Supreme Court
Manila
ESTHER PASCUAL,
Petitioner,
CIVIL CASE NO. 204873
-versus- For: Estafa
ERNESTO WEE,
Respondent.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
PREFATORY STATEMENT
In lieu of justice and equity, the Petitioner as an individual has a right
to protect and in order to protect her right, comes to this Honorable Court
with clean hands in order to enforce her right and prevent or redress the
wrongful acts and omissions of the Respondent.
2 The postdated check was evidence which was freely entered into by
the parties on 05 February 2005 ;
3 One of the conditions agreed upon between the parties is that
Respondent will pay the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P
500,000.00) in three months with fixed interest of Twenty Thousand Pesos
(P 20,000.00) ;
5 On May 25, 2005, the Petitioner deposited the check but he was
informed that the Metro Bank account of the Respondent was already
closed.
ISSUES
Given the foregoing facts and circumstances, the following issues are
presented for discussion:
I.
1 Clearly there is no question that the probable cause exists that the
respondent is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of estafa
under Article 315 Par. 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code based on the
foregoing facts. As far as the agreement between the Petitioner and
respondent is concerned, deceit was employed during the inception of
the agreement by postdating a check or issuing a bouncing check
when the respondent had no funds in the bank.
2 The crime of estafa under Article 315 Par. 2(d) By postdating a check
or issuing a bouncing check is committed based on the following
elements, to wit:
II.
1 The documentary evidence as oppose to a mere statement of denial
sans any proof thereof is well established that. In fact, a perusal of the
circumstances of the conduct of the Respondent for several years of
engaging in the same activity involving different individuals with
know-how on the technicalities of the law thereby evading liability
through faade of ignorance and tears. Respondent is somewhat well
versed of the constitutional provision that nobody should be
imprisoned for non-payment of debt and thus, using this to her fullest
advantage. There is indeed a dire need to curtail her with the strong
hands of the law so as not to further cause prejudice to unsuspecting
public.
PRAYER
3 Cost of suit.
Such other reliefs and remedies that this Honorable Court may deem
just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.
Respectfully submitted.
Manila City, Philippines, July 27, 2016.