Atty. Manuel J. Laserna Jr.: Sample Counter Appeal Memorandum

This is a counter appeal memorandum prepared by our law office involving a criminal case. We are sharing it to our readers/followers for legal research purposes.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

xxx JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

xxx, xxx

BRANCH xxx

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

Crim. Case No. xxx

(Ref.: Crim. Case No. xxx;

- Versus - MTC xxx, xxx)

For: Malicious Mischief.

xxx,

Accused.

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

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

Crim. Case No. 16-174

(Ref.: Crim. Case No. xxx;

- Versus - MTC Xxx, Xxx)

For: Malicious Mischief.

xxx,

x x x.

Accused.

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

COUNTER APPEAL MEMORANDUM

THE PROSECUTION, by undersigned counsel, respectfully states:

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This appeal involves two cases a quo decided by the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Xxx, Xxx:

(a) Criminal Case No. xxx. - The eight accused in this case were:

i. xxx;

ii. xxx;

iii. xxx;

iv. xxx;

v. xxx;

vi. xxx;

vii. xxx; and

viii. xxx.

(b) Criminal Case No. xxx. - The eleven accused in this case were:

i. xxx;

ii. xxx;

iii. xxx;

iv. xxx;

v. xxx;

vi. xxx;

vii. xxx;

viii. xxx;

ix. xxx;

x. xxx; and

xi. xxx.

The proceedings a quo before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of xxx, xxx may be summarized as follows:

1. On April 4, 2013 two separate Informations for Malicious Mischief were filed against the eight accused in Criminal Case No. xxx and the eleven accused in Criminal Case No. xxx.

2. The ultimate facts alleged in the Information filed with the court a quo in Criminal Case No. xxx against the eight accused were as follows:

(a) On January 27, 2013 the accused destroyed and removed the Tarpaulin Posters of the newly elected directors/officers of the xxx Subdivision Homeowners Association (xxx).

(b) The intent of the accused was to cause damage to the said property of xxx.

(d) The accused were motivated by hate, anger, revenge or ill motive.

(e) The value of the actual damage sustained by the private complainant XXX amounted to P2, 070.00.

(f) The accused acted in conspiracy with each other.

(g) The private complainant XXX was represented by its directors/officers Xxx P. Xxx, Xxx N. Xxx, and Xxx C. Xxx.

3. The ultimate facts alleged in the Information filed with the court a quo in Criminal Case No. xxx against the eleven accused therein were basically similar to those alleged against the eight accused in Criminal Case No. xxx, supra, but with a different date of the commission of the second felony (i.e., February 2, 2013) and a different amount of the value of the subject property destroyed, damaged and removed, to wit:

(a) On February 2, 2013 the accused destroyed and removed the Tarpaulin Posters of the newly elected directors/officers of the xxx Subdivision Homeowners Association (XXX).

(b) The intent of the accused was to cause damage to the said property of XXX.

(d) The accused were motivated by hate, anger, revenge or ill motive.

(e) The value of the actual damage sustained by the private complainant XXX amounted to P3, 405.00.

(f) The accused acted in conspiracy with each other.

(g) The private complainant XXX was represented by its directors/officers Xxx P. Xxx, Xxx N. Xxx, and Xxx C. Xxx.

4. The eight accused in Criminal Case No. xxx were also the same accused in Criminal Case No. xxx, except that in the latter case (Criminal Case No. xxx) the following additional three accused were impleaded as co-accused:

(a) xxx;

(b) xxx; and

5. On May 10, 2013 the accused were arraigned. They entered a plea of not guilty.

6. The two cases were referred by the court a quo for mandatory Court-Annex Mediation (CAM) on May 17 and 24, 2013 and for Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) on September 10, 2013.

7. No compromise was reached by and among the parties during the CAM and the JDR.

8. On October 18, 2013 the Pre-Trial of the two cases were conducted and terminated. (The pretrial was originally set on October 3, 2013).

9. The three prosecution witnesses were:

(a) Xxx Xxx;

(b) Xxx Xxx; and

10. The court a quo, in an Order, dated May 14, 2015, admitted in evidence the following exhibits for the prosecution based on an oral offer of evidence:

(a) Exhibit “A”. - “Joint Affidavit-Complaint”, dated March 12, 2013, of Xxx P. Xxx, Xxx N. Xxx and Xxx C. Xxx.

(b) Exhibit “B”. – “Pinagsamasamang Salaysay”, dated March 12, 2013, of xxx. xxx, xxx, and xxx.

(d) Exhibit “D”. - “Certification”, dated March 5, 2013, issued by the Philippine National Police (PNP), xxx, xxx.

(e) Exhibit “E”. – Barangay Blotter of Barangay xxx, dated January 28, 2013.

(f) Exhibit “F”. - “Minutes of Tanggapan ng Lupon of Barangay xxx, xxx, xxx”.

(g) Exhibit “G” to “G-2”. – Three Receipts of Expenses for the Tarpaulin Posters.

(h) Exhibit “H” to “H-1”. – Two Receipts for the installation of the Tarpaulin Posters.

(i) Exhibit “I”. – “Letter”, dated February 8, 2013, of the Barangay Chairman xxx.

(j) Exhibit “J” to “J-1”. – “Resolution No. 003-2-13” by XXX, dated March 3, 2013.

(k) Exhibit “K”. – “Judicial Affidavit”, dated November 26, 2013, of Xxx Xxx.

(l) Exhibit “L”. – “Judicial Affidavit”, dated June 20, 2014, of Xxx Xxx.

(m) Exhibit “M”. – “Judicial Affidavit”, dated June 20, 2014, of Feliciano Xxx Juan.

(n) Exhibit “N”. - “Judicial Affidavit”, dated June 20, 2014, of xxx.

11. The prosecution rested its case on May 14, 2015.

12. The defense presented only one witness, xxx.

13. In an Order, dated November 5, 2015, the court a quo admitted in evidence the following defense exhibits based on an oral offer of evidence by the defense counsel:

(a) Exhibits 1, 1A-1F, 1FA. – “Notice of the Decision”, dated August 3, 2010, issued by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB).

(b) Exhibits 2, 2A. – “Resolution”, dated June 17, 2013, issued by the Office of the President.

(d) Exhibits 4 to 4F. – “Certification”, dated September 30, 2013, issued by the HLURB.

(e) Exhibits 5 to 5C. – “Withdrawal of Appeal”, dated February 6, 2015, by Atty. xxx, counsel for Xxx Xxx.

(f) Exhibits 6 to 6D. – “Notice of Decision”, dated December 18, 2013, issued by the HLURB.

(g) Exhibits 7 to 7A. – “Certification”, dated February 23, 2015, issued by the Court of Appeals (CA).

(h) Exhibits 8 to 8A. – “Certification”, dated February 23, 2015, issued by the CA.

(i) Exhibits 9 to 9F, and 9F1. – “Judicial Affidavit”, dated September 14, 2015, of sole defense witness xxx.

(j) Exhibits 10 to 10B, and 10B1. - “Letter”, dated September 16, 2015, by Atty. Antonio Bernardo of the HLURB.

14. The prosecution presented one rebuttal witness, Xxx Xxx, the vice president of XXX.

15. The following rebuttal evidence for the prosecution were admitted on December 11, 2015 by the court a quo:

(a) Exhibit “A-Rebuttal”. - “Judicial Affidavit”, dated November 5, 2015, by Xxx Xxx.

(b) Exhibit “B-Rebuttal”. – “Ex Parte Manifestation”, dated October 9, 2015, by Bengt Froberg, et. al. in re: HLURB NCR HOA – xxx.

16. The trial of the two cases a quo was terminated on December 11, 2015.

17. On the aforementioned date the cases were submitted for decision.

II. FACTS OF THE CASE

18. As shown in the records of these cases, the facts from the vantage of the prosecution evidence in chief are stated herein below.

18.1. On December 31, 2012 an election of the members and officers of the board of directors of the homeowners association of the xxx Subdivision in Xxx, Xxx (i.e., Xxx Subdivision Homeowners Association Inc. [“XXX”]) was conducted.

18.2. The lineup or group of Xxx Xxx and Xxx Xxx won in the said election.

18.3. The newly elected board/management of XXX decided to publicly announce the results of the said election to the homeowners of the village for their information and reference.

18.4. The new board caused the design, production and installation of the appropriate Tarpaulin Posters for the said purpose.

18.5. The tarpaulin posters were caused to be attached by the new board at the back of Tribikes plying the routes inside the village and to be installed at conspicuous places therein.

18.6. More specifically, on January 27, 2013 the new board caused to be installed two tarpaulin posters at the approach of the main gate of the village.

18.7. In the evening of January 27, 2013, at about 11:00 PM, Feliciano Xxx Juan, Nolasco Xxxtos and other tribike drivers saw the accused

· xxx,

· xxx, and

· xxx

destroy the two tarpaulin posters at the approach of the main gate of the village.

Then, the said accused drove away in the direction of the town proper of Xxx, Xxx.

18.8. The incident was discovered the next day by prosecution witnesses Xxx Xxx and Xxx Xxx.

18.9. Xxx Xxx and Xxx Xxx caused the annotation of the incident

· in the Police Blotter of the Philippine National Police (PNP) of Xxx, Xxx and

· in the Barangay Blotter of Barangay xxx, Xxx, Xxx.

18.10. On February 2, 2013 Xxx Xxx and Xxx Xxx installed three tarpaulin posters at the same site to replace the two tarpaulin posters destroyed by the aforementioned accused in the evening of January 27, 2013.

18.11. They placed them in a higher position so that the accused could not easily remove and destroy them just in case they attempt to do so.

18.12. In the evening of the said date (February 2, 2013), at about 10:00 PM, prosecution witnesses Feliciano Xxx Juan and Nolasco Xxxtos saw the eleven accused in Criminal Case No. xxx, namely,

· xxx;

· xxx; and

· xxx.

destroy the newly installed three tarpaulin posters.

The accused used a sickle/scythe (karit) with a long handle to slash the tarpaulin posters.

They used a ladder to attempt to dismantle the wood frames of the tarpaulin posters but they failed to do so because the wood frames were firmly installed

18.13. Prosecution witnesses Xxx Xxx and Xxx Xxx discovered the incident the next day.

18.14. They caused the annotation of the incident

· in the Police Blotter of the PNP Xxx, Xxx and

· in the Barangay Blotter of Barangay Xxx Xxx, Xxx, Xxx.

18.15. They also filed a complaint before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Xxx.

18.16. They incurred a total damage of P5, 475.00 for the value of the tarpaulin posters destroyed.

18.17. Prosecution witness Xxx testified that xxx paid xxx to dismantle the remaining wood frames.

18.17.1. Xxx received the information from Xxx himself.

18.17.2. Xxx is a brother of Xxx.

18.18. On May 14, 2015, the prosecution rested its case.

18.19. The Court a quo admitted in evidence its documentary evidence marked as Exhibit “A” to Exhibit “N”, inclusive. (See Paragraph 10, supra).

19. As shown in the records of these cases, the facts from the vantage of the defense evidence in chief are stated hereinbelow.

19.1. Only one witness testified for the defense, namely, co-accused Eveline Bautista.

19.2. She stated that the private complainants Xxx Xxx, et. al. were not members in good standing of XXX.

19.3. She stated that the private complainants had never been members of the board of directors of XXX.

19.4. She stated that the private complainants had filed five election protests against the election of the accused as directors/officers of XXX.

19.5. She stated that three of the said five election protests had been dismissed by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board.

19.6. She stated that the two cases pending in the Court of Appeals (CA) had been withdrawn by the private complainants.

19.7. She stated that the private complainants had never won any single election in XXX since 2008.

19.8. On November 5. 2015, the defense rested its case.

19.9. The Court a quo admitted in evidence the defense exhibits marked as Exhibit “1” to Exhibit “10B1”, inclusive. (See Paragraph 13, supra).

20. As shown in the records of these cases, the facts from the vantage of the rebuttal evidence of the prosecution are stated hereinbelow.

20.1. The sole rebuttal witness of the prosecution was Xxx Xxx.

20.2. He stated that the testimony of the sole defense witness, i.e., the co-accused xxx, as digested above (Paragraph 19, supra) dealt purely on issues that refer to the internal affairs of the homeowners association (XXX).

20.3. Those internal issues were the subject of the separate Comment that had been filed by the private complainants with the HLURB Commissioner and CEO xxx.

20.4. He stated that the pending appeals were withdrawn by the private complainants (appellants) for being moot and academic.

20.5. He stated that the said CA appeals were not resolved on their merits for being moot and academic.

20.6. He stated that sole defense witness xxx presented only two of the five election protests.

20.7. He stated that the remaining three cases were the subject of the HLURB Orders, dated March 6, 2014 and June 16, 2014.

20.7.1. They were still pending and had not been resolved yet by the HLURB as of the time of the testimonies of defense witness xxx and prosecution witness Xxx Xxx.

20.8. The Court a quo rightfully rejected the authenticity and probative value of Exhibits 10 to 10B, and 10B1 ( “Letter”, dated September 16, 2015, by Atty. xxx of the HLURB), the same not having been identified by the sole defense witness xxx or any other witness.

20.9. Assuming arguendo that the private complainants Xxx Xxx and Xxx Xxx, who had paid for and caused the installation of the subject tarpaulin posters, were allegedly not legitimate directors/officers of XXX and that they had no the legal authority to announce the election of their lineup or group to the homeowners through the subject tarpaulin posters, nonetheless, the tarpaulin posters belonged to and were owned by Xxx and Xxx as the purchasers thereof.

20.9.1. The accused had no legal right to destroy damage and remove the same.

III. ISSUE

21. The main issue in this appeal is:

Whether the felony charged against the accused-appellants in the above-captioned two criminal have been duly proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt as required by law.

IV. DISCUSSION

THE TWO COUNTS OF THE FELONY OF MALICIOUS MISCHIEF WERE DULY PROVED BY THE PROSECUTION BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

22. The prosecution respectfully submits that it has proven beyond reasonable doubt the two counts of Malicious Mischief as charged in the two Informations filed with the court a quo.

23. The prosecution respectfully submits that the appealed Decision, dated January 6, 2016, of the court a quo should be upheld by this Honorable Court and that the instant appeal by the accused be dismissed for utter lack of merit.

24. The defense had miserably failed to disprove the elements of the felony of Malicious Mischief.

25. The sole defense of all of the accused focused, as presented by their one and only witness xxx, relied on utterly irrelevant and immaterial matters, that is, that the private complainants were allegedly not the legitimate directors/officers of XXX.

25.1. The said defense referred solely to internal election issues in the association.

26. The defense in effect argued that because the private complainants were allegedly not the legitimate directors/officers of XXX from their point of view, therefore the accused had the legal authority to destroy, damage, and remove the tarpaulin posters that the private complainants had purchased caused to be and installed as an announcement to the homeowners about their election to the board of the association.

27. The accused put the law in their own hands.

28. They never waited for the final resolution of any and all election issues then pending before the HLURB and the CA, assuming arguendo that the same were relevant and material to the instant cases.

29. Assuming arguendo that the accused were the lawful directors/officers of XXX, they did not have the legal authority under the law to remove, destroy and damage the subject tarpaulin posters which were purchased and caused to be installed by the private complainants for a legitimate purpose, that is, to announce to the homeowners their election as directors/officers of the association.

30. The Court a quo did not commit and serious and reversible errors in its findings and conclusions that warrant a reversal or modification of its Decision, dated January 8, 2016, by this Honorable Court by way of ordinary appeal.

31. The prosecution hereby adopts en toto, by incorporation and reference, all the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Court a quo as stated in Page 3 to Page 5 of its appealed Decision, the main parts of which are digested hereinbelow.

31.1. The elements of Malicious Mischief are:

· The offender deliberately damaged the property of another;

· The act does not constitute arson or other crimes involving destruction of property;

· The act of damaging another’s property was committed merely for the sake of damaging it.

31.2. The act of damaging presupposes that the offender acted with hate, revenge, or other evil motive.

31.3. It appeared that the lineup or group of the private complainants was ostensibly elected as directors/officers of XXX on December 31, 2012.

31.4. The private complainants procured the two sets of tarpaulin posters (January 27, 2013 and February 2, 2013) with their own funds to announce their election.

31.4.1. The XXX had no funds at the time for the purpose.

31.4.2. The private complainants expected to be reimbursed of the value of the tarpaulin posters in due time by the association when its future resources would allow.

31.5. The accused failed to refute the testimonies of all of the prosecution witnesses proving the specific elements of the felony of Malicious Mischief.

31.6. The sole defense of the accused was that the private complainants were allegedly not the legitimate directors/officers of the association and that they had never won any election in the association since 2008.

31.7. The accused were united in their communal design to destroy damage and remove the tarpaulin posters of the private complainants.

31.7.1. Some of them destroyed, removed and damaged the tarpaulin posters while some of them used their cars to collect, hide and transport the destroyed and damaged tarpaulin posters.

31.8. Conspiracy had been proven by the prosecution.

31.9. In re the destruction of the tarpaulin posters on January 27, 2013, the Court a quo found that accused xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx, moved by hate, anger, disgust, and evil motive, conspired and actually destroyed, damaged, and removed, the tarpaulin posters on the said date.

31.10. In re the destruction of the tarpaulin posters on February 2, 2013, the Court a quo found that accused xxx, xxx, xxx, and xxx, moved by hate, anger, disgust, and evil motive, conspired and actually destroyed, damaged, and removed, the tarpaulin posters on the said date.

31.11. The defense presented irrelevant exhibits to prove that the private complainants were allegedly illegitimate directors/officers of the association. The exhibits referred to the elections held on March 30, 2008, April 19, 2009, and December 19, 2010.

31.12. The Court a quo rightfully did not take judicial notice of the records of the said election protests.

APPLICABLE LAW

32. Articles 327 and 329 of Chapter 9 of the Revised Penal Code contain the relevant provisions on the felony of MALICIOUS MISCHIEF applicable to this appeal.

33. Article 327 of the Code provides that “any person who shall deliberately cause the property of another any damage not falling within the terms of the next preceding chapter shall be guilty of malicious mischief.”

34. Art. 329 of the Code provides for the penalty for the felony of Malicious Mischief in the instant appeal which involved an amount in excess of One Thouxxxd Pesos (P1,000.00) as the value of the subject property damaged, destroyed and removed by the accused:

“x x x.

1. By arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods, if the value of the damage caused exceeds 1,000 pesos;

X x x.”

APPLICABLE JURISPRUDENCE

35. The prosecution hereby extensively quotes the applicable case of MARIO VALEROSO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent, G.R. No. 149718. September 29, 2003 in support of its theory that an accused who destroys or damages a private property without lawful authority is guilty of Malicious Mischief. This case demonstrates the elements of the felony of Malicious Mischief. Thus:

“x x x.

The petitioner admits that he deliberately demolished Mrs. Castillo’s nipa hut. He, however, contends that the third element of the crime of malicious mischief, i.e., that the act of damaging another’s property be committed merely for the sake of damaging it, is not present in this case. He maintains that he demolished Mrs. Castillo’s nipa hut to safeguard the interest of his employer, the PNB, and for no other reason. His motive was lawful and that there was no malice in causing the damage to the private complainant’s property. In other words, he did not act out of hatred, revenge or other evil motive.

Invoking paragraph 5, Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, the petitioner posits that he acted in the lawful exercise of a right in effecting the demolition. He thus prays that he be absolved of any criminal liability therefor.

The petition is bereft of merit.

The elements of the crime of malicious mischief under Article 327 of the Revised Penal Code are:

1. That the offender deliberately caused damage to the property of another;

2. That such act does not constitute arson or other crimes involving destruction;

3. That the act of damaging another’s property be committed merely for the sake of damaging it.

Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, all the foregoing elements are present in this case. First, he admits that he deliberately demolished the nipa hut of Mrs. Castillo. Second, the demolition does not constitute arson or any other crime involving destruction. Third, as correctly found by the CA:

Petitioner was appointed caretaker of the subject lot on August 21, 1996. Upon the other hand, private complainant constructed her hut thereon only in April 1997. Such being the case, petitioner was not justified in summarily and extra judicially demolishing private complainant’s structure. As it is, petitioner proceeded not so much to safeguard the lot as it is to give vent to his anger and disgust over Castillo’s disregard of the no trespassing sign he placed thereon. Indeed, his act of summarily demolishing the house smacks of his pleasure in causing damage to it (United States vs. Gerale, 4 Phil. 218).

Neither can the petitioner rightfully invoke paragraph 5, Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code which states:

Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. The following do not incur any criminal liability:

. . .

5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.

The requisites of the foregoing justifying circumstance are (1) that the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right; and (2) that the injury caused or the offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office.

In this case, as held not only by the MTC but also the RTC and the CA, the petitioner deliberately demolished the property of Mrs. Castillo without any lawful authority. Thus, while the first requisite is present, the second is unavailing. The

petitioner was not acting in the fulfillment of his duty when he took the law into his own hands and summarily demolished Mrs. Castillos hut. It bears stressing that the said hut was constructed on the property as early as April 1997.

In sum, the petitioner has failed to sufficiently show that the appellate court committed reversible error in the assailed decision.

X x x.”

36. Another applicable case is TAGUINOD VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, GR NO. 185833, OCTOBER 12, 2011, which demonstrates the elements of the felony of Malicious Mischief, to wit:

“x x x.

What really governs this particular case is that the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. The elements of the crime of malicious mischief under Article 327 of the Revised Penal Code are:

(1) That the offender deliberately caused damage to the property of another;

(2) That such act does not constitute arson or other crimes involving destruction;

(3) That the act of damaging another's property be committed merely for the sake of damaging it.

In finding that all the above elements are present, the MeTC rightly ruled that:

The following were not disputed: that there was a collision between the side view mirrors of the two (2) vehicles; that immediately thereafter, the wife and the daughter of the complainant alighted from the CRV and confronted the accused; and, the complainant, in view of the

hostile attitude of the accused, summoned his wife and daughter to enter the CRV and while they were in the process of doing so, the accused moved and accelerated his Vitara backward as if to hit them.

The incident involving the collision of the two side view mirrors is proof enough to establish the existence of the element of hate, revenge and other evil motive. Here, the accused entertained hate, revenge and other evil motive because to his mind, he was wronged by the complainant when the CRV overtook his Vitara while proceeding toward the booth to pay their parking fee, as a consequence of which, their side view mirrors collided. On the same occasion, the hood of his Vitara was also pounded, and he was badmouthed by the complainant's wife and daughter when they alighted from the CRV to confront him for the collision of the side view mirrors. These circumstances motivated the accused to push upward the ramp complainant's CRV until it reached the steel railing of the exit ramp. The pushing of the CRV by the Vitara is corroborated

by the Incident Report dated May 26, 2002 prepared by SO Robert Cambre, Shift-In-Charge of the Power Plant Mall, as well as the Police Report. x x x.

The CA also accurately observed that the elements of the crime of malicious mischief are not wanting in this case, thus:

Contrary to the contention of the petitioner, the evidence for the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt the existence of the foregoing elements. First, the hitting of the back portion of the CRV by the petitioner was clearly deliberate as indicated by the evidence on record. The version of the private complainant that the petitioner chased him and that the Vitara pushed the CRV until it reached the stairway railing was more believable than the petitioner's version that it was private complainant's CRV which moved backward and deliberately hit the Vitara considering the steepness or angle of the elevation of the P2 exit ramp. It would be too risky and dangerous for the private complainant and his family to move the CRV backward when it would be hard for him to see his direction as well as to control his speed in view of the gravitational pull. Second, the act of damaging the rear bumper of the CRV does not constitute arson or other crimes involving destruction. Lastly, when the Vitara bumped the CRV, the petitioner was just giving vent to his anger and hate as a result of a heated encounter between him and the private complainant.

In sum, this Court finds that the evidence on record shows that the prosecution had proven the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of malicious mischief. This adjudication is but an affirmation of the finding of guilt of the petitioner by both the lower courts, the MeTC and the RTC.

X x x.”

V. RELIEF

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the instant appeal of the accused be DISMISSED for utter lack of merit.

FURTHER, the prosecution respectfully prays for such and other reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable in the premises.

Las Pinas City, November 21, 2016.

LASERNA CUEVA-MERCADER

LAW OFFICES

Private Prosecutor

Unit 15, Star Arcade, C. V. Starr Ave.

Philamlife Village, Las Pinas City 1740

Tel. Nos. 8725443 & 8462539

Email: lcmlaw@gmail.com

Blog: lcmlaw1.blogspot.com

Twitter.com/lcmlaw_ph

Facebook.com/lcmlawlaspinascity

X x x x x

cc:

ATTY. xxx

Counsel for Accused-Appellants

Address: x x x x.

Reg. Rec. No.

Date PO

OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR

OF xxx

Address: Xxx, xxx

Reg. Rec. No.

Date PO

EXPLANATION

A copy of this counter appeal memorandum is served on the Court, the Public Prosecutor, and the Defense Counsel via LBC Express/registered mail due to the distance of their office addresses, due to the lack of field staff of undersigned counsel to effect personal service, and due to the urgency of filing the same.

X x x x

Monday, November 28, 2016

Sample Counter Appeal Memorandum