LEGAL OPINION

Date

FOR: Name of the Client

SUBJECT: Arguments available for the prosecution of case of estafa

by misappropriation as defined and penalized by the Revised Penal
Code filed by Mirshali C. Adil, Shekinah S. Benitez, Ryan Jay L.
Fargas, and Amier Fiegedhar A. Mohammad.

CLIENTS QUERY: What arguments can I bring to prosecute Philipp Montojo for
a criminal case of estafa by misappropriation wherein he failed to deliver the
products agreed by the parties in the contract?

In relation to this query, the following antecedent facts were narrated by the client:

1. Apothecary Oils Incorporated, has been in the business of importing locally-

sourced essential oils. Among the locally-sourced essential oils that they
import are lavender oil, tea tree oil, sunflower oil, and eucalyptus oil.
Among the products they offer is the virgin coconut oil which is a hit to
foreign customers particularly  in United States and Canada.

2. Apothecary had usual suppliers from Luzon and Visayas. However, with the
goal of expanding their market,  they wanted a supplier from Mindanao for
representation. In search for a supplier, they were referred to Philipp
Montojo, who is engaged in the Copra business for 20 years but has been
engaged in the business of sourcing out coconut products including virgin
coconut oil. Hence, Apothecary Oils Incorporated, the client therein,
communicated with Philipp Montojo as he had familiarity with the coconut
business in the region.

3. After series of meetings, the Philipp Montojo was the hired supplier for
Apothecary Oils Incorporated. After negotiations, the parties have agreed to
the following terms: Philipp Montojo will deliver around 500 drums of
virgin coconut oil at the price of PHP 10,000.00 per drum within a six-
month period, starting on the day of the perfection of the contract. An initial
payment of 50% of the total contract price of PHP 5,000,000.00 will be
initially paid by Apothecary in favor of Philipp. The initial payment was for
the purpose of securing raw materials and initial labor for the products.
Initial payment of PHP 2,500.000.00 was paid by Apothecary to Philipp at
the perfection of the contract on January 2, 2022.

4. In the contract of the parties, deliveries were expected to be made on July 2,

2022. However, the agreed six-month period for the deliveries had passed,
but no deliveries were made by Philipp Montojo. This caused Apothecary to
cancel the contract and institute a criminal case against Philipp Montojo.
Based on the foregoing, we can raise as defense self-defense as defined by the
Revised Penal Code and in support of such defense, we raise the following
arguments:

5. Philipp defrauded the other by unfaithfulness and abuse of confidence

6. Philipp Montojo breached their contract by failing to deliver the products in

the agreed terms

7. Philipp deliberately denied Apothecary the receipt of agreed product when

he foresee no income.

8. Duties and responsibilities of the supplier as agreed upon in the contract

were not fulfilled.

9. Philipp Montojo failed to communicate and relay the problem to

Apothecary Oils (third element); Philipp was negligent when he denied
Apothecary relevant update about the product

The arguments are highlighted and discussed as follows:

I
Philipp Montojo breached contract by failing to deliver 500 drums of virgin
coconut oil within the agreed terms with Apothecary Oil Incorporated.

10.Philipp Montojo breached contract with Apothecary Oils Incorporated, He

was supposed to deliver within a six months period around 500 drums of
virgin coconut oil and this was because of Philipp’s supposed income return
was affected by the sudden changes in policies in coconut production and
was predicted not achievable.

11. In this case, it caused Philipp to delay the delivery of the products to
Apothecary Oils Incorporated despite the fact that he already used the
money paid in advance by Apothecary Incorporated to procure raw materials
and initial labor for the products but no deliveries of virgin coconut oils were
made.

12.Apothecary cancels the contract and institutes a criminal case against Philip;
they alleged that there was misappropriation of funds that were supposedly
used for the raw materials and that Philip should be criminally liable for
Estafa through misappropriation under Article 315, Paragraph 1 (b) of the
Revised Penal Code for the failure to deliver the items that were agreed upon
in the contract with Apothecary Inc.

13.In the case of People vs. Legaspi, GR No. 225753, the Supreme Court made
the following ruling:
Criminal fraud resulting to damage capable of pecuniary estimation is
punished under Article 315 of the RPC. In particular, Estafa through
misappropriation is defined and penalized under Article 315,
paragraph 1(b) of the RPC, as amended by Republic Act No.
10951,26 which provides: Section 85. Article 315 of the same Act, as
amended by Republic Act No. 4885, Presidential Decree No. 1689,
and Presidential Decree No. 818, is hereby further amended to read as
follows:

ART. 315. Swindling (Estafa). - Any person who shall defraud

another by any of the means mentioned herein below shall be
punished by:
1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period
to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the
fraud is over Two million four hundred thousand pesos
(P2,400,000) but does not exceed Four million four hundred
thousand pesos (P4,400,000), and if such amount exceeds the
latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be
imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for each
additional Two million pesos (P2,000,000); but the total penalty
which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such
cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which
may be imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of
this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or
reclusion temporal, as the case may be.

The elements of Estafa through misappropriation under Article 315,

paragraph 1(b) are: (a) the offender's receipt of money, goods, or other
personal property in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or
under any other obligation involving the duty to deliver, or to return,
the same; (b) misappropriation or conversion by the offender of the
money or property received, or denial of receipt of the money or
property; (c) the misappropriation, conversion or denial is to the
prejudice of another; and (d) demand by the offended party that the
offender return the money or property received. To secure conviction
of Philipp, it behooves upon the State to prove the existence of all the
essential elements of the offense charged beyond reasonable doubt.
Anything less than all the elements of the offense charged negates a
finding of guilt.

For one, Article 315, paragraph 1(b) requires proof of receipt by the
offender of the money, goods, or other personal property in trust or on
commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation
involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same. In other
words, mere receipt of the money, goods, or personal property does
not satisfy the first element, it must be demonstrated that the character
of such receipt must either be in trust, on commission or for
administration or that the accused has the obligation to deliver or
return the same money, goods or personal property received.28 It is
 therefore essential to prove that the accused acquired both material or
physical possession and juridical possession of the thing received.

14.Here, To establish the first element of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph
1(b) first element (a), the offender's receipt of money, goods, or other
personal property in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under
any other obligation involving the duty to deliver, or to return, the same.

15.In this case, Philipp’s failure to deliver the virgin coconut oil within the six
month period as stated in the contract and despite 50% payment for the
procuring of the raw materials and initial labor paid by Apothecary Oils
Incorporated in advance establishes the first element of Estafa under Article
315, Paragraph 1(b) first element (a).

16.The essence of this kind of Estafa is the appropriation or conversion of

money or property received to the prejudice of the entity to whom a return
should be made. The words convert and misappropriate connote the act of
using or disposing of another's property as if it were one's own, or of
devoting it to a purpose or use different from that agreed upon. To
misappropriate for one's own use includes not only conversion to one's
personal advantage, but also every attempt to dispose of the property of
another without right. In proving the element of conversion or
misappropriation, a legal presumption of misappropriation arises when the
accused fails to deliver the proceeds of the sale or to return the items to be
sold and fails to give an account of their whereabouts. (People vs. Gamaro,
GR No. 211917)

17.There is, therefore, no ambiguity in the Information. The factual allegations

therein sufficiently inform Philipp Montojo of the acts constituting their
purported offense and satisfactorily allege the elements of Estafa by
misappropriation. Philipp Montojo is fully apprised of the charge against
him and for him to suitably prepare his defense.

18.In the case of People vs. Legaspi, GR No. 225753, the Supreme Court
explained:

From a legal point of view, and in a very real sense, it is of no concern

to the accused what is the technical name of the crime of which he
stands charged. It in no way aids him in a defense on the merits.
Whatever its purpose may be, its result is to enable the accused to vex
the court and embarrass the administration of justice by setting up the
technical defense that the crime set forth in the body of the
information and proved in the trial is not the crime characterized by
the fiscal in the caption of the information. That to which his
attention should be directed, and in which he, above all things
else, should be most interested, are the facts alleged. The real
question is not did he commit a crime given in the law some
technical and specific name, but did he perform the acts alleged in
the body of the information in the manner therein set forth. If he
 did, it is of no consequence to him, either as a matter of procedure or
of substantive right, how the law denominates the crime which those
acts constitute. If he did, it is of no consequence to him, either as a
matter of procedure or of substantive right, how the law denominates
the crime which those acts constitute. The designation of the crime by
name in the caption of the information from the facts alleged in the
body of that pleading is a conclusion of law made by the fiscal. In the
designation of the crime the accused never has a real interest until the
trial has ended. For his full and complete defense he need not know
the name of the crime at all. It is of no consequence whatever for the
protection of his substantial rights... If he performed the acts
alleged, in the manner, stated, the law determines what the name
of the crime is and fixes the penalty therefore. It is the province of
the court alone to say what the crime is or what it is named.

19.From the testimony and evidence the first element of Estafa through
misappropriation is present as shown by the following instance; Philipp
Montojo received a 50% payment from Apothecary Oil Incorporated and
uses it to procure raw materials and initial labor as stated in the contract and
within the six month period failed to deliver the said products. It further
shows that Apothecary Oils Incorporated wanted to cancel the said contract
and file a criminal complaint on him.

20.Even assuming that Philipp failed delivery was an act of good faith, it still
constitute unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence to Apothecary Incorporated,
and still Philipp would be held liable for Estafa through misappropriation
because as what stated in the contract with the payment of 50% in advance
for the procurement of raw materials and initial labor for the products,
Philipp was obliged and has the responsibility to deliver the promised results
in time and will not breach the contract as agreed. Generally, demand for the
return of the thing delivered in trust is necessary before an accused is
convicted of Estafa. However, if there is an agreed period for the accused to
return the thing received in trust and the accused fails to return it within the
agreed period, demand is unnecessary. Failure to return the thing within the
agreed period consummates the crime of Estafa, i.e, the misappropriation of
the thing received in trust.

21.Therefore, when a felony has two or more elements and one of them is not
proved by the prosecution during the trial, there is no crime. In the
prosecution for Estafa, if the element of deceit or abuse of confidence is not
proved, there is no crime. There is only civil liability. Thus, the acts of
Philipp Montojo towards Apothecary Oils Incorporated present abuse of
confidence under Art. 315 1(b): 1. That the money, goods or other personal
property be received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for
administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make
delivery of, or to return, the same.

ARGUMENT II
22. Discuss
 23. Discuss
24. Discuss

ARGUMENT III
25. Discuss
26. Discuss
27. Discuss

After the discussions, have a paragraph summarizing all of the arguments to end
this portion.

RECOMMENDATIONS:
(In this part, you highlight what you recommend as the defense and how it can
work out through the arguments that was raised. Here also you try to answer
anticipatory questions that may be raised by the other parties)

(Have a witty ending or dedication, ayoko makakita ng sincerely yours)

Names with Signature (First Name Middle Initial Last Name)

Please note that this a sample of the legal opinion that you will submit. Don’t mind what is written, just
focus on the parts.

P.S. There is no specific format for a written legal opinion. I just do it this way.

P.P.S. Wag niyo gayahin wordings ko. Kayo na mag-wordings kung paano. Basta yung flow ganito.