CASE HISTORY Case No.: 12345 and 12346 RTC/MTC Branch No.: RTC Branch 44, SFC, LU Title of the Case. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. RYAN DOLORES Y BERNAL DATE PARTICULARS e7v072014 ‘Accused was arraigned in both cases. 117572014 Pre-Trial Conference completed and terminated 214r2018 Heidi iglesias completed her testimony. 21252015. Erique iglesias completed his testimony. 5/13/2015 Intended prosecution witness, Joy Guba, falled to appear. [6/10/2015 Intended prosecution witness, Joy Guba and Noel Meana, failed to appear. 12572015 intended prosecution witness, Joy Guba and Noel Meana, failed to appear. 2124/2016 Prosecution rested iis case with the repeated failure of appearance of their ‘witnesses. No documentary evidence formally offered. 5/25/2016 ‘Accused failed to appear. Reset. 5 6/22/2016 Public Prosecutor is indisposed. Reset 111972016 ‘Accused failed to appear due to an accident. Reset. 32212017 ‘Accused stil failed to appear. Defense Counsel constrained to terminate its presentation and submits the case for decision. a262017 Decision dated Apri 26, 2017 was promulgated.Paget Republic of the Philippines First Judicial Region REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 44 San Fernando City, La Union PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, CRIM. CASE NO, 12345 & 12346 versus - For RYAN DOLORES y Bernal, Qualified Theft Accused. xe x ORDER In today’s arraignment, accused Ryan Dolores, duly assisted by counsel de oficio, Atty. John Emmanuel Delos Santos of the Public Attorney's Office, entered a plea of Not Guilty to the offenses charged in the Informations in both cases which were read to him in Hloco dialect, a anguage that he fully speaks and understands. Let therefore a Plea of Not Guilty be entered into the records of these cases. Set the preliminary conference of these cases before the Branch Clerk of Court on October 1, 2014 at 1:30 in the aftemoon and the pre-trial conference before this Court on November 5, 2014 at 1:30 in the afternoon. Prosecutor Ferrer Jr. and Atty. Delos Santos are notified of this Order. SO ORDERED. Given in Open Court, this 10" day of September 2014 in San Fernando City, La Union. (Original Signed) CHRISTIAN ROBERT G, Judge |APILIRepublic of the Philippines First Judicial Region REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 44 San Fernando City, La Union PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, CRIM. CASE NO. 12345, - versus ~ For RYAN DOLORES y Bernal, Qualified Theft ‘Accused. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, CRIM. CASE NO. 12346 > versus. - For RYAN DOLORES y Bernal, (Qualified Theft ‘Accused. PRE-TRIALORDER In today’s Pre-Trial Conference, Prosecutor George Ferrer, Jr. appeared for the prosceution while Atty. John Emmanuel Delos Santos of the Public ‘Attomey's Office, appeared for the accused. Also in court is the accused Ryan Dolores ‘The parties entered into stipulations and adopted their markings during the preliminary conference which in the course of which, the parties through their respective counsels have considered the following: I. STIPULATION OF FACTS: Counsels stipulated on the following facts 1. The identity of the accused as Ryan Dolores as the person charged and arraigned in the Information are admitted. 2. The accused accused Ryan Dolores is the family driver of Heidi Iglesias is not admitted; 3. The fact that the accused is an employee of Heidi Iglesias is not admitted. ILISSUE/S Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime charged in the Information. Page2Page or the Prosecution: Affidavit Complaint executed by Enrique Iglesias dated pr February 25, 2014 gr Affidavit of witness executed by | Heidi Iglesias dated February 25,2014 4c" = Affidavit of wimess executed by Ricky Iglesias dated February 25, 2014 sp" -Affdavit of witness excouted by Noel Meana dated February 25, 2014 opr - Affidavit of witness executed by Joy Guba dated February 25, 2014 For the Defense: ‘None be allowed to be presented and offered during the trial in support of a party’s evidence-in-chief other than those that had been identified fbove and/or pre-marked during the pre-trial. All other evidence not indicated or listed above are considered waived or abandoned by the partes. ‘No evidence shall However, the Court in its discretion, may allow introduction of additional evidence in the following cases; (a) those to be used on cross-examination oF re~ ‘eross examination for impeachment purposes; (b) those presented on re-direct ‘examination to explain or supplement the answers of a witness during the cross- ‘examination; (¢) those to be utilized for rebuttal or sur-rebuttal purposes; (d) those hot available during the pre-trial proceedings despite due diligence on the part of the party offering the same; and (c) in any other cases deemed appropriate by the ‘Court in the interest of justice or for good cause shown. IV. WITNESSES 7‘ For the Prosecution: Five (S) witnesses namely: 1. Enrique Iglesias 2. Heidi Ialesias 3. Ricky Iulesias 4 Noel Meana 5. Joy Guba For the Defense: Two (2) witnesses namely; 1. Ryan Dolores 2. Reserved No witness other than those mentioned and identified above shall be allowed to testify during the trial except those in rebuttal and sur-rebuttal and unless, the Court so allows but only in highly meritorious cases where the interest ‘ofthe justice requiresPages ‘TRIAL DATES Prosecution trial dates are set on February 4, 2015, February 25, 2015, March 18, 2015, April 8, 2015 and April 29, 2015 all at 1:30 in the afternoon, Defense trial dates are set May 13, 2015, and June 10, 2015 all at 1:30 in the afternoon. ‘The trial dates for the rebuttal of the prosecution, if any, will be set only after the defense shall have rested its case while that of the defense sur-rebuttal, if any, shall also be set after the prosecution has rested its rebuttal evidence. ‘The foregoing trial dates shall be strictly followed and observed. All postponements by either party shall be deducted from such party's alloted time or ‘tial date to present evidence. Failure to complete the presentation of witnesses after the lapse of each allotted trial dates shall be a waiver of presentation of further evidences unless otherwise excused in the interest of justice and for good cause shown. ‘The parties are directed to stictly adhere to the One-day-Examination of Witness Rule. The Court, however, has the diseretion or whether or not to extend the direct and/or cross-examination of a witness for good cause. ‘The Pre-trial is now terminated. The parties are given fifteen (15) days from receipt of this Pre-Trial Order within which to suggest corrections should they find any error/s therein. After said period, no amendment or correction shall be allowed and this Pre-trial Order shall control the proceedings in this case. The parties and their respective counsels are notified of the scheduled dates of hearing, in open court which are hereby considered non-transferable. As prayed for by Prosecutor Ferrer, J, issue subpoena to Enrique Iglesias and Heidi Iglesias at their address on record. SO ORDERED. GIVEN IN OPEN COURT this 5" day of November 2014 in: it a3 ay 2014 in San Fernando City, (Original Signed) CHRISTIAN ROBERT G. DIMAPILI JudgeRepubli¢ of the Philippines First Judicial Region REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 44. ‘San Fernando Citys La Union PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, CRIM, CASE NO. 12345 & 12346 = versus. - For RYAN DOLORES y Bernal, Qualified Theft ‘Actused. ORDER In today's presentation of the prosecution’s evidence, Public Prosecutor George Ferrer, Jr. presented to the witness stand Heidi Iglesias whose testimony was thereafter terminated. On_ motion for continuance, set further presentation of the prosecution's evidence on February 25, 2015 at 1:30 in the afternoon. Send subpoena to Enrique Iglesias at his given address on record. Prosecutor Ferrer Jr. and Atty. Delos Santos, counsel for the accused, are hereby notified of this Order in open Court. SO ORDERED. Given in open Court this 4 day of February, 2015 in San Fernando City, La Union. (Original Signed) CHRISTIAN ROBERT G. DIMAPILI JudgePages Republic of the Philippines First Judicial Region REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 44 San Fernando City, La Union PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, CRIM. CASE NO. 12345 & 12346 > versus - For RYAN DOLORES y Bernal, Qualified Theft ‘Accused, 2 In today's continuation of the presentation of the prosecution's evidence, Publie Prosecutor George Ferrer, Jr. presented to the 1ess stand Enrique Iglesiaswho thereupon completed his testimony. On motion for continuance, without objection on the part of Atty. John Emmanuel Delos Santos, counsel for the accused, set continuation of the presentation of the prosecution's evidence on March 18, 2015 at 1:30 the afternoon, as previously scheduled. As prayed for, send subpoena to Joy Guba at her given address on record. Prosecutor Ferrer, Jr. and At accused are hereby notified of this order Delos Santos, counsel for the ‘open Court, SO ORDERED. Given in open Fernando City, La Union, rt this 28" day pf February, 2015 im, San (Original Signed) CHRISTIAN ROBERT G. DIMAPILI JudgePage? Republic of the Philippines First Judicial Region REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 44 ‘San Fernando City, La Union PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, CRIM. CASE NO, 12345 & 12346 - versus For RYAN DOLORES y Bernal, Qualified Theft Accused, ORDER In today’s continuation of the presentation of the prosecution evidence, Public Prosecutor George Ferrer, Jr. Was supposed to present 0 the witness stand Joy Guba who, however, failed to appear, despite due notice. In view of the same, without objection on the part of Atty. John Emmanuel Delos Santos, counsel for the accused, reset the further presentation of the prosecution evidence on June 10, 2015 at 1:30 in the afternoon, as previously scheduled As prayed for, issue anew subpoena to Joy Guba and Noel Meana, at their addresses on record. Additional settings are August 4, 2015, ‘September 8, 2015 and October 6, 2015, all at 1:30 in the afternoon, Prosecutor Ferrer, Jr. and Atty, Delos Santos, are hereby notified of this Order in open court. SO ORDERED. fen in open court, this 13" day of May 2015 in the City of San Fernando, La Union (Original Signed) CHRISTIAN ROBERT G. DIMAPILI JudgePages Republi of the Philippines First Judicial Region REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 44 ‘San Fernando City, La Union PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, CRIM. CASE NO. 12345 ~ versus - For RYAN DOLORES y Bernal, Qualified Thett Accused. CRIM. CASE NO. 12346 - versus - For RYAN DOLORES y Bernal, Qualified Theft Accused. In today’s continuation of presentation of prosecution evidence, the intended witness namely, Joy Guba and Noel Meana, failed to appear despite due ni However, on motion of Public Prosecutor George Ferrer, Jr, and without objection on the part of Atty. John Emmanuel Delos Santos, counsel for the accused, that the prosecution will just present the private complainant in Criminal Case No. 12346, reset the further Presentation of prosecution evidence on August 25, 2015 at 1:30 in the afternoon, AS prayed for, issue subpoena to the private complainant Ricky Iglesias, Joy Guba, and Noel Meana, at their respective addresses on record. Additional dates are September 22, 2015 and October 21, 2015, both at 1:30 in the afternoon. Prosecutor Ferrer, Jr, and Atty. Delos are notified of this Order in open court. SO ORDERED. Given in open court, this 10" day of June 2015 in the City of San Fernando, La Union, (Original Signed) CHRISTIAN ROBERT G. DIMAPILI JudgePages Republic of the Philippines First Judicial Region REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 44 ‘San Fernando City, La Union PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, CRIM. CASE NO. 12345 & 12346 = versus - For Qualified Theft RYAN DOLORES y Bernal, ‘Accused. x ORDER In {oday’s further presentation of prosecution evidence, none of the intended ‘witnesses appeared despite notice. Without the objection of Atty. John Emmanuel Delos Santos, cousel for the accused, to the motion for resetting interposed by Public Prosecutor George Ferrer, Jr. reset the further presentation of prosecution evidence on September 22, 2015 at 1:30 in the afternoon, as previously scheduled. {As prayed for issue anew subpoena to Joy Guba and Noel Meana at their addresses of record. Prosecutor Ferrer, Jr. and Atty, Delos Santos, are hereby notified of this Order in ‘open court. SO ORDERED. GIVEN IN OPEN COURT, this 25 day of August 2014 in San Fernando City, La Union (Original Signed) CHRISTIAN ROBERT G. DIMAPILI JudgePage 10 Republic of the Philippines First Judicial Region REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 44 San Fernando City, La Union PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, CRIM. CASE NO. 12345 > versus - For RYAN DOLORES y Bernal, Qualified Theft ‘Accused. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, CRIM. CASE NO. 12346 = versus - For RYAN DOLORES y Bernal, Qualified Theft ‘Accused, x ORDER In view of the repeated failure to appear despite notice of the private complainant Heidi Iglesias, in Crim, Case No. 12346, and prosecution witnesses in both cases, Crim. Case Nos. '12345 and 12346, the further presentation of prosecution evidence is hereby deemed terminated, In view of the manifestation of Public Prosecutor Ferrer, Jr that the prosecution is resting its case and there is no documentary evidence to be formally offered, set the initial presentation of defense evidence on May 25, 2016 and June 22, 2016 both at 1:30 in the aftemoon. As prayed for, issue subpoena to accused Ryan Dolores. at his address on record. Prosecutor Ferrer, Jr. and Atty, John Emmanuel Delos Santos, counsel for the accused, are notified of this Order in open court. SO ORDERED, Given in open Court this 24th day of HAfe\ary 269 id ifs Femandg City, La Union. (Original Signed) CHRISTIAN ROBERT G, DIMAPILL JudgePage 11 Republic of the Philippines First Judicial Region REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 44 San Fernando City, La Union PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, CRIM. CASE NO. 12345 & 12346 = versus - For RYAN DOLORES y Bernal, ‘Qualified Theft Accused. x ORDER In view of the manifestation of Atty, Delos Santos, counsel of the accused, that he has yet to confer with the accused Noel Gumtang who is not in court despite notice, without objection on the part of Public Prosecutor George Ferret, Jr, reset the initial presentation of defense evidence on June 22, 2016 at 1:30 in the afternoon. Additional date is on August 17, 2016 also at 1:30 in the afternoon. As prayed for, issue subpoena to accused Ryan Dolores at his address on record. Prosecutor Ferrer, Jr. and Atty. John Emmanuel Delos Santos,are notified of this Order in open court. SO ORDERED, GIVEN IN OPEN COURT, this 25th day of May 2016 in San Femando City, La Ut (Original Signed) CHRISTIAN ROBERT G. DIMAPILI JudgePage 12 Republic of the Philippines First Judicial Region REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 44 ‘San Fernando City, La Union PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, CRIM. CASE NO. 12345 & 12346 > versus. - For RYAN DOLORES y Bernal, Qualified Theft Accused. Considering that Public Prosecutor! George Ferrer, Jr., is presently indisposed and considering the manifestation of Atty. John Delos Santos, counsel, for the accused, that.the-accused has not been reporting to him despite efforts on his part, summon the accused before him for purposes of Preparing his defense, and in order to give the accused one last chance to present evidence, reset the hearing today to August 17, 2016 at 1:30 in the afternoon, as previously scheduled, Issue anew subpoena (0 | Ryan Dolores at his address of record. Send copy of this Order to Prosecutor Ferrer, J., Atty. Hufana is hereby notified of this Order in open court. SO ORDERED. GIVEN IN OPEN, COURT, this 224 day of June 2016 in San Fernando City, La Union. (Original Signed) CHRISTIAN ROBERT G. DIMAPILL JudgePage 13 Republic of the Philippines First Judicial Region REGIONAL TRIAL COURT. 1 Branch 44 ‘San Fernando City, La Union PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, CRIM, CASE NO, 12345 & 12346 = versus. > For, RYAN DOLORES y Bernal, ‘Qualified Theft ‘Accused. x ORDER ‘Todi is the initial presentation ‘of defense evidence. Atty. John Delos Santos of the Public: Attomey’s: Office; counsel for the » accused, manifested. that their intended, witness, the accused, Ryan Dolores, allegedly met, an. accident, and therefore, he, is not able to present said accused for today's hearing. Reset therefore the initial presentation of defense evidence to March 22, 2017 at 1:30 in the afternoon, with a warning that should the'defense not be able to present evidence on the aforestated date and time of hearing, they: shall deemed to have waived its right to present evidence. ‘Meantime, ithe ‘defense’ is) hereby” directed. to. submit “a medical certificate attesting to the fact of unavailability of the said accused to appear in today’s hearing. Prosecutor Ferrer, Jr. and Atty. Delos Santos, as well as private complainants - Heidi Iglesias and Enrique Iglesias are notified of this Order in open court. SO ORDERED. GIVEN IN OPEN COURT this 9th day of November 2016 in the City of San Fernando, La Union. (Original Signed) CHRISTIAN ROBERT G. DIMAPILI JudgePage 14 Republi¢ of the Philippines First Judicial Region REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 44 ‘San Fernando City, La Urtion PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, CRIM. CASE NO. 12345 & 12346 For RYAN DOLORES y Bernal, Qualified Theft ‘Mccused: ORDER ‘There being a warning, given to the defense in the Order of this court dated November 9, 2016 and considering the manifestation of Atty. John Delos Santos ofthe Public Attorney's Office, counsel for the accused, that the accused has failed to communicate with him despite efforts likewise on the part of Atty. Delos Santos to get in touch with said accused and for. purposes of the preparation .of his- defense. On motion of: Public: Prosecutor. George Ferrer, Jr., the presentation of the evidence for the defense is hereby deemed waived: 3 Accordingly, this case is now submitted for Decision. ‘Set the promulgation of the judgment in this case on April 26, 2017 at 1:30 in the afternoon Send copy of this\Order to'the accused) Ryaiv Dolores Prosecutor Ferrer, Jr.and Atty. Delos Santos, are hereby notified of this Order in open court. SO ORDERED. GIVEN IN/OPEN ‘COURT, this 22-day of: March 2017 in San. Fernando City, La Union: CHRISTIAN ROBERT G: DIMAPILL JudgePage 15 Republic of the Philippines First Judiciaf Region REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 44 San Fernando City, La Union PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, © CRIM, CASE NO. 12345 & 12346 versus > For RYAN DOLORES y Bernal, 7 “Qualified Theft Acciised! : ORDER In today’ s promiliation oF Judainent, Public Prosevutor George Perret: Jr. and Atty. John'fEmmanuel: Delos Santos“of the Public Attorney's Office, counsel for the accused as well.as the, accused Ryan Dolores, appeared. Judgment was, read to, the accused. in the presence. of his counsel, Atty. Delos Santos. On motion of Atty. Delos Santos,,the bond posted by the, accused. under, Official Receipt, No, 6837905-B dated August 8, 2014 in the amount of 24,000.00 shall continue and remain effective for! purposes’ of the provisional liberty’ of the dectiséd’ pending his eppeel and/or iotior: for reconsideration to'the'aforementioned judgments Prosecutor Ferrer, Jr and Atty. Delos Santos,'as well as the private Complainant Heidi Iglesias are notified of this Order in opett court SO ORDERED. * Given in open Court this, 26". day of Ava} 017 sah, fans City, La Union. (Original Signed) CHRISTIAN ROBERT G. DIMAPILI JudgePages Republic of the Philippines First Judicial Region REGIONAL TRIAL COURT. Branch 44 San Fernando City, La Union PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintift, CRIM. CASE NO, 12345 = versus = For RYAN DOLORES y Bernal, ‘Accused, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaincft, CRIM. CASE NO. 12346 = versus For RYAN DOLORES y Bernal, Qualified Theft ‘Accused, DECISION ‘The accused, Ryan Dolores y Bernal, is charged with the crime of Qualified ‘Theft under the Informations ‘both dated March 31, 2014, the accusatory allegations of which rea: se 13 That between the period from February 2, 2014 to February 4, 2014 in the City San Fernando, La Union, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court accused, being then employed as the driver of the family of Heidi Iglesias, reposed with trust and confidence, by means of grave abuse of confidence, and with intent to sain, did then and there wilfilly, unlawfully and felo steal and carry away various items as follows: Tag Heur watch, and iphone belonging to Enrique Iglesias, in the total estimated amount of fifty eight thousand (P58,000.00) pesos Philippine Currency, without the knowledge and consent of latter, to the damage and prejudice of the offended parties in the aforesaid amount plus consequential damages. CONTRARY TO LAW.Page 37 Criminal Case No, 12346: ‘That on or about the 4® of February 2014 in the Cit Femando, La Union, Philippines and within the jurisdi of the Honorable Court accused, being then employed as the driver of the amily of Heidi Iglesias reposed with trust and confidence, by means of grave abuse of confidence, and with intent to gain, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, take, steal and carry away various items as follows: air compressor, portable generator, and portable water pump belonging to Heidi Iglesias, in the total estimated amount of thirty seven thousand (P37,000.00) pesos Philippine Currency, without the knowledge and consent of latter, t0 the damage and prejudice of the offended parties in the aforesaid amount plus consequential damages. CONTRARY TO LAW, Accused, duly assisted by counsel de parte, pleaded not guilty to both charges during the arraignment. Thereafter, pre-trial conference and trial on the merits took place, ‘The prosecution offered the testimonies of private complainants Enrique Iglesias and Heidi Iglesias and Exhibit “A” as testimonial and documentary ‘evidence. On the other hand, the accused did not testify despite repeated notices for him to appear in court. As culled from the prosecution evidence, the accused Ryan Dolores is the family driver of the private complainants, On February 2, 2014,Enrique was about to wash his car parked outside their compound in Naps Resort, Poro Point, San Femando City, La Union. He put his Tag Heur watch and Iphone cellphone near the shift gear and went over the water hose to get it. Upon his return, he noticed the accused inside of his car and cleaning it. Enrique asked the accused what he was doing when he was supposed to be already taking his day-off. The accused said to him he was cleaning his car for him, Enrique repeated to the accused that he need not clean his car because it was his day-off. Accused got out of the car and left. Enrique began washing his cer. He then remembered his watch and phone. He went inside his car to check his belongings and found them missing. He looked for the accused and saw him outside his room. On confrontation, accused denied he saw his employer’s watch and cellphone inside his car. At this, juncture, Enrique’s brother, Ricky Iglesias heard them arguing. He went out of the house and asked them what the commotion was all about. Enrique explained to him about his watch and cellphone. Both Enrique and Ricky went back to the car to try to locate again his things but still they were nowhere to be found. ‘They looked for the accused but he was already gone. ‘They tried to contact him on his cellphone but accused would not answer any of their calls. Accused was supposed to be back on February 4, 2014 to drive their mother to Manila but accused neverPage 18 ‘again reported for work. While in Manila, Enrique learned from their employees that accused had retuned but left soon thereafter. ‘When Enrique 2ame back from Manila with his mother, he checked the room of the accused and found that he had removed all his things, including their compressor, water pump and generator which accused had been entrusted with ‘their custody during the time that accused was still with them. ‘The elements of qualified the, punishable under Article 310 in relation to Articles 308 and 309 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, are: (a) the taking of personal property; (b) the said property belongs to another; (e) the said taking be done with intent to gain; (d) it be done without the owner's consent; (e) it be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons, nor of force upon things; and (f) it be done under any of the circumstances enumerated in “Article 310 of the RPC, that i, with grave abuse of confidence. Direct evidence of taking or stealing to prove the participation of the accused does not matter as long as there is enough circumstantial evidence that would establishing the element of taking. After all, Section 4, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that an occused may be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence if more than one circumstance is involved, the fats of which, inferring said circumstances have been proven, and proved thatthe combination ofall such circumstances would suffice to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. For circumstantial evidence to be sufficient for conviction, the following, conditions must be satisfied: (a) There is more than one circumstance; (b) The facts from which the circumstances are derived are proven; and (c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Here, the first of the circumstances is that the accused is their family driver and as such had access to Enrique’s car. Among his duties as family driver was to clean the ears. Second, Enrique alleged that he put his watch and phone inside the ‘car and left to get the water hose and when he retumed, accused was already inside his car when he should have already left their house to take his day-off. Third, Enrique proceeded to clean his car until he remembered about his watch and phone. He tried to look for it inside his car where he had left them but found them missing. Fourth, after Enrique confronted the accused who denied involvement in his missing belongings, Enrique together with his brother looked again for Enrique’s missing watch and phone but still could not locate it and when they retumed to confront anew the accused, the latter was already gone. Fifth, they tried to call the accused but the latter did not answer, Sixth, accused returned to the house while his employers were in Manila but left thereafter again. Seventh, when Enrique returned from Manila, he discovered their other belongings missing. Eight, accused never reported back to work since the day of their confrontation. The Court deems these circumstances presented by the prosecution sufficient at least for purposes of Criminal Case No. 10413 relative to the missing watch and cellphone, From the time that Enrique had left his things inside the car, when hePage 13 refumed to the car aller he went to get the water house and where he saw the accused inside the car on the day when he was supposed to be on his day-off and {ot out of the car and Enrique proceeded to clean his car until he was reminded of his things but when he checked inside they were missing, up to the time that he confronted the accused, who however denied taking them but then when Enrique and his brother were intending to confront him again about his missing belongings, accused was no longer to be found. He also no longer reported back for work and ‘even when he returned during the time that they were away, he only did so in order to get his clothes. ‘The circumstantial evidence places the accused in the scene of the crime on the day of the incident. He left the house of his employer after confrontation and nno longer reported back for work. These circumstances portray a fair and reasonable conclusion that accused took the personal properties belonging to the private complainant with intent to gain, Insofar, however, as the personal properties subject ofthe Criminal Case No. 12346relative to the air compressor, portable generator and portable water pump are concerned, there is no evidence of such taking or even under the circumstances mentioned by the prosecution witnesses, The claim of Enrique that accused had been entrusted with these items is insufficient to establish the circumstance that between February 2, 2014 to February 4, 2014 while private complainants were in ‘Manila, accused had taken them. ‘The penalty for the crime of theft depends upon the value of the thing taken. Enrique testified that his watch, given as a gift, was worth P32,000.00 while his Iphone5 was worth P26,000.00. The Court, however, makes the observation that the amounts mentioned were not established by independent or reliable estimates. Notwithstanding, the Court shall fix the value of the stolen items based on the minimum value corresponding to the crime of theft conformably with the ruling of People v. Dator: In the absence of a conclusive or definite proof relative to their value, this Court fixed the value of the bag and its contents at P100.00 based on the attendant circumstances of the case. More pertinently, in the case of People vs. Reyes, this Court held that if there is no available evidence to prove the value of the stolen property or that the prosecution failed to prove it, the corresponding penalty to be imposed on the accused-appellant should be the minimum penalty ‘corresponding to theft involving the value of P5.00. ‘The Court further notes that even if it were to apply judicial notice to the value of the things stolen, the prosecution failed to establish specifically the kind of the Tag Huer watch and Iphone, the price of which and year it was aequired ‘vary depending on their description and model. Such failure on the part of the prosecution is fatal. creer rere y VPage 20 Considering that the imposable penalty on the accused shall be increased by two degrees, the crime being Qualified Theft, that is, from arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods to prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty to be imposed on the accused would be six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional to six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor. Since itis a principle that actual damages must be duly proved and in which aspect the prosecution has failed, there shall be no award for the reparation of the stolen items. WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the accused Ryan Dolores y Bernal GUILTY of the crime of Qualified Theft in Criminal Case No. 12345 under Article 308 in relation to Article 309 (5) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and accused is heretofore sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of Six (6) Months and One (1) Day of prision correccional as minimum to Six (6) Years and One (1) Day of prision mayor as maximum. No award for civil indemnity. Insofar as Criminal Case No. 12346, said cecused is ACQUITTED of the crime of Qualified Theft, for lack of probable cause. SO ORDERED. Given in Chambers this 26° day of April 2017 in San Femando City, La Union. (Original Signed) CHRISTIAN ROBERT G. DIMAPILI JudgePage 1 Republic ofthe Philippines st Judicial Region REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 44 San Fernando City, La Union PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, CRIM. CASE NO. 12345 & 12346 > versus ~ For RYAN DOLORES y Bernal, QUALIFIED THEFT Accused. TRANSCRIPT (Of the stenographic notes taken down by the undersigned during the hearing in the above-entitled case before Hon. Judge, CHRISTIAN ROBERT G. DIMAPILI,the 25" day of February 2015 at 8:30 in the morning Appearances: Pros. George Ferrer, Jr. - Public Prosecutor Atty. John Emmanuel Delos Santos ~ Counsel for the Accused Present: ‘Atty, Jennifer Kate Cariaso ~ Clerk of Court Jeremiah Gail Belmonte ~ Court Interpreter Hannah Montana Guingona ~ Court Stenographer -ollo- CALLING OF CASES BY THE COURT INTER- PRETER: Fiseal FERRER, JR: For the people, Your Honor, we're ready with our next witness. Atty. DELOS SANTOS: For the accused, Your Honor, ready. ‘COURT: Ready? Your next witness is Enrique Iglesias. Fiscal FERRER, JR: ‘Yes, Your Honor, May we cal to the witness stand Enrique Iglesias.Page? WITNESS WAS CALLED TO THE WITNESS STAND, SWORN TO AN OATH AND TESTIFIED AS FOLLOW! Ct INTERPRETER: ‘State your name, sir, age and other personal circumstances? WITNESS: I'MENRIQUE IGLESIAS, 25 yrs. old, single, a resident of No. 10, Pennsylvania Avenue, Brgy. III, San Fernando City, La Union and a government employee. Ct. INTERPRETER: ‘Your witness, sir FERRER, JR: With the permission of the Honorable Court. ‘COURT: Proceed. DIRECT TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESS BY FISCAL FERRER, J ‘The testimony of the witness is being offered to prove that he is the private complainant in this case. To testify that he owns a Tag Huer Wrist Wateh and an Uphone that was unlawfully taken by the accused, he is going to testify on other matters related to this case. Aty. DELOS SANTOS: May we pray for the exclusion of the other witness, Your Honor. COURT: Other witness is excluded in the court room. Fiscal FERRER, JR Q Mr. witness, you said that you are Enrique Iglesias. How are you related to Nimrod Iglesias, the private complainant in this case against Ryan Dolores? ‘On February 2, 2014 do you recall where were yo At the Naps Resort here in San Fernando. A One and the same, sir. Q — Mr.witness, do you know the accused Ryan Bernal Dolores? A Yes, sir. Q Why do you know him? A Heis our family driver. Q Since when? A Since 2004, Q Aeo > 20 D> O>O> OR OHO> Page ‘That place, how is it related to your residence? Inside the compound of Naps Resort. In the morning February 2, 2014 just after breakfast, what are ‘you supposed to do? Iwas about to clean my car. Let us go back to the accused. As a family driver, what are some of his duties, aside from driving you and the members of your family? Clean our car. What else? Minor mechanical rep: Just a while ago, you said you were washing your car? Yes. ‘Why did you decide to wash your car when it was supposed to be your driver who will wash your car? twas the scheduled day for his day off. What date? February 2. You said that you decided to washed your car, what did you do next? I went to get the hose to wash my ca Before you went to get the hose to wash your car, were there items... Alty. DELOS SANTOS: Leading, Your Honor. Fiscal FERRER, JR: FOPOPO>O>O>PO>O I will rephrase, Your Honor, ‘What personal items, it any, were with you at that time? My cellphone and my watch, ‘What did you do with your cellphone and your watch? { placed it on the dashboard of my car. ‘What particular place on the dashboard did you put this items? Near the shift knob. Not near the windshield? No. What kind of wateh is this? ‘Tag Huer Watch. And the phone, what kind of phome was this Vphone 5. ‘And what is the value of this V/phone, Mr. witness? Php 26, 000.00