7/21/2019 Amended Decision No.128625

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/amended-decision-no128625 1/14

Republic

of

the

PhiliPPines

iounr

oF

APPEALS

'

Manila

ATTY.

ERNESTO

L.

SANTOS,

-versus-

REGIONAL

TRIAL

COURT

OF

BAGUIo

clTY

BRANCH

60

AND

ENANCH

7,

AND

UNIVERSITY

OF

MANILA,

REPRESENTED

BY

EMILY

D'

DE

LE.N'

Respondenfs"

x-----

AMENDED

DECISION

CARANDANG,

J,:

This

resolves

petitioner's

Motion

for

Reconsideration

of

the

Decision

dated

30

July

2013

promulgated

by

the

special

.Tenth

Division

of

this

Court

denying

petitioie/s

Petition

for

Certiorari'

The

30

July

2013

Decision

,rtiir"d

the

Order

dated

1

February

zOiZ

of

the

glguio

City

Regional

Trial

Court

Branch

7

finding

probable

cause

against

the

fi"tition"r

for

the

crirne

of

qualified

theft,

as

well

,.

ih"

Order

dated

7

December

2012

issued

by

Baguio

city

Regional

Trial

court

Branch

60

denying

petitioner's

Motion

for

Partial

Reconsideration

and

ordering

his

arrest'

Thefacts,aSnarratedinthe30JulyzafiDecision,areaS

follows:

FOURTH

DIVISION

DIVISION

OF

FIVE

DELOS

Petitioner,

CA-G.R.

SP

NO.

128625

Members:

CARANDANG,

ChairPerson'

BATO,

JR.,

GONZALES.SISON'

BARRIOS,

and

soRoNGON,

JI

Promulgated:

7/21/2019 Amended Decision No.128625

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/amended-decision-no128625 2/14

2

cA-G.R.

sP

NO.

128625

AMENDED

DECISION

a

PetitioneristhesonofVirgilioDelosSantos(Virgilio)'During

his

lifetime,

Virgifio

served

as-

President

and

Chairman

of

the

Board

of

TrusteJ=

ot

the

Univeisity

of

Manila

(UM)'

He

died

on

21

January

2008.

sometime

in

May

2007,

petitioner

started

the

construction

of

his CTTL

Buildrng

in

daguio

City.

CTTL

Building

is

adjacent

to

the

Benguet

pines-

TouriJt

lnn

(BPTI)

-

which

is a

business

estaLlishment

owned

a.nd

operated

by

UM'

According

to

the

petitioner,

Virgilio

explicitly

ordered

the

employees

of

fipff

to

assist

him

in

all

hls

needs

in

the

construction

of

the

CTTL

Building

including

the

use

of

BPTI's

electricity

and

water

supply.

ln

support

to

fii.

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

electriclty

and

water

supply

BPTI

for

the

construction

of

CTTL

Building'

After

the

death

of

Virgilio,

petitionerts

younger

sister.Ramona

Delos

Santos

filed

a

petition

to'probate

the

purported

holographic

will

of

Virgilio.

This

petition

was

opposed

by

her

siblings,

herein

petitioner and

CYnthia'

onSJuly2oll,EmilyDodsonDeLeon,whosucceeded

Virgilio

as

the

President

oi

UM,

filed

a

criminal

complaint

for

qrJriri"O theft

against

the

petitioner.

ln

her

two-page

complaint,

she

accused

thJ

petitioner,

who

was

allegedly

then

the

manager

and

operator

of

BPTI,

of

stealing

the

electricity

and

w-a^ter

supply

of

BpTl

with

a

total

value

of

morJor

less

P3,000,000.00'

ln

support

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

2OA7

,

he

was

ordered

Oy

itre

petitionet

o.

use

the

electricity

of

BPTI

for

the

ball

cutting,

-bending,

and

welding

in

connection

with

7/21/2019 Amended Decision No.128625

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/amended-decision-no128625 3/14

CA.G.R.

SP

NO.

128625

AMENDED

DECISION

the

construction

of

CTTL Building;

T11'-,Y1"n

the

first floor

of

CTTL

Building

was

finished,

petitioner

again

ordered

him

to

make

an

electricat

connection

troii''

eplr

io

CTTL

Buitding;

That

sometime

in

February

2OOg

ne

wai

again

ord-ered

by

the

petitioner

to

connect

tf'e-water

supply

"igpif

to

CTTL

Building

for

the

latter,s

use

for

its

busin".=

op"rutionr;

when

he

resigned

in

July

2oog,saidwaterconnectionwasstillexisting;Thatwhenhewas

instructed

by

tne

piesident

of

Unl

in

t'n"

2011to

check

the

water

connection,he-foundoutttrattnewltel.connectionwasstitl

existing

but the electric

connection

was

already

cut'

lnhisCounter-Affidavit,petitione|golJ"ndsthathisfamily

aggregat"rvo*n'98.79YoofUM;ThatVirgilioallowedhimtouse

the

electricity

and

wat",

,upf,iy'

of

Apff

,-for

the

construction

of

CTTL

Building;

That

no

comptaint

*as

filed

or

opposition

wa;s

aired

by

anyone

as

a

result

of

his

use

of

BPTI's

electricity

and

water

supply;

that

the

criminal

comptaint

against

him

was

only

filed

after

he

filed

an

opposition

to

the

f,robate

of

Virgilio's

alleged

holographic

will

initiated by his

sister'

Ramona'

lnaResolutiondated29July2oll.,theinvestigating

prosecutor

dismissed

the

complaini

against

the

petitioner

reasoning

that

tne

etement

of

"lack

of

conseht

or

knowledge

of

the

owner,,

is

absent

in

this

case

because

Virgilio,

while

being

the

president

and

Chairman

of

the

Board

of

Truitees

of

UM'

exp',t.1'tl

;,if

in]'i*ritioner

to

use

the

etectricity

and

water

supplv

of

--iti^

E3,00g000.-Q0.

Consequently,complainantfiledherMotionfor

Reconsideration.

ln

a Resolution

on

Review

dated

23

September

2011,

the

City

Prosecutor

of

Baguio

City

reversed

the

29

July

2011

Resolution

of

the

investigating

prosecutor'

The

City

Prosecutor

reasoned

that

it

is

only

UU,

tnrough

its

Board

of

Trustees,

which

can

give

a

valid

consent

to

the

use

of

electricity

and

water

supply

7/21/2019 Amended Decision No.128625

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/amended-decision-no128625 4/14

cA-G.R.

sP

NO.

128625

AMENDED

DECISION\

of

BPTI'

Further,

petitioner's

defense"

of

the

alleged

express

consent

of

Virgilio'is

barred

and

p-rohibited

under

the

"Dead

Man's

statute,,under

s".tion

23,

Rule

\,23

0f

the

Rules

of

court'

ln

any

case,

the

City

Fior""utor

adds,

the

petitio.ner

surreptitiously

and

i*ega*y

continueJ

to

t"p

ttre

eieciriciiy

and

water

supply

of

BPTI

even

after

the

completion

ot'in"

construction

of

CTTL

Building

which

is

beyond

the

period

pul"port"oly

given

to

him

by

his

father'

Lastly,

consioJri"g

ih'1

pi'titibn"r

n'o

a

direct

hand

in

the

managem"nt

oi

a"pl,

the

city

Prosecutor,stated

tlrlil,"je

is

a

sufficient

evioence

to

estantilrr

a

prouable

cause

against

the

petitioner

for

qualified

theft'

Anlnformationwasthereafterfiledincourtpursuanttothe

Resolution

on''i"ui"*'

QnJ7'"Septe'mher

01fu'-

g''trial.coud

rssued,.'a.,wa.rJant

-e{.

arrest

adffi;iifi"

petitiq.n9".r,.wlhout

allowing

"ffi,

te

o

Cj,

i

-

66;,.

*q,s.-a

r

re

s-te

d

o

n

ev

e

n,'d"

-al-e'

Accordingly,petitionerfiledanUrgentomnibusMotionfor

Judicial

Determination

of

pronant"

Crri",

To

LifUQuash

Warrant

of

Arrest,

,nJ

'

To

oererlsuipend

Arraignment.

Ardl?l

Any

Proceedings

before

the

trial

court

arguing

that

the

pieces

evidence

against

him

are

insufficient

to

estiOtisfr

probable

cause

for

the

crime

of

qualified

theft'

onlFebruary2olz,theBaguioRTcBranchTdenied

petitioner,u

Urg"nt

dmnibus

Motion

iuting

that

a

probable

cause

indeed

exists

for the

indictnreni

of

the

p6titioner

for

the

crime

of

qualified

theft

considering

that

he

admitted

that

he

caused

the

tapping

of

the

electricity

'nd

*'ter

supply

of

BPTI

to

his

CTTL

Building.

However,

the

tiiat

coult

granted

petitioner's

prayer

to

post

bail

citing

DoJ

Circular

rvo.

7a

iccordingly,

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

tnial

court

erreo

in

granting

the

petitioner

to

post bail

because

DOJ

Circular

No.

74

cannotiverride

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

7/21/2019 Amended Decision No.128625

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/amended-decision-no128625 5/14

cA-G.R.

SP

NO'

128625

AMENDED

DECISION

otherhand,p"*i,ion",,reiteratedin.hisMotionforPartial

Reconsideratiol

that

there

i.

no

probable.

cause

against

him

for

quralified

theft

because

he

was

auihorized

by

his

father

to

use

the

Jfutttitity

and

water

supply

of

BPTi'

X"onTDecember2Ol2'theBaguioBTC.Branch60issuedan

order

denying

petitioner's

frrf

otio*

ior

Partial

Reconsideration'

lt

however

found

complainant's

Motion

for

Partial

ReconsideratiOn

meritorious.

lt

reasoned

tnat

rvremorandum

order

No'

177

issued

by,..ihe

Ofti-cn

eJ-l,h,efiesioe-nt

hat

amended'the-'P'QJ"C'ircular'Np'

L'--*.Me-mSl*nOufi.'OiO"i'r'lo

i;,?1-proviOes

ihat,

no

bail'

's'hal["be

rgg.o-Inmgngeg

ia;"0-l;ffi"J

t'"t

where

the

value

of

the

property

Sglen. .p-fJ9q,.ooo

oo

and

abo;;

"S;;t;

it']"

"oiinl

allbsed

in

the

lnformation

"griI':itpatiti;;a;'i3

Pg,000,000.00,

petitioner

has

no

right

to

Post

bail.

on

15

Februa

ry

2A13,

petitioner

filed

a

Petition

for

ceftiorari

under Rule

65

of the

Rules

of

Court

before

this

Court

ascribing

grave

abuse

of

discretion

on

the

part

of

the

trial

courts

for

finding

probable

cause

,grintt

him

for

qualified theft

and

for

denying

his

prayer

to

Post

bail.

on

30

July

2013,

the

Special

Tenth.Division

of

this

Coutl

denied

petitioneis

Petition

for

'Cerliorarifinding

no.glav?.

abuse

of

discretion

on

tne

part

of

the

trial

court'

The

Special

Tenth

Division

rulecJ

that

petitioner

admitted

that

he

used

or

tapped

tl:

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

wnicn-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

o""n

committed

and

that

the

petitioner

is

probably

guilty

thereof'

Astotheotherissues,e,g,,(a)thatUMis.afamily-run

corporation,

(b)

that

petitioner

ofe:nty

and

continuously

used

the

etectricity

and

water

suppty

of

aipft'without

the

complaint

of

UM'

(c)

that

the

testimonies

of

his

wifnesses

are

not

barred

under

the

7/21/2019 Amended Decision No.128625

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/amended-decision-no128625 6/14

7/21/2019 Amended Decision No.128625

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/amended-decision-no128625 7/14

7/21/2019 Amended Decision No.128625

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/amended-decision-no128625 8/14

The

fourth

element

of

the

above-mentioned

crime'

i'e''

that

it

be

done

witno,ut

-tne

owner's

ct>nsent'

is

' .t::1,

':,

tlsriiii:

F.u"etrItig.ngC*.,"usg.,8f

,-," h**H.9.,'ql["cix-,4$:.ry?El

of

BPTI

w

CA-G.R.

sP

NO'

128625

AMENDED

DECISION

er

and

Pr-e9iqg"n1-U

]

Associated

Bank

v. Pronstrolier,

G.R.

No.

148444,

July

14,2008,

558

SCRA

ll3.

a

people,s

Aircargo

and

warehousing

co.,

lnc.

vs.

court

of

Appeals,

et

al',

G'R'

No'

I17847'

october

7,

1998.

Viroilio.

wifh

the

acquiescence

of

the

Board

of

Trustees

of

uM.

o#E

ffi

;;n.*f.tp."h"

p*ilionel

to-

uee

BPTll'q

electripitv-

and

i:ri;'irt

"hx{***r{''"

"o*=rdo*i.

fdercattei,

inA

until

the

death

of

Virgilio

in

water

iupplv

inrr ,ol:

Iffi:rlr"l,,,3n}^ulT,'li

diate

,'ifl5ii'ffiffiiio

or

rrusfiies

ot

urrl

did

not

object

to

or

repu

ina=;ito

a"I

aii$igirio.

ln other

words,

the

Board

did

not

put

an

end

i;lfni.'

#ffiAAni,Int

Wriicn

could

give

it

sufficient

ground

to

file

a

iiimi."f'g5d'aijainst

the

petitioner

if

the..latter

continued

to

use

ih:fi

36fiuppiv

t"'=fit"

'tn"

clear

pronioition

bv

the

Board

of

i,-f'fi-E; r"ih?;

iiniversity

l+*)0&ils,CIstlV*,inJ0.JJ"aahen,petitioner"and

It

is

well-entrenched

that

if

a

corporation

knowingly

permits

its

officer,

o1.

,ny

other

agent,

to

per-foim

acts

within

the

scope

of

an

apparent

aut'troiity

noiOing

him

out

to

the

public

as

possessing

p;*;;

to

do

those

,"1.,

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

merely

from

practice'

lts

existence

may

be

arcertrined

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

leneral,

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

+

,g,.

Gynl.hianp$nseC

"

-th"e*.Rrobate--pr:oceed

i

n

g

s

.

of the

estate

"of

their

father:.initiated

by

th;ii'sister

Ramon

and

when

there

was 'already

,a

serious

"orpor"t€,tsQUabble

between

and

among,'the

members

of

7/21/2019 Amended Decision No.128625

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/amended-decision-no128625 9/14

cA-G.R.

sP

NO.

128625

AMENDED

DECISIONI

 fo6e,,,8oa :d

of

Trustees

of

uM

that

a complaint

for

qualified theft

wa$

ffi"tu=g;lnsJ

the

petitioner

as

We

note

in

thiE

caqe'

lf,the

Board

of

Trustees

of

UM

truly

believed

that

Virgilio

had

no

authority

to

give

consent

on

it,

behalf,

it

could

have

overturned

aild

nullified

r.i"

decision

to

allow

the

petitioner

to

use

the

,.6tdttricity

and

*rt"i

=rppty

oi

its

prop9ry

in

Baguio

City

from

its

ii6ie,ijtion'-

Tffe'l

fact

that

the

goa;'a

of

Trustees

of

UM

did

not

gii6$ent

the

petii[n",

to

continue

to

openly

use

its

electricity

and

WatersupplyduringthelifetimeofVirgilio,andevenimmediately

ther,eafter,

.f"riV

,irniLtts

that

it

acqJiesced

to

Virgilio's

giving

of

ibnsent

to

the

Petitioner'

..lndeed,therecordsshowthatUM'sBoardofTrustees

ilothed

Virgilio

with

sucn

"ppri"ni

authority

to

act

on

behalf

of

UM.

ppivrt"

,esponOent

aAmittei

this

when

ii

adduced

the

affidavit

(used

during

tne

prefiminrly

investigation

stage

of

the

complaint'a

guo)

of petition"rJ,

sister,

Ramona,

irho

is

the current

chairman

of

t'tre

boaid

of

Trustees

of

the

UM,

to

wit:

"They

failed

to

appreciate

the

fact

that

it

was

even

my

father

who

shouldered

his

grandchildren's

expenses'

This

was

evidenced

by

a

certification

issued

by

the

preiiOent

anO

Cnief

of

Academic

Officers'

copy

of

*h[r;

is

attached

hereto

as

Annex

"B"

attesting

that

*V

brother's

second

mistress

has

been

receiving

monthly

allowance

from

the

University

in

the

amount

of

ttinu

fnousand Eight

Hundred

Twenty

Five

Pesos'

xxx.

"6

BygivingVirgilioanapparentauthority,UM'S.Boardof

Tfu,stees

cannot

now

deny

lnO

repudiate

the

legal

effect

of

Virgilio's

"un""nt

given

to

ine

petitioner

to

use

the

electricity

and

water

supply

of

AFft.

The

element

of

lack

of

owner's

consent^is

t,hus

glaringly

absent

in

this

case'

ffi,

who

is

the representative

of

UM

in

this

case.

5

Affidavit

of

Maria

corazon

Ramona

Llamas

Delos

Santos,

Annex

"c'o

Of

Annex

"6"

of

private

respondent's

Comment

dated22

May

2013'

Records'

p'160'

7/21/2019 Amended Decision No.128625

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/amended-decision-no128625 10/14

CA-G.R.

sP

NO.

128625

'

10

AMENDED

DECISION

Thethirdelement,i.e.,thatthesaidtakingbedonewith

irqterrttogainislikewiseabsentinthiscase.Evenassuming

arg,uendo

that

Virgitio

was

."iiLfV

authorized

by

the

Board

of

Trustees

of

UM

to

give

its

consent

io

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

fide

belief

tnai

ne

had

,rtf,oiiiy

from

.the

real

owner

of

the

electricity

and

wrte,

supply

*iri

noi

make

him

culpable

of

the

crime

of

qualified

theft

because

n"

*rt

acting

with

a

color

of

authority

or

a semblance

of

right

to

do

such

act'

Forachargeofcrimetoprosper,.theaccusedmusthave

been

shown

to

have

acted

with

a

genuine

criminal

intent'7'lf'

he

was

acting

unde

r

a

bona

fide

beliet

ttrat

he

has

a

claim

or

title

to

the

thing

allegedly

stolen,

the

criminal

intent

is

missi'ng'8

Gorrollarily,

petitLn"i'.

claim

of

right

on

the.

basis

of

the

permission

gjy-en

by h.is

father

negates

crim-inal

intent

on

his

part'

ln

People

-v,s.

Uaitucos,

the

Supreme

Courl

held:

"lt

is

claimed

in

this

case

that

the

timber

in

question

U"[rg"O

to

Teodoro

David

and

that

the

accused

"orr'itt"O

robbery

in

removing

it

from

his

poit".tion.

We

find,

however,

from

all

the

evidence

in the

case,

that

the

accused

has

proved

rutfi.ient

to deprive

his

act

of

criminality'

lle

has

The

Manluco

ruling

was

reiterated

in

Alfonso

Gaviola

vs'

peopte'/ol

*n*r*in

tlae,Supr,eme..Court,"h,eld"..that

if

one

has

acted

in

E..nb

faith

in

taking

a

personal

property

belonging

to

another

under

IaJnnnest.belief that he

has

a

right

to

take

possession

of

it'

then

,

annoL5e*guilty-.of*.the'cr:he-of

the.ft',because

the'element

of

i'mtenfu[o-,$ain,,is,.

lacki

ng

.

Th u

s:

1

8

9

l0

US

vs. Domingo

Viera, G.R.

No'

861.

December

20,1902'

Pit-og

vs. eeopte,

et

al.,

G.R.

No.

76539'

October

I

I'

1990'

G.R.

No.

10005.

November

9,

1914'

G.R.

No.

16392'1,2?

January

2006'

(Underscoring

Ours')

7/21/2019 Amended Decision No.128625

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/amended-decision-no128625 11/14

11

cA-G.R.

sP

NO.

128625

AMENDED

DECISION

"For

one

to

be

guilty

of

theft'

the

a-ccused

must

have

an

intJnt

"to

rt"ut

(animus

furandi)

personal

property,

meaning

the

intent

to

deprive

another

of

his

t*."i=nip/lav,rful

possession

,

ol

personal

property

wnrcn

int"nt

is

apart

from'

but

concLlrrent

with

tt.re'general

criminal

intent

which

is

an

essential

etemlii

or

a

felony

of

doto

(dolos

i'utii-ihe

animo

being

a

state

of

the

mind

may

il';;;r"J-nv

oiiect

oi

circumstantial

evidence'

inclusive

of

the

,"inutind

conduct

of

the

accused

before, during

,ni

,tt",

the taking of

the

personal

property.

Generai

ciiminal

intent

is

presumed

or

inferred

from

the

vurv

tact

that

the

wrongful

act

is

done

since

one

is

firesumed

to

have

willed

the

natural

consequences

of

his

own

acts'

Likewise'

animuS

furandi

L'-pi"t"n"O

from

the

taking

of

p"ito.uf

property

without

the

consent

of

the

owner

or

lawful

possessor

thereof'

The

same

may.

b9

rebutted

by

the

icc,seO

by

evidence

that

he

took

tf,e

personal

property

under

a

bona

flde

belief

that

he

owns

the

ProPertY.

ln

Black

v.

State,

the

State

Supreme

Court

of

Alabamaruledthattheopenandnotorioustaking,

without

any

attempt

at

concealment

or

denial'

but

,n

,rr*ul

of

tne

taking,

raises

a

strong

pt*trmption

that

there

is

no

?nim

us

furandi'

But'

if

ihe

claim

is dishonest,

a

mere

pretense'

taking

the

property

of

another

will

not

protect

the

taker:

deprive-ailGer

of

his

property'

in

a

chattel'

airxar fnr nain .tt ort

of

wantonngss

Or

malice

trr"

"**i

Still,

if

the

claim

is

dishonest,

a

p*t-tt=Jt

will

not

protect the

taker'"

Ours.)

(Underscoring

rr

lbid

7/21/2019 Amended Decision No.128625

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/amended-decision-no128625 12/14

CA-G.R.

sP

NO.

128625

'

12

AMENDED

DECISION

Fetitioner

openly

and

avowedly

used.

BPTI's

electricity

and

water

supply

under

the

bona

iiJ"

U"fi"f

that

he

was

allowed

and

authorized

by

his

father

to

use

fi;

;;".

ul"

father

owned

70-79%

of.the

shares

oi

rio.ft

of

UM

anJ

*,t

at

that

time

its

President

and

chairman

ol

the

Board

A-

Lxplained

above,

the

Board

of

Trustees

had

giu"n

virgilio

an

apparent.authority

to

do

so

as

shown

by

the

fJct

that

it

ltf

oweJ

Viijif

io

to

treat

the

finances

of

UM

a,s..if,

they were his own

personat

irope*y'

'lt

did

not

revoke

this

authority

while

Virgilio

was

still

alive

or

even

immediately

thereafter.

Th'e

allegation

therefoi"

p,tt

petitioner

had

the

intention

to

deprive

UM

,iit"t

personal

property

is

negated

by

the

fact

that

he-,r:etied

in

g*O JJ,in

on

nis

fathe/s

authority

to

use

BPTI's

el.ectricitY

and

water

suPPlY'

Pej,itlonetrls-,,admission

of

using

BPTI's

electricity

and

water

,su:pply

has

two

parts.

The

fi.st

pari

is

that

he

used

them

for

the

oonstruction

of

his

building;

The

second

part

is,

he

was

duly

authorized

to

Jo

io

ny

his

iather

whom

he

believed

in

good

faith

was

the

rear

owner

of

the

said

property.

ln

discussing

thls

ad,rn,ission,

we

iannot

just

focus

on

its

first

part without

equally

eonsidering

the

second

part

thereof'

l'f*ffe

take

into

consideration

the

second

part, it

will

show

that

petitioner

appropriated

the

pr.operty

or

Apir

'by

virtue

of

the

authority

given

by

the

property's

reputed

owner.

The

element

of

intent

to

gain is

thus.

absent

because

petitioner

had

a

valid

justification

in using

the

electricity

a,nd,,water

suPPlY

of

BPTt'

we

do

not

agree

with

the

ruling

of

the

trial

court

that

the

defenses

of

the

petitioner

are

evidentiJry

in

nature

which

can

only

be

threshed

out

during

trial

proper.

Under

Section

6,

Rule

112

of

the

Rules

of

Court,

thJtrial

court,

in

evaluating

the

resolution

of

the

prosecutor

and

its'supporting

evidence

for

the

purpose

of

issuing

a

warrant

of

arrest,

;rnry

immediately

dismiss

the

case

if

.].lg

e;-vidence

on

record

clearly

fails

to

eitrUti=n

probable

cause'"

ffi

#

this case,

the

trial court committed

grave abuse

of

discretion

when

it+:.d,id.,

no,t

dismiss

the

case

despite

the

fact that

there

was

n'o

p.roba,ble'cause

to

indict

the

petitioner

for

qualified

theft

because

tlxe,:elernents

of

intent

to

ga'in

and

lack

of

owner's

consent

are

ffi*,"g

Thrb

,petitioner

has

no

other

defenses

than

what

he

already

presenied

thus

far.

To subject

him

to

the

rigors

of

the

trial

7/21/2019 Amended Decision No.128625

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/amended-decision-no128625 13/14

CA-G.R.

sP

NO.

128625

'

13

AKlENDED

DECISION.

and

requir.e

him

to

present

the

same

setof

evidence again

despite

tb6i,:clear,rb."n.*

Lf

,o*"

of

ne

essential

elements

of

the

crime

iOT;Walified

theft-*oufO

just

be

,

iriifu

exercise

and

a

waste

of

the

tni*cour{ls

pre-cious

time

and

resovrces'

Probabte

cause

to

issue

a

warrant

of

arrest

pertains

to

facts

and

circumstances

which

would

lead

a

reasonably

discreet

and

ppudent

person

to

believe

tnai

an

offense

has

been

committed

by

tflei,'person

sought

to

be

arrested'"

Tlqe'general..rule'

is

that

appellate

courts

io

not

review the

factual findings

of

the trial

court'

which

include

the

determination

of

pr:obable

cause

for

the

issuance

of

,,Warrant

of

';;;;,;i

Bri

*r'*n

it

is

necessary

to

prevent

the

mlsuse

of

the

strong

arm

of

the

law

or

to

protect

the

orderly

ad,nrinistration

of

justice,

we

cannot

shirk

from

our

duty

to

scrutinize

the

records

of

this

case

in

order

to

protect

the

innocent

against

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

ASIDE.

The

complaint

for

Qualified

rheft

against

the

petitioner

is

DISMISSED

for

iack

of

probable

cause

and

the

warrant

of

arrest

against

him

is

QUASHED'

SO

ORDERED.

r.ar,gur

F.

r

SIG$;]

-,"ii

-rlt{l1L

i...-r.

ROSMARI

D. CARAhIDANG

Associate

Justice

WE

CONGUR:

i...1:;i: ;1,L

5X

:rui..J

RAMON

M.

BATO,

JR.

Associate

Justice

,a,

../an :pi.r

rj .i..--f.i'

'l

&.

.

-.::|.

i'.:.

r-16..'iiuP

''

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'

162416'

January

3l

'

2006'

7/21/2019 Amended Decision No.128625

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/amended-decision-no128625 14/14

14

CA-G,R.

SP

NO.

128625

AMENDED

DECISION

sRl$.ll{l..1l SIQNI';il

MANUEL

M.

BARR]OS

Associate

Justice

"Si?le

Irf

/.1

L

'$lGlrt

i.;Q

EDWIN

D,

$ORONGON

Associate

Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant

to

Article

VIII,

Section

13

of

hereby

certified

that

the

conclusione

in

the

reached

in

consultation

before

the

case

was

of

the

opinion

of

the

Court'

the

Constitution,

it

is

above

decision

were

assigned

to

the

writer

.$tlSIlr &L

$[filtli..i

RO$MARI

D.

CARANDANG

Associate

Justice

Chairperson,

4th

Division

cenrtrteffiuE

coPYi

'//-

/t'att|

Rosarlorfihoa

l,4ea

E'

Binellt

Divi{ion

uicrk

ol

Gou*

COUR'T

OF

APIIEALS