Decision Umper Case - Atm

Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Third Judicial Region
City of Malolos, Bulacan
Branch 75
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
-versus- CRIM. CASE NO. 123-M-2018

For:Robbery Hold-up/Snatching
RODERICK J. UMPER,
Accused.
x----------------------x
DECISION
Accused Roderick J. Umper stands charged with the crime of Robbery

Holdup/Snatching penalized under Art. 294 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC)
and committed as follows:
“That on or about the 1st day of August, 2017, in the City of

Malolos, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent
of gain and by the use of force had took away with him the
necklace of complainant Beau T. Pool, to the damage and
prejudice of the said owner, in the amount of P15,000.00.
Contrary to law.”
Accused Roderick Umper y Juan, when arraigned, pleaded not guilty to

the offense charged.
Pre-trial conference having been terminated, trial on the merits ensued.
The evidence of the prosecution consist of the testimonies of

private complainant, Beau T. Pool, and Ms. Susana Palasabat.
First prosecution witness, Beau T. Pool, 20 years old, single, saleslady
and residing at No. 123 Mapagbigay St., Brgy. Capitolio, Mojon, Malolos,
Bulacan testified on direct examination as follows: On August 1, 2017 at
around 7:00 o’clock in the evening, she and her friend, Susan Palasabat, were
on board a jeepney traversing along Tikay Road, Malolos, Bulacan; while on
board a jeepney, a man suddenly boarded, sat beside her and suddenly grabbed
her necklace; that the man jumped off the jeepney and ran away; that she and
her friend immediately alighted the jeepney and ran after the snatcher but the
same was to no avail; they proceeded to the police precinct of Tikay, Malolos,
Bulacan and reported the incident; she identified the Malayang Sinumpaang
Salaysay1 she executed before the police and her signature thereon2; she
likewise identified the man who snatched her necklace in the person of
Roderick J. Umper.
On cross-examination, witness testified as follows: that while inside the

jeepney, she and her friend Susan were conversing when the accused boarded
inside the jeepney; the jeepney was then full of passengers; it was her first
time to see the accused; she could no longer remember the face of her other co-
passengers who were already passengers of the jeepney before the accused
boarded; after one week from the snatching incident, she was informed by a
policeman through telephone that the one who snatched her necklace was
already caught and requested her to go to the police station to identify the
accused; that she went to the police station along with her friend Susan; that
she identified the accused as the culprit of her stolen necklace after conferring
with her friend; that the accused was alone when he was presented before her.
Ms. Susana Palasabat, when presented to the witness stand, the

prosecution and the defense entered into stipulation, viz: that the testimony of
said witness will merely corroborate that of the private complainant; that she
was with the private complainant when they went to the police station and
entered the incident into the police blotter; that while in the police station, she
conferred with Beau T. Pool that indeed the accused presented before them
was the one who snatched private complainant’s necklace; witness also
1
Exh. A
2
Exh. A-1
identified the sworn statement (Exh. B) she executed and the signature
appearing therein (Exh. B-1).
Offered and admitted documentary evidence for the prosecution are the
following:
Exhibits “A” - Malayang Sinumpaang Salaysay of

Beau T. Pool;
“A-1” - Signature;
B - sworn statement of Susana Palasabat
“B-1” - signature.
Thereafter, the prosecution rested its case.
On the other hand, the defense presented the testimony of the

accused.
RODERlCK J. UMPER, 27 years old, married, dispatcher and residing at

Longos, Balagtas, Bulacan testified on direct examination as follows: he denied
and belied the allegations lodged against him by the private complainant; that
on August 1, 2017 at more or less 7:00 in the evening, after his work as a
dispatcher in Tabang, Guiguinto, Bulacan, he was at Mcdo Tikay branch to buy
food for his children; to prove that he was indeed not inside a passenger
jeepney when the snatching incident took place, he presented a receipt (Exh. 2)
of his purchase at Mcdo showing the date and time of his purchase – August 1,
2017, 7:02 p.m (Exhs. 2-A & 2-B, respectively); that on August 8, 2017, he
was arrested together with his four (4) other co-dispatchers for playing cara y
cruz in an open place; that they were charged with Violation of Illegal
Gambling Law; that they were brought in the Malolos Police Station for further
investigation; that his other co-dispatchers were able to post bail; he was the
only one left in jail as he has no money to pay for the bailbond; that thereafter a
policeman from Malolos together with two (2) ladies went to his detention cell
and pinpointed at him; that according to them, he allegedly snatched the
necklace of a lady on August 1, 2017 while the latter was on board a passenger
jeepney in Tikay, Malolos, Bulacan; that there is no truth to the said allegation;
he identified the Kontra Salaysay he executed and his signature thereon.
On cross-examination, witness testified that: he opted to proceed to

Mcdo Tikay branch as said branch is accessible to him from his place of work
in Tabang, Guiguinto, Bulacan; that he does not know personally the private
complaint or her friend, nor has personal grudge on them; he was the one
pinpointed as the suspect of the snatching because he was the only one detained
in the detention cell of Malolos Police Station.
Offered and admitted documentary evidence for the defense are the
following:
Exhibits “1” - Kontra Salaysay of Roderick J.

Umper;
“1-A” - Signature;
2 - Receipt from Mcdo, Tikay branch;
“2-A” - the date appearing as August 1, 2017;
“2-B” - the time appearing as 7:02 p.m..
Thereafter, the defense rested its case.
ISSUE
The only issue in this case is whether or not the accused is guilty of the
offense charged.
DISCUSSION/DISQUISITION
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, accused --- is hereby --
of the offense of Robbery/Snatching--
SO ORDERED.
City of Malolos, Bulacan, May ___, 2020.
YOUR NAME
J udge

Decision Umper Case - Atm

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Decision Umper Case - Atm

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Decision Umper Case - Atm

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

-versus- CRIM. CASE NO. 123-M-2018

Accused Roderick J. Umper stands charged with the crime of Robbery

“That on or about the 1st day of August, 2017, in the City of

Accused Roderick Umper y Juan, when arraigned, pleaded not guilty to

Pre-trial conference having been terminated, trial on the merits ensued.

The evidence of the prosecution consist of the testimonies of

On cross-examination, witness testified as follows: that while inside the

Ms. Susana Palasabat, when presented to the witness stand, the

Exhibits “A” - Malayang Sinumpaang Salaysay of

Thereafter, the prosecution rested its case.

On the other hand, the defense presented the testimony of the

RODERlCK J. UMPER, 27 years old, married, dispatcher and residing at

On cross-examination, witness testified that: he opted to proceed to

Exhibits “1” - Kontra Salaysay of Roderick J.

Thereafter, the defense rested its case.

City of Malolos, Bulacan, May ___, 2020.

You might also like