Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice
NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE, REGION III
OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR
Malolos City, Bulacan

RDC CORPORATION. represented by

ROSE ANNE DELA CRUZ SARMIENTO
Complainant,

- versus -

SHERYL GUTIERREZ,
Respondent.
x-----------------------x

COMMENT/REPLY TO CHARINA C. CAPADA’S

SUPPLEMENTAL SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT
EXECUTED ON 04 MARCH 2020

I, SHERYL GUTIERREZ, of legal age, Filipino and a resident of

No. 197 Librada St., Ma. Socorro Subdivision, Marilao, Bulacan
respectfully states, that:

1] I am the Respondent charged in this criminal complaint filed

by RDC Corporation (hereinafter “Complainant RDC” for brevity),
represented by Rose Anne Dela Cruz Sarmiento, for the alleged
commission of 33 counts of Qualified Theft punishable under Article
310 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.

2] I am again in receipt of another affidavit denominated by

Complainant as Additional Supporting Affidavit 1 executed by Charina
C. Capada (“Capada”) on 04 March 2020. In this regard, it would be
noteworthy to mention that Annex “F”2 of the Complaint-Affidavit filed
by Complainant RDC on 22 November 2019 is an affidavit executed
as well by Capada.

3] Looking at the present instance, I am really led to great

wonderment that Complainant RDC did not offer any explanation as
1
Copy attached hereto as Annex “1”
2
Copy attached hereto as Annex “2”

COMMENT/REPLY OF SHERYL M. GUTIERREZ

to why the allegations in the Additional Supporting Affidavit were not
incorporated in Capada’s 22 November 2019 affidavit. Although, it is
crystal clear that all the allegations in Capada’s 04 March 2020
Additional Supporting Affidavit, if these are true, are supposedly
known to and obtainable by Complainant RDC when they instituted
the 33 counts of Qualified Theft against me before this Office.

4] Viewed in the light of the foregoing considerations, the

belated act of Complainant RDC in submitting Capada’s Additional
Supporting Affidavit cannot erase the impression that all the
allegations in her self-serving affidavit were concocted by
Complainant RDC to further incriminate me and tailored to “fix” fatal
drawbacks that its case theory had suffered AFTER -

4.1] failing to submit a copy of the sales invoice or receipt

with discrepancy alleged to had been discovered by
cashier-on-duty Ron Dela Cruz Sarmiento at around 1
o’clock in the afternoon on 30 October 2019;

4.2] failing to submit even one of the 33 other

invoices/receipts with alleged discrepancies;

4.3] failing to submit a copy of the CCTV footage showing

the discovery by cashier-on-duty Ron Dela Cruz Sarmiento
at around 1 o’clock in the afternoon on 30 October 2019 of
the sales invoice or receipt with alleged discrepancy;

4.4] failing to convince that the 33 CCTV footages clearly

show the overt act of stealing money as well as the specific
amount of monies I allegedly stole on October 24, 27, 28,
29, and 30, 2019 from Complainant RDC; and

4.5] failing to offer any creditable explanation that the

Php92,000.00 amount of cash shortage could be attributed
to me and Respondent Gonzaga to the exclusion of the 10
other sales clerks and all the cashiers. It bears to stress
that the cashiers are the final custodian of all cash
generated for the day’s sale of RDC’s products.

5] Noteworthy to mention, it is already held in jurisprudence

that it is not difficult to manufacture charges in the affidavits. Hence, it
is imperative that their truthfulness and veracity be tested in the
crucible of thorough examination.3 In the same breath, Kummer v.
People, (G.R. No. 174461, 11 September 2013) explained that:

3
Boyboy v. Yabut (A.C. No. 5225, 29 April 2009)

2 of 5 | P a g e COMMENT/REPLY OF GUTIERREZ
 “It is oft repeated that affidavits are usually
abbreviated and inaccurate. Oftentimes, an affidavit is
incomplete, resulting in its seeming contradiction with
the declarant's testimony in court. Generally, the affiant
is asked standard questions, coupled with ready
suggestions intended to elicit answers, that later turn
out not to be wholly descriptive of the series of events
as the affiant knows them. Worse, the process of
affidavit-taking may sometimes amount to putting
words into the affiant's mouth, thus allowing the whole
statement to be taken out of context.” (underscoring
supplied)

6] It should be pointed out at this juncture that it is explicitly

stated in paragraph no. 22 of my Comment/Reply to Rona Lynne
Faelmoca’s Supporting Affidavit and Supplemental Supporting
Affidavit, Complainant RDC has three layers of control point 4 that
makes it of utmost impossibility that a single act of felonious taking of
money by any of the 12 sales clerks of Complainant RDC will evade
immediate detection.

7] With these layers of control point in place, it cannot be

denied that all the scenarios and incidents alleged by Capada in her
two affidavits are barefaced lies and outrageous fabrications.

8] One should not stretch his imagination, far and wide, why
did Complainant RDC continuously refuse to institute a criminal
complaint against Capada despite the latter’s admission in her
Supplemental Supporting Affidavit she benefited from the alleged
felonious acts levelled against me by Complainant RDC. Paragraph
no. 5 of Capada’s Supplemenal Supporting Affidavit states the
following:
“5. Hence, I am executing this Additional Supporting
Affidavit to prove that I saw Sheryl M. Gutierrez stole
various amounts from October 24-30, 2019, that she
4
22.1] FIRST: The standard operating procedure (SOP) involved in Complainant RDC’s sales
transaction (customer - sales clerk – cashier) process. This SOP is an on-the-spot verification
that the total amount of purchased goods being written on the sales invoices or receipts by
sales clerks corresponds with the actual amount of monies that they are turning over to the
cashier-on-duty;

22.2] SECOND: Faelmoca’s one-by-one verification or examination of all the daily sales
invoices or receipts being accomplished by the 12 Sales Clerks of Complainant RDC, and that
includes my daily sales invoices or receipts for purposes of preparing Daily Sales Record for
the management of Complainant RDC.

22.3 THIRD: By way of further enhancing security measures, closed-circuit television cameras
are installed in Complainant RDC’s sales premises. These CCTV cameras monitor and record
on a daily basis all the activities of the 12 Sales Clerks while attending to customers.

3 of 5 | P a g e COMMENT/REPLY OF GUTIERREZ
 regularly confided to me that she had stolen money at
the end of our shift, including from October 24-30, 2020
and that she would gave me a portion of the said money
which she stole from RDC Corporation.” (underscoring
supplied)

9] Under Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code, accessories

are "those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime,
and without having participated therein, either as principals or
accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission" in any of the
three ways enumerated therein. One manner of participation which is
pertinent to this criminal complaint is "by profiting themselves or
assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime."

10] In a grave case of 33 counts of qualified theft, like the

instant case, hailing a person to court on a criminal charge with all
the concomitant wake of problems not only for the accused but for his
family as well, cannot be predicated on an “afterthought” affidavit that
labors under grave suspicion because, if it were true, it should have
been produced at the earliest stage of this case.

11] In a similar vein, it would be highly injudicious to rely on an

“afterthought” affidavit because blanket acceptance thereof might
result to “material damage to a potential accused’s constitutional right
to liberty and the guarantees of freedom and fair play, and exposure of
the State from the burden of unnecessary expenses in prosecuting
alleged offenses and holding trials arising from false, fraudulent or
groundless charges.”5

12] I fully trust that this Honorable Office will no longer allow
Complainant RDC’s further resort to submission of multiple
clarificatory or supplemental affidavits after realizing that the evidence
it had previously submitted was vague, inadequate or conflicting.

13] Obviously, this pernicious tactic of Complainant RDC will

serve no useful purpose as it is not in accord with orderly justice. In
fact, justice will not be served due to delay in the proceedings. Most
importantly, it cast doubt on the credibility of Complainant RDC’s
witnesses.

This Comment/Reply is being executed to attest to the truth of

the foregoing allegations and to refute the contentions of Charina C.
Capada in her Supplemental Supporting Affidavit executed on 04
March 2020.
5
People v. Delos Santos (G.R. No. 220685, 29 November 2017)

4 of 5 | P a g e COMMENT/REPLY OF GUTIERREZ
 SHERYL M. GUTIERREZ
Respondent

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, on

_____________ 2020 in the City of Malolos, Bulacan.

_____________________
Public Prosecutor

CERTIFICATION

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

that I am satisfied that she voluntarily executed and understood her
Comment/Reply.

_____________________
Public Prosecutor

5 of 5 | P a g e COMMENT/REPLY OF GUTIERREZ