Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice
NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE
CITY PROSECUTION SERVICE OF MANILA
City of Manila

BEAREAN LOGISTICS SERVICES

Complainant;

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

DANDIN TRINIDAD SECRETARIO

Respondent.

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

COMPLAINT- AFFIDAVIT

Complainant, BEAREAN LOGISTICS SERVICES, 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 Room 511,
Madrigal Building, Escolta Street, Binondo, Manila City, through the
undersigned counsel, respectfully avers that;

1. The complainantis engaged in the business of providing logistics,

trucking and other ancillary 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
Department of Trade and Industry marked as Annex “A”.

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

hired the services of Mr. Dandin Trinidad Secretario, 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”.

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 10 July
2014, the respondent was instructed by his superior to make a
withdrawal in the amount of THREE HUNDRED AND TEN

Page 1 of 4
 THOUSAND PESOS (Php310,000.00 ) in its Banco De Oro Account
bearing the number 004480048963 and under the name of
Elizabeth G. Bamba. Be it noted that the complainant is using the
account of Elizabeth G. Bamba 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 B6 L17 Benetton St. Molino Homes 1 Subdivision,
Molino, Bacoor, Cavite 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 10
July 2014, marked as Annex “D”.

6. On 11 July 2014, complainant reported the incident and loss to

BDO Dasmariñas St. BinondoBranch, 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
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

Page 2 of 4
 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.

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

1
G.R. No. 176298, 25 January 2012
2
G.R. No. 123183, 19 January 2000

Page 3 of 4
 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
Dandin Trinidad Secretario 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.

Page 4 of 4