Legal Writing-sample Memorandum

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT

BRANCH 21, QUEZON CITY

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

-versus-

ANNA S. KALAW,

Accused.

CRIM. CASE NO. 138570

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

MEMORANDUM

Accused, ANNA S. KALAW, by counsel, respectfully states:

PREFATORY STATEMENT

A cardinal rule of evidence in criminal law is that the degree of proof

required to convict an accused must be proof beyond reasonable doubt and the

conviction must be based on the strength of the prosecution's evidence and cannot

rely on the weakness of the evidence for the defense. Any circumstance which

casts doubt on one's guilt should be resolved in favor of acquittal out of fealty to

the constitutional mandate that an accused shall be presumed innocent until the

contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt.

SAMPLE MEMORANDUM Sections 1AA and 1C, UST Faculty of Civil Law (AY 2011-2012) Legal Writing Class Atty. Marian Joanne K. Co-Pua

2

In the case at bar, the accused was charged for committing the crime of

perjury in failing to disclose a certain real property registered under her name in

her Statement of Assets Liabilities and Networth (SALN) while she was still

working in the government. Instead of conducting a fair and evenhanded

preliminary investigation, the prosecution never gave the accused any opportunity

to explain how said real property was registered in her name and why she failed to

disclose it in her SALN prior to the filing of a criminal case in court.

In court, the prosecution simply presented a records officer of the Land

Registration Authority to testify that the same real property is registered in the

name of the accused, nothing more, nothing less. On the other hand, accused

candidly testified that the same real property was registered in her name only as a

sort of security or mortgage to the loan of a certain individual from her who

remains to be the true owner of the property and that she failed to disclose the

same real property in her SALN since she sincerely and honestly believed that she

does not have any obligation to do so considering that she is not the true owner of

the said real property. This was corroborated by the positive, unflinching, and

consistent testimonies of two other witnesses who are privy to the transaction.

Without a doubt, the accused cannot be adjudged guilty of the crime of

perjury based on the evidence presented by the prosecution. Any conviction must

be based on the strength of the prosecutions evidence and not on the weakness of

the defense. The slightest doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused. As

adequately proven, accused did not commit any willful and deliberate assertion of

a falsehood in failing to disclose the same real property in her SALN considering


3

that she sincerely and honestly believed that she has no obligation to do so since

the said property was only registered in her name as a sort of security or mortgage

to a particular loan. Hence, the accused should be acquitted of the crime charged

on reasonable doubt.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

The facts of the case are simple and undisputed.

The present criminal case for perjury arose from a complaint filed with the

Office of the Ombudsman for the alleged failure of accused Anna S. Kalaw, as

then Chief Revenue Officer IV of the BIR National Office, to disclose in her

Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth (SALN) for the year ending 31

December 2002 certain real properties and various vehicles registered under her

name and that of her spouse.

The Office of the Ombudsman gave due course to the complaint.

However, the Order directing the accused to submit her counter-affidavit was not

duly served upon her. The accused thus never had the opportunity to refute the

allegations against her and/or to present controverting evidence.

In a Resolution dated 27 September 2006, which was approved by

Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez on 29 March 2007, the Office of the

Ombudsman found probable cause for the crime of perjury against the accused for


4

her failure to declare a certain real property covered by TCT No. N-224468

registered under her name in her SALN for the year ending 31 December 2002

and directed the filing of the necessary Information in Court. The other charges

were dismissed for lack of evidence.

On 11 May 2007, the Office of the Ombudsman filed an Information for

perjury against the accused before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) Branch

41 of Quezon City. Upon learning of the aforesaid criminal case, the accused

posted the necessary bail for her provisional liberty and attempted to have a

reinvestigation of the same criminal case but to no avail.

On 14 October 2008, the prosecution presented Ms. Pacita S. Aquino, a

record officer of the Land Registration Authority, as its only witness. Ms. Aquino

merely identified TCT No. N-224468 which bears the name of Ms. Kalaw as the

registered owner after which the prosecution rested its case.

The accused maintains that she is not the true and real owner of the real

property covered by TCT No. N-224468 registered under her name. The said real

property was only registered in her name sometime in 2001 as sort of a security or

mortgage for the loan of a certain Ms. Gloria Reynoso from her which reached

the amount of PhP350,000.00, upon the intervention of Ms. Eva Mendoza albeit

without any documentary support. In fact, the accused never exercised any acts of

ownership nor actually possessed the same real property. Thus, the accused

sincerely and honestly believed that she has no obligation to disclose the same

property in her SALN.


5

On 17 February 2009, the accused presented Ms. Eva Mendoza, the

person who introduced the accused to Ms. Gloria Reynoso, to testify as to the

events that transpired among them concerning the real property covered by TCT

No. N-224468. Ms. Mendoza testified in open court that the real property

covered by TCT No. N-224468 was only registered in the name of the accused as

sort of a security or mortgage to the loan obligations of Ms. Reynoso from the

accused.

As the accused is about to present Ms. Gloria Reynoso, the true and real

owner of the real property now covered by TCT No. N-224468, the prosecution,

through Ombudsman Prosecutor Bonifacio Rizal, manifested that they are willing

to stipulate as to the testimony of Ms. Reynoso, which is that the real property

covered by TCT No. N-224468 was only registered in the name of Ms. Kalaw only

as a security or mortgage to the loan and the Ms. Reynoso is the true and real

owner of the same property, to which the accused agreed.

On 26 May 2009, the accused herself took the witness stand and testified in

open court that the real property covered by TCT No. N-224468 was only

registered in her name as a security or mortgage to the loan of Ms. Gloria Reynoso

and that she is not the owner of the same real property. Thus, accused did not

commit willful and deliberate falsehood when she did not disclose the same real

property in her SALN since she sincerely and honestly believed that she has no

obligation to do so not being the owner of the same property. Thereafter, the

accused likewise rested her case.


6

The Honorable Court then gave the parties a period of thirty (30) days

within which to submit their respective memoranda. Hence, the Memorandum

for the accused.

ISSUES

I

WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUSED COMMITTED THE

CRIME OF PERJURY PUNISHABLE BY ARTICLE 183 OF

THE REVISED PENAL CODE.

II

WHETHER OR NOT THE PROSECUTION WAS ABLE

TO PROVE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE

ACCUSED COMMITTED THE CRIME OF PERJURY

PENALIZED BY ARTICLE 183 OF THE REVISED PENAL

CODE.

ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS

ACCUSED DID NOT COMMIT THE

CRIME OF PERJURY IN FAILING TO

DISCLOSE A CERTAIN REAL

PROPERTY IN HER SALN. THERE

IS NO WILLFUL AND DELIBERATE

FALSEHOOD ON THE PART OF

THE ACCUSED.

The crime of perjury is penalized under Article 183 of the Revised Penal

Code, which provides as follows:


7

ARTICLE 183. False Testimony in Other

Cases and Perjury in Solemn Affirmation. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to

prisin correccional in its minimum period shall be

imposed upon any person who, knowingly making

untruthful statements and not being included in the

provisions of the next preceding articles, shall testify

under oath, or make an affidavit, upon any material

matter before a competent person authorized to

administer an oath in cases in which the law so

requires.

Any person who, in case of a solemn

affirmation made in lieu of an oath, shall commit any

of the falsehoods mentioned in this and the three

preceding articles of this section, shall suffer the

respective penalties provided therein. (Emphasis

supplied)

Based on the foregoing, perjury is defined as the willful and corrupt

assertion of a falsehood under oath or affirmation administered by authority of law

on a material matter.1 Similarly, as can be gleaned from the same afore-quoted

provision, the elements of perjury are as follows:

(a) That the accused made a statement under oath

or executed an affidavit upon a material matter.

(b) That the statement or affidavit was made

before a competent officer, authorized to receive and

administer oath.

(c) That in the statement or affidavit, the accused

made a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood.

(d) That the sworn statement or affidavit

containing the falsity is required by law or made for a

legal purpose. (Emphasis supplied)2

1 See Monfort III, et al. v. Salvatierra, et al., G.R. No. 168301, 05 March 2007. 2 Id.


8

The crime of perjury, particularly the third element thereof as cited above,

requires that the accused had willfully and deliberately asserted a falsehood. A

mere assertion of a false objective fact is not sufficient. The assertion must be

deliberate and willful.3 Hence, good faith or lack of malice is a valid defense vis-a-

vis the allegation of deliberate assertion of falsehood in perjury cases.4

In Villanueva v. Secretary of Justice5, the Supreme Court had an occasion to

rule that a mere assertion of a false, objective fact, a falsehood, is not enough to

warrant a finding of perjury. Moreover, the Supreme Court laid down two

essential elements of proof for perjury: (1) the statement made by the defendants

must be proven false; and (2) it must be proven that the defendant did not believe

those statements to be true. The said case law reads in part as follows:

A mere assertion of a false objective fact, a

falsehood, is not enough. The assertion must be

deliberate and willful. Perjury being a felony by dolo,

there must be malice on the part of the accused.

Willfully means intentionally; with evil intent and legal

malice, with the consciousness that the alleged

perjurious statement is false with the intent that it

should be received as a statement of what was true in

fact. It is equivalent to "knowingly." "Deliberately"

implies meditated as distinguished from inadvertent

acts. It must appear that the accused knows his

statement to be false or as consciously ignorant of its

truth.

Perjury cannot be willful where the oath is

according to belief or conviction as to its truth. A false

statement of a belief is not perjury. Bona fide belief in

the truth of a statement is an adequate defense. A false

statement which is obviously the result of an honest

mistake is not perjury.

3 Id. 4 Id; See also Villanueva v. Secretary of Justice, infra. 5 G.R. No. 162187, 18 November 2005.


9

There are two essential elements of proof for

perjury: (1) the statement made by the defendants must

be proven false; and (2) it must be proven that the

defendant did not believe those statements to be true.

(Emphases supplied)

In the case at bar, while the accused failed to disclose the real property

covered by TCT No. N-224468 registered under her name in her SALN, the

same omission is not without any valid reason or justification. Certainly, such

failure to disclose the same real property in her SALN is not willful and deliberate,

and most certainly not made with malice, evil intent or bad faith. If at all, accused

acted with utmost good faith since she sincerely and honestly believed that she

does not have any obligation to disclose the same real property in her SALN

considering that she is not the true owner of the same property and that it was

registered in her name merely in order to serve as a sort of security or mortgage to

the loan of Ms. Gloria Reynoso. In fact, it is worthy to stress that the accused has

never set foot on the same real property covered by TCT No. N-224468 not even

once nor she ever exercised any possessory or ownership acts over the said real

property.6

Evidently, the two essential elements of proof of perjury as laid down in

Villanueva v. Secretary of Justice7 have not been met. First, the statement of the

accused in her SALN cannot be said to be false in the first place since she is not

the true owner of the said real property as the same property was registered in her

name only as a sort of security or mortgage to the loan of Ms. Gloria Reynoso and

therefor the accused has no obligation to disclose the same property in her SALN.

6 See TSNs of 17 February and 26 May 2009 hearings. 7 Supra.


10

Second, assuming ex gratia argumenti that the statement of the accused in her

SALN is false, accused is certainly acting with utmost good faith when she did not

disclose the real property covered by TCT No. N-224468 considering that she

sincerely and honestly believed that she has no obligation to do so as it was

registered in her name only as sort of security or mortgage to the loan of Ms.

Gloria Reynoso. In other words, the accused believed in good faith that all of her

statements in her SALN are true and correct.

The foregoing indisputable facts are supported by the positive, consistent,

uniform and coherent testimonies of the three witnesses presented by the defense,

which includes the accused herself.

As candidly testified by the accused herself, she is not really the true owner

of the real property covered by TCT No. N-224468 considering that it was

registered in her name only as an accommodation to Ms. Gloria Reynoso, or a sort

of a security or mortgage to the loan of Ms. Reynoso, and that she honestly

believed in good faith that it is not her property which is why she did not disclose it

in her SALN, to wit:

ATTY. SANCHEZ:

Q: How did the present criminal charge for

Perjury against you come about?

MS. ANNA S. KALAW:

A: As far as I know it came about when the Office

of the Ombudsman found out that I allegedly

failed to disclose the same real property in my

statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth

for the year December 2002, sir.


11

Q: What is this real property you are talking

about?

A: Its a 180 square meter lot in Quezon City, just a parcel of land, sir.

Q: Now, I am showing to you a Transfer

Certificate of Title No. N-224468 registered in

the name of Anna Silverio Kalaw, the same

title which was admitted as evidence for the

prosecution as Exhibit F, what relation does this TCT have in relation to the property that

you just mentioned?

A: Sir, this is the same property which is

registered in my name but I am not the owner

of this lot because (Emphases supplied)8

xxx xxx xxx

Q: What can you say about the instant criminal

charge instituted by the Ombudsman against

you?

A: Sir, it is baseless and groundless because

ATTY. RIZAL:

Objection, Your Honor.

COURT:

Thats her answer, overruled.

ATTY. SANCHEZ:

Q: Why?

A: Because I am not really the true owner of this

property so I believe that this proper is really what I mean here is I never committed any

deliberate or willful falsehood when I filed my

statement of Assets for the year December

2002, sir.

Q: Why did you say that, why did you say that you

never committed any falsehood?

A: Because I was being charge of Perjury for not

including that personal that certain property and that certain property I really dont own

8 TSN of 26 May 2009 hearing, pages 8-9.


12

it actually its just an accommodation to a very good friend, sir.

COURT:

Q: But is it under your name, the property?

A: Maam, it was in my name because the owner of the lot suggested that it will be placed in my

name because she has a loan, she has an

outstanding loan of Php350,000.00 which I

gave to her on piece by piece and in small

portion which took about more than two years

then when she was about to get a bigger

portion like Php5,000.00, Php10,000.00 tapos

noong Php150,000.00 and kailangan niya ang

sabi niya Ms. Anna nahihiya na ako sa iyo I

might as well put this particular lot into your

name because she is using the money to

recover the properties grabbed to her there in

Quezon City, its a big portion of property. (Emphases supplied)

9

xxx xxx xxx

ATTY. SANCHEZ:

Q: Ms. Witness, why did you not disclose the real

property in your SALN despite the fact that it

is registered under your name?

A: Because sir, I sincerely believe, I honestly

believe that it is not my lot, it was only

entrusted to me and that entitled kasi she really have faith in me but Im not interested in with her 10 hectares (Emphasis supplied)

10

The afore-quoted testimony of the accused was similarly corroborated by

the testimonies of Ms. Eva Mendoza and Ms. Gloria Reynoso to the effect that the

real property covered by TCT No. N-224468 is not owned by the accused and that

the same was registered in the name of the accused only to serve as a sort of

9 TSN of 26 May 2009 hearing, pages 11-13. 10 TSN of 26 May 2009 hearing, page 22.


13

security or mortgage to the loan of Ms. Reynoso thus the accused has no obligation

to disclose the same in her SALN, viz:

ATTY. SANCHEZ:

Q: Do you know the reason why Ms. Kalaw is

presently being charge for the crime of

Perjury?

MS. EVA MENDOZA

A: Yes sir, because in her Statement of Assets and

Liabilities she did not include her asset located

at Quezon City when she was still in the

government.

Q: What is this property, what is the nature of this

property, where is it exactly located?

A: It is located at Pook Pag-asa, Quezon City, sir.

Q: Now, Im showing to you a copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. N-224468 registered in

the name of Anna Kalaw, is this the same title

covering the property?

A: Yes sir, this is the one.

ATTY. SANCHEZ

Your Honor, Im showing to the counsel for prosecution for verification the same title is the

one they offered as Exhibit F.

ATTY. RIZAL:

Yes.

ATTY. SANCHEZ

Q: Do you know the reason how Ms. Kalaw

acquired the same property covered by

A: She never acquired the property it was just a

security for a loan, sir.

Q: So, what do you mean, how did this property how was the said property registered under her

name?

A: It was registered under her name because Ms.

Reynoso has a big loan, it was Ms. Reynoso

who is the real owner of the said property, sir.


14

Q: Can you please recount for this Honorable

Court the circumstances how Ms. Kalaw and

Ms. Reynoso met?

A: I was the one who introduced Anna Kalaw to

Ms. Reynoso because at that time Ms. Reynoso

needs big amount of money, it was only a

staggered loan, sir.

Q: So, what happened next after you introduced

them?

A: She extended loan to her, sir.

Q: How much is the loan?

A: Around Php350,000.00 sir. (Emphases

supplied)11

xxx xxx xxx

COURT:

The testimony of witness Eva Mendoza is

terminated. The witness is through with her

testimony, other witness? Are you going to

present the accused?

ATTY. SANCHEZ:

For the next hearing, the real owner Gloria

Reynoso Your Honor. I think that will be on

March 3.

COURT:

March 3 as scheduled.

ATTY. RIZAL:

Can we stipulate the issue Your Honor.

COURT:

Are you ready to stipulate on that, that the

nature of testimony of the other witness

ATTY. SANCHEZ:

Whether Your Honor, the certification

COURT:

Are you willing to stipulate that your next

witness Ms. Reynoso will corroborate the

11 TSN of 17 February 2009 hearing, pages 4-6.


15

testimony of Eva Mendoza and that the nature

of her testimony will be the fact that she is the

real owner?

ATTY. RIZAL:

I think that

COURT:

To corroborate the testimony of Eva Mendoza.

ATTY. SANCHEZ:

Yes Your Honor, to the effect that will be the testimony.

COURT:

Okay, so, that you will dispense the testimony

of

ATTY. SANCHEZ:

Yes, Your Honor.

COURT:

Okay, the parties stipulated that the next

defense witness in the person of Gloria

Reynoso will corroborate the testimony of Eva

Mendoza relative to the transaction regarding

the registration of the title in the name of Anna

Kalaw. Accordingly, the testimony of Gloria

Reynoso is hereby dispensed with. So who will

be your next witness on March 3, the accused?

ATTY. SANCHEZ:

Yes Your Honor. (Emphases supplied)12

It is inevitable that any judgment in this case must bear down on the

stipulated but uncontroverted testimony of Ms. Gloria Reynoso that she is the real

owner the property covered by TCT No. N-224468 and that said property was

registered in the name of the accused only to serve as security for the loan. In the

hierarchy of evidence, this positive and categorical testimony of the witness for the

accused procedurally prevails over the bare allegations of the prosecution. Even at

12 TSN of 17 February 2009 hearing, pages 7-9.


16

the risk of being repetitive, this piece of evidence is uncontested there being no

countervailing evidence presented by the prosecution to disprove or confute the

same.

Clearly, the herein accused cannot be said to have committed willful and

deliberate falsehood when she failed to disclose the real property covered by TCT

No. N-224468 registered under her name in her SALN. Accused was acting with

utmost good faith when she did not include the same real property in her SALN

considering that it was only registered in her name as a security or mortgage to the

loan of Ms. Gloria Reynoso which is a recognized valid defense in cases of perjury.

THE PROSECUTION WAS NOT

ABLE TO PROVE BEYOND

REASONABLE DOUBT THE GUILT

OF THE ACCUSED FOR THE CRIME

OF PERJURY.

A close scrutiny of the evidence presented in this case would readily reveal

that the prosecution miserably failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of

the accused for the crime of perjury. What the prosecution was able to establish is

simply the fact that the real property covered by TCT No. N-224468 is registered

in the name of the accused13, nothing more, nothing less. The prosecution even

failed to present a single proof or evidence that the accused willfully and

deliberately asserted a falsehood when she failed to disclose the real property

covered by TCT No. N-224468 in her SALN.

13 Testimony of Ms. Pacita S. Aquino.


17

On the contrary, the defense was able to present the positive,

straightforward, consistent, uniform and coherent testimonies of three credible

witnesses all of whom testified that the real property covered by TCT No. N-

224468 is not owned by the accused and was only registered in the name of the

accused to serve as a sort of security or mortgage to the loan of Ms. Gloria

Reynoso. Hence, the accused cannot be expected to disclose the same real

property in her SALN since she does not own it in the first place. If at all, such

omission on the part of the accused is not willful and deliberate and that the

accused acted with utmost good faith in not disclosing the said real property in her

SALN since she sincerely and honestly believed that she has no obligation to do so

not being the owner of the same property.

It bears stressing that any false statement in the accuseds SALN for the year

ending 31 December 2002 is not unlawful per se as to automatically give rise that

such false statement was done with unlawful or criminal intent14. The dorsal

portion SALN submitted by the accused, which the prosecution offered as its

Exhibit D, itself gives the following caveat, thus:

I hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge

and information, that these are true statements of my

assets, liabilities, networth, business interest and

financial connections, including those of my spouse

and unmarried children below 18 years of age and

names of my relatives in the government as of

December 31, 2002, as required by and in accordance

with Republic Act 6713. (Emphases supplied)

14 See People v. Maj. Gen. Carlos F. Garcia, Criminal Case No. 28050, Sandiganbayan First

Division.


18

In other words, the filer of an SALN such as the accused cannot be held

guilty of perjury for asserting a false objective fact which she believed to be true

to the best of her knowledge and information. The false assertion must have been

done deliberately and willfully. As held in Villanueva v. Secretary of Justice15, a

mere assertion of a false objective fact is not enough and that perjury cannot be

willful where the oath is according to belief or conviction as to its truth, thus:

A mere assertion of a false objective fact, a

falsehood, is not enough. The assertion must be

deliberate and willful. Perjury being a felony by dolo,

there must be malice on the part of the accused.

Willfully means intentionally; with evil intent and legal

malice, with the consciousness that the alleged

perjurious statement is false with the intent that it

should be received as a statement of what was true in

fact. It is equivalent to "knowingly." "Deliberately"

implies meditated as distinguished from inadvertent

acts. It must appear that the accused knows his

statement to be false or as consciously ignorant of its

truth.

Perjury cannot be willful where the oath is

according to belief or conviction as to its truth. A false

statement of a belief is not perjury. Bona fide belief in

the truth of a statement is an adequate defense. A false

statement which is obviously the result of an honest

mistake is not perjury. (Emphases supplied)

Obviously, the prosecution failed present any proof or evidence concerning

the willful or deliberate failure on the part of the accused to disclose the real

property covered by TCT No. N-224468 registered under her name in her SALN.

All that the prosecution presented is a record officer from the Land Registration

Authority to testify that TCT No. N-224468 bears the name of the accused. But it

15 G.R. No. 162187, 18 November 2005.


19

never presented any evidence to show that the accused willfully and deliberately

failed to disclose the real property covered by TCT No. N-224468 in her SALN.

The prosecution cannot possibly argue its case based on the disputable

presumption that an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent without first

proving that the act is unlawful. Indeed, the same would be tantamount to putting

the cart before the horse. In order for the prosecution to utilize the same

principle, it must first show that the accused has indeed committed perjury as

punishable by Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code by exhibiting how the

elements of the same offense were complied with, which it miserably failed to do

so.

It is a basic principle in criminal law that where the evidence is capable of

two or more inferences, one of which is consistent with the presumption of

innocence and the other compatible with a finding of guilt, the court must acquit

the accused because the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and

therefore is insufficient to support a judgment of conviction. Where the evidence

on an issue of fact is in equipoise or there is doubt on which side the evidence

preponderates, the party having the burden of proof loses.16

As the evidence in the present case can be read and interpreted either way,

accused respectfully exhorts the Honorable Court to lean in favor of the

presumption of innocence and good faith. As it is ruled, if the inculpatory facts

and circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is

16 People of the Philippines v. Pabiona, et al., G.R. No. 145803, 30 June 2004.


20

consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt,

then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to

support a conviction, and, thus, that which is favorable to the accused should be

considered.17

Last few words. The principle has been dinned into the ears of the bench

and the bar that in this jurisdiction, accusation is not synonymous with guilt. The

proof against the accused must survive the test of reason; the strongest suspicion

must not be permitted to sway judgment. If the evidence is susceptible of two

interpretations, one consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other

consistent with his guilt, the accused must be acquitted. The overriding

consideration is not whether the court doubts the innocence of the accused but

whether it entertains a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. If there exists even one iota

of doubt, the Honorable Court is under a long standing injunction to resolve the

doubt in favor of the accused.18

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that

accused Anna S. Kalaw be ACQUITTED of the crime of perjury based on

reasonable doubt.

17 See Dela Cruz v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 150439, 29 July 2005. 18 See People v. Salidaga, G.R. No. 172323, 29 January 2007.


21

Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for.

Makati City for Quezon City; 24 June 2009.

SANTOS & DELA CRUZ

LAW OFFICES

Counsel for accused Anna S. Kalaw

26thth Floor Westfield Tower Building

Ayala Avenue corner

Rufino Avenue, Makati City

(632) 849-7303; (632) 849-9804

[email protected]

For the Firm:

JOSELITO T. SANTOS

IBP Lifetime Member No. 02564

PTR No. 0997791/07 January 2009/Makati City

Roll of Attorneys No. 364256

MCLE Exemption No. II-001786

ARTEMIO B. CRUZ

IBP Lifetime Member No. 05548



MCLE Compliance No. II-0007633

WILFREDO F. SANCHEZ

IBP No. 706544/28 December 2007/Manila



MCLE Compliance No. (N/A)


22

COPY FURNISHED

ATTY. BONIFACIO G. RIZAL

Office of the Ombudsman

Prosecution and Monitoring Bureau (PAMB)

4th Floor, Ombudsman Building

Agham Road, Diliman, Quezon City

EXPLANATION

The filing/service of this pleading to the Honorable Court/Office of the

Ombudsman is made by registered mail on account of lack of material time and

liaison staff to effect personal filing/service.

WILFREDO F. SANCHEZ

Legal Writing-sample Memorandum

Documents

Transcript of Legal Writing-sample Memorandum