REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Department of Justice
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
Caloocan City, Metro Manila

____________,
Complainant.
NPS NO. _________
-versus________________,
Respondent.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

OPPOSITION
The Respondent, unto this Honorable Office, hereby vehemently
opposes the Complainants Motion for Reconsideration, dated July 28,
2015, thus:
1
The motion for reconsideration is premised on (a) the argument that
the accused should be held liable under Art. 318 of the RPC for
making misrepresentations that the subject checks are funded and
because of these representations, complainant parted with his money
and (b) that it was respondent who assured complainant that the
checks are funded and the complainant acceded because of his trust
and confidence in respondent.
2

The respondent submits that there is no prima facie case of

estafa or other deceits against him. Hereunder discussed and
elucidated are the facts and reasons supporting the prayer for the
dismissal of complainants motion for reconsideration.

3 After reviewing the Resolution of the Investigating Prosecutor,

_________ recommended the DISMISSAL of the complaint and

REVERSAL of the findings of the Investigating Prosecutor due to lack

of probable cause. According to ________:

Obviously, herein respondent is neither the drawer or

maker nor an endorser of the subject checks. He was only
accompanying
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
____________. In short, no matter how sweet and
convincing are the representations of respondent, the
same can never be reliable because herein respondent was
not duty bound to fund the subject checks.
4 _____________ Review of the Resolution of the Investigating
Prosecutor should stand undisturbed.
_______________

Based on the foregoing considerations, it is respectfully

submitted that the respondent is not guilty of deceit. In the interest of
justice, the respondent should not be held for trial and subjected to
the rigors thereof.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, it is most respectfully
prayed of this Honorable Office that the complainants motion for

reconsideration be DENIED for lack of merit and for lack of probable

cause.
August 7, 2015, Caloocan City.

______________
Respondent