REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
Quezon City

MAILA TAN LI
Complainant,

Versus-

NPA

Docket

No.

XV-03-INV-13-I-

09376
For: ESTAFA

MARY GRACE DELA TORRE WOLFE

Respondent.
x-----------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

I, MARY GRACE DELA TORRE, Filipino, of legal age and with
residence address at No. 8 St. James Street, St. Peters Ville Subdivision,
Camp 7, Baguio City, where summons and legal processes may be served,
begs the indulgence of this Honorable Office to consider the following:
1. That the crime of Estafa under Article 315, par 2 (a) of the Revised
Penal Code provides, to wit:
Article 315. Swindling (estafa) Any person who shall
defraud another by any means mentioned hereinbelow
shall be punished by:
XXX
1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence namely:
(a) By altering the substance, quantity or quality of
anything of value which the offender shall deliver by
virtue of an obligation to do so, even though such
obligation

be

based

on

immoral

or

illegal

consideration;
XXX
2. Considering the abovementioned provision, herein Respondent never
abused the confidence of the Complainant by altering the quality of the
merchandise and in no way took advantage of her trust.

3. That when there is no agreement as to the quality of the things to be

delivered, the delivery of the thing not acceptable to the complainant
is not estafa. The Supreme Court elucidated on the matter in the case
of People vs. Bastiana, to wit:
Thus in the case where the evidence does not
show that there was an agreement

as to the

quality of the ROTC and PMT insignias and name

plates which the accused bound themselves to
make and deliver to the complainant, and the
insignias and the name plates which the accused
bound

themselves

to

make

and

deliver

to

the

complainant, and the insignias and the name

plates

delivered

by

the

accused

were

not

acceptable to the complainant, even if payment

was made by the latter, the accused are not
guilty of Estafa under Article 315, par 1 (a) of
the Revised Penal Code.(Emphasis supplied)
4. That the statement authentic, preowned and in excellent condition,
what you see is what you get handbags for sale cannot in any way be
construed as an agreement as to the quality of the bags nor an
admission on the part of herein Respondent of any liability. The said
statement is a mere advertisement, a strategy, to entice buyers to buy
and which the latter may accept or not. This is common usage and
prevalent in the market these days.
5. That assuming arguendo without admitting any, that the above
mentioned statement was relied upon by the buyer and thus deceit is
present, the said argument cannot hold water by the very reason that
the Respondent never presented herself as an expert on bags and in
fact told the Complainant blatantly that the bags came from different
suppliers from Baguio City and in turn told the respondent that they
came from the States that were donated during a calamity and the
authentication thereof cannot be guaranteed.
6. Hence, the above mentioned statement at most can only be taken as
exaggeration on the part of the Respondent and cannot be considered
as fraudulent. Article 1340 of the New Civil Code, provides that:
Article 1340. The usual exaggeration in trade, when
the other party had an opportunity to know tha
facts, are not in themselves fraudulent. (Emphasis
supplied)

7. That to show good faith, Respondent several times offered to replace

the merchandise but the Complainant refuse to return the alleged
defective bags to the detriment of the Respondent.
8. In addition to the foregoing and again without admitting any, Records
will show that the Complainant was able to reimburse from Ebay the
amount of Twenty-Seven Thousand Pesos (Php. 27,000.00) and yet the
Complainant opted to demand the full amount of Fifty-Two Thousand
Pesos from the Respondent, this clearly show malice and bad faith on
the

part

of

the

Complainant.

Common

reason

dictates

that

Complainants intention in filing the said complaint is merely to harass

and extort from the Respondent.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered and on the basis of the foregoing,
Respondent respectfully prays for the reconsideration of the Honorable
Offices 04 June 2014 Resolutionand lieu thereof issue a Resolution
dismissing the complaint filed against herein Respondent for lack of basis or
at the very least, order a reinvestigation of the subject case.
Other reliefs as are just and equitable are likewise prayed for.
Respectfully submitted.
Quezon City. 13 April 2015

MARY GRACE DELA TORRE WOLFE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

CITY OF MANILA)SS

BEFORE ME, this 10th day of April, 2015 in the City of Manila, personally
appeared MARY GRACE DELA TORRE with ____________________, issued at the
City of Manila, known to me to be tha same person who executed the
foregoing instrument and he acknowledged to me that the same is his free
act and deed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have here unto set my hand and affixed my
Notarial Seal, the day, year and place above written.

NOTARY PUBLIC

Doc. No._______;
Page No._______;
Book No._______;
Series of 2015.