Page

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 97, QUEZON CITY

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiffs.
-versus-

Crim. Case No. Q-09-161476

For: Estafa

SONIA BALAGTAS,
Accused.
x---------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

COMES NOW, the accused SONIA BALAGTAS, by the
undersigned counsel and within the reglementary period prescribed
by the Revised Rules of Court, hereby files this Motion for
Reconsideration of the Decision rendered by the Honorable Judge
Bernelito R. Fernandez on 19 October 2015 and promulgated on 16
November 2015. The accused most respectfully states THAT:
1. In the assailed Decision, this Honorable Court found the accused
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Estafa with abuse
of confidence as defined in Article 315, par. 1 (b) of the Revised
Penal Code.
2. The accused moves for the reconsideration of the abovementioned
Decision on the following grounds:
i. The prosecution was not able to prove that all the elements of
the crime charged are present.
ii. The evidence presented by the prosecution was not sufficient
to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
I.
The elements of the crime charged are lacking.

Page

3. Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code lists down the
elements of the crime of Estafa with abuse of confidence as follows:
(1) that the money, goods or other personal property is
received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for
administration, or under any other obligation involving the
duty to make delivery of, or to return, the same; (2) that there
be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property
by the offender, or denial on his part of such receipt; (3) that
such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the
prejudice of another; and (4) that there is demand by the
offended party to the offender (Abelardo Jandusay vs. People of
the Philippines, G.R. No. 185129, 17 June 2013).
4. The first element is not present as the amount of P200,000.00
subject of this case was not received by the accused in trust, or for
compensation, or for commission, or under any other duty to return
the said amount.
4.1 The accused admitted that she received the said amount
from the private complainant. However, she was under no obligation
to keep the amount in trust for the private complainant. The same
was intended for the payment of the companys income tax for the
year 2007 and for the services of its accountant.
4.2 The prosecution failed to prove that the accused was
under a fiduciary obligation to administer the said sum of money. It
was likewise unable to prove that the accused was under any other
fiduciary obligation to make delivery of or to return the same.
4.3 It is apparent from the evidence presented, or from lack
thereof, that the prosecution failed to establish the first element of
the offense charged.
5. The second element is not present as there
misappropriation or conversion of the amount involved.

was

no

5.1
The prosecution failed to prove either by direct evidence
or
by
circumstantial
evidence
that
the
accused
misappropriated or converted the amount that she received
from the private complainant.

Page

5.2
The Supreme Court held in the case of Crisanta B.
Bonifacio vs. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 153198, 11
July 2006) that the essence of estafa under Article 315 (1)(b),
RPC is the appropriation or conversion of money or
property received, to the prejudice of the owner. The words
convert and misappropriate connote an act of using or
disposing of anothers property as if it were ones own, or of
devoting it to a purpose or use different from that agreed
upon.
5.3
The witness for the prosecution merely deduced that
since the accused failed to give any liquidation report, the
latter misappropriated the amount she received. The
conjecture of the said witness cannot be considered evidence
equivalent to proof.
5.4
In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Bernardo
Quidato, Jr., the Supreme Court ruled that suspicion, no
matter how strong, should not sway judgment. As such,
the deductions and surmises of the witnesses of the
prosecution as to how the accused disposed of the money
should not be given credence by this Honorable Court.
6. The third element is not present as there is no proof that the private
complainant was prejudiced by the alleged misappropriation of
conversion.
6.1
In the absence of proof of misappropriation or
conversion, it logically follows that the private complainant
was not prejudiced.
6.2
Again, the prosecution failed to adduce evidence that the
company was prejudiced by the alleged acts of the accused.
The allegations of the companys officers that the accused
never returned the money are mere hearsay. Such claims were
never corroborated in open court.
6.3
Section 36, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court
provides that a witness can testify only to those facts
which he knows of his personal knowledge. The testimony

Page

of a witness based on what others have told him, and not on

his personal knowledge, should be excluded as evidence.
7. The fourth element is not present as there was no evidence to prove
that the accused received the demand letter.
7.1
The prosecution avers that the alleged demand letter sent
to the accused was received by a certain person in the
residence of the accused. Such person was never identified
with sufficient definiteness.
7.2
Aside from the witnesss mere allegation of personally
serving the demand letter, there was no other evidence to show
that such letter was actually received by the accused.
8. Apart from the abovementioned elements of the crime charged, the
intent to commit the crime of Estafa with abuse of confidence was
likewise not proved by the prosecution. There was no showing that
the accused specifically intended to commit the felony. The
prosecution itself admitted that the accused did not forge the
documents involved in the commission of the offense.
9. Seeing that intent was likewise left unproven, the accused should
not be charged with the offense. Basic is the rule that evil intent
must unite with the unlawful act for a crime to exist (Eduardo
Magsumbol vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 207175, 26
November 2014).
II.
The evidence presented by the prosecution was not sufficient
to overcome the quantum of evidence required in criminal
cases.
10.
Because the accused is presumed innocent until the contrary
is proven, the burden of proof as to the guilt of the accused lies
with the prosecution (Art. III, Bill of Rights, 1987 Philippine
Constitution).
11.
Sec. 2 of Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of Court provides for
the quantum of evidence required in criminal cases:

Page

Sec. 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. In a

criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal,
unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a
degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces
absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or
that degree of proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind.
12.
It is a settled rule in criminal cases that the guilt of the
accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt (People of the
Philippines vs. Isidro Comesario, G.R. No. 127811, 29 April 1999).
Absent this required quantum of evidence, the accused must be
exonerated.
13.
Well settled is the rule that the prosecution must rely on
the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of
the defense (People of the Philippines vs. Efren Besmonte, G.R. No.
103306, 5 April 1993).
14.
In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to prove that the
private complainant was prejudiced by the alleged misappropriation
or conversion an essential element of the crime of Estafa. The
prosecution based its accusation on mere allegations and surmises.
The same are not considered evidence. Mere allegations are not
equivalent to proof (Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 116181, 6 January 1997).
15.
The statement from the prosecution witness that the income
tax return of private complainant for the taxable year 2007 was not
filed on or before the deadline does not in itself constitute proof that
the accused misappropriated or converted the amount handed to
her for her own use. Nor is it proof that the private complainant was
prejudiced by the alleged misappropriation or conversion.
16.
On 15 December 2014, the accused made a Formal Offer of
Documentary Evidence with Motion to Mark Judicial Affidavit. The
same was admitted by this Honorable Court through an Order
issued on 22 June 2015. The prosecution made no move to object to
the formal of evidence.

Page

17.
The Supreme Court held in the case of Mauricio Manliclic vs.
Modesto Calaunan (G.R. No. 150157, 25 January 2007) that
objection shall be made at the time when an alleged inadmissible
document is offered in evidence; otherwise, the objection shall be
treated as waived, since the right to object is merely a privilege
which the party may waive.
18.
The evidence presented by the defense, which the prosecution
failed to object to, is sufficient proof that the accused did not
commit the crime charged and that she did not misappropriate the
money of the private complainant. The Tax Clearance issued by the
Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) to Visatech Integrated Corporation
on 12 June 2008 and admitted in evidence as Exhibit 1 is
sufficient proof that the accused made the required payment as
there was no listed tax liability. A Certified True Copy of BTR-BIR
Payment Slip under Account No. 072-800015 formally admitted in
evidence as Exhibit 5 is likewise proof that the accused made
payment of the 2007 income tax of the private complainant.
19.
Assuming arguendo that both parties were able to adduce
evidence to support their claims, the equipoise rule or
equiponderance doctrine provides that where the evidence of the
parties in a criminal case is evenly balanced, the constitutional
presumption of innocence should tilt the scales in favor of the
accused (Dominador Malana vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
173612, 26 March 2008). Thus, where the inculpatory facts and
circumstances are capable of two or more explanations one of
which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the
other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not
fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to
support a conviction (People of the Philippines vs. Servando
Saturno, G.R. No. 126959, 28 March 2001).
20.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court held in the case of Intestate
Estate of Manolita Gonzales vda. De Carungcong vs. People of the
Philippines (G.R. No. 181409, 11 February 2010) that all doubts
must be resolved in favor of the accused. Under the principle of in
dubio pro reo, when in doubt, rule for the accused.
21.
The evidence offered by the prosecution was insufficient to
shatter the presumption of innocence accorded to the accused by

Page

the Constitution. The prosecution was not able to overcome the

quantum of evidence required in criminal cases which is proof of
guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Neither was it able to dispute the
evidence presented by the defense enough to tilt the scales in its
favor. Consequently, the accused must be acquitted.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully
prayed that this Motion for Reconsideration be granted and the
assailed Decision be reversed, set aside or vacated.
Other reliefs as may be just and equitable under the
circumstances are likewise prayed for.
Respectfully submitted: 27 November 2015, Quezon City.
The Law Firm of

BACLIG & VILLANUEVA

Counsel for the Accused
Unit 204, Eagle Court Condominium, 26 Matalino St.,
Diliman, Q.C.; Tel Nos. 920-4710; 09276191033

By:

ATTY. VIVENCIO S. BACLIG

PTR No. 059-8192; 1/09/2015; QC
IBP No. 098-2625; 1/08/2015; QC
Roll No. 21190
MCLE Certificate of Exemption No.: V-000145/March 13,
2015/Pasig City

EXPLANATION AS TO FILING & SERVICE OF COPY:

Page

Copy of the Motion for Reconsideration was filed with the

Honorable Regional Trial Court and furnished to the Plaintiffs and
their counsel thru LBC instead of the preferred personal service due
to temporary lack of personnel to effect personal service:
THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 97, Quezon City
ATTY. RAMON F. AVIADO, JR.
Private Prosecutor
092 Medalla Building,
1 Gen. Mac Arthur Avenue,
Araneta Center, Cubao,
Quezon City

LBC No. ___________

HON. PERFECTO L. CHUA-CHENG IV

Public Prosecutor
Office of the City Prosecutor
Quezon City

LBC No. ___________

ATTY. VIVENCIO S. BACLIG