Scribd
Upload
60 views

Comment To Motion Edited

1) The respondent Antonio Luna files a comment opposing the complainant's motion to resolve the complaint for estafa. 2) The respondent argues that the resolution issued by the investigating prosecutor was based on the evidence submitted by the complainant, which included an allegation of estafa but did not find probable cause to charge the respondent with that crime. 3) The investigating prosecutor has discretion to evaluate the evidence and resolve whether probable cause exists to indict the respondent or dismiss the complaint. In this case, the prosecutor did not find probable cause to indict the respondent for estafa based on the evidence submitted.

Uploaded by

Olezardo Jose Uy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
60 views

Comment To Motion Edited

1) The respondent Antonio Luna files a comment opposing the complainant's motion to resolve the complaint for estafa. 2) The respondent argues that the resolution issued by the investigating prosecutor was based on the evidence submitted by the complainant, which included an allegation of estafa but did not find probable cause to charge the respondent with that crime. 3) The investigating prosecutor has discretion to evaluate the evidence and resolve whether probable cause exists to indict the respondent or dismiss the complaint. In this case, the prosecutor did not find probable cause to indict the respondent for estafa based on the evidence submitted.

Uploaded by

Olezardo Jose Uy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTOR
Cagayan de Oro City

JUAN DELA CRUZ. NPS NO. ________________


Complainant,

For: Estafa (Art. 315 par. 2a) and


Falsification and use of falsified
-versus-
documents (Art. 172 in relation to
Art. 171 par. 1 and 2) of the RPC
ANTONIO LUNA
Respondent.
x------------------------------------------------/

COMMENT TO THE MANIFESTATION WITH


MOTION TO RESOLVE COMPLAINT FOR ESTAFA

COMES NOW respondent ANTONIO LUNA, unto this Honorable


Office of the City Prosecutor, most respectfully avers, thus:

1. The services of the undersigned counsel has just recently been


engaged by the respondents.

2. A copy of the Manifestation with Motion to Resolve Complaint


for Estafa (Motion) filed by complainant’s counsels was also received by the
undersigned.

3. The good counsels for complainant insist that the issues and
allegations for the crime for Estafa should also be resolved by the Honorable
Prosecutor in its Resolution. They also assert that the issue on Estafa was not
properly resolved since there is no discussion on the body of the Resolution
of the Honorable Prosecutor pertaining to the issue on the crime of Estafa.

4. We disagree with the good counsels for complainant. The


Resolution issued by the Honorable Investigating Prosecutor was based on
the complaint-affidavit filed by the complainant as well as the pieces of
evidence submitted. In fact, it was sufficiently stated in page 2 of the assailed
Resolution, thus:

Despite having been subpoenaed, respondents still


failed to submit their respective counter-affidavits and other
counter-vailing pieces of evidence for their defense. Thus,

1
the undersigned resolved the instant complaint based
on the evidence at hand. (Emphasis supplied)

5. The Resolution of the Honorable Prosecutor was based on the


complaint and evidence submitted by the complainant. The complaint alleged
that the crime of Estafa was also committed by the respondents. However, the
Honorable Prosecutor found no probable cause to charge the respondents
with the said crime.

6. It is an elementary rule that the finding of probable cause in


preliminary investigation rests upon the discretion of the investigating
prosecutor after evaluating the evidence submitted. The investigating
prosecutor may even resolve to dismiss the complaint for lack of probable
cause.

7. The purpose of a preliminary investigation  is to determine


whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to
believe that the accused is guilty of the crime and should be held for trial.
In  Buchanan v. Viuda de Esteban. we defined probable cause as the existence of facts
and circumstances as would excite the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the
facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty
of the crime for which he was prosecuted. (Pestilos, et. Al., vs. Generoso and
People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 182601, November 10, 2014)

8. By resolving not to file an information for Estafa against the


respondents after evaluating the pieces of evidence submitted by the
complainant, the Honorable Investigating Prosecutor did not find any
probable cause to indict the respondents for such crime.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Manifestation with


Motion to Resolve Complaint for Estafa filed by private complainant be
DENIED and the Complaint be DISMISSED for lack of probable cause.

Respectfully submitted. ______________. Cagayan de Oro City.

By:

2
Copy furnished:

You might also like