REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR

Quezon City

MAILA TAN LI

Complainant,

- Versus- NPA Docket No. XV-03-INV-13-I-

09376

For: ESTAFA

MARY GRACE DELA TORRE WOLFE

Respondent.

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

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

I, MARY GRACE DELA TORRE, Filipino, of legal age and with

residence address at No. 8 St. James Street, St. Peters Ville Subdivision,

Camp 7, Baguio City, where summons and legal processes may be served,

begs the indulgence of this Honorable Office to consider the following:

1. That the crime of Estafa under Article 315, par 2 (a) of the Revised

Penal Code provides, to wit:

Article 315. Swindling (estafa) Any person who shall

defraud another by any means mentioned hereinbelow

shall be punished by:

X X X

1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence namely:

(a)By altering the substance, quantity or quality of

anything of value which the offender shall deliver by

virtue of an obligation to do so, even though such

obligation be based on immoral or illegal

consideration;

X X X

2. Considering the abovementioned provision, herein Respondent never

abused the confidence of the Complainant by altering the quality of the

merchandise and in no way took advantage of her trust.

3. That when there is no agreement as to the quality of the things to be

delivered, the delivery of the thing not acceptable to the complainant

is not estafa. The Supreme Court elucidated on the matter in the case

of People vs. Bastiana, to wit:

‘Thus in the case where the evidence does not

show that there was an agreement as to the

quality of the ROTC and PMT insignias and name

plates which the accused bound themselves to

make and deliver to the complainant, and the

insignias and the name plates which the accused

bound themselves to make and deliver to the

complainant, and the insignias and the name

plates delivered by the accused were not

acceptable to the complainant, even if payment

was made by the latter, the accused are not

guilty of Estafa under Article 315, par 1 (a) of

the Revised Penal Code.’(Emphasis supplied)

4. That the statement “authentic, preowned and in excellent condition,

what you see is what you get handbags for sale” cannot in any way be

construed as an agreement as to the quality of the bags nor an

admission on the part of herein Respondent of any liability. The said

statement is a mere advertisement, a strategy, to entice buyers to buy

and which the latter may accept or not. This is common usage and

prevalent in the market these days.

5. That assuming arguendo without admitting any, that the above

mentioned statement was relied upon by the buyer and thus deceit is

present, the said argument cannot hold water by the very reason that

the Respondent never presented herself as an expert on bags and in

fact told the Complainant blatantly that the bags came from different

suppliers from Baguio City and in turn told the respondent that they

came from the States that were donated during a calamity and the

authentication thereof cannot be guaranteed.

6. Hence, the above mentioned statement at most can only be taken as

exaggeration on the part of the Respondent and cannot be considered

as fraudulent. Article 1340 of the New Civil Code, provides that:

Article 1340. The usual exaggeration in trade, when

the other party had an opportunity to know tha

facts, are not in themselves fraudulent. (Emphasis

supplied)

7. That to show good faith, Respondent several times offered to replace

the merchandise but the Complainant refuse to return the alleged

defective bags to the detriment of the Respondent.

8. In addition to the foregoing and again without admitting any, Records

will show that the Complainant was able to reimburse from Ebay the

amount of Twenty-Seven Thousand Pesos (Php. 27,000.00) and yet the

Complainant opted to demand the full amount of Fifty-Two Thousand

Pesos from the Respondent, this clearly show malice and bad faith on

the part of the Complainant. Common reason dictates that

Complainant’s intention in filing the said complaint is merely to harass

and extort from the Respondent.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered and on the basis of the foregoing,

Respondent respectfully prays for the reconsideration of the Honorable

Office’s 04 June 2014 Resolutionand lieu thereof issue a Resolution

dismissing the complaint filed against herein Respondent for lack of basis or

at the very least, order a reinvestigation of the subject case.

Other reliefs as are just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

Respectfully submitted.

Quezon City. 13 April 2015

MARY GRACE DELA TORRE WOLFE

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

CITY OF MANILA)SS

BEFORE ME, this 10th day of April, 2015 in the City of Manila, personally appeared MARY GRACE DELA TORRE with ____________________, issued at the City of Manila, known to me to be tha same person who executed the foregoing instrument and he acknowledged to me that the same is his free act and deed.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have here unto set my hand and affixed my Notarial Seal, the day, year and place above written.

NOTARY PUBLIC

Doc. No._______;

Page No._______;

Book No._______;

Series of 2015.