Page |1

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
First Judicial Region

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (Plaintiff)

vesus

RICKY DORIA AND GEMMA DE GUZMAN (Accused)

Criminal Case No. 7000

For: Qualified Theft

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ACCUSED

“Circumstantial evidence suffices to convict an accused only if the circumstances

proved constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion
that points to the accused, to the exclusion of all others as the guilty person; the
circumstances proved must be consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis
that the accused is guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with any other hypothesis
except that of guilty”1

ACCUSED RICKY DORIA, thru his Counsel and unto the Honorable Court
most respectfully avers that:

BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS

1. Under the Information the accused was charged with the crime of qualified theft
under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code by the City Prosecutor’s Office. It
was allegedly committed on September 29, 2011 by the accused since he was
considered as a trusted househelp of one Victoria A. Cu (the private
complainant) and has been especially assigned to clean private complainant’s
bedroom. Accused allegedly stole the total amount of Php1,860,000.00 inside the
room of private complainant;

2. The Information was supported by a complaint affidavit and affidavits of

witnesses, who allegedly saw and knows for a fact that accused was the one who
stole the total amount of Php1,860,000.00. On his arraignment, accused pleaded
not guilty;

3. During the trial, the prosecution presented two witnesses in the names of Ramil
de Guzman and Eric Esponela. After the prosecution rested its case, the defense
waived the presentation of the accused and thereafter rested his case.

ARGUMENTS

1
People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 168627 (July 2, 2010)
 Page |2

4. THE ACCUSED SHOULD BE ACQUITTED SINCE THE PROSECUTION

FAILED TO PROVE THE CRIME OF QUALIFIED THEFT AS COMMITTED BY
THE ACCUSED;

5. THE ACCUSED SHOULD BE ACQUITTED SINCE THE PROSECUTION ALSO

FAILED TO PROVE ALL THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME OF THEFT.

DISCUSSION OF THE ARGUMENTS

Failed to Prove the Crime

of Qualified Theft

6. “Under Article 310[21] of the Revised Penal Code, theft becomes qualified "if
committed by a domestic servant, or with grave abuse of confidence, or if the
property stolen is a motor vehicle, mail matter 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."2;

7. Based on the Information accused was a trusted househelp and gravely abused
the confidence of the private complainant by taking the alleged amount inside
her room;

8. “To warrant the conviction and, hence, imposition of the penalty for qualified
theft, there must be an allegation in the information and proof that there existed
between the offended party and the accused such high degree of confidence 37or
that the stolen goods have been entrusted to the custody or vigilance of the
accused.”3;

9. Was there a high degree of confidence reposed by private complainant to the

accused? None. Looking carefully on the records of the case nothing on the
testimony of the witnesses would show that private complainant was reposed
with such confidence. In fact, no witness by the prosecution was presented to
clear the status and relationship of the accused and the private complainant.
Those who were presented were incompetent as they are not even relatives or
working directly with the private complainant. Even the private complainant
herself, who is in the position to clarify her relationship with the accused did not
bother to come to court and gave her testimony;

10. How can the accused be now convicted of the crime as charged when the very
element of grave abuse of confidence is absent? Simple, the logical answer is
acquittal;

11. The failure of the prosecution to present the private complainant or at least any
witness who knows personally the relationship of the accused to the private
complainant was crucial in the determination of his guilt;

2
Supra
3
Viray v. People, G.R. No. 205180 (November 11, 2013)
 Page |3

12. The Honorable Supreme Court clarified that “Grave abuse of confidence, as an
element of the felony of qualified theft, must be the result of the relation by
reason of dependence, guardianship, or vigilance, between the appellant and the
offended party that might create a high degree of confidence between them
which the appellant abused.”4;

13. The above-quoted case explained what grave abuse of confidence means in cases
of qualified theft. In the present case, the only fact establishing grave abuse of
discretion is that the very term itself was included in the information. The
prosecution did not show proof of any sort of relationship between accused and
private complainant. The absence of the latter cannot now prove the dependence,
guardianship, or vigilance of the accused to her;

Failed to Prove the

Crime of Theft

14. “The elements of the crime of theft as provided for in Article 308 [9] of the Revised
Penal Code are as follows: (1) that there be taking of personal property; (2) that
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 accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of
persons or force upon things.”5;

15. Prosecution failed to establish all the elements of the crime of theft in the instant
case. By not presenting the private complainant, prosecution’s claim that accused
was the one who stole the money weakened. There is no way to find out the
allegations stated in the information. How could we find out whether there was
indeed the taking of a property or if the taking was without consent. Even the
amount stolen can never be determined as there was no one who testified on it;

16. Logic dictates that due to the lack of witnesses to prove vital points with regard
to the case then there are no points to attribute the crime to the accused. No
circumstantial evidence that points the accused as the real culprit;

Testimonies of the Witnesses,

Insufficient to Convict Accused

17. First witness for the prosecution was Ramil De Guzman. He was presented as
one of the companions of the accused in Baguio City on October 1, 2011 and that
the accused was the one who shouldered the expenses during their stay in
Baguio City. He further testified that he was holding a wallet of the accused;

18. Going over and over the testimony of Ramil De Guzman, it seems that nothing in
his statement could relate to the crime as to have committed by the accused.
Even the fact that accused was the one who shouldered their expenses in Baguio
City, cannot also be considered as a crime, assuming that accused was the one.
What is more surprising is that up until he testified, witness admitted that he
was still using the clothes allegedly bought by accused for him;

4
Supra
5
Miranda v. People, G.R. No. 176298 (January 25, 2012)
 Page |4

19. Last witness for the prosecution was Eric Esponela. He testified that accused
allegedly admitted to him that he took Hong Kong Dollars of private
complainant in the presence of one Maricar Lagiwid and Leo Javier, although the
latter were never presented as witnesses nor were they offered by the
prosecution as corroborating witness;

20. Assuming without admitting for the sake of argument that accused really
admitted to the last witness of the prosecution that accused took Hong Kong
Dollars of the private complainant, will be it have evidentiary weight sufficient
to convict the accused? Eric Esponela’s answers in his cross examination dated
September 2, 2013 would be most enlightening;

“Q. And immediately you asked him why did he do that right?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. So it means that you already believe that he did that?

A. yes, sir.

Q. Prior to admitting you already believe that he was the one who stole
the money, is that right?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. So even if he did not admit to you, you already believe that he already
did that as what you said?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Can you remember if there were any lawyers who assisted Ricky Doria
when he made that admission as you said?
A. None, sir

Court
Were there police officers?
A. Yes, Your Honor.

Court
How many?
A. Two (2), Your Honor.

Court
Did the police officers ask you to ask Ricky Doria to admit to the
offense.
A. Yes, Your Honor.”6

21. Clearly, the admission cannot be taken into account nor does it have evidentiary
weight against the accused, as it was secured without the assistance of a counsel
of his choice. A contrary view would violate the very right of the accused
afforded to him by the constitution and the rules of court;

22. Another point was that witness claimed that the admission was put into writing,
but nothing in the documentary evidence offered by the prosecution would show
that accused admission was put into writing, not even a single police officers

6
Pages 15 and 16, TSN of Eric Esponela dated September 2, 2013
 Page |5

who was claimed to be present when accused uttered such admission was
presented;

23. Again, both prosecution witnesses never had any personal knowledge of the
alleged stolen money of the private complainant, all were hearsay. Therefore, it is
but a matter of law, since the facts does not support the crime charge, accused
should not be held liable;

CONCLUSION

24. Accused is currently detained for a crime which he did not do. How can accused
ever remake the time lost, how can he ever get up again from the tragedy and
sufferings of being detained, knowing afterwards that the decision of the
Honorable Court will acquit him because he did not commit the crime. The facts
do not prove reasonable doubt but a clear showing that the crime charge to him
was not committed by him;

25. The prosecution failed on both ends, since there is no Theft committed then
obviously there is no Qualified Theft. Prosecution failed to meet the quantum of
evidence required by law to convict an accused of a crim.

WHEREFORE, Accused, most respectfully prays unto the Honorable Court, after
considering all the evidence of the prosecution, a DECISION of ACQUITTAL since
there’s is no evidence that the accused committed the crime of qualified theft be issued
by the Honorable Court. Other reliefs just and equitable are likewise prayed for under
the foregoing circumstances.