2(a) of
Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code before the Municipal Trial Court in
Cities – Branch 1, Baguio City. The Information reads:

1|Page
 “That sometime in September 2015, and during the period prior
to and subsequent thereto, in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, conspiring and mutually aiding one another, by means of
false pretenses and fraudulent representations executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud, and by means of
deceit, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
defraud MARSHAL CONDAYA y DAO-AYAN, in the following
manner to wit: the above-named accused, pretending to be engaged in
a legitimate business operation, that is a marketing and selling of
Natural Anti-Radiation and Energy Enhancer or NaAREE h2O bottle
bags, when in truth and in fact, the accused were not legitimately
operating a business but only a scheme to obtain money from the
complainant, induced the complainant to earn money by purchasing a
NaAREE H2O bottle bag in which he would earn Php50.00 for every
referral as bonus, and the complainant believing and relying on the
representation of the accused, gave the amount of P8,000.00 for the
bags and expected for P13,000.00 as promised after 15 days,
however, no compensation for his purchases was returned, to the
damage and prejudice of the complainant in the amount of Eight
Thousand Pesos (P8,000.00), Philippine Currency.

CONTRARY TO LAW.1 (emphasis ours)”

Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the crime

charged. The case was later dismissed insofar as accused Butay was
concerned upon motion of the prosecution.

During trial, the prosecution presented as witness the private

complainant, Marshal Dao-ayan Condaya, who identified his Affidavit-
Complaint2 and Judicial Affidavit3 to serve as his direct testimony. The
private complainant claimed that sometime in August 2015, he attended a
seminar at McDonalds near Insular Life Building, Baguio City, conducted
by both accused, Casiquin and Butay, who allegedly claimed to be owners of
A’more Invention Cottage (AMIC, for brevity). Supposedly, herein
accused-appellant promoted his invention, the aforementioned NaAREE
H2O bottle bag, which he stated was good for the health. Private
complainant claimed that herein accused-appellant was able to convince the
audience, himself included, to purchase the accused-appellant’s above-
described invention for Php800.00 each, and in exchange thereof, the buyer
would be given Php1,100.00 for patronizing the said product fifteen days
thereafter. On 12 September 2015, the private complainant handed to
Rosemary Butay, the amount of eight thousand pesos (Php8,000.00) in
exchange for two (2) NaAREE H2O bottle bags, eight (8) small bottles of
oil, and four (4) boxes of herbal teas, as evidenced by two
1
Information, Criminal Case No. 135395, ibid.
2
Exhibit “A”, Affidavit-Complaint of Marshal Condaya y Dao-ayan, 22 May 2016, ibid.
3
Judicial Affidavit of Marshal Condaya y Dao-ayan, Criminal Case No. 135395, 27 July 2017, ibid.

2|Page
Acknowledgement Receipts issued by Rosemary Butay4, not herein accused-
appellant. Despite the said payment, private complainant attested that
AMIC failed to deliver the purported promised pay out.

The defense then presented herein accused-appellant as its witness.

Contrary to the accusations of the private complainant, the accused-appellant
was able to present evidence showing that he is a registered inventor with
the Bureau of Patents5. Evidence was likewise presented showing that
AMIC is duly registered with the Department of Trade and Industry 6. Also,
notwithstanding the assertions of the private complainant that he was
entitled to compensation without doing anything, herein accused-appellant
was able to present evidence to refute the same. The private-complainant’s
ProCom Partner Application Form7 clearly states that he undertook to exert
efforts to share the benefits of the invention (NaAREE H2O bottle bag) to
the public and to promote and/or accelerate the commercialization of the
same.

The prosecution then presented one rebuttal witness in the person of

Rosemary Butay, who also identified her Judicial Affidavit8 to serve as her
direct testimony. For her part, Butay stated the cash given by the private
complainant, which was received by her, was purportedly remitted to herein
accused-appellant. In support thereof, Butay identified copies of pages of a
blue book9 she kept to note remittances made by her to herein accused-
appellant.

As their sur-rebuttal witness, the accused-appellant was presented

again to controvert the testimony of Butay. Herein accused-appellant
pointed out that the private complainant gave the amount to Butay on 12
September 2015 and 06 October 201510. The remittances presented by
Butay clearly shows that herein accused-appellant received remittances only
until 05 September 201511. Further, the accused-appellant presented
additional evidence that would show that other promotion and
commercialization applicants have filed their respective complaints12 against
Butay for her failure to return their remittances, which goes to Butay’s
credibility as a witness.

On 14 September 2018, the trial court promulgated its Decision, the

dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

4
Exhibits “B” and “C”, Acknowledgement Receipts, 12 September 2015 and 06 October 2015, attached to
the records.
5
Exhibit “1”, Registration No. 2-2007-000244 issued by the Bureau of Patents, attached to the records.
6
Exhibit “2”, DTI Certification, 15 January 2014, ibid.
7
Exhibit “4”, ProCom Partner APPLICATION FORM, 12 September 2015, ibid.
8
Judicial Affidavit of Rosemary Binwag Butay, Criminal Case No. 135395, 28 February 2018, ibid.
9
Item No. 38, ibid.
10
Exhibits “B” and “C”, supra.
11
Item No. 38, supra.
12
Exhibit “8”, BCPO – Station 7 Certification, 03 November 2015, attached to the records.

3|Page
 “WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, the court finds
accused VILLAMOR Q. CASIQUIN GUILTY of ESTAFA defined
and penalized under paragraph 2(a) of Article 315 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 4885, Presidential
Decree No. 1689, and Presidential Decree No. 818, as further
amended by Section 85 of Republic Act No. 10951, under Criminal
Case No. 135395.

He is hereby sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of four

months to six months of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum
periods.

He is likewise ordered to indemnify the private complainant the

amount of Php8,000.00 with legal rate of interest from September
2015 until it is fully paid.

SO ORDERED.13”

II. STATEMENT OF ISSUES

WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN

FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT FOR THE CRIME
OF ESTAFA UNDER PARAGRAPH 2(A) OF ARTICLE
315 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE

WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN

ORDERING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT TO
INDEMNIFY THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT THE
AMOUNT OF PHP8,000.00 WITH LEGAL RATE OF
INTEREST FROM SEPTEMBER 2015 UNTIL FULLY
PAID

III. ARGUMENTS and DISCUSSION

WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT

ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-
APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT FOR THE CRIME OF
ESTAFA UNDER PARAGRAPH 2(A) OF
ARTICLE 315 OF THE REVISED PENAL
CODE

WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT

ERRED IN ORDERING THE ACCUSED-
13
Decision, Criminal Case No. 135395, 07 September 2018, attached to the records.

4|Page
APPELLANT TO INDEMNIFY THE PRIVATE
COMPLAINANT THE AMOUNT OF
PHP8,000.00 WITH LEGAL RATE OF
INTEREST FROM SEPTEMBER 2015 UNTIL
FULLY PAID

Article 315, par. 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code penalizes fraud or
deceit when committed as follows:

“2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or

fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of fraud:

(a) By using a fictitious name, or actions, falsely pretending to

possess power, influence, qualification, property, credit,
agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of
other similar deceits.14”

The elements of the crime of estafa under the foregoing provision are:
(1) there must be a false pretense, fraudulent acts, or fraudulent means; (2)
such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made prior to
or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (3) the offended party
must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means
and was thus induced to part with his money or property; and (4) as a result
thereof, the offended party suffered damage15.

In its Decision, the trial court found that the elements of estafa are
present in the instant case because the scheme supposedly introduced by
herein accused-appellant led the private complainant to believe that his
money would be returned to him with income16. In addition, the trial court
held that, at the outset, the products given to the complainant, particularly
the two (2) water bottle bags, the 8 small bottles of oil and four (4) boxes of
herbal teas are not equivalent to the Php8,000.00 given by him17.

Herein accused-appellant humbly posits that the foregoing findings

are misplaced. Based on the Information, the so-called misrepresentation
done by the accused is pretending to be engaged in a legitimate business
operation, i.e. the marketing and selling of NaAREE H2O bottle bags. The
preceding charge have been rebutted by herein accused-appellant by proving
that he is a registered inventor 18, hence authorized to make, use, sell or
import his inventions, which includes the NaAREE H2O bottle bags. In

14
Par. 2(a), Article 315, Revised Penal Code.
15
Lyzah Franco vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 171328, 16 February 2011; Steve Besario vs. People
of the Philippines, G.R. No. 171335, 16 February 2011.
16
p. 8, Decision, Criminal Case No. 135395, supra.
17
Ibid.
18
Exhibit “1”, supra.

5|Page
addition, the accused-appellant submitted a certification19 from the
Department of Trade and Industry showing that AMIC is a registered
business with the said agency, and such registration was valid from 15
January 2014 to 15 January 2019.

Furthermore, it cannot be said that the private complainant was

deceived into giving his money seeing that he did not receive any
compensation. As earlier pointed out, the private-complainant’s ProCom
Partner Application Form20 clearly states that he undertook to exert efforts to
share the benefits of the invention (NaAREE H2O bottle bag) to the public
and to promote and/or accelerate the commercialization of the same. On
cross-examination, the private complainant admitted not having performed
the said tasks, to wit:

“Atty. CASTRO:

Now, you mentioned in your Affidavit Complaint that the

accused Casiquin elaborated on promotion and
commercialization compensation system, is that correct?
A: Yes, Ma’am.

Q: And in this compensation system you mentioned that as a buyer

of the product, particularly the NaAREE H2O bag, would be given
Php1,100.00 as compensation for patronizing their product, is
that correct Mr. Witness?
A: Yes, Ma’am.

Q: Did you at all patronize the product of Mr. Casiquin?

A: No, Ma’am.

Q: Now, you also mentioned that he elaborated on the PCCS term

of three (3) days, three (3) months unlimited, is that correct Mr.
Witness?
A: No, Ma’am.

Q: That is what you mentioned in your complaint-affidavit

A: Fifteen (15) days.

Q: Would you agree with me Mr. Witness that you mentioned in

your affidavit- complaint that the PCCS term would be three (3)
days, three (3) months unlimited, am I correct Mr. Witness?
A: No, Ma’am.

Q: But this is your affidavit-complaint?

A: Yes, Ma’am.

19
Exhibit “2”, supra.
20
Exhibit “4”, supra.

6|Page
 Q: It says three (3) days, three (3) months unlimited. Just your
affidavit- complaint. Do you agree with me, Mr. Witness?
A: Yes, Ma’am.

xxx

Q: Now therefore, as stated in your affidavit-complaint you

mentioned in the PCCS term a buyer who would purchase the
NaAREE H2O bottle bag would be given a minimum of
Php2,000.00 if his or her referrals would buy a total of ten (10)
bottle bags, am I correct Mr. Witness?
A: Yes, Ma’am.

Q: Did you refer anybody in relation to the products of the

accused Casiquin?
A: No, Ma’am.21”

Considering that the private complainant failed to promote,

commercialize or patronize the products of herein accused-appellant, nor did
he make any referrals, the private complainant is not at all entitled to the
compensation being claimed.

Additionally, as to the finding of the trial court that the products do

not amount to Php8,000.00. It is respectfully submitted that the value of the
products or the inventions of the accused-appellant were never raised as an
issue during the proceedings. Similarly, no evidence was ever presented to
prove that the value of the products or inventions were less than the amount
for which they were paid for.

Rule 133, Section 2 of the Revised Rules of Evidence specifies the

required quantum of evidence in criminal cases, to wit:

“Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. – In a criminal

case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown
beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not
mean such a degree of proof, excluding possibility of error, produces
absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of
proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.22”

This rule places upon the prosecution the task of establishing the guilt
of an accused, relying on the strength of its own evidence, and not banking
on the weakness of the defense of an accused. Requiring proof beyond
reasonable doubt finds basis not only in the due process clause of the
Constitution, but similarly, in the right of an accused to be “presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved”. Undoubtedly, it is the constitutional
presumption of innocence that lays such burden upon the prosecution.
21
pp. 6-7, TSN dated 22 November 2017, Crim. Case No. 135395, attached to the records.
22
Section 2, Rule 133, Revised Rules of Evidence.

7|Page
Should the prosecution fail to discharge its burden, it follows, as a matter of
course, that an accused must be acquitted23.

In the challenged Decision, the trial court did not consider the defense
of herein accused-appellant that he did not receive the amount given by the
private complainant, as it was Butay who collected the same, and that Butay
was the one who explained the scheme during the August 2015 seminar.
According to the trial court, herein accused-appellant should have presented
other marketing arms to prove his allegations, as his testimony alone is not
sufficient to overturn the positive statements by the complainant and
Butay24.

It is dutifully pointed out that it is not merely the testimony of herein

accused-appellant that was presented to support his defense, rather
documentary evidence also showed the truth of his contentions.
Specifically, the Acknowledgement Receipts25 were issued by Rosemary
Butay, without any showing that the amount was remitted to the accused-
appellant since remittances to him were only proven up to 05 September
201526. It bears stressing that the dates of the Acknowledgement Receipts
issued in favor of the private complainant are dated 12 September 2015 and
06 October 2015, respectively.

Considering the foregoing, it cannot be said that the prosecution has

successfully proven the guilt of herein accused-appellant beyond reasonable
doubt. Well-entrenched in jurisprudence is the rule that the conviction of the
accused must rest, not on the weakness of the defense, but on the strength of
the prosecution. The burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, not on the accused to prove his innocence27.

In relation to the civil liability of the accused, there is also no showing

that he received the amount given to his former co-accused, Rosemary
Butay. Seeing that no conspiracy was proven during the proceedings, herein
accused-appellant cannot be faulted for the acts of Butay.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully moved that

the Decision dated 07 September 2018 be REVERSED and SET ASIDE,
exonerating herein accused-appellant of any criminal or civil liability.
Baguio City for Manila. This 25th day of January 2019, in the City of
Baguio, Philippines.

23
Nilo Macayan vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 175842, 18 March 2015.
24
p. 9, Decision, Crim. Case No. 135395, supra.
25
Exhibits “B” and “C”, supra.
26
Item No. 38, Judicial Affidavit of Rosemary B. Butay, supra.
27
Nilo Macayan vs. People of the Philippines, supra.

8|Page
 A B S LAW OFFICES
Suite 305, Laperal Building
Session Road, Baguio City
Tel. No. (074) 442 8243

By:

PATRICIA MARIE FRANCES D. CASTRO

PTR No. 3967921/01.09.2019/Baguio City
IBP Lifetime No. 012653/04.04.2014/Baguio City
MCLE Compliance No. V – 0002740
Roll No. 63622

COPY FURNISHED:

OFFICE of the CITY PROSECUTOR

Justice Hall, Baguio City

9|Page