Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Manila

KBK Apparel Corporation

As Represented by:
MR. EUNG GOO KANG
Complainant-Appellee,

-versus- I.S. No. 03-1608

For Qualified Theft

JOVY MARY GATBONTON ,

Respondent-Appellant.

x---------------------------------------x

C O M M E N T
( ON THE RESPONDENT-APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR REVIEW )

THE RESPONDENT, by and through the undersigned counsel unto this

most Honorable Office respectfully submits this comment by way of
opposition and states,- That:

1. The herein complainant-appellee received a copy of the

respondent-appellant’s petition for review on August 12, 2003.

2. The last day of ten (10) day period within which to file a comment
or opposition to the petition for review falls on August 22, 2003,
non-working holiday.

3. To begin with, it is worthy to restate the decided case cited by the

respondent-appellant, this case is very well applicable and
determinative of the issues raised by the appellant, herein to wit:

“ In determining probable cause, facts and circumstances are weighed without

resorting to technical rules of evidence, but rather based on common sense which
all reasonable man have. A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on
evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed and was
committed by the suspects.” ( Webb vs. De Leon, 247 SCRA 652, 1995) (emphasis
supplied)
4. At issue in this case is whether or not the public respondent
committed manifest error and/or has committed a grave abuse of
discretion in the determination of probable cause.

5. At the outset, it should be noted that the information was filed by

the fiscal as a consequence and on the basis of the sworn complaint
and evidence presented during the requisite preliminary
investigation.

6. The position of the respondent-appellant is that it is an error for

the public respondent in making general conclusion as to his
findings on the existence of probable cause, we beg to disagree.

7. Perusal of the record shows that the respondent, in her counter-

affidavit, failed to deny and has not submitted any evidence to
contradict the allegations of the complainant.

8. It is worthy to note that the primary pieces of evidence presented

by the complainant were the payroll sheets prepared by no less
than the respondent herself, the same bears her signature and the
imprimatur of the complainant.( See “Annexes A to F” ). A closer
scrutiny of these documents, following a simple mathematical
computation, readily reveals that there was overstatement of
accounts.

9. Inasmuch as the counter-affidavit and the petition for review filed

by the respondent-appellant contains only an irrelevant and
immaterial allegations, the latter failed to contradict the fact that the
a crime of theft has been committed.

10. Likewise, as part of the record, the respondent admitted that she
has work for the complainant-corporation for a considerable length
of time and such it conclusive that there was a grave abuse of
confidence which qualifies the crime of theft and the imposition of
a much higher penalty.
11. Finally, under the rules on evidence and on rules and in the manner
of making pleadings that only those ultimate facts are to be
considered and such facts which are purely evidentiary are at best
left to the discretion of the competent court after a full blown trial.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it most respectfully pryed

unto this Honorable Office that this appeal by of petition for review
be dismissed for utter lack of merit and that the findings of the
public respondent as to the existence of probable cause be
sustained

Respectfully submitted, August 25,2003.

MARIANO BELTRAN VENTURA and MADRID LAW OFFICES

Counsel for theComaplinant-Appellee
401-A 4TH Floor Web Jet Bldg.
No. 64 Quezon Avenue cor. BMA Avenue
Quezon City

By:

RAFAEL B.MADRID
IBP NO. 584568 03-7-03-Manila
Roll No. 48204