REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

FIRST JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 44
San Fernando City, La Union

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff

Crim. Case No. 12345 & 123456

-versus-

For
RYAN DOLORES y BERNAL,
Accused. Qualified Theft

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

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

COMES NOW, by counsel, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully

moves to dismiss the above-entitled criminal case against accused Ryan B.

Dolores, and respectfully alleges, that:

1. On 26 April 2017, undersigned counsel for the Accused received a copy of this

Honorable Court’s decision declaring the accused guilty of the Crime of Qualified

Theft. The dispositive portion of the decision states:

“ WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered

declaring the accused Ryan Dolores y Bernal GUILTY of the crime of

Qualified Theft in the riminal 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 correctional mayor as minimum to Six

(6) Years and One (1) Day of prision mayor as maximum.

2. Accused respectfully moves for the reconsideration of the above cited Decision,

based on the following grounds.

During arraignment, accused with the assistance of her counsel de

parte in the person of Atty. Mary Grace Andrada, pled not guilty to the

information. Thereafter trial proceedings ensued.

The prosecution sought to prove the guilt of the accused through

circumstantial evidence through the testimonies of its four (5) witnesses, namely:

complainant Enrique Iglesias, Heidi Iglesias, Ricky Iglesias, Noel Meana and Joy

Guba.

ENRIQUE IGLESIAS, the complainant in this case, substantially testified

that accused Ryan B. Dolores was their family driver for more or less ten (10)

years. Accused was also ask to wash the car, do minor mechanical repair and

custodian of the family’s air compressor, portable generator and portabe water

pump.
Without the knowledge of the witness, the accused reported to work during his day-off on 2

February 2014, as the latter came to work for the next three days after the theft incident,

after which, he decided to suspend accused from her work for fifteen (15) days.

Ryan, however, did not report back to work anymore even. Enqique strongly

suspects accused Ryan B. Dolores to be responsible for the theft because of his

observation that the vault was opened without having been destroyed. In support of his

speculation, that accused Ryan B. Dolores is his suspect for the theft, he opined that

during his ten (10) years as their family driver, he has never heard of a case where the

anythong from their thing was lost. He added that it was only accused Ryan B. Dolores is

th only person present during the said crime.

well as the combination.

During cross-examination, complainant Enrique was steadfast in his claim that it

was Ryan committed the crime,

The last witness to testify was Estrellita Estemalipala, an employee of complainant

Alex Pingas. The gist of her testimony was that she resigned from her work at Subasta

Pawnshop as she planned to work overseas. She turned over to accused Juana Dela Cruz

all the keys to the pawnshop after she resigned. However, her plan did not materialize,

thus she was re-employed by Alex Pingas as a cashier at Subasta Pawnshop. On July 16,

2002, while at the Subasta Pawnhop, she saw her employer Alex Pingas placed the bunch

of keys on top of a table. She noticed that the padlocks from the Big Time Pawnshop and

some keys were missing. She called the attention of Mr. Pingas to the fact of said missing

keys. Thereafter, Mr. Pingas accompanied her to the police station to report the loss of the
 18
missing keys.

DISCUSSION

The prosecution miserably failed to prove the supposed unbroken chain of

circumstantial evidence that accused Ryan B. Dolores committed the crime of Qualified

Theft.

The prosecution was emphasizing the fact that the vault of complainant’s pawnshop

was opened by the robbers without destroying the said vault. However, the prosecution

presented as one of its exhibits (Exh. “E”) a photograph showing the destroyed portion of

the grill above the door, supposedly where the robbers passed through. Noteworthy that if
accused Juana Dela Cruz would be the one who committed the theft at the said pawnshop,

it would be absurd for her to go through all the trouble of destroying the grills above the

pawnshop door, despite having possession of all the keys to the said pawnshop.

It should be remembered at the outset, the circumstantial evidence consists only of

speculations and probabilities that accused was responsible for the theft/robbery that

occurred at Big Apple Pawnshop.

Noteworthy that prosecution witness PC/Insp. Ruel Declaro, a member of the

responding SOCO team, admitted in court that the latent fingerprints that he lifted was not

even processed for identification to either confirm or establish that the same indeed

belonged to accused Juana Dela Cruz, OR whether said latent fingerprints belonged to

persons other that the accused. The identification of the said latent fingerprints would have

ruled out any participation of accused in the robbery if it were proven that it belonged to

other persons, not necessarily accused Juana Dela Cruz.

As in all criminal cases, speculation and probabilities cannot take the place of proof

required to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Evidence showing a mere possibility of guilt, no matter how strong, is

insufficient to warrant a conviction.

In the appreciation of evidence in criminal cases, it is a basic tenet that the

prosecution has the burden of persuasion in establishing the guilt of the accused for the

offense he is charged –ei incumbit probation non qui negat. The conviction of the accused

must rest not on the weakness of his defense but on the strength of the prosecution’s

evidence. It failed to do so in this case.

Otherwise, we will see the absurdity of an accused being put in a more difficult

position where the prosecution’s evidence is vague and weak than where it is strong.

The presumption of innocence is founded upon the basic principles of justice and is

a substantial part of the law, it cannot be overcome by mere suspicion or conjecture.

Under our criminal justice system, the overriding consideration is not whether the court

doubts the innocence of the accused but whether it entertains a reasonable doubt as to his
24
guilt. This applies with more vigor in the case at bar where the evidence of the

prosecution is purely circumstantial. A judgment of conviction must rest on nothing less

than moral certainty.

In summation, the defense respectfully submits that the pieces of circumstantial

evidence are insufficient to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt of accused Juana

Dela Cruz for the crime of Qualified Theft. They do not pass the requisite moral certainty,

as they admit of the alternative inference that other persons, not necessarily the accused,

may have perpetrated the crime. Where the evidence admits of two interpretations, one of

which is consistent with guilt, and the other with innocence, the accused must be acquitted.

Indeed, it would be better to set free ten (10) men who might be probably guilty of the crime

charged than to convict one innocent man for a crime he did not commit.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable

Court that the Information for Qualified Theft against accused RYAN B. DOLORES be

DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence.

22
San Ferrnando City, November 12, 2018.

Mary Grace Gurtiza

Dessa Estrada

San FernandoCity,
La Union

By:

Public Attorney

Roll No.
BP No.
MCLE Compliance No.____________
Date: