Bicol University student's consolidated legal forms

Republic of the Philippines
Bicol University
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
Daraga, Albay
Student : RALPH LOWIE L. NEO

Course : BSEd II- SOCIAL STUDIES
Professor : DR. ARNIE M. MAGDAONG, J.D.
Term : 2nd Sem., A.Y 2020-2021
LAW RELATED STUDIES
________________________________________________________________
CONSOLIDATED LEGAL FORMS

(AFFIDAVIT, COMPLAINT, and INFORMATION)
Disclaimer: We have used fictional names filled in for in case that, securing others’ privacy. Names,
characters, businesses, occurrences, and accidents are all inventions of the author. Any connection to real
people, living or deceased, or real events is entirely coincidental. Most sample legal forms are courtesy of the
PAO’s, and also from samples from its compilation.
AFFID
AVITS
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)
MUNICIPALITY OF DARAGA) S.S.
x----------------------------x

AFFIDAVIT OF LOSS OR/CR
I, REX JORDAN L. NEO, of legal age, Filipino, (single/married/widow) and a resident of PAG-
ASA ST., SAN ROQUE, DARAGA, ALBAY,, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law,
depose and state THAT:
1. I am the registered owner of a motor vehicle which is particularly described as follows:

Make & Type : YAMAHA
Motor Number : V50-1136867
Chassis Number : same as motor
Plate Number : MC-6A-3772
MV File No. : 0512-13833
Year Model/Color : ’99/Red
2. As proof of ownership of the above-described vehicle I was issued by the Land Transportation Office, Official
Receipt (OR) and Certificate of Registration (CR);
3. The said documents while in my possession were misplaced and could no longer be located in spite of diligent
efforts to locate them;
4. Said documents were neither transferred to other persons/entity/financial institutions for any consideration nor
encumbered to guarantee financial obligations with any financial institution;
5. Said documents were not confiscated by any government authorities for violation of R.A. 4136 and other
related laws;
6. I shall assume responsibility or liability if in any event I will use these documents for whatever illicit
transactions;
7. I am executing this affidavit to attest to the veracity of my statements and to support my request
for duplicate copies of the lost MVRR/MVMRR/OR/CR with the Land Transportation Office (LTO).
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this February 17, 2021 in Daraga,
Albay, Philippines.
REX JORDAN L. NEO

Affiant
SSS ID No. 5252
SUBCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this ___________________ in
_________________, Philippines, affiant exhibiting to me his/her competent evidence of identity by way of
__________________ issued at ______________ on __________________.
Doc. No. _____;

Page No. _____;
Book No. _____;
Series of 2013.
Republic of the Philippines )

Municipality of Daraga ) S.S.
x--------------------------x
AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENCY
I, REX JORDAN L. NEO, of legal age, single/married/widow, Filipino citizen, and presently

residing at PAG-ASA ST., SAN ROQUE, DARAGA, ALBAY, after having been duly sworn to
in accordance with law, do hereby depose and say:
1. That I desire to avail of the free legal service of the Public Attorney’s Office.
2. That my monthly net salary/income is P12,000.

3. That I am executing this affidavit to entitle me to the desired legal services.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 28th day of April, 2021 at Daraga,
Albay, Philippines.
REX JORDAN L. NEO

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ____ day of ___________ in _________,
Philippines, and I have read and translated the foregoing Affidavit in a dialect known and understood by
him/her..
Doc No. : _____

Page No.: ______
Book No.: ______
Series of 2014 Public Attorney II
Municipality of Pilar ) S.S.
x-------------------------------------x

JOINT AFFIDAVIT OF IDENTITY
WE, JOEL M. NEO and AMELITA L. NEO, both of legal age, Filipino citizens, and residents of Abucay,
Pilar, Sorsogon, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, depose and state:
1. That we personally know one REX JORDAN L. NEO born on September 15, 1997 in Sipocot, Camarines Sur;
2. That since her childhood, she has been using the name REY JORDAN L. NEO, which appeared in her pertinent
records and school records;
3. That when she secured a copy of her birth certificate, she noticed that her name is written as REX JORDAN L.
NEO;
4. That the names REX JORDAN L. NEO and REY JORDAN L. NEO refer to one and the same person;
5. That we are executing this Affidavit to attest and declare the truth of the foregoing facts and for whatever legal
purposes that this Affidavit may serve.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands this 26th day of September 2013 in Makati City,
Metro Manila, Philippines.
JOEL M. NEO AMELITA L. NEO
Affiant Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 1st day of August 2013 in Makati City, affiants exhibited
to me their SSS Identification Card Nos. 1234 and 4567 issued on March 6, 2012 and April 8, 2012, respectively,
in Pilar, Sorsogon.
Doc. No. 91
Page No. 100
Book No. 54
Series of 2013
COMPLAINT WITH PRAYER FOR ATTACHMENT

MUNICIPALITY OF DARAGA)S.S.
AFFIDAVIT
REX JORDAN L. NEO, of legal age and a resident of the Municipality of Daraga, Philippines, after
having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, hereby deposes and says:
That he is the Plaintiff in the above entitled case; That there is sufficient cause of action;
That the defendant has removed or disposed of his property, or is about to do so with intent to defraud
his creditor, the herein plaintiff-affiant;
That he is filing a bond in the amount of P ; 12, 000
That the amount claimed in the action is as much as the sum which the order is prayed for above all
legal counterclaims.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.

Affiant
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INJUNCTION

MUNICIPALITY OF DARAGA) S.S.
REX JORDAN L. NEO, of legal age and a resident of the Municipality of Daraga, Philippines, after
having been duly sworn in accordance with law, hereby deposes and says:
That he is the Plaintiff in the above entitled case and is entitled to the relief demanded in the complaint
in whole or in part and such other relief consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the acts
complained of either for a limited period or perpetually;
That the commission or continuance of the acts complained of during the litigation will work injury to
herein plaintiff and that the defendant is doing, threatens, or is about to do, or is procuring or suffering to be
done the acts tending to render the judgment ineffectual;
And that he is willing and ready to file a bond in the amount which may be fixed by the Court to the
effect that he, the plaintiff, will pay the defendant all the damages which the latter may sustain by reason of
the injunction if the court should finally decide that the plaintiff was not entitled thereto.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.
REX JORDAN L. NEO

Affiant
SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
I, REX JORDAN L. NEO, of legal age, single (or married to), resident of PAG-ASA ST., SAN ROQUE,
DARAGA, ALBAY, do hereby name, constitute and appoint MS. CLARENCE FAITH ANDES, of legal age,
single or married), resident of ILAWOD 2, DARAGA, ALBAY, to be my true and lawful attorney, for me
and in my name, place and stead within the period of months (or years), to SELL, TRANSFER and
CONVEY, for the price not less than PESOS (P 35,000 ), Philippine Currency, to
whosoever may purchase or buy my YAMAHA V50-SERIES with plate no. MC-6A-3772, Motor
No. V50-1136867, and Chasis No. same as motor, of which I am the absolute owner, free from all liens and
encumbrances; and HEREBY GIVING AND GRANTING unto my said attorney full powers and authority to
do and perform all and every act requisite or necessary to carry into effect the foregoing authority to sell, as
fully to all intents and purposes as I might or could lawfully do if personally present, with full power of
substitution or revocation, and hereby ratifying and confirming all that my said attorney or his substitute shall
lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affix my signature this 25 th day of April, 2021, in Daraga,
Albay, Philippines.
REX JORDAN L. NEO

Principal
ACCEPTED:
CLARENCE FAITH ANDES
Attorney-in-fact
Signed in the presence of:
DOMINGO M. ZAMORA JANE B. DOMINGUEZ

MUNICIPALITY OF DARAGA ) S.S.
x----------------------------x
AFFIDAVIT OF DISCREPANCY
I, REX JORDAN L. NEO, of legal age, single (or married to), resident of PAG-ASA ST., SAN
ROQUE, DARAGA, ALBAY, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law, depose and state
THAT:
1. I was born on 21st day of May, 1991 to spouses Amelita R. Lita and Joel Neo;
2. I have been using the name REX JORDAN L. NEO in all my documents and transactions;
3. However, when I obtained a copy of my birth certificate, I discovered that my surname appearing thereon
was erroneously written as "MEO";
4. The names “REX JORDAN L. NEO” and “REX JORDAN L. MEO” refers to one and the same person;
5. I execute this Affidavit of Discrepancy of Surname to attest to the truth of the foregoing facts and to explain
the discrepancy in my birth certificate with regards my surname.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 23rd day of May, 2021 in Daraga, Albay,
Philippines.
REX JORDAN L. NEO
Affiant
SSS ID No. _____________
SUBCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this ___________________ in _________________,

Philippines, affiant exhibiting to me his/her competent evidence of identity by way of __________________
issued at ______________ on __________________.
Doc. No. _____;

Page No. _____;
Book No. _____;
Series of 2013.
COMP
LAINT
S
Municipal Trial Court
Branch 5
Daraga, Albay
Mr. REX JORDAN L. NEO, plaintiff Civil Case No. 2

Accompanied by his Attorney –in – fact, for:Unlawful Detainer
ATTY. MARK HARRY J. LITA
-versus-
Mr. Eulogio G. Mateo, Defendant

x-----------------------------------------x
COMPLAINT
COMES NOW, the plaintiff together with the undersigned counsel to this most honorable court, MOST
RESPECTFULLY STATES THAT;
1. The Plaintiff is of legal age, single and a resident of . The Defendant is likewise of legal age,
married and temporary residing at resident of PAG-ASA ST., SAN ROQUE, DARAGA, ALBAY.
2. The Plaintiff is the owner of the two-storey house unit located at resident of PAG-ASA ST., SAN
ROQUE, DARAGA, ALBAY, and having the residential address of PV 123 as evidenced by pertinent
documents like tax declaration and deed of sale. ( EXHIBIT “A” )
3. The Defendant is the lessee of the house unit that is owned by the Plaintiff as evidenced by the
written contract of lease that both parties signed. (Exhibit “B”)
4. The Plaintiff and the Defendant came up with a written agreement of Lease on June 26, 2021,
which they both agreed upon and was duly signed by the two parties as shown in their contract of lease.
(Exhibit “B”)
5. Item No. 16 of the contract which the defendant signed expressly provides that he will only be
occupying the property for one (1) year, after which, he will vacate the house when that term expires.
(Exhibit “B”)
6. The contract also provides that the defendant should also take care of the property and its
premises” with the utmost diligence”.
7. On June 28, 2021, the plaintiff, after returning from Japan, was surprised to discover that the
defendant did not vacate the property as he expected. Worse, he installed a “sari-sari store” in the
original building structure of the house unit.
8. The plaintiff confronted the defendant about it but the defendant claimed that it was a “DEED
OF SALE” which they signed and not a “CONTRACT OF LEASE” and therefore, the defendant is the
new owner of the house unit.
9. On August 20, 2021, after continuous demands, the defendant constantly refuses to vacate the
house unit and even invited relatives to stay with him.
10. The defendant willfully and maliciously violated the agreement which they mutually agreed upon,
and which the defendant signed.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that
judgement be rendered in favor of the plaintiff and that after judgement;
a. The defendant shall vacate the house unit owned by the plaintiff.
b. The defendant shall be ordered to pay P 120, 000 for the Attorney’s Fees.
Such other reliefs and remedies under the premises are likewise prayed for.
Daraga Albay, Philippines, this 28th day of September 2021.

Counsel for the Plaintiff
PTR No. 18909595:1-04-07:B.C.
IBP No, 693095:1-04-07:B.C.
Roll No. 42481:5-10-97: Manila
Rm. 4 2/F Baguio Boating Center
180 Burnham Lake, Baguio City
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION
I, Mr. REX JORDAN L. NEO, of Legal age, single, Filipino Citizen and a resident of Puguis, La
Trinidad Benguet, after being sworn according to law, hereby depose and state that;
1. I am a plaintiff in the above-stated case;

2. I caused the preparation of the foregoing complaint;
3. I have read the contents thereof and the facts stated therein are true and correct of my personal
knowledge and/or on the basis of copies of documents and records in my possession;
4. I have not commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme
Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency;
5. To the best of my knowledge and belief, no such action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme
Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency;
6. If I should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the
Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or any other tribunal or agency, I undertake to report that fact
within five (5) days therefrom to this Honorable Court.
REX JORDAN L. NEO

Complainant
In witness thereof, I, ATTY. MARK HARRY J. LITA, counsel of the plaintiff, have herunto set my
hand this 29th of September at Baguio City.
Counsel for the Plaintiff
PTR No. 18909595:1-04-07:B.C.
IBP No, 693095:1-04-07:B.C.
Roll No. 42481:5-10-97: Manila
Rm. 4 2/F Baguio Boating Center
180 Burnham Lake, Baguio City
6. That the plaintiff has paid

for litigation expenses
amounting to
Twenty Thousand Pesos (PhP
20,000.00) as evidenced by
Annex “D” –
Official Receipt;
7. That the plaintiff has
suffered moral damages at the
sum discretion
of the Honorable Court;
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, it is hereby
respectfully prayed
before the Honorable Court to
render decision in favor of the
plaintiff and
order the defendant to pay the
following:
a. the sum of One Million
Pesos (PhP 1,000,000.00) plus
interest at
the rate of five percent (5%)
per month as stipulated in the
promissory note;
b. moral damages, exemplary
damages at the sum discretion
of the
court;
c. attorney’s fees amounting to
One Hundred Thousand Pesos
(PhP
100,000.00) and an appearance
fee of Two Thousand Pesos
(PhP
2,000.00) per hearing
d. litigation expenses
amounting to Twenty
Thousand Pesos (PhP
20,000.00).
Other reliefs and remedies
deemed just and equitable
under the
foregoing premises are
likewise prayed for.
Iloilo City, December 6, 2014.
ATTY. VINCENT ENRIQUE
A. VARONA
Counsel for Petitioner
Varona
Law Office, Alta Tierra
Village, Jaro, Iloilo City
Roll of Attorneys No. 54321
PTR NO. 654321,
01/06/14, Iloilo City
IBP NO. 123456,
01/04/14, Iloilo City
MCLE Comp. No.
IV-0009876, 01/02/14

5TH JUDICIAL REGION
Regional Trial Court
Branch _____
Daraga, Albay
ANGELA F. LLANTO, Civil Case No. _____________

Plaintiff FOR: COLLECTION FOR A SUM
OF MONEY WITH DAMAGES
- versus -
MARK HARRY F. LITA,
Defendant
x -----------------------x
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, through the undersigned counsel unto this Honorable Court, hereby respectfully avers:
1. That plaintiff is of legal age, Filipino, single, and a resident of San Roque, Daraga, Albay, Philippines
while the defendant is also of legal age, married, Filipino and a resident of Brgy. Bongalon, Daraga, Albay,
Philippines where summons and court processes may be served;
2. That on February 14, 2015, the defendant borrowed from the plaintiff a sum of money amounting to One
Million Pesos (PhP1,000,000.00) with an agreed interest of five percent (5%) per month asevidenced by a
promissory note herein attached as Annex “A” and form an integral part of this complaint;
3. That as shown in the attached promissory note, the indebtedness of the defendant has become due and
demandable on February 14, 2016;
4. That despite plaintiff's repeated demands, both written and verbal, defendant failed, neglected and refused
to fulfill obligations without just and valid grounds to the continued damage and prejudice of plaintiff, as
evidenced by Annex “B” – Demand Letters;
5. That the plaintiff in order to enforce his rights and interests, has sought the services of a legal counsel with
attorney’s fees amounting to One Hundred Thousand Pesos (PhP 100,000.00) and an appearance fee of Two
Thousand Pesos (PhP 2,000.00) per hearing as evidenced by Annex “C” – Contract for Legal Services;
6. That the plaintiff has paid for litigation expenses amounting to Twenty Thousand Pesos (PhP 20,000.00) as
evidenced by Annex “D” – Official Receipt;
7. That the plaintiff has suffered moral damages at the sum discretion of the Honorable Court;
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is hereby respectfully prayed before the Honorable Court to render
decision in favor of the plaintiff and order the defendant to pay the following:
a. the sum of One Million Pesos (PhP 1,000,000.00) plus interest at the rate of five percent (5%) per month as
stipulated in the promissory note;
b. moral damages, exemplary damages at the sum discretion of the court;
c. attorney’s fees amounting to One Hundred Thousand Pesos (PhP 100,000.00) and an appearance fee of
Two Thousand Pesos (PhP 2,000.00) per hearing
d. litigation expenses amounting to Twenty Thousand Pesos (PhP 20,000.00).
Other reliefs and remedies deemed just and equitable under the foregoing premises are likewise prayed
for.
Iloilo City, December 6, 2014.
ATTY. TOM HARDY Ll. LUBIANO
Lubiano Law Office, PAMA Subdivision, Daraga, Albay
PTR NO. 654321, 01/06/14, Daraga, Albay
IBP NO. 123456, 01/04/14, Daraga, Albay
MCLE Comp. No. IV-0009876, 01/02/14
REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES)
PROVINCE OF ILOILO ) SS.
x--------------------
--------x
VERIFICATION AND
CERTIFICATION
I, MIA C. SANCHEZ, of legal
age, Filipino, married, and a
resident
of Alta Tierra Village, Jaro,
Iloilo City, Philippines, after
being sworn in
accordance with law, hereby
depose and say:
(1) That I am the Plaintiff in
the above-entitled case;
(2) That I have caused the
preparation of the above
Complaint and I
have read the same and
understood the contents
thereof;
(3) That the allegations
contained therein are true and
correct of my
own personal knowledge and
based on authentic records.
(4) That I further certify that: I
have not theretofore
commenced any
other action or proceeding or
filed any claim involving the
same issues or
matter in any court, tribunal, or
quasi-judicial agency and, to
the best of my
knowledge, no such action or
proceeding is pending therein;
if I should
thereafter learn that the same
or similar action or proceeding
has been filed or
is pending before the Supreme
Court, the Court of Appeals, or
any other
tribunal or quasi-judicial
agency, I undertake to report
such fact within five (5)
days therefrom to the court or
agency wherein the original
pleading and sworn
certification contemplated
herein have been filed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I
have hereunto set my hand this
6th day
of December 2014 at Iloilo
City, Philippines.
MIA C. SANCHEZ
Affiant
TIN 98765-
003; Iloilo City

PROVINCE OF ILOILO ) SS.
x----------------------------x
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

I, ANGELA F. LLANTO, legal age, Filipino, single, and a resident of San Roque, Daraga, Albay,
Philippines, after being sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose and say:
(1) That I am the Plaintiff in the above-entitled case;
(2) That I have caused the preparation of the above Complaint and I have read the same and understood the
contents thereof;
(3) That the allegations contained therein are true and correct of my own personal knowledge and based on
authentic records.
(4) That I further certify that: I have not therefore commenced any other action or proceeding or filed any
claim involving the same issues or matter in any court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of my
knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending therein; if I should thereafter learn that the same or
similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or
any other tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, I undertake to report such fact within five (5) days therefrom to the
court or agency wherein the original pleading and sworn certification contemplated herein have been filed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 6th day of December 2014 at Daraga,
Albay, Philippines.
MIA C. SANCHEZ
Affiant
TIN 98765-003; Iloilo City
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, this 6th day of December 2014, affiant exhibiting to me
his Tax Identification Card as shown above below his name as competent evidence of his identity.
ATTY. TOM HARDY Ll. LUBIANO
Lubiano Law Office, PAMA Subdivision, Daraga, Albay
PTR NO. 654321, 01/06/14, Daraga, Albay
IBP NO. 123456, 01/04/14, Daraga, Albay
MCLE Comp. No. IV-0009876, 01/02/14
Doc. No. 5;
Page No. 2;
Book No. 1;
Series of 2016
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 1
7th Judicial Region
Bulwagan ng Katarungan
New Capitol Site, Tagbilaran City, Bohol
SPOUSES FLOYD M. WEATHER and CIVIL CASE NO. 123456

DIONISIA MAY-WEATHER, FOR: Damages
Plaintiffs,
-versus-
THE PAKYAW HOTEL AND CASINO

Defendant
x--------------------------------------------------x
COMPLAINT
COMES NOW the plaintiffs, spouses FLOYD M. WEATHER and DIONISIA MAY-WEATHER,
through the undersigned and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully states:
1. That the plaintiff FLOYD WEATHER, is of legal age, Filipino, married to Dionisa May-Weather, and is a
resident of 69 Las Vegas Street, Tagbilaran City, Bohol, where he can be served with summons and other
processes of this Honorable Court;
2. That the plaintiff DIONISIA MAY-WEATHER, is also of legal age, Filipino and married to Floyd Weather
and is a resident of 69 Las Vegas Street, Tagbilaran City, Bohol;
3. That plaintiff FLOYD M. WEATHER is a boxer and a celebrity, being the reigning World Boxing
Council – World Welterweight Champion;
4. That plaintiff DIONISIA MAY-WEATHER is herself a well-known local celebrity, socialite and
entrepreneur;
5. That the defendant, THE PAKYAW HOTEL AND CASINO is a domestic corporation incorporated in
Tagbilaran City with principal address at 111 New York Street, Philadelphia District, Tagbilaran City;
6. That both parties have the capacity to sue and be sued;
7. That said Hotel and Casino is a 5-star establishment and known in the locality to be the best hotel for
the affluents and well-to-dos;
8. That sometime in May 2015, said couple contacted the defendant through their General Manager,
Mr. Freddie R. Coach to inquire whether they accept bookings for weddings, specifically on the date
September 14, 2015, specifying that they were in a hurry to get married as herein plaintiff DIONISIA
MAY-WEATHER was already pregnant and didn’t want to show the baby bump on her wedding day and that
said date was very special to them as this was the day that they officially became a couple;
9. That said General Manager confirmed the availability of said date, prompting the plaintiffs to schedule
a go-see of the venue on the following day;
10. That on the following day, the plaintiffs personally inspected the hotel’s chapel, function hall for the
reception and rooms for their guests and the General Manager confirmed the availability of the hotel to
accommodate their wedding on September 14, 2015;
11. That the General Manager confirmed once again the availability of their facilities for the said wedding;
12. That on June 5, 2015, herein plaintiffs brought the much sought-after wedding coordinator Jinky P.
Winky from Macau for another go-see of The Pakyaw Hotel and Casino, including a 3-day stay
therein;
13. That the plaintiffs spent a total of Twenty Six Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty Four and 21/100
Pesos (Php26,824.21) for the airfare of said coordinator. Photocopy of said plane ticket receipt
attached herein as “Annex A”;
14. That the plaintiffs likewise spent a total of Fifteen Thousand Pesos (Php15,000.00) for hotel and
accommodation fees. Photocopy of said receipt attached herein as “Annex B”;
15. That the plaintiffs likewise spent Ten Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Pesos (Php10,450.00) as
professional fee of said coordinator. Photocopy of billing and receipt of professional fee attached
herein as “Annex C”;
16. That the plaintiffs, coordinator, General Manager as well as the defendant hotel’s Events Director
Princess P. Pak proceeded with the wine and food tasting, determination of the rooms and venue of
the wedding and reception, with the plaintiffs spending a total of Five Thousand Pesos (Php5,000.00)
for the said preparatory activities. Photocopy of said receipt attached herein as “Annex D”;
17. That on June 18, 2015, the General Manager sent a billing to the plaintiffs for the package food and
accommodation for a total of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php100,000.00), requiring a down
payment of Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php50,000.00) AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Photocopy of said
billing attached herein as “Annex E”;
18. That on June 19, 2015, herein plaintiffs verbally conferred with the General Manager if it was possible
to pay only Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (Php25,000.00) with the rest of the required down payment
to be paid in August and the remaining Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php50,000.00) on the first week of
September, 2015. The General Manager agreed and the plaintiffs paid the said amount on the same
day, in cash. Photocopy of the receipt attached herein as “Annex F”;
19. That the plaintiffs proceeded with the preparations for their wedding, including the sending out of
invitations setting forth the venue of their wedding as The Pakyaw Hotel and Casino. Said invitations
costing Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php50,000.00). Photocopy of the receipt attached herein as “Annex
G” and photocopy of the invitation attached as “Annex J”;
20. That on July 3, 2015, the plaintiffs received a call from the General Manager indicating that the hotel
will no longer be able to accommodate their wedding on September 14, 2015, stating their failure to
pay the total amount of down payment required and asking them for a bank account number to which
the Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (Php25,000.00) that they already paid may be deposited;
21. That the plaintiffs refused to accept the amount by not furnishing any bank account number and
demanded a meeting with the General Manager.
22. That the plaintiffs immediately went to see the General Manager at the hotel for a clarification on the
matter but that said manager was nowhere to be found and they were merely informed that said person
was attending to other important matters;
23. That on the following day, a Bobby P. Yao, claiming to be a messenger of The Pakyaw Hotel and
Casino went to the plaintiffs’ residence at 69 Las Vegas Street to deliver the amount of Twenty Five
Thousand Pesos (Php25,000.00);
24. That said messenger pleaded with Floyd M. Weather to accept the delivery or else he might lose his
job if he fails to perform the task assigned to him;
25. That on account of said pleading, Floyd M. Weather accepted the amount;
26. That in the following days, herein plaintiffs continued to get in touch with the General Manager and
any representative from The Pakyaw Hotel and Casino to obtain any clarification on the matter but it
was to no avail;
27. That the plaintiffs were compelled to book the much cheaper Inadlaw Hotel which was the only other
available venue in the city on the said date;
28. That on July 20, 2015, plaintiffs were likewise compelled to fly in their coordinator to inspect the
venue, spending Seventeen Thousand Four Hundred Eighteen Pesos (Php17,418.00). Photocopy of
the air plane ticket attached herein as “Annex H”;
29. That plaintiffs spent another Five Thousand Two Hundred Twenty Five Pesos (Php5,225.00) as
professional fee of the coordinator. Photocopy of the receipt attached herein as “Annex I”;
30. That it was the duty of The Pakyaw Hotel and Casino to timely communicate any restrictions or
limitations on the capacity to accommodate the plaintiffs, knowing the exigency of the wedding
ceremony;
31. That The Pakyaw Hotel and Casino accommodated herein plaintiffs, confirming the availability and
willingness of the establishment to cater to a most joyous and once in a lifetime event in the couple’s
lives, willfully causing the plaintiffs to believe that they can celebrate their wedding therein;
32. That without much explanation or offer of consolation of any kind, The Pakyaw Hotel and Casino
terminated its agreement with herein plaintiffs, leaving the latter to endure further agony and stress in
redoing their wedding preparations, wasting herein plaintiffs’ precious time;
33. That as a result of said wanton disregard for the interests of the plaintiffs, The Pakyaw Hotel and
Casino caused actual damages to the plaintiffs;
34. That as a result of the willful and flagrant disregard of The Pakyaw Hotel and Casino for its clients,
plaintiffs suffered embarrassment and humiliation from initially announcing that their wedding will be
held in a first class hotel and eventually celebrating the same in a lower class one, not at par with the
plaintiffs’ status in life and not in accordance with the bride’s earnest wishes;
35. That as a result of The Pakyaw Hotel and Casino’s gross negligence and willful and flagrant
disregards for their clients, herein plaintiff Dionisia May-Weather suffered sleepless nights, anxiety
and social humiliation that her dream wedding may not be celebrated in time, such mental anguish
physically manifested in the then pregnant bride-to-be’s delicate condition, prompting her to be
hospitalized for two days and required bed rest for seven more days;
36. That the willful, flagrant and malicious disregard of the defendant has worked as an injustice to the
rights of the plaintiffs;
37. That as a consequence, plaintiffs were compelled to institute the instant action against the defendant.
They were constrained to retain the services of counsel to whom they paid an acceptance fee of Forty
Thousand Pesos (Php40,000.00) and bound themselves to pay the undersigned counsel an appearance
fee of One Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (Php1,500.00) per appearance;
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, the forgoing premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that this
Honorable Court render judgment ordering Defendant to pay herein Plaintiff the following amounts:
1. Php129,925.00, representing the actual damages suffered by the plaintiffs;
2. Php100,000.00 as moral damages
3. Php100,000.00 as exemplary damages
4. Php40,000.00 as attorney’s fee;
Plaintiffs likewise pray for such other reliefs as are just and equitable under the premises.
SO PRAYED.
Tagbilaran City.
December 10, 2015
BOB S. ARUMA
Cousel for the Plaintiffs
PTR No. 1234567/01-06-15/Tagbilaran City
IBP No. 123456/11-06-10/Tagbilaran City
Roll No. 123456
MCLE No. 123456, Series of 2015,
dated March 5, 2015
13th Floor, RRL Building, Washington St., Tagbilaran City, Bohol
PROVINCE OF BOHOL )S.S.
CITY OF TAGBILARAN
VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING
We, FLOYD M. WEATHER and DIONISIA MAY-WEATHER, of legal age, Filipino and residents of 69
Las Vegas Street, Tagbilaran City, Bohol, Philippines, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with the law
hereby depose and say:
1. That we are plaintiffs in the above-entitled case;
2. That we caused the preparation of the foregoing complaint;
3. That we have read and understood the contents therein and that they are true and correct out of our
own personal knowledge;
4. That we personally know that the instant case had not been filed before any judicial or administrative
forum; nor is there any pending case for the same cause of action involving the same parties; that in
the event that there is such before any judicial body or agency; we bind ourselves to notify the court
within a period of five (5) days from such knowledge.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hand this 10th day December, 2015 at
Tagbilaran City.
FLOYD M. WEATHER
Affiant
LTO Driver’s License No. 123456
Issued on November 6, 2014
At Tagbilaran City, Bohol
DIONISIA MAY-WEATHER
Affiant
LTO Driver’s License No. 654321
Issued on September 18, 2015
At Tagbilaran City, Bohol
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 10th day of December, 2015 at Tagbilaran City, the
Affiants, exhibiting to me their LTO Driver’s Licenses as aforewritten.
BOB S. ARUMA
Notary Public until 12-31-15
Roll No. 123456
MCLE No. 123456, Series of 2015, dated March 5, 2015
Doc No. ________

Page No. ________
Book No. ________
Series of 2015.
CITY OF TAGBILARAN
COMPLAINT- AFFIDAVIT
I, MANNY M. WEATHER, Filipino, of legal age, with office address at Rm. 69 Dionisia Bldg., Hen.
Luna cor. Bonifacio Sts., Cogon District, Tagbilaran City, Bohol, after having been duly sworn in accordance
with law, do hereby depose and state that:
1. I am the present General Manager of PACMAN TRAILER LEASING CORP., said company
being a domestic corporation engaged in the business of trailer leasing and other allied services
with principal office at Rm. 69 Dionisia Bldg., Hen. Luna cor. Bonifacio Sts., Cogon District,
Tagbilaran City, Bohol, hereinafter referred to as "PTLC" for brevity;
2. Along with my duties and responsibilities as such, is to represent the company in the cases it files
before any court/tribunal/judicial agency in order to protect its interests, as manifested in the herein
attached Secretary’s Certificate and herein marked as Annex "A";
3. As mentioned above, PTLC is engaged in the business of trailer leasing and other allied services,
and among its clients is an establishment engaged in trucking business, known as “PEOPLE’S
CHAMP MARKETING" owned and managed by MR. FLOYD M. PAKYAW & MS. JINKY
P. PAKYAW;
4. Said business establishment has its known office address at #123 Jose Rizal St., Dampas District,
Tagbilaran City, Bohol as represented by its Owners/Proprietors MR. FLOYD M. PAKYAW &
MS. JINKY P. PAKYAW with the same residence address at the aforementioned business
address, who are authorized to accept summons and legal processes in all legal proceedings & all
notices affecting the aforementioned establishment at its aforementioned business address;
5. On various dates commencing from January 2014 up to March 2014, MR. FLOYD M. PAKYAW
& MS. JINKY P. PAKYAW, doing business under the name of PEOPLE’S CHAMP
MARKETING, engaged the services of PTLC in furtherance of their business activity. In the
course thereof, PEOPLE’S CHAMP MARKETING has incurred several unpaid obligations to
PTLC;
6. Commencing from January 2014, PEOPLE’S CHAMP MARKETING has failed to pay their
accounts regularly to PTLC which in turn made them incurred a total obligation of ONE
HUNDRED NINETY SIX THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTEEN PESOS and
EIGHTY FOUR CENTAVOS (PHP196,418.84) as reflected in the herein attached Statement of
Account as of January 08, 2015, and marked as Annex “B”;
7. From that date onwards, PTLC found it hard to collect for payments from PEOPLE’S CHAMP
MARKETING in spite of several demand letters which were sent to and received by them;
8. However, on October 27, 2014, MS. JINKY P. PAKYAW and/or PEOPLE’S CHAMP
MARKETING tendered to PTLC a post-dated EQUITABLE PCI BANK CHECK dated
October 27, 2014, with Serial No. 1234567, amounting to TEN THOUSAND PESOS
(PHP10,000.00), supposedly representing their payment for their “Cash Bond”. Photocopy of the
said check is hereto attached and marked as Annex “C”;
9. Consequently, when negotiated/presented for payment to the drawee bank, aforesaid check was
returned unpaid by the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), U.N. Avenue Branch, with
business address at United Nations Avenue, Manila, on the specified date therein, for reason that it
is “DRAWN AGAINST INSUFFICIENT FUNDS”, as seen in the attached Annex “D” hereof;
10. Proper notifications and demand were made and sent to MR. FLOYD M. PAKYAW & MS.
JINKY P. PAKYAW, the latter being the signatory of the check, so that they or she could replace
them with CASH and/or settle said accountability with the reason of the return thereof. Copy of
the latest demand letter is hereto attached and marked as Annex “E” hereof;
11. In spite of the successive demand letter sent by our in-house counsel, MS. JINKY P. PAKYAW
and/or PEOPLE’S CHAMP MARKETING, failed and refused, and continue to fail and refuse
to redeem in cash the face amount of the unfunded returned check. Filing of this case was even
suspended for almost several times already just to give them the ample time and opportunity to
settle their obligations in full, but the same served futile;
12. I am executing this affidavit to attest to the truth of the foregoing facts and for the purpose of
charging MS. JINKY P. PAKYAW as one of the Owner/Proprietor of their business PEOPLE’S
CHAMP MARKETING for violation of the provisions of BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 22.
AFFIANT FURTHER SAYETH NAUGHT.

Makati City for Manila, Philippines, January 08, 2008.
PACMAN TRAILER LEASING CORP.

Complainant
By:
MANNY M. WEATHER
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, this 10th day of December, at Tabilaran City, affiant
exhibiting to me his CTC No. 123456, issued on January 10, 2015 at Tagbilaran City.
FREDDIE R. COACH
Asst. City Prosecutor
PCO – Tagbilaran City
MCLE Compliance No.123
Officer-In-Charge
I hereby certify that I have personally examined the affiant and that I am fully satisfied that he
voluntarily executed and understood her sworn statement.
FREDDIE R. COACH
Asst. City Prosecutor
PCO – Tagbilaran City
MCLE Compliance No.123
Officer-In-Charge
DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
This DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE is made, executed and entered into by:
FLOYD M. WEATHER, of legal age, married to DIONISIA MAY-WEATHER, Filipino, and with
residence and postal address at 69 Las Vegas Street, Tagbilaran City, Bohol , hereinafter referred to as
the SELLER
-AND-
MANNY D. PAKYAW, Filipino and with residence and postal address at #123 Jose Rizal St., Dampas
District, Tagbilaran City, Bohol, hereinafter referred to as the BUYER.
WITNESSETH;
WHEREAS, the SELLER is the registered owner of a parcel of land with improvements located at 123
Heneral Luna St., Cogon District, Tagbilaran City and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 123456
containing a total area of ONE THOUSAND (1000) SQUARE METERS, more or less, and more
particularly described as follows:
TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. 123456
"A PARCEL OF LAND (Lot 10 Blk 20 of consolidation subdivision plan (LRC) Pcs-13265, being a
portion of the consolidation of Lots 4751-A and 4751-B (LRC) Psd-50533, Lot 3, Psd-100703, Lot 1, Psd-
150980, LRC Rec. Nos. Nos. N-27024, 51768, 89632, N-11782, N-13466, and 21071 situated in the Bo. of
Cogon District, City of Tagbilaran, Province of Bohol, Is. of Bohol. Bounded on NE., point 4 to 1 by Road
Lot 11, on to the point of beginning; containing an area of (280) square meters more or less."
WHEREAS, the BUYER has offered to buy and the SELLER has agreed to sell the above mentioned
property for the amount of TEN MILLION PESOS (P 10,000,000.00) Philippine Currency;
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of (TEN MILLION PESOS) (P

10,000,000.00) Philippine Currency, hand paid by the vendee to the vendor, the SELLER DO HEREBY
SELL, TRANSFER, and CONVEY by way of Absolute Sale unto the said BUYER, his heirs and assigns, the
certain parcel of land together with all the improvements found thereon, free from all liens and encumbrances
of whatever nature including real estate taxes as of the date of this sale. .
FLOYD M. WEATHER MANNY D. PAKYAW

Seller Buyer
WITH MARITAL CONSENT:
DIONISIA MAY-WEATHER JINKY PAC-PAKYAW

Name of Seller's Spouse Name of Buyer's Spouse
SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:
FREDDIE R. COACH BOB S. ARUMA
ACKNOWLEDGMENT

CITY OF TAGBILARAN
BEFORE ME, a Notary Public for and in the City of Tagbilaran, personally appeared:
Name CTC Number Date/Place Issued
FLOYD WEATHER 12345678 Jan 15, 2015 / Tagbilaran City
MANNY D. PAKYAW 87654321 Jan 19, 2015 / Tagbilaran City
Known to me and to me known to be the same persons who executed the foregoing instrument and
acknowledged to me that the same are their free act and voluntary deed.
This instrument, consisting of two (2) pages, including the page on which this acknowledgment is written, has
been signed on the left margin of each and every page thereof by the concerned parties and their witnesses,
and sealed with my notarial seal.
WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL on this 10th day of December 2015 at Tagbilaran City.
BOB S. ARUMA
Notary Public until 12-31-15
Roll No. 123456
MCLE No. 123456, Series of 2015,
dated March 5, 2015
Doc No. ________

Page No. ________
Book No. ________
Series of 2015.
COMPLAINT BASED ON AN ACTIONABLE DOCUMENT (One Cause of Action)

(Caption)
COMPLAINT
COMES NOW the plaintiff, by the undersigned counsel, and to this Honorable Court,
respectfullyalleges:
1. That the plaintiff is of legal age, Filipino citizen and resident of No.7 Agoo Street, QuezonCity and the
defendant is also of legal age, Filipino citizen and a resident of No. 19 Dagupan Street, Tondo, Manila where
he may be served with summons;
2. That on or about January 1, 1983, defendant obtained a loan of P20,000.00 from theplaintiff payable within
90 days from date of receipt at 12% per annum;
3. That said loan, now overdue, is evidenced by a promissory note signed by the defendant,a copy of which is
hereto attached as “annex A” and made part of thisc omplaint;
4. That despite repeated demands, both written and oral, defendant has failed and refusedto apply said loan;
5. That due to the unjust and unlawful act of the defendant to comply with the saiddemands, the plaintiff was
compelled to institute this action engaging the services ofcounsel in the amount of P1,000.00
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered against the defendant to paythe plaintiff
the sum of P20,000.00 plus interest of 12% from the date of the instrument until full amount is paid and
attorney’s fees in the amount of P1,000.00 and costs of the suit.
Other equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.
June 19, 1991, Quezon City.
ATTY. MARK HARRY LITA
Attorney for Plaintiff
________________________
Address
P.T.R. No. 12 Date & Place of Issue: June 23, 1991

IBP O.R. No.232 Date & Place of Issue June 24, 991
INFORMATIO
N
PAO FORM No. 2010-17
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
, BRANCH
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,
-versus- Crim. Case No.

JUAN DELA CRUZ,
PEDRO DELA CRUZ,
MARIO DELA CRUZ
Accused.
x--------------------------------------------x
MOTION TO QUASH AMENDED INFORMATION

Accused-movant JUAN DELA CRUZ, represented by the PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S
OFFICE, to his Honorable Court, most respectfully avers:
1. Accused Juan Dela Cruz stands charged with the crimes of Robbery with Homicide
and Frustrated Homicide under an Amended Information which alleged:

nd
“That on or about the 22 day of August, 2005, in Quezon City, Philippines,
the said accused, conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping
each other, with intent to gain, by means of violence against and intimidation
of persons, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously rob the
NILOOBAN PAINT STORE, located at No. 1234 NIA Road, Brgy. Pinyahan,
this City, owned by JUANITO NILOOBAN y DUCUT in the following manner, to
wit: said accused robbed and carried away an undetermined amount of cash money,
and by reason of the robbery or on occasion of said Robbery, said accused with
intent to kill, shot JUANITO NILOOBAN y DUCUT, WILBERT MURIAGA y
SULIT and GARY MURIAGA y
SULIT, several times, thereby inflicting upon them fatal physical injuries which
caused the untimely death of Juanito Nilooban y Ducut and Gary Muriaga y Sulit,
accused performed all the acts of execution that would have produced the crime of
Homicide with regard to Wilbert Muriaga y Sulit as a consequence, but the
crime is not produced by reason of causes independent of the will of the accused, to
the damage and prejudice of the said offended parties.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
2. Based on the above-quoted Information, it appears that the allegations in the Amended
Information is glaringly defective and should be quashed on two (2) grounds:
a) The aforesaid Amended Information charges the accused of more than one
offense, in violation of Sec. 13, Rule 110 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal
1
Procedure;
b) The Court has no jurisdiction over the person of the accused, the latter having
been arrested without a valid warrant of arrest;
3. A cursory glance of the assailed Amended Information readily shows that the accused was
being charged with two (2) separate offenses under one criminal Information, Robbery
with Homicide and Frustrated Homicide, despite the fact that the two (2) alleged
incidents arose from one occasion. Such improper merger of two (2) separate offenses is
highly prejudicial to the accused unless this Honorable Court declares the said defective
Amended Information as invalid and consequently dismissed.
4. Moreover, the said defective Amended Information alleged:
“x x x said accused with intent to kill shot JUANITO NILOOBAN y DUCUT,

WILBERT MURIAGA y SULIT and GARY MURIAGA y SULIT, several times, x
x x”
In effect, the accused were charged with several distinct and separate crimes, because
of the phrase “several times”. There is therefore an obvious duplicity of charges which
accused-movant seeks to avoid.
5. In one analogous case, the Supreme Court held that where in describing the offense of
murder with double less serious physical injuries, the information states that appellant
“feloniously attack, assault and shoot for several times the victims,” it in
1
SEC. 13. Duplicity of the offense. – A complaint or information must charge only one offense, except
when the law prescribes a single punishment for various offenses.
effect charged the accused with several distinct and separate crimes, as it is the
allegations or actual recitals in the information rather than the technical description of the
2 3
crime that controls. Likewise, in the case of People v. Ducay, the Supreme
Court ruled that several victims dying from separate shots constitute separate
offenses although charged only in one information.
4 5
6. In People v. Palijon, et al., citing People v. Pamintuan, the Supreme Court held that the
physical injuries committed during or on occasion of robo con homicidio, are
absorbed therein, irrespective of the number of homicides or physical injuries committed.
7. In the case at bar, both the alleged killing and the physical injuries described in the
Amended Information were perpetrated during the alleged robbery with the objective of
removing both opposition and witnesses to the robbery. The physical injuries allegedly
inflicted against complainant Wilbert Muriaga and the alleged killing of Juanito
Nilooban y Ducut and Gary Muriaga y Sulit should be merged in the composite, integrated
whole of robbery with homicide— it being clear that both the killing and physical injuries
were perpetrated with the end in view of removing all

6
opposition to the robbery, suppressing the relevant evidence or both. Thus, it is
respectfully submitted that the insofar as the allegation as to the alleged Frustrated
Homicide of private complainant Wilbert Muriaga, as stated in the challenged Amended
Information, there should be no separate charge for the same, considering that the same arose
of and is deemed absorbed in Robbery with Homicide.
2
People v. Peralta, 193 SCRA 9, January 18, 1991.
3
225 SCRA 1.
4
343 SCRA 486.
5
222 SCRA 716
6
See People v. Lascuna, 225 SCRA 286, 404, (1993).
8. Finally, accused Juan Dela Cruz was illegally arrested as revealed by the Joint
Affidavit of the arresting officers namely, SPO1 Ricardo Magtugis and PO3 Elpidio
Magsiyasat. Noteworthy, that the alleged Robbery incident occurred on August 22, 2005
whereas the warrantless arrest of accused-movant Juan Dela Cruz was effected by virtue of
a follow-up operation conducted by the police only on August 24, 2005 or two (2) days
after the alleged robbery incident. Surely, the alleged follow-up operation of the arresting
team that led to the warrantless arrest of accused Juan Dela Cruz could not be stretched
beyond what the Constitution and Rules of Court have empowered our law enforcement
officers. Said follow-up operation that led to the supposed warrantless arrest of accused
Juan Dela Cruz could not be interpreted as a “hot-pursuit”. Hence, the apprehension of
accused Juan Dela Cruz was improper for inquest investigation. On this ground, the
Amended Information should likewise be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court over the person of accused Juan Dela Cruz.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court
that the Amended Information be QUASHED for having duplicity of offenses and for lack of
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court over the person of accused Juan Dela Cruz.
Other reliefs that are just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.
PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
Manila City District Office
By:
ATTY. MARK HARRY L. LITA

Public Attorney II
Roll No.
IBP No.
MCLE Compliance No. II:
PAO Code Book 90 of 375

PAO FORM No. 2018
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH ,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,
-versus- Crim. Case No.
JUANA DELA CRUZ,

Accused.
x-----------------------------------------------x
MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON

DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE
ACCUSED, by counsel, unto this Honorable Court, with prior leave of court, most
respectfully moves to dismiss the above-entitled criminal case against accused Juana Dela Cruz, by
way of demurrer, due to insufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence, and respectfully avers:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
Juana Dela Cruz was indicted for the crime of QUALIFIED THEFT under an Information,
which alleges:
st
“That on or about the 1 day of July 2002, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said
accused, being then employed as vault keeper of Big Time Pawnshop represented by
Alex Pingas y Garcia, located at No. 21-C Shorthorn St., Brgy. Pinyahan, Quezon
City, and as such have free access to the place where the properties are kept and
with grave abuse of confidence reposed to her by her employer, with intent to gain and
without the knowledge and consent of the owner thereof, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away various jewelry (sic) worth
P400,000.00 and cash in the amount of P26,000.00 belonging to Big Time Pawnshop
represented by Alex Pangan y Garcia, to the damage and prejudice of said offended
party in the total amount of P426,000.0, Philippine Currency.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”
During arraignment, accused with the assistance of her counsel de parte in the person
of Atty. Martin Mystica, pled not guilty to the information. Thereafter trial proceedings ensued.
The prosecution sought to prove the guilt of the accused through circumstantial
evidence through the testimonies of its four (4) witnesses, namely: complainant Mr. Alex Pingas,
SPO2 Felix Pajaging, PC/Insp. Ruel Declaro, and Estrellita Estemalipala.
ALEX PINGAS, the complainant in this case, substantially testified that accused Juana
Dela Cruz was his employee for more or less ten (10) years in his pawnshop business.
Accused was hired as a teller at Subasta Pawnshop located La Loma, Quezon City. Accused was
later assigned as a vault custodian and appraiser at Big Apple Pawnshop located at 21 Shorthorn
7
Street, Brgy. Pinyahan, Quezon City.
On July 1, 2002, at around 8:15 o’clock in the morning, while he was at the Subasta
Pawnshop, he received a telephone call from Juana Dela Cruz informing him that she just arrived
at Big Time Pawnshop to open the said shop. According to Juana Dela Cruz, his pawnshop was
robbed. He proceeded to the Big Time Pawnshop to see for himself what happened thereat.
There, he examined that vault and noticed that the said vault was not forcibly opened, nor
destroyed. He reported the matter to Police Station 3 at Pinyahan, Quezon City, where SP03
Felix Pajaging went back with him the Big Time Pawnshop to investigate. Operatives from the,
SOCO (Scene of the Crime Operation) also arrived at the Big Time Pawnshop to gather some
fingerprints.
After the SOCO operatives left, he instructed accused Juana Dela Cruz to close the Big Time
Pawnshop, and that both of them are to proceed to Subasta Pawnshop.
7
TSN, Dec. 2, 2003.

He instructed accused Juana Dela Cruz, to continue reporting for work, which Juana
complied, as the latter came to work for the next three days after the robbery incident, after which,
he decided to suspend accused from her work for fifteen (15) days. He reasoned that the cause
of Juana’s suspension from her work was due to the on-going investigation and accused might
overhear his conversation with the investigator on the phone and that Juana was his main suspect
in the robbery.
Juana, however, did not report back to work anymore even after the lapse of her fifteen
(15) days suspension. He strongly suspects accused Juana Dela Cruz to be responsible for the
robbery because of his observation that the vault was opened without having been destroyed. In
support of his speculation, that accused Juana Dela Cruz is his suspect for the robbery, he opined
that in his 15 years in the (pawnshop) business, he has never heard of a case where the vault was
opened by the robbers, without destroying the dial. He added that it was only accused Juana Dela
Cruz who has custody of the keys as

8
well as the combination.
During cross-examination, complainant Alex Pingas was steadfast in his claim that it was
Juana who committed the crime, thus:
“Q That Juana Dela Cruz was your employee for almost ten years and her
employment was cut short by your decision to dismiss her from your
employment, is that correct?
A No, sir.
Q How was she separated from her work?
A We suspended her for fifteen days and she did not come back, sir.
Q And the reason why you suspended her for fifteen days was because
of your suspicion that she may have some connivance with the
thieves who entered your pawnshop, is that correct?
8
TSN, Dec. 2, 2003.

A Not only suspicion, I know she is the main suspect in the robbery,
9
sir.”
xxx xxx xxx
“Q You mentioned during your direct examination that three days

after the robbery incident, you suspended the accused Juana
Dela Cruz for fifteen days but you are really suspecting her
of being involved in that robbery?
A Yes, sir.
Q But you have no direct evidence yet that she was directly
involved?
A Yes, sir.
Q So you have no basis yet to suspend her from her work

considering that you have no evidence yet to suspect that
she had something to do with that robbery?
A No direct evidence but circumstantial evidence, sir.
Q Despite the fact that she has been working for you for ten years,
you still suspected her?
A Yes, sir, because the combination was not destroyed.
Q At the time you suspended her from work, did you personally
inform her that she was your suspect and that is why she was
being suspended?
A I told her that she was being suspended because a robbery was
committed in the shop and she was the one- in-charge and that
the robbery is under investigation.
Q But there were no findings yet by the police or by the SOCO

that she was directly linked to that crime, you suspended
her nevertheless, despite the fact that the case is still under
investigation?
A I also conducted my own investigation, sir. Q
What kind of investigation did you do?
A I checked everything and because she was the only one in the
10
shop during that time.”
9
TSN, Aug. 18, 2004, pp. 4-5.
10
Ibid., pp. 11-13.

xxx xxx xxx
“Q After you told her that she is suspended for fifteen days, she
never again reported back to work?
A That is right, sir.
Q And were you even surprised why she never reported back for
work after you suspended her, having suspected her of being
involved in that robbery?
A No, sir, because when she did not come back, I presumed that
she has done something.
Q Did it occur to you that the reason why she did not report
anymore for work was because you might have hurt her
feelings, because you had the temerity of accusing her for
having something to do with the robbery?
A No, sir.
Q It did not occur to you that you might have hurt her feelings?
A No, sir, I received a complaint from the NLRC.
Q So, Juana filed an illegal dismissal case against you? A
11
Yes, sir.”
SPO2 FELIX PAJAGING, the assigned investigator in this case testified that on July 1,
2002 at around 10:30 o’clock in the morning complainant Alex Pingas arrived at his office at Station
3 and reported that his pawnshop was robbed. He notified the Crime Laboratory, particularly the
SOCO team, to gather fingerprints at the pawnshop. He went with Mr. Pingas at the Big Time
pawnshop and arrived thereat between 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m.
Upon arrival thereat, he noticed that the padlock of the passage toward the residential
apartment was opened. He identified in court the pictures taken by Mr. Alex Pingas which
were shot on July 16, 2002. The SOCO team headed by Pol. Insp. Declaro
11
Ibid., pp. 13-14.

arrived and gathered finger prints. He likewise admitted that there were no suspects at the
time, thus:
“Q At the time you took the statement of Mr. Pingas in this case, did
you have any suspects at that time?
A At that time sir, I have no suspects at that time but according to

complainant Pingas he said that [he] has a suspect who did the crime
and it was Juana Dela Cruz.
xxx xxx xxx
Q What was the basis of Mr. Pingas, the private complainant in this case
when he said that he has a suspect, and this was the accused in this
case when you conducted the investigation on July 1, 2002.
A According to Mr. Pingas the person who has an access and at the same
12
time who keeps the key of the vault is Juana Dela Cruz.”
xxx xxx xxx
“Q What was your conclusion regarding this incident as

reflected in your report?
A After [I] took all the statements of the complainant and

witnesses, I had the conclusion, based on the testimonies of
the private complainant and the witnesses, I made a
conclusion of a circumstantial evidence based on the
testimony of Florida and Estrellita. And one of the basis is the
vault itself, the vault was opened without any force, so it
might be open[ed] by Juana Dela Cruz who knows the
combination or there are other person who
13
knows the combination.”
During cross-examination, SPO2 Pajaging admitted that the referral to the prosecutor’s
office was immediately forwarded based only on the suspicions of complainant Alex Pingas that
Juana Dela Cruz is the suspect, despite the fact that the SOCO team has yet to submit its report on
the evidence gathered at the crime scene, thus:
“Q So, Mr. Witness, you would agree with me that the accused was
present when you arrived at the Big Time Pawnshop?
A She was present, sir.
Q She did not try to run away when you and the other persons arrived?
12
TSN, Oct. 6, 2004, pp. 11-12.
13
Ibid., p. 17.

A No, sir.
Q And some operatives arrived? A
The SOCO team, sir.
Q Now, what was the result o the investigation of the SOCO?
A Up to the present I don’t have a copy of the result coming from the
Crime Laboratory, sir.
Q Are you saying Mr. Witness, that you proceeded with the
recommendation of this case for referral to the Prosecutor’s
Office even without waiting for the result of SOCO crime
laboratory?
A Only based on my investigation and the testimonies of two

witnesses I gathered and the documentary evidence.
Q As an experienced investigator, did you find it unnecessary to

await the SOCO result before referral of this case to the
Prosecutor’s Office against the accused?
A I wasn’t able to wait for the result of the SOCO but the case was
14
already filed with the Prosecutor’s Office.”
xxx xxx xxx
“Q Mr. Witness, did Mr. Pingas tell you how he discovered this
robbery of his pawnshop?
A Actually, according to him he suspected that Juana Dela Cruz as

the one who robbed his pawnshop.
xxx xxx xxx
Q Would you say that as a result of your investigation, there was no

suspect at first?
A During the time of my investigation?
Q Yes, you have no suspect in your mind? A
Yes, sir.
Q And it was only complainant Pingas who told you that Juana
Dela Cruz was his suspect who robbed his pawnshop, and
you considered the case solved?
15
A Based on his statement, sir.”
14
Ibid., p. 20.
15
Ibid., pp. 22-24.

The next witness to testify was PC/ Insp. RUEL DECLARO, the representative from the
SOCO. Declaro testified that on July 1, 2002, he received a telephone call from SPO2 Felix
Pajaging and informed him about a robbery which occurred at the Big Time Pawnshop located at No.
21-C Shorthorn Street, Barangay Pinyahan, Quezon City. A SOCO team was formed composed of
the team leader, fingerprint technician, photographer, driver and the evidence clerk. They
proceeded to the place of the incident and arrived at 11:45 a.m.
Upon arrival thereat, they determined the whole area of the crime scene, conducted crime
interpretation and started to process the possible evidence gathered. According to Declaro there
was no forcible entry. As far as he knows, the robbers entered and exited through the back door.
He presented in court photographs of the scene. Declaro noted that there was no force applied in
opening the vault, because the lock can still be moved.
Declaro likewise admitted that although latent fingerprints were gathered from the crime
scene, the SOCO office never submitted its report to the investigator or prosecutor’s office, nor did
it bothered to process the results to determine to whom the said fingerprints belonged to. The
SOCO team never asked the accused, and other personnel of Big Time Pawnshop to give samples
of their fingerprints for comparison with the said fingerprints lifted from the crime scene.
Thus, he testified, to wit:
“Q At the time you went to the crime scene, was

there already a suspect?
A It was not yet established, sir.
Q You mentioned about the taking of fingerprints, do you have any

result of the fingerprints taken from the crime scene?
A Since there was no suspect at that time, we have not

arrived to any examination, sir.
Q There was no examination on the fingerprints lifted from the

crime scene?

16
A Yes, sir.”
On cross-examination, Vacaro testified:
“Q When did you submit your report to Pajaging? A
We did not submit that report, sir.
Q So this was never received by Pajaging, the investigator? A
No, sir.
Q In fact, this is the first time that you produced this report, it
was never submitted in the Prosecutor’s Office neither to
Pajaging?
A We prepared it on the indicated date, sir.
Q My question was, you did not submit this to Pajaging, the

investigator in this case, and neither was this submitted to
the Prosecutor’s Office?
A No, sir.
Q This is the first time you are bringing this document? A
Yes, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q Mr. witness, you mentioned that your investigation turned up

zero, there was no suspect in this case per your SOCO
investigation?
A We gathered latent prints, subject to examination but the

particular person as to whom these belong or the suspect is
based on the follow-up investigation conducted by the
office on case. We told them we gathered latent prints that
remain in our office for future reference.
Q Until now, there is no result as to whom those prints belong?
A No result yet, sir.
16
TSN, April 6, 2005, pp. 13-14.

Q You have no record whatsoever as to whom those prints
belong?
A No record, sir.
Q Up to this time you have not processed anything about those

prints?
A Not yet, sir. They remain in our office.
Q Is it not that the reason why you did not submit this to
Pajaging, not even to the Prosecutor’s Office, was because
there is no suspect?
A During the preparation of the report, the suspect was not yet
established, sir.
COURT
What is your reason in not submitting that report to the

investigator or the prosecutor’s office?
A We cannot arrive at the final report because there was no

person taken for fingerprinting, your honor.
COURT
Is that SOP in your office?
A In our office, your honor, the questioned latent prints

remain in our office for future reference.
COURT
Is that your SOP, non-submission of your report to the

Fiscal’s Office or office of the investigator?
A Yes, your honor.
COURT
Continue
PUBLIC ATTORNEY:
Mr. Witness, did anyone tell you, whether the complainant

or investigator handling this case, that there is already a
suspect?

A We received subpoena on February 17 and then we received
another subpoena directing me to report in this office to
testify, I had no idea if there is a suspect, sir.
Q So, therefore, SOCO office never bothered to get the

fingerprints of the accused to compare with the latent
fingerprints you lifted from the crime scene?
17
A No, sir.”
The last witness to testify was Estrellita Estemalipala, an employee of complainant Alex
Pingas. The gist of her testimony was that she resigned from her work at Subasta Pawnshop as
she planned to work overseas. She turned over to accused Juana Dela Cruz all the keys to the
pawnshop after she resigned. However, her plan did not materialize, thus she was re-employed
by Alex Pingas as a cashier at Subasta Pawnshop. On July 16, 2002, while at the Subasta Pawnhop,
she saw her employer Alex Pingas placed the bunch of keys on top of a table. She noticed that the
padlocks from the Big Time Pawnshop and some keys were missing. She called the attention of
Mr. Pingas to the fact of said missing keys. Thereafter, Mr. Pingas accompanied her to the police
station to report the loss of the

18
missing keys.
DISCUSSION
The prosecution miserably failed to prove the supposed unbroken chain of circumstantial
evidence that accused Juana Dela Cruz committed the crime of Qualified Theft.
The prosecution was emphasizing the fact that the vault of complainant’s pawnshop was
opened by the robbers without destroying the said vault. However, the prosecution presented as
one of its exhibits (Exh. “E”) a photograph showing the destroyed portion of the grill above the
door, supposedly where the robbers passed through. Noteworthy that if
17
Ibid., pp. 17-22.
18
TSN, August 10, 2005.

accused Juana Dela Cruz would be the one who committed the theft at the said pawnshop, it would
be absurd for her to go through all the trouble of destroying the grills above the pawnshop door,
despite having possession of all the keys to the said pawnshop.
It should be remembered at the outset, the circumstantial evidence consists only of
speculations and probabilities that accused was responsible for the theft/robbery that occurred at Big
Apple Pawnshop.
Noteworthy that prosecution witness PC/Insp. Ruel Declaro, a member of the
responding SOCO team, admitted in court that the latent fingerprints that he lifted was not even
processed for identification to either confirm or establish that the same indeed belonged to
accused Juana Dela Cruz, OR whether said latent fingerprints belonged to persons other that the
accused. The identification of the said latent fingerprints would have ruled out any participation of
accused in the robbery if it were proven that it belonged to other persons, not necessarily accused
Juana Dela Cruz.
As in all criminal cases, speculation and probabilities cannot take the place of proof
19
required to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Evidence showing a mere possibility of guilt, no matter how strong, is

20
insufficient to warrant a conviction.
In the appreciation of evidence in criminal cases, it is a basic tenet that the prosecution has
the burden of persuasion in establishing the guilt of the accused for the offense he is charged –ei
incumbit probation non qui negat. The conviction of the accused must rest not on the weakness
21
of his defense but on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence. It failed to do so in this case.
19
People v Balderas, G.R. No. +106582, July 31, 1997, 276 SCRA 470.
20
People v. Comesario, 306 SCRA 400-404 (1999).
21
People v. Fabon, 328 SCRA 302, 318 (200); citing People v. Masalihit, 300 SCRA 147 [1998]; People
v. Olivarez, Jr., 299 SCRA 635 [1998].

Otherwise, we will see the absurdity of an accused being put in a more difficult
22
position where the prosecution’s evidence is vague and weak than where it is strong.
The presumption of innocence is founded upon the basic principles of justice and is
23
a substantial part of the law, it cannot be overcome by mere suspicion or conjecture. Under
our criminal justice system, the overriding consideration is not whether the court doubts the
innocence of the accused but whether it entertains a reasonable doubt as to his

24
guilt. This applies with more vigor in the case at bar where the evidence of the prosecution is
25
purely circumstantial. A judgment of conviction must rest on nothing less than moral certainty.
In summation, the defense respectfully submits that the pieces of circumstantial
evidence are insufficient to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt of accused Juana Dela
Cruz for the crime of Qualified Theft. They do not pass the requisite moral certainty, as they
admit of the alternative inference that other persons, not necessarily the accused, may have
perpetrated the crime. Where the evidence admits of two interpretations, one of which is consistent
with guilt, and the other with innocence, the accused must be acquitted. Indeed, it would be better to
set free ten (10) men who might be probably guilty of the crime
26
charged than to convict one innocent man for a crime he did not commit.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court
that the Information for Qualified Theft against accused Juana Dela Cruz be DISMISSED for
insufficiency of evidence.
22
People v. Manambit, G.R. Nos. 72744-45, April 18, 1997, 271 SCRA 344.
23
People v. Isla, 278 SCRA 47.
24
People v. Vasquez, 280 SCRA 160.
25
People v. Canlas, G.R. No. 141633, Dec. 14, 2001, citing People v. Caparas, Jr., 290 SCRA 78 [1998].
26
People v. Capili, 333 SCRA 335, 366 [2000].

Quezon City, November 03, 2005.
Department of Justice
PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
DOJ Agencies
Building, NIA Road
corner East Avenue,
Diliman, Quezon City

Bicol University student's consolidated legal forms

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bicol University student's consolidated legal forms

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

Student : RALPH LOWIE L. NEO

CONSOLIDATED LEGAL FORMS

1. I am the registered owner of a motor vehicle which is particularly described as follows:

REX JORDAN L. NEO

Doc. No. _____;

Republic of the Philippines )

I, REX JORDAN L. NEO, of legal age, single/married/widow, Filipino citizen, and presently

2. That my monthly net salary/income is P12,000.

REX JORDAN L. NEO

Doc No. : _____

JOINT AFFIDAVIT OF IDENTITY

COMPLAINT WITH PRAYER FOR ATTACHMENT

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR INJUNCTION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.

REX JORDAN L. NEO

SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

REX JORDAN L. NEO

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

SUBCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this ___________________ in _________________,

Doc. No. _____;

Mr. REX JORDAN L. NEO, plaintiff Civil Case No. 2

Mr. Eulogio G. Mateo, Defendant

Daraga Albay, Philippines, this 28th day of September 2021.

ATTY. MARK HARRY J. LITA

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

1. I am a plaintiff in the above-stated case;

REX JORDAN L. NEO

6. That the plaintiff has paid

Republic of the Philippines

ANGELA F. LLANTO, Civil Case No. _____________

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

SPOUSES FLOYD M. WEATHER and CIVIL CASE NO. 123456

THE PAKYAW HOTEL AND CASINO

6. That both parties have the capacity to sue and be sued;

1. Php129,925.00, representing the actual damages suffered by the plaintiffs;

2. Php100,000.00 as moral damages

3. Php100,000.00 as exemplary damages

4. Php40,000.00 as attorney’s fee;

VERIFICATION/CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

1. That we are plaintiffs in the above-entitled case;

2. That we caused the preparation of the foregoing complaint;

Doc No. ________

AFFIANT FURTHER SAYETH NAUGHT.

PACMAN TRAILER LEASING CORP.

DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. 123456

NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of (TEN MILLION PESOS) (P

FLOYD M. WEATHER MANNY D. PAKYAW

WITH MARITAL CONSENT:

DIONISIA MAY-WEATHER JINKY PAC-PAKYAW

SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:

FREDDIE R. COACH BOB S. ARUMA

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

Name CTC Number Date/Place Issued

Doc No. ________

SUBCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this ___ in _,