You are on page 1of 5

Republic of the Philippines

First Judicial Region


REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Branch 44
San Fernando City, La Union

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,


Plaintiff, CRIM. CASE NO. 12345

-versus- for

RYAN DOLORES y BERNAL, QUALIFIED THEFT


Accused.
x-------------------------------------------x

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Accused, through counsel, unto this Honorable Court,


most respectfully moves for the reconsideration of the Decision
rendered by this Court on April 26, 2017 on the ground that:

THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE


ACCUSED BASED MERELY ON CIRCUMSTANCIAL
EVIDENCE.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a case for Qualified Theft filed against accused


Ryan Dolores y Bernal. Pre-trial Conference was completed
and terminated on November 5, 2014. The prosecution
completed their testimony while accused failed to appear,
thus, defense counsel was constrained to terminate its
presentation and submitted the case for decision.

On April 26, 2017, a Decision convicting the accused was


promulgated.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

Ryan Dolores is the family driver of private complainants.


Private complainants were not the ones who personally
employed the accused as their family driver.

As culled from the prosecution, complainant Enrique put


his Tag Heuer watch and Iphone cellphone near the shift gear
of his car then went over the water hose to get it to clean his
car. Upon his return, he noticed the accused inside the car,
cleaning. Enrique advised Ryan to stop cleaning the car since
that day was his day-off. Accused then got out of the car and
left. While washing his car, Enrique remembered his watch
and phone. When he checked the shift gear, he was surprised
to find them missing. He looked for the accused and him in
the latter’s room. Accused was not in possession of the
missing properties when found by private complainant.

A careful examination of the record shows that the


participation of the accused in the alleged crime was not
proven beyond reasonable doubt by direct evidence. The Court
deemed the circumstances presented by the prosecution
sufficient for convicting the accused relative to the missing
watch and cellphone.

ISSUE

Whether or not the court erred in convicting the accused


based merely on circumstantial evidence

ARGUMENT

Yes, the Court erred in convicting the accused based


merely on circumstantial evidence.

No less than our Constitution provides the presumption


that the accused is innocent until proven otherwise by proof
beyond reasonable doubt. Such proof requires moral certainty,
or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind. Additionally, the prosecution must rely on
the strength of its evidence, which is not merely circumstantial
evidence insufficient to prove guilt.

Under the law, to warrant a conviction of the crime of


qualified theft, the prosecution should have proven the
following elements: (1) Taking of personal property; (2) That
the said property belongs to another; (3) That the said taking
be done with intent to gain; (4) That it be done without the
owner’s consent; (5) That it be accomplished without the use
of violence or intimidation against persons, nor of force upon
things; (6) That it be done with grave abuse of confidence.

It is true that circumstantial evidence, if sufficient, may


be used to convict the accused. Unfortunately for the
prosecution, all the elements of the crime were never proven
beyond reasonable doubt.

During the hearing of the case, the only thing the


prosecution did was to rely on mere assumptions.

First, the prosecution confirmed that no one


witnessed the actual taking of the watch and the phone.
To establish unlawful taking, the court cannot merely rely on
the assertion that the accused was present on that day.The
court cannot speculate nor surmise on the purpose of his
presence. While the prosecution insists that accused's
presence on the day of the unlawful act, his presence himself
does not indicate such unlawful taking.

Second, accused did not have exclusive access to the


car when the properties went missing. In fact, Joy and
Macky, who are employees of private complainants, could
enter the car and get the missing phone and watch. This only
means that, aside from the accused, any other person may
have entered the car and may have taken the alleged missing
properties. Indeed, in order to justify the contention that
accused took the items in the car, it is necessary to prove the
impossibility that no other person has committed the crime.
However, given that accused was not the only person who
could get into the car, the Court cannot exclude the
possibility that some other person may have had
committed the alleged unlawful taking against the
complainant.
The prosecution attempted to prove the taking through
circumstantial evidence. However, the circumstantial
evidences relied upon by the prosecution merely revealed that
on the 2nd day of February 2014, accused reported for work.
His presence that day proved neither that he took the
properties nor that he abused the confidence reposed on him.
His presence never proved the guilt of the accused.

It is also worthy to consider the fact the complainants


were not the ones who personally employed the accused as
their family driver. Enrique may have introduced accused for
possible employment to his mother, but the former’s
participation is limited to such fact.

In conclusion, the first and most basic element of


qualified theft was not established. The prosecution was,
therefore, unsuccessful in proving beyond reasonable doubt
that the petitioner committed the crime of qualified theft.
Thus, it was incorrect for the honorable court to render its
decision based merely on the insufficient circumstances
presented by the prosecution.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most


respectfully prayed that the decision rendered by the
Honorable Court on 27 April 2017 be SET ASIDE, REVERSED,
and RECONSIDERED.

Other reliefs and remedies are likewise prayed for as may


be just and equitabe under the premises.

San Juan, La Union, May 2, 2017.

ATTY. FRANELI JESSA C. JARAMILLA


Counsel for the Accused
2nd F, Culbi Bldg., San Juan, La Union
PTR No. 123123/ 01-15-17/ La Union
IBP No. 123123/ 01-13-17/ La Union
Attorney's Roll No. 123123
MCLE Compliance No. 123123
NOTICE OF HEARING

Prosecutor George Ferrer


Public Prosecutor

Atty. Jennifer Kate Cariaso


Clerk of Court
RTC Branch 44
San Fernando City, La Union

Greetings!

Please take notice that the foregoing Motion for


Reconsideration shall be submitted for the consideration and
approval of the Honorable Court immediately upon receipt
hereof.

ATTY. FRANELI JESSA C. JARAMILLA


Counsel for the Accused