Republic of the Philippines

National Capital Judicial Region

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 282, Valenzuela City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

-versus- Crim. Case No. 703-V-22

For: Qualified theft
LUCKY LOLA SANTOS,
Accused.
x----------------------x

COMMENT ON THE PROSECUTION’S

FORMAL OFFER OF EVIDENCE

The above-named accused, represented by the Public Attorney’s

Office, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully submits this comment
to the Formal Offer of Exhibits of the prosecution and avers as follows:

Exhibit Comment
A self-serving and biased; affiant
Rodolfo M. Atienza has no personal
knowledge about the alleged
commission of the offense as he was
merely informed by Jeffrey Nacario
from the technical team of Great
Innovations, Inc. on 7 December
2021 that there was a unit of Apple
Macbook which was not delivered to
Technopop Molito Alabang branch on
04 December 2021
D inadmissible for being hearsay given
that Crishelle Lacida did not testify
on the contents of the incident
report which she executed
E admitted as to existence but
objected for the purpose which it
was offered; contrary to the remark
of the prosecution that accused
supposedly neither admitted nor
denied the allegations against him, it
is apparent from a plain reading of
the incident report, which was
executed by him, that he was
adamant that he delivered two units
of Apple Macbook, Iphone 13 Pro

1|Page
 Max and Vamos powerbank at
Technopop Lucky China Mall on 04
December 2021 at 3:00 in the
afternoon, and that said items were
received by Sherry Magne Cernias
F These are self-serving and lack
G factual basis. It bears stressing that
Sherry Magne Cernias admitted on
the witness stand that she did not
open the dark bubble wrap in which
the accused placed two units of
Apple Macbook when she received
such bubble wrap placed in a blue
plastic bag from the accused during
her shift on 04 December 2021.
Thus, she could not possibly say
whether the bubble wrap contained
a box which in turn contained one
unit of Apple Macbook or whether
the bubble wrap contained two units
of Apple Macbook without boxes so
that they may fit inside a single
bubble wrap.
H It is not logival for the accused to
take interest and appropriate for
himself the subject Apple Macbook
Air rather than the Iphone 13 Pro
Max because based on the
information it is only worth
P50,000.00 whereas based on the
delivery note (Exhibit H) the Iphone
13 Pro Max has a higher price tag as
it is worth P70,900.00. It is also
apparent from the delivery note
(Exhibit H) that there is no signature
on the portion “received by” which is
found on the right lower portion
thereof. This may suggest that it is
not a customary practice of the staff
at Technopop to acknowledge the
receipt of items delivered which
thereby casts even more doubt on
whether accused delivered just one
or two units of Apple Macbook.
I The sales invoice, which reflects the
sale of Vamos powerbank and Apple
Macbook Air, does prove that
accused did or did not deliver two
units of Apple Macbook at

2|Page
 Technopop Lucky China Mall on 04
December 2021. If the accused had
intent to gain, he should have also
pilfered the Apple Macbook Air as its
price is also steep, being P48,800.00
based on the sales invoice.
Moreover, if the basis of Great
Innovations, Inc. in determining
whether an item is delivered or not
to its physical store is a delivery
note, it is confounding why the
prosecution merely presented a sales
invoice and not a delivery note for
Vamos powerbank and Apple
Macbook Air. This may give rise to
the juris tantum presumption that
evidence willfully suppressed would
be adverse if produced.
J The blotter has absolutely no
probative value. It was signed by Jun
G. Ico and Aljhon Bacud who
similarly have no personal knowledge
regarding the supposed commission
of the offense. Suffice to say that
any person can cause the entry in
the blotter book of the barangay or
the police of any matter even on the
basis of an unsubstantiated
allegation. It is thus unsurprising for
the Supreme Court to enunciate in
People v. Silva (G.R. No. 131591, 29
December 1999) that blotters should
not be given undue significance or
probative value for they are usually
incomplete and inaccurate,
sometimes from either partial
suggestions or for want of
suggestions or inquiries.
K admitted only as to existence but
objected for the purposes for which
they were offered
M to M-10 should not be given probative value;
in the absence of a CCTV footage
from Technopop Molito Alabang
branch or of the testimony of the
staff thereof who opened the bubble
wrap that contained the package,
which was delivered by the accused
on 04 December 2021, it cannot be

3|Page
 said that merely delivered one unit of
Apple Macbook on that date and
kept the other one for his personal
gain

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed
that this comment be noted by the Honorable Court.

Other reliefs, just and equitable, are likewise prayed for.

Metro Manila, Valenzuela City, Metro Manila, 20 September 2022.

PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

VALENZUELA DISTRICT OFFICE
1st Floor, Metropolitan Trial Court Bldg.
Justice Hall Compound, C.J. Santos St., Poblacion II,
Malinta, Valenzuela City

Through:

ATTY. RAFAEL D. PANGILINAN

Public Attorney II
Roll No. 64684
IBP OR No. 184712 dated 2/17/22 / CALMANA
MCLE Compliance No. VI - 0006876 dated 3/20/18

Copy furnished:
SACP Ana Liza C. Dogma
Office of the City Prosecutor of Valenzuela City

Atty. Charles Michael T. Puno and Atty. Josephine Anne B. Ferrer

Custodio Cruz Puno & Camara Law Offices
Counsels for the Private Complainant
Unit 1102 The Centerpoint Bldg., Julia Vargas cor. Garnet Road,
Ortigas Center, Pasig City 1605

Explanation on the mode of service:

Service of the foregoing comment was made to Atty. Charles Michael T.
Puno and Atty. Josephine Anne B. Ferrer through registered mail for lack
of personnel to effect personal service.

ATTY. RAFAEL D. PANGILINAN

4|Page