Republic of the Philippines

Department of Justice
NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE
CITY PROSECUTION SERVICE OF MANILA
City of Manila
BEAREAN LOGISTICS SERVICES
Complainant;
-versus-

I.S.________________
For: Qualified Theft

DANDIN TRINIDAD SECRETARIO

Respondent.
x--------------------------------------------x

COMPLAINT- AFFIDAVIT
Complainant, BEAREAN LOGISTICS SERVICES, an entity
duly established and registered in accordance with the laws of the
Republic of the Philippines and maintains an official place of
business at Room 511, Madrigal Building, Escolta Street, Binondo,
Manila City, through the undersigned counsel, respectfully avers
that;
1. The complainantis engaged in the business of providing
logistics, trucking and other ancillary services to the
public and is duly registered under pertinent laws.
Attached and made an integral part of this complaintaffidavit is a copy of registration with the Department of
Trade and Industry marked as Annex A.
2. In the regular course of business of the complainant, the
latter hired the services of Mr. Dandin Trinidad Secretario,
referred hereto as Respondent, as its Liaison, Utility and
Billing Officer whose primary function involves the
following:submission of documents with billing details to
clients and collection of the same, to make necessary
withdrawals and deposits as instructed, payment of
company bills and the processing of import related
transactions. Attached and made an integral part of this
complaint-affidavit is a copy of the Employment Contract
of the respondent marked as Annex B.
3. As mentioned above, part of the functions of the
respondent is to withdraw from the complainants bank
account upon order of his superiors. In the performance of
Page 1 of 4

the said function, on 10 July 2014, the respondent was

instructed by his superior to make a withdrawal in the
amount of THREE HUNDRED AND TEN THOUSAND PESOS
(Php310,000.00 ) in its Banco De Oro Account bearing the
number 004480048963 and under the name of Elizabeth
G. Bamba. Be it noted that the complainant is using the
account of Elizabeth G. Bamba in the regular course of its
operations for quick transactions and easy verifications.
Attached and made an integral part of this complaintaffidavit is a copy of the BDO Withdrawal Slip, marked as
Annex C.
4. After the successful withdrawal of the above-mentioned
amount, the respondent failed to report back to work. On
the same day, inquiries were made as to the latters
whereabouts but they all proved to be futile. Fortunately,
one of respondents siblings is also employed with the
complainant, the latter, together with the complainants
representative went to the residence of the respondent at
B6 L17 Benetton St. Molino Homes 1 Subdivision, Molino,
Bacoor, Cavite City on the same date. However, the
defendant cannot be found in the said address but earlier
in the day respondent left an amount of TWO HUNDRED
THOUSAND PESOS (Php 200,000.00) to his parents. The
complainant was able to recover the said amount from the
respondents parents.
5. Subsequently, a report was made to the Barangay
concerning the incident. Attached and made an integral
part of this complaint-affidavit is a copy of the entry in the
Barangay Log Book dated 10 July 2014, marked as Annex
D.
6. On 11 July 2014, complainant reported the incident and
loss to BDO Dasmarias St. BinondoBranch, the latter
issued an Affidavit of Loss confirming the said incident.
Attached and made an integral part of this complaintaffidavit is a copy of the Affidavit of Loss issued by the
said bank, marked as Annex D.
7. Inquiries were made as to the whereabouts of the
respondent but they all proved to be futile. The defendant
failed and refused, and continues to fail and refuse to
show himself.
8. The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, under Article
308, laid down the elements of the crime of Simple Theft,
they are as follows 1. That there be taking of personal
property; 2. That the 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 done without the use of violence

Page 2 of 4

against or intimidation of persons or force upon things.

(Emphasis supplied)
9. Theft is qualified under Article 310 of the same Code when
the following elements are present: 1. Theft is committed
by a domestic servant; 2. Theft is committed with
grave abuse of confidence; 3. The property taken is
either a motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle; 4. The
property consists of coconut taken from the plantation; 5.
The property stolen is fish from the pond or fishery; and 6.
The property was taken on the occasion of fire,
earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption among others.
(Emphasis supplied)
10. Given the foregoing, the mere taking of the property of
another with intent to gain constitutes the crime of theft
and when coupled with abuse of trust and confidence the
crime is qualified theft.
11. Here, the fact that the defendant is in a position that
enjoys the confidence of the complainant, his act of taking
the subject amount of money with intent to gain, qualified
his act.
12. Moreover,the recovery of a part of the subject amount
in no way removes the act of the defendant from the
ambit of qualified theft. What is material is the taking of
the property of another with intent to gain and abuse of
confidence. The Supreme Court has held in the case of
Anita Miranda versus the People of the Philippines 1
to wit:
Here, the prosecution was able to prove
beyond reasonable doubt that the amount
of P797,187.85 taken does not belong to
petitioner but to VCCI and that petitioner
took it without VCCIs consent and with grave
abuse of confidence by taking advantage of
her position as accountant and bookkeeper.
The prosecutions evidence proved that
petitioner was entrusted with checks payable
to VCCI or Viva by virtue of her position as
accountant and bookkeeper.
13. In addition, in the case of People of the Philippines
versus Ruben Sison2 the Supreme Court elucidated on
the peculiarities of the crime of Qualified Theft, to wit:

1G.R. No. 176298, 25 January 2012

2G.R. No. 123183, 19 January 2000

Page 3 of 4

The crime perpetuated by appellant against

his employer, the Philippine Commercial and
Industrial Bank (PCIB), is qualified theft.
Appellant could not have committed the crime
had he not been holding the position of
Luneta Branch Operation Officer which gave
him not only sole access to the bank vault but
also control of the access of all bank
employees in that branch, except the Branch
Manager, to confidential and highly delicate
computerized security systems designed to
safeguard, among others, the integrity of
telegraphic fund transfers and account names
of bank clients. The management of the PCIB
reposed its trust and confidence in the
appellant as its Luneta Branch Operation
Officer, and it was this trust and confidence
which he exploited to enrich himself to the
damage and prejudice of PCIB in the amount
of P6,000,000.00.
14. Accordingly, the complainant, through the undersigned
counsel, executed this complaint-affidavit for the purpose
of attesting the truth of the foregoing statements and to
charge the respondent Dandin Trinidad Secretario with the
crime of Theft, qualified by abuse of trust and confidence
under Article 308 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code of
the Philippines respectively.

Page 4 of 4