Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
4TH Judicial Region
Branch 50
Hall of Justice
Sta. Monica, Puerto Princesa City
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff, Criminal Case No.: 01660013
FOR: THEFT
-versus-
MR. BIG GUY
MR. SMALL GUY
Accused.
x---------------------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PROSECUTION
COMES NOW, the public prosecution unto his Honorable Court, most
respectfully submits this Memorandum:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The prosecution, through the undersigned Public Prosecutor, charges
Mr. Big Guy, for violation of Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code,
otherwise known as Theft. The accused, with intent to gain but without
violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, and
without knowledge and consent of the owner, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously take, steal the Teddy Bear owned by Mr. Bean,
with value of PHP 15,000.00, to the damage and prejudice of the latter.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. On January 23, 2022, Mr. Bean, the private complainant went to
NCCC Mall Palawan with Teddy, his teddy bear ever since when he
was little, which his parents bought him for PHP 15,000.00. The
Judicial Affidavit of Mr. Bean, the Teddy Bear, and the receipt thereof
has been previously marked as Exhibit “A”, “B” and “C”.
2. On the same date, Mr. Bean went to the grocery section of the said
mall with Teddy.
3. While strolling in the grocery section, Mr. Bean put Teddy in front of
his push cart. He turned his back against his push cart because he
looked for some corned beef which was about 5 meters away from
his current position.
4. When he got back to his push cart, he noticed that Teddy is missing.
5. Upon noticing that Teddy is missing, he panicked and look
everywhere for Teddy.
6. At lane 9 of the grocery store, he found a man with a toddler, the
latter holding a teddy bear that looks exactly like my Teddy.
7. Mr. Bean approached the man, Mr. Big Guy, and asked him if he can
examine the teddy bear that his toddler has been holding.
8. At this juncture, Mr. Big Guy refused and it is obvious in his actions
that he is being uneasy and agitated. Mr. Bean also noticed the
“toddler” that he is only in disguise. He is in fact Mr. Small Guy, who
is wearing baby clothes with baby hat on his head and pacifier on his
mouth to make it appear like a toddler.
9. Mr. Bean tried to grab Teddy from the “toddler” who is Mr. Small
Guy, but the latter immediately hid Teddy inside his shirt.
10. Mr. Bean spoke to Mr. Big Guy and told him that he clearly
recognized the teddy bear to be my Teddy because of the white
marking at the right leg of Teddy.
11. Mr. Big Guy only answered Mr. Bean with “No! That is not your teddy
bear! That is my “sons’”. After that, he immediately walked away.
12. Mr. Bean tried to go after them but they were like flashes and I
missed my sight over them. Last thing I knew was they were already
boarding a container van, driven by Mr. Big Guy and the “toddler”,
Mr. Small Guy was on the passenger seat.
ISSUE
Whether or not Mr. Big Guy and Mr. Small Guy committed the crime of
theft.
ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS
1. Mr. Big Guy and Mr. Small Guy committed acts in violation of Article
308 of the Revised Penal Code.
2. Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code provides that theft is
committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence
against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal
property of another without the latter’s consent. Thus, under the said
provision, the crime of theft has the following elements:
a. There is taking of personal property;
b. The property belongs to another;
c. The taking was done with intent to gain;
d. The taking away was done without the consent of the owner; and
e. The taking away id accomplished without violence against or
intimidation of persons nor force upon things.
2. Likewise, it was held in the case of Igdalino vs People1 that:
For the crime of theft to prosper, it must be established
beyond doubt that the accused had the intent to steal
the personal property. This animus furandi pertains to
the intent to deprive another of his or her ownership or
possession or personal property, apart from but
concurrent with the general criminal intent which is an
essential element of dolo malus. The intent to steal is
presumed from the taking of personal property without
the consent of the owner or its lawful possessor. As in all
presumptions, this may be rebutted by evidence showing
that the accuse took the personal property under a bona
fide belief that he owns the property.
3. In the instant case, it may be deduced that the Accused has intent to
steal the personal property of Mr. Bean. Facts deduced that the accused
took Teddy belonging to Mr. Bean. Furthermore, it is proven in the instant
case that elements of theft are present. The private complainant as the
witness himself identified his personal property, Teddy, to be in possession
of Mr. Big Guy and Mr. Small guy. Mr. Bean immediately took his action to
recover Teddy, but to no avail. The CCTV operator of the NCCC mall also
identified the taking of Mr Big Guy as seen on the CCTV footage.
Thus, the acts of the accused constitute theft.
1
GR No. 233033, July 23, 2018
POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION OF WITNESSES
1. Mr. Bean positively identified the accused, Mr. Big Guy and Mr. Small
Guy, to be the person unlawfully took Teddy in NCCC Mall.
2. It was held in the case of People vs Bugna that:
Positive identification of the accused in a criminal
case is vital to the prosecution because it can
make or break the case. This is so because the
prosecution has the burden to prove the
commission of the crime and the positive
identification with moral certainty of the accused
as the perpetrator thereof.
3. In this case, the accused were positively identified by Mr. Bean, Mr. Lloyd
Smith, and Mr. Holmes, the CCTV Footage Operator. The Judicial Affidavits
of Lloyd Smith and Holmes have been previously marked as Exhibit “D” and
“E”. The CCTV Footage of NCCC Mall operated by Holmes, stopped at
1:23pm, showing the actual taking of teddy by Big Guy, has been previously
marked as Exhibit “F”.
4. The witnesses have no improper motive or intent imputed who
positively identified the accused for the offense. Furthermore, their
testimonies were not provided for with ill motive and bias stand, making
their testimonies credible. The witnesses have no reason to lie and
statements given by them to meet the ends of justice.
ACCUSED USED ALIBI AS A DEFENSE
1. The accused in this case denies their presence in the place where the
crime was committed. They alleged that they were outside Puerto Princesa
when the crime was committed.
2. They also alleged that there is physical impossibility to be in the place
where the crim was committed.
3. Physical impossibility refers not only to the geographical distance
between the place where the accused was and the place where the crime
was committed when the crime transpired, but more importantly, the
facility of access between two places. Due to its doubtful nature, alibi must
be supported by clear and convincing proof.2
2
People vs Brioso, GR No. 209344, June 27, 2016
4. In the instant case, the accused failed to prove that it was physically
impossible for him to be in the NCCC Mall where the taking happened. He
failed to prove that he was in Aborlan, a municipality in the southern part
of Palawan, that is one (1) hour away from NCCC Mall.
5. For the defense of physical impossibility to be used as adefense, it must
be established that they were so far and could not have been physically
present at the crime scene and is immediate vicinity when the crime was
committed.3
RELIEFS
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is prayed to this Honorable
Court that a judgement against Mr. Big Guy and Mr. Small Guy, and that the
latter be convicted for the crime of theft beyond reasonable double, and
that the accused be liable for actual, moral and exemplary damages to Mr.
Bean.
Other reliefs just and equitable is likewise prayed for.
June 15, 2022. City of Puerto Princesa.
PHILLIS YVON MARSH D. BAGUIO
City Prosecutor
3
People vs Delos Santos, GR No. 208759, June 22, 2016
