Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

11th Judicial Region, Branch 10
Davao City

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Criminal Case No. 19-DVO-

Plaintiff, 124564

-versus- FOR: Estafa

CASSANDRA ARANETA
Accused.
----------------------------------------x

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO WITHDRAW CRIMINAL

INFORMATION

COMES NOW, Private Complainant TEN ELEVEN, INC.,

through the undersigned counsel, and unto this HONORABLE
COURT, most respectfully submits its opposition to the Motion to
Withdraw Criminal Information filed by the Public Prosecutor, as
follows:

Procedural Antecedents

On September 17, 2019, the Public Prosecutor filed a

Motion to Withdraw the criminal information based on the
resolution issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ) after
reinvestigation of the case.

The basis for the order to withdraw the criminal

information was the finding by the DOJ of lack of probable
cause for the crime of estafa against the accused Cassandra
Araneta.

Counter-Arguments
to the findings of the DOJ

I. There is probable cause to charge the accused for estafa.

The finding of lack of probable cause by the DOJ is not

meritorious. Such finding was based on the ground that the

1
accused, Cassandra Araneta, was justified in failing to make
liquidation of the cash advances.

According to the accused, she had used the cash

advances given to her by the private complainant for the
operational expenses of the latter. However, during
reinvestigation, the accused failed to submit genuine receipts
which will prove that the cash entrusted to her were utilized for
the business operation of private complainant. The receipts
submitted by the accused were unsubscribed and were mere
photocopies.

In the case of Lee vs. People (GR. No. 157781, April 11,
2005), the Supreme Court made a pronouncement that demand
is not necessary where there is evidence of misappropriation or
conversion of funds entrusted to the accused. Thus, the
accused may be convicted of the felony under Art. 315, par.
1(b) of the Revised Penal Code if it can be proven that the
accused had misappropriated or converted the money without
the consent of the complainant and to the prejudice of the latter.

In the case at bar, the failure to utilize the funds by the

accused to its intended purpose already constitute
misappropriation. The existence of such fact has already
satisfied the requirement of probable cause in the prosecution
for estafa.

II. Demand, although not essential to constitute estafa, was

made by the private complainant.

Contrary to the claims of the accused that no demand

was made upon her, private complainant was able to make
demands from the accused. This was done through its store
manager, Nestor Alfonso, who was the one who made repeated
verbal demands from the accused to return the amounts
entrusted to her. (see attached Judicial Affidavit)

In the case of Lee vs. People, the Supreme Court made a

pronouncement that demand need not be formal. It may be
done verbally. Thus, the verbal inquiry made by Nestor Alfonso
is already sufficient to constitute as the “demand” contemplated
under the law.

III. The failure to return and account the money by the

accused was unjustified.

As to the argument that the unceremonious termination of

the accused prevented her from liquidating the cash advances,
such is untenable.

2
 Based on the judicial affidavit of Mr. Nestor Alfonso
attached in this pleading, the accused was given sufficient time
by the private complainant to account for the funds entrusted to
her. This is established when the twin-notices for valid
termination were furnished to the accused a week after Mr.
Nestor Alfonso made verbal inquiry upon the accused as to the
unaccounted and unliquidated funds given to her.

IV. The determination of probable cause, after the filing of

the information, is already within the jurisdiction of the
court.

Finally, there is no merit as to the finding by the DOJ of

lack of probable cause given that the information was already
filed before the court. In the case of Personal Collection Direct
Selling, Inc. vs. Carandang (GR 206958; November 8, 2017),
the Supreme Court held that the determination of probable
cause is already within the province and discretion of the court
after the filing of the information. Hence, the directive made by
the DOJ is not controlling and the court is not mandated to
comply with such mandate for courts are empowered to make
its own independent determination of probable cause which
may be different from the findings of the DOJ.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Prosecutors’

Motion to Withdraw Criminal Information be denied, and the case be
set for arraignment and trial.

Respectfully submitted this 18th day of September 2019.

By:

ARA PRINCESS O. OLAMIT

Counsel for Private Complainant
Davao City, Philippines
PTR No. 145786 December 30, 2019, Davao City
Roll No. 17869
IBP Lifetime No. 218578
MCLE xx-2137568

Copy furnished:

MARRIE ALLEXA F. CAMPANER

Public Prosecutor

3
 PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
Department of Justice
Davao City

NOTICE OF HEARING

To: ATTY. KAHLIL ALCOMENDRAS

RTC Clerk of Court
RTC, Branch 10, Davao City

Greetings!

Please submit the foregoing Opposition for the reconsideration

and approval of the Honorable Court as convenient and permissible
to the Court’s calendar.

ATTY. ARA PRINCESS OLAMIT

Counsel for Private Complainant
Davao City, Philippines
PTR No. 145786 December 30, 2019, Davao City
Roll No. 17869
IBP Lifetime No. 218578
MCLE xx-2137568

Copy Furnished:

ATTY. MARRIE ALLEXA CAMPANER ATTY. MARI LASTIMOSA

Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Accused