REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 10, MANILA
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff,
CRIM. CASE NO. 94-137533
For: Qualified Theft
- versus EVANGELINE LACSON Y RAFOLS,
Accused.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
DECISION
Accused Evangeline Lacson y Rafols stands charged with
qualified theft under an Information dated July 12, 1994, the
accusatory portion of which reads as follows:
That on or about the 7th day of July, 1994, in the City
of Manila, Philippines, the said accused did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent of
gain and without the knowledge and consent of the
owner thereof, take, steal and carry away one (1) gold
necklace with big round pendant worth P14,000.00; one
(1) ladys necklace with dragon round pendant worth
P6,000.00;
necklace
without
pendant
worth
P12,000.00[;] one (1) rope gold bracelet worth
P16,000.00; three (3) ladys bracelet worth P6,500.00;
two (2) ladys ring with brillantitus worth P4,600.00 and
cash money in the amount of P53,000.00, or all with a
total value of P112,000.00, belonging to Felisa Gonzales
y Quitoviera, to the damage and prejudice of said owner
in the aforesaid sum of P112,000.00, Philippine
Currency.
That the said accused acted with grave abuse of
confidence in the commission of the said offense she
being then employed by complainant as a beautician in
the parlor which serves of [sic] the complainant, and as
such, accused has access to the place where the
properties stolen were being kept.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
On July 15, 1994, accused was duly arraigned and, with the
assistance of counsel, pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.

DECISION
CRIM. CASE NO. 94-137533
Page Two (2)
Pre-trial was conducted on January 19, 1995. Thereafter, trial on
the merits ensued.
I. Antecedents
Private complainant Felisa Gonzales y Quitoviera is engaged in
beauty parlor business located at the ground floor of her three-story
boarding house at 1022 Felix Huertas St., Sta. Cruz, Manila. The
boarding house harbors around twelve other boarders, aside from
private complainant herself, Viva Flores y Permiza, alias Bebang
(Flores), her helper, Angie Gador (Gador), her beautician, and herein
accused, her manicurist. On weekdays, the boarders leave the
boarding house before 8 oclock in the morning. The third floor of the
building is divided into smaller rooms tenanted by private complainant,
Flores and eight other boarders.
After being recommended by one of her neighbors, private
complainant employed accused as a stay-in beautician in said parlor
sometime in April, 1994 until the second week of June of the same year
when she was sacked for being tardy, habitually leaving her
workstation very early even if she was on duty, and for being once
caught by private complainant coming home to the boarding house at
a late hour with a man. During the time when accused was a stay-in
manicurist, she used to sleep sometimes in a room adjacent to that of
private complainant room and at other times in the parlor.
About two weeks after she was terminated accused visited
private complainant often to request private complainant to rehire her
as she was having financial difficulties, but private complainant did not
immediately budge. It was only after some time that she requested
Arnel Amaro to call her to relate to her that she is accepting her again.
Thus, on July 7, 1994, at around 10 oclock in the morning, accused
reported back to work. Private complainant was cooking at about this
time when a guest arrived; she then asked accused to briefly watch
what she was cooking. Since it was a Thursday, all of the boarders
were gone at or before 7:30 oclock in the morning. Only private
complainant, her guest, Gador, Flores and accused were in the
boarding house at that time.
After readying private complainant and her guests lunch at
around 11:30 oclock in the morning, accused, Flores, and Gador
stayed inside the parlor to man it. When private complainant and her
guest were done eating Flores and accused then moved to the dining
area to have their meal. As Flores was fixing their meal, accused asked
Flores if she has a tampon as she allegedly has a menstruation that
day. Flores then told accused to retrieve one from her room located at
the third floor of the boarding house, adjacent to the room of private
complainant. Accused tarried a bit long upstairs even after Flores has
finished eating, so private complainant instructed Flores to fetch
accused and woo her to eat. Flores then scaled up into her room but
was not able to find accused, so she went down. A few moments after,
she saw accused slowly descend the stairs and go straight into the
comfort room, looking awkwardly. After relieving herself, accused ate,

following Flores importuning. Subsequently, at around 12:30 oclock in

the afternoon, accused sought permission and was allowed by private
DECISION
complainant
to leave
her work early as her menstrual bleeding was
CRIM.
CASE NO.
94-137533
allegedly
profuse,
but
promised
to return the following day. Meanwhile,
Page Three (3)
Flores, a college student, left for school at around 1 oclock in the
afternoon.
After a whole days toil, private complainant went back to her
room at or about 6 oclock in the evening of the same day. She looked
for her jewelry box, which she hid under her bed, supposedly to return
the jewelries she wore that day but found out, much to her
consternation, that the box was opened and its contents were looted
away. Based on her sworn affidavit, the jewelries purloined and their
corresponding value are: one gold necklace with big round pendant
worth P14,000.00; one ladys necklace with dragon-round pendant
worth P6,000.00; necklace without pendant worth P12,000.00; one
rope gold bracelet worth P16,000.00; three ladys bracelet collectively
worth P6,500.00; and two ladys ring with brillantitus collectively worth
P4,600.00. Cash in the total amount of P53,000.00 was likewise taken
from a receptacle in private complainants room. During her directexamination, however, she mentioned that of the eight or ten pieces of
pillaged jewelries stolen, three were mens rings worth P3,000.00,
whereas, her affidavit stated unequivocally that she lost two ladys ring
with brillantitus.1 In addition to said three mens rings, likewise taken
were her bracelet and necklace. The value of the jewelries stolen,
according to her, was somewhere between P55,000.00 to P60,000.00.
Money in the amount of P40,000.00, more or less, was also taken. Still,
during her cross-examination, she testified that the nine (not eight or
ten) jewelries abstracted from her are three necklaces (one with big
pendant, one ladys necklace and one necklace for man), one bracelet
for man, three bracelets for ladies and two rings for ladies. 2 The latter
list dovetails with private complainants affidavit, adverted to above.
At any rate, at the time of the alleged filching, the door to private
complainants room was padlocked and remained so when private
complainant returned to her room that night. Private complainant
usually places her jewelry box inside the cabinet in her room but since
she used the jewelries subject matter of this case some day or days
before they were taken she stored them instead under her bed.
In the meantime, the boarders arrived from work at around 8
oclock in the evening. Private complainant questioned them, as well
as Gardor, regarding her missing valuables and cash. Flores followed
suit after she came home at 9 oclock. While walking towards the
entrance of the boarding house, Flores saw private complainant,
Gador, and the other boarders waiting outside the boarding house, and
immediately sensed from their facial reactions that something was
wrong. Private complainant tattled that some of her jewelries and
money were missing, and when queried about whether accused went
to her room, Flores retorted that accused earlier climbed to the third
floor to get a sanitary napkin from her room. Flores vouched that she
never set foot in private complainants room that day. Incidentally,
when Flores repaired to her room during the night when the theft was
1
2

TSN, January 19, 1995, pp. 9-10

TSN, April 6, 1995, p. 7

discovered, it dawned on her that accused did not get a tampon from
her room as the four tampons she has was still intact and
undiminished.
Private complainant became more suspicious of accused as the
DECISION
night before the incident, or on July 6, 1994, she asked her to tend the
CRIM.
94-137533
parlor.CASE
WhileNO.
in the
midst of giving instructions, accused saw private
Page
Four (4)leave a key in the drawer of the table in the parlor. That
complainant
key is a duplicate key to private complainants room. Private
complainant presumed that accused took the duplicate key to gain
access therein as the unlawful taking was accomplished with
absolutely no sign of forced entry.
On July 8, 1994 in the afternoon, private complainant travelled to
the headquarters of the Philippine National Police Western Police
District Command (PNP-WPDC) in United Nations Avenue, Manila to
report the thievery. At around 2:20 oclock in the afternoon, SP01
Antonio C. Calapati (SP01 Calapati) of the Crimes Against Property
Division (Robbery and Theft Section) took the statements of private
complainant as well as that of Flores, which were subscribed and sworn
to before P/Insp. Renaldo Q. Del Rosario of PNP-WPDC. 3 A follow-up
investigation was conducted forthwith by SP01 Calapati. He and
private complainant wended to Tindalo St., Tondo, Manila where Manny
Punzalan (Punzalan), who is the live-in partner of accused, resides.
They went to the house of Brgy. Chairman Orlando Miller (Miller) of
Brgy. 256, Zone 23, Disctrict 2 of Manila to seek his assistance as they
do not know the specific address of Punzalan. SP01 Calapati explained
to Miller the attendant circumstances regarding the pilferage of
jewelries and cash belonging to private complainant. In the course of
the colloquy, someone informed them that the house of Punzalan was
nearby, so they positioned themselves proximate to the latters house
and patiently waited for his arrival. At around 7 oclock in the evening,
Punzalan showed up, together with accused. Without mincing time,
Miller summoned accused and Punzalan, together with private
complainant and SP01 Calapati, to his house. The latter talked to
accused to apprise her of the charge of private complainant but before
he could finish his words, accused quizzed private complainant on why
she was falsely accusing her. Private complainant, nevertheless,
ignored accuseds saintly protestation. While in said house, private
complainant saw accused wearing three of the jewelries ransacked
from her room. With this information, SP01 Calapati removed from the
person of accused one bracelet, one ring with brillantitus and one ring
with flower design.
SP01 Calapati then invited accused, Punzalan and private
complainant to the police station. What follows after is muddled with
colliding testimonies of SP01 Calapati and private complainant. On the
one hand, according to private complainant, in the course of the
investigation, SP01 Calapati frisked the outer trappings of accused.
Amid this, two rings and one bracelet fell down from accused. Accused,
despite being caught red-handed, nonetheless did not admit
authorship of the crime. On the other hand, according to SP01
Calapati, accused was not searched for things concealed about her.
Rather, accused, who was advised of her constitutional rights,
3

Exhibits B, B-1, E and E-1

DECISION
CRIM. CASE NO. 94-137533
voluntarily unburdened her guilt before him after he interrogated her
Page Five (5)
about, inter alia, the ownership of the items recovered from her while
they were in the house of Miller. Accused claimed that she only took
two bracelets, two ladys rings and P3,500.00 from private
complainant. The latter amount, however, was not returned by
accused. When asked where she placed the rest of the spoils, accused
readily told SP01 Calapati that she pawned the other jewelries, and
torn the pawn ticket afterwards. The confessions, however, were given
without the assistance of counsel. In addition to three pieces of
DECISION
jewelries which were regained from accused while she was in the
CRIM.
NO. 94-137533
houseCASE
of Miller,
SP01 Calapati was able to recover from her one
Page
Fiveone
(5)earlobe earring, one necklace and one Seiko automatic
earring,
wrist watch. According to SP01 Calapatis investigation, all of these
articles were nabbed by accused from another person.
After the investigation, SP01 Calapati prepared the Booking
Sheet and Arrest Report,4 which was signed by accused,5 as well as the
referral document6 and the annexes thereto for submission to the duty
inquest prosecutor. The case was docketed as I.S. No. 94G-17073.
During the inquest proceeding, Punzalan approached private
complainant and related to her that he and accused do not have
money to answer for the latters liability. In reply, private complainant
agreed to settle the case if accused will restore to her all the other
jewelries she burgled, or the same is not possible, then its monetary
equivalent, which she pegged at that time at P20,000.00.
Finding prima facie evidence to warrant the prosecution of
accused, a case for qualified theft was recommended to be filed by
Asst. City Prosecutor Susanita E. Mendoza-Parker and approved by
Asst. City Prosecutor Lourdes C. Tabang.
On August 11, 1994, private complainant wrote the Office of the
City Prosecutor of Manila, requesting for the release to her of one
bracelet and two ladys rings, which were previously obtained from
accused and placed under police custody, and undertaking that the
aforesaid items will be produced upon demand by the proper
authority.7 The request was granted subject to the condition that a
photograph of the properties is taken which clearly shows the
identifying marks and that the claimant (herein private complainant)
signs a receipt therefor with the concomitant obligation to produce the
same in court.8 Hence, consonant with the above order, a photograph
of the items was taken by SP01 Calapati. 9 Before they were given back
to private complainant, verification was made by SP01 Calapati from
another person who claims to have been victimized by accused to
ascertain if they truly belong to her.
Exhibit F
Said Booking Sheet and Arrest Report reads in part: In this office, suspect when
investigated after having been apprised of her constitutional rights readily and
verbally admitted her guilt[,] claiming that only two bracelet[s], two ladys ring[s] and
P3,500.00 cash that she took from the complainant.
6
Exhibit H
7
Exhibit C
8
Exhibit D
9
Exhibit G
4
5

After the presentation of its evidence, the prosecution filed its

Formal Offer of Exhibits on May 15 1996, as follows:
Exhib
it No.
A
A-1
A-2

Description
bracelet recovered from accused
smaller ring recovered from accused
bigger ring recovered from accused

DECISION
CRIM.
NO.
94-137533
B CASE
sworn
statement
of complainant dated
Page Six July
(6) 8, 1994
B-1 signature of complainant on Exh. B
B-2 another statement of complainant
B-3 signature of complainant on Exhibit
B-2
C
request dated August 11, 1994 of
private complainant for the release to
her of Exhibits A to A-2
C-1 signature of complainant on Exhibit
C
D
approval by the Office of the City
Prosecutor
of
the
request
of
complainant for the release of the
aforementioned Exhibits A to A-2
E
sworn statement of Flores
E-1 signature of Flores on Exhibit E
F
F-1
F-2

G
H
H-1

Booking Sheet and Arrest Report

signature of accused on the Booking
Sheet and Arrest Report
the portion of the Booking Sheet and
Arrest Report which states that when
investigated, accused readily and
verbally admitted her guilt, claiming
that she only took 2 bracelets and 2
ladies rings and P3,500.00 from
private complainant
photograph of Exhibits A to A-2
the referral of the case to the City
Prosecutor for inquest investigation
the recommendation of the inquest
investigator for the indictment of
accused for qualified theft

Purpose
to
prove
the
existence
of
the
pieces
of
jewelry
stolen from private
complainant by and
subsequently
from
recovered
from
accused
to
prove
allegations
in
information

the
the

to
prove
the
existence
of
the
pieces
of
jewelry
which were recovered
from accused, and
which,
upon
the
request of private
complainant,
were
turned over to her
to corroborate the
testimony of private
complainant
to prove that the case
was investigated; that
Exhibits A to A-2
were
photographed
before
they
were
returned
to
complainant; that the
case was referred for
inquest investigation;
and that the inquest
prosecutor
recommended
the
indictment of accused
for qualified theft

On June 27, 1996, the foregoing exhibits were admitted by the

Court as part of the testimony of the witness who testified thereon.
On November 19, 1996, for failure of accused and her counsel to
appear and present evidence in support of her defense on July 11,
1996, August 22, 1996, October 10, 1996 and November 19, 1996, the

Court, upon motion of the prosecution, deemed accused to have

waived her right to adduce evidence. This case was then submitted for
decision after the expiration of the thirty-day period given to the
prosecution to file memorandum. No such memorandum, however, was
filed.
II. The Issues
The issues for resolution in this case are whether accused is
guilty is beyond reasonable doubt of qualified theft, and whether he is
civilly liable therefor.
III. The Courts Ruling
Parenthetically, the Court notes that accused was not
DECISION
represented
by 94-137533
counsel when she confessed to stealing private
CRIM. CASE NO.
complainants
Page
Seven (7)jewelries and cash and was identified by said private
complainant and Flores during her (accused) interrogation at Precinct
No. 5 of PNP-WPDC.
Verily, in order that an extra-judicial confession may be admitted
in evidence, Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution mandates
that the following safeguards be observed:
Section 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the
commission of an offense shall have the right to be
informed of his right to remain silent and to have
competent and independent counsel preferably of his
own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of
counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights
cannot be waived except in writing and in the
presence of counsel.
xxx xxx xxx
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of
this or Section 17 shall be inadmissible in evidence
against him. (emphases supplied)
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7438, approved on May 15, 1992, has
reinforced the constitutional mandate protecting the rights of persons
under custodial investigation. The pertinent provisions read:
SEC. 2. Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or under
Custodial Investigation; Duties of Public Officers.
a. Any person arrested, detained or under custodial
investigation shall at all times be assisted by
counsel.
b. Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting
under his order or his place, who arrests, detains or
investigates any person for the commission of an

offense shall inform the latter, in a language known

to and understood by him, of his rights to remain
silent and to have competent and independent
counsel, preferably of his own choice, who shall at all
times be allowed to confer in private with the person
arrested, detained or under custodial investigation.
If such person cannot afford the services of his own
counsel, he must be provided by with a competent
and independent counsel.
xxx xxx xxx
f. As used in this Act, custodial investigation shall
include the practice of issuing an invitation to a
person who is investigated in connection with an
offense he is suspected to have committed, without
prejudice to the liability of the inviting officer for
any violation of law.
If the extrajudicial confession satisfies these constitutional
DECISION
standards,
must
further be tested for voluntariness, that is, if it was
CRIM.
CASEitNO.
94-137533
given
freely
by
the
confessant without any form of coercion or
Page Eight (8)
inducement, since Section 12(2), Art. III of the Constitution explicitly
provides that [n]o torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or any
other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him.
Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar
forms of detention are prohibited.
Thus, in a long line of cases, the Supreme Court uniformly held
that an extra-judicial confession is admissible in evidence only if all of
the following requisites are satisfied:
(1)it must be voluntary;
(2)it must be made with the assistance of competent and
independent counsel;
(3)it must be express; and
(4)it must be in writing.10
If all the foregoing requisites are met, the confession constitutes
evidence of a high order because it is presumed that no person of
normal mind will knowingly and deliberately confess to a crime unless
prompted by truth and conscience. Otherwise, it is disregarded in
accordance with the cold objectivity of the exclusionary rule. 11 The
latter situation obtains in the instant case as accused was not assisted
by a competent and independent counsel.
R.A. 7438 defines custodial investigation as any questioning
initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into
custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any
significant way.12 It includes the practice of issuing an invitation to a
person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is
People v. Base, G.R. No. 109773, March 30, 2000 (emphasis and underscoring
added)
11
People v. Rapeza, G.R. No. 169431, April 3, 2007
12
Sec. 2, R.A. 7438
10

suspected to have committed, without prejudice to the liability of the

inviting officer for any violation of the law. 13 Settled is the rule that
the mantle of protection afforded by Article III, Section 12 of the 1987
Constitution to a person under custodial investigation covers the
period from the time a person is taken into custody for the
investigation of his possible participation in the commission of a crime
or from the time he is singled out as a suspect in the commission of
the offense although not yet in custody. 14 Elsewhere stated, the rule
begins to operate as soon as the investigation ceases to be a general
inquiry into an unsolved crime and direction is then aimed at a
particular suspect who has been taken into custody and to whom the
police would then direct interrogatory questions which tend to elicit
incriminating statements.15
The rule likewise applies to an out-of-court identification made in
a show-up (where the accused is brought face to face with the
witness for identification) or in a police line-up (where the suspect is
identified by a witness from a group of persons gathered for that
purpose) where the investigation is focused on a particular suspect as
DECISION
the possible perpetrator of the crime. This type of identification has
CRIM.
NO. 94-137533
been CASE
recognized
as critical confrontations of the accused by the
Page
Nine (9)necessitating the presence of counsel for the accused.
prosecution,
This is because the result of the pre-trial proceedings might settle the
fate of the accused and reduce the trial to a mere formality. Thus, any
identification of an uncounseled accused made in a in a show or in a
police line-up after the start of the custodial investigation is
inadmissible in evidence against him.16
Needless to say, the right to counsel is a fundamental right and
is intended to preclude the slightest coercion as would lead the
accused to admit something false. 17 The right to counsel, it bears
stressing, attaches upon the start of the investigation, i.e., when the
investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information and/or
confessions or admissions from the accused.18
In this case, accused was already under custodial investigation
when she was brought to the police headquarters for investigation.
Accordingly, she was entitled, among others, to be represented by
counsel. Since she was unassisted by counsel when she confessed to
SP01 Calapati her extrajudicial admissions are, therefore, inadmissible
consonant with the exclusionary rule ensconced in the third paragraph
of the aforequoted Section 12, Article III of the Constitution. So, too,
the out-of-court identification of accused by private complainant and
Flores while the former was in the custody of PNP-WPDC cannot be
accorded probative value for the same reason.
With the foregoing excluded, the probe now rivets on whether
the prosecution proved accuseds guilt independently of her
admissions and private complainant and Flores out-of-court
Id.
People v. Base, supra.
15
People v. Ayson, G.R. No. 85215, July 7, 1989; People v. Dagpin, G.R. No. 149560,
June 10, 2004; People v. de la Cruz, G.R. No. 11866-68, September 17, 1997
16
People v. Escordial, G.R. Nos. 138934-35, January 16, 2002
17
People v. Olermo, G.R. No. 127848, July 17, 2003
18
Gamboa v. Cruz, G.R. No. L-56291, June 27, 1988
13
14

identification by the quantum of proof required by law. The Court finds

in the affirmative.
Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but
without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon
things, shall take personal property of another without the latter's
consent.19 If committed with grave abuse of confidence, the crime of
theft becomes qualified. In prcis, qualified theft punishable under
Article 310 in relation to Articles 308 and 309 of the Revised Penal
Code (RPC) is committed when the following elements are present:
1. taking of personal property;
2. that the said property belongs to another;
3. that the said taking be done with intent to gain;
4. that it be done without the owners consent;
5. that it be accomplished without the use of violence or
intimidation against persons, nor of force upon things; and
6. that it be done with grave abuse of confidence.20
There is taking of personal property, and theft is consummated
when the offender unlawfully acquires possession of personal property
of another even if for a short time without the latters privity and
DECISION
consent and without animus revertendi, or if such property is under the
CRIM.
CASEand
NO.control
94-137533
dominion
of the thief. The taker, at some particular
Page
Ten must
(10) have obtained complete and absolute possession and
amount,
control of the property adverse to the rights of the owner or the lawful
possessor thereof. It is not necessary that the property be actually
carried away out of the physical possession of the lawful possessor or
that he should have made his escape with it. Neither asportation nor
actual manual possession of property is required. Constructive
possession by the thief of the property is enough.21
The taking should be accompanied by animus furandi, that is,
intent to deprive another of his ownership or lawful possession of
personal property which intent is apart from, but concurrent with the
general criminal intent which is an essential element of a felony of dolo
(dolos malus). The animo being a state of mind may be proved by
direct or circumstantial evidence, inclusive of the manner and overt
conduct of the accused before, during and after the taking of the
personal property. General criminal intent is presumed or inferred from
the very fact that the wrongful act is done since one is presumed to
have willed the natural consequences of his own acts. Likewise,
animus furandi is presumed from the furtive taking of useful property
pertaining to another without the consent of the owner or lawful
possessor thereof, unless special circumstances reveal a different
intent on the part of the perpetrator. 22 The same may be rebutted by
the accused by evidence that he took the personal property under a
bona fide belief that he owns the property.23
In the present case, it was established beyond cavil that personal
property comprised of nine pieces of jewelries and money, all
Art. 308, Revised Penal Code
PNB v. Tria, G.R. No. 193250, April 25, 2012
21
Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 176504, September 3, 2008; Laurel v. Abrogar, G.R. No.
155076, February 27, 2006
22
People v. Ladiana, G.R. No. 174660, May 30, 2011
23
Gaviola v. People, G.R. No. 163927, January 27, 2006
19
20

belonging to private complainant, were filched from her room, without

her consent. The unlawful taking was effectuated without inflicting
violence or intimation on her person as she was in her parlor when the
incident in question took place. Neither was there exertion of force
upon the things as this phrase necessitates the use of force to gain
entrance into a house or building by any of the means described in
Articles 299 and 302 of the Revised Penal Code and, therefore,
qualifies the offense to robbery.
The only remaining question is whether cogent proof exists for
the imputation of the unlawful taking to accused as the perpetrator
thereof, and if so, whether the taking was committed with grave abuse
of confidence.
The Court finds that there is.
It bears stressing that direct evidence of the commission of a
crime is not the only basis on which a court may draw its finding of
guilt. Established facts that form a chain of circumstances can lead the
mind intuitively or impel a conscious process of reasoning towards a
conviction. Verily, resort to circumstantial evidence, understood as
evidence which indirectly proves a fact in issue through an inference
which the fact-finder draws from the evidence established, is
sanctioned by Rule 133, Section 5 of the Rules of Court, 24 for if direct
DECISION
evidence
is insisted
under all circumstances, the prosecution of vicious
CRIM.
CASE
NO. 94-137533
felons
who
committed
heinous crimes in secret or secluded places will
Page Eleven (11)
be hard, if not well-nigh impossible, to prove.25
In order for circumstantial evidence to sustain conviction, the
above-said Rule requires the following elements: (a) there is more than
one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived
have been proven; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances
results in a moral certainty that the accused, to the exclusion of all
others, is the one who has committed the crime. Of particular
importance is the third element. As a corollary to the constitutional
precept of presumption of innocence, the Supreme Court in a catena of
cases edified that the circumstances proved must constitute an
unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion that
points to the accused, to the exclusion of all others as the guilty
person; moreover, the circumstances proved must be consistent with
each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty,
and at the same time inconsistent with any other hypothesis except
that of guilty.26
The following circumstances, taken jointly, unmistakably indicate
the culpability of the accused beyond reasonable doubt:
1. On the night prior to the unlawful taking of the subject
properties, or on July 6, 1994, private complainant
irreflectively placed the duplicate key to her room inside the
drawer of the table in the parlor while she was biding accused
Buebos v. People, G.R. No. 163938, March 28, 2008
Baleros, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 138033, February 22, 2006
26
People v. Anabe, G.R. No. 179033, September 6, 2010; People v. Bayon, G.R. No.
168627, July 2, 2010
24
25

to guard said parlor. No other person was inside the parlor

save private complainant and accused. So, too, no other
person saw private complainant leave the duplicate key
except accused.
2. Accused turned up at around 10 oclock in the morning of the
following day. With all of the boarders gone at or before 7:30
in the morning on that day, only private complainant,
accused, Flores and Gador were left in the boarding house.
3. During lunch time, accused, on the representation that she
has menstruation, solicited a tampon from Flores. The latter
directed her to get one from her room located in the third
floor of the boarding house, adjacent to that of private
complainant.
4. Accused then went to the third floor. She tarried long upstairs,
which prodded Flores to go up her room supposedly to fetch
her to invite her to eat, but she could not find accused there,
so she went back to the dining area in the first floor and
waited for accused. After some time, accused descended and
went straight into the comfort room, looking awkwardly. After
eating, accused hurriedly sought leave from private
complainant at around 12:30 in the afternoon as her
menstrual discharge then was allegedly profuse, but she
promised to return the following day.
5. There was no sign forced entry into private complainants
room, which indicates that the thievery was committed by
someone who had access to the boarding house.
6. There was absolutely no evidence that Gador entered private
complainants room. Flores, for her part, adamantly averred
DECISIONthat she did not enter private complainants room on the date
of the
incident
in question. She spent her morning in the first
CRIM. CASE
NO.
94-137533
floor (12)
of the boarding house doing chores, and left at around
Page Twelve
1:00 in the afternoon to go to school. She returned to the
house only at around 9:00 in the evening.
7. The boarders could not have possibly committed the offense
as they left the house very early and returned only at around
8:00 in the evening, which was way after the purloining was
discovered by private complainant at about 6:00 in the
evening when she proceeded back to her room.
8. On the night when the unlawful taking was discovered, Flores
found out, after counting her tampons, that accused did not
get one from her room as the four tampons she had at that
time remained undecreased.
9. Contrary to her promise, accused no longer reported back to
work on the following day. During the follow-up investigation
conducted by SP01 Calapati, three of the jewelries, which
were carted away from private complainants room, were
recovered from accused. Accused was then brought to the
police station where she made certain admissions.
The next crucial question now is whether accused committed the
crime with grave abuse of confidence as to bring the case within the
ambit of qualified theft. Theft becomes qualified when it is, among
others, committed with grave abuse of confidence. 27 The grave abuse
of confidence must be the result of the relation by reason of
27

Article 310, Revised Penal Code

dependence, guardianship, or vigilance, between the offender and the

offended party that might create a high degree of confidence between
them which the appellant abused.28 In this case, it is beyond cavil that
accused gravely abused the confidence reposed in her by private
complainant when she, an employee who was allowed to take shelter
in the latters dwelling, gobble in the latters table and enjoy other
perquisites with no monetary consideration, took advantage of the
latters trust by appropriating her jewelries and cash while the latter
was inside her parlor on the day of the incident in question.
Having ascertained accuseds criminal liability for the crime of
qualified theft, we now proceed to determine the penalty to the meted
on accused. In Merida v. People,29 the Supreme Court ruled that to
prove the amount of the property taken for fixing the penalty
imposable against the accused under Article 309, in relation to Article
310, of the Revised Penal Code, the prosecution must present more
than a mere uncorroborated assertion of such fact. In the absence of
independent and reliable corroboration of such assertion, courts may
either apply the minimum penalty under Article 309, in relation to
Article 310, or fix the value of the property taken based on the
attendant circumstances of the case. Accordingly, in the greater
interest of substantial justice and so as not to depreciate the gravity of
the offense with which accused stands charged, the Court resolves to
fix the value of all the properties and monies taken from private
complainant to only P10,000.00.
Paragraph 2, Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the
penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be
imposed if the value of the thing stolen is more than P6,000.00 but does not
exceed P12,000.00. Here, the amount stolen by accused was fixed by the
Court to P10,000.00, as aforesaid. Considering, however, that we are
DECISION
confronted in this case not with a simple theft but theft qualified by grave
CRIM.
NO. 94-137533
abuse CASE
of confidence,
the penalty for which, according to Article 310 of the
Page
Thirteen
(13) is two degrees higher than those specified in Article
Revised
Penal Code,
309 (reckoned, in this case, from prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods, based on the aforementioned approximation), the
maximum penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum
periods (equivalent to 16 years, 5 months and 11 days to 18 years, 2
months and 20 days) is proper. But applying Indeterminate Sentence Law,
there being neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstance, an
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from 9 years, 4 months and
1 day to 10 years and 8 months of prision mayor should be imposed as
maximum.
As to accuseds civil liability, the Court notes that the prosecution
has not presented sufficient evidence to substantiate the total amount
looted from private complainant by official receipt, invoice and the like.
Nevertheless, since it cannot be gainsaid that pecuniary loss did occur
for which indemnification in favor of private complainant is justly due,
an adjudication of the amount of P10,000.00 as liquidated damages
against accused is likewise in order.

28
29

People v. Tanchanco, G.R. No. 177761, April 18, 2012

G.R. No. 158182, June 12, 2008

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing disquisitions, judgment is

hereby rendered finding accused Evangeline Lacson y Rafols GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of qualified theft and sentencing her to suffer
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from 9 years, 4 months and
1 day to 10 years and 8 months of prision mayor, as minimum, and to 16
years, 5 months and 11 days to 18 years, 2 months and 20 days of
reclusion temporal, as maximum, and to indemnify private complainant
Felisa Gonzales y Quitovier the sum of P10,000.00 as liquidated
damages.
SO ORDERED.
Manila, Philippines, _____________.

VIRGILIO
ALAMEDA
Judge
/raffy

M.