3)Court of Appeals UM

7/18/2019 3)Court of Appeals UM

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/3court-of-appeals-um 1/14

1/

*

I

ATTY. ERNESTO

L.

SANTOS,

Republic

of

the

Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS

Manila

FgURTH

plVlSlON

plvrsroN

oF_FlvE

DELOS

Petitioner,

GA-G.R. SP

NO.

128625

REGIONAL

TRIAL

COURT

OF

BAGUTO

CITY

BRANCH

60

AND

BRANGH

7,

AND

UNIVERSITY

OF

MANILA,

REPRESENTED

BY

EMILY D. DE LEON,

Respondents.

Members:

CARAN

DANG,

Chairperson,

BATO, JR.,

GONZALES-SISON,

BARRIOS,

and

SORONGON,

JJ.

Promulgated:

AMENDED

DECISION

CARANDANG,

J.:

This

resolves

petitioner's

Motion

for Reconsideration

of

the

Decision

dated

30 July

ZAfi

promulgated

by

the

Special

Tenth

Division of this

Court denying

petitioner's

Petition

for

Certiorari.

The

30 July 2013

Decision

affirmed

the

Order dated

1

February

2012

of the Baguio

City

Regional Trial

Court

Branch

7 finding

probable

cause

against

the

petitioner

for

the

crime

of

qualified

theft, as well as

the

Order

dated

7

Decembet

2012 issued

by

Baguio

City

Regional

Trial Courl

Branch 60

denying

petitioner's

Motion

for

Partial Reconsideration and

ordering

his

arrest.

The facts,

as

narrated in

the 30 July

2013

Decision,

are

as

follows.

-versus-



CA-G.R.

SP NO.

12862s

AMENDED

DECISION

a

Petitioner

is

the son

of

Virgilio

Delos

santos

(Virgilio).

During

his

lifetime,

Virgilio

served

as President

and

Chairman

of the

Board

of

rrustees

of

the

University

of Manila

(uM)

He died

on 21

January

2008.

Sometime

in

May

2007

,

petitioner

starled

the construction

of

his CTTL Building

in

Baguio

city.

CTTL Building is adjacent

to

the

Benguet

Pines

Tourist

lnn

(BpI)

which

is

a

business

establishment

owned

and

operated

by

UM,

According

to

the

petitioner,

Virgilio

expliciily

ordered

the

employees

of

BPTI

to

assist

him

in

all

his

needs

in the

construction

of the

crrl

Building

including

the

use

of

BpI's

electricity

and

water

supply.

ln

support

to

his

claim,

petitioner

presented

the

affidavits

of

PBTI's

former

employees,

yolanda

calanza

and

Josephine Pinera,

as

well

as that

of

her

sister,

cynthia

Delos

santos-chan,

attesting

to the fact

that

petitioner

was

permitted

by

his

father

to

tap

the

electricity

and

water

supply

aprt

for

the

construction

of CTTL

Building.

After

the

death

of

Virgilio,

petitioner's

younger

sister

Ramona

Delos

Santos

filed

a

petition

to

probate

the

purforted

holographic

will

of

Virgilio,

This

petition

was

opposed

by

her

siblings,

herein

petitioner

and

Cynthia.

on

8 July

20'll,

Emily

Dodson

De Leon,

who

succeeded

Virgilio

as

the

President

of

uM,

filed

a

criminal

complaint

for

qualified

theft

against

the

petitioner.

ln

her

two-page

complaint,

she

accused

the

petitioner,

who

was

allegedly

then

the manager

and

operator

of

BPTI,

of stealing

the

electricity

and water

supply

of

BPTI

with

a

total

value

of

more

or

less

p3,0oo,00o.oo.

ln

su'pport

of

her

complaint,

she

attached

therein

the

two

affidavits

of

Policarpio

M. Lacsa,

a

former driver

of

the

petitioner.

ln

his

affidavit,

Policarpio

Lacsa

stated

that

sometime

in

July

2007,

he

was

ordered

by

the

petitioner

to

use

the

electricity

of

BPTI

for

the

ball

cutting,

bending,

and

welding

in

connection

with



cA-G.R. SP NO. 128625

AMENDED

DECISION

the

construction

of

CTTL

Building;

That when

the

first floor

of

crrl

Building

was finished,

petitioner

again

ordered

him

to make

an electrical

connection

from

BPTI

to

crrl

Building;

That

sometime

in

February

2009

he

was

again

ordered

by the

petitioner

to connect

the

water

supply

of

BPTI

to CTTL

Building

for

the

latter's

use

for

its

business

operations;

When

he

resigned

in

July

2009,

said

water

connection

was

still existing;

That

when

he

was

instructed

by

the President

of UM

in

June

2011

to check

the water

connection,

he

found

out

that

the water

connection

was

still

existing

but the electric connection

was

already

cut.

ln

his

Counter-Affidavit,

petitioner

contends

that his

family

aggregately

owns

98.79o/o

of

uM;

That

virgilio

allowed

him

to

use

the

electricity

and

water

suppry

of

BpI

lor

the

construction

of

CTTL

Building;

That

no

complaint

was

filed

or

opposition

was

aired

by

anyone

as

a result

of

his

use

of

Bprt,s

eiectricity

and water

supply;

that

the

criminal

complaint

against

him

was

only

filed

after

he

filed

an

opposition

to

the

probate

of

virgilio,s

alleged

holographic

will

initiated by his sister,

Ramona.

ln

a

Resolution

dated

zg

Jury

2011,

the

investigating

prosecutor

dismissed

the

complaint

against

the

petitioner

reasoning

that

the

element

of

"lack

of

consent

or

knowledge

of

the

owner"

is

absent

in

this

case

because

virgilio,

while

oeing

the

President

and

chairman

of

the

Board

of

rrustees

of

UM,

exp-licifly

allowed

the

petitioner

to use

the

electricity

and water

supply

of

UM's

BPTI.

consequently, complainant

filed her

Motion

for

Reconsideration.

ln

a Resolution

on

Review

dated

23

september

2_011,.

the

city

Prosecutor

of

Baguio

city

reversed

the

29

July

2011

Resolution

of

the

investigating prosecutor,

The

city

pros"ecutor

reasoned

that

it

is

only UM,

through

its

Board

of

rrustees,

which

can

give

a valid

consent

to

the

use

of electricity

and

water

supply

3



CA-G.R. SP

NO.

128625

AMENDED

DECISION

of

BPTI.

Fufther,

petitioner's

defense"

of

the

alleged

express

consent of

Virgilio

is

barred

and

prohibited

under the

"Dead

Man's

Statute" under Section

23,

Rule 123

of

the

Rules

of

Court, ln

any

case,

the

City

Prosecutor adds,

the

petitioner

surreptitiously

and

illegally

continued to

tap

the

electricity

and water supply

of

BPTI

even after

the

completion

of the

construction of CTTL

Building

which

is

beyond

the

period

purportedly given

to

him

by his

father.

Lastly,

considering

that

petitioner

had

a

direct

hand in the

management

of BPTI,

the City

Prosecutor

stated that there

is

a

sufficient evidence

to

establish

a

probable

cause

against

the

petitioner

for

qualified

theft,

An lnformation

was thereafter

filed in

court

pursuant

to

the

Resolution

on

Review.

@6,*eu-€eptemhe["20tfuJhe*.tfifi

lnus,gud

issued*a"warra,&Lgf,-.arrp-q["ag-a.u]st,

the,,pditlpEe&wirthp-ut,,al["o*w.i.Qg

-hmnJgrgsfuhal|.HgdMasg[fg,gtedpn.e.y'ea,,da$e*

Accordingly, petitioner

filed

an

Urgent Omnibus Motion

for

Judicial

Determination

of

Probable

Cause,

To

LifUQuash Warrant

of Arrest,

and

To

Defer/Suspend

Arraignment

And/Or

Any

Proceedings

before

the

trial court

arguing

that

the

pieces

evidence

against

him

are

insufficient

to establish

probable

cause

for

the

crime

of

qualified

theft.

On

1 February

2012,

the

Baguio RTC

Branch

7

denied

petitioner's

Urgent

Omnibus Motion

ruling

that

a

probable

cause

indeed

exists for

the indictment

of

the

petitioner

for

the crime of

qualified

theft

considering

that he admitted

that

he

caused the

tapping

of the

electricity

and water

supply of BPTI to

his

CTTL

Building.

However,

the

trial

courl

granted

petitioner's

prayer

to

post

bail

citing DOJ

Circular No.

74.

Accordingly,

petitioner posted

bail

in

the

amount

of P80,000.00.

The

complainant

and

the

petitioner

filed

their respective

Motions

for

Partial Reconsideration.

The

complainant argued

that

the

trial

court

erred in

granting

the

petitioner

to

post

bail

because

DoJ

circular

No.

74

cannot

override

the constitution,

Revised

Penal

Code,

and

Revised

Rules

of

Criminal Procedure

which

uniformly

provide

that

crimes

punishable

by

reclusion

perpetua

such

as in

this

case are

not bailable

as

matter

of

right,

On

the

4



cA-G.R.

SP

NO. 128625

AMENDED

DECISION

other hand,

petitioner reiterated

in

"

his

Motion

for

Partial

Reconsideration

that

there

is no

probable

cause

against

him

for

qualified

theft

because

he

was

authorized

by his

father

to

use

the

electricity

and

water

supply

of

BPTI

X'

On

7

December 2012, the

Baguio RTC

Branch

60

issued

an

order

denying

petitioner's

Motion

for Partial Reconsideration.

lt

however

found complainant's Motion

for

Partial Reconsideration

meritorious.

,[L

re.asoned

that

Memorandum

Order

No.

177

issugd

hy,,ths*Qffi"ge*ellh*p-*FJsRd.q.0j"-h,;fl,F*.Elllen-{QdJhe*0-Qt

S-u.e-uJant*p

M-g*{g*L*[9** Jl"p;qy,l,d"gs.."th"e,l**g-,b"eil"."qh,?"Ll#e

ffi fiMltp"S*"1,hsl .w_herg=Jtg-r:lug*#",Jhs.p.L9p:Rrtv

,gffiegJg&**9*99""9r9_kS,*q|.ab.o*99

S

ince

the amou

nt a

I

leged

i

n the

lnformation

against

petitioner

is P3,000,000.00,

petitioner

has no

right

to

post

bail.

On

15 February

2013,

petitioner

filed

a Petition for Certiorari

under Rule

65 of the

Rules

of

Courl

before

this

Couft

ascribing

grave

abuse

of discretion on

the

part

of

the trial

courts

for finding

probable

cause

against

him

for

qualified

theft

and

for

denying

his

prayer

to

post

bail.

On

30

July

2013,

the

Special Tenth

Division

of

this

Court

denied

petitioner's

Petition for Ceftiorarifinding

no

grave

abuse

of

discretion

on

the

part

of

the trial

court.

The

Special

Tenth Division

ruled

that

petitioner

admitted

that he

used or tapped

the

electricty

and

water

of BPTI, without

the

consent

of

the Board

of

Trustees of

UM. His

allegation

that

he

secured

the

consent of

his

late father

who was

then

the President

and

Chairman

of

the

Board

of

Trustees

of UM

at the time of the construction of

CTTL

is

an

insufficient

defense

because

it was

only the UM's Board

of

Trustees

which

can

validly

give

authority to

the

petitioner

to use

BPTI's

resources.

With

the said admission,

the Special Tenth

Division

held

that

it

is

probable

that

the crime

of

qualified

theft

has

been

committed

and

that

the

petitioner

is

probably guilty

thereof,

As

to

the

other issues,

e.g.,

(a)

that

tJM

is a family-run

corporation,

(b)

that

petitioner

openly

and

continuously

used

the

electricity

and

water

supply

of

BPTI without

the

complaint of

UM,

(c)

that

the

testimonies

of his

wifnesses

are

not

barred

under

the

5



cA-G.R,

SP NO. 128625

AMENDED

DECISION

Dead Man's

Sfafufe,

the

Special

Tenth

"Division ruled

that

these

are

matters

of defense

which

should

be

determined

at the

trial

proper.

On

the

issue

of

the

trial

court's denial

of

petitioner's

right

to

bail,

the

Special

Tenth

Division

ruled

that

the

trial

court

did

not

err

in so ruling

because the

prosecution

has

sufficiently

discharged

its

burden

of

proving

that the evidence

of

guilt

against the

petitioner

is

strong.

The

Special Tenth Division

further

ruled

that

Memorandum

Circular

No.

177, which

amended

DOJ Circular

No. 70,

is

applicable

in

this

case.

Hence,

conside

BPTI

is

more

than P500,000.00,

the

denial of

the

petitioner's

right

to

bail is

proper.

On 22

August

2013,

petitioner

filed

his Motion for

Reconsideration

to

the 30 July

2A13

Decision

of

the Special Tenth

Division reiterating

that there

is no

probable

cause against

him

for

qualified

theft

because there

was consent

by

the owner and

major

stockholder

of

UM,

his

father,

to

use the

electricity

and

water

supply

of

BPTI,

and that there

was no

intent

to

steal

on his

part

because

he

believed

in

good

faith

that

UM

is

family-owned.

He

'elsp*,4*p;ailEd

*ffi

e*nrgltminaryJmdlns.-efl

thM"jhe

*va

I

ue

.',"-, HfJJ*-amP.,u.nf

ed*..

1o

. As

to the denial

of his bail, Ja&&*Afg$e$*lhFJ

,tM

aqoffi

nd

um,

9

r

qtfl

Jlg"J

JL,n*gLan

plmh

k

exilsily.nnpJie.sc

o

,eaegF*,qfsudjfieq-fi"eJ,rr*s-l,g."Jpnj.g#.ngsp"mi*9rgqsj,9J-.in,C-u"s- r*is

Petitioner

also filed

a Motion

for

lnhibition attributing

irregularities

on

the

paft

of the

members of the Special Tenth

Division.

On

19

November

2013, Justice

Nina

G.

Antonio-

Valenzuela

inhibited

herself

from

further

participation

in

this

case.

Accordingly,

Justice

Franchito

N. Diamante was

selected

by raffle

as

the new

third

member of

the

Special

Tenth Division.

On

5

March

2014,

the

Speclat

Tenth Division

granted

petitioner's

Motion

for lnhibition.

lt

however strongly

denied the

accusation

of irregularities

in

promulgating

the

assailed

Decision

holding

that

the

Decision

was

promulgated

only after the

parties

were

given

ample time

to file

their respective

pleadings.



CA-G.R.

SP NO.

128625

AMENDED

DECISION

RULING

ln

okabe

vs,

Gutierrezl,

the supreme

court

defined

probable

cause

in

this

wise:

"Probable

cause

is

meant

such

set

of

facts

and

circumstances

which

would

lead

a

reasonably

'

discreet

and

prudent

man

to

believe

that

the

offense

charged

in

the rnformation

or

any offense

included

therein

has

been

committed

by

the

person

sought

to

be

arrested.

ln

determining

probable

cause,

the

average

man

weighs

facts

and

circumstances

without

resorting

to

the

calibrations

of

the

rules

of

evidence

of

which

he

has

no

technical

knowledge.

He

relies

on common

sense.

A

finding

of

probable

cause

needs

only

to rest

on

evidence

showing

that

more

likely

than

not

a

crime

has

been

committed

and

that

it

was

committed

by

the

accused.

#teba,blercsrySeydemands*msre*tfram

ep.f

q-.qq€et@i

eng,t*requ'i'r'es4

es,s*th

a,m'evid

enOe.qruh i

eh

W#g**d,fr

cst,ifyeonue.t'on

.

"

The

elements

of

qualified

theft

committed

with

grave

abuse

of

confidence

are:

7

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

owner's

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.2

G.R.

No.

150185.

May27,2A04.

People

v.

Puig,

G.R.

Nos.

t736s4-76s,Augusr

2g, 2009,

563

scRA

564,

s70: Roque

v.

people,

C.R,

No.

138954,

November

25,2A04,444

SCRA

9g,

I20.

:?,.r*,9

Fbgent

ie

this

case.



CA-G.R.

SP

NO.

128625

AMENDED

DECISION

The

fourth

element of

the

above-mentioned

crime, i.e.,

that it

be done

without

the

owner's

consent,

is

absent

in

this

case,

older

and

President

an

,q.LU[4.,yhLE ]rJUgIn,gw-[:"H,LTl

,.g,As"g,,,Bermit

a

conclusion

that

eUlhe :ity".by,th.ap.sard,_o,lT_LUs- e"ee

SenilqSJ

pl

behaff qf

the

latter:"

It

is well-entrenched

that

if

a

corporation

knowingly

permits

its

officer,

or

any

other

agent,

to

per.form

acts

within

the

scope

of

an apparent

authority,

holding

him

out

to

the

public

as

possessing

power

to

do

those

acts,

the

corporation

will,

as

against

any

person

who

has

dealt

in

good

faith

with

the

corporation

through

such

agent,

be

estopped

from

denying

such

authority.3

Apparent

authority

is

derived

not

merety

from

practice.

lts

existence

may

be

ascertained

through

1)

the

general

manner in

which

the

corporation

holds

out an officer

or

agent

as

having

the

power

to

act,

or in

other

words,

the

apparent

authority

to

act

in

general,

with

which it

clothes

him;

or

2)

the

acquiescence

in

his

acts

of

a

particular

nature,

with

actual

or constructive

knowledge

thereof,

within

or beyond

the

scope

of

his

ordinary

powers.a

Jhe

,.eqqViesqenqe,

of

,the

Board

of

Trustees

of

?9*o" -s€ql,,tP.,thpp.e[ili,9n-e-[-t"e-useBPTII-eeiF-clricity_and

,,

and until

the

death

of Viroilio

in

eatlatn

OI Vlrolllr

gqtg.gf

Jlqstqeb-;of'UM

did

not

object

to

or.repudiate

of

Virqilio.

ln

other

words. the Board did not out an encl

hgr,,s=?Ltkg*[-.Wgljg,*ln

olher

wor-dsn

lhe

,Board

did not

put

an

end

to,lnlt*?I[gi]ggnqnt

Which

could give

it sufficient

ground

to

file a

A.n+ t',

+

:ri.E

.,..:

..

: .

v

aL

case

against

the

petitioner

if

the

latter

continued

to

u.se

ffiF'tffiqpty

de,spite

,the,,,

cleal

prohioition

by the

Boa,rd

,of

ceedings

of-

.the

.estate,*of-.tlae,ir

father"'i

n

itiated

by

thei r

.sister

Ramon,and,

when

th.ere_

was-al

r"eady

-a,

seri

o us

corporate*sq

uabble

between-

and s fitoogxthe,,members

of

r

Associated

Bank v.

Pronsrroller,

G.R.

No, 148444,

July

14,200g,

55g

scRA

I13.

a

People's

Aircargo

and

Warehousing

Co,, Inc.

vs.

Court of

Appeals,

et

al.,

G.R.

No,

117847,

October

7,1998.



CA-G.R.

SP NO. 128625

AMENDED

DECISION

tk"Fo.ard,,.pf

T,r.us,tees

of

UM

that

a

cornplaint

for:

q,uafified,theft.wae

filp"id".agains-t

lhp

pelitioner

as

We,note

,in

-this

.cass.

l'f;,ffie

Board

of Trustees

of

UM

truly

believed

that

Virgili'#fiad

no'iieuthority

to

give

consent

on its

behalf,

it could have

overturned

ihd:'r.nullified

his

decision

to

allow the

petitioner

to use

the

€i$ttliclty

and

water

supply

of its

property

in

Bagu'io

City

from

its

jrrfdi$ption:

'

that

the

Board

of rrusteeJ

of uM did

not

p'r:event

the

petitioner

to

continue

to

openly

use

its

electricity

and

rypl"r

supply

duri'ng

the

lifetime

of

virgilio, and

even

im'mediately

th'dfeafter,

clearly

manifests

that

it

acquiesced

to

Virgilio's

giving

cif

Cfiffii*mt'to

the

petitioner.

:,.lndeed,

the

records

show

that

UM's

Board

of Trustees

clothed

Virgilio

with

such

apparent

authority

to act

on

behalf

of

UM.

Private

respondent

admitted

this

when

it adduced

the

affidavit

(used

during

the

preliminary

investigation

stage

of the

complaint,a

qao)

of

petitioner's sister, Ramona,

who

is

the current

chairman

of

the

Board

of Trustees

of

the

UM, to

wit:

'They

failed

to

appreciate

the fact

that it

was

even

rny

-father

who

shouldered

his

grandchildren's

expenses.

This'was

evidenced

by

a

Certification

issued

by

the

Frbsident

and

Chief

of Academic

Officers,

copy

of

WfjiCh

is

attached

hereto

as Annex

"8"

attesting

inat

r#ry

brother's

second

mistress

has

been receiving

rnonthly

allowance from

the

University

in

the amount of

Nine

Thousand

Eight

Hundred

Twenty

Five

pesos,

xxx."6

By

giving

Virgilio

an

apparent

authority,

UM,s

Board

of

Truistees

cannot

now

deny

and

repudiate

the legal

effect

of

VLrgJllois

consent

given

to

the

petitioner

to

use

the

electricity

and

wa,ter:

supply

of

BPTI.

The

element

of

lack

of

owner's

consentris

thus glaringly absent

in

this

case.

I

O.

Emily

D.

De

Leon,

who is

the

representative

of

UM

in this

case.

6

Affidavit

of Maria

Corazon

Ramona

Llamas Delos

Santos,

Annex

"C" of Annex

,,6"

of

private

respondent's

Comment

dated22

May 2013.

Records, p.76A.

I



CA-G.R. SP NO. 128625

AMENDED

DECISION

T,he

third

element,

i.e.,

that

the

said taking

be

done

with

irq,tent'to

gain

is

likewise absent in

this

case,

'Er/e'R

assuming

arguendo

that

Virgilio was

not

duly authorized

by

the

Board

of

Tlru,stees

of UM

to

give

its

consent

to

the

petitioner

and

the

latter

erred

when he

solely

relied

on his

father's

consent

without

further

'securing

the

authority

of

the Board

of

Trustees

of UM, his bona

f.ide'belief

that

he

had

authority

from

the

real

owner

of

the

eleetricity

and

water

supply

will

not

make

him culpable of

the

crime

of

qu,alJfied

theft

because

he

was

acting

with

a

color

of authority

or

a,.se,mblance

of right

to

do such

act.

Eor

a

charge

of

crime

to

prosper,

the

accused

must

have

b.een

shown

to

have acted

with

a

genuine

criminal intent.T

,,1,S

he

w.as ,acting

under

a

bona

fide belief

that he

has

a

claim

or title to

the,'"

thing

allegedly

stolen, the

criminal

intent is missi,ng.E

GoroJla,rily-

petitioner's

claim

of

right

on

the

basis

of

the

permission

gLuen,'b,y"his

father

negates

criminal intent

on

his

part.

ln People

vs.

Manlucos,

the

Supreme

Court

held:

"lt

is claimed

in this

case that

the

timber

in

question

belonged

to Teodoro

David

and

that

the accused

committed

robbery

in

removing

it

from

his

possession.

We find,

however,

frorn

all

the

evidence

in

the

case,

that

the

accused

has

proved

sufficient

to

deprive

his

act of

criminality.

He

has

shown

that. at

the

time

of taking

the

tifnber. he

in

good

faith

believed

that

he

was

the owner

thereof

and

that he

took

it

openly

and

avouledly

under

that

claim.

lt

is

law as welt

a_s

common

s_ense

that

gne

who

takes

property

op,enly

and

ayowedly

under

claim

of

title

preferred

in

qood

faith

is

not

guilty

of

robbery

or

of

larceny

even

thouqh

the claim

of ownership

is

untenable.',

(Underscoring

Ours.)

The

Manluco

ruling

was

reiterated

in

Alfonsa

Gaviola

vs.

P

e o

p

l

e1

0,

w

h e re

i

n the"-supreme*eo.urt-heldJhat,"if

.pn

e

"

h,as

?

cted:,

i n

good".feith

in

taking

a

personal

property

belonging

to

another

under

am;,h.,nnnst"hel,ief

that

he

has

a

right

to

take

possession

of

it,

then

"h

m,oLba4uilty"-of."th.e..crime.of,,theft"becau.se

the.

-erement.

of

lmtitenfr* o*galn*is.l

ac ki ng . T

h u

s :

'

US

vs.

Domingo

Viera,

G.R.

No.

861

. December

20, lg}2.

'

Pit-og vs.

People,

et al.,

G.R. No. 76539.

October I

l, 1990.

'

G.R.

No. 10005.

November

9,

1914.

'o

G.R. No.

163927,

27

lanuary 2006.

10



CA-G.R,

SP

NO.

128625

AMENDED

DEClSION

11

"For

one

to

be

guilty

of

theft,

the

accused

must

have an

intent

to steal

(animus

furandi)

personal

property,

meaning

the

intent

to

deprive

another

of

his

ownership/lawful

possession of

personal

property

which

intent

is

apart

from,

but

concurrent

with

the

general

criminal

intent

which

is

an

essential

element

of

a felony

of

dolo

(dolos

malus).

The animo

being

a

state

of

the

mind

may

be

proved

by direct

or circumstantial

evidence,

lnclusive of the

manner and

conduct

of

the

accused

before, during

and

after

the taking of

the

personal

property.

General

criminal

intent

is

presumed

or

inferred

from the very

fact

that

the

wrongful

act is

done since one

is

presumed

to

have willed

the

natural

consequences

of

his own acts.

Likewise,

animus

furandi is

presumed

from

the

taking

of

personal property

without

the

consent

of

the

owner

or

laMul

possessor

thereof,

The

same

may

be

rebutted

by the

accused by

evidence

that

he took

the

personal property

under

a bona

fide

belief

that

he owns

the

property.

ln

Black

v.

State,

the

State

Supreme

Court

of

Alabama ruled

that

the

open

and

notorious

taking,

without any

attempt

at

concealment

or

denial,

but

an

avowal of the taking,

raises

a

strong

presumption

that there is no animus

furandi. But, if

the

claim

is

dishonest,

a

mere

pretense,

taking

the

property

of another will not

protect

the

taker:

,

.

.

"ln all

cases where one

in oood

f-aith takes

another'S

property

under

claim

of

title

.in

himself.

he

is

exempt

from

the

charqe

of

larceny.

however

puerile

gr

"mistake,n

the

claim

may.in

fact be. And

the

same

is true

whefe

the

taking

is

on behalf of another. believed

to

be

the

true

owneL

Still, if the claim is dishonest,

q

mere

pretense,

it will

not

protect

the taker."

The

gis

of

the

offense

is

the

intent to

depr'ry'e another

of his

property'.

in a

chattel.

either

for:

gain

or

out

of wantonness

or

malice

to dqprive another

of his

rioht

in

the

thing

taken.

This

cannot

be

where the taker honestly

believes the

property

is

his

own

or

that

of

another.

and

that

he has

a

riqht

to

take

possession

of it

for himself

or

for

?nothqr.

for

the

protection

of the

,latter."11

(Underscoring

Ours.)

rr

Ibid



cA-G.R.

SP NO.

128625

AMENDED DECISION

B€titioner

openly and avowedly used BPTI's electricity

and

water.

suppl

under

the bona

frde

belief

that he

was

allowed

and

authorized by

his father to use

the

same.

l-J'is

tather owned

70.79%

ofi'',tlqe

shares

of

stocks

of

UM

and

was at that time

its President

6$d',.rChairman

of

the Board.

As

expla,i,ned

above,

the

Board of

Trustees

had

given

Virgilio

an

apparent

authority to

do so

as

shown,,by

the fact

that

it allowed

Virgilio

to treat

the

finances of

UM

ae,if',;they

were his own

personal

property.

dt did

,not

revoke

this

authority

while Virgilio was

still

alive or even immediately

,'tHbfeafter.

fiflB-lsl,l,egatlon

therefore

that

petitioner

had the intention

to,deprive

UM

of

its

personal

property

is

negated

by

the fact that

'loeo;.relied

in

good

faith

on

his

father's

authority

to use

BPT,I's

,.electrieity,and

water

su

pply.

Re&i&ione,r.s--ad,Lmlssion. of

u.sing BPTI's

electricity

and wa,ter

..supply

has

two

parts.

The

first

paft

is

that he

used

them for

the

'eonstruction

of

his

building;

Tl,qe,

seeond

part

is,

he

was

duly

a:tetleorized

to

do

so by

his

father

whom

he

believed in

good

faith

was:;,;th€

red

"owner

of

the said

property.

l,n, d:iscussing

this

adm,issior'l,

Ws:.c6nnot

just

focus

on

its

first

part

without

equally

',gbnsldering

the

second

part

theresf.

.lifi*\[V;e;-take.

i,nto

consideration

the

,.

second

part,

it will

show

that

petitioner

appropriated

the

property

of

BPTI

by

virtue

of

the

authority

given

by

the

property's

:Rep:uited

owner.

T'he

ele.rnent

of

intent to

gain

is

thus absent

i,bdeause

,petitioner

had a

valid

justification

in

us,ing

the

electricity

aiifiid;;waten

su,pply

of

B

PTl.

We,,6n

not agree

with

the ruling

of

the

trial

court

that

the

,defenses

of

the

petitioner

are evidentiary

in nature

which

can

only,

'$s

'{[;sshed

out

during

trial

proper.

Ljnder

section

6,

Rule

112

of

ffie:,'ftslss

of Court,

the

trial

court, in

evaluating

the

resolution

of the

Br:bsecu,tor

and

its supporting

evidence

for the

purpose

of

issuing

a

warra,nt

of

arrest,

"may

immediately

dismiss

the

case if the

evide.nce'on

record

clearly

fails

to estbblish

probable

cause."

,ln

#

this,

case, the trial

cour.t

committed grave abuse of discretion

when

it',".drid

not

dismiss

the

case

despite

the fact

that

there

was

no

plroiba,b,le.eause

to

indict

the

petitioner

for

qualified

theft because

tlr.eirelernents

of

intent

to

gain

and

lack of

owner's consent

are

,rmisisi#rg.

Tffbr*''petition,er

has

no

other

defenses

than what

he

'a:lmady

presented

thus

far,

Tti''''subject

him

to

the

rigors of

the

trial

12



CA-G,R. SP NO.

128625

AMENDED

DECISION

and:reguire

him

to

present

the same

setof

evidence again

despite

the,

clear

absence

of

some of

the

essential elements

of the

crime

tift,ualified

theft

would

just

be a futile

exercise and a waste of

the

triaLcoudls,precious

time

and

resources.

'#;robable

cause

to

issue

a warrant

of

arrest

pertains

to facts

aFd',eii'cumstances

which

would

lead a reasonably

discreet

and

prliffient

person

to

believe

that an

offense

has

been committed

by

tHei'lperson

sought

to

be

arrested.12

Tkioi4rgen,erel

rule is

that

appellate

courts

do not

review the

factual findings

of the

trial

court,

which

ihclude

the determination

of

probable

cause

for the issuance

of,;rwarrant

of

arrest.13

Btrt

when

it

is necessary

to

prevent

the

misuse

of the

strong

arm

of the

law

or

to

protect

the orderly

adrmi:nistrati,on

of

justice,

we

oannot

shirk

from

our

duty

to

s0rut,inize

the

records

of

this

case

in

order to

protect

the innocent

a$ainst

a

hasty,

malicious

and

oppressive

prosecution.

wHEREFORE,

premises considered, petitioner's Motion for

Reconsideration

is

GRANTED.

The

assailed

Orders of

the

trial

courts

are

SET

AslDE.

The

Complaint

for

eualified

Theft

against

the

petitioner

is

DlsMlssED

for

lack

of

probable

cause

and

the

warrant

of arrest

against

him

is

QUASHED.

SO

ORDERED.

-;ilGlilAL

slqN[]

ROSMARI

D.

CARANDANG

Associate

Justice

WE

CONCUR:

."- l .n r n

,-... ;.il

l,1L

5llf\X;,.J

RAMON

M.

BATO,

JR.

Associate

Justice

.'1r- :

j';

f.i

r

t' {: I

..lt

i' \

r

.::l

i,

,:"

Lj0-i,hL-.:,:'

MARLEN

E

GONZALES.SISON

Associate

Justice

Webb

v.

De

Leon,247

SCRA

652(1995).

chester

De

Joya vs.

Judge

Placido

c.

Marquez,

G.R. No.

l62416,January

3

l,

2006.

13



cA-G.R.

SP N0..128625

AMENDED

OECISION

$BtfitNAt:

.$lQ${fi.il

MANUEL M.

BARRTOS

Associate

Justice

,Gnlfiltlrrl.

$l0fliQ

EDWIN

D. SORONGON

Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant

to

Article Vlll, Section

13

of the

Constitution,

it

is

hereby

certified that the conclusions

in

the

above deciEion

were

reached in

consultation

before

the

case

was

assigned

to the writer

of

the

opinion

of

the

Court.

or?[fir]rAl

$[sNL

*;

ROSMARI

D,

GARANDANG

Associate

Justice

Chairperson,

4th

Division

14

f

g*

//-a/-/f

tsosailorfihea

l"'lea

E. Binrlll

Divi{ion

Cierk

oi Csurt

COUftT

OF

APPEALS

Documents

3)Court of Appeals UM