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: QUALIFIED THEFT

RYAN DOLORES y BERNAL,

Accused.
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-/
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

COMES NOW the Accused, by the undersigned counsel, unto this

Honorable Court, most respectfully moves for the reconsideration of the
RESOLUTION rendered by the Honorable Regional Trial Court on 26 April
2017 on the ground THAT:

I. THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT

THE PRESENTATION OF THE EVIDENCE FOR THE
DEFENSE IS WAIVED THUS THE COURT SHALL
VACATE THE DECISION AND ALLOW THE ACCUSED
TO PRESENT HIS EVIDENCE.

The accused, on November 9, 2016, was not able to attend the

hearing because he met an accident. The accused, on his way to the said
hearing, met a head-on collision with a truck with plate no. SYX 9812. Due
to the said accident, the accused acquired a broken leg and arms and was
rendered bedridden for four months. To prove this, the accused attached a
medical certificate signed by Dr. Jose Bermudez.
 II. THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT
THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY FOR QUALIFIED THEFT IN
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 12345.

A careful examination of the records shows that on February 2,

2014, Enrique was about to wash his car parked outside their
compound in Naps Resort, Poro Point, San Fernando City, La union.
He put his Tag Huer watch and Iphone near the shift gear and went
over the water hose to get it. Upon his return, he noticed the accused
inside his car and cleaning it. Enrique asked the accused what he
was doing when he was supposed to be already taking his day-off.
The accused said to him he was cleaning his car for him. Enrique
again repeated that he need not clean his car because it is his day-
off. Accused got out of the car and left. Enrique began washing his
car. He then remembered his watch and phone but he found them
missing.
Thus, a criminal case for QUALIFIED THEFT was filed by
Enrique Iglesias against Ryan Dolores.

THE ELEMENTS OF QUALIFIED THEFT ARE NOT PRESENT:

The elements of qualified theft, punishable under Article 310 in
relation to Article 308 and 309 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, are: (a) the taking of personal property: (b) the said
property belongs to another; (c) the said taking be done with intent to
gain; (d) it be done without owner’s consent; (e) it be accomplished
without the use of violence or intimidation against persons, nor of
force upon things
These elements are not sufficiently established by private
complainant by direct evidence and the circumstantial evidence
presented are not enough to establish the element of taking.
A number of circumstantial evidence must be so credible to
establish a fact from which it may be inferred, beyond reasonable
doubt, that the elements of a crime exist and that the accused is its
perpetrator. The circumstances must be considered as a whole and
 should create an unbroken chain leading to the conclusion that the
accused authored the crime.
The circumstantial evidence presented by the private
complainant are the following:
1. The accused is their family driver and as such he has an
access to their car.
2. Enrique alleged that he put his watch and phone inside the
car and left to get the water hose and when he returned,
accused is already inside his car when he should have
already left their house to take his day-off.
3. Enrique proceeded to clean his car until he remembered
about his watch and phone but it was already missing.
4. When he confronted the accused, the latter denied it. So,
Enrique and his brother tried to find the watch and the phone
again but still could not locate it. When they return to
confront the accused, he was already gone.
5. The accused did not answer any of their calls.
6. Accused returned to the house while his employers are in
Manila but left again.
7. When Enrique returned from Manila, he discovered their
other belongings missing.
8. Accused never reported back to work since then.

THESE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ARE INSUFFICIENT:

1. Accused is the Iglesias’ family driver since 2004, that is, for
10 years already but he kept their trust for that long because
he never stole anything from them despite having an access
to their car or even to their house. It is unusual that he would
destroy this trust just for a watch and a phone.
2. When the accused saw his boss cleaning his car, he had an
initiative to help him out of concern and care even though it
is his day-off. For him, it is just a simple thing to help Enrique
in cleaning his car.
3. There is a lapse of time after the accused has left and before
Enrique remembered his watch and phone. Within this lapse
 of time, there is a possibility that another person has already
taken Enrique’s belongings.
4. The accused already left because he felt bad that Enrique
and his family, whom he served for ten years, accuse him for
stealing the phone and the watch. This is also the reason
why he did not answer his calls and never reported for work
again.
5. Enrique went to the house of his employers only to take his
personal belongings because he decided to resign from
work.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed

that the resolution rendered by the Honorable Regional Trial Court on 26
April 2017 be SET ASIDE, REVERSED, RECONSIDERED.

Other reliefs and remedies are likewise prayed for as may be just and
equitable under the premises.

This 30th day of April 2017 at San Fernando City, La Union,

Philippines.

ROSSETTE S. ANASARIO
Counsel for the Accused
Purok 9, Sta. Lucia, Aringay, La Union
PTR No. 6049685/ 01-15-15 / La Union
IBP No. 944390/ 01-13-15 / La Union
Attorney’s Roll No. 261827 2013
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0020571 June 5, 2012

MARK ANTHONY T. REFUGIA

Counsel for the Accused
(put your details here)