Motion For Reconsideration OCP

Republic of the Philippines
Department of Justice
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
Quezon City
ELIHANDRO FONG,
ENTANDERA FONG,
MICHAEL CRUZ,
PACIFICA ORDON, and
WALLY CRUZ,
Complainants,
-versus- NPS Doc. No. XV-20-INV-98D-10012

For: Estafa
MA. LOURDES E. VILLARICO,

Respondent.
x---------------------------------------x
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
I, WENCY RODRIGUEZ, of legal age, Filipino citizen, and with

postal address at No. ________ hereby depose and state THAT;
1. That on September 12, 2020, this Honorable Office issued a

Resolution recommending the filing of five (5) counts of Estafa
under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code against the
respondent, despite dismissing the charge for Large Scale Estafa.
2. On October 3, 2020, the respondent received the said resolution.
3. That with all due respect, the respondent disagrees with the
findings of the Honorable City Prosecutor with regard to the
indictment for five counts of Estafa under Article 315(2)(a) and
humbly submits that the same should be reconsidered, based on
the following grounds—
4. The essential element of Estafa under Article 315(2)(a) is the

false pretense or fraudulent representation made by the
accused. Respondent Villarico never pretended to possess any
power or influence over Meralco or the Quezon City beyond her
ability to facilitate paperwork. The respondent consistently
stated that she was merely assisting in the application process.
5. The complainants voluntarily availed of the respondent's services

with full awareness of her limited role in merely facilitating the
application. Complainants even executed written authorizations,
permitting the respondent to process their applications on their
behalf, thus proving that they understood her capacity and did
not rely on any misrepresentation.
6. The evidence presented does not support a finding that the

complainants were induced to part with their money based on
any fraudulent representation by the respondent. The amount of
1
PHP 20,000.00 per complainant was given in exchange for
services that the respondent had the ability to render – to assist
in processing their application with Meralco. The failure to
achieve the desired result, due to circumstances outside her
control, does not amount to Estafa.
7. It is evident that the respondent acted in good faith by offering a

settlement to the complainants during the preliminary
investigation, which included the delivery of PHP 10,000.00 to
each complainant. This demonstrates the respondent’s
willingness to rectify any inconvenience caused to the
complainants, negating any fraudulent intent on her part.
8. Complainant ___ signed, and dated, the agreement with

respondent and stated “Ako si ____ na tumanggap ng 10 libo
peso.”
9. It bears emphasizing that ___ and ____ had a separate complaint

versus the respondent under NPS Doc. No. ____. For the said
case, the said compromise between the Sings and respondent
was accepted by this Office.
10. While this Honorable Office denied the reopening of the

investigation to admit the compromise agreements for lack of
notarization, it is respectfully submitted that these agreements,
reflect the respondent's bona fide attempt to resolve the matter
amicably.
11. Said agreements show that action of the parties settle the
controversy. Complainants accepted Php10,000.00 each and
gave their signatures. A compromise agreement is a contract.
The foregoing show that as a contract, the agreements between
the complainants and respondents have all the essential
elements of a contract.
12. A compromise must not be contrary to law, morals, good

customs and public policy; and must have been freely and
intelligently executed by and between the parties. (The Learning
Child, Inc. v. Lazaro, 340 SCRA 72)
13. Despite lack of notarization, there is nothing to show that

the signatures of the complainants were fraudulently procured or
that they were forced to sign. Thus, the agreements between the
complainants and the respondent are not contrary to law, good
morals, public policy or public interest.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully

prayed of this Honorable Office to Reconsider and set aside the
Resolution dated September 12, 2020, recommending the filing of five
(5) counts of Estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code;
and to Dismiss the complaint for Estafa in its entirety for lack of
sufficient evidence to establish probable cause.
2
Other reliefs, just and equitable, are likewise prayed for.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ____ in

Quezon City.
WENCY RODRIIGUEZ
Respondent
Assistant City Prosecutor
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that I have personally examined the affiant and I

am personally satisfied that he voluntarily and knowingly executed the
foregoing Affidavit.
Assistant City Prosecutor

Motion For Reconsideration OCP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motion For Reconsideration OCP

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motion For Reconsideration OCP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

-versus- NPS Doc. No. XV-20-INV-98D-10012

MA. LOURDES E. VILLARICO,

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

I, WENCY RODRIGUEZ, of legal age, Filipino citizen, and with

1. That on September 12, 2020, this Honorable Office issued a

2. On October 3, 2020, the respondent received the said resolution.

4. The essential element of Estafa under Article 315(2)(a) is the

5. The complainants voluntarily availed of the respondent's services

6. The evidence presented does not support a finding that the

7. It is evident that the respondent acted in good faith by offering a

8. Complainant ___ signed, and dated, the agreement with

9. It bears emphasizing that ___ and ____ had a separate complaint

10. While this Honorable Office denied the reopening of the

12. A compromise must not be contrary to law, morals, good

13. Despite lack of notarization, there is nothing to show that

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ____ in

Assistant City Prosecutor

I hereby certify that I have personally examined the affiant and I

Assistant City Prosecutor

You might also like

9. It bears emphasizing that _ and __ had a separate complaint