REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff,
- versus -

CA G.R. SP No. CRNO.36339

CARIDAD F. FESTEJO,
Accused.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(To the Decision dated 25 May 2015)
ACCUSED CARIDAD F. FESTEJO (hereinafter Accused) by counsel, and unto this
Honorable Court, respectfully states:
1. On 4 June 2015, counsel received a Decision from Hon. Magdangal M. De Leon dated 25
May 2015, denying the appeal from the Judgment of the Regional Trial Court and finding
Accused-Appellant Caridad F. Festejo guilty of the crime of Estafa. The dispositive portion
provides:
WHEREFORE, the present appeal is hereby DENIED. The Judgment
dated December 12, 2013 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 217,
Quezon City, in Crim Case No. Q-05-133475, for estafa, defined and
penalized under Article 315, par. 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC), is hereby AFFIRMED, with MODIFICATION in that appellant
Caridad F. Festejo is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate
penalty of 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional, as minimum, to
20 years of reclusion temporal, as maximum. Further, appellant is
ordered to pay the Armed Forces of the Philippines Finance Center the
amount of P924,390.96, plus interest of 6% per annum reckoned from
the finality of this decision until full payment.
SO ORDERED.
2. A second hard look on the factual milieu of this case is imperative for what is at stake here
is an innocent person being condemned. It is important in our free society that every
individual going about his ordinary affairs has confidence that his government cannot
adjudge him guilty of a criminal offense without convincing a proper factfinder of his guilt
with utmost certainty.1
3. Swindling or estafa is punishable under Article 315 of the RPC. There are three ways of
committing estafa, viz.: (1) with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence; (2) by means of false
1 In the matter of Samuel Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90, S.Ct. 1068 (1970)

pretenses or fraudulent acts; or (3) through fraudulent means. The three ways of committing
estafa may be reduced to two, i.e., (1) by means of abuse of confidence; or (2) by means of
deceit. (Rosita Sy vs. People, G.R. No. 183879, April 14, 2010, citing R.R. Paredes v.
Calilung, G.R. No. 156055, March 5, 2007, 517 SCRA 369; Cosme, Jr. v. People, G.R. No.
149753, November 27, 2006, 508 SCRA 190; Jan-Dec Construction Corporation v. CA,
G.R. No. 146818, February 6, 2006, 481 SCRA 556).
4. The elements of estafa in general are the following: (a) that an accused defrauded another
by abuse of confidence, or by means of deceit; and (b) that damage and prejudice capable
of pecuniary estimation is caused the offended party or third person. The act complained
of in the instant case is penalized under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the RPC, wherein
estafa is committed by any person who shall defraud another by false pretenses or
fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. It is
committed by using fictitious name, or by pretending to possess power, influence,
qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of
other similar deceits. (Ibid.)
5. The elements of estafa by means of deceit are the following, viz.: (a) that there must be a
false pretense or fraudulent representation as to his power, influence, qualifications,
property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; (b) that such false pretense or
fraudulent representation was made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud; (c) that the offended party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent
act, or fraudulent means and was induced to part with his money or property; and (d) that,
as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage. (Id.)
6. In the instant case, the accused in essence was alleged to have falsely represented herself
to be the daughter of Santiago Domingo, a pensioner of the Armed Forces of the Philippines
(AFP) who already died way back in 1993. The accused allegedly collected the pension
pertaining to Domingo through this scheme. However, the prosecution failed to adduce
any evidence that accused in fact received the pension pertaining to Domingo
consisting of the checks representing the same. Neither did the prosecution offer any
evidence that accused encashed said checks and appropriated the same for her benefit.
No evidence was offered that the offended party (either the AFP or Domingos family)
suffered damage as a result of the alleged scheme. Thus, the third element of the crime
for which the accused is charged has not been proven beyond all doubt.
7. It is settled rule that the findings of fact of trial courts are given great weight on appeal
because they are in a better position to examine the real evidence, and observe the
demeanor of the witnesses, and can therefore discern if they are telling the truth or not. 2 But
there are exceptions to the rule. Among the exceptional circumstances where a
reassessment of facts found by the lower courts is allowed are when the conclusion is a
finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; when the inference made
is manifestly absurd, mistaken or impossible; when there is grave abuse of discretion in the
appreciation of facts; when the findings of fact are conflicting; and when the Court of
Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same are
contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee. 3
2 People vs. Cabalhin, 231 SCRA 486, 496 (March 28, 1994).
3 Engineering & Machinery Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 52267 (January 24, 1996, citing Navarro vs. Court of Appeals, 209 SCRA 612 (June 8,
1992), which in turn cited Remalante vs. Tibe, et al.., 158 SCRA 138 (February 25, 1988).

8. With all due respect to the Honorable Court, it was error for the lower court to brush aside
the fact that there is no evidence that offended party suffered damage as a result of the
scheme. The Decision of the lower court lies on the conclusion where there is a
finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures. The presumption of
innocence is founded upon the first principle of justice, and is not mere form but a
substantial part of the law. It is not overcome by mere suspicion or conjecture; a probability
that the defendant committed the crime nor by the fact that he had the opportunity to do so. 4
Its inexorable mandate is that, for all the authority and influence of the prosecution, the
accused must be acquitted and set free if his guilt cannot be proved beyond the whisper of
doubt. 5
9. In the case at bar, the evidence for the prosecution is concededly weak. Even if the defense
is weak, the accused must be accorded the benefit of the doubt in view of the constitutional
presumption of innocence that an accused enjoys. When the circumstances are capable of
two or more inferences, as in this case, one of which is consistent with the presumption of
innocence while the other is compatible with guilt, the presumption of innocence must
prevail and the court must acquit. In the case of People vs. Dimalanta,6 the court ruled that
considering the failure of the prosecution to discharge its burden of proof and overcome the
constitutional presumption of innocence, it is not only appellants right to be freed; it is even
more, this Courts constitutional duty to acquit her.
10. There was manifest error in the Decision when it ignored the fact the element of Estafa was
not fully established. While the testimony of the witness Master Sergeant Estelito T. Sa Jose
testified that he was teller at the Armed Forces of the Philippines Finance Center and was in
charge of the releasing of pension checks. He is a teller from 2000 to 2002 but not during
the entire duration of the material dates of the crime charged, which is 1995 to 2003. How
did the lower court prove that the government, specifically AFP Finance Center, suffered
damage in the amount of P924,390.96 (checks allegedly received by the accused from
1995 to 2003) when the master sergeant teller can only testify the crime charged only on
2000 to 2002? A credible witness must have first-hand knowledge of the case and
accurately states the facts. In this case, it failed. Master Sergeant San Joses testimony
therefore is immaterial. There is no evidence on record that accused obtained the
checks as there were no checks identified and offered in evidence. Thus the damage
presented was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
11. Lastly, the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt has this vital role in our criminal
procedure for cogent reasons. The accused during a criminal prosecution has at stake
interest of immense importance, both because of the possibility that he may lose his liberty
upon conviction and because of the certainty that he would be stigmatized by the conviction.
Accordingly, a society that values the good name and freedom of every individual should not
condemn a man for commission of crime when there is reasonable about his guilt. Due
process commands that no man shall lose his liberty unless the Government has borne the
burden of convincing the factfinder of his guilt. To this end, the reasonable-doubt standard is
indispensable, for it impresses on the trier of fact the necessity of reaching certitude of the
facts in issue.7
4 Constitutional Law, Cecilio D. Duka, Copyright 2010
5 People vs. Ablaneda, G.R. No. 128075, September 14, 1999.
6 G.R No. 157039, October 1, 2004
7 People vs. Morales, G.R. No. 172873, March 19, 2010

12. Therefore, on the strength of the above-enumerated grounds, and invoking her
constitutionally guaranteed right to presumption of innocence, accused humbly seeks the
indulgence of this Honorable Court that the Decision dated 25 May 2015 be
RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable
Court that the instant motion be noted and the subject decision be reversed and set aside
and a new one be rendered dismissing the instant case as it is further prayed that the relief
prayed for by the accused be awarded.
Other measures of relief, just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed
for.
San Jose del Monte City for Quezon City. 15 June 2015.
A. MARTIN S. ANTERO
Counsel for the Accused Caridad F. Festejo
San Jose Street, Poblacion 1, San Jose del Monte City
Roll No. 49165
IBP LRN No. 07952; RSM
PTR No. 0382215; 01.07.2015; CSJDM Bulacan
MCLE Compliance IV No. 0019749; 5.2.2013
NOTICE OF HEARING
& COPY FURNISHED TO:
HON. PRESIDING JUDGE
Branch 217, RTC Quezon City
`
Greetings!
Please submit the foregoing Motion for the consideration and approval of this
Honorable Court on _________ at 8:30 a.m. or soon thereafter as matter and counsel may
be heard.
A. MARTIN S. ANTERO
EXPLANATION
Service of the foregoing pleading was made by registered mail due to distance, time
constraints, and inadequacy of messengerial staff.
A. MARTIN S. ANTERO