Ja Complaint Affidavit.docx

Republic of the Philippines Department of Justice NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE CITY PROSECUTION SERVICE OF CEBU City of Cebu MAC JOLLY KING CORPORATION Complainant; -versus-

SIMONE TRINIDAD

I.S.________________ For: Qualified Theft

Respondent.

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

COMPLAINT- AFFIDAVIT Complainant, MAC JOLLY KING CORPORATION, an entity duly established and registered in accordance with the laws of the Republic of the Philippines and maintains an official place of business at P. Del Rosario St. Corner Sanciangko St., Brgy. Kamagayan, Cebu City, through the undersigned counsel, respectfully avers that; 1. The complainant is engaged in the business of providing food and services to the public and is duly registered under pertinent laws. Attached and made an integral part of this complaintaffidavit is a copy of registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission marked as Annex “A”. 2. In the regular course of business of the complainant, the latter hired the services of Mr. Simone Trinidad, referred hereto as “Respondent”, as its Liaison, Utility and Billing Officer whose primary function involves the following: submission of documents with billing details to clients and collection of the same, to make necessary withdrawals and deposits as instructed, payment of company bills and the processing of import related transactions. Attached and made an integral part of this complaint-affidavit is a copy of the Employment Contract of the respondent marked as Annex “B”.

Page 1 of 4

3. As mentioned above, part of the functions of the respondent is to withdraw from the complainant’s bank account upon order of his superiors. In the performance of the said function, on 25th day of January, 2019, the respondent was instructed by his superior to make a withdrawal in the amount of THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (Php350,000.00 ) in its Banco De Oro Account bearing the number 100986371246 and under the name of Elizabeth Santos. Be it noted that the complainant is using the account of Elizabeth Santos in the regular course of its operations for quick transactions and easy verifications. Attached and made an integral part of this complaint-affidavit is a copy of the BDO Withdrawal Slip, marked as Annex “C”. 4. After the successful withdrawal of the above-mentioned amount, the respondent failed to report back to work. On the same day, inquiries were made as to the latter’s whereabouts but they all proved to be futile. Fortunately, one of respondent’s siblings is also employed with the complainant, the latter, together with the complainant’s representative went to the residence of the respondent at Happy Valley Subdivision, Guadalupe, Cebu City on the same date. However, the defendant cannot be found in the said address but earlier in the day respondent left an amount of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php 200,000.00) to his parents. The complainant was able to recover the said amount from the respondent’s parents. 5. Subsequently, a report was made to the Barangay concerning the incident. Attached and made an integral part of this complaint-affidavit is a copy of the entry in the Barangay Log Book dated 26 January 2019, marked as Annex “D”. 6. On 28 January 2019, complainant reported the incident and loss to BDO Ramos Branch, the latter issued an Affidavit of Loss confirming the said incident. Attached and made an integral part of this complaint-affidavit is a copy of the Affidavit of Loss issued by the said bank, marked as Annex “D”. 7. Inquiries were made as to the whereabouts of the respondent but they all proved to be futile. The defendant failed and refused, and continues to fail and refuse to show himself. 8. The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, under Article 308, laid down the elements of the crime of Simple Theft, they are as

Page 2 of 4

follows 1. That there be taking of personal property; 2. That the said property belongs to another; 3. That the taking be done with intent to gain; 4. That the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and 5. That the taking be done without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. (Emphasis supplied) 9. Theft is qualified under Article 310 of the same Code when the following elements are present: 1. Theft is committed by a domestic servant; 2. Theft is committed with grave abuse of confidence; 3. The property taken is either a motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle; 4. The property consists of coconut taken from the plantation; 5. The property stolen is fish from the pond or fishery; and 6. The property was taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption among others. (Emphasis supplied) 10. Given the foregoing, the mere taking of the property of another with intent to gain constitutes the crime of theft and when coupled with abuse of trust and confidence the crime is qualified theft. 11. Here, the fact that the defendant is in a position that enjoys the confidence of the complainant, his act of taking the subject amount of money with intent to gain, qualified his act. 12. Moreover, the recovery of a part of the subject amount in no way removes the act of the defendant from the ambit of qualified theft. What is material is the taking of the property of another with intent to gain and abuse of confidence. The Supreme Court has held in the case of Anita Miranda versus the People of the Philippines1 to wit: Here, the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the amount of P797,187.85 taken does not belong to petitioner but to VCCI and that petitioner took it without VCCI’s consent and with grave abuse of confidence by taking advantage of her position as accountant and bookkeeper. The prosecution’s evidence proved that petitioner was entrusted with checks payable to VCCI or Viva by virtue of her position as accountant and bookkeeper. 1

G.R. No. 176298, 25 January 2012

Page 3 of 4

13. In addition, in the case of People of the Philippines versus Ruben Sison2 the Supreme Court elucidated on the peculiarities of the crime of Qualified Theft, to wit: The crime perpetuated by appellant against his employer, the Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank (PCIB), is qualified theft. Appellant could not have committed the crime had he not been holding the position of Luneta Branch Operation Officer which gave him not only sole access to the bank vault but also control of the access of all bank employees in that branch, except the Branch Manager, to confidential and highly delicate computerized security systems designed to safeguard, among others, the integrity of telegraphic fund transfers and account names of bank clients. The management of the PCIB reposed its trust and confidence in the appellant as its Luneta Branch Operation Officer, and it was this trust and confidence which he exploited to enrich himself to the damage and prejudice of PCIB in the amount of P6,000,000.00. 14.Accordingly, the complainant, through the undersigned counsel, executed this complaint-affidavit for the purpose of attesting the truth of the foregoing statements and to charge the respondent SimoneTrinidad with the crime of Theft, qualified by abuse of trust and confidence under Article 308 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines respectively.

2

G.R. No. 123183, 19 January 2000

Page 4 of 4