REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

National Capital Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch ___
Parañaque City

ROWENA A. DIMLA
Petitioner
MeTC – 91 Criminal Case No.
22-0984
-versus- For: Petition for Certiorari
Under Rule 65 of Rules of
Court.
ESTAFA under ART. 315
(1) (b) of the Revised Penal
Code of the Philippines, as
amended.
IRENE ABLOLA y ALON
JUDGE PLACIDO O. GARCIA III
Respondent(s).
x—--------------------------------------x

PETITIONS FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI

(Provided for under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

COMES NOW, PETITIONER Through Undersigned Office of

the Solicitor General and Public City Prosecutor of Paranaque,
and hereby petition this Honorable Regional Trial Court to review
on certiorari the December 06, 2022 DECISION rendered by the
Paranaque City Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) Branch 91, in
Criminal Case No. 22-0984, for “ESTAFA under ART 315 par.
1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code”, (filed by herein Petitioner, vs.
therein Defendant Irene Ablola y Alon), which was appealed by
means of Motion for Reconsideration Dated December 21, 2022,
which was denied by the Honorable Court under Judge Placido
Garcia III, Therefore and such consideration, Petitioner would
seek the Reverse of Judgment on the sufficiency of evidence and
testimony of the witness to prove the guilt of the accused or the
respondent herein, as provided for under Rules 65 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure.

THE PARTIES
The Parties to this petition are:

PETITIONER Rowena Arca Dimla, of legal age, married,

Filipino, with residence at Lot 11, Blk.15, Phase 2 Wellington
Residence Brgy. Tres Cruses Tanza Cavite;

Private Respondent Irene Ablola y Alon (Accused in the

court a quo) is likewise of legal age, with postal address at #1792
Bagong Silang St. Baclaran Paranaque City.

Parties have the capacity to sue and be sued and may be

served with processes at aforementioned address and through
counsels of records.

TIMELINESS OF THIS ACTION

This originated as an appeal from the Metropolitan Trial Court

in the Cities (MeTC for Brevity) Branch 91 of Paranaque City dated
December 06, 2022, acquitting the accused of the crime of ESTAFA
under Article 315 paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code of the
Philippines as amended. However, such copy of decision were
received last December 07, 2022.

However, Motion for Reconsideration submitted dated

December 21, 2022, and which was denied by the Honorable Court.
Petitioner received a copy of the MeTC resolution dated January 27,
2023, she had until March 27, 2023 to file a petition for review on
certiorari before this honorable jurisdiction.
 This Petition asserts substantial issues and thus, is worthy of
consideration, the MeTC Branch 91 having rendered the assailed
decision in a way that is not in accord with facts, law and
applicable decisions of the Supreme Court most specially the way
the aforesaid court interpreted the substantial evidence of the
Petitioner and the witnesses thereof.

The Honorable Metropolitan Trial Court in the Cities did not

discuss the merits of these evidences of the petitioner on record or
did not resolve the countervailing factor by means of concrete
interpretation of the evidences to prove the guilt of the accused or
the respondent herein.

In order to better appreciate the contention of the Petitioner,

this Honorable Court may need to look into the evidence and
require the same to be brought before it. It is respectfully,
submitted that this could be done in this case by away.

In the said Decision, the Honorable Court Acquitted Irene

Ablola y Alon due to failure of the prosecution to establish the
elements of ESTAFA and to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt on the following grounds:

a) The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt

that accused committed Estafa under Art. 315 of the RPC.
b) That the Barangay Blotter simply states that the accused
has a pending unpaid loan in the amount of 121,862.00.
c) That there was no investment agreement set forth therewith
as to the veracity of being a business partners in a pautang
business.
d) That there was no concrete evidence to show that the
accused received a certain amount of money.
 SUMMARY LIST OF RELEVANT PLEADINGS ANNEXES AND
EXHIBITS

ANNEX A – Sinumpaang Salaysay of Rowena Dimla

ANNEX B- Barangay Kasunduan
ANNEX C – Certificate to File Action
ANNEX D – Demand Letter
ANNEX E – Proof of Receipt from LBC
ANNEX F – Judicial Affidavit of Trinidad Ebuen
ANNEX G – Judicial Affidavit of Armando Gonzaga
ANNEX G-1 – The Picture of Armando Gonzaga together with the
Respondent.
ANNEX H – MeTC Branch 91 Decision dated December 06, 2022.
ANNEX I – Motion for Reconsideration dated December 21, 2022
ANNEX J – MeTC Branch 91 Resolution on Motion for
Reconsideration

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND OF THE CASES

This case has been filed in the office of the City Prosecutors
Office of Paranaque City charging the respondent herein the crime
of Estafa under Art (315) Par. 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code. This
is a certain mode of investment, wherein the petitioner acted as a
financer to the respondent in lieu with their own agreed terms and
conditions that the respondent will help the petitioner to increase
her money.

Several transactions occurred with some people stipulated in

the Facebook Conversation of the Petitioner and the respondent
herein. To get the trust of the petitioner, every transaction that the
respondent will go into, she will send some proof like pictures with
the person who availed a loan from the respondent or the pictures
of money received by her from the petitioner. In getting the gist of
this case, sometimes in the duration of the transaction, the
petitioner created a doubt from the respondent, why the respondent
never paid her with the agreed terms base on the investment.

The petitioner asked the respondent if she can be

accompanied by the respondent herein to visit the house of all those
people she transacted with; but to no avail.

Several requests have been raise; unfortunately, the only

answer of the respondent is “ako nalang ang bahala sa kanila
dahil ako naman ang nag pahiram ng pera”. But days and
months passed, to no avail.

This was the time wherein the petitioner filed a complaint

before the Barangay Baclaran to claim for her invested money, but
to no avail again. After several hearings in the Barangay, both
parties come to an amicable settlement wherein the respondent
admitted the fact that she owed a certain amount of money from the
petitioner as it was reiterated and stipulated in the Barangay
Kasunduan, but again, to no avail. The Petitioner also visited the
two witnesses herein this case wherein, there name was used by the
respondent to defraud the petitioner, as it was confirmed or verified
base on their testimonies that they never received any amount of
money from the respondent, they merely used them by the
respondent for her personal interest/gain. The Barangay Baclaran
released the certificate to file action and the Petitioner sent a
particular demand letter to her. Unfortunately, said foregoing effort
of the Petitioner to claim for her money lasted with no response.

ARGUMENTS
 I.
First and foremost, the prosecution really established the
facts of the case as to whether the accused misappropriated a
certain amount of money base on the testimony presented by the
two witnesses namely: Trinidad M. Ebuen and Armando Gonzaga to
wit:
Ebuen stated in her Judicial Affidavit, among others base on
the decision, that:

a. She told the private complainant that she have not received
any investment from the accused; and
b. Accused just used her as a shield to the falsities and lies the
former was making.

During the Cross examination base on the decision:

a. She did not approach the accused to ask for financial

assistance

Gonzaga stated in his Judicial Affidavit base on the decision,

that:
a. He does not know the reason why accused took his
photographs.
b. He did not know that the picture that accused took will be
used in loan transaction. That;
c. He is not indebted to the accused.

All told, the prosecution maintains integrity base on the

testimony of the witnesses by means of appropriation. There can be
no other doubt how the fraudulent act occurred as it was proved
already with no objection from the accused that she used the name
of the witnesses to defraud the complainant.
 II.
The private complainant is interested on the conduct and/or
management of the alleged business.

The Decision acquitting the accused states that “[p]rivate

complainant was not interested as to how the alleged business of the
accused is to be conducted and/or managed. What only matters to
the private complainant is the “percentages”/interest rates. The
interest rate/s allegedly agreed upon by the private complainant and
the accused is/are not dependent on the success or failure of the
business of the accused as the computation is dependent only on the
sum/s of money loaned by the private complainant to the accused.”

The private complainant here is indeed interested in the

outcome of the sum of money she gave to the accused for the said
business because the imposition of an interest will not be possible
without the principal obligation.

In addition, Article 1960 of the new Civil Code provides as

follows:

“If the borrower pays interest when there has

been no stipulation therefore, the provisions of this
Code concerning solutio indebiti, or natural
obligations, shall be applied, as the case may be.”

With the above-mentioned provision, not all payment of

interests are stipulated. However, those will be governed by other
provisions of the Civil Code particularly in Articles 2154 to 2163 on
solutio indebiti and Articles 1423 to 1430 on natural obligations.

III.

There is an admission by the accused on the unpaid loan,

hence there is an agreement between her and the private
complainant.

According to the Decision from this Honorable Court, which

stated as follows:
 “x x x [t]here was never a mention of any
“agreement” as regards their alleged partnership in
relation to the alleged business of the accused, to wit:

“Ang reklamo ng complainant ay itong si

Irene Ablola ay nagkautang sa kanya ng
halagang Php121,862 pesos nung July
14, 2020 na ang pinag-usapan ay
babayaran ang utang sa loob ng 40 days.
Nung hindi na nakakabayad ay ginawang
60 days na extend ng 2 pang 60 days na
magpa sa hanggang ngayon ay hindi pa
rin nababayaran…

xxx

Nagkasundo sila na sa
pamamagitan ng hulog hulogan kada
linggo sa halagang isang libong piso
P1,000.00.

Bilang patunay ay kapwa sila

lumagda sa gawing ibaba ng kasulatan
ito START 1ST ng September ang hulugan.”

The word “nagkautang” which translates as “indebted” under

the above-mentioned Kasunduan signifies the admission of the
accused that there is a loan between her and the private
complainant, in addition to the stipulations and conditions on the
payment of the said obligation under the same.

The Supreme Court in the case of Department of Health vs

HTMC Engineers Company (480 SCRA 229) once more emphasized
the unsullied rule and doctrine that:

xxx “A contract properly executed by the parties continue to be

the law between the said parties ands should be complied with in
good faith;

From the moment of perfection, the parties are bound not only to
the fulfilment of what has been expressly stipulated, but also to all
the consequences which, according to their nature maybe in keeping
with good faith, usage and law. xxx.

Making the facts worse, the MeTC decision adopted the finding
of facts without reviewing and interpreting the stipulated words in
the contract signed by both parties, but instead added and recited
more grotesque cases.

IV.

The accused also fails to authenticate her screenshots under

the Rules on Electronic Evidence.

In the Decision, the FB Messenger conversations “[w]ere not

properly authenticated according to the Rules on Electronic
Evidence, as such, the same are not admissible in evidence. x x x”

However, the accused also failed to properly authenticated her

screenshots which must also be done in accordance with the same
Rules.

In Lomarda vs. Fudalan, G. R. No. 246012, June 17, 2020, the

Supreme Court said that “[h]e who comes to court must come with
clean hands.”

V.

There is already an agreement even in the absence of a

written contract.

In the Decision which states as follows:

“x x x There was no contract showing that private

complainant and accused entered into an investment
agreement wherein the former will act as principal and
the latter will act as former’s agent. x x x”

However, the new Civil Code provides as follows:

“Article 1356. Contracts shall be obligatory, in

whatever form they may have been entered into,
 provided all the essential requisites for their validity
are present. However, when the law requires that a
contract be in some form in order that it may be valid
or enforceable, or that a contract be proved in a certain
way, that requirement is absolute and indispensable.
In such cases, the right of the parties stated in the
following article cannot be exercised. (1278a)”

Based on the above-mentioned provision, any form of contract

is valid, provided all the essential requisites are present for its
validity.

From the very start, a mere transaction of the complainant

with the accused really proves the veracity of the fraudulent. With
an agreement set forth therewith it can be presumably identify as a
mere contract and receipt thereof, as the accused admitted her on
indebtedness with the complainant.

Even there was no contract at hand from the very start before
the Barangay, it was clearly stated under the investigation and trial
that the action of the accused is so consummated in nature.
Violation of Art 315 1(b) already exist as the accused used fictitious
name to defraud the complainant for her personal interest.

In addition, such claim and admission of the accused on her

indebtedness gives right to the complainant to claim for her civil
liability other than criminal liability base on the exact and absolute
interpretation of the contract duly signed by both parties before the
jurisdiction of Barangay Baclaran.

In lieu, the complainant absolutely proved by means of

substance of testimony the guilt of the accused base on her crossed
testimony conducted by Atty. Acebedo base on the decision to wit:
 a. She acted as the middleman between the private
complainant and the persons who wanted to borrow money
from the complainant, however, she has no proof that
people are borrowing from the private complaiant.

b. There was no loan contract executed by the borrowers;

On the very most instance, accused disproved her own

statement without any evidence that she conducted any
transactions with the witness. In doubt, how come that the accused
put her own self to any risky means without any contract. This is a
clear manifestation of lies.

Nothing can be clearer than the fact that probable caused

exist to reverse the decision made last December 06, 2022.

NON FORUM SHOPPING CERTIFICATE

That petitioner have not commenced any other action or proceeding

involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals or
any tribunal or agency; and that to the best of her knowledge, no such
action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals or any divisions, thereof or any court or tribunal or agency;
and that if she should thereafter learn that similar action or
proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the
Court of Appeals or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or
agency, she undertakes to promptly inform the aforesaid courts and
such other tribunal or agency

PRAYER
 WHEREFORE, premises considered it is most respectfully
prayed that the MeTC Decision dated December 06, 2022 be
reversed and set aside.
Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are
likewise prayed for.
Respectfully submitted this ______________ at, Paranaque City,
Philippines.

Copy furnished

ACP MELVIN NISNISAN

Office of the City Prosecutor Paranaque City

ATTY. ALYSSA LIMBOC

Counsel for the Accused
attyalyanne@gmail.com

IRENE ABLOLA y ALON

#1792 Bagong Silang Street Brgy.
Baclaran Paranque City
Wengarca@yahoo.com