Republic of the Philippines

Province of Negros Occidental

OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR
3RD Floor, Hall of Justice
Bacolod City
-o0oBETHYL JOY O. PORRAS
Complainant

CRIM CASE NO.____________

NPS Docket No.V1-03-15A-5678

-versusMICHAEL SASON O. BASA

Respondents
x----------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
The respondent, MICHAEL SASON O. BASA was charged for the
crime of THEFT in a complaint filed by Ms. BETHYL O. PORRAS.
In support of his complaint, the herein complainant attached the
following documents:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.

Affidavit of Bethyl Joy O. Porras

Affidavit of Michael Sason O. Basa
Joint affidavit of the Roxy Solidarios and Natalie Kim Gokong Wei;
Reply-Affidavit;
Rejoinder-Affidavit ;
Excerpt from the Blotter report of Bacolod City Police Station
precinct 1;
G. Photo-documentation;
H. Movie tickets for the Movie NIGHT CRAWLER (2014)
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Based on the investigation conducting by Police Investigator Honesto
A. Santino, the facts of the case are stated hereunder:
That on November 22, 2014 at about 6:00 P.M. in Cinema 1 of
the Robinson Place, Bacolod City, Philippines, the complainant,
Bethyl Joy P. Porras, together with her friends, Roxy Solidarios and
Natalie Kim Gokong Wei were purchasing tickets for the movie
NIGHT CRAWLER (2014) at SM movie cinema 2. That during the
course of the movie, the complainant realized that her cellphone was
1

missing which prompted her and her friends to look for it in the
vicinity. One of her friends, Roxy Solidarios, called the phone of the
complainant and not second later, a cellphone rang with a similar
ringtone as to the cellphone of the complainant which was seen in the
hands of the respondent, Mikel Sason O. Basa. In this moment, the
complainant shouted Kawatan dialect for thief, which the
respondent reacted by running away from the movie theater. The
guards stationed outside tried stopping the respondent but failed.
In the joint affidavit of witnesses Roxy Solidarios and Natalie Kim
Gokong Wei, they stated that on November 22, 2014 at about 6:00 in the
evening, they were inside Cinema 1 of the Robinson movie theater when the
theft happened. While calling the cellphone of the complainant, they saw the
respondent holding the phone on his right hand and was trying to dispose it.
When the complainant shouted, it was then that the respondent ran away
going the right exit of the theater.
MIKEL SASON O. BASA vehemently denied the allegations against
him and that it was just a case of misunderstanding. That during the incident,
he had no intention of stealing the cell phone of the complainant; he just saw
the phone on the floor so he pick it up; When the cellphone rung, he heard the
complainant and her friends angrily shouting at him, calling him a theft. that
when he realized that he was being accused of robbing the complainant. The
commotion caused him to panic and ran away.
ANALYSIS / FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
On Sub-paragraph 1 of Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code of the
Philippines which specifically states that:
Article 308. Who are liable for theft.
Any person, who, having found lost property, shall fail to
deliver the same to the local authorities or to its owner
The construction and interpretation of Article 308 of the Revised
Penal Code of the Philippines are clear and unambiguous which promptly
provides that any person with intent to gain deprives the personal property of
another lacking his/her consent and in the absence of violence, intimidation
or force upon things.
In the instant case, Mr. Michael Sason O. Basa, the accused, violated
Art. 308 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines by gaining the
personal property of the complainant with an intention of not returning the
2

same to the complainant which can be inferred from the actuations of the
accused of trying to dispose the cell phone.
Also, the accused could have freed himself from the suspicion of the
complainant, if he had just returned the missing cell phone and explained his
own side of story. However, he opted to flee from the complainant which
verified the latters suspicion that he stole her cell phone.
Article 309. Penalties The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium
periods, if the value of the thing stolen is more than 12,000 pesos but
does not exceed 22,000 pesos, but if the value of the thing stolen
exceeds the latter amount the penalty shall be the maximum period
of the one prescribed in this paragraph, and one year for each
additional ten thousand pesos, but the total of the penalty which may
be imposed shall not exceed twenty years
According to the complainant, she bought the I Phone 6 Plus in the
amount of Php 46,500.00. As provided by the RPC, the imposable penalty
for theft depends on the value of the thing stolen. In this case, the value of
the cell phone is Php 46,500.00 which exceeds the P22,000.00 ceiling as
provided by the RPC.
Basing on the defense of the respondent, he vehemently denies the
accusation of theft against him because it lacks the essential element of
intent to gain but in can be inferred from the actuations of the respondent
that there is a reasonable ground to believe that he intended to deprive the
complainant of her mobile phone. Reflecting from the facts of the case, the
following averments are present that would lead and ordinary and prudent
man to believe that the respondent is in violation of article 308 of the revised
Penal Code:
First, the averment in paragraph 4 of the rejoinder-affidavit of the
respondent that General denial of the accusation is without substantial basis
and is only self-serving and tantamount to admission:
In the case of El Hogar Filipino vs. Santos Investments, Inc., G.R.
No. 48244, mere general denials, did not tender as issue and constituted an
implied admission of the material allegations of the complaints.
The respondent should specific each
Second, the respondent would be easily freed from the cloud of
suspicions of the complainant if the former immediately returned the
missing cell phone but instead of the doing so, the respondent opted to run
3

away thereby raising the suspicions of complainant. The accusation of theft

against the respondent will succeed because parsing through the statutory
definition of theft under Article 308:
There is one apparent answer provided in the language of the law
that theft is already produced upon the taking of personal property of
another without the latters consent.
In the case at hand, the crime of theft was consummated when the
respondent acquired possession of the object of interest even though it was
only temporary. To reiterate, the omission of the respondent to returned the
mobile phone to the complainant raises red flag that he intended to robbed
the latter of her possession. It is absurd to believe that an innocent man
would rather ran away from the truth because of his reticence to face the
accusation than to absolve his name from any ill gotten allegations against
him. Those who are innocent are as brave as the lions.
(Ngita jurisprudence)
Third, the respondent failed to overcome the evidences presented by
the other party. According to Rule 131, Section 1, Burden of Proof is the
duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to
establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law.
Whereas, the complainant gave an overwhelming evidence to impute
the respondent of the charge against him. In effect, the respondent miserably
failed to prove his innocence.
Fourth, Check reyes book 1 saying intent to gain cannot be
ascertained thus we qualify the acts to determine the intent.
(NGITA CASE)
Fifth, the alibi of running away is a mere after thought because he was
afraid of being interrogated and falsely accused is mere afterthought.
(Ngita jurisprudence)
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is most
respectfully recommended that information for the crime of Theft be filed
against the respondent MIKEL SASON O. BASA.
Bacolod City, February 09, 2015.
TOMAS GERARDO ARANETA
Associate City Prosecutor
4

MCLE Compliance No. IV-0012345

APPROVED BY:
GREGORIO T. TAROSA
Chief City Prosecutor
Copy Furnished:
(1) 1. Mikel Sason O. Basa Justice Road, Sta. Clara Subd., Bacolod
City