REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Fourth Judicial Region
Branch 76
San Mateo, Rizal

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

-versus- CRIM. CASE No. 23393

MARIA ROSARIO G.
NALUNDASAN,
Accused.
x------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM
[FOR THE DEFENSE]

ACCUSED MA. ROSARIO G. NALUNDASAN

(“ACCUSED”, hereinafter), by and through the undersigned
counsel, unto this Honorable Court, by way of Memorandum,
most respectfully avers: That - -

I. PREFATORYSTATEMENT

I.1 The principle has been dinned into the ears of the
bench and the bar that in this jurisdiction, accusation is
not synonymous with guilt. The accused is protected
by the constitutional presumption of innocence which
the prosecution must overcome with contrary proof
beyond reasonable doubt. The Honorable Supreme Court
has repeatedly declared that even if the defense is weak, for
the conviction of the accused must rest not on the weakness
of the defense, but on the strength of the
prosecution. Indeed, if the prosecution has not
sufficiently established the guilt of the accused, the
latter has a right to be acquitted and released even if he
presents naught a shred of evidence1.

I.2 Indubitably, as regards the present case, only the

blind and the deaf can be oblivious to the glaring and
resounding truth that the Prosecution absolutely and
miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused.
1
People vs. Guinto (184 SCRA 287 [1990]); Emphasis and underscoring ours.

1
 I.3 Private Complainant Adoracion Jimenez (“Private
Complainant”, hereinafter), the Prosecution’s only witness
who purportedly had personal knowledge of the relevant
events that transpired on 30 October 2007, undoubtedly
perjured herself when she testified emphatically and
without reservation that it was only her and the Accused
who were present during the taxi cab trip from the
Development Bank of the Philippines, Gil Puyat Avenue,
Makati Branch to Metrobank San Mateo Branch 2. On the
contrary, Accused and Defense Witness Alicia Gatdula, in
their respective testimonies, categorically declared, that the
latter was also present during the said trip and that, at no
time, did herein Accused take or receive the amount of
Php90,512.75, or any other amount, from Private
Complainant3.

I.4 At this point, it should be emphasized that the

Prosecution failed much less even attempted to test or
discredit the aforesaid declarations of the said Defense
witnesses during the latter’s respective cross-examinations.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

II.1 Private Complainant Adoracion Jimenez is the

attorney-in-fact of her sister Mrs. Virginia L. Ford (“Mrs.
Ford”, hereinafter), for the latter’s property. Mrs. Ford is
the registered owner of the subject property covered by TCT
No. 431426 located at Blk. 5 Lot 3 Phase 8 Liamson
Subdivision, Guitnang Bayan 1, San Mateo, Rizal.

II.2 Sometime in 2007, Mrs. Ford wanted to sell the

aforesaid property and was looking for buyers. Mrs. Ford
was adamant in her intent to sell her property since the
same was already “nabababoy”4 under the care of Private
Complainant.

II.3 Seeking assistance for that purpose, Mrs. Ford

was introduced to herein Accused, an independent real
estate agent, by Private Complainant through the latter’s
other sister, Alicia Gatdula. Thereafter, Accused opted to
2
Page 3, TSN dated 4 October 2012.
3
Defense Exhibits “1” and “2” (Judicial Affidavit of Accused and Judicial Affidavit of Defense Witness
Alicia Gatdula)
4
Exhibit “O” for the Prosecution; Judicial Affidavit of Janicka Aika Hernandez

2
assist Private Complainant considering that she knew
someone that might be interested to purchase the property.
Mrs. Ford then appointed Private Complainant as her
attorney-in-fact to act on her behalf as regards the sale of
her said property.

II.4 Thereafter, Accused was able to find interested

buyers in the persons of Spouses Wilbert Janicka Aika and
Wilbert Hernandez (“Spouses Hernandez”, hereinafter).
Accused then introduced them to Private Complainant.
Spouses Hernandez, who were apparently very interested in
purchasing the said property, paid a reservation fee of
Php10,000.00 to show Private Complainant that they were
serious in their intent to buy the same.

II.5 After negotiations, Private Complainant agreed to

the sell the subject property to the Spouses Hernandez.
However, considering that the Spouses Hernandez lacked
the funds for the said purchase during that time, they opted
to apply for a housing loan with the Home Development
Mutual Fund (PAG-IBIG) to cover the purchase price.

II.6 Thereafter, Private Complainant executed a Deed

of Conditional Sale5 covering Mrs. Ford’s property for the
amount of Php700,000.00 in favor of the Spouses
Hernandez. Subsequently, AND IN CONFORMITY WITH
THE SPOUSES HERNANDEZ’S LOAN APPROVAL
GRANTED BY THE HOME DEVELOPMENT MUTUAL FUND
(PAG-IBIG), a Deed of Absolute Sale6 for the amount of
Php503,000.00 was executed by the parties with Private
Complainant, acting as Attorney-in-Fact of Mrs. Ford as
VENDOR, and the Spouses Hernandez as VENDEES.

II.7 As the said housing loan application of Spouses

Hernandez was approved, the net loan proceeds thereof
amounting to Php490,512.75 was released by PAGIBIG
on 30 October 2007.

II.8 On the said date, Accused, Private Complainant,

and Alicia Gatdula went to the PAGIBIG Office in Makati.
Thereat, Private Complainant received the check7
representing the net loan proceeds of Php490,512.75 of the
housing loan of the Spouses Hernandez.
5
Exhibit “K” for the Prosecution
6
Exhibit “L” for the Prosecution
7
Exhibit “E-1” for the Prosecution

3
 2.9 After receiving the said check, Accused, Private
Complainant, and Alicia Gatdula then proceeded to the
Development Bank of the Philippines, Gil Puyat Avenue,
Makati Branch to encash the check.

II.9 After the said check encashment, the three of

them hailed a taxi cab and proceeded to Metrobank San
Mateo, Rizal Branch where Adoracion Jimenez deposited the
amount of P400,000.008 out of the total Php490,512.75 of
the net loan proceeds.

II.10In this regard, Private Complainant alleged

that herein Accused took the amount of Php90,512.75 from
her while they were on their way to Metrobank San Mateo,
Rizal Branch from the Development Bank of the Philippines,
Gil Puyat Avenue, Makati Branch.9 Private Complainant
testified that it was only her and the Accused that were
present during the said events on 30 October 2007. She
maintained the position that Alicia Gatdula was not
present10.

II.11On the other hand, Accused and Defense Witness

Alicia Gatdula both testified under oath, that the latter was
also present during the said trip to Metrobank San Mateo,
Rizal Branch from the Development Bank of the Philippines,
Gil Puyat Avenue, Makati Branch, and that, at no time, did
herein Accused take or receive the amount of
Php90,512.75, or any other amount, from Private
Complainant11.

III. ISSUE

WHETHER OR NOT ON THE 30TH DAY OF

OCTOBER 2007, ACCUSED MARIA ROSARIO
G. NALUNDASAN RECEIVED IN TRUST THE
AMOUNT OF PHP90,512.75 FROM PRIVATE
COMPLAINANT ADORACION JIMENEZ WITH
THE OBLIGATION ON THE PART OF THE
ACCUSED TO USE THE SAID AMOUNT FOR

8
Exhibit “N” for the Prosecution
9
Page 6, TSN dated 4 October 2012; Page 23, TSN dated 30 May 2012
10
Page 3, TSN dated 4 October 2012.
11
Defense Exhibits “1” and “2” (Judicial Affidavit of Accused and Judicial Affidavit of Defense Witness
Alicia Gatdula)

4
 THE PAYMENT OF PROPERTY TAXES BUT
INSTEAD OF DOING SO AND FAR FROM
COMPLYING WITH THE SAID OBLIGATION
HAD, WITH ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE,
MISAPPROPRIATED AND CONVERTED THE
SAME FOR HER USE AND BENEFIT AND
DESPITE REPEATED DEMANDS FAILED TO
RETURN THE SAME.

IV. ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSION

IV.1 It is most humbly but sternly submitted that the

Accused must be ACQUITTED of the crime charged
considering that the Prosecution absolutely and miserably
failed to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable
doubt based on the following arguments:

THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO

PROVE THE ALLEGED ACTS
CONSTITUTING THE CRIME, AS
CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION

IV.2 The Information in the instant case alleges the

following:

“That on or about the 30th day of October

2007, in the Municipality of San Mateo, Province
of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, having received in trust from the
complainant Adoracion Jimenez the amount
of Php90,512.75,with the obligation on the part
of the accused to use the said amount in payment
for the property taxes, but the accused to use the
said amount in payment for the property taxes,
but the accused instead of doing so, far from
complying with her aforesaid obligation with
unfaithfulness and abuse of confidence, did then
and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
misappropriate, misapply and convert the
same to her own personal use and benefit and
despite repeated demands to pay the taxes of the

5
 property or return the amount received by her,
she failed and refused, and still fails and refuses,
to the damage and prejudice of said Adoracion
Jimenez in the aforementioned amount of
Php90,512.75.

CONTRARY TO LAW
San Mateo, Rizal
August 9, 2010”
[Emphasis and underscoring ours]

IV.3 There is no denying that in a criminal case, unless

the guilt of the accused is established by proof beyond
reasonable doubt, the said Accused is entitled to an
acquittal12.When a prima facie case is established by the
prosecution in a criminal case, the burden of proof does
not shift to the defense. It remains throughout the trial
with the party upon whom it is imposed—the prosecution 13.

IV.4 The Prosecution failed to overcome this burden.

IV.5 In the instant case, the crux of controversy lies in

the events that transpired between Private Complainant and
the Accused on 30 October 2007. Thus, it is submitted that
the primary matter that should be determined by the
Honorable Court is whether or not “on or about the 30th day
of October 2007”, herein Accused “received in trust from the
complainant Adoracion Jimenez the amount of
Php90,512.75”.

IV.6 To prove its case, the Prosecution presented the

following witnesses: Private Complainant, Mrs. Ford, and the
Spouses Hernandez. Unfortunately for the Prosecution,
notwithstanding the fact that they presented numerous
witnesses, only the testimony of Private Complainant
should be deemed pertinent by the Honorable Court as
she was the only one among the Prosecution’s
witnesses who supposedly has personal knowledge of
what transpired on 30 October 2007.

IV.7 Private Complainant, in her testimony alleged

that, on the said date, it was only her and the Accused who
went to the PAGIBIG Office in Makati to claim and receive

12
G.R. No. L-45137 September 23, 1985, Bautista vs. Sarmiento and People
13
Florenz D. Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium

6
the proceeds of the housing loan of the Spouses
Hernandez.14 Said testimony of the Private Complainant
was never corroborated by any Prosecution witness who
was present during the said time and location and who
possessed personal knowledge of the events that transpired.

IV.8 The aforesaid testimony of Private Complainant

was refuted not only by the Accused herself but also by
Private Complainant’s own sister, Defense Witness
Alicia G. Gatdula, who freely and voluntarily testified
that she was with Private Complainant and Accused when
the former claimed and received the proceeds of the housing
loan of the Spouses Hernandez.15 Both witnesses
emphatically asserted and testified that at no time, did
herein Accused take or receive the amount of
Php90,512.75, or any other amount, from Private
Complainant.16

IV.9 It must be reiterated that the Prosecution

miserably failed much less even attempted to test or
discredit the aforesaid declarations of the said Defense
witnesses during the latter’s respective cross-examinations.
The reason for which is crystal clear: Private Complainant’s
testimony was utterly false and hence, deserves scant
consideration by this Honorable Court.

IV.10 Well established is the rule that when the

inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two (2)
or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the
innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his
guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral
certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction 17.

IV.11 The respective testimonies of Prosecution

Witnesses Mrs. Ford, and the Spouses Hernandez cannot,
even by a long shot, be remotely relevant to the events that
transpired on 30 October 2007, particularly duringwith
respect to the trip to Metrobank San Mateo, Rizal Branch
from the Development Bank of the Philippines, Gil Puyat

Page 3, TSN dated 4 October 2012.

14

Defense Exhibits “1” and “2” (Judicial Affidavit of Accused and Judicial Affidavit of Defense Witness
15

Alicia Gatdula)

Ibid.
16

People v. Yabut G.R. No. 82263, 26 June 1992, 210 SCRA 394, citing People v. Salcedo, G.R. No.
17

86975, 18 March 1991, 195 SCRA 345.

7
Avenue, Makati Branch, as the said witnesses were not
present thereat.

IV.12 Thus, for lack of personal knowledge, any

testimony of the said witnesses regarding what transpired
then would undoubtedly be hearsay and should not be
considered by the Honorable Court. Any evidence, whether
oral or documentary, is hearsay if its probative value is not
based on the personal knowledge of the witness18.

IV.13 The testimonies of Mrs. Ford and the Spouses

Hernandez dealt on matters that are hardly relevant to the
primary issue at hand, especially in the case of Mrs. Ford
who, as she admitted, never personally met the
Accused and was out of the country when these
events transpired. She also admitted that she has no
personal knowledge of what transpired on 30 October
2007 between Private Complainant and the Accused. 19

IV.14 With regard to Prosecution witness

Janicka Aika Hernandez, she clearly admitted during
her cross examination that she has no personal
knowledge as to whether or not the Accused took the
amount of Php90,512.75 from Private Complainant20.

IV.15 The Prosecution should even concede

that the said witnesses did not, and in fact could not,
present any testimony or evidence that would in any
manner substantiate the allegation that the Accused
took P90,512,75 out of the proceeds of their housing
loan.

IV.16 On the other hand, the Defense was able to

substantially prove that the Accused and the Private
Complainant were accompanied by Defense Witness Alicia G.
Gatdula on 30 October 2007, during their taxi ride to
Metrobank San Mateo, Rizal Branch from the Development
Bank of the Philippines, Gil Puyat Avenue, Makati Branch.

IV.17 It is a basic rule in evidence that a witness

can testify only on the facts that he knows of his own
18
Miro vs. Mendoza; G.R. Nos. 172532 172544-45, November 20, 2013.
19
Page 20, TSN dated 21 February 2013.
20
Page 19, TSN dated 3 October 2013.

8
personal knowledge, i.e. those which are derived from his
own perception. A witness may not testify on what he
merely learned, read or heard from others because such
testimony is considered hearsay and may not be received as
proof of the truth of what he has learned, read or heard21.

IV.18 Trial courts are admonished to always require

precise and convincing testimony. Jurisprudence is
consistent that for testimonial evidence to be believed, it
must not only come from a credible witness but must be
credible in itself – tested by human experience, observation,
common knowledge and accepted conduct that has evolved
through the years22.

IV.19 The truth is established, not by the number

of witnesses, but by the quality of their testimonies, for in
determining the value and credibility of evidence, the
witnesses are to be weighed not numbered 23. Overall, in the
instant case, the weight, value, and credibility of
Prosecution’s witnesses were as light as a feather.

THERE ARE GRAVE

INCONSISTENCIES ON MATERIAL
POINTS BETWEEN THE TESTIMONY
OF PRIVATE COMPLAINANT AND
DEFENSE WITNESS JANICKA
HERNANDEZ. IN FACT, THE
RESPECTIVE TESTIMONIES OF THE
SAID WITNESSES ARE
IRRECONCILABLE

IV.20 Private Complainant's credibility was further

eroded by grave inconsistencies between her testimony, on
one hand, and the testimony of Prosecution witness Janicka
Aika Hernandez, on the other. Their respective statements
are irreconcilable.

IV.21 As previously mentioned, Private

Complainant alleged in her testimony that on 30 October
2007, it was only her and the Accused—nobobynobody
21
D.M. Consunji, Inc. v. Court of Appeals 409 Phil. 275, 285 (2001).

22
People v. Hernani, G.R. No. 122113, 27 November 2000, 346 SCRA 73, 84
23
People v. Gaspar, 376 Phil. 762, 779 (1999).

9
else—who went to the PAGIBIG Office in Makati to claim
and receive the proceeds of the housing loan of the Spouses
Hernandez24...

IV.22 Interestingly, Prosecution witness Janicka

Aika Hernandez, both on her direct and cross-examination,
clearly alleged that it was on 25 October 2007 that she,
together with Private Complainant and the Accused,
went to the PAGIBIG Office in Makati to claim and receive
the proceeds of her and her husband’s housing loan, as can
be gleaned fromin her Judicial Affidavit25, viz:

“Q29: How much was the amount, if you know, granted

by PAG-IBIG?

A: It was only P490,512.75.

Q30: How did you know about this?

A: Last October 25, 2007, I together with Chit and

Ate Dory, went to PAG-IBIG to sign certain
documents and to receive the proceeds of the loan.
The proceeds are under the name of Ate Dory, being
the attorney-in-fact of the seller.”
[Emphasis and underscoring ours]

IV.23 The afore-quoted declaration of Prosecution

witness Janicka Aika Hernandez was even reiterated by her
during her cross-examination wherein she stated the
following:

“ATTY. DELA PAZ: So Ms. Witness, again you said

that you went to Pag-ibig on October 25, 2007?

Witness Janicka Aika Hernandez: Yes, sir.

ATTY. DELA PAZ: It was not October 30, 2007?

Witness Janicka Aika Hernandez: I am really

sorry I cannot remember the date, sir.

ATTY. DELA PAZ: No, I am just basing it on your

affidavit. So again, in your affidavit you stated you

24
Page 3, TSN dated 4 October 2012.
25
Page 6; Exhibit “O” for the Prosecution

10
 went to Pag-ibig on October 25, 2007, is that
correct, based on your affidavit?

Witness Janicka Aika Hernandez: Yes, sir.”

[Page 14, TSN dated 3 October 2013]

IV.24 As can be unmistakably seen from the

foregoing, there is a glaring contradiction between the
respective testimonies of Private Complainant and
Prosecution witness Janicka Aika Hernandez. So glaring that
the said contradiction cannot be reconciled and that the only
logical conclusion that can be deduced therefrom is that
either one, or both, of them deliberately lied while
under oath before the Honorable Court.

IV.25  Where these contradictions cannot be

reconciled, the Court has to reject the testimonies, and
apply the maxim, falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus26.

THE ELEMENTS OF ESTAFA AS

DEFINED UNDER ARTICLE 315
PARAGRAPH 1(b) OF THE REVISED
PENAL CODE WERE NOT
ESTABLISHED AND PROVEN BY THE
PROSECUTION

IV.26 Herein Accused is being charged for estafa

under Article 315 par. 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code.

IV.27 Otherwise known as "swindling," estafa is

committed by any person who shall defraud another by any
of the means mentioned in the Revised Penal Code. Article
315 (1) (b) states that, among others, fraud may be
committed with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence in the
following manner:

“(b) By misappropriating or converting, to

the prejudice of another, money, goods, or any
other personal property received by the
offender in trust or on commission, or for
administration, or under any other obligation
26
AGPALO, Hand Book on Evidence

11
 involving the duty to make delivery of or to
return the same, even though such obligation
be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond; or
by denying having received such money, goods,
or other property; xxx”

[Emphasis and underscoring ours]

IV.28 The elements of estafa with abuse of

confidence under this provision are as follows:

1. That 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;

2. That there be misappropriation or

conversion of such money or property by the
offender; or denial on his part of such receipt;

3. That such misappropriation or conversion

or denial is to the prejudice of another; and

4. That there is a demand made by the

offended party to the offender27.

IV.29 Indubitably, the Prosecution miserably

failed and hardly made a dent in establishing and proving
the foregoing elements.

IV.30 As to the first element, it must be reiterated

and emphasized that the Prosecution failed to prove that
herein Accused received Php90,512.75, or any other
amount, from Private Complainant on 30 October 2007 as
alleged in the Information.

IV.31 Although Private Complainant alleged in her

testimony that Accused took the amount of Php90,512.75
from her and that it was only her and the Accused who were
present during the taxi cab trip from the Development Bank
of the Philippines, Gil Puyat Avenue, Makati Branch to
Metrobank San Mateo Branch, the same was refuted and
belied by the Accused and Private Complainant’s Sister Alicia
27
Revised Penal Code, Art. 315 (1) (b). Reyes, The Revised Penal Code Criminal Law Book two

12
Gatdula in their respective testimonies where they
categorically declared that Alicia Gatdula was also present
during the said trip and that, at no time, did herein
Accused take or receive the amount of Php90,512.75,
or any other amount, from Private Complainant. 28

IV.32 Clearly, no amount was taken by the Accused

on 30 October 2007. It would be more believable and
logical to conclude that the supposed missing Php90,512.75
never left the custody of Private Complaint since she was
actually the one who deposited to Mrs. Ford’s account the
amount of P400,000.0029 out of the total Php490,512.75 of
the net loan proceeds at Metrobank San Mateo, Rizal
Branch. It is definitely more plausible that Private
Complainant appropriated the Php90,512.75 for her own
personal benefit.

IV.33 As regards the second element of estafa

with abuse of confidence, the Prosecution likewise failed to
present any evidence to establish and prove the same.
Aside from the bare allegation in the Information that
Accused misappropriated, misapplied and converted the
amount supposed to have been received by her for her own
personal use and benefit, the Prosecution did not
present any evidence, either testimonial or
documentary, that would establish and substantiate
the supposed misappropriation, misapplication and
conversion.

IV.34 The words "convert" and

"misappropriate" connote an act of using or disposing of
another’s property as if it were one’s own or 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 any
right30.

IV.35 The appropriation or conversion of money

received to the prejudice of the owner thereof is the sole

28
Defense Exhibits “1” and “2” (Judicial Affidavit of Accused and Judicial Affidavit of Defense Witness
Alicia Gatdula)
29
Exhibit “N” for the Prosecution
30
Serona v. Court of Appeals, 440 Phil. 508 (2002).

13
essential fact which constitutes and consummates the crime
of estafa31.

IV.36 The witnesses for the Prosecution—aside

from the admissions of the majority that they had no
personal knowledge as to whether or not the Accused
took the amount of Php90,512.75 from Private
Complainant—did not even mention any supposed act of
herein Accused that can even be remotely construed
as an act of misappropriation, misapplication and
conversion for the latter’s own personal use and
benefit.

IV.37 Common sense and logic would dictate that

when no money was ever received by the Accused, the
occurrence of any supposed misappropriation, misapplication
and conversion for personal use and benefit would be
impossible. The Accused never acquired both material or
physical possession and juridical possession of the
supposedly missing Php90,512.75. At this point, the case of
the Prosecution inevitably crumbles to the ground like a frail
edifice deprived of any foundation.

V. CONCLUSION

V.1 Every accused is presumed innocent until the

contrary is proved; that presumption is solemnly guaranteed
by the Bill of Rights. The contrary requires proof beyond
reasonable doubt, or that degree of proof that produces
conviction in an unprejudiced mind. Short of this, it is not
only the right of the accused to be freed; it is even the
constitutional duty of the court to acquit them32.

V.2 To secure a conviction, the prosecution must

prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Moral certainty is required, or that degree of proof which
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind33.

V.3 On the whole then, the scanty evidence for the

Prosecution, absolutely failed, or, at the very least, casted
31
Salazar v. People of the Philippines, 439 Phil. 762, 775 (2002), citing U.S. v. Ramirez, 9 Phil. 67, 70
(1907).
32
People v. Valeriano, 226 SCRA 694 [1993], citing People v. Pido, 200 SCRA 45 [1991].
33
G.R. No. 100354 May 26, 1995, People v. Tadepa

14
serious doubts as to the guilt of the Accused. It does not
pass the test of moral certainty and is insufficient to rebut
the presumption of innocence which the Bill of Rights
guarantees the Accused34.

V.4 The Prosecution’s lone witness, Private

Complainant, who had personal knowledge of what
supposedly transpired on 30 October 2007 lacks the
credibility that would merit even the slightest consideration
from the Honorable Court considering that she deliberately
perjured herself and lied under oath.

V.5 Evidently, truth and justice warrant the

ACQUITTAL of the Accused.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Defense

respectfully prays that a Decision be rendered
ACQUITTING Accused MA. ROSARIO G. NALUNDASAN of
the crime Estafa under Article 315 par. 1(b) of the Revised
Penal Code.

OTHER RELIEFS, just and equitable, under the

circumstances are likewise prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Marikina City for San

Mateo, Rizal, 123 April 2016.

ATTY. JOHN FRANCIS DALISAY DELA PAZ

Counsel for the Accused
No. 45 Houston St., Rancho III Subd.
Brgy. Concepcion Dos, Marikina City
Telephone - 948 1756
PTR No. 6134970; 01.25.16; Marikina City
IBP No. 1019132; 01.07.16; RSM
MCLE Compliance IV No. 0012805; 2.21.13; Pasig City
Roll No. 61270

34
People v. Dismuke, 234 SCRA 51, 61 [1994], citing People v. Dramayo, 149 Phil. 107 [1971]; People v.
Garcia, 215 SCRA 349 [1992].

15
Copy Furnished:

HON. TRIAL PROSECUTOR

Prosecutor’s Office
San Mateo, Rizal

ATTY. ROS CRISWIN V. FORMOSO

THE LAW FIRM OF PERLAS DE GUZMAN
AND PARTNERS
Private Prosecutor
Suite 3304 A & B, 33/F, Philippine Stock Exchange
Centre West Tower, Exchange Road, Ortigas Center
Pasig City, 1605 Metro Manila

Explanation: Copies of the instant Memorandum shall be

served upon the foregoing addressees through registered
mail due to lack of material time and necessary personnel to
effectuate the preferred mode of service.

JOHN FRANCIS DALISAY DELA PAZ

16