PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS WINNIE MOLINA

Criminal Case No. 14674-14

For analysis is the case for Qualified Theft filed by NORALYN ANTONIO AGUINALDO
against WINNIE BAULAN MOLINA, her housemaid. Accused allegedly stole an amount of
One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (PHP 150,000.00) during her employment with
complainant on June 1, 2010.

I.

Version of the Complainant

Complainant is Noralyn Antonio Aguinado, 38 years old, is a businesswoman and

currently living at Brgy. Lumbad, Dingras Ilocos Norte with her common law husband, Domingo
Lagumbay, and her two children.
From the interview of the complainant, the following version is established:
On May 29, 2010 (Saturday) at around lunch time, Noralyn Aguinaldo (Noralyn), while
resting in the bahay kubo outside her home, heard an announcement by the local radio station
DWFB Radyo ng Bayan, Laoag City about a person who was seeking employment as a
housemaid. Desperate for a helper, she immediately called the mobile number in the broadcast.
Noralyn and accused, Winnie Molina (Winnie) talked over the phone and met at Dingras Public
Market. Winnie presented herself as one Irene Monte, originally from Brgy. Lagui-Sail, Laoag
City but claimed that she was currently residing at Brgy. Saludares/Cali, Dingras with her live-in
partner. Thereafter, they proceeded to Noralyns house in Brgy. Lumbad.
Winnies chores included cooking their meals and doing their laundry. Winnie was
likewise charged to keep watch over their house since Noralyn, her common law husband and
their daughter attend to their stalls in Dingras and Solsona on most days, except Mondays and
Fridays. She also told the accused not to worry about cleaning inside their house. The room of
the accused was adjacent to the room of Noralyn and her husband. They both settled that accused
would officially start her services the following day. She likewise told accused to proceed to
Dingras Public Market so that they would go home together at lunch.
On May 30 (Sunday), Noralyn and her common law husband waited for the accused at
their market stall however the latter did not show up at the market. Hungry, Noralyns husband
went home for breakfast however, to his surprise, he saw Winnie already cleaning the house and
the kitchen. When Noralyn came home at lunch time, the husband informed her that the
housemaid had arrived and had already started cleaning and washing the pots and pans in their
kitchen.

On May 31 (Monday), Noralyn, her husband and their children travelled to Laoag City
for several errands. Noralyns husband went to BPI Family Savings Bank to withdraw their
money. That night, Noralyn counted all the money they had, including those that her husband
had withdrawn from the bank, but separated the money as payment for the vehicle which they
planned to purchase on June 2 (Wednesday). She placed said money inside a small bag and put it
inside the cabinet inside the master bedroom.
On June 1 (Tuesday), at around 7:00 AM, the spouses and their daughter left for Solsona
Public Market. Their son and accused, stayed in the house. Before leaving, Noralyn specifically
instructed the accused to not go inside the house. To make sure, Noralyn placed their pitbull in
front of their front door to prevent anyone, including the accused, to go inside the house.
At around 8:00 AM, while at the public market, one of their neighbours informed
Noralyn he saw accused allegedly carrying two (2) yellow pails near the national road, flagging
down a ride. Surprised, Noralyn and her husband immediately went home to Dingras. The
spouses went directly to the alleged house of accused in Brgy. Saludares/Cali but she was not
there. In fact, no one knew who Winnie Molina was. Dumbfounded, they hastily went back to
their home and there they saw that their backdoor was forcibly opened. When they entered their
house, everything was scattered. Noralyn immediately proceeded to the cabinet where she kept
the bag of money but to her dismay, it was gone. The two (2) yellow pails where they kept coins
were likewise gone.
They reported the incident to the PNP-Dingras. Noralyns husband and members of the
PNP-Dingras went to the accused alleged residence in Brgy. Lagui-Sail, Laoag but again, not one
of the residents, including the Brgy. Captain knew Winnie Molina a.k.a Irene Monte.
On August 5, 2010, Noralyn was informed that PNP Laoag had apprehended the accused.
She and her husband immediately went to the Laoag Police Station and confronted the accused,
who admitted to the crime. The identity of the accused was likewise confirmed.

II.

Version of the Accused:

Accused is Winnie Baulan Molina, 33 years old, single and a native of Zone 7,
Bangued, Abra but maintains a residence with her live-in partner at Brgy. Saludares/Cali,
Dingras, Ilocos Norte. She has two (2) young children with her live-in partner.
From the interview of the accused the following version is established:
On June 1 to June 4, 2010, accused was employed by Noralyn Aguinaldo as a housemaid.
She heard of the employment from an advertisement broadcasted by the local radio station that
complainant was looking for a maid in their home. Needing experience for her pending job order
for Singapore, she went to the radio station and presented herself. Thereafter, Noralyn invited

Winnie to her home in Dingras. They met at the Public Market. They proceeded to complainants
house. Noralyn instructed Winnie to just clean and do the laundry because she did not know how
to cook. Noralyn showed Winnie her room located outside the main house but adjacent to the
masters bedroom. They agreed that she will officially start the next day.
The following day, she went to Dingras Public Market to meet up with Noralyn as agreed
upon. By lunchtime, they went home together and Noralyn introduced to her the other members
of the household. During her stay, Winnie informed Noralyn that she was four (4) months
pregnant and that she will be leaving soon. She was advised by the latter to not strain herself too
much and not to lift heavy things.
She officially terminated her employment with Noralyn in the morning of June 4. Since
Noralyn and her common law husband was in their stall in Solsona Public Market, the accused
informed Noralyns brother that she will be leaving that same day.
On October 19, 2011, she left for Singapore to work as a domestic helper and stayed
there for four (4) years. On April 15, 2015, she came home to the Philippines. She was arrested
on June 26, 2015 at her home in Dingras by virtue of a warrant served by the PNP-CIDG. She is
currently detained at the Ilocos Norte Provincial Jail.

III.

Testimonies of the Witnesses

The evidence of the complainant consisted of the testimonies of two (2) witnesses,
namely: Reynaldo Aguinaldo and Salindeg Balibao.
The first complainant witness Reynaldo Aguinaldo (Reynaldo), 64, married and a
resident of Brgy. Lumbad, Dingras, is the brother of complainant. He alleges that at about eight
oclock in the morning of June 1, 2010, he met accused while carrying two (2) yellow pails, at
the east road of Noralyns home headed towards the National Highway. Curious, he stopped
accused and asked where Winnie was heading. Curious, he asked to examine the two pails she
was holding and he saw that it contained coins and paper bills and clothes. He then asked where
he was headed. The accused claimed that she was instructed by Noralyn to bring the said coins to
their stall.
During the investigation, the PNP-Dingras showed Reynaldo a picture of the accused
which he positively identified as the housemaid of her sister whom he saw was in possession of
the two (2) pails of money and clothes.
The second complainant witness Salindeg Balibao (Salindeg), 28, single and likewise a
resident of Brgy. Lumbad, Dingras. He alleges that while on his way to Solsona Public Market
on his tricycle, he saw accused along the National Highway holding two yellow pails trying to

get a ride. She flagged him and he stopped but the accused hesitated and desisted, recognizing
that it was a neighbour of Noralyn.
IV.

Events leading to the arrest of accused by members of the CIDG

Accused was first apprehended in August 5, 2010 by the PNP-Laoag for a separate crime
for Qualified Theft. The PNP-Dingras notified complainant regarding the arrest which prompted
Noralyn and her husband to confirm whether or not the suspect was their former housemaid.
At the PNP-Laoag Police Station, the spouses positively identified the suspect as their
former housemaid. However, she was released when she chose to avail of her right for
preliminary investigation provided under Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Court.
During the period from such release, she was able to leave the country and worked
overseas as a domestic helper. She came back on April 15, 2015 for her childs graduation. The
neighbours who were aware of the crime, notified Noralyn of Winnies arrival. She then reported
such fact to the PNP-Dingras.
Despite several demands of Noralyn to effect the arrest of accused, the PNP-Dingras
failed to act on her request citing several excuses such as there was no warrant and that here
should be prior surveillance. Frustrated by the lack of action from the police for almost two (2)
weeks, the complainant personally sought the help of the NBI and CIDG in Laoag City.
The CIDG after conducting surveillance finally apprehended the accused on June 26,
2015 at around 11:30 AM at Brgy. Cali, Dingras, Ilocos Norte by virtue of a warrant of arrest
issued by Hon. Judge Francisco R.D. Quilala of RTC, FJR, Br. 14, Laoag City, Ilocos Norte
dated June 28, 2011 for violation Qualified Theft docketed under CC# 14675-14 with no
recommended bail bond.
V.

Case Analysis

The crime charged against accused is Qualified Theft. The elements of qualified theft,
punishable under Article 310 in relation to Articles 308 and 309 of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC), 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 the owner's consent; (e) it be
accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons, nor of force upon
things; and (f) it be done under any of the circumstances enumerated in Article 310 of the RPC,
i.e. a domestic servant.
All of the foregoing elements are present in this case.
First. The presence of the first and second elements is abundantly clear.
In a long line of cases, the Supreme Court has always applied the presumption that where
property has been stolen and the stolen property is found in the possession of the accused gives

rise to the presumption that the accused is the taker of the stolen property. This presumption is
applicable to the present case.
Both the complainant witnesses Reynaldo and Salindeg affirm that they saw accused
carrying two yellow pails containing the missing money owned by complainant. The
complainant was likewise consistent in establishing that money in coins and paper bills were
stolen and that said coins were kept in two yellow pails inside their home. This statement was
identical with the statement of witness Reynaldo, who personally saw the coins and paper bills
inside the yellow pail carried away by the accused.
Second. The element of intent to gain is amply established.
Animus lucrandi, or intent to gain, is an internal act which can be established through the
overt acts of the offender. Although proof as to motive for the crime is essential when the
evidence of the theft is circumstantial, the intent to gain or animus lucrandi is the usual motive to
be presumed from all furtive taking of useful property appertaining to another, unless special
circumstances reveal a different intent on the part of the perpetrator. "xxx (T)he intent to gain
may be presumed from the proven unlawful taking. (Avecilla vs. People, 209 SCRA 466)
In this case, the amount of the stolen money (PHP 150,000) is of valuable consideration.
Hence, it is presumed that the accused took the money with the intent of appropriating the same
for her personal consumption.
Third. Equally clear and undisputed is the presence of the fourth and fifth element.
Both complainant and accused affirm that aside from her usual chores of cooking,
cleaning and doing laundry, she was also entrusted to watch over their house when the spouses
would leave for their business. The complainant would specifically instruct accused not to enter
the house and as precautionary measure, complainant would chain their dog at the terrace in
order to block the entrance. It is apparent that accused cannot enter the house without the consent
of the homeowners.
It is immaterial that she employed force in opening the back door to gain entry in the
house. What is important is that she was indifferent to the trust and confidence reposed unto her
by her employer as their housemaid.
Fourth. The accused committed the crime of theft as a domestic servant.
In Viray vs People (GR No. 205180), the Court ruled that in order to warrant the
conviction and, hence, imposition of the penalty for qualified theft, there must be an allegation in
the information and proof that there existed between the offended party and the accused such
high degree of confidence.
The above ruling does not apply in the present case.

It is an established precept that when the offender is a domestic servant, it is not

necessary to show that he be committed the crime with grave abuse of confidence. The phrase
with grave abuse of confidence is separated by the word or from the term domestic servant
in Article 310, RPC. Hence, theft by a domestic servant is always qualified.
A. Circumstantial Evidence
It is undisputed that there was no direct evidence pointing to accused for the actual taking
or stealing of the missing money because no one saw her in flagrante delicto, that is, in the very
act of committing the crime. All that was established is that she was seen in possession of two (2)
yellow pails containing the missing money.
Nevertheless, under our laws and jurisprudence, the lack or absence of direct evidence
does not necessarily mean that the guilt of an accused cannot be proved by evidence other than
direct evidence. Direct evidence is not the sole means of establishing guilt beyond reasonable
doubt since circumstantial evidence, if sufficient, can supplant its absence. The crime charged
may also be proved by circumstantial evidence, sometimes referred to as indirect or presumptive
evidence.
It is necessary, therefore, that we rely on circumstantial evidence to prove the culpability
of the accused.
Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which proves a fact or series of facts from which
the facts in issue may be established by inference. To warrant conviction of the accused based
on circumstantial evidence, these requisite must concur:
1. There is more than one circumstance;
2. The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
3. The combination of the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt. (Rule 133, Sec 4, Revised Rules on Evidence)
To sustain a conviction based on circumstantial evidence therefore, it is essential that the
circumstantial evidence presented must constitute an unbroken chain which leads one to a fair
and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of the others, as the guilty
person. The circumstantial evidence must exclude the possibility that some other person has
committed the crime. (Aoas v. People, G.R. No. 155339)
In the present case, the following are the circumstantial evidence pointing to the guilt of
the accused:
First, the accused was positively identified by the two complainant witnesses as the housemaid
of the complainant. Both were consistent in their testimonies with respect to the yellow pails that
the accused was allegedly carrying, the contents of said pails and the time and date of the
commission of the crime.

Second, that according to the owner of a store across the complainants house, on the night
before the alleged crime, the accused went to said store to buy load. The store owner, who
refused to be named, saw accused peeping through the window of complainants room.
Complainant, on the other hand, avers that at that time, she was counting their money.
Third, that in the morning of May 31, 2010 (Monday), accused requested Magdalena Aguinaldo,
sister-in-law of the complainant, to accompany her and explore the surrounding areas of
complainants home. There, accused saw the road leading to the national highway.
Fourth, that on June 1, 2010, when the complainant, her husband and their daughter left for
Solsona Public Market, accused hastily told the complainants son to eat his breakfast, and forced
the latter to go to the computer shop, giving him twenty pesos as rental money.
The standard that should be observed by the courts in appreciating circumstantial
evidence was extensively discussed in the case of People v. Modesto, thus:
No general rule can be laid down as to the quantity of circumstantial evidence
which in any case will suffice. All the circumstances proved must be consistent
with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at
the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent, and with every
other rational hypothesis except that of guilt. It has been said, and we believe
correctly, that the circumstances proved should constitute an unbroken chain
which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion which points to the accused, to
the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person. From all the circumstances, there
should be a combination of evidence which in the ordinary and natural course of
things, leaves no room for reasonable doubt as to his guilt. Stated in another way,
where the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more
explanations, one of which is consistent with innocence and the other with guilt,
the evidence does not fulfil the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to
convict the accused.
Following a hard look and lengthy evaluation of pieces of evidence, we are convinced and
satisfied that the chain of circumstances proved by the prosecution with trustworthy and reliable
proofs have established solid and concrete facts, the collective and combined weight of which
produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
B. Complainants Lack of Ill-Motive and Witnesses Credibility
It is a jurisprudential norm that for testimonial evidence to be believed, it must not only
come from a credible witness but must be credible in itself tested by human experience,
observation, common knowledge and accepted conduct that has evolved through the years.

Daggers v. Van Dyck, illuminates:

Evidence to be believed, must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible
witness, but it must be credible in itself such as the common experience and
observation of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances. We
have no test of the truth of human testimony, except its conformity to our
knowledge, observation, and experience. Whatever is repugnant to these belongs
to the miraculous and is outside of judicial cognizance.
During the separate interviews of the complainant and witnesses, we had the opportunity of
observing their manner and demeanour and were convinced of their credibility. Complainant
and her witnesses appeared to be simple and truthful people, whose testimonies were coherent,
steady and firm, free from any material and serious contradictions.
There is no sufficient proof to engender a belief that the case was filed by complainants
in bad faith. The complainants cannot gain anything from the filing of a frivolous suit. The
complainant had already incurred a significant amount of expenses in the pursuance of the case.
She had also exhausted all reasonable efforts in order to recover what was stolen from her. It
would be senseless to go to such efforts in order to harass a stranger without acquiring any
benefit therefrom. There is no evidence of ill-motive on the part of complainant to influence her
in fabricating criminal charges against Winnie. In fact, accused admits that complainant and her
family were pleasant people thereby enhancing the standing of Noralyn to file the charges.
In addition, we found both the testimony of complainants and the testimonies of the
witnesses credible in itself. Noralyns ordeal was entered into the police blotter immediately
after the crime, negating any opportunity of concoction. More importantly, Noralyn remained
consistent in both her separate interviews even when we tried to impeach her narration.
C. Flight of the accused
It is undeniable that accused worked for complainant for only four (4) days. Accused
claims that she had informed her employer that she was to resign as their housemaid because she
was four (4) months pregnant such that her disappearance is not sudden, but rather, prearranged
with complainant. Accused also claims that she had a pending job order for Singapore. She
further alleges that she had a miscarriage in August.
We are not convinced with the statements of the accused.
Flight in criminal law is the evading of the course of justice by voluntarily withdrawing
oneself in order to avoid arrest or detention or the institution or continuance of criminal
proceedings. (US vs Alegado, GR No. L-8448)

It is apparent that the disappearance of the accused at the conclusion was sudden and
intended. We cannot comprehend any positive result but rather construe the flight of the accused
as indicative of her guilt and awareness that she has no tenable defense.
Without satisfactory explanation, flight is a clear and positive evidence of guilt. . . . It is a
well-entrenched doctrine that the flight of an accused and his act of hiding until he was arrested
are circumstances highly indicative of guilt, for as has long been wisely said, the wicked flees
even when no man pursueth, but the righteous is as bold as a lion. (People vs Sison, GR No.
123183, January 19, 2000)
The accused was nowhere to be found right after the crime was committed. Neither was
she at her residences at Dingras nor Laoag. In fact, it was discovered that she was never a
resident of Brgy. Lagui-Sail. This fabrication leads us to believe that the commission of the crime
and her subsequent escape were premeditated.
D. The Aurea Nolasco Case.
Accused is currently detained at the Ilocos Norte Provincial Jail for two (2) separate cases
for the same crime. The first being the present case filed by complainant Noralyn and the second
complaint filed by Aurea Nolasco of Laoag City.
In the second case filed by Aurea Nolasco, she alleges that she learned of accused
through the broadcast of a local radio station. Accused presented herself as one Joanna Barroga,
a resident of Brgy. 7-A of Laoag City. Complainant Aurea employed accused as her housemaid
however, disappeared with her jewelleries after just one day. When accused was arrested, she
admitted to the crime. The said stolen properties where recovered from a pawnshop in Batac
City, Ilocos Norte with the PNP-Laoag. The incident was also reported on a regional news
station.
The Aurea case, while inconclusive to convict the accused in the present case, raises the
premise that accused is habitually engaged in the crime considering that the same modus is
employed in both the broadcasts, the use of an alias, the brief periods of stay, the sudden
disappearance and the stolen properties. The consecutive charges against her cast serious doubt
upon her credibility and enhances her culpability for the crime in the present case.
E. Compromise Agreement.
Article 2028 of the Civil Code defines a compromise as a contract whereby the parties,
by making reciprocal concessions, avoid litigation or put an end to one already commenced.
The purpose of compromise is to settle the claims of the parties and bar all future disputes
and controversies. However, criminal liability is not affected by compromise for it is a public
offense which must be prosecuted and punished by the Government on its own motion, though
complete reparation should have been made of the damages suffered by the offended party. A

criminal case is committed against the People, and the offended party may not waive or
extinguish the criminal liability that the law imposes for the commission of the offense.
Moreover, a compromise is not one of the grounds prescribed by the Revised Penal Code for the
extinction of criminal liability. (Diaz v. Davao Light & Power Corp., et al., G.R. No. 160959,
April 4, 2007)
Both complainant and accused acknowledges the presence of a compromise agreement
between them to settle the case. It is discernable then that by agreeing to a settlement, the
accused has admitted by implication that her guilt on the commission of the said crime for a
reasonable person who honestly believes her innocence would never agree to such a settlement.
F. Credibility of the Accused.
The accused claims that she left her employment with complainant because: (1) she was
pregnant, (2) she was scheduled to leave for Singapore and (3) that she had a miscarriage.
Her claims are without merit.
It is common knowledge based on human experience that the responsibilities of a
domestic helper abroad are physically demanding and emotionally draining. It is highly
improbable that a woman who was four months pregnant and further claiming that her pregnancy
was high-risk would accept a job order as a domestic helper abroad given her state. Her claim of
miscarriage is similarly baffling because it would seem that she had anticipated her miscarriage
just before she left for Singapore.
She equally claims that her employment with complainant was for her to get experience
and get a certificate to back up her resume for her jo11b abroad.
We are not persuaded.
Granting for the sake of argument that her employment was for her to get the experience
needed for her job abroad, it is strange for accused to misrepresent herself with respect to her
name and address when such pieces of information are vital for purposes of employment is
highly doubtful and absurd that such personal circumstances be simulated in order to increase her
chances of getting employment abroad.
She also claims that she is a Registered Nurse. However, based on PRC records, no
person under the name of Winnie Baulana Molina or Winnie Molina was found.
The fabrications and discripancies in her personal circumstances and the inconsistencies
in her claims lead us to doubt the credibility and the innocence of the accused.

VI.

Lapses of the PNP-Dingras.

While not material to the case at hand, it is significant to note that the arrest of the
accused came without challenges owing to the unresponsiveness of the members of the PNPDingras.
The complainant alleges that she had persistently notified the PNP-Dingras to arrest the
accused when she came home from Singapore in April, 2015. The latter refused to act on her
requests citing excuses such as lack of a warrant, surveillance and heavy workloads.
After their numerous demands have proven to be unavailing, the complainant and her
husband personally engaged the services of NBI and CIDG, both of which acted immediately
resulting to the arrest of the accused.

VII.

Conclusion

Anent the aforementioned facts, we resolve to convict the accused Winnie Baulan
Molina, guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the commission of the crime for Qualified Theft. The
subsequent compromise agreement does not extinguish the criminal liability of the accused.