memorandum stephanie final

5
Republic of the Philippines First Judicial Region Municipal Trial Court Br. 4 Baguio City PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Plaintiff, Versus STEPHANIE MCMAHON, Accused. x---------------------------------- --------------------------x For: Violation of B.P. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) M E M O R A N D U M For the Defendant COMES NOW THE DEFENDANT, through the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court most respectfully submits and presents this Memorandum in the above-titled case and aver that: STATEMENT OF THE CASE On July 18 2015, Private complainant filed a case for violation of BP 22 or the bouncing checks law against herein defendant. On July 15, 2015, defendant received summons issued by the Honorable Court to file an answer. On July 27, 2015, defendant filed her answer. On August 12, 2015, preliminary conference was held in the presence of the private complainant, defendant, and their respective counsels.

Upload: amado-vallejo-iii

Post on 05-Sep-2015

217 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

an example of a memorandum

TRANSCRIPT

Republic of the Philippines

First Judicial Region

Municipal Trial Court Br. 4 Baguio City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Plaintiff,

Versus

STEPHANIE MCMAHON,

Accused.

x------------------------------------------------------------xFor: Violation of B.P. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law)

M E M O R A N D U M

For the Defendant

COMES NOW THE DEFENDANT, through the undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court most respectfully submits and presents this Memorandum in the above-titled case and aver that:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On July 18 2015, Private complainant filed a case for violation of BP 22 or the bouncing checks law against herein defendant.

On July 15, 2015, defendant received summons issued by the Honorable Court to file an answer.

On July 27, 2015, defendant filed her answer.

On August 12, 2015, preliminary conference was held in the presence of the private complainant, defendant, and their respective counsels.

Accordingly, after presentation of evidences, the Honorable Court ordered the parties to submit their respective Memoranda fifteen days (15) days from notice, otherwise, the case is deemed submitted for decision.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Private complainant owned cellular phone shop in Baguio City. Sometime on July 2014, the latter gave 2 crates containing cellular phones to the defendant. This was covered by a deed of sale (Annex A).

Allegedly, the Checks were dishonoured by Metro Bank.

On the other hand, defendant denies the allegations of the Private Complainant;. Defendant argues that Private complainant has no cause of action against her. There was an agreement that the checks will not be presented to a bank.

Defendant presented an acknowledgement receipt (Annex E) wherein it was stipulated that the checks will not be presented to a bank and that the private complainant should collect the sum of money to the defendant herself.STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether or not the Private Complainant has cause of action

2. Whether or not the acknowledgement receipt will be admissibleA R G U M E N T S

1. The plaintiff has no cause of action in commencing the case against the defendant.

2. The acknowledgement receipt should be given credenceDISCUSSION

1. It is necessary to emphasize that defendant had notified private complainant that the account would be insufficient, and that he should first go to her for the payment of the two crates since she will be holding the cash for the payment of the 2 crates.

In the caseof Magno v. Court of Appeals ( GR 96132)wherein the court states that knowledge of the payee of the insufficiency or lack of funds of the drawer with the drawee bank is immaterial as deceit is not an essential element of an offense penalized byBP Blg.22.

We note that, however, held cases that the drawers act of notifying the payee at the time of the issuance of the check that he does not have sufficient funds to cover the amount of such check may operate to absolve the drawer from liability underBP Blg.22.However, it must be emphasized that in said cases, the checks were drawn and issued in good faith and without intention on the part of their respective drawers to apply said checks for account or for value. InMagno vs. Court of Appeals,the rubber checks were simply issued to cover a warranty deposit in a lease contract returnable to the drawer upon the satisfactory completion of the entire period of lease. The drawer did not benefit from the deposit since the checks were used only as a deposit to serve as security for the faithful performance of the drawers obligation as a lessee of an equipment.

In the case of the defendant, the Checks Issued is only a security for the 2 crates that she had ordered to the private complainant and has no intention of defrauding the latter.

2. The second argument is related to the first since the acknowledgement receipt contains the agreement of the party that the checks should not be encashed since the account is not sufficient to cover the debt. This agreement should be given credence since it shall be the deciding factor whether defendant is liable or not for the violation of BP 22.C O N C L U S I O N

With the laws and jurisprudence presented, the defendant, through his counsel believes that the Private respondent has no cause of action in filing the suit based on checks issued by defendant.P R A Y E R

WHEREFORE, premises considered, defendant respectfully prays to the honorable court that judgment be rendered in his favor as follows:

1. An order be issued by this Honorable Court dismissing the Complaint for lack of cause of action;

2. Judgment be rendered upholding the validity of defendants acknowledgement receipt ;

4. Ordering the private respondent to pay the defendant the amount of P30,000.00 as Attorneys Fees and to pay cost suit.

Some other relief and remedies as may be deemed just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.

Legazpi City, 1st day of October, 2012.

PAUS AND ASSOCIATE LAW OFFICE

Counsel of the Defendant

#1 Purviner St., Giling,

Rosales city, Pangasinan

By:

ATTY. MARY ROSE PAUS

Roll of Attorneys No. 55661

IBP Lifetime Member No. 4590754

PTR O.R. No. 6978354. Feb. 7, 2015

EXPLANATION

In compliance with Section 11, Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of Court, personal service of copy of Trial Memorandum could not be effected except by service through registered mail due to distance and personnel constraints.

MARY ROSE PAUSCopy Furnished:(By Registered Mail)

Atty. Amado N. Vallejo III

Counsel for Private complainant

Rm. 1, 2/F Masonic Center

No.180 Yandoc Street, Baguio City