Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice
NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE
CITY PROSECUTION SERVICE OF CEBU
City of Cebu

MAC JOLLY KING CORPORATION

Complainant;

-versus-
I.S.________________
For: Qualified Theft

SIMONE TRINIDAD
Respondent.

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

COMPLAINT- AFFIDAVIT

Complainant, MAC JOLLY KING CORPORATION, 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 P. Del
Rosario St. Corner Sanciangko St., Brgy. Kamagayan, Cebu City, through
the undersigned counsel, respectfully avers that;

1. The complainant is engaged in the business of providing food

and 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 Securities and
Exchange Commission marked as Annex “A”.

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

hired the services of Mr. Simone Trinidad, 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”.

Page 1 of 4
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 25th
day of January, 2019, the respondent was instructed by his
superior to make a withdrawal in the amount of THREE
HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (Php350,000.00 ) in
its Banco De Oro Account bearing the number 100986371246
and under the name of Elizabeth Santos. Be it noted that the
complainant is using the account of Elizabeth Santos 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 Happy Valley Subdivision,
Guadalupe, Cebu 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 26 January 2019, marked as Annex “D”.

6. On 28 January 2019, complainant reported the incident and loss

to BDO Ramos Branch, 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

Page 2 of 4
 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
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.

1
G.R. No. 176298, 25 January 2012

Page 3 of 4
 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 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 SimoneTrinidad 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.

2
G.R. No. 123183, 19 January 2000

Page 4 of 4