A local baked goods store recently went viral after receiving a bad review from an enraged customer.
However, this was not the usual case of substandard customer service or unsatisfactory product. Rather, the customer admitted to taking two boxes of cookies from The Manila Baker from its unmanned counter before offering to pay for it via online transaction later.
While the P800 payment for the two boxes of six brown butter salted chocochip cookies has been settled, The Manila Baker asked her to refrain from doing it again.
Later on, the customer posted a review on the bakery’s Facebook page, accusing The Manila Baker of berating her instead of being grateful of her “voluntary honesty.” In the review, she said she doesn’t recommend the business and shared several screenshots of their private conversation.
The post accumulated over 16,000 reactions and 4,200 shares before it was taken down.
Courtesy: The Manila Baker on Facebook
Was a crime committed?
Although the customer said she intended to pay for the cookies, lawyer Nix Tarucan said there was already a consummated act of theft based on the Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code.
Under the said law, the elements of the crime of theft are the following:
- the taking of personal property
- the personal property belongs to another
- the taking away was done with intent to gain
- the taking away was done without the consent of the owner
- the taking away is accomplished without violence or intimidation against a person or force upon things.
Tarucan said that the first and second requisites were satisfied, given that the two boxes of the cookies obtained were properties of the store.
Meanwhile, the third and fourth elements were also present, given that the taking away was done with intent to gain.
“Apparently, the customer wanted to get the cookies based on the post and there was no person readily present to consent to the taking,” he told republicasia.
“Intent to gain was presumed from her admission of taking the stolen items without the consent of the owner or its lawful possessor because she stated that she got the cookies from the kiosk when she found that no one was there,” he added.
Finally, the fifth requisite was also present, considering that there was no one manning the kiosk at the time of the incident as mentioned in the post.
Hence, Tarucan said the act of theft was committed without intimidation against the person or force upon things.
Thanks for the honesty, but don’t do it again
In a separate interview, The Manila Baker management said it thought the matter had already been settled after the payment had been made. It also explained to the customer why this shouldn’t happen again.
The bakeshop said it was surprised upon receiving the bad review and the accusations of berating the customer.
The shop only wishes that the customer and the general public have learned their lesson through this incident and not commit the same act again.
“It’s just really our hope that she or any other customer who thinks taking items from an unmanned store (with a sign that says we will be right back) will now know better and just either patiently wait for the staff to come back or go around the mall first then come back,” The Manila Baker said.
Not an honesty store
Very few netizens defended the customer, while many individuals expressed their dismay over the incident, highlighting that what she did was theft despite her intention to pay for the cookies.
Moreover, some netizens poked fun at the incident, saying that the customer treated the shop as an honesty store and a community pantry, where one could take food and other products free-of-charge.
They also slammed the customer’s audacity for leaving a bad review when, in their view, she was the one at fault.
