Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
National Prosecution Service
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
Manila

MARIA LUISA F. CALIZO,

Complainant,

NPS Docket No.: XV-07-INV-22A-00274

- versus - For: Estafa/BP 22

REIGENE SABALLO DELA CRUZ,

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

MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION

(Re: Resolution Dated March 30, 2022)

COMES NOW, the movant-complainant unto this Honorable

Office most respectfully submit this motion and in support hereof
states the following:

1. On March 30, 2022, the Honorable Office issued a

resolution penned by Assistant City Prosecutor Paulo Alberto T.
Sicangco and approved by Deputy City Prosecutor Venus D.V.
Marzan, filing an Information for Violation of B.P. 22 (2 counts)
and dismissing the charge for ESTAFA.

2. Complainant received a copy of the Resolution on April 6,

2022 and she has until April 16, 2022 to submit her motion.

3. In the interest of justice, the herein Complainant is filing

this Motion for Partial 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 charge for

Estafa in the above-stated case.

The basis of Prosecutor Paulo Alberto T. Sicangco in

dismissing the case for ESTAFA is his claim that there was NO
DAMAGE that was proven according to his computation and that
his understanding of the INVESTMENT AGREEMENT as a LOAN
AGREEMENT and therefore there was NO DECEIT.

The findings by Prosecutor Paulo Alberto T. Sicangco with

respect to Violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (2 counts) case
is definitely in accord with existing jurisprudence, however, the
undersigned movant-complainant believes and so hold that the
corresponding Information for the crime of ESTAFA must also be
filed in Court against respondent REIGENE SABALLO DELA CRUZ.

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

Affidavit-Complaint would clearly and evidently prove that there
is deceit. The INVESTMENT AGREEMENT and INVESTOR
AGREEMENT entered into by the Complainant and Respondent is
actually an acknowledgement receipt of the money delivered by
the complainant representing her investment wherein the
complainant was promised to earn an interest of from twenty
(20%) percent up to fifty (50%) percent.

In People of the Philippines vs, Menil, G.R. No.

115054-66, 12 September 2000, the Supreme Court held that
this kind of promise for a certain sum is an actionable fraud, to
wit:

“It has been held that where one states that the
future profits or income of an enterprise shall be a
certain sum, but he actually knows that there will be
none, or that they will be substantially less than he
represents, the statements constitute an actionable
fraud where the hearer believes him and relies on the
statement to his injury”
The respondent in her Counter-Affidavit acknowledged the
receipt from the complainant of the amount of Php9,485,000.00
as investment and indeed took the said hard-earned money
under the pretext of an investment which will earn the stipulated
interes which she claimed as ONLINE LENDING BUSINESS.

As shown in the computation in the complaint-affidavit, the

total amount the Complainant actually gave the Respondent with
regard to the Investment Agreement is Php9,485,000.00.

The computation made by Prosecutor Paulo Alberto T.

Sicangco showing that the total amount the Complainant actually
gave the respondent is only Php600,000.00 is absurd and
misplaced. He only rely his computation from the money transfers
made which he did not understand was also part of the scheme of
the respondent in further defrauding the complainant. As can be
gleaned from the complaint-affidavit, the Investment Agreement
was executed at the house of the complainant in Manila
everytime the respondent would ask her to deliver an investment.
So simultaneously to the execution of the Investment Agreement
is the payment made by the complainant to the respondent. The
series of Bank Transfer and/or Deposits would reflect the further
damage as pertaining to the investment money gave by the
investors of complainant which aside from being told to be paid
as pay-out to her investors was being delivered to the respondent
as additional investment in her Online Lending Business.

As in fact, the respondent was not actually giving the

complainant and her investors the pay-outs from their
investment. The respondent was just only rolling-out the money
from the investors and making it appear as pay-outs so as to
continuously defraud them of their hard-earned money. In simple
Filipino words: “GINIGISA NG RESPONDENT ANG MGA
INVESTORS SA SARILING MANTIKA, DAHIL ANG
PINAPALABAS NIYANG PAY-OUT AY BAHAGI PARIN NG
PERA NG MGA BAGONG PASOK NA INVESTMENT AT HINDI
NIYA IPINAPASOK SA INVESTMENT MARKET ANG PERA AT
ANG SINASABI NIYANG PAY-OUT AY HINDI NA
NAGREREPRESENT SA AKTWAL NA PINANGAKO NG
RESPONDENT NA 20% HANGGANG 40% NA KITA”.

Further, the computation of Prosecutor Paulo Alberto T.

Sicangco made it appear that respondent have delivered to the
complainant the amount of Php1,233,700.00 as payment for her
investment. To make it clear, the alleged GCASH receipts
presented by the respondent corresponds to other transactions
made with the complainant such as payment for the bag
purchased by the respondent from the complaniant, respondent’s
share in the “paluwagan” and respondent’s “pasuyo” of payment
to her obligation to other persons.

It is also confirmed that respondent’s business is illegal

having failed to obtain any lawful authority from the Security and
Exchange Commission (SEC) to conduct investment related
activity. Thus, the respondent did not placed in the investment
market and instead defrauded the amount of Php9,485,000.00
that she received from the complainant. This is a clear
manifestation of DAMAGE and DECEIT.

Estafa by Means of Deceit

 
Article 315, par. 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code
penalizes fraud or deceit when committed as follows:

x xxx
 

2.  by means of any of the following false

pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of fraud:
 

(a)   by using fictitious name, or actions, falsely

pretending to possess power, influence,
qualification, property, credit, agency,
business or imaginary transactions, or by
means of other similar deceits.
  

xxx

Jurisprudence elucidates that the elements of Estafa by

means of deceit under this provision are as follows: (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. (SECOND DIVISION, G.R. No. 175750-51,
April 2, 2014, SILVERINA E. CONSIGNA, Petitioner,
vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE HON.
SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION), and EMERLINA
MOLETA, Respondents)
It is clear that respondent is involved in a “ponzi scheme”.

In People v. Menil (G.R. Nos. 115054-66. September

12, 2000, 340 SCRA 125), the spouses Menil were the
proprietors of a business operating under the name ABM
Appliance and Upholstery. Through ushers and sales executives,
they began soliciting investments from the general public in
Surigao City and its neighboring towns, assuring would-be
investors that their money would be multiplied tenfold after
fifteen (15) calendars days. Instead of the “slots” that were given
to the investors in Balasa, the spouses Menil issued “coupons” as
proof of investment. And just as in Balasa, the initial amounts
involved were small, and so the spouses Menil were able to pay
the returns on the investments as they fell due. However, the
amounts invested and the number of depositors gradually
iincreased until it reached a pont wherein the daily investments
amounting to millions of pesos were pouring in and payments of
the returns were delayed. On September 19, 1989, the spouses
stopped releasing payments alltogether, prompting the investors
to charge them with large-scale swindling.

In People v. Tibayan (G.R. Nos. 209655-60, January

14, 2015, 746 SCRA 259) the Supreme Court has convicted
two incorporators of the Tibayan Group Investment Company,
Inc. (TGICI) of multiple counts of Syndicated Estafa and
sentencing them to suffer life imprisonment for each count. As in
the other fraudulent investment schemes, the private
complainants in that case were enticed to invest in TGICI due to
the offer of high interest rates, as well as the assurance that they
wil recover their investments. After parting with their monies, the
private complainants received a Certificate of Share and post-
dated checks, representing the amount of the principal
investment and the corresponding monthly interest earnings. The
checks, however, were dishonoured upon encashment, and the
TGICI office closed down without private complainants having
been paid. The investors were then constrained to file criminal
complaints against the incorporators and directors of TGICI.

The Respondent had substantially utilized the same modus

as the two (2) cited cases. She solicited investments from the
complainant despite the fact that she or her business is not
registered in the SEC. She also has no secondary license from the
SEC to accept investment. She even admitted this impliedly in
her Counter-Affidavit. However, unknown to complainant, the
promised high-yielding interest was unsustainable, as respondent
was not really engaged in any legitimate business because if she
is indeed engaged in any legitimate lending business, she could
have easily prepared the itemized list of her alleged creditors who
failed to pay after complainant’s demand. Eventually, complainant
failed to pay interest and return the principal of the complainant
causing her damage and prejudice.

The findings of Prosecutor Sicangco are matters of judicial

determination and when he made and concluded such
aforequoted findings in his assailed Resolution, he acted as if he
is the counsel of the respondent with respect to the case for
Estafa.

First. A mere discrepancy in the amount being claimed as

stated in the Complaint-Affidavit and as actually specified in the
supporting documents are matters of evidence, that under our
law, only the Court has the competence to ascertain, the
correctness and validity of the claims and that can be done only
after a full blown trail in Court.

Second. Prosecutor Sicangco forgot that his duty is confined

merely to the determination of probable cause. A reading of the
Complaint shows that respondent probably committed under the
facts obtaining in this case the crime of Estafa as it was clearly
shown that the respondent misrepresented an investment
scheme and thereafter received the amount of investment subject
of the complaint but however reneged on her obligation.

Third and Finally. On the claim that the Investment

Agreement is a Loan Agreement, Prosecutor Sicangco made his
own conclusion that the complainant “was delivering the amount
to the respondent with a relation of a Lender and Borrower”. Such
declaration on the part of Prosecutor Sicangco is in effect revising
the complainant’s version of the respondent’s misrepresentation
that she is engaging in an investment agreement with the
complainant with an interest of from twenty (20%)
percent up to fifty (50%) percent and further supporting
the same with the issuance of INVESTMENT AGREEMENT
and INVESTOR AGREEMENT. This was a glaring effort on his
part to make it appear that this case is nothing but a transaction
involving forbearance of money and therefore civil in nature.
Complainant maintained that respondent should be brought into
the arms of justice so as to discontinue her modus operandi of
victimizing more preys in her investment scam.
As it stands, all the elements of ESTAFA are present under
the facts of this case, warranting the filing of the corresponding
Information in Court.

= PRAYER =

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Complainant

respectfully prayed that the Resolution on the above-entitled case
dated March 30, 2022, be partially reconsidered, in that, the case
of ESTAFA be filed against the respondent REIGENE SABALLO
DELA CRUZ.

Manila, April 7, 2022.

MARIA LUISA F. CALIZO

Movant-Complainant

COPY FURNISHED:

REIGENE S. DELA CRUZ

Block 10, Lot 18, Phase 1
Sentosa Subdivision, Calamba, Laguna
VERIFICATION

I, MARIA LUISA F. CALIZO, of legal age, Filipino and

resident of No. 2060 Pista St., Sta. Cruz, Manila, after having
been duly sworn in accordance with law, do hereby depose and
aver: That –

1. I am the complainant in the above-entitled complaint

before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila;

2. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Motion for

Reconsideration;

3. I have read and understood the contents thereof and

contents therein are true of my own personal knowledge and
belief.

MARIA LUISA F. CALIZO

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ___th day of

April 2022 in the City of Manila. I hereby certify that I have
personally examined the affiant and that I am fully convince that
she voluntarily executed her motion for reconsideration and that
she had read and understood the contents thereof.

NOTARY PUBLIC

Doc. No. ____

Page No. ____
Book No.____
Series of 2022