Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice
National Prosecution Service
OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
Baguio City

NIKO AGUILAR, in his capacity

as GENERAL MANAGER of
SWIFTIE HOTEL
Complainant

-versus- NPS Docket No. ____________

For: Qualified Theft

HAZEL, EDGAR, and ALVIN

Respondents.
x--------------------------------------------x

COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT

I, NIKO AGUILAR, Filipino, of legal age, and acting in my

capacity as GENERAL MANAGER of SWIFTIE HOTEL, with postal
address at Swiftie Hotel, C.M. Recto St., Navy Base, 2600 Baguio City,
accuse under oath the following —

THE RESPONDENTS

HAZEL (hereinafter “Hazel”), of legal age, Filipino, and

with postal address at ________, where she may be served
with summons and other processes of this Office.

EDGAR (hereinafter “Edgar”), of legal age, Filipino, and

with postal address at ________, where he may be served
with summons and processes of this Office.
 ALVIN (hereinafter “Alvin”), of legal age, Filipino, and
with postal address at ________, where he may be served
with summons and processes of this office.

THE CRIME

Hazel, Edgar, and Alvin are liable as principals in the

crime of QUALIFIED THEFT under Art. 310 of the
Revised Penal Code, in relation to Sec. 81 of Republic Act
No. 10951.

THE FACTS

1. SWIFTIE Hotel is a hotel and events center located at CM

Recto St., Navy Base, Baguio City. One of its business offerings is the
Eras Buffet, where customers can avail an “eat-all-you-can” buffet.
Depending on the time of the day, the buffet price varies, as follows:

Type of Buffet Price

Breakfast/Cross-over lunch (6:30AM- Php 380
10:30AM; 10:30AM to 1:30PM)
Merienda Buffet (2:00PM to 5:00PM) Php 210
Sunday Lunch Buffet (11:00AM to 3:00PM) Php 480
International Weekday Dinner Buffet Php 680
(6:00PM to 10:00PM)
International Weekend Dinner Buffet Php 780
(6:00PM to 10:00PM)

2. Hazel is a HEAD CASHIER in-charge of auditing and

accounting the receipts from the sales made in the Eras Buffet. Among
others, she is tasked to receive payment and properly account whether
the amounts indicated in the receipts match with the collected
payments.

3. Edgar and Alvin, on the other hand, are service staff.

Among others, they assist the admission of customers to the buffet
hall, tend to the customers’ needs, and take additional orders, if there
are any.1

4. THE “PAY AS YOU ENTER” QUEUEING AND

PAYMENT SYSTEM. Responding to the huge influx of customers in
the buffet hall, especially during dinner buffets, I have devised a way
to properly account for all customers going in and coming out from
the hall, otherwise known as the “PAY AS YOU ENTER” policy—

a. The customers line up at the cashier and pay their

respective bills corresponding to the number of guests.
b. The cashier issues a receipt upon payment. 2
c. The customer then shows the receipt to the attendant
service staff at the entrance of the buffet hall.
d. The attendant service staff then checks the
corresponding number of persons considered paid in
the receipt.
e. Upon checking the number of persons paid in the
receipt, the service staff then stamps the hand or the
wrist of the customers. It is this stamp which will signify
that the customer has already paid the buffet.
f. It is only after the stamping that the customer is allowed
to enter the buffet hall. It is only at that time that the
customer may be allowed to be seated, and/or queue in
the main buffet hall.

5. This queueing and seating system are both followed by

customers with and without reservations. Customers with
reservations, however, no longer need to queue in the line. They
directly proceed to the cashier to pay.

The Incident

6. On 16 July 2022, however, this protocol was not followed

with respect to one customer.

1
Their employment contracts are hereto attached as Annexes “A”, “B”, :C”
2
A copy of the standard receipt usually issued is hereto attached as
Annex “A”
 7. Jane Fernandez (hereinafter “Mrs. Fernandez”), a regular
customer, went with her family to avail the weekend dinner buffet. As
she has expected, the queue was very long. The cashier at that time
was busy attending to customers with reservations, hence, the entry of
walk-in customers (customers with no reservations) to the buffet hall
was a bit delayed.

8. Suddenly, Respondent Edgar approached her and told her

that they can come in the buffet hall. Knowledgeable of the “PAY AS
YOU ENTER” system of Eras Buffet, she directly went to the cashier.
However, Edgar informed her that they can just pay after eating, and
that Edgar will just personally hand their receipts. Edgar then allowed
her and her family’s entry to the buffet hall to look for seats.

9. After eating with her family, Edgar then approached her

and gave her a receipt, with receipt no. 216592. (A copy of the receipt is
hereto attached as Annex “B”). In the said receipt, only the number of
adults and children, and the price to be paid are indicated. This
deviates from the usual receipt issued, which should contain the name
of the customer.

10. Being a regular customer who is familiar with the usual

protocol, Mrs. Fernandez immediately thought that something was
different, since the receipt given to her was different from what she
usually receives in other instances in the same buffet.

11. Because of this unusual circumstance, Mrs. Fernandez

asked Edgar why the receipt is different, and asked if she can have an
official receipt instead. Edgar complied and told Mrs. Fernandez that
he will be back with another receipt.

12. Reluctantly, Mrs. Fernandez handed to Edgar her payment

covering herself and her whole family, amounting to Php 2,340.00.

13. When Edgard returned, he gave the very same receipt

which he first presented. He reasoned that there were no other receipts
other than the said receipt.

14. Feeling uneasy of Edgar’s reasons, Mrs. Fernandez then

went directly to the cashier on duty. There, she showed the receipt she
got from Edgar, then asked for an official receipt. The cashier was
puzzled. The cashier then asked where she got the said receipt. Mrs.
Fernandez pointed to Edgar.

15. Mrs. Fernandez also executed a written letter on the next

day, 17 July 2022, detailing the said occurrence, and informing the
Management of Eras Buffet of the incident. (The copy of the letter is hereto
attached as Annex “C”).

16. THE INVESTIGATION. Alarmed with the said

occurrence, I ordered that the whole story be uncovered. After I have
learned of the whole picture, the hotel management proceeded to
investigate. I have called all employees who were directly connected
in the incident.

17. THE RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION. Investigation

revealed that Edgar was able to successfully pull out the scheme in
coordination with Respondent Hazel. Edgar asked from Hazel a blank
receipt, to which the latter complied. Edgar, on the other hand, utilized
the said blank receipt to charge Mrs. Fernandez of the amount of Php
2,340.00. Edgar, then keeps for himself the payment received instead
of remitting it to the cashier.

18. To cover-up his scheme, Hazel filled up the duplicate

receipt with items of small value, such as drinks and beverages. Hazel,
then, willfully turns a blind eye in these misused receipts in her
accounting process.

19. Suspecting that their fingers might be caught up in the till,

Hazel and Alvin resigned on 05 August 2022 and 27 July 2022,
respectively. This, however, did not prevent me from further
investigating their involvement in the scheme.

20. During the investigations, Edgar executed a written letter

of admission dated August 18, 2022, apologizing for the acts that he
has done. (The Letter of Admission of Edgar is hereto attached as Annex
“D”.)

21. Qualified Theft under Art. 310 of the Revised Penal Code
has the following elements:

(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 RPC, i.e., with grave abuse of confidence. (Reside
v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 210318, 28 July 2020)

22. Using their scheme, the respondents were able to take the
amount of Php2,340. Without a doubt, their taking was with intent to
gain. Edgar pocketed the said amount and never transmitted the said
amount to the cashier.

23. The respondents were my employees at the Eras Buffet. I

have reposed my trust in them. Their positions involve the handling
of payments from the customers, with the obligation of remitting them
to the cashier. (A copy of Hazel and Edgar’s Bio Data is hereto attached as
“Annex E and F”, respectively, their Contracts of Employment as “Annex
G and H”, respectively, and their daily time records as “Annex I and J”,
respectively.)

24. They would have not been able to execute these acts
without their employment or positions as service staff and as a head
cashier.

25. As a result of their actions, I feel that I have lost my trust

in them as employees. It is with great relief that they are no longer
under my employ.

THE CONSPIRACY

26. Edgar, and Hazel deliberately planned this scheme to

make it work and to conceal it. Unfortunately, the truth always has its
way of coming out.

27. My lawyer mentioned to me that in the case of Yongco v.

People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 209373, 30 July 2014,, the Supreme
Court defined a conspiracy as:
 There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning a felony and decide to commit it. Well-
settled is the rule that in conspiracy, direct proof of a previous
agreement is not necessary as it may be deduced from the
mode, method, and manner by which the offense was
perpetrated. It may be inferred from the acts of the accused
before, during, or after the commission of the crime which,
when taken together, would be enough to reveal a community
of criminal design, as the proof of conspiracy is frequently
made by evidence of a chain of circumstances.

28. The acts of Edgar and Hazel, taken together, constitutes

proof of a grand community of criminal design.

29. Hazel gave Edgar copies of blank receipts with the intent
to use it to perpetuate their scheme. Edgar then executed the plan.
They preyed on customers who may not be familiar with the queueing
system or woo regular customers to enjoy a “special benefit” of not
queueing in the line anymore.

30. Edgar pocketed the money the customers paid. He did not
remit the said amount to the cashier.

31. Hazel, then, ensured that her accounting of the receipts be

accurate. She wrote in the duplicate receipt items of small value to
make it appear that the receipt was used to purchase inexpensive
things.

32. Edgar and Hazel have deliberately agreed to commit the

offense. They planned every action undertaken, and even planned a
way to conceal this.

33. In view of the foregoing factual circumstances, I am

therefore executing this Complaint-Affidavit against HAZEL, EDGAR,
AND ALVIN, who, by conspiring and confederating with each other,
committed the crime of QUALIFIED THEFT UNDER ART. 310 OF
THE REVISED PENAL CODE.

34. I hereby attest to the truth of the foregoing facts.

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ___
day of October 2022, at Baguio City Philippines.

NIKO AGUILAR
Complainant- Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ___ day of

October 2022, at Baguio City, Philippines.

Asst. City Prosecutor

CERTIFICATION

This is to certify that I have personally examined the affiant and

I am convinced that she executed the foregoing Affidavit-Complaint
freely and voluntarily and that she understood the same.

Asst. City Prosecutor