Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    Office of The City Prosecutor

    Uploaded by

    Juris Poet
    1) The respondent, Michael Sason O. Basa, was charged with theft after the complainant, Bethyl Joy O. Porras, accused him of stealing her cellphone at a movie theater in Bacolod City. Witnesses saw the respondent holding the cellphone after it rang in response to a call from the complainant's friends. 2) The respondent denied stealing the phone and claimed he found it on the floor, but fled when accused instead of returning the phone. The city prosecutor found the respondent violated theft laws based on taking the phone without consent and intent to deprive the owner of the property. 3) Considering the value of the stolen phone, evidence presented, and the respondent's failure to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Office of The City Prosecutor

    Uploaded by

    Juris Poet
    2K views5 pages
    1) The respondent, Michael Sason O. Basa, was charged with theft after the complainant, Bethyl Joy O. Porras, accused him of stealing her cellphone at a movie theater in Bacolod City. Witnesses saw the respondent holding the cellphone after it rang in response to a call from the complainant's friends. 2) The respondent denied stealing the phone and claimed he found it on the floor, but fled when accused instead of returning the phone. The city prosecutor found the respondent violated theft laws based on taking the phone without consent and intent to deprive the owner of the property. 3) Considering the value of the stolen phone, evidence presented, and the respondent's failure to

    Original Description:

    Prosecutor's Resolution

    Original Title

    Resolution

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The respondent, Michael Sason O. Basa, was charged with theft after the complainant, Bethyl Joy O. Porras, accused him of stealing her cellphone at a movie theater in Bacolod City. Witnesses saw the respondent holding the cellphone after it rang in response to a call from the complainant's friends. 2) The respondent denied stealing the phone and claimed he found it on the floor, but fled when accused instead of returning the phone. The city prosecutor found the respondent violated theft laws based on taking the phone without consent and intent to deprive the owner of the property. 3) Considering the value of the stolen phone, evidence presented, and the respondent's failure to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    2K views5 pages

    Office of The City Prosecutor

    Uploaded by

    Juris Poet
    1) The respondent, Michael Sason O. Basa, was charged with theft after the complainant, Bethyl Joy O. Porras, accused him of stealing her cellphone at a movie theater in Bacolod City. Witnesses saw the respondent holding the cellphone after it rang in response to a call from the complainant's friends. 2) The respondent denied stealing the phone and claimed he found it on the floor, but fled when accused instead of returning the phone. The city prosecutor found the respondent violated theft laws based on taking the phone without consent and intent to deprive the owner of the property. 3) Considering the value of the stolen phone, evidence presented, and the respondent's failure to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 5

    Republic of the Philippines

    Province of Negros Occidental


    OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
    3RD Floor, Hall of Justice
    Bacolod City
    -o0oBETHYL JOY O. PORRAS
    Complainant

    CRIM CASE NO.____________


    NPS Docket No.V1-03-15A-5678

    -versusMICHAEL SASON O. BASA


    Respondents
    x----------------------------------------------x
    RESOLUTION
    The respondent, MICHAEL SASON O. BASA was charged for the
    crime of THEFT in a complaint filed by Ms. BETHYL O. PORRAS.
    In support of his complaint, the herein complainant attached the
    following documents:
    A.
    B.
    C.
    D.
    E.
    F.

    Affidavit of Bethyl Joy O. Porras


    Affidavit of Michael Sason O. Basa
    Joint affidavit of the Roxy Solidarios and Natalie Kim Gokong Wei;
    Reply-Affidavit;
    Rejoinder-Affidavit ;
    Excerpt from the Blotter report of Bacolod City Police Station
    precinct 1;
    G. Photo-documentation;
    H. Movie tickets for the Movie NIGHT CRAWLER (2014)
    STATEMENT OF FACTS
    Based on the investigation conducting by Police Investigator Honesto
    A. Santino, the facts of the case are stated hereunder:
    That on November 22, 2014 at about 6:00 P.M. in Cinema 1 of
    the Robinson Place, Bacolod City, Philippines, the complainant,
    Bethyl Joy P. Porras, together with her friends, Roxy Solidarios and
    Natalie Kim Gokong Wei were purchasing tickets for the movie
    NIGHT CRAWLER (2014) at SM movie cinema 2. That during the
    course of the movie, the complainant realized that her cellphone was
    1

    missing which prompted her and her friends to look for it in the
    vicinity. One of her friends, Roxy Solidarios, called the phone of the
    complainant and not second later, a cellphone rang with a similar
    ringtone as to the cellphone of the complainant which was seen in the
    hands of the respondent, Mikel Sason O. Basa. In this moment, the
    complainant shouted Kawatan dialect for thief, which the
    respondent reacted by running away from the movie theater. The
    guards stationed outside tried stopping the respondent but failed.
    In the joint affidavit of witnesses Roxy Solidarios and Natalie Kim
    Gokong Wei, they stated that on November 22, 2014 at about 6:00 in the
    evening, they were inside Cinema 1 of the Robinson movie theater when the
    theft happened. While calling the cellphone of the complainant, they saw the
    respondent holding the phone on his right hand and was trying to dispose it.
    When the complainant shouted, it was then that the respondent ran away
    going the right exit of the theater.
    MIKEL SASON O. BASA vehemently denied the allegations against
    him and that it was just a case of misunderstanding. That during the incident,
    he had no intention of stealing the cell phone of the complainant; he just saw
    the phone on the floor so he pick it up; When the cellphone rung, he heard the
    complainant and her friends angrily shouting at him, calling him a theft. that
    when he realized that he was being accused of robbing the complainant. The
    commotion caused him to panic and ran away.
    ANALYSIS / FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
    On Sub-paragraph 1 of Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code of the
    Philippines which specifically states that:
    Article 308. Who are liable for theft.
    Any person, who, having found lost property, shall fail to
    deliver the same to the local authorities or to its owner
    The construction and interpretation of Article 308 of the Revised
    Penal Code of the Philippines are clear and unambiguous which promptly
    provides that any person with intent to gain deprives the personal property of
    another lacking his/her consent and in the absence of violence, intimidation
    or force upon things.
    In the instant case, Mr. Michael Sason O. Basa, the accused, violated
    Art. 308 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines by gaining the
    personal property of the complainant with an intention of not returning the
    2

    same to the complainant which can be inferred from the actuations of the
    accused of trying to dispose the cell phone.
    Also, the accused could have freed himself from the suspicion of the
    complainant, if he had just returned the missing cell phone and explained his
    own side of story. However, he opted to flee from the complainant which
    verified the latters suspicion that he stole her cell phone.
    Article 309. Penalties The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium
    periods, if the value of the thing stolen is more than 12,000 pesos but
    does not exceed 22,000 pesos, but if the value of the thing stolen
    exceeds the latter amount the penalty shall be the maximum period
    of the one prescribed in this paragraph, and one year for each
    additional ten thousand pesos, but the total of the penalty which may
    be imposed shall not exceed twenty years
    According to the complainant, she bought the I Phone 6 Plus in the
    amount of Php 46,500.00. As provided by the RPC, the imposable penalty
    for theft depends on the value of the thing stolen. In this case, the value of
    the cell phone is Php 46,500.00 which exceeds the P22,000.00 ceiling as
    provided by the RPC.
    Basing on the defense of the respondent, he vehemently denies the
    accusation of theft against him because it lacks the essential element of
    intent to gain but in can be inferred from the actuations of the respondent
    that there is a reasonable ground to believe that he intended to deprive the
    complainant of her mobile phone. Reflecting from the facts of the case, the
    following averments are present that would lead and ordinary and prudent
    man to believe that the respondent is in violation of article 308 of the revised
    Penal Code:
    First, the averment in paragraph 4 of the rejoinder-affidavit of the
    respondent that General denial of the accusation is without substantial basis
    and is only self-serving and tantamount to admission:
    In the case of El Hogar Filipino vs. Santos Investments, Inc., G.R.
    No. 48244, mere general denials, did not tender as issue and constituted an
    implied admission of the material allegations of the complaints.
    The respondent should specific each
    Second, the respondent would be easily freed from the cloud of
    suspicions of the complainant if the former immediately returned the
    missing cell phone but instead of the doing so, the respondent opted to run
    3

    away thereby raising the suspicions of complainant. The accusation of theft


    against the respondent will succeed because parsing through the statutory
    definition of theft under Article 308:
    There is one apparent answer provided in the language of the law
    that theft is already produced upon the taking of personal property of
    another without the latters consent.
    In the case at hand, the crime of theft was consummated when the
    respondent acquired possession of the object of interest even though it was
    only temporary. To reiterate, the omission of the respondent to returned the
    mobile phone to the complainant raises red flag that he intended to robbed
    the latter of her possession. It is absurd to believe that an innocent man
    would rather ran away from the truth because of his reticence to face the
    accusation than to absolve his name from any ill gotten allegations against
    him. Those who are innocent are as brave as the lions.
    (Ngita jurisprudence)
    Third, the respondent failed to overcome the evidences presented by
    the other party. According to Rule 131, Section 1, Burden of Proof is the
    duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to
    establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law.
    Whereas, the complainant gave an overwhelming evidence to impute
    the respondent of the charge against him. In effect, the respondent miserably
    failed to prove his innocence.
    Fourth, Check reyes book 1 saying intent to gain cannot be
    ascertained thus we qualify the acts to determine the intent.
    (NGITA CASE)
    Fifth, the alibi of running away is a mere after thought because he was
    afraid of being interrogated and falsely accused is mere afterthought.
    (Ngita jurisprudence)
    WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is most
    respectfully recommended that information for the crime of Theft be filed
    against the respondent MIKEL SASON O. BASA.
    Bacolod City, February 09, 2015.
    TOMAS GERARDO ARANETA
    Associate City Prosecutor
    4

    MCLE Compliance No. IV-0012345


    APPROVED BY:
    GREGORIO T. TAROSA
    Chief City Prosecutor
    Copy Furnished:
    (1) 1. Mikel Sason O. Basa Justice Road, Sta. Clara Subd., Bacolod
    City

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy