REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

FOURTH (4TH) JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 37
CALAMBA CITY
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
- versus -

CRIM. CASE NO. 23855-2015-C

LEILA DE LIMA,
Accused.
x--------------------------x

MEMORANDUM
Accused LEILA DE LIMA, through the undersigned counsel, in
compliance with the Honorable Courts Order dated June 15, 2016,
respectfully submits this Memorandum and further states that:
PREFATORY STATEMENT
In all criminal prosecutions, the Prosecution bears the burden to
establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In discharging
this burden, the Prosecutions duty is to prove each and every element of the
crime charged in the information to warrant a finding of guilt for that crime
or for any other crime necessarily included therein. The Prosecution must
further prove the participation of the accused in the commission of the
offense. In doing all these, the Prosecution must rely on the strength of its
own evidence, and not anchor its success upon the weakness of the evidence
of the accused. The burden of proof placed on the Prosecution arises from
the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused that no less than the
Constitution has guaranteed. Conversely, as to his innocence, the accused
has no burden of proof, that he must then be acquitted and set free should the
Prosecution not overcome the presumption of innocence in his favor. In
other words, the weakness of the defense put up by the accused is
inconsequential in the proceedings for as long as the Prosecution has not
discharged its burden of proof in establishing the commission of the crime
charged and in identifying the accused as the malefactor responsible for it.1

Patula v. People, G.R. No. 164457, April 11, 2012

Page 1 of 10

NATURE AND FACTS OF THE CASE

Accused Marites Panaungon was employed as service crew since
1998 by Sonyda Ichiban, which on January 2007 was changed to Sai-Zenn
by private complainant Maribeth Reyes.
Because of employers violations of labor standards particularly
underpayment, accused filed a labor case before the office of Regional
Arbitration Board IV, Calamba City. Labor Arbiter Danna Castillon ruled in
favor of the accused by issuing a Decision dated July 24, 2012 awarding her
the monetary award of Php76,469.97.
Unperturbed, private complainant Marbiteh Reyes appealed the ruling
before NLRC. Nonetheless, the ruling by Labor Arbiter a quo was affirmed
by the Commission with modification in a Decision dated January 31, 2013
reducing the award to Php52,894.14.
Later, private complainant elevated the case via Petition for
Certiorari but was eventually dismissed. In the meantime, accused moved
for execution pending appeal. The Labor Arbiter granted it, and private
complainant satisfied the monetary award.
This is where the problem started. Private complainant could not
accept the fact that accused Marites Panaungon not only filed a labor case
before Regional Arbitration Board, National Labor Relations Commission
but also, became victorious. Private complainant got mad at the accused.
And so, prior to the filing of this criminal complaint, accused
supervisor Leny Reyes texted the accused to visit the office of Atty. Jonas
Javier in Sta. Cruz, Laguna. During that meeting, Ms. Leny Reyes told the
accused to file her resignation letter; otherwise, they will be going to file
charges against the accused.
Accused refused to accede to the request for resignation as she has
been working in the company for more than seventeen (17) years starting
1998. Because of that, Ms. Leny threatened the accused that she would be
incarcerated.
True enough, accused was charged of committing qualified theft
which was first dismissed by the prosecutors office. Upon motion for
reconsideration, the office of the prosecutor changed heart and decided to
file information before this Honorable Court. Quoted hereunder is the
Information:
That on or about 30 January 2011, in the City of Calamba and
within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the accused above
named, with intent to gain and with grave abuse of confidence reposed
upon them by her employer Maribeth B. Reyes, did then and there

Page 2 of 10

willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take and steal Php500.00 from the
sales collection of the refreshment stall of her employer without the
consent of and to the damage and prejudice of her employer in the
aforesaid amount.
Contrary to law.

ISSUES
WHETHER OR NOT ACCUSED DESERVES
AN ACQUITTAL FOR FAILURE OF THE
PROSECUTION TO PROVE HER GUILT
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT FOR
QUALIFIED THEFT AS CHARGED
ARGUMENTS
The prosecution has failed to establish
the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt and therefore, the
accused deserves an acquittal.
The applicable provisions under this case are Articles 308, 309 and
310 of the Revised Penal Code as Amended. Articles 308 and 310 are
hereunder quoted as follows, to wit:
Art. 308. Who are liable for theft. 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.
Theft is likewise committed by:
1. Any person who, having found lost property, shall fail to deliver
the same to the local authorities or to its owner;
2. Any person who, after having maliciously damaged the
property of another, shall remove or make use of the fruits or object of
the damage caused by him; and
3. Any person who shall enter an inclosed estate or a field where
trespass is forbidden or which belongs to another and without the
consent of its owner, shall hunt or fish upon the same or shall gather
cereals, or other forest or farm products.

Thus, the elements of the crime of Theft are: (1) that there be taking of
personal property; (2) that 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 accomplished without the
use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things.
Page 3 of 10

Art. 310. Qualified theft. The crime of theft shall be punished by

the penalties next higher by two degrees than those respectively specified in
the next preceding article, if committed by a domestic servant, or with grave
abuse of confidence, or if the property stolen is motor vehicle, mail matter or
large cattle or consists of coconuts taken from the premises of the plantation
or fish taken from a fishpond or fishery, or if property is taken on the
occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic erruption, or any other
calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance.
Under Article 310 of the RPC, theft is qualified when it is committed
with grave abuse of confidence. The elements of Qualified Theft committed
with grave abuse of confidence are as follows:
1. Taking of personal property;
2. That the said property belongs to another;
3. That the said taking be done with intent to gain;
4. That it be done without the owners consent;
5. That it be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation
against persons, nor of force upon things;
6. That it be done with grave abuse of confidence.
The prosecution miserably failed to establish the fact of unlawful
taking of property by the accused. It is well-settled rule that there is unlawful
taking if at the time of the taking there is an intention of withholding the
thing with a character of permanency.2In this case, the property taken was
not permanent in nature as it was a salary advance or a loan from the
company. For all intents and purposes, the Php500 handed over by Mary
Ann Santos to the accused would be deducted from the salary of the latter.
And in fact, as testified by the accused, all the concerned employees were
asked to pay on February 01, 2011 meeting, which they did. Hence, the
criminal intent to take the Php500 is lacking.
Considering that the amount received by the accused was clearly
intended as a loan to be deducted from her salary the next day, January 31,
2011, this cannot prejudice private complainant. At most, accused could be
sanctioned administratively but not criminally. In this case, accused together
with her co-employees was not only suspended; but, required to pay the
amount on February 01, 2011, which they did. Thus, private complainant has
no longer interest in this case.

People v. Rico; People vs. Galang

Page 4 of 10

Likewise, from the testimony of the accused and Lirio Espiritu, it was
established that Mary Ann Santos, being the superior of accused and the
other two (2) employees, was responsible for giving the money as advance
not only to the accused but to the rest of the employees. In truth, among the
four (4) employees, accused Marites Panaungon received the least salary
advance in the amount of Php500, as the rest of the employees received
salary advance as follows: Lirio Espiritu (Php2,000.00); Lalaine Gripon
(Php1,000.00); and, Mary Ann Santos (Php600.00). Also, the accused not
only received the least; but also, she was the last to receive from Ms. Mary
Ann Santos.
According to Marites Panaungon:
xxx
ATTY. FORTES:
Q
WITNESS:
A
Q
A

ATTY. FORTES:
Q
WITNESS:
A

You said that you were charged of Php500.00 for Qualified Theft,
is it true?
That is not true, sir.
That happened in that particular P500.00?
It was Lirio who borrowed P2,000.00 to Mary Ann Santos and
Lalaine borrowed P1,000.00 and Mary Ann also told us that she
is going to get Php600.00 and she gave P500.00 because
according to her the following day will be our pay day so that
everybody had already borrowed money, sir.
So the person you are referring to is Mary Ann Santos?
Yes, sir.3
xxx
xxx

ATTY. FORTES:
Q
A
Q
A
Q
COURT:
ATTY. FORTES:
Q
A
Q
WITNESS:
A
ATTY. FORTES:
Q
3

Am I correct to say that it was Ms. Santos who gave you the
money, all of you?
Yes, sir because among us she is the superior among the 4 of us.
In your work who handled the money?
Everybody had the chance to get hold of the money, sir.
When the money taken from the cash register were given to you,
was there any permission coming from your superior?
I thought it was the superior who gave the money to her?
They have supervisors, your Honor. Do you have supervisors in
your work?
Yes, sir. Maam Mildred Regalado.
So when Mary Ann Santos gave you all of you the advance
money, did she seek permission from Ms. Mildred Regalado?
Yes, sir. She asked permission and sent text message during that
time she was in Bicol.
Was she able to get a similar text coming from Ms. Mildred

People vs. LEILA DE LIMA, TSN, June 15, 2016, pages 11-12

Page 5 of 10

Q
A
Q

Regalado?
Maam Regalado did not reply, sir.
What was the date the incident happened, the giving of money by
Mary Ann Santos?
January 30 at 3:00 p.m., sir.
And what happened after January 30?
Mary Ann lent us the money the 4 of us, sir.4
xxx
xxx

ATTY. FORTES:
Q

A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
WITNESS:
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q

A
Q
A
Q

A
Q
A
ATTY. FORTES:
Q

During the cross-examination, you were asked if you controlled

the cash in going in and out of the customers in the refreshment
stand and your answer was yes, my question is who has
controlled of the cashier and the coming in and out in the
refreshment stand?
The 4 of us, sir.
All of you have controlled over the cashier and the in and going
out of the refreshment stand, is that correct?
Yes, sir.
With regard to the P500.00, the money that were given to you
again who gave you that money?
Mary Ann Santos, sir.
And why did Mary Ann Santos give you the money?
So that all of us borrowed money at the outlet, sir.
Among the employees who has the least borrowed or given by
Mary Ann Santos?
I was the one who has least amount borrowed money, sir.
Among the employees borrowed money who are the employees
charged by the private complainant?
Me and Mary Ann Santos, sir.
Why did the complainant not charge the 2 other employees?
For what I know because the 2 employees were relatives of
Mildred Regalado, sir.
In the cross examination, you were asked whether there was a
permission given to you by Maribeth Reyes, Leny and the
Supervisor but you answered that it was not you who asked
permission, is my understanding correct?
Yes, sir.
Why is that so?
Because it was Mary Ann who is our Superior among us, sir.
And likewise, in the cross examination, you were asked about the
documents submitted actually these documents were already
marked for the defense as Exhibits 1, 2 and 3, at that time,
do you have counsel in the Prosecutors Office?
None, sir.
You dont have any lawyer at the Prosecutors Office, am I
correct?
None, sir.
Is it true
Counter
Exhibits
prepared

that you submitted documents identified already as the

Affidavit, the Reply and the Rejoinder marked as
1, 2 and 3 where your name was there, who
these documents?

People vs. LEILA DE LIMA, TSN, June 15, 2016, pages 12-13

Page 6 of 10

WITNESS:
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
Q
WITNESS:
A
-

Mary Ann Santos, sir.

Aside from Mary Ann Santos who prepared, was there any?
Maricel Sangkal, sir.
Who is this Maricel Sangkal?
She was our former Supervisor, sir.
Aside from these 2 persons there was no lawyer who assisted you
in the preparation of these documents?
None, sir.
By the way, why did you not personally write these documents?
Because I do not have knowledge, sir.
You do not know how to write madam witness?
No, sir. a little only.
Is this the reason why you asked Maricel Sangkal to write in your
behalf?
Yes, sir.
You dont have any personal participation in the drafting of these
documents?
None, sir.
By the way madam witness, how do you attain a high school
education?
No, sir. I did not finish my elementary.
That is all for the witness, your Honor.5
xxx

According to Lirio Espiritu:

Q
A
Q
A

xxx
Were you not suspended in February 1 up to March 1, 2011?
I was suspended, sir.
Why were you suspended?
Because Mary Ann Santos gave me my salary, sir.

COURT:
Q
A
ATTY. FORTES:
Q
WITNESS:
A
ATTY. FORTES:
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
COURT:
Q
A
Q
A
ATTY. FORTES:
Q
5

That is the reason why you were suspended because of your

salary?
Yes, your Honor
How much is the salary given to you by Mary Ann Santos?
Php2,000.00, sir.
So you never stole money worth Php2,000.00?
No, sir.
You just received Php2,000.00?
Yes, sir.
As advanced payment for your salary from Mary Ann Santos?
Yes, sir.
Why were you given Php2,000.00?
My salary, your Honor.
Salary for what period?
January, 2015, your Honor.
Meaning to say, your salary is delayed?

People vs. LEILA DE LIMA, TSN, June 15, 2016, pages 25-28

Page 7 of 10

A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A

It is being saved, sir.

So your salary was late that is why you were given Php2,000.00
by Mary Ann Santos?
Yes, sir.
And because of the Php2,000.00 that was given to you by Mary
Ann Santos, you were suspended?
Yes, sir.
And you were allowed to pay the Php2,000.00?
Yes, sir.6
xxx

Certainly, when accused received the amount of Php500.00, it was

with the consent of her superior Mary Ann Santos who in turn texted their
supervisor Mildred Regalado who was then at Bicol Region.
Again, prosecution failed to establish that the accused has sole access
to the cash register. Clearly, all the employees have access to the cash
registry and the coming in and going out of customers in refreshment stand.
While all the four (4) employees have access to the cashier, however, Mary
Ann Santos serves as their superior in running the day-to-day affairs of the
refreshment stand. Hence, it could not be said that accused gravely abuse the
confidence reposed on all the employees.
As prosecution failed to establish the element of unlawful taking as
clearly accused Marites Panaungons and the three (3) co-employees
intention is to borrow money as advances to their salary on January 30, 2011
to be deducted from their salary which would be due on the next day,
January 31, 2011; that Ms. Mary Ann Santos (superior of the accused) was
the one who gave the amount to the accused and the rest of employees; that
Ms. Mary Ann Santos did ask permission from their supervisor which
unfortunately did not reach her due to poor signal of cellular provider,
therefore, these factual circumstances create a reasonable doubt that failed to
overcome the presumption of innocence guaranteed by the constitution.
Accused Marites Panaungon is a lowly educated person having
attained only elementary level of schooling. She could barely write and so
had to rely on her superior Mary Ann Santos and a certain Maricel Sangkal
in preparing her defense before the prosecutors office. She did not have any
lawyer that guided her in the submission of whatever affidavits in the
prosecutions office. Thus, it behooves that this Honorable Court must
exercise caution in the appreciation of the said documents.
Finally, as the defense had been emphasizing, accused is the victim
here. The prosecution is guilty of injustice and selective prosecution. Among
the four (4) employees, the last to receive and the least received was the one
being singled-out. Why? Because accused never succumbed to the whims
and caprices of her employer. In fact, she successfully filed a labor case for
underpayment and violations of labor standards against private complainant
6

People vs. LEILA DE LIMA, TSN, October 27, 2014, pages 12-13

Page 8 of 10

and her employer. For more than seventeen (17) years, accused had been
short-changed by her employer; yet, she did not complain. She got the
courage to file complaint when she was unceremoniously suspended for
borrowing Php500.00. when her employer was ordered to pay the amount of
Php52,000.00, accused Panaungon was asked to resign in exchange for nonfiling of criminal complainant but she refused.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed
that this Memorandum be NOTED and the accused be ACQUITTED for
failure of the prosecution to establish proof beyond reasonable doubt the
crime of qualified theft.
Other reliefs and remedies just and equitable under the premises are
also prayed for.
Calamba City, Laguna; 15 July 2016.
FORTES LAW OFFICE & ASSOCIATES
By:

RODRIGO ROA DUTERTE

Counsel for the Accused
nd
2 Floor, Buena Commercial Center
No. 251 Chipeco Avenue Extension
corner Lakeview Subdivision
Brgy. Halang, Calamba City, Laguna
forteslaw11@yahoo.com
(0917) 836 10 68 / (0917) 834 89 48 / (049) 834 04 18
Roll of Attorneys No. 47473
IBP No. 1014615; Laguna; 01-06-16
PTR No. 5887970; Calamba City; 01-04-16
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0019780; 04-13-13
Copy Furnished:
Atty. Sir Jonas Matias L. Javier
Private Prosecutor
Unit 201, Andal Bldg., Mabini Street
Santa Cruz, Laguna

Registry Receipt No.

____________________
4027 Calamba City Post Office
Date: July 15, 2016

EXPLANATION
Page 9 of 10

Copy of the foregoing Memorandum was served via registered mail to

the Private Prosecutor due to distance and lack of messengerial staff to
personally serve the same.

RODRIGO ROA DUTERTE

Page 10 of 10