Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice
NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE
CITY PROSECUTION SERVICE OF TAGUIG
City of Taguig

MARITES UNABIA MAGALE,

represented by ERIC LABE
MAGALE,
Complainant,

-versus- I.S.________________
For: Qualified Theft,
Unjust Vexation and
Grave Threats

PATRICK REYMON BATAC

Respondent.
x------------------------------------------x

COMPLAINT- AFFIDAVIT
I, ERIC LABE MAGALE, attorney-in-fact of Complainant
MARITES UNABIA MAGALE, Filipino, of legal age, and with
mailing address c/o VALDEZ LAW & ASSOCIATES, Unit 804,
Future Point Plaza 1, 112, Panay Ave., South Triangle,
Quezon City, 1103 under oath, and with assistance and
guidance of counsel, do hereby depose and say:

THE PARTIES

1. Complainant is MARITES UNABIA MAGALE is of

legal age, married, Filipino, and a resident of 095 Purok 1, De
Ocampo, Trece Martires City, Cavite. She is represented by
her attorney-in-fact, ERIC LABE MAGALE, who may be served
with notices, orders and other legal processes of the Honorable
Office at the office of her counsel, VALDEZ LAW &
ASSOCIATES, Unit 804, Future Point Plaza 1, 112, Panay
Ave., South Triangle, Quezon City, 1103.

A copy of the Special Power of Attorney executed by

Complainant Magale in favor of Mr. Eric Labe Magale is
attached as ANNEX “A” and made an integral part
hereof.

2. Respondent PATRICK REYMON BATAC, of legal

age, Filipino, is a resident of 58 Gen.Espino St., Z-4, Signal
 Magale v. Batac
For: Qualified Theft,
Unjust Vexation, and Grave Threats
Complaint-Affidavit

Village,Taguig City, NCR PHL 1630, where he may be served

with summons and other legal processes of the Honorable
Office.

THE FACTS

3. The Complainant is the proprietress of MATES

LECHON MANOK, a franchise owner of “MANOK NI SR.
PEDRO” engaged in the business of selling roasted chicken 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 Department of
Trade and Industry marked as ANNEX “B”.

4. In the regular course of business of the

Complainant, the latter hired the services of PATRICK
REYMON BATAC, referred hereto as “Respondent”, as its food
handler or “main lechonero” and cashier at its Espino Branch,
Taguig. Primary function of “main lechonero” involves the
following: roasting of chicken, day to day operations of the
branch, acceptance of payment from customers, remittance of
sales of the day to the assigned branch supervisor by end of
the day.

Attached and made an integral part of this complaint-

affidavit is a copy of the SSS and Philhealth contributions
of the Complainant for her employees marked as ANNEX
“C”.

5. On 02 October 2020, the Respondent sent malicious and

aggressive messages to the Complainant in broken Bisaya
which insinuated negative actions on the part of the
Complainant against the Respondent. The text ended with
Bisayan term “loslos ka”. If translated literally it means that
you have a loose scrotum, but said term is also adopted as an
expression of stupidity.

Attached and made an integral part of this complaint-

affidavit is a copy of the screenshots sent to the
Complainant marked as ANNEX “D series 1-3”.

6. In relation therewith, Complainant wrote a memo to the

Respondent on the same day, requiring the Respondent to
immediately report to the main branch at Trece Martires City,

Page 2 of 7
 Magale v. Batac
For: Qualified Theft,
Unjust Vexation, and Grave Threats
Complaint-Affidavit

Cavite, to discuss the unpleasant text message that he has

sent. The memo also indicated that he will be reassigned to
Cavite area. The memo was signed by the junior lechonero
Angelito Samon, and supervisor Filemon Supera. The
Respondent has refused to sign and receive the said memo.

Attached and made an integral part of this complaint-

affidavit is a copy of the screenshot of the Respondent’s
text message sent to the Complainant marked as ANNEX
“E”.

7. As mentioned above, part of the functions of the

Respondent is to accept payments from the sales of the lechon
manok and remit the collection to the assigned branch
supervisor. In the performance of the said function, at 10 am
of 03 October 2020, the respondent was due to remit the two-
days sale to supervisor Filemon Supera worth Php 11,258.00.
Respondent has deliberately refused to remit the said amount
and has insinuated that he will consider the said amount as
his salary. Subsequently, a report was made by branch
supervisor Filemon Supera 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 03 October 2020, marked as ANNEX “F”.

8. On 05 October 2020, Respondent sent a text

message to the Complainant at 4:29am, challenging the
Complainant’s husband into a fight in Bohol and insinuating
that the Complainant is a thief.

Attached and made an integral part of this complaint-

affidavit is a copy of the screenshot of the Respondent’s
text message sent to the Complainant marked as ANNEX
“G”.

9. On 07 October 2020, Respondent filed a labor

complaint against the Complainant at Paranaque Worker’s
Affairs Office through the Single-Entry Approach (SENA) for a
certain “money claim”. In the said SENA report, the
Respondent claims to be a resident of San Antonio, Paranaque
City, when his government ID indicates that he is a resident of
Taguig City.

Page 3 of 7
 Magale v. Batac
For: Qualified Theft,
Unjust Vexation, and Grave Threats
Complaint-Affidavit

Attached and made an integral part of this complaint-

affidavit are copies of Respondent’s government ID
marked as ANNEX “H” and Notice of Conference issued
by the said office, marked as ANNEX “I”.

10. In the said SENA complaint, Respondent has

maliciously filed for a “money claim” when in truth and in fact,
he has received his full month’s salary for the period of
September 1-30, 2020, evidenced by payment slip duly signed
by the Respondent.

Attached and made an integral part of this complaint-

affidavit is a copy of Respondent’s government payment
slip marked as ANNEX “J”.

11. This malicious filing is perhaps due to the fact that

the incident of non-remittance of sales by the Respondent was
duly reported to the barangay authorities and that the
Complainant was already contemplating on filing a case
against the Respondent.

12. 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.

THE CHARGES

THERE IS PROBABLE
CAUSE TO CHARGE
RESPONDENT OF
QUALIFIED THEFT
13. The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, under
Article 308, laid down the elements of the crime of Simple
Theft, they are as 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 That the taking be done without the use of
violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon
things. (Emphasis supplied).

14. Theft is qualified under Article 310 of the same

Code when the following elements are present:

Page 4 of 7
 Magale v. Batac
For: Qualified Theft,
Unjust Vexation, and Grave Threats
Complaint-Affidavit

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).

15. 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.

16. 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.

THERE IS PROBABLE
CAUSE TO CHARGE
RESPONDENT OF
UNJUST VEXATION

17. In Baleros, Jr. v People,1 the Supreme Court defined

unjust vexation as any human conduct, without violence, that
unjustly annoys an innocent person. The test is “whether the
offender’s act causes annoyance, irritation, torment, distress
or disturbance to the mind of the person to whom it is
directed.” Thus, unjust vexation may exist without inflicting
any physical or material harm, without any compulsion or
restraint, without the physical presence of the offended party
at the time the crime was being committed, or even through
the use of information technology such as social media.

18. Based on the above parameters, the elements of

unjust vexation are: (1) there is a human conduct that
unjustly annoys or irritates another person; (2) such human
conduct was not attended with violence; (3) such human
conduct caused annoyance, irritation, torment, distress or
disturbance to the mind of the person to whom it is directed;
and (4) the offender acted with criminal intent.

1
G.R. No. 138033, 22 February 2006.

Page 5 of 7
 Magale v. Batac
For: Qualified Theft,
Unjust Vexation, and Grave Threats
Complaint-Affidavit

19. The filing of a money claim by the Respondent at

the Paranaque Worker’s Affairs Office is malicious, annoying
and stressful. The Respondent is not a resident of Paranaque,
his former workplace is located in Taguig, while based on
record, Respondent was not terminated from his work as
evidenced by the memo dated 02 October 2020 and that he
has received his most recent salary as evidenced by the
payment slip for September 1-30, 2020 duly signed by him.
THERE IS PROBABLE
CAUSE TO CHARGE
RESPONDENT OF THE
CRIME OF GRAVE
THREATS
20. In Reyes v. People,2 the Supreme Court enumerated
the elements of grave threats as follows:

1. That the offender threatened another person with the

infliction upon his person of a wrong;
2. That such wrong amounted to a crime; and
3. That the threat was not subject to a condition.

21. In Caluag v. People,3 the Supreme Court made a

distinction between grave threats and light threats as follows:

“In grave threats, the wrong threatened amounts to a crime

which may or may not be accompanied by a condition. In
light threats, the wrong threatened does not amount to a
crime but is always accompanied by a condition. In other
light threats, the wrong threatened does not amount to a
crime and there is no condition.”

22. Here, it is obvious that the Respondent, in sending

the text message,4 threatened the Complainant with the
commission of a wrong, i.e., inviting her husband to spar with
him. Such wrong amounts to the crime of physical injuries, if
consummated. And finally, it was not subject to a condition.
PRAYER
23. In view of the foregoing, it is hereby prayed for this
Honorable Office to file the necessary Informations against
Respondent for:

a) QUALIFIED THEFT UNDER ART. 310 OF THE RPC;

2
G.R. No. L-21528-29, 28 March 1969.
3
G.R. No. 171511, 04 March 2009.
4
See par. 5.

Page 6 of 7
 Magale v. Batac
For: Qualified Theft,
Unjust Vexation, and Grave Threats
Complaint-Affidavit

b) UNJUST VEXATION UNDER ART. 287 OF THE RPC;

and
c) GRAVE THREATS UNDER ART. 282, PAR. 1 OF
THE RPC.
AFFIANT FURTHER SAYETH NOT.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
this ___ of October 2020, in Taguig City.

ERIC LABE MAGALE

Complainant-Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ___ day of

October 2020 in Taguig City. I further certify that I have
personally examined the affiant and that I am satisfied that he
has voluntarily executed this Complaint-Affidavit and has
understood the contents hereof based on his own personal
knowledge and/or authentic records.

PROSECUTOR

Page 7 of 7