Qualified theft

I hired a house helper last month, who stayed only for about six days. She is the daughter of a long-time acquaintance of my husband, who recently lost her job.

Out of pity, I took her in, even if I knew nothing of her. Before she reported for duty, I had to leave for an out-of-the-country business. I instructed my nephew to orient the helper about house rules, and that she should not be allowed to enter my room.

Before my return from my trip, she told my nephew she had to leave and go home to the province. Despite my nephew’s appeal for her to wait for me, she left and did not even ask for payment for the days she worked.

Upon my return, I went about my usual activities. The following weekend, I discovered some of my personal items in my room were missing. Except for these facts: my helper was the only new person to stay in the house; she left suddenly; she also could no longer be contacted through the mobile numbers she used; she also suddenly took down all her social media accounts, there is no eyewitness to point to her as the culprit.

Do I have a case against my former helper? Will it prosper even if there is no eyewitness that she took the missing items?

Judith

Dear Judith,

You may file a case for qualified theft against your helper. 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.

Theft becomes qualified “if committed by a domestic servant, or with grave abuse of confidence, or if the property stolen is a motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle, or consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation, fish taken from a fishpond or fishery, or if the property is taken on the occasion of a fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance.”

Based on your account, your case would rely on circumstantial evidence to prosecute your helper. To be sufficient for conviction, the following conditions must be satisfied: (1) There is more than one circumstance; (2) The facts from which the circumstances are derived are proven; and (3) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

“Circumstantial evidence suffices to convict an accused only if the circumstances proved to constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion that points to the accused, to the exclusion of all others as the guilty person.”

Whatever evidence you would present, the same shall be under the scrutiny and appreciation of the trial court. To convict your helper, such evidence must be sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Atty. Shalimar P. Lazatin-Obinque