Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila

ESTHER PASCUAL,
Petitioner,
CIVIL CASE NO. 204873
-versus- For: Estafa

ERNESTO WEE,
Respondent.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM FOR PROSECUTION

The Petitioner, by the undersigned prosecutors, and unto this
Honorable Court, respectfully submits this memorandum as follows:

PREFATORY STATEMENT
In lieu of justice and equity, the Petitioner as an individual has a right
to protect and in order to protect her right, comes to this Honorable Court
with clean hands in order to enforce her right and prevent or redress the
wrongful acts and omissions of the Respondent.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is an action for ESTAFA which was filed by the Petitioner Esther
Pascual when the Respondent Ernesto Wee, failed to pay her the money that
he borrowed and when the Respondent issued her bouncing checks.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

1 Ernesto Wee is indebted to the Esther Pascual the amount of One
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P 500,000.00) to be paid in three months with
Twenty Thousand Pesos (P 20,000.00) interest, secured by a postdated
check in the amount of Five Hundred Twenty Thousand Pesos (P
520,000.00);

2 The postdated check was evidence which was freely entered into by
the parties on 05 February 2005 ;
 3 One of the conditions agreed upon between the parties is that
Respondent will pay the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P
500,000.00) in three months with fixed interest of Twenty Thousand Pesos
(P 20,000.00) ;

4 However, the Respondent failed to settle his obligation within the

period agreed upon despite repeated demands ;

5 On May 25, 2005, the Petitioner deposited the check but he was
informed that the Metro Bank account of the Respondent was already
closed.

6 The Petitioner went immediately to the Condominium of the

Respondent but he was denied entry. According to the Security Guard, the
Defendant gave instruction that he will not receive any visitors.

ISSUES
Given the foregoing facts and circumstances, the following issues are
presented for discussion:

I. Whether or not there is a probable cause that the

respondent is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
estafa; and

II. Whether or not the documentary evidence is well

established.

ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION

I.
1 Clearly there is no question that the probable cause exists that the
respondent is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa
under Article 315 Par. 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code based on the
 foregoing facts. As far as the agreement between the Petitioner and
respondent is concerned, deceit was employed during the inception of
the agreement by postdating a check or issuing a bouncing check
when the respondent had no funds in the bank.

2 The crime of estafa under Article 315 Par. 2(d) By postdating a check
or issuing a bouncing check is committed based on the following
elements, to wit:

a The offender post-dated a check, or issued a check in

payment of an obligation.

b Such postdating or issuing a check was done when the

offender had no funds in the bank, or his funds
deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the
amount of check.

3 Respondents excuses were obviously all lies as can be gleaned from

the circumstances of the case and the fact that there is no single
evidence attached to prove her excuses of not depositing the amount
in the bank as earlier set herein;

4 Respondent's allegations failed to rebut the accusation of the

Petitioner. The post-dated checks attached are not denied, instead it
bolstered the fact that there exist an obligation that was planned to be
abandoned after receipt of the thereon;
5 The mere postdating or issuing a check was done when the respondent
had no funds in the bank, or his funds deposited therein were not
sufficient to cover the amount of check makes out a case of estafa.

6 In sum, Respondents excuses are evidentiary in nature and can only

be threshed out during a full blown hearing/trial on the merits of this
case.

II.
 1 The documentary evidence as oppose to a mere statement of denial
sans any proof thereof is well established that. In fact, a perusal of the
circumstances of the conduct of the Respondent for several years of
engaging in the same activity involving different individuals with
know-how on the technicalities of the law thereby evading liability
through faade of ignorance and tears. Respondent is somewhat well
versed of the constitutional provision that nobody should be
imprisoned for non-payment of debt and thus, using this to her fullest
advantage. There is indeed a dire need to curtail her with the strong
hands of the law so as not to further cause prejudice to unsuspecting
public.

2 In addition, and as a result of Respondents unlawful and unjustified

acts as provided above, Petitioner was constrained to hire the services
of counsel in the amount of P50,000.00 as attorneys fee and
P3,000.00 per appearance of counsel.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is most respectfully

prayed to this Honorable Court that:

1 Judgment be rendered and ordering the respondent to pay the

amount of Five Hundred Twenty Thousand Pesos (P 520,000.00) to
the Petitioner;

2 Respondent to pay the amount of P50, 000.00 as acceptance fee and

P3, 000.00 per appearance or by way of and as attorneys fees; and

3 Cost of suit.

Such other reliefs and remedies that this Honorable Court may deem
just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.
Respectfully submitted.
Manila City, Philippines, July 27, 2016.