REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

National Prosecution Service

Department of Justice
OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR
Imus Cavite

MARINELLA A. TECSON
Complainant

NPS Docket No. 221-332

-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 that we are partners and far from the
concluded resolution that it is a matter of loan.

2
 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 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

3
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.

Well in fact the prosecution must determine the aggravating

circumstances in this case, due to the fact that it was cleared that

4
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.

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.

5
 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

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

6
Copy furnished

MARICAR C. DIGO
Pugad Baboy Brgy. Capipisa Tanza Cavite