To: Atty. Rickee Gerald D.

Brevia
From: Ampy Carla I. Castro
Date: August 14, 2017
Re: Ms. Jane Sagmit Case

This memorandum was prepared pursuant to the request for legal service of Ms. Jane
Sagmit in relation to her case inquiry.
Questions/Issues Presented:
1. Whether or not Ms. Jane Samit can be charged with Qualified Theft?
2. Is there a way to defend herself with regards to the case filed against her?
3. Can the recording made without her consent be used on the case filed against her?
Brief Answers:
1. Yes. Ms. Sagmit can be charged with qualified theft provided that the offended party has
enough evidence to file charges.
2. Yes. Ms. Sagmit has the right to due process of law and therefore she will have the
chance to defend herself. The rights of Ms. Sagmit is allegedly violated in view of the use
of intimidation of Ms. Korina in acquiring her written confession. Ms. Korina being a
superior to Ms. Sagmit gave her the advantage on intimidating and forcing her to write
the alleged written confession.
3. No. The recording was created in violation of the constitutional rights of Ms. Sagmit.
Statement of Facts:
According to Ms. Sagmit, at around 11:00 PM, she arrived at the Pharmaceutical company for
her duty. After a few minutes Ms. Korina, the daughter of the owner of the company arrived
together with Mr. Julius, the husband of Ms. Korina, wherein they called and talked to Mr. John
Partick Soliven and Ms. Clara De Dios, the outgoing employees.
After finishing the talk, Ms. Sagmit was puzzled when she saw Mr. Soliven and Ms. De Dios
writing a confession and undergoing body frisking.
Then, Ms. Sarah Santos, Ms. Sagmits partner in the duty, was asked and talked to by Ms. Korina
wherein Ms. Santos also wrote a confession and underwent body frisking after talking to Ms.
Korina.
After which, Ms. Korina talked to Ms. Sagmit allegedly asking her to confess on what she knows
about the transactions in the Pharmaceutical company and was allegedly threatened to be
reported to the police and intimidated by Ms. Korina for her to write her confession.
Further, Ms. Korina allegedly recorded their admission.
Later on, Ms. Sagmit, together with her co-employees, was charged with qualified theft by the
complaint made by Ms. Korina.
Discussions:
1. Whether or not Ms. Jane Sagmit can be charged with Qualified Theft?
a. Ms. Sagmit can be charge with the crime of Qualified Theft provided that there is a
probable cause present in the evidences and investigation conducted against Ms.
Sagmit.

b. Qualified Theft has the following requirements based on Article 310 of the Revised
Penal Code (RPC) are as follows:
i. There was a taking of personal property.
ii. The said property belongs to another.
iii. The taking was done without the consent of the owner.
iv. The taking was done with intent to gain.
v. The taking was accomplished without violence or intimidation against
person, or force upon things.
vi. The taking was done under any of the circumstances enumerated in Article
310 of the RPC, example: if crime is committed with grave abuse of
confidence.

2. Is there a way to defend herself with regards to the case filed against her?
a. Ms. Sagmit will have a chance to defend herself on the qualified theft case filed
against her in view of para. 1, Section 14, Article III of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution stating that No Person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense
without due process of law.

b. The evidence of written confession on the Qualified theft case is disputable

considering the form of which the said written confession was acquired by the
complainant. It is to be noted that there was harassment present considering the fact
that Ms. Korina (complainant) was the superior of Ms. Sagmit. The acquisition of the
written confession violated para. 3, Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution states that Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or
No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself shall be inadmissible
in evidence against him.

c. Further, the confession was obtained by Ms. Korina (complainant) is inadmissible in

court considering that there was no legal counsel present at the time the written
confession was made and also, it violates Section 33, Rule 130 of the Rules of
Court, considering that the confession was made involuntarily by Ms. Sagmit.

3. Can the recording made without her consent be used on the case filed against her?
a. The recording made by Ms. Korina should not be admissible as evidence in any
proceeding considering the violation of Section 3, Article III of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution stating that The privacy of communication and correspondence shall
be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order
requires otherwise, as prescribed by law. and Any evidence obtained in violation
of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding.
 b. Moreover the acquisition of the said recording is based on the intimidation of Ms.
Korina and Mr. Julius considering that they are Ms. Sagmits superiors and
employers. The acquisition of the written confession violated para. 2, Section 12,
Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution which states that No torture, force,
violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall
be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other
similar forms of detention are prohibited.
Conclusion:
Ms. Sagmit can be charge with the crime of Qualified Theft considering the following
elements of Article 10 of the Revised Penal Code: (a) There was a taking of personal property.;
(b)The said property belongs to another.; (c) The taking was done without the consent of the
owner.; (d) The taking was done with intent to gain. (e) The taking was accomplished without
violence or intimidation against person, or force upon things.; and (f) The taking was done under
any of the circumstances enumerated in Article 310 of the RPC, example: if crime is committed
with grave abuse of confidence.
Ms Sagmit can use the defense on how the evidences were acquired thru intimidation,
harassment and inducement considering that the complainant is the superior of Ms. Sagmit and
how the complainants violated her constitutional rights.