Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
DECISION
CRIM. CASE NO. 94-137533
Page Two (2)
Pre-trial was conducted on January 19, 1995. Thereafter, trial on
the merits ensued.
I. Antecedents
Private complainant Felisa Gonzales y Quitoviera is engaged in
beauty parlor business located at the ground floor of her three-story
boarding house at 1022 Felix Huertas St., Sta. Cruz, Manila. The
boarding house harbors around twelve other boarders, aside from
private complainant herself, Viva Flores y Permiza, alias Bebang
(Flores), her helper, Angie Gador (Gador), her beautician, and herein
accused, her manicurist. On weekdays, the boarders leave the
boarding house before 8 oclock in the morning. The third floor of the
building is divided into smaller rooms tenanted by private complainant,
Flores and eight other boarders.
After being recommended by one of her neighbors, private
complainant employed accused as a stay-in beautician in said parlor
sometime in April, 1994 until the second week of June of the same year
when she was sacked for being tardy, habitually leaving her
workstation very early even if she was on duty, and for being once
caught by private complainant coming home to the boarding house at
a late hour with a man. During the time when accused was a stay-in
manicurist, she used to sleep sometimes in a room adjacent to that of
private complainant room and at other times in the parlor.
About two weeks after she was terminated accused visited
private complainant often to request private complainant to rehire her
as she was having financial difficulties, but private complainant did not
immediately budge. It was only after some time that she requested
Arnel Amaro to call her to relate to her that she is accepting her again.
Thus, on July 7, 1994, at around 10 oclock in the morning, accused
reported back to work. Private complainant was cooking at about this
time when a guest arrived; she then asked accused to briefly watch
what she was cooking. Since it was a Thursday, all of the boarders
were gone at or before 7:30 oclock in the morning. Only private
complainant, her guest, Gador, Flores and accused were in the
boarding house at that time.
After readying private complainant and her guests lunch at
around 11:30 oclock in the morning, accused, Flores, and Gador
stayed inside the parlor to man it. When private complainant and her
guest were done eating Flores and accused then moved to the dining
area to have their meal. As Flores was fixing their meal, accused asked
Flores if she has a tampon as she allegedly has a menstruation that
day. Flores then told accused to retrieve one from her room located at
the third floor of the boarding house, adjacent to the room of private
complainant. Accused tarried a bit long upstairs even after Flores has
finished eating, so private complainant instructed Flores to fetch
accused and woo her to eat. Flores then scaled up into her room but
was not able to find accused, so she went down. A few moments after,
she saw accused slowly descend the stairs and go straight into the
comfort room, looking awkwardly. After relieving herself, accused ate,
discovered, it dawned on her that accused did not get a tampon from
her room as the four tampons she has was still intact and
undiminished.
Private complainant became more suspicious of accused as the
DECISION
night before the incident, or on July 6, 1994, she asked her to tend the
CRIM.
94-137533
parlor.CASE
WhileNO.
in the
midst of giving instructions, accused saw private
Page
Four (4)leave a key in the drawer of the table in the parlor. That
complainant
key is a duplicate key to private complainants room. Private
complainant presumed that accused took the duplicate key to gain
access therein as the unlawful taking was accomplished with
absolutely no sign of forced entry.
On July 8, 1994 in the afternoon, private complainant travelled to
the headquarters of the Philippine National Police Western Police
District Command (PNP-WPDC) in United Nations Avenue, Manila to
report the thievery. At around 2:20 oclock in the afternoon, SP01
Antonio C. Calapati (SP01 Calapati) of the Crimes Against Property
Division (Robbery and Theft Section) took the statements of private
complainant as well as that of Flores, which were subscribed and sworn
to before P/Insp. Renaldo Q. Del Rosario of PNP-WPDC. 3 A follow-up
investigation was conducted forthwith by SP01 Calapati. He and
private complainant wended to Tindalo St., Tondo, Manila where Manny
Punzalan (Punzalan), who is the live-in partner of accused, resides.
They went to the house of Brgy. Chairman Orlando Miller (Miller) of
Brgy. 256, Zone 23, Disctrict 2 of Manila to seek his assistance as they
do not know the specific address of Punzalan. SP01 Calapati explained
to Miller the attendant circumstances regarding the pilferage of
jewelries and cash belonging to private complainant. In the course of
the colloquy, someone informed them that the house of Punzalan was
nearby, so they positioned themselves proximate to the latters house
and patiently waited for his arrival. At around 7 oclock in the evening,
Punzalan showed up, together with accused. Without mincing time,
Miller summoned accused and Punzalan, together with private
complainant and SP01 Calapati, to his house. The latter talked to
accused to apprise her of the charge of private complainant but before
he could finish his words, accused quizzed private complainant on why
she was falsely accusing her. Private complainant, nevertheless,
ignored accuseds saintly protestation. While in said house, private
complainant saw accused wearing three of the jewelries ransacked
from her room. With this information, SP01 Calapati removed from the
person of accused one bracelet, one ring with brillantitus and one ring
with flower design.
SP01 Calapati then invited accused, Punzalan and private
complainant to the police station. What follows after is muddled with
colliding testimonies of SP01 Calapati and private complainant. On the
one hand, according to private complainant, in the course of the
investigation, SP01 Calapati frisked the outer trappings of accused.
Amid this, two rings and one bracelet fell down from accused. Accused,
despite being caught red-handed, nonetheless did not admit
authorship of the crime. On the other hand, according to SP01
Calapati, accused was not searched for things concealed about her.
Rather, accused, who was advised of her constitutional rights,
3
DECISION
CRIM. CASE NO. 94-137533
voluntarily unburdened her guilt before him after he interrogated her
Page Five (5)
about, inter alia, the ownership of the items recovered from her while
they were in the house of Miller. Accused claimed that she only took
two bracelets, two ladys rings and P3,500.00 from private
complainant. The latter amount, however, was not returned by
accused. When asked where she placed the rest of the spoils, accused
readily told SP01 Calapati that she pawned the other jewelries, and
torn the pawn ticket afterwards. The confessions, however, were given
without the assistance of counsel. In addition to three pieces of
DECISION
jewelries which were regained from accused while she was in the
CRIM.
NO. 94-137533
houseCASE
of Miller,
SP01 Calapati was able to recover from her one
Page
Fiveone
(5)earlobe earring, one necklace and one Seiko automatic
earring,
wrist watch. According to SP01 Calapatis investigation, all of these
articles were nabbed by accused from another person.
After the investigation, SP01 Calapati prepared the Booking
Sheet and Arrest Report,4 which was signed by accused,5 as well as the
referral document6 and the annexes thereto for submission to the duty
inquest prosecutor. The case was docketed as I.S. No. 94G-17073.
During the inquest proceeding, Punzalan approached private
complainant and related to her that he and accused do not have
money to answer for the latters liability. In reply, private complainant
agreed to settle the case if accused will restore to her all the other
jewelries she burgled, or the same is not possible, then its monetary
equivalent, which she pegged at that time at P20,000.00.
Finding prima facie evidence to warrant the prosecution of
accused, a case for qualified theft was recommended to be filed by
Asst. City Prosecutor Susanita E. Mendoza-Parker and approved by
Asst. City Prosecutor Lourdes C. Tabang.
On August 11, 1994, private complainant wrote the Office of the
City Prosecutor of Manila, requesting for the release to her of one
bracelet and two ladys rings, which were previously obtained from
accused and placed under police custody, and undertaking that the
aforesaid items will be produced upon demand by the proper
authority.7 The request was granted subject to the condition that a
photograph of the properties is taken which clearly shows the
identifying marks and that the claimant (herein private complainant)
signs a receipt therefor with the concomitant obligation to produce the
same in court.8 Hence, consonant with the above order, a photograph
of the items was taken by SP01 Calapati. 9 Before they were given back
to private complainant, verification was made by SP01 Calapati from
another person who claims to have been victimized by accused to
ascertain if they truly belong to her.
Exhibit F
Said Booking Sheet and Arrest Report reads in part: In this office, suspect when
investigated after having been apprised of her constitutional rights readily and
verbally admitted her guilt[,] claiming that only two bracelet[s], two ladys ring[s] and
P3,500.00 cash that she took from the complainant.
6
Exhibit H
7
Exhibit C
8
Exhibit D
9
Exhibit G
4
5
Description
bracelet recovered from accused
smaller ring recovered from accused
bigger ring recovered from accused
DECISION
CRIM.
NO.
94-137533
B CASE
sworn
statement
of complainant dated
Page Six July
(6) 8, 1994
B-1 signature of complainant on Exh. B
B-2 another statement of complainant
B-3 signature of complainant on Exhibit
B-2
C
request dated August 11, 1994 of
private complainant for the release to
her of Exhibits A to A-2
C-1 signature of complainant on Exhibit
C
D
approval by the Office of the City
Prosecutor
of
the
request
of
complainant for the release of the
aforementioned Exhibits A to A-2
E
sworn statement of Flores
E-1 signature of Flores on Exhibit E
F
F-1
F-2
G
H
H-1
Purpose
to
prove
the
existence
of
the
pieces
of
jewelry
stolen from private
complainant by and
subsequently
from
recovered
from
accused
to
prove
allegations
in
information
the
the
to
prove
the
existence
of
the
pieces
of
jewelry
which were recovered
from accused, and
which,
upon
the
request of private
complainant,
were
turned over to her
to corroborate the
testimony of private
complainant
to prove that the case
was investigated; that
Exhibits A to A-2
were
photographed
before
they
were
returned
to
complainant; that the
case was referred for
inquest investigation;
and that the inquest
prosecutor
recommended
the
indictment of accused
for qualified theft
28
29
VIRGILIO
ALAMEDA
Judge
/raffy
M.