Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Third Judicial Region
Malolos, Bulacan
Branch 14

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

-versus- CRIM. CASE NO. 1739-M-2012

For: Qualified Theft

PERCIVAL TAGLE y AQUINO AND

MARK ANTHONY ALFORTE y ARINGO,
Accused.
x----------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

Accused Percival Tagle y Aquino and Mark Ant hony Alforte y

Aringo stand charged of the crime of Qualified Theft, penalized under the
provisions of Art. 310 of the Revised Penal Code, committed as follows:

“That on or about the 20th day of May, 2012, in the City of

Meycauayan, Province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused
in conspiracy with each other, being then employed as factory
workers/helpers of Central Affirmative Company Incorporated
with grave abuse of confidence and breach of trust, 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 with them two (2) Aficionado Perfume
worth Two Hundred Twenty Pesos (P220.00) each in a combined
value of Four Hundred Forty Pesos (P440.00) belonging to the
said Central Affirmative Company Incorporated, represented by
one Josefino Tolentino y Perez, to the damage and prejudice of
said Central Affirmative Company Incorporated, in the said
amount of P440.00.

Contrary to law.”

On June 21, 2012, when arraigned, accused Percival Tagle y

Aquino and Mark Anthony Alforte, pleaded not guilty to the offense
charged. The pre-trial conference was held and terminated. Thereafter,
trial proper ensued.

EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION

The prosecution presented two (2) witnesses, namely, a) Gorgonia

Dalupan and b) Alvin Valdez.
Decision
Crim. Case No. 1739-M-2012
People vs. Percival Tagle & Mark Anthony Alforte

Gathered from the sworn statement of Gorgonia Dalupan

(Gorgonia, for brevity), 44 years old, married, Production Supervisor and
residing at 28 B, Sto. Nino St., San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City are
the following which serves as her testimony on direct: on May 20, 2012
at about 6:00 in the morning at Hon Circle Avenue, Sterling Industrial
Park, Brgy. Iba, Meycauayan City, Percival Tagle y Aquino and Mark
Anthony Alforte y Aringo while going out of their factory, Central
Affirmative Company, Inc., were found in their possession, particularly
at their lunch box perfumes being manufactured by their company; that
F68 perfume was recovered from Percival Tagle and F10 perfume was
recovered from Mark Anthony; she immediately reported to their Plant
Manager the incident.

Further, witness identified both accused in open court; that both

accused are Production Staff of the company; F68 and F10 perfumes
cost P220.00 per bottle each; pictures were taken of said perfumes which
she was able to identify in open court; the two perfumes were placed
separately in an ice cream containers; that at the time the accused were
about to exit the premises, their bags were checked by the security guard
and the said items were found kept inside the said containers which
served as their lunch boxes.

On cross-examination, witness testified that as Production

Supervisor, she was in-charge to monitor the workers; that both accused
are assigned in the Production Division and their access is limited to said
area; she was four (4) meters away when the bags of the accused were
inspected; that she could see the actual opening of the bag or the actual
inspection being made; she did not actually see the stealing incident; she
knows that the lunch boxes belong to both accused because at the time
they were exiting, the lunchboxes were found in their custody; she
merely assumed that the lunchboxes belong to both accused; no initials of
the accused were engraved in the lunchboxes.

Gathered from the sworn statement of Alvin Valdez, 39 years old,

married, Production Manager of Central Affirmative Company, Inc., and
residing at Marilao, Bulacan are the following which serves as her
testimony on direct: on May 20, 2012 at about 6:00 in the morning, two
of their factory workers namely Percival Tagle and Mark Anthony
Alforte were caught in their possession the perfumes being manufactured
by their company; that F68 perfume was recovered from Percival Tagle
and F10 perfume was recovered from Mark Anthony; that he was also
exiting the factory when the perfumes were found in the lunchboxes of
both accused; that he immediately reported the incident to the police.

On cross-examination, witness stated that he has no personal

knowledge regarding the incident but he actually saw the stolen items
while inside the lunch box.

2
Decision
Crim. Case No. 1739-M-2012
People vs. Percival Tagle & Mark Anthony Alforte

On redirect, witness stated that: the lunchboxes both belong to the

accused; he saw the items when both accused opened their bags as he
was only at their back because the ones being inspected first by the
guards are the staffs, followed by the managers.

Offered and admitted documentary exhibits for the prosecution are

as follows:

Exh. B to B-1 - Sinumpaang Salaysay of Gorgonia Dalupan;

B-2 - signature;
D - Letter of Percival Tagle;
D-1 - signature;
E - Letter of Mark Alforte;
E-1 - signature;
F - Secretary’s Certificate;
F-1 - signature;
G - picture of container where the bottle of perfume
place;
H - pictures of the two (2) accused;
I - Sinumpaang Salaysay of Alvin F. Valdez;
I-1 - signature.

EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE

The defense presented two (2) witnesses, namely: a) the accused

Percival Tagle and b) Mark Anthony Alforte.

Culled from the Judicial Affidavit of Percival Tagle, of legal age

and residing at Sitio Langhaya, Brgy. Dela Paz, Antipolo City, are the
following which serves as his testimony on direct: he was charged of
Qualified Theft by Josefino Tolentino, Branch Manager of Central
Affirmative Company, Inc. or commonly known as Afficionado; he
never see Mr. Tolentino in the factory and it was his first time to see him
during the time that a charge of qualified theft was filed against him for
allegedly taking perfume in the factory; he was only turning two months
in his work; on May 20, 2012, after he finished his shift as production
worker and while going out of the gate of the factory, he was surprised
when he was told by the security guard that there was a perfume in his
bag; he insisted to the security guard that he has not taken any perfume;
that it was impossible to have perfume in his bag as the same was placed
in a locker; that inspection was always observed inside the factory; that
the next working shifts were already placing their things in the locker
area while they were still working; he and Mark Anthony Alforte were
put on hold in going out while the guard called for the supervisor, Mrs.
Dalupan, who was inside the production area; thereafter, they were
brought to the barangay hall where pictures were taken of them; that Mrs.
Dalupan instructed the barangay tanod to place the perfume inside the

3
Decision
Crim. Case No. 1739-M-2012
People vs. Percival Tagle & Mark Anthony Alforte

lunch box, thereafter pictures were taken of them while holding the
lunchbox; that there were several incident that Afficionado filed
malicious charges against some of its employees; there is no truth to the
allegation of Alvin Valdez because at that time the latter was working
with the morning shift and was still inside the production area; that they
were removed from work; he thought that a qualified theft charge was
filed against him because upon hiring, they were promised by the HR of
the company that for just three (3) weeks training, they would become
regular workers; the HR also asked of them how much were their salaries
because their salaries differ from one another.

On cross-examination, witness admitted that: on May 20, 2012 he

was a production worker of Central Affirmative Co., Inc.; his tour of duty
on said date was 6:00 o’clock in the evening to 6:00 o’clock in the
morning; he was surprised when a bottle of perfume was recovered from
his bag at the time of the inspection; his bag was already previously
inspected before he exited from the compound and during the second
inspection, it was when the bottle of perfume was found.

On re-direct examination, witness stated that: he was only working

as production worker of Aficionado for two (2) months only; he was only
a contractual employee; his bag was placed in his locker the whole time;
they were not allowed to go to the locker once they entered the
production area; before they go out of the area, they were subjected to
inspection; he insisted that he did not put any perfume bottle in his bag,
so he was surprised that there was a bottle of perfume inside his bag; it
was Joel Cruz who owned the company.

On re-cross, witness testified that: from the first inspection to the

second inspection, his bag was with him but a guard was following him;
they were 25 all in all going out then.

Upon queries by the Court, witness stated that: it was only a

minute that lapsed from the first inspection to the second inspection; the
first inspection was done only by a glance at the bag while the second
inspection is stricter; the first inspection was done at the production area
while the thorough inspection was done at the second gate; that the
production exit to the main gate is more or less 10 meters away.

Culled from the Judicial Affidavit of Mark Anthony Alforte, of

legal age and residing at Francisco Homes, City of San Jose del Monte,
Bulacan, are the following which serves as his testimony on direct: he
was charged of Qualified Theft by Josefino Tolentino, Branch Manager
of Central Affirmative Company, Inc. or commonly known as
Afficionado; he never see Mr. Tolentino in the factory and it was his first
time to see him during the time that a charge of qualified theft was filed
against him for allegedly taking perfume in the factory; he was only

4
Decision
Crim. Case No. 1739-M-2012
People vs. Percival Tagle & Mark Anthony Alforte

turning two months in his work just like his co-accused, Percival Tagle;
on May 20, 2012, after he finished his shift as production worker and
while going out of the gate of the factory, he was surprised when he was
told by the security guard that there was a perfume in his bag; he insisted
to the security guard that he has not taken any perfume; that it was
impossible to have perfume in his bag as the same was placed in a locker;
that inspection was always observed inside the factory; that the next
working shifts were already placing their things in the locker area while
they were still working; he and Percival Tagle were put on hold in going
out while the guard called for the supervisor, Mrs. Dalupan, who was
inside the production area; thereafter, they were brought to the barangay
hall of Iba where pictures were taken of them; that Mrs. Dalupan
instructed the barangay tanod to place the perfume inside the lunch box,
thereafter pictures were taken of them while holding the lunchbox; that
there were several incidents that Afficionado filed malicious charges
against some of its employees; there is no truth to the allegation of Alvin
Valdez because at that time the latter was working with the morning shift
and was still inside the production area; that they were removed from
work; he thought that a qualified theft charge was filed against him
because upon hiring, they were promised by the HR of the company that
for just three (3) weeks training, they would become regular workers; the
HR also asked of them how much were their salaries because their
salaries differ from one another.

On cross-examination, witness stated that: on May 20, 2012 he is

an employee of Central Affirmative Co., Inc.; on the same date, he was
charged of qualified theft brought about by the fact that a bottle of
perfume was recovered from his bag by the security guard whom he does
not know the name; he does not know personally said security guard nor
has misunderstanding with him; he was not subjected to any disciplinary
action prior to May 20, 2012 wherein the security guard was also
concerned; he does not know of any reason why the security guard would
concoct a story against him; prior to the filing of this case, he does not
know Mr. Josefino Tolentino, Branch Manager of the company; he does
not know of any reason why the Branch Manager would invent a story
against him; he was present when the Security guard saw a bottle of
perfume inside his bag; he does not know or did not see anyone placing a
bottle of perfume inside his bag; he did not see anyone holding his bag
prior to the recovery of perfume inside his bag; while working, his bag
was placed on top of the locker; that personal locker was only provided
for regular employees; as production worker of Aficionado, he would
necessary take hold of perfume; he did not notice anything unusual on his
bag but he noticed that his bag was pushed in another place; he also
heard similar incident where perfume was placed inside the bag without
the knowledge of the owner; he was aware that certain people were
already charged of stealing items in the company but he did not take

5
Decision
Crim. Case No. 1739-M-2012
People vs. Percival Tagle & Mark Anthony Alforte

precaution in making sure that his bag did not contain items belonging to
the company without him taking said item.

Upon queries by the Court, witness testified that: there was a lunch
pack and a towel inside his bag; he did not notice the weight of his bag;
he did not change clothes after working in the factory; he only used the
towel and cellphone outside the factory; that he only looked on the
messages on his cellphone during lunch break; he did not take extra care
of his bag before he left the factory premises; there is no one who was
angry or has grudge with him; he has been working with the company for
only two (2) months since the time of the incident.

On redirect, witness stated that: their locker room was eight (8)
steps away from the production area; the security guard only inspect
upon entrance and exit of the workers; that there was no CCTV on the
area where the locker is located.

On re-cross, witness stated that: no one can attest to the fact that he
did not bring anything from the production to the locker area considering
that there was only one guard that roam around.

Offered and admitted documentary exhibits for the defense are as

follows:

Exhs. 1 - Judicial Affidavit of Percival Tagle y Aquino;

2 - Judicial Affidavit of Mark Anthony Alforte y
Aringo;

Subsequently, the defense rested its case. There being no more

rebuttal evidence to present, as jointly prayed for by the prosecution and
the defense, the instant case was deemed as submitted for decision.

DISCUSSION

The issue for resolution is whether or not accused Percival Tagle

and Mark Anthony Alforte are guilty of Qualified Theft as charged.

Established facts in the instant case are the following: on May 20,
2012 at around 6:00 o’clock in the morning, while accused Percival
Tagle and Mark Anthony Alforte were about to go out of the factory of
the complainant and while their bags were being inspected by the
security guard, the latter found in the lunch box (ice cream container) of
Percival Tagle an F68 Afficionado perfume while an F10 Afficionado
perfume was recovered from Mark Anthony’s lunchbox (ice cream
container).

6
Decision
Crim. Case No. 1739-M-2012
People vs. Percival Tagle & Mark Anthony Alforte

Under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, theft becomes

qualified if committed by a domestic servant, or with grave abuse of
confidence, or if the property stolen is a motor vehicle, mail matter or
large cattle, or consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a
plantation, fish taken from a fishpond or fishery, or if property is taken
on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any
other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance. Theft by a
domestic servant is always qualified.

The crime charged against the accused is theft qualified by grave

abuse of confidence. In this mode of qualified theft, the following
elements must be satisfied before the accused may be convicted of the
crime charged:

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 owner’s 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.[1]

In the instant case, there was no witness to the actual taking of the
personal property. As it appears, the prosecution relied heavily on the
use of the disputable presumption, “ that a person found in possession of
a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the
doer of the whole act; otherwise, that thing which a person possesses, or
exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by him. [2]

The above disputable presumption, however, is not conclusive. It

may be rebutted by contrary proof that the accused did not in fact
exercise power and control over the thing in question, and did not intend
to do so. [3]

Even if the two perfumes were found separately at the respective

lunch boxes of the accused, it is not categorical that they are deemed the
author of the thievery.  Further, the discovery of the said perfumes
inside the lunch box of each of the accused cannot be construed that the
two accused were the ones who put the perfumes inside said lunchboxes.
The accuseds’ testimony that their bags were placed in an unlock locker
cabinet and sometimes just placed over it and that somebody may just put
anything in it because the factory workers just come and go, is likely
possible; moreso, during the interim that the accused were working in the
1
Ryan Viray v. People, G.R. No. 205180, November 11, 2013
2
Rule 131, Sec. 3 (j)
3
People v. Hong Yen E & Tsien Tsien Chua, G.R. No. 181826, January 9, 2013

7
Decision
Crim. Case No. 1739-M-2012
People vs. Percival Tagle & Mark Anthony Alforte

production area. Apparently, they have no control over their lunch boxes
at all times. Noteworthy, the prosecution only presented the testimony of
the witnesses who allegedly saw the perfumes while inside the lunchbox
of both accused but as testified on by the said witnesses, they have no
personal knowledge as to the alleged stealing because they did not
personally witnessed the same. They were just called upon by the
security guards after the inspection. It is of note that the security guard
who actually conducted the inspection upon the bags of the accused was
not presented in court.

The burden of proving the guilt of the accused rests on the

prosecution; the accused need not even offer evidence in his behalf.[4] The
constitutional mandate of innocence prevails, unless the prosecution
succeeds in proving by satisfactory evidence the guilt beyond reasonable
doubt of the accused.[5] It failed to do so in this case.
 
WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, accused Percival Tagle
y Aquino and Mark Anthony Alforte y Aringo are hereby ACQUITTED
of the crime of Qualified Theft, defined and penalized under the
provision of Art. 310 of the Revised Penal Code, for insufficiency of
evidence and on reasonable doubt.

SO ORDERED.

City of Malolos, Bulacan, May 5, 2016.

TEODORA R. GONZALES
Judge

TRG/MGAD

4
Arce v. People, 429 Phil. 328, 334 (2002).
5
Id at 336