Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE
PADRE FAURA ST., ERMITA, MANILA
JUANITO DALAWAHAN,
Complainant-Appellant,
F ( R ) 151714
I.S. No. X-03-INV-12K-11111
-versusALEJANDRO ALEMANYA,
Respondent-Appellee.
x------------------------------------------x
PETITION FOR
REVIEW
the National
III.
STATEMENT OF THE MATTERS INVOLVED
1. On November 16, 2012, Complainant - Appellant Juanito
Dalawahan filed a case against Respondent - Appellee Alejandro
Alemanya for ESTAFA docketed as NPS No.: I.S. No. XV-03-INV12K-010246 before the OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR OF
QUEZON CITY. A copy of the COMPLAINT, and its mentioned
annexes are hereto attached marked collectively as ANNEX A
hereof;
2
GROUNDS
1. Under Article 315 2(a) and 318 of the Revised Penal Code which
defines the crime of Estafa and provides for the elements thereof.
Pursuant to the law the elements of Estafa by means of deceit are
the following:
a. That there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or
fraudulent means.
b. That such pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must
be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud.
c. That the offended party must have relied on the false pretense,
fraudulent act, or fraudulent means, that is, he was induced to
part with his money or property because of the false pretense,
fraudulent act, or fraudulent means.
d. That as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damages.
2. The above dismissal was anchored that the complainant did not
rely on the misrepresentations alone but he was animated to part
with his money because of his love or empathy with the
respondent. A reading of the electronic communications shows
that the complainant was the knight-in-shining-armor of the
respondent; who desired to come to here aid to succor and liftnher
out of her troubles. The citations cited by the respondent referring
to the electronic communications show that complainant
emphatically wanted to impress upon respondent that he cared for
her and understood her situation and that he wanted to help.
3. The fact that the representations are not the sole motive for
Appellants parting with his money is evident also from the fact
that when Appellant learned or knew about Appellees
misrepresentations, he still continued to give money to her. A case
in point is in number 10 of Appellants affidavit wherein he gave
Appellee US$500.00 to get past immigration authorities and when
he found out that it was not necessary, there is no statement that
he immediately demanded the return of the amount or much less
stopped giving further amounts to Appellee.
9. From the foregoing any other kind of conceivable deceit may fall
under this article. S in any other cases of estafa, damage to the
offended party is required. In this case, Appellant by parting his
money in favour of the Appellee suffered damages.
10.
Alejandro Alemanya
45 Jordan Dulo St., Brgy. San Agustin,
Novaliches, Quezon City
7
JUANITO DALAWAHAN
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 11h day of February,
2015, at San Fernando City, La Union by the above-named affiant
represented by his Attorney-in-Fact, who is personally known to me and
who exhibited to me her credential indicated below her name and who
attest to the truth of the foregoing.
Doc. No.: 1
Page no.:1
Book no.: II
Series of 2015
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE and EXPLANATION
I have filed the Petition for Review and its annexes with the
Office of the Secretary of Justice by registered mail on February 11,
2015, in lieu of personal filing which is not practicable because of far
distance and lack of manpower.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 11th
day of February 2015, at San Fernando City, La Union.
JUANITO DALAWAHAN
Affiant
Doc. No.: 1
Page no.:1
Book no.: II
Series of 2015
10