REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
QUEZON CITY BRANCH X

TAYLOR F. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff

Civil Case No. X

-versus- For: MALICIOUS
PROSECUTION AND
DAMAGES

JAMIE J. ANDERSON,

Defendant.
x--------------------------------------
x

MEMORANDUM
For the Defendant

COMES NOW THE DEFENDANT, through the undersigned

counsel, unto
this Honorable Court most respectfully submits and presents this
Memorandum in the above-titled case and avers that;

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Plaintiff filed a civil complaint for malicious prosecution

and damages against herein Defendant Jamie Anderson
for filing a criminal case against the former for cyber
threats committed by the Plaintiff to the Defendant.

STATEMENTS OF FACTS and

ANTECEDENT PROCEEDINGS
 1. Defendant is an eighteen (18) year old individual with
a residence address at St. Marks Street, Cubao, Quezon City.

2. Defendant is a senior student of Clearwater High

School, which is located in Cubao, Quezon City.

3. Both the Plaintiff and Defendant were members of

Clearwater High School Chat Room with the user identification
SHOCKWAVE and jamming@ClearwaterHS, respectively.

4. Several threatening remarks were made by the

Plaintiff as SHOCKWAVE to the Defendant as
jamming@ClearwaterHS in the said chat room which is the
proximate cause of the General Anxiety Disorder suffered by the
Defendant. The chat room excerpts and Defendants Medical
Record are evidence by EXHIBITS 1 to 4 and EXHIBIT 9,
repectively.

5. Due to said cyber stalking incident and threats, the

Defendant suffered heart palpitations, sweating, insomnia,
shortness of breath, feelings of panic, among others.

6. Plaintiff claims that the remarks were made under the

guise of the experiment he was conducting. However, no
parameters and guidelines were set for the conduct of such
experiment. No results were even shown proving a real
experiment.

7. A police report was thereafter filed by the Defendant

and an investigation was made which resulted to the filing of the
formal criminal complaint docketed as Case No. 2015-092459 at
Quezon City Regional Trial Court against the Plaintiff herein.

8. The Criminal Case No. 2015-092459 was terminated on

30 September 2016 with an acquittal of herein plaintiff.
 ISSUE

1. Whether or not the Plaintiff sufficed the elements of a

malicious prosecution.

2. Whether or not the Plaintiff is liable for the payment of

damages

DISCUSSION

1. Plaintiff failed to prove all the elements of a malicious

prosecution.
A. In Lucas vs Royo G.R. No 136185, 30 October 2000, the
elements of malicious prosecution were established:,

For a malicious prosecution suit to prosper the following

elements must concur:
(a) The fact of the prosecution and the further fact that the
defendant was himself the prosecutor, and that the action finally
terminated in an acquittal;
(b) In bringing the action the prosecutor acted without probable
cause; and,
(c) The prosecutor was actuated or impelled
by legal malice, i.e., by improper or sinister motive. The element of
malice and the absence of probable cause must be proved.

There must be proof that the prosecution was prompted by a

sinister design to vex and humiliate a person, and that it was
initiated deliberately knowing that the charge was false and
baseless to entitle the victims to damages. The two (2) elements
must simultaneously exist, otherwise, the presence of probable
cause signifies, as a legal consequence, the absence of malice.

B. Legal malice was not established by the Plaintiff which is an

indispensable element of malicious prosecution without
which, the complaint must fail.
In Magbanua vs Junsay G.R. No. 132659, 12 February 2007,
the Supreme Court held that,

In an action to recover damages based on malicious

prosecution, it must be established that the prosecution
was impelled by legal malice. There is necessity of
proof that the suit was so patently malicious as to
warrant the award of damages under Articles 19 to 21
of the Civil Code, or that the suit was grounded on
malice or bad faith. Moreover, it is a doctrine well-
entrenched in jurisprudence that the mere act of
submitting a case to the authorities for prosecution does
not make one liable for malicious prosecution, for the
law would not have meant to impose a penalty on the
right to litigate

C. To be held liable in malicious prosecution, two requisites

must concur:
a. That there is a legal malice; and
b. There is no probable cause in filing a criminal complaint.

D. In probable cause, what is determined is whether there is

sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a
crime has been committed, and that the accused is probably
guilty thereof and should be held for trial. It does not require
an inquiry as to whether there is sufficient evidence to
secure a conviction. The acquittal of the accused (Plaintiff
herein) does not take away the fact that probable cause
existed, there be no showing that the determination was
tainted with grave abuse of discretion. The criminal
complaint was able to go forward until its termination in the
form of an acquittal.

E. The criminal complaint was not patently malicious and was

instituted in good faith by the Defendant because of the
latters sufferings as direct consequences of Plaintiffs acts.

2. Plaintiff is liable for the payment of damages.

 A. Article 20 of the Civil Code provides that every person
who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes
damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the
same.

B. Plaintiff is liable for the payment of actual damages.

i. Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is

entitled to an adequate compensability for such
pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved.
(Art. 2199, Civil Code)
ii. Defendant incurred P35,000 in doctors fees, various
examinations such as CT SCAN and medicine, which
are properly documented.
iii. These expenses would not have been incurred had the
threats not happened as a result of Plaintiffs bogus
experiment.

C. Plaintiff is liable for the payment of moral damages.

i. Moral damages include physical suffering, mental
anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched
reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social
humiliation, and similar injury. (Art. 2217, Civil
Code) The article further provides that though
incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages
may be recovered if they are the proximate result of
the defendants wrongful act or omission. (supra)

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that

judgment be rendered in favor of plaintiff and against defendant
by:
1) FINDING Taylor Williams is liable to the defendant.
2) ORDERING Taylor Williams to pay actual damages of
P35,000, moral damages not less than P500,000 and
other damages in an amount this Honorable Court finds
just and reasonable under the circumstances.
 3) ORDERING Taylor Williams to pay attorneys fees
equivalent to 25% of whatever the Defendant shall
successfully recover plus P 10,000 as appearance fee per
trial attendance of the undersigned counsel

Other just and equitable remedies under the circumstances are

likewise prayed for.

Pasig City for Quezon City, 20 January 2017.

THE LAW FIRM OF

Counsel for the Defendant Jaime Anderson
Pasig City, Metro Manila

By:

PTR No. _______; ________

IBP No. __________
Attorneys Roll No. ________
MCLE Compliance No. ______
Mobile _________
Email address

Copy furnished by registered mail:

_______________

EXPLANATION

Copy of the foregoing Memorandum was furnished to the

plaintiff by registered mail due to lack of sufficient messengerial
personnel to effect personal service.

LAWYERs NAME