REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

National Prosecution Service

Department of Justice
OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR
Imus Cavite

MARINELLA A. TECSON
Complainant

NPS Docket No. 24B-0322

-versus- For: ESTAFA under ART. 315
(a) (b) of the Revised Penal
Code of the Philippines, as
amended.

MARICAR C. DIGO
Respondent.
x—--------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

COMES NOW the undersigned private complainant unto this

Honorable Provincial Prosecutor of Cavite, most respectfully states
that:
PREFARATORY STATEMENT

The determination of the existence of Probable cause lies

within the discretion of the prosecutor officer after conducting a
preliminary investigation in accordance with the guidelines set forth
under Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.

Prosecutors however, are not given an unregulated authority

to determine the existence of probable cause. They must abide by
the cardinal rules of justice and fair play.

TIMELINESS OF THIS ACTION

1
 On April 22, 2024, the complainant received a copy of
resolution issued by the Honorable Office finding the complaint as
lack probable cause to indict the respondents herein, with this the
complainant has until May 7, 2024 to file this motion.

GROUNDS FOR THE FILING OF THE MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

Complainant move for the reconsideration of the resolution of

the investigating public prosecutor finding the complaint as lack of
probable cause.

With all due respect, the Honorable Prosecutor erred in finding

that the complaint be dismissed well in fact, it is clear that during
the transaction made by both parties, the evidence provided by the
complainant, the respondent feloniously and criminally defrauded
the complainant, by admitting all the allegations on her “under oath
sinumpaang paglalagom salaysay” dated March 26, 2024.

ARGUMENTS

First and foremost, the prosecution really established the

facts of the case as to whether the accused misappropriated a
certain amount of money base on the substantial evidence
submitted before this honorable office, well in fact in her
sinumpaang paglalagom salaysay (respondent affidavit) paragraph
4, 5, 6, she stated “ parag 4: ang buong katotohanan sa
pangyayaring ito ay si Bb. Tecson ang siyang lumapit sa akin
upang mag-alok o magtinda ng cellphone at alahas sa aking
mga customer o kakilala” – on this stipulation on her affidavit, it
established the real identity of our transaction from the very onset

2
that we are partners and far from the concluded resolution that it is
a matter of loan.
From the very onset, the complainant supplied numbers of
cellphone and accessories to the respondent and it’s up to the
respondent how she will sell it. Well in fact the respondent are very
knowledgeable on all the customers she is related with. from the
very onset the respondent is the one who find numbers of customer
who will avail our services.

Parag 5: Na sa aking pagtaya, ang kabuuang halaga ng

cellphone at alahas na nabili ko o naibigay ni Bb. Tecson ay
umabot sa halagang Php. 250,000.00 at kabuuang halaga iyon
ay nakapagbigay ako o nakapaghulog sa kaniya ng humigit
kumulang sa halagang Php. 225,000.00”, Herein, complainant
vehemently refutes all of the above contentions by the
respondent except for 250,000.00, all statements are
absolutely hearsay, first and foremost if the respondent made into
account that she paid all the necessary amount she mentioned, she
will provide a concrete evidences (example: acknowledgement
receipt or any paper signed by yours truly) to prove her claim, she
admitted that she owed a certain amount of 250,000.00 pesos as
admission to her liability but a certain statement that she paid the
same, are considered as an alibi just to cross her liability and
fraudulent act.

Well in fact, she cannot provide a witnesses or customer who

availed such aforesaid object as she fully knows that all customers
are already paid to her account, well in fact all my witnesses are
considered as her customer who revealed the exact testimony as
they are already paid to the respondent. With this matter, the
attached sinumpaang salaysay of all the witnesses on my complaint
affidavit as well as the additional witness attached on this motion

3
can be considered as a clear and concise testimony that the
respondent absolutely violated the crime of Estafa my
misappropriating my money on her personal used. Therefore, her
evidence cannot be admitted due to lack of merit to substantiate
her claims, the evidence is a mere scrap of paper done by the
respondent to cross her own liability. On her sinumpang salaysay it
substantiate the clearness that she is liable to pay the amount of
250,000.00 well in fact I have done a favorable amount on her part
for the amount of 220,000.00 as a big discount on her liability.
Please see attached copies of sinumpaang salaysay of Claudeth and
Domingo to support my claim which are marked as ANNEX “A-
series”, to form part hereof.

To analyze the substantial claim of the respondent on her

sinumpaang salaysay, it is true that all statement are mere hearsay
and cannot be admitted as a valid testimony as the real facts only
on that affidavit is that she owed a certain amount of money
amounting to 250,000.00 which the complainant ADMITTED.
Therefore, the statement she provided can be considered as a valid
evidence on my part to prove her own liability.

It is not true also that our transaction be considered as a

simple loan, well in fact, from the very start, we are partner in
business, she is not the one who availed my services but she is the
one who find a customer to sell the foregoing prestation. Her own
responsibility was to remit only the payment of all the customer she
transacted with but to no avail.

It can also be clearly seen on our attached conversation how I

transacted smoothly on our partnership and how I well collected or
demanded some payment on her own position which are marked as
ANNEX “B-series”, to form part hereof. It was clear on the

4
conversation how she admitted her fault, she cannot provide some
list of people who availed such services as stated on ANNEX
“C”, well in fact, if you will observed on her sinumpaang salaysay
she attached a mere scrap of paper to prove the list but on our
conversation she reiterated that the list was being lost that time.
This is a clear manifestation of lie and ambiguous evidences. Let it
be noted she is under oath and may be liable for perjury for stating
such statement and attaching some unverified evidences.

Well in fact the prosecution must determine the aggravating

circumstances in this case, due to the fact that it was cleared that
the main intention of the respondent herein was to defraud the
complainant.
All told, the prosecution maintains integrity on the illegal act
of the respondent. There can be no other doubt how the fraudulent
act occurred as it was.

From the very start, a mere transaction of the complainant

with the accused really proves the veracity of the fraudulent, MOST
PROBABLY the ADMISSION of the respondent on her sinumpaang
salaysay that she is certainly owed a sum of money amounting to
250,000.00 for which she did not attached any evidences to prove
her claim that it was paid duly signed by the complainant herein.

Even there was no contract at hand from the very start, it was
clearly stated under the evidences (both in the part of the
complainant and the respondent) that the action of the transaction
base on the foregoing are well substantiated by the complainant
base on the real facts provided. Violation of Art 315 a(b) already
exist as the respondent made an admission on her under oath
sinumpaang salaysay that she is liable for a certain amount of
250,000.00 for she misappropriated on her personal used.

5
 Nothing can be clearer than the fact that probable caused
exist to reverse the resolution made last April 05, 2024.

I, therefore, most respectfully pray unto this HONORABLE

OFFICE that the RESOLUTION made be reversed, amend and set
aside for Violation of ART 315 A(B) OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE
as there is more than probable cause for her indictment.

I am executing this Motion for Reconsideration to attest the

truth of the foregoing declarations and to support my complaint for
Violation of ART 315. A(B) against Maricar C. Digo.

This motion is filed in good faith and solely for the foregoing
reason.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered it is most respectfully
prayed of this Honorable Office that the Resolution made last April
05, 2024 be reversed.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are

likewise prayed for.
Respectfully submitted this May 6, 2024 at Imus City Cavite.

MARINELLA A. TECSON
Private Complainant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 6th day of April

2024 in Imus Cavite Philippines. Affiant exhibited to me her
competent evidence of identity as UMID ID: 0111-3283962-1.

Doc No. _____ NOTARY PUBLIC

6
Page No. ____
Book No. ____
Series of 2024

EXPLANATION
Copy of the Motion is served to adverse party via registered
mail /LBC due to distance and unavailability of the complainant to
effect personal service.

MARINELLA A. TECSON
Private Complainant

Copy furnished

MARICAR C. DIGO
Pugad Baboy Brgy. Capipisa Tanza Cavite