REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE
OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTOR
CITY OF MARIKINA

NICO D. STA. INES,

Complainant, NPS No. ___________
FOR: “Qualified Theft” under
-versus- Article 310 of the Revised Penal
Code

MARIA CLARA,
Respondent.

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

RESOLUTION

For resolution is the complaint filed by the complainant NICO D.

STA. INES against the respondent MARIA CLARA for QUALIFIED
THEFT in violation of Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code.

To support the above complaint, complainant submitted the following

pieces of evidence:
1. Complaint Affidavit of the complainant, Nico D. Sta. Ines
2. Contract of Employment executed between the complainant and the
respondent
3. Official receipt and photograph of the alleged missing items
4. Screenshot of the call logs and the text messages the complainant sent
to the respondent
5. Judicial Affidavit of the complainant
6. CCTV footage of the incident
7. Police Report recording the incident

As her counter, the respondent submitted the following documents to

support her denial of the allegations against her:
1. Counter-Affidavit of the respondent, Maria Clara
2. Certificate of Enrollment
3. Screenshot of text messages between the complainant and respondent

1
 4. Police Report of the rape incident
5. Judicial Affidavit of respondent’s cousin, Sisa F. Clara
6. Medico Legal Report in relation to the rape incident

Statement of Facts

The salient facts culled from the records are as follows:

Complainant alleged that on October 25, 2023 at around 12:30

o’clock in the afternoon, after he arrived from the market, he noticed
that the drawer near his bed, where he usually put his laptop and
cellphone, was open. When he looked inside, his laptop and
cellphone, having a cumulative value of P117,000, were missing. He
also alleged that Maria Clara, who is a working-student, working as
a domestic helper for the complainant, was the only person in his
house that day. On the same day, he reviewed the CCTV footage
located inside his room and it was shown that Maria Clara took and
carried the subject laptop and phone without his consent. The
complainant sought legal assistance from PNP Maysilo Station,
Marikina City, who prepared for the filing of a blotter of the incident
in relation to the complaint affidavit filed by complainant against
respondent for qualified theft before the City Prosecutor of Marikina
City.

On the other hand, respondent Maria Clara denied all the

allegations in the complaint for being false, baseless, unfounded and
fabricated.

She alleged that the subject items were offered to her by

complainant to aid her schooling. That on two occasions, the
complainant entered her room and pointed a knife at her. He then
told her “Kung gusto mo mabayaran kaagad yang laptop mo,
pagbigyan mo na ako.” He instructed respondent to go to bed and
undress. She followed out of fear and the complainant had carnal
knowledge with her. The respondent also alleged that on October 29,
2023, she found an opportunity to escape from the complainant, and
so she packed her things and went back to her relatives in Cagayan.
She was then assisted by her relatives to the police station to report
the crime committed by the complainant. She prays for the dismissal
of the complaint against her.

2
 Findings and Recommendations

After careful examination of the records of the case, the undersigned

City Prosecutor, finds probable cause to hold respondent, Maria Clara, liable
for the crime of Qualified Theft under Article 310 in relation to Article 308
of the Revised Penal Code. There was unlawful taking of the property
belonging to the complainant without the complainant’s consent. The taking
is qualified because respondent was a domestic servant of the complainant at
the time of the commission of the offense.
The crime of theft is defined under Article 308 of the Revised Penal
Code, to wit:

Article 308. Who are liable for theft. - Theft is committed by any person
who, with intent to gain but without violence, against, or intimidation of
neither persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of
another without the latter's consent.

On the other hand, Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code reads:

Article 310. Qualified Theft. - The crime of theft shall be punished by

the penalties next higher by two degrees than those respectively specified
in the next preceding article, if committed by a domestic servant, or with
grave abuse of confidence, or if the property stolen is motor vehicle,
mailmatter 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.

Thus, the elements of qualified theft punishable under Article 310 in

relation to Article 308 of the Code are as follows: (1) there was a taking of
personal property; (2) the said property belongs to another; (3) the taking
was done without the consent of the owner; (4) the taking was done with
intent to gain; (5) the taking was accomplished without violence or
intimidation against person, or force upon things; and (6) the taking was
done under any of the circumstances enumerated in Article 310 of the Code,
i.e., with grave abuse of confidence and committed by a domestic servant.
The stipulation of facts shows the presence of the crime of Qualified
Theft. Through grave abuse of confidence, the respondent, a domestic

3
servant of the complainant had taken advantage of the latter by the taking of
his personal property with an intention of not returning the same to the latter
which can be inferred from the actuations of the former in the CCTV
footage. Such are also proven by the pieces of evidence presented by the
complainant, including contract of employment, official receipt and
photograph of the missing items, screenshot of call logs and text messages,
and police report.
On the part of the defense of the respondent, her averment in
Paragraph 2 of the Counter-Affidavit is without substantial basis and is only
self-serving and tantamount to admission. The respondent should have
specified her denial in every allegation set forth by the complainant.
In this case, the crime of theft was consummated when the respondent
acquired possession of the object of interest, i.e laptop and cellphone without
the complainant’s consent. The showing of a screenshot of a part of
conversation by the respondent is insufficient to prove that indeed the
subject items were freely given by the complainant. To reiterate, the
omission of the respondent to answer or return the calls and messages of the
complainant in the height of the incident raises an assumption that she
intended to rob the latter of his possession.
Moreover, the defense of crime of rape against complaint as alleged
by the respondent is of no moment. The issue and elements on this case is
distinct and separate from the crime of rape. It should be settled on a
separate pleading.
Lastly, the respondent failed to overcome the pieces of evidence
presented by the complainant. Section 1, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court
provides for the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue
necessary to establish his/her claim or defense by the amount of evidence
required by law.
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is most
respectfully recommended that Information for the crime of Qualified Theft
under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code be filed against the respondent
MARIA CLARA.

Marikina City, 04 November 2023.

APPROVED BY:

4
COPY FURNISHED:

(1) MARIA CLARA

Respondent
093-A Miguelito St., Brgy. 444, Zone 24
Sampaloc, Manila City

(2) ATTY. LOREN DELOS SANTOS

Counsel for Respondent
#15 P. Burgos St., Barangay 12, Caloocan City

(3) NICO D. STA. INES

102 Rajah Soliman St., Brgy. Parang
Marikina City, Philippines

(4) ATTY. FERDINAND ROBREDO JR.

Counsel for the Complainant
#37 Lot 4, Blk 10, P.T. Heights Subdivision
Antipolo, Rizal