MEMO FROM: FRANCIS LOUISE C.
NISOLADA
MEMO FOR: ATTY. JAKE RUPERT T. TABORA
SUBJECT: Trial Brief in the Case of People of the Philippine Vs. Sheena Llorente y Fernandez
DATE: December 21, 2023f
I. Abstract of the Pleadings
Material Allegations in the Complaint-Affidavit
 The complainant alleged that Sheena Llorente
offered him to buy a parcel of land located at
Tinago Resettlement Site, Brgy. Tinago, Naga
City.
 Sheena Llorente, together with Nemesia Del
Castillo, went to Jollibee Panganiban to meet
Bryan Hernandez and Samuel Hernandez.
 Bryan Hernandez alleged that Sheena Llorente is
a real estate agent.
 Nemesia Del Castillo received an amount of
PHP60,000.00 as an initial payment for the parcel
of land and Sheena Llorente also received an
amount of PHP16,000.00 as payment for being
"agent" of the transaction.
II. Outline of the Case (for the client)
Admissions
 Admitted with Qualification
Sheena Llorente only offered the lot to
Bryan Hernandez, however, the offer
was made only upon reaching Bryan's
end by responding to a Facebook Post
showing that the lot was for sale.
 Admitted with Qualification
Sheena accompanied Nemesia only to
introduce Nemesia to Bryan as the
owner of the land.
 Denied
 Admitted with Qualification
Nemesia received the amount of
PHP60,000.00 and Sheena received the
amount of PHP16,000.00 from Nemesia
herself and not from Bryan.
 2

Elements/Defenses to be proved Statement of Facts to be Proved Outline of

Proof/Brief of the
Evidence
 There is no  There was no Exhibit 1 -
misrepresentation. misrepresentation.
Certificate of lot
A. The information that was allocation.
communicated to Bryan was truthful
and done in good faith. Exhibit 1A -
Certification issued
B. Sheena took it upon herself to post by Housing and
the property for sale on behalf of Settlement
Nemesia, the rightful owner. Developments Office
of LGU Naga.
C. Sheena's knowledge of the
property extended only to its
existence and Nemesia's ownership
of the subject lot.

D. Nemesia's ownership of the lot is

indeed factually accurate and
verifiable.

III. Resume of Client’s Evidence:

Client’s Brief Offer/Purpose Resume of the Evidence Notes/Remarks

Evidence
Exhibit 1 -  To prove the  These documents  These documents
existence of indicates that were duly
Certificate
the lot and to whatever Sheena received and
of lot
prove that the communicated to accepted by
allocation.
ownership of Bryan regarding the ``Bryan as
the same lot was factual and admitted by him
belongs to free from any on his
Exhibit 1A- Nemesia. misrepresentation Sinumpaang
Certification and intention to Salasay.
issued by deceive the latter.  Furthermore,
Housing and  These documents Bryan was given
Settlement concretized the fact ample time to
Developmen that Sheena did not investigate and
ts Office of commit verify such
LGU Naga. misrepresentation as documents.
it shown the absolute
ownership of Nemesia
of the land that
absolves Sheena from
any further liabilities.

IV. Resume of the Theory of the Opposing Party

Theory of the Opposing Party Outline of Proof/Brief of the Evidence

Sheena is a real estate agent and a direct part None
of the transaction.
 3

V. Resume of Opposing Party’s Evidence

Presentation of General Denials and

Opposing Party’s Evidence Acquittal
competent witnesses Brief Resume of the
inadmissability of Notes/Remarks
Offer/Purpose Evidence
evidence.
NA NA NA Based on the records on
file, there is no direct
evidence against Sheena
that was filed by Bryan.

VI. Briefs of the Law:

Codal Provisions, Rules, and Brief of the law, rules, and Notes
Jurisprudence that supports client’s case jurisprudence
 Paragraph 2 (a) of Article 316 of For the crime of estafa by In the successful
the Revised Penal Code. means of false pretense is prosecution of the
committed by any person crime of estafa, we
who: must be guided by
these elements.
(1) there must be a false
pretense, fraudulent acts or
fraudulent means;

(2) such false pretense,

fraudulent act or fraudulent
means must be made or
executed prior to or
simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud;

(3) the offended party must

have relied on the false
pretense, fraudulent act or
fraudulent means and was
thus induced to part with his
money or property; and

(4) as a result thereof, the

offended party suffered
damage."

VII. Diagram of the Case:

 4

VIII. Conclusion:

Weakness of Client’s Case Remarks Course of Action

 We lack  We must give  We will look for
competent emphasis in the competent
witnesses to presentation of witnesses that will
strengthen our witnesses and must prove that Sheena
claim. exert effort in merely posted the
 We lack material gathering material availability of the lot
evidence to evidence to support for sale.
defend our client. our claim.  We will ask the client
for the screenshots
of the conversation
between her and the
private complainant.
 We will obtain a
copy of the Tax
Declaration of the
subject lot to prove
the ownership of the
lot that was owned
by Nemesia.
 We will check if the
lot is titled or not. If
yes, we will obtain a
certified true copy of
the titles.

Weakness of Opposing Party’s Case Remarks Course of Action

 They lack material evidence If we are able to  File a motion to
to prove that Sheena present competent quash on the
committed witnesses and grounds of lack of
misrepresentation. obtain material probable cause
evidence, we can against Sheena.
prove the innocence
of Sheena.