Appeal Brief (Casiquin)
Appeal Brief (Casiquin)
Appeal Brief (Casiquin)
VILLAMOR O. CASIQUIN,
Accused.
x-----------------------------------------------------x
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
PREFATORY STATEMENT
A Notice of Appeal with Motion was filed before the lower court last
26 September 2018, with the appeal fee having been paid last 05 October
2018, due to the denial of the accused’s motion to be exempted from
payment of the same.
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
1|Page
“That sometime in September 2015, and during the period prior
to and subsequent thereto, in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, conspiring and mutually aiding one another, by means of
false pretenses and fraudulent representations executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud, and by means of
deceit, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
defraud MARSHAL CONDAYA y DAO-AYAN, in the following
manner to wit: the above-named accused, pretending to be engaged in
a legitimate business operation, that is a marketing and selling of
Natural Anti-Radiation and Energy Enhancer or NaAREE h2O bottle
bags, when in truth and in fact, the accused were not legitimately
operating a business but only a scheme to obtain money from the
complainant, induced the complainant to earn money by purchasing a
NaAREE H2O bottle bag in which he would earn Php50.00 for every
referral as bonus, and the complainant believing and relying on the
representation of the accused, gave the amount of P8,000.00 for the
bags and expected for P13,000.00 as promised after 15 days,
however, no compensation for his purchases was returned, to the
damage and prejudice of the complainant in the amount of Eight
Thousand Pesos (P8,000.00), Philippine Currency.
2|Page
Acknowledgement Receipts issued by Rosemary Butay4, not herein accused-
appellant. Despite the said payment, private complainant attested that
AMIC failed to deliver the purported promised pay out.
4
Exhibits “B” and “C”, Acknowledgement Receipts, 12 September 2015 and 06 October 2015, attached to
the records.
5
Exhibit “1”, Registration No. 2-2007-000244 issued by the Bureau of Patents, attached to the records.
6
Exhibit “2”, DTI Certification, 15 January 2014, ibid.
7
Exhibit “4”, ProCom Partner APPLICATION FORM, 12 September 2015, ibid.
8
Judicial Affidavit of Rosemary Binwag Butay, Criminal Case No. 135395, 28 February 2018, ibid.
9
Item No. 38, ibid.
10
Exhibits “B” and “C”, supra.
11
Item No. 38, supra.
12
Exhibit “8”, BCPO – Station 7 Certification, 03 November 2015, attached to the records.
3|Page
“WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, the court finds
accused VILLAMOR Q. CASIQUIN GUILTY of ESTAFA defined
and penalized under paragraph 2(a) of Article 315 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 4885, Presidential
Decree No. 1689, and Presidential Decree No. 818, as further
amended by Section 85 of Republic Act No. 10951, under Criminal
Case No. 135395.
SO ORDERED.13”
4|Page
APPELLANT TO INDEMNIFY THE PRIVATE
COMPLAINANT THE AMOUNT OF
PHP8,000.00 WITH LEGAL RATE OF
INTEREST FROM SEPTEMBER 2015 UNTIL
FULLY PAID
Article 315, par. 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code penalizes fraud or
deceit when committed as follows:
The elements of the crime of estafa under the foregoing provision are:
(1) there must be a false pretense, fraudulent acts, or fraudulent means; (2)
such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made 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 damage15.
In its Decision, the trial court found that the elements of estafa are
present in the instant case because the scheme supposedly introduced by
herein accused-appellant led the private complainant to believe that his
money would be returned to him with income16. In addition, the trial court
held that, at the outset, the products given to the complainant, particularly
the two (2) water bottle bags, the 8 small bottles of oil and four (4) boxes of
herbal teas are not equivalent to the Php8,000.00 given by him17.
14
Par. 2(a), Article 315, Revised Penal Code.
15
Lyzah Franco vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 171328, 16 February 2011; Steve Besario vs. People
of the Philippines, G.R. No. 171335, 16 February 2011.
16
p. 8, Decision, Criminal Case No. 135395, supra.
17
Ibid.
18
Exhibit “1”, supra.
5|Page
addition, the accused-appellant submitted a certification19 from the
Department of Trade and Industry showing that AMIC is a registered
business with the said agency, and such registration was valid from 15
January 2014 to 15 January 2019.
“Atty. CASTRO:
19
Exhibit “2”, supra.
20
Exhibit “4”, supra.
6|Page
Q: It says three (3) days, three (3) months unlimited. Just your
affidavit- complaint. Do you agree with me, Mr. Witness?
A: Yes, Ma’am.
xxx
This rule places upon the prosecution the task of establishing the guilt
of an accused, relying on the strength of its own evidence, and not banking
on the weakness of the defense of an accused. Requiring proof beyond
reasonable doubt finds basis not only in the due process clause of the
Constitution, but similarly, in the right of an accused to be “presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved”. Undoubtedly, it is the constitutional
presumption of innocence that lays such burden upon the prosecution.
21
pp. 6-7, TSN dated 22 November 2017, Crim. Case No. 135395, attached to the records.
22
Section 2, Rule 133, Revised Rules of Evidence.
7|Page
Should the prosecution fail to discharge its burden, it follows, as a matter of
course, that an accused must be acquitted23.
In the challenged Decision, the trial court did not consider the defense
of herein accused-appellant that he did not receive the amount given by the
private complainant, as it was Butay who collected the same, and that Butay
was the one who explained the scheme during the August 2015 seminar.
According to the trial court, herein accused-appellant should have presented
other marketing arms to prove his allegations, as his testimony alone is not
sufficient to overturn the positive statements by the complainant and
Butay24.
PRAYER
23
Nilo Macayan vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 175842, 18 March 2015.
24
p. 9, Decision, Crim. Case No. 135395, supra.
25
Exhibits “B” and “C”, supra.
26
Item No. 38, Judicial Affidavit of Rosemary B. Butay, supra.
27
Nilo Macayan vs. People of the Philippines, supra.
8|Page
A B S LAW OFFICES
Suite 305, Laperal Building
Session Road, Baguio City
Tel. No. (074) 442 8243
By:
COPY FURNISHED:
9|Page