Sample Resolution

Republic of the Philippines
Province of Negros Occidental

OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
3RD Floor, Hall of Justice
Bacolod City
-o0o-
BETHYL JOY O. PORRAS

Complainant CRIM CASE NO.____________
NPS Docket No.V1-03-15A-5678
-versus-
MICHAEL SASON O. BASA

Respondents
x----------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
The respondent, LIZA L. LERIOS was charged for the crime of

QUALIFIED THEFT in a complaint filed by FARAGON SECURITY
AGENCY INC. (FSAI for brevity) Represented by ERNIE G. GUAMOS.
In support of his complaint, the herein complainant attached the

following documents:
A. Duly Notarized FSAI Board Resolution

B. Cash/Check Voucher No.18253
C. LBP Special Bank Receipt (SBR) No.8051261
D. Affidavit of FSAI Operations Officer REYMUND I.PINO
E. East West Disbursement Check dated June 28, 2018
F. Cash/Check Voucher
G.
H. Affidavit of Bethyl Joy O. Porras
I. Affidavit of Michael Sason O. Basa
J. Joint affidavit of the Roxy Solidarios and Natalie Kim Gokong Wei;
K. Reply-Affidavit;
L. Rejoinder-Affidavit ;
M. Excerpt from the Blotter report of Bacolod City Police Station
precinct 1;
N. Photo-documentation;
O. Movie tickets for the Movie NIGHT CRAWLER (2014)
1
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Based on the complaint, 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 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…”
2
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 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 latter’s 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:
3
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 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 latter’s 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)
4
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
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

Sample Resolution

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sample Resolution

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

Sample Resolution

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

Province of Negros Occidental

BETHYL JOY O. PORRAS

MICHAEL SASON O. BASA

The respondent, LIZA L. LERIOS was charged for the crime of

In support of his complaint, the herein complainant attached the

A. Duly Notarized FSAI Board Resolution

That on November 22, 2014 at about 6:00 P.M. in Cinema 1 of

In the joint affidavit of witnesses Roxy Solidarios and Natalie Kim

MIKEL SASON O. BASA vehemently denied the allegations against

ANALYSIS / FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

On Sub-paragraph 1 of Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code of the

Article 308. Who are liable for theft. –

“Any person, who, having found lost property, shall fail to

Article 309. Penalties -

“The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium

According to the complainant, she bought the I Phone 6 Plus in the

Basing on the defense of the respondent, he vehemently denies the

First, the averment in paragraph 4 of the rejoinder-affidavit of the

The respondent should specific each

Second, the respondent would be easily freed from the cloud of

There is one apparent answer provided in the language of the law —

Third, the respondent failed to overcome the evidences presented by the

Whereas, the complainant gave an overwhelming evidence to impute

Fourth, Check reyes book 1 saying intent to gain cannot be ascertained

Bacolod City, February 09, 2015.

TOMAS GERARDO ARANETA

You might also like

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