Draft Qualified Theft

Republic of the Philippines
Department of Justice
NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE
CITY PROSECUTION SERVICE OF QUEZON CITY
QUEZON CITY
PHESCO INCORPORATED
Complainant;
-versus- I.S.________________
For: Qualified Theft
JENNIFER L. VARAGAS
Respondent.
x--------------------------------------------x
COMPLAINT- AFFIDAVIT
Complainant, BEAREAN LOGISTICS SERVICES, an entity duly

established and registered in accordance with the laws of the Republic of the
Philippines and maintains an official place of business at Room 511, Madrigal
Building, Escolta Street, Binondo, Manila City, through the undersigned
counsel, respectfully avers that;
1. The complainantis engaged in the business of providing logistics,

trucking and other ancillary services to the public and is duly
registered under pertinent laws. Attached and made an integral part
of this complaint-affidavit is a copy of registration with the
Department of Trade and Industry marked as Annex “A”.
2. In the regular course of business of the complainant, the latter hired

the services of Mr. Dandin Trinidad Secretario, referred hereto as
“Respondent”, as its Liaison, Utility and Billing Officer whose
primary function involves the following:submission of documents
with billing details to clients and collection of the same, to make
necessary withdrawals and deposits as instructed, payment of
company bills and the processing of import related transactions.
Attached and made an integral part of this complaint-affidavit is a
copy of the Employment Contract of the respondent marked as
Annex “B”.
3. As mentioned above, part of the functions of the respondent is to

withdraw from the complainant’s bank account upon order of his
superiors. In the performance of the said function, on 10 July 2014,
the respondent was instructed by his superior to make a withdrawal
Page 1 of 4
in the amount of THREE HUNDRED AND TEN THOUSAND PESOS
(Php310,000.00 ) in its Banco De Oro Account bearing the number
004480048963 and under the name of Elizabeth G. Bamba. Be it
noted that the complainant is using the account of Elizabeth G.
Bamba in the regular course of its operations for quick transactions
and easy verifications. Attached and made an integral part of this
complaint-affidavit is a copy of the BDO Withdrawal Slip, marked as
Annex “C”.
4. After the successful withdrawal of the above-mentioned amount,

the respondent failed to report back to work. On the same day,
inquiries were made as to the latter’s whereabouts but they all
proved to be futile. Fortunately, one of respondent’s siblings is also
employed with the complainant, the latter, together with the
complainant’s representative went to the residence of the
respondent at B6 L17 Benetton St. Molino Homes 1 Subdivision,
Molino, Bacoor, Cavite City on the same date. However, the
defendant cannot be found in the said address but earlier in the day
respondent left an amount of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS
(Php 200,000.00) to his parents. The complainant was able to
recover the said amount from the respondent’s parents.
5. Subsequently, a report was made to the Barangay concerning the

incident. Attached and made an integral part of this complaint-
affidavit is a copy of the entry in the Barangay Log Book dated 10
July 2014, marked as Annex “D”.
6. On 11 July 2014, complainant reported the incident and loss to BDO

Dasmariñas St. BinondoBranch, the latter issued an Affidavit of Loss
confirming the said incident. Attached and made an integral part of
this complaint-affidavit is a copy of the Affidavit of Loss issued by
the said bank, marked as Annex “D”.
7. Inquiries were made as to the whereabouts of the respondent but

they all proved to be futile. The defendant failed and refused, and
continues to fail and refuse to show himself.
8. The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, under Article 308, laid
down the elements of the crime of Simple Theft, they are as follows
1. That there be taking of personal property; 2. That the said
property belongs to another; 3. That the taking be done with intent
to gain; 4. That the taking be done without the consent of the
owner; and 5. That the taking be done without the use of violence
against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. (Emphasis
supplied)
9. Theft is qualified under Article 310 of the same Code when the
following elements are present: 1. Theft is committed by a domestic
servant; 2. Theft is committed with grave abuse of
confidence; 3. The property taken is either a motor vehicle, mail
Page 2 of 4
matter or large cattle; 4. The property consists of coconut taken
from the plantation; 5. The property stolen is fish from the pond or
fishery; and 6. The property was taken on the occasion of fire,
earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption among others. (Emphasis
supplied)
10. Given the foregoing, the mere taking of the property of another
with intent to gain constitutes the crime of theft and when coupled
with abuse of trust and confidence the crime is qualified theft.
11. Here, the fact that the defendant is in a position that enjoys the
confidence of the complainant, his act of taking the subject amount
of money with intent to gain, qualified his act.
12. Moreover,the recovery of a part of the subject amount in no way

removes the act of the defendant from the ambit of qualified theft.
What is material is the taking of the property of another with intent
to gain and abuse of confidence. The Supreme Court has held in
the case of Anita Miranda versus the People of the
Philippines1 to wit:
Here, the prosecution was able to prove beyond

reasonable doubt that the amount of P797,187.85
taken does not belong to petitioner but to VCCI and
that petitioner took it without VCCI’s consent and
with grave abuse of confidence by taking advantage
of her position as accountant and bookkeeper. The
prosecution’s evidence proved that petitioner was
entrusted with checks payable to VCCI or Viva by
virtue of her position as accountant and
bookkeeper.
13. In addition, in the case of People of the Philippines versus

Ruben Sison2 the Supreme Court elucidated on the peculiarities of
the crime of Qualified Theft, to wit:
The crime perpetuated by appellant against his

employer, the Philippine Commercial and Industrial
Bank (PCIB), is qualified theft. Appellant could not
have committed the crime had he not been holding
the position of Luneta Branch Operation Officer which
gave him not only sole access to the bank vault but
also control of the access of all bank employees in
that branch, except the Branch Manager, to
confidential and highly delicate computerized
security systems designed to safeguard, among
others, the integrity of telegraphic fund transfers and
account names of bank clients. The management of
1
G.R. No. 176298, 25 January 2012
2
G.R. No. 123183, 19 January 2000
Page 3 of 4
the PCIB reposed its trust and confidence in the
appellant as its Luneta Branch Operation Officer, and
it was this trust and confidence which he exploited to
enrich himself to the damage and prejudice of PCIB
in the amount of P6,000,000.00.
14. Accordingly, the complainant, through the undersigned counsel,

executed this complaint-affidavit for the purpose of attesting the
truth of the foregoing statements and to charge the respondent
Dandin Trinidad Secretario with the crime of Theft, qualified by
abuse of trust and confidence under Article 308 and 310 of the
Revised Penal Code of the Philippines respectively.
Page 4 of 4

Draft Qualified Theft

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Draft Qualified Theft

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Draft Qualified Theft

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

Complainant, BEAREAN LOGISTICS SERVICES, an entity duly

1. The complainantis engaged in the business of providing logistics,

2. In the regular course of business of the complainant, the latter hired

3. As mentioned above, part of the functions of the respondent is to

4. After the successful withdrawal of the above-mentioned amount,

5. Subsequently, a report was made to the Barangay concerning the

6. On 11 July 2014, complainant reported the incident and loss to BDO

7. Inquiries were made as to the whereabouts of the respondent but

12. Moreover,the recovery of a part of the subject amount in no way

Here, the prosecution was able to prove beyond

13. In addition, in the case of People of the Philippines versus

The crime perpetuated by appellant against his

14. Accordingly, the complainant, through the undersigned counsel,

You might also like