Direct Examination of Tracy P.

Baruelo

Case: People of the Philippines v. Emo Blue Camarines y

Bondoc A.K.A Emong

Role:

Prosecutor: Magayanes

Witness: Tracy P. Baruelo

Prosecutor:

Please state your name, age, and occupation for the record.

Witness:

I am Tracy P. Baruelo, of legal age, a Filipino citizen, and I work as an

Executive Officer in a BPO Company at Local Scrubs Solutions Inc.

Prosecutor:

Where do you currently reside?

Witness:

I live at Lot 22, Proverbsville Subdivision, Brgy. Sapalibutad, Angeles City,

Pampanga.

Prosecutor:

Do you know the accused, Mr. Emo Blue Camarines?

Witness:

Yes, I do. He was my house keeper.

Prosecutor:

Can you tell this Honorable Court, Ms Baruelo how long does Mr. Camarines
work for you?

Witness:
Yes, for seven months, he was my house keeper.

Prosecutor:

Can you state the span of time from point to point did Mr. Camarines started
working for you?

Witness:

It was from July 2020 until January 22, 2021.

Prosecutor:

Can you state who are the people that are working that are also staying at
your house?

Witness:

Yes, Ma’am. It’s Kuya Edgardo, Manang Paloma and Emong himself.

Prosecutor:

How long are they working for you?

Witness:

Kuya Edgardo for 5 years. Manang Dolores for 15 years and Emong for 7
months.

Prosecutor:

Is Emong here with us today?

Witness:

Yes, Ma’am.

Prosecutor:

If you will be asked to identify if Mr. Camarines is here, will you be able to do
so?

Witness:

Yes, Ma’am. There he is. (Turo kay Emo)

Prosecutor:

What is your name, Sir? (Asking Emo)

Accused:

My name is Emo Blue Camarines A.K.A Emong, Ma’am.

Clerk of Court:

When asked to identify the accused, the witness point to a man wearing an
orange t-shirt and when being asked about his name he answered Emo Blue
Camarines A.K.A Emong

Judge:

Continue, Prosecutor.

Prosecutor:

Thank you, Your Honor.

Prosecutor:

Ms, Baruelo can you briefly describe your professional responsibilities on

January 22, 2021?

Witness:

I was working as an Executive Officer at our administrative offices located at

Marquee Mall in Angeles City.

Prosecutor:

Let’s talk about the events of January 22, 2021. What happened that
afternoon?

Witness:

Around 3:00 PM, I was about to call my driver, Kuya Edgardo, to pick me up
from the office. But I noticed 20 missed calls from Manang Dolores, my
household cook.

Prosecutor:
Did you return her call?

Witness:

Yes, I did.

Prosecutor:

Can you state the reason why Ms. Paloma was calling?

Witness:

Yes, Ma’am. She asked me if I was okay, as my “assistant,” Nina Drew, told
her that I had been in an accident.

Prosecutor:

What else did Ms. Paloma told you?

Witness:

She also mentioned that Nina Drew asked for money to pay the other party
regarding the accident through Emong.

Prosecutor:

But is it true that you asked Emong to do so?

Witness:

No, Ma’am.

Prosecutor:

Do you have an assistant named Nina Drew?

Witness:

No, I do not.

Prosecutor:

What did you do after hearing this from Ms. Paloma?

Witness:
I was shocked. I immediately asked Kuya Edgardo to pick me up, and I went
home as quickly as possible.

Prosecutor:

What did you observe when you arrived home?

Witness:

I found my bedroom door unlocked. Inside, my jewelry box, safe box were
empty and my cash money was all gone.

Prosecutor:

What items were missing?

Witness:

My vintage Rolex wristwatch, a 2-carat diamond earrings set, a 1-carat

diamond necklace in 48k gold, and Php 256,308 in cash. The total value of
the stolen items was Php 1,556,308.

Prosecutor:

Did you learn anything further about the missing items?

Witness:

Yes. Ms. Paloma told me that Mr. Camarines left the house carrying a white
purse in which she had placed the stolen items.

Prosecutor:

Did you attempt to contact Mr. Camarines?

Witness:

Yes, Ms. Paloma and I tried calling his cellphone, but we couldn’t reach him.

Prosecutor:

Did you go to his listed address?

Witness:
Yes, I went to his address in Brgy. Atlu Bola, Mabalacat City, Pampanga, but
he was not there.

Prosecutor:

What steps did you take to investigate further?

Witness:

I contacted Mr. Boy O. David Jr., the security guard of our subdivision, and
asked him to check the CCTV footage.

Prosecutor:

What did the CCTV footage reveal?

Witness:

It showed Mr. Camarines driving my Honda Civic while holding a white purse.

Prosecutor:

Have you submitted evidence to support your accusations?

Witness:

Yes, I filed a complaint with the Prosecutor’s Office and submitted several
documents, including:

• Photographs of the stolen items, labeled as Annexes “A-1” to “A-3.”

• Certificates of authenticity for the jewelry and watch.

• Affidavits from Ms. Paloma and Mr. David, which confirm their
observations.

• CCTV footage from our subdivision, labeled as Annex “J.”

Prosecutor:

Ms. Baruelo, are you aware of the legal elements of qualified theft?

Witness:

Yes, I am.
Prosecutor:

Did Mr. Camarines take your personal property?

Witness:

Yes, he did.

Prosecutor:

Did he have your consent to take those items?

Witness:

No, he did not.

Prosecutor:

Was this theft committed by someone with access to your home and
belongings?

Witness:

Yes, it was. Mr. Camarines, as my driver, was entrusted with access to my

property, which he gravely abused.

Prosecutor:

How has this incident affected you personally and financially?

Witness:

It has caused me significant distress, not just because of the financial loss
but also because of the betrayal of trust.

Prosecutor:

What are you seeking from this court?

Witness:

Justice. I want Mr. Camarines held accountable for the crime he committed.

Prosecutor:
Thank you, Ms. Baruelo. No further questions at this time, Your Honor.

Cross-Examination of Emo Blue Camarines y Bondoc:

Prosecutor:
Good afternoon, Mr. Camarines. I’d like to start by clarifying your role as a
housekeeper for Ms. Tracy P. Baruelo. You stated that you worked for her for
seven months, correct?
Witness:
Yes, that’s correct.
Prosecutor:
And in that role, you were responsible for maintaining the house and running
errands, including retrieving cash from her bedroom drawer when instructed.
Is that accurate?
Witness:
Yes, that’s correct.
Prosecutor:
But Mr. Camarines, do you realize that retrieving cash from someone’s
bedroom drawer is not something most housekeepers are typically asked to
do? Doesn’t that strike you as unusual?
Witness:
No, not really. Ms. Baruelo often asked me to retrieve cash for errands when
she was at work.
Prosecutor:
But in your seven months of working for her, have you ever been asked to
retrieve cash for something as serious as an "accident settlement" before?
Something as unusual as this?
Witness:
No, this was the first time I was asked to do something like this.
Prosecutor:
And it was only after receiving a phone call from someone named “Nina
Drew,” whom you claim to have never met, right?
Witness:
Yes, that’s correct.
Prosecutor:
Now, this “Nina Drew,” who claimed to be Ms. Baruelo’s assistant, instructed
you to retrieve cash from her bedroom drawer. But did you find it odd that
you were being asked to act on the instructions of someone you had never
heard of before?
Witness:
I didn’t find it odd because I knew Ms. Baruelo had assistants. I trusted that
Nina Drew was acting on her behalf.
Prosecutor:
But surely, Mr. Camarines, if Ms. Baruelo was in an accident, wouldn’t the
reasonable thing to do be to confirm the situation with her directly? Why
didn’t you try harder to reach her, given the gravity of the situation?
Witness:
I did try. I called her repeatedly, but she didn’t answer.
Prosecutor:
But you didn’t call her for a third, fourth, or fifth time? It seems strange that
you only made a couple of attempts before going ahead with retrieving the
cash. Isn't that right?
Witness:
I did call multiple times, but I felt I had to follow the instructions because I
believed she was in an emergency situation.
Prosecutor:
And you took this action without questioning it any further? You just went
into her room, took the cash, and left without asking for any further
clarification?
Witness:
I trusted the call. I didn’t think it was necessary to question it further.
Prosecutor:
Let’s talk about that moment in the bedroom. You mentioned that Ms.
Dolores opened the door for you because she had the key, correct?
Witness:
Yes, that’s correct.
Prosecutor:
But you also said that Ms. Dolores stayed in the room to clean after you
retrieved the cash. Is that right?
Witness:
Yes, that’s correct.
Prosecutor:
So, despite her being in the room, you didn’t see any jewelry in the drawer?
Even though you had full access to it? Are you telling this court that you
didn’t notice any other valuables, despite your presence there?
Witness:
I didn’t see any jewelry. Only cash in the drawer.
Prosecutor:
Isn’t it a bit convenient that the only item you took was cash and not any of
the valuable jewelry that Ms. Baruelo claims was missing?
Witness:
I took only what I was instructed to take. I didn’t see anything else.
Prosecutor:
Mr. Camarines, you also said that Ms. Dolores alleged you were acting
suspiciously. Can you explain why she might say that?
Witness:
Ms. Dolores has had issues with me in the past. I believe she is making false
statements to damage my reputation.
Prosecutor:
But is it possible that Ms. Dolores was simply telling the truth? She saw you,
someone she trusted, acting in an unusual manner by removing money from
Ms. Baruelo’s personal space. Doesn’t that make you look suspicious?
Witness:
I wasn’t acting suspiciously. I was following the instructions I was given.
Prosecutor:
Let’s talk about the white purse. You admitted that you were holding a white
purse when you left Ms. Baruelo’s house. Can you tell this court why you felt
the need to carry a purse that day?
Witness:
I used it to carry the cash, as instructed.
Prosecutor:
But why carry the purse? Why not just place the cash in your pocket or
somewhere more discreet? Why use a purse to carry it?
Witness:
I didn’t think anything of it. It was simply the easiest way to carry the cash.
Prosecutor:
Mr. Camarines, isn't it possible that your intentions were not as innocent as
you claim? The fact that you didn’t question anything, didn’t attempt to
verify the accident, and didn’t even hesitate to take the cash—doesn’t that
indicate you had something to gain from this situation?
Witness:
I had no intention to steal or gain anything. I was simply following what I
thought was an emergency instruction from Ms. Baruelo.
Prosecutor:
But, Mr. Camarines, the fact remains that when Ms. Baruelo returned, she
found that not just the cash, but other valuable items were missing, and you
were the only one who had access to those items. Isn’t that highly
suspicious?
Witness:
I did not take anything other than the cash. I didn’t see any other valuables
in the drawer.
Prosecutor:
Mr. Camarines, you may have had a job to do, but your actions on that day
were anything but innocent. You took the cash, left the house with a purse,
and didn’t even question the person giving you instructions. The evidence
strongly suggests that you took advantage of Ms. Baruelo’s trust. Doesn’t it?
Witness:
I disagree. I acted in good faith, and I did not steal anything.
Prosecutor:
Thank you, Mr. Camarines. No further questions, Your Honor.