NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

CITY OF MANILA
BRANCH 33

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,
R-MNL-19-06238-519-CR
versus FOR: QUALIFIED THEFT

DEBS DELA MESA y PUGALES

Accused.
X----------------------------------------------X

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

OF ORDER, DATED 15 APRIL 2023

THE ACCUSED, through counsel, respectfully state:

1.       PURPOSE. - The subject matter of this motion for

reconsideration is the Order, dated 15 April, 2023 of the Honorable
Court.

2.      MATERIAL DATES. – The undersigned counsel for the

defendants personally received a copy of the said Order in open
court during the hearing held on 15 April, 2023 at 8:30 AM. His
15th day to file this motion expires on 29 April, 2013, Saturday. Hence,
his final legal deadline would expire on 28 April 2023, Friday, per
the Rules of Court.

3.      THE ORDER, DATED 15 April, 2023. -  The Honorable court

found the Accused Guilty of the Crime of Qualified theft as charged
(282 counts).

4.      ISSUE. – Whether or not based on the evidence presented by

the prosecution, Accused DEBS DELA MESA can be held liable for
Qualified Theft under Art. 310 in relation to Articles 308 and 309 of
the Revised Penal Code.

Page 1 of 6
 This Motion for Reconsideration respectfully submits that the
Honorable Court erred in convicting the Accused for the following
reasons:

None of the witnesses saw the Accused unlawfully take the

proceeds of the sales of JRS Business Corporation

The witnesses presented by the prosecution positively

confirmed that none of them saw the actual taking of the sale
proceeds belonging to JRS Business Corporation, nor that it was the
Accused who took the sales proceeds

In fact, the testimonies of Mary Racel Viray, the cashier of the

Tutuban Branch; Aldren F. Bacala, auditor; Teotimo Pingol, counter
clerk of Tutuban Branch; Hernany P. Baure, Legal Affairs Manager of
JRS; and Cecilia L. Salazar admitted on cross examination of such
fact.

The prosecution witness admitted that there was lapse in the

accounting department’s manner of checking the sales and deposits
of the 999 Tutuban Mall Branch

It is worth noting of the admission of the witness Aldren Bacala

that the JRS accounting department has some lapses in the manner of
checking the sales and deposits of the branch. Without positive
Identification of the actual perpetrator, the present case could have
been another lapse on the part of the Accounting department, or that
the blame was only shifted upon the accused.

It is also contrary to human experience and natural course of

events that the auditors of JRS Business Corporation did not
promptly investigate the supposed discrepancies in the deposit slips
from February 1, 2018 up to February 1, 2019. Prudent behavior
would have prompted the private complainant to immediately
investigate and determine if it sustained any loss at the earliest
opportunity and if indeed it sustained any loss, whether the accused
was actually the perpetrator of the unlawful taking.

The prosecution failed to prove that it was impossible for some

other person to have committed the crime of Qualified theft.

The prosecution failed to adduce evidence that at the time the

alleged taking was committed, that there was no other person inside
the branch or that no other person could have taken the money
closest from the cash register.

Page 2 of 6
 It is worth noting that the witnesses admitted that there were
also other employees in the branch at the time the incident took
place. Again, it cannot be denied, that without possible identification
of the actual perpetrator, there is reasonable doubt that the Accused
is the one who took the money, that there is a strong possibility that
he is not the one who committed the crime charged and that the same
may have been committed by another person.

In order for the accused to be found guilty of qualified theft, the

prosecution must prove with moral certainty that JRS lost its personal
property by the felonious taking of the Accused or by his acts of
depriving the complainant of its control and possession without its
consent.

7.      JURISPRUDENCE.

The Complaint of the private complainant JRS Business

Corporation, is dependent upon the testimony of its representatives
Henare P. Baure and other employees, who unfortunately have no
personal knowledge of the identity of the actual perpetrator.

Worse, despite the prosecution’s heavy reliance on

circumstantial evidence, it still failed to exclude the possibility and
fact that another person could be the thief.

The prosecution miserably failed to prove beyond reasonable

doubt the guilt of the accused. The very issue has to be resolved in
this case is whether the accused took the personal property of the
complainant. Verily, the prosecution merely relied on circumstantial
evidence by its witnesses, all of which admitted that they never saw
the accused take the money belonging to the complainant.

To sustain a conviction based on circumstantial evidence,

Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court provides that the following
requisites must concur:

(1) There must be more than one circumstance to convict;

(2) The facts on which the inference of guilt is based must be

proved; and

(3) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a

conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

Page 3 of 6
 With respect to the third requisite, it is essential that the
circumstantial evidence presented must constitute an unbroken
chain, which leads one to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to
the accused, to the exclusion of others, as the guilty person.

Here, the prosecution failed to establish any chain of events

pointing to the guilt of the Accused. The circumstantial evidence
adduced by the prosecution is not competent and sufficient in order
to sustain the accused's conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

There being no eyewitness linking the Accused to the

commission of the crime, nor a positive identification that it was the
accused who took the money, there was clear failure on the part of
the prosecution to prove and satisfy the elements of Qualified Theft.

In the Case of People vs. Sangcajo Jr., G.R. No. 229204,

September 5, 2018, the Supreme Court ruled:

“The presumption of innocence in favor of an accused in a criminal

case is a basic constitutional guarantee. It demands that the State must
establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. To do so, the Prosecution must
rely on the strength of its evidence, not on the weakness of his defense. Every
reasonable doubt of his guilt entitles him to an acquittal.”

Furthermore, In the Case of People vs. Claro, G.R. No. 199894,

April 5, 2017, the Supreme Court ruled:

“In every criminal case where the accused enjoys presumption of

innocence, he is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond
reasonable doubt.”

Lastly, in Hilario B. Aliling v. People, G.R. No. 230991, June 11,

2018. The Supreme Court ruled:

“In this jurisdiction, no less than proof beyond reasonable doubt is

required to support a judgment of conviction. While the law does not require
absolute certainty, the evidence presented by the prosecution must produce
in the mind of the Court a moral certainty of the accused's guilt. When there
is even a scintilla of doubt, the Court must acquit.”

8.     RELIEF.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that the

ORDER, dated 15 April, 2023, be reconsidered and that the Accused
Debs Dela Mesa be Acquitted of the Crimes Charged AND THAT

Page 4 of 6
ON THE BASIS OF THE FOREGOING, the instant petition be
DIMSISSED outright without prejudice, per Rule 16.

            FURTHER, the herein defendants pray for such and other

reliefs as may be deemed just and equitable in the premises.

Muntinlupa City for City of Manila. 27 April, 2023

ECALNIR and SIMBRE Law Offices

Unit 1404B Richville Corporate Tower,
Alabang Zapote Road, Madrigal Business Park
Ayala Alabang, Muntinlupa City
mjps88@yahoo.com
(0917)6782988
by:

MARHEN JASON P. SIMBRE

Attorney’s Roll No. 71238
PTR No. 12052525J; 1-5-2021; Las Piñas
IBP No. 120844; 1-2-2021; PPLM
MCLE Compliance No. VI-0010989

Copy Furnished:

Atty. Aristotle M. Fayre

Private Prosecutor
No. 30 Banaba, Padre Garcia
Batangas
Eadd: aris_fayre@yahoo.com

OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR

Eadd: ocpmanila@doj.gov.ph

EXPLANATION
Page 5 of 6
 Copies of the foregoing Motion for Reconsideration were
served to the other parties via registered mail and electronic mail due
to, distance and time constraints.

MARHEN JASON P. SIMBRE

Page 6 of 6