REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Department of Justice
National Prosecution Service
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
Baguio City
CATHERINE M. CRUZ ,
Complainant
-versus-

I-17-INV-0553

FLORISA PALANDITO
Respondent.

ESTAFA

For:

x------------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Resolution Dated May 26, 2015)
Complainant, CATHERINE M. CRUZ, through the
assistance of the undersigned counsel, most respectfully
submit this motion and in support hereof states the
following:
1. On May 26, 2015, the Honorable Office issued a
Resolution dismissing the case filed by the herein
Complainant.
2. Complainant received a copy of the Resolution on
May 28, 2015 and she has until June 7, 2015 to
submit her motion.
3. In the interest of justice, the herein Complainant is
filing this Motion for Reconsideration on the ground
that the finding and conclusion are contrary to the
facts and law.
GROUNDS
1. With all due respect, the Honorable Office erred in
dismissing the case of Estafa on the above stated
case.
ARGUMENTS
The Honorable Office erred in dismissing the abovestated case.

A look at the facts of the case which is provided in the

Affidavit-Complaint would clearly and evidently prove that
there is a deceit. The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA for
brevity) entered into by the Complainant and the
Respondent is a lump sum contract wherein the Complainant
shall pay the total amount of ONE MILLION THREE HUNDRED
ONE THOUSAND SEVENHUNDRED EIGHTY (Php 1, 301, 780.
00) for both the vehicle and the franchise. The MOA entered
into by the Complainant and the Respondent was still in
effect when the latter sold the LTO-franchise to another
person named SISENANDO PASCUA (SISENANDO for brevity).
Respondent sold the LTO-franchise without any valid notice
to the Complainant nor there was any cancellation of the
MOA to speak of.
The statements in Respondents Counter Affidavit
specifically on paragraph j, k, l, m, and n are all false and
baseless. The East West Banking Corporation issued a
transaction history which provides the fact that the
Complainant had sufficient fund for the monthly amortization
of the vehicle and thus, the incurring of penalties as
alleged by the Respondent holds no ground. There was never
a delay in the payments of the monthly amortization so
Respondents allegation is baseless. (Attached hereto is copy
of the transaction history and hereto marked as ANNEX A)
Likewise, the herein Complainant never gave her
consent to the Deed of Sale which Respondent entered into
with SISENANDO nor was the former ever notified by the
Respondent regarding the said sale. If Complainant really
gave her consent then why did she continue to pay for the
monthly amortization of the vehicle. In fact there was never
any communications, txt or call, which transpired between
Respondent and Complainant during the said month. As to
the allegation, that the sale between Respondent and
SISENANDO was not actually consummated and the amount
paid by SISENANDO became her loan, the Complainant has
no personally knowledge of the same. However, if such was
the case then why was the deed of sale between Respondent
and SISENANDO submitted to the LTO/LTFRB. Also, the
Respondent did not submit any evidence to prove that the
sale between her and SISENANDO was actually cancelled
and it became a loan instead.
The statements in Respondents Counter-Affidavit
specifically on paragraphs o, p, q and r are all false
and baseless. Respondent never actually contacted

Complainant regarding any payment of insurance of the

vehicle on December 2013. In fact when Complainant and
Respondent entered into a MOA, the latter told the former
that the she already paid for the insurance of the vehicle for
the year 2012. So how can Respondent claim that
Complainant did not pay the insurance of the vehicle for the
year 2012. As to the 2013 insurance, Complainant was never
informed and if she was informed then she would have
gladly paid for the same.
The East West Banking
Corporation issued a transaction history which provides the
fact that the Complainant had sufficient fund for the monthly
amortization of the vehicle from February 2014 up to May
2014 (Attached is a copy of the transaction history and
hereto marked as ANNEX B).
In fact the previously attached ANNEX B evidently
showed that there was an exchange of deposit and
withdrawal transactions with the East West Bank and clearly
there was sufficient fund to cover the monthly amortization
of the vehicle. So Respondent cannot claim that
Complainants checks have no funds. Thus, the other
allegations of the Respondent which allegedly transpired on
May 2013 are not true because they never actually
happened. The truth is that sometime in May 2013,
Respondent called herein Complainant to tell her that she
has to pay ONE HUNDRED THIRTY SIX THOUSAND NINE
HUNDRED SIXTY ONE PESOS (Php 136, 961.00) Philippine
Currency to PS Bank-Baguio or they will foreclose the
vehicle.
Again, on June 02, 2014, Respondent texted herein
Complainant asking her to pay the ONE HUNDRED THIRTY
SIX THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SIXTY ONE PESOS (Php 136,
961.00) Philippine Currency with the assurance that
Respondent will return back the above-mentioned amount to
the Complainant within two weeks upon payment. (Attached
are the text messages transferred into coupon bond and
hereto marked as ANNEX C)
Due to such, Complainant went to PS Bank-Baguio to
verify the matter and there she found out that Respondent
willfully and deliberately failed to pay the four monthly
amortization which should have been covered by the THIRTY
(30) checks which she issued.
Because of the foregoing, the Complainant was
constrained to pay the amount of ONE HUNDRED THIRTY SIX

THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SIXTY PESOS (Php 136, 961.00)

with PS Bank-Baguio. After paying, Complainant asked the
Respondent to return the current EIGHT (8) checks which she
arranged to make over the counter payments with PS
Bank- Baguio.
The statements in Respondents Counter-Affidavit
specifically on paragraph s and t are likewise false and
baseless. On November 11, 2014, the Complainant paid over
the counter the amount of TWENTY THREE THOUSAND ONE
HUNDRED FIFTEEN PESOS
(Php 23, 115.00) and on
December 08, 2014, Complainant likewise paid the amount
of TWENTY THREE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED PESOS (Php
23, 100.00) with the PS Bank. (Attached are copies of the
payment slip for November 11, 2014 and December 08,
2014 and hereto marked as ANNEX D and ANNEX E,
respectively)
For paragraph t her allegations are false. The
Complainant has actually paid almost all of her obligations
except one wherein it was the Respondent who paid for the
same. The one payment which Respondent made was the
last over the counter payment which should have been
paid by the Complainant were it not for the fact that
Respondent suspiciously paid for the same. The act of
Respondent in paying for the last over the counter
payment is very suspicious and questionable and when
Complainant tried to contact her about it, Respondent never
replied. Due to such the Complainant went to PS BankBaguio to verify the status of the O.R. and the C.R. of the
vehicle and there she found out that Respondent requested
the release of the O.R. and C.R. of the vehicle without
notifying the Complainant. By reason of the foregoing, the
Complainant wrote a letter to PS Bank-Baguio to hold the
release of the said O.R. and C.R. since Complainant and their
client (herein Respondent) have an agreement about the
release of the said O.R. and C.R. (Attached is a copy of the
letter and hereto marked as ANNEX F)
The counter-affidavit of the herein Respondent
mentioned the Affidavit of Sesinando Pascua but no copy
was attached therein. Likewise, Annexes 5 and 6 of
Respondents counter affidavit is doubtful due to the fact
there was a payment which transpired during that day which
was evidenced by the previously attached November 11,
2014 and December 08, 2014 payment slips and marked as
ANNEX D and ANNEX E.

The statements in Respondents Counter-Affidavit

specifically on paragraph 3 and 5 are false and baseless. On
June 22, 2014, since the Respondent did not pay back the
ONE HUNDRED THIRTY SIX THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED SIXTY
PESOS (Php 136, 961.00) with PS Bank-Baguio to the
Complainant, the latter asked the former to sign an
Authorization Letter addressed to the manager of PS BankBaguio authorizing the herein Complainant to claim the O.R.
and the C.R. of the vehicle. One more thing is the fact that
upon verification by the Complainant from the BIR, the
Respondent never actually the paid the taxes of the vehicle
since 2012 (Attached is a copy of the Authorization Letter
and hereto marked as ANNEX G) (ONE MORE ANNEX)
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Complainant
respectfully moves for the consideration of the May 26, 2015
Resolution on the above-entitled case and that the case of
ESTAFA be filed against the Respondent herein.
Done in the City of Baguio on the _____ day of June
2015.
CATHERINE M. CRUZ
Complainant-Movant
Assisted by:
JOSE MENCIO MOLINTAS
Molintas Law Office
Room 305, Jose Miguel Bldg.1,
Labsan St. cor. Yandoc st., Baguio

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this _____ day

of June 2014 at the City of Baguio. I hereby certify that I
have personally examined the complainant-movant and I am
satisfied that she has voluntarily executed and understood
the said Motion for Reconsideration.
__________________________________
Administering Officer

VERIFICATION
I, CATHERINE M. CRUZ, of legal age, Filipino citizen, and
with address at
after having been duly sworn to in
accordance with law do hereby depose and state the
following:
1) I am the complainant-movant in the above-mentioned
case;
2) I have caused the preparation of the foregoing MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION;
3) I have read and understood the contents of the same
and that all information therein contained are true and
correct of my own personal knowledge and based on
authentic records.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereby affix my signature
this ___ day of June 2015, at Baguio City .
CATHERINE M. CRUZ
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on the date
and place above-written.
_________________________
Administering Officer
COPY FURNISHED VIA REGISTERED MAIL:
Florisa Palandito
No.21 Add Road, Irisan,
Baguio City

R.R.__________________

EXPLANATION: A copy of the foregoing pleading (MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION) has been furnished to the
Respondent via registered mail. Due to distance constraints.
Hence, service was made by registered mail in accordance
with law.