Republic of the Philippines

Municipal Trial Court in Cities

City of Lapu-Lapu

People of the Philippines

Plaintiff
CRIM. CASE NO. M LLP-08-00262-CR
-versus-

AND M-LLP-08-00287-CR
FOR ESTAFA under Art. 316 Par. (1)

Toribia Casio, ET., AL.,

of the Revised Penal Code.

Accused
x--------------------------------

MEMORANDUM

Accused DELFIN G. CASIO by counsel, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully submit the
Memorandum, as follows:

I. FACTS OF THE CASE

The accused stand charged of alleged Violation of Par. (1), Article 316 of the Revised Penal Code
committed, as follows:
1. That on May 5, 1999, in the City of Lapu-lapu, Philippines, within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, above-named accused, TORIBIA G. CASIO, in conspiracy of DELFIN CASIO, by
whom she appointed as her Attorney in Fact.
2. That the accused, pretending and misrepresenting herself to be the owner of a portion of Lot
No. 835 C, Opon Cadastre, situated in Pusok, Lapu-lapu City, Phillipines.

3. That the accused, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and with intent to defraud, sell the said
portion of the property with an area of 164 sq. meters to THELMA CANTONEROS for the consideration
of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00), by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale dated May 5, 1999.
4. That in pursuance of the conspiracy and as attorney-in-fact of Toribia G. Casio, when in truth
and in fact, as the accused fully well knew, the same parcel of land belongs to Galicano C. Arriesgado and
Marciano Quizeo.
5. That for the damage and prejudice of the said THELMA CANTONEROS in the amount of One
Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00), for despite repeated demands accused failed and refuse and continues
to fail and refuse to return the said sum of money.
6. That the other accused, TORIBIA G. CASIO is already dead and the case against her is
considered dismissed.

II. ISSUE OF THE CASE

6. The issue may, therefore, be summarized, as follows:

a. Whether or not the surviving accused is guilty of alleged violation of Paragraph 1, Article 316
of the Revised Penal Code?

III. ARGUMENTS

A. No. The surviving accused is not guilty of Estafa under Paragraph 1, Article 316 of the
Revised Penal code. To be held liable, accused should have pretended to be the owner of the property.
Article 316. Other forms of swindling. - The penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and
medium periods and a fine of not less than the value of the damage caused and not more than three times
such value, shall be imposed upon:
1. Any person who, pretending to be the owner of any real property, shall convey, sell, encumber,
or mortgage the same.
Xxxx

7. Delfin Casio did not pretend to be the owner of the lot sold as he signed only as an Attorney-inFact of his mother, Toribia Gesulga, the real owner of the property along with Genoviva Pino, based on
the evidence mentioned and to consider the following testimony of prosecutionss main witness:
Q

Do you confirm and agree with me that based on this deed of sale that I
have shown to you the other accused Delfin Casio actually signed this
deed of sale as a vendor because according to this deed of sale on the
lower portion, he is the attorney -in-fact of Toribia Hesolga Casio, is that
correct?

Yes.

In other words, accused Delfin Casio signed this deed of absolute sale
not for himself as the owner but as the attorney-in-fact of the owner
Toribia Casio?

Yes.
(TSN, September 12, 2012, pp 5-6)

Because as you have admitted in the cross-examination, accused Delfin

Casio signed only as attorned-in-fact of the owner who was actually
Toribia Casio, based on the title?

Yes because he has the Special Power of Attorney and in special power
of attorney it was stated there that he has the complete authority to sell,
to sign and to receive the money.
(TSN, September 12, 2012, p 11)

IV. CONCLUSION AND CLOSING STATEMENT

8. Before a person can be held liable for a crime, it is just and proper that evidence sufficient to
convict him must be presented in court, a proof beyond reasonable doubt which can prove his guilt. Due
process so provides that insufficiency of evidence would result to his acquittal, and presumption of
innocence will prevail.
9. Necessarily, the accused in the instant case must be aquitted on the following grounds: first,
Delfin Casio acted only as Attorney-in-fact and not as the owner of the property as evidenced by the
Special power of attorney and second, the alleged offense had already prescribed.

PRAYER
Wherefore, in view of the foregoing premises, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court
to acquit the surviving accused of the charged against him for failure of prosecution to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.
Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.

Lapu-lapu City, Philippines,