6) Regional Trial Court CO128625

7/18/2019 6) Regional Trial Court CO128625

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/6-regional-trial-court-co128625 1/14

ATTY.

ERNESTO

L.

SANTOS,

Republic

of

the

PhiliPPines

COURT

OF

APPEALS

Manila

FOURTH

DIVISION

DIVISION

OF.

FIVE

DELOS

Petitioner,

CA-G.R.

SP

NO'

128625

Members:

CARANDANG,

ChairPerson'

BATO,

JR.,

GONZALES.SISON,

BARRIOS,

and

soRoNGON,

JI

-versus-

REGIONAL

TRIAL

COURT

OF

BAGUIO

GITY

BRANCH

60

AND

BRANGH

7,

AND

UNIVERSITY

OF

MANILA,

REPRESENTED

BY

EMILY D, DE LEON,

ResPondenfs'

Promulgated:

AMENDED

DEGISION

CARANDANG,

J,:

This

resolves

petitioner's

Motion

for

Reconsideration

of

the

Decision

dated

30

iuly

2013

promulgated

V

ttre

Special

.lenth

Division

of

this

Court

denying

petitioie/s-

Petition

for

Certiorari'

The

30

July

201g-Decision

,rtiired

the

Order

dated

1

February

2012

of

the

Baguio

City

Regional

Trial

Court

Branch

7

finding

probable

cause

against

the

p"tition"r

for

the

crime

of

qualified

theft, as well

"=

it'l"

Order

dated

7

Decemb

er

2012

issued

by

Baguio

citv

negional

Trial

court

Branch

60

denying

petitioner's

Motion

for

partii

Reconsideration

and

ordering

his

arrest'

The

facts,

aS

narrated

in the

30

July

2013

Decision,

are

aS

follows:



cA-G.R.

SP

NO.

128625

AMENDED

DECISION

{

petitioner

is

the

son

of

Virgilio

Delos

Santos

(Virgilio).

During

his

lifetime,

Virjitio

served

aJ

President

and

Chairman

of

the

Board

of

TrusteJs

ot

the

University

of

Manila

(UM).

He

died

on

21

January

2008.

sometime

in

May

2007,

petitioner started

the

construction

of

his CTTL Building

in

Baguio

City.

CTTL Building is adjacent

to

the

Benguet

Pines

-

TouriJt

lnn

(BPTI)

rrvhich

is a

business

establishment

owned

and

operated

by

UM'

According

to

the

petitioner,

Virgilio

explicitly

ordered

the

employees

of

6pft

to

assist

him

in all

his

needs

in

the

construction

of

the

CTTL

Building

including

the

use

of

BPTI's

electricity

and

water

supply.

ln

su[port

to

his

claim,

petitioner

presented

the

affidavits

ol

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

BPTI

for

the

construction

of

CTTL

Building.

After

the

death

of

Virgilio,

petitioner's

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.

on

8

July

2011,

Emily

Dodson

De

Leon,

who

succeeded

Virgilio

as

the

President

of

uM,

filed

a

criminal

complaint

for

quJtinuO

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

P3,000,000'00'

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

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

GTTL Building;

That when

the

first floor

of

CTTL

Building

was

finished,

petitioner

again

ordered

him

to

make

an

electrical

connection

from

BPTI

to

CTTL

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

98.79%

of

UM;

That

Virgilio allowed

him

to

use

th -

ellctricity

and

water

supply

of

BPTI

for the

construction

of

CTTL

Building;

That

no complaint

was

filed

or opposition

was

aired

by

anyone

as

a

result

of his

use

of

BPTI's

electricity

and

water

supply;

that the

criminal

complaint

against

him

was

only

filed

after

he

fiied

an

opposition

to

the

probate

of

Virgilio's

alleged

holographic

will

initiated by his sister, Ramona'

ln

a

Resolution

dated

29

July

2A11,

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

being

the

President

and

Chairman

of

the

Board of

Trustees

of

UM,

explicitly

allowed

the

petitioner

to

use

the

electricity

and

water

supply

of

UM's

BPTI

T

\-{e6*sqya@m*to*h,is'ola,i

pJaml-

MmsfiL[F,M,ga,iast*th,a*potltio,mer'foe,h,iffi

aQd,-WAF

r

e"upnlU**gfr*EE*TJ.,.*mladg,*-Vi,,r,g

,*$,t}lJ*a[i]{&*

T-ea-iav-eslig,A.tk}g

ru;esge,uler*,*,"f,utrJhFJ

*..,Str4f.eC",*{h,A[**lhg*-.*,gg,mpJaiBHEL.r..f,?if,FC,*'l$

iu,nsiinltiate*fier

.aesugallgn,,tha "-the,

V€U#--Qf-ths,,pile-GlUFi'ty",3nd

wfMed-ly-*sldil*by-*thg.,Reli$gnEf

,g,lloullt,'.,,*[p

eao00*00["0s..

consequenily, complainant

filed her

Motion

for

Reconsideration.

ln a Resolution

on

Review

dated

23

September

2011,

the

City

Proseeutor

of

Baguio

City

reversed

the

29

July

2011

Resolution of the investigating

prosecutor,

The

City

Prosecutor

reasoned

that

it

is

only

UM,

through

its

Board of

Trustees,

which

can

give

a valid

consent

to the

use of

electricity

and

water

supply

3



4

CA-G.R.

SP

NO.

128625

AMENDED

DECISION

of

BPTI.

Further,

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

0f

the

Rules

of

court'

ln

any

case,

the

city

Prosecutor

adds,

the

petitioner

surreptitiously

and

illegally

continued

to

tap

the

electriciiy

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,

conliOering

ir'rt

petitioner

had

a

direct

hand

n

the

management

of

gFft,

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.

@m*2fu*Sep'[e,rpher..,,2Qt{***thg",[rifll.*n0QUd

i,sqlled,"-,towa

IAOt

.Q,f,

G.[Isst*3,941$tg[.the,&d$lggef*Mmp]Ut,

all WJ

Ag

.Umn*g-RffihM,l

I

.

kbaua*A#US.*[ed,.QIL

*V'9'H''dB&B'

Accordingly, petitioner

filed

an

Urgent Omnibus Motion

for

Judicial

Oeterfiinaiion

of

Probable

Cause,

To

LifUQuash

Warrant

of

Arrest,

and

To

Deferlsuspend

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

Cjmnibus

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

AuiiOing.

However,

the

tiial

courl

granted

petitioner's

prayer

to

post

bail

citilrg

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



5

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

auihorized

by

his

father

to

use

the

electricity

and

water

supply

of

BPTI

X"

on

7

Decembe

r

2012,

the

Baguiof.TC

,Branch

60

issued

an

order

denying

p"iitionur's

Motion

io1.

Partial

Reconsideration'

lt

however

found'complainant's

Motion

for

Partial

Reconsideration

meritorious.,l$, reasoneO

that

Memorandum, ,rde1

Ng'

J77,issy,,pd

hu-thp*Q-f[Lg&*g[S.R'f*,[ffild,effi,g".emen'C-qd=Jhe*P'Q**Qil:"qu'lar-I$p

jr:,*f,t*'ffi:B?ffi

*sh*g-Ag.q,6t6"ffi--r;i'roo;B-$''

:"n"^amff

ii1.bflegedin'il're

tnformation

rg;d;t'p[tifi6;ei-G

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

Court

before

this

Court

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

Telth

Division

of

this

court

denied

petitioneis

Petition

for

'Ceftiorarifinding

no

grav?

abuse

of

discretion

on

the

part

of

the

trial

court'

The

Special

Te.nth

Division

rulecl

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 ofenty

and

continuously

used

the

eleictricity

and'water

supply

of

SipT

without

the

complaint

of

UM'

(c)

that

ihe

testimonles

of

his

wifnesses

are

not

barred

under

the



6

CA-G.R.

SP

NO.

128625

AMENDED

DECISION

Dead

Man',s

sfafufe,

the

special

Tenth'Division ruled

that

these

are

matters

of

Jefense

which

should

be

determined

at

the

trial

proper.

on

the

issue

of

the

trial

court's

denial

of

petition."t::.

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

inui

tn"

evidence

of

guilt against

the

petitioner

is

strong.

The

SpeJial Tenth Division

fufthlr

ruled

that

Memorandum

Circular

No.

177,

which

amended

DoJ."

circular

No'

70,

is

applicable

in

this

case'

Hence,

BPTI

is

more

than

P50O,OO0.OO,

the

deniit

of the

petitioner's

right

to

bail

is

ProPer.

On22August2ol3,petitionerfiledhisMotionfor

Reconsideration

to the

30

July

2013

Decision

of

the

special

Tenth

Division

reiterating

that

ther"

i.

no

probable

cause

against

him

for

qualified

theft

beJause there

was consent

by

the owner and

major

stockhotder

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

Jtnd'Nrg

-oI-the-tnal-cpild*that"

Jhe-va

I

ue

ofr*'te*o*ur,ce,e-,ffi

HHffidY':-

s6

"-:f"fm'

BPJJ*amnunte'd"*to

oi-

tris

bail,

hq*&rgues,"

thgt

rUem,sran,qum*QrqeLlF,*iI7*l-q*PI"f,

n"pMs#less4H#y,$fi?l ?"

l"

'

in$gstftP-s'

Petitioner

also

filed

a

Motion

for

lnhibition

attributing

irregularities

on

in"

part

of

the

members

of

the

Special

Tenth

Division.

on

19

November

2013,

Justice

Nina

G'

Antonio-

Valenzuela

inhibited

herself

from

turirrer

participation

in

th.is

case.

Accordingly,

Justice

Franchito

N'

Diamante

was

selected

by

raffle

as

the

new

tlrird

member

of

the

Special

Tenth

Division.

1-

on

5

March

2014,

the

special

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

g"iven

ample

time

to

file

their

respective

pleadings'



7

CA.G.R,

SP

NO.

128625

AMENDED

DECISION

ln

Okabe

probable

cause

in

vs,

Gutierrezl

,

the

SuPreme

this

wise.

Court

defined

"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

lnformation

or

any

offense

included

therein

has

been

committed

by the

person

sought

to

be

arrested.

ln

determining

probable

curie, the

average

man

weighs

facts

and

circumstances

without

resorting

to

the

ealibrations

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.,&nebableryoause*dern'g'n6'gfltgre*t{ffir*"

The

elements

of

qualified

theft

committed

with

grave

abuse

of confidence

are:

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;

O.

lnaiit

be

done

with

grave

abuse

of

confidence.2

G.R.

No.

l50l 85.

May 27,

2004.

People

v.

Puig,

G.R.

Nos.

l'13654-765,August

28,

2008, 563

SCRA

564,

5701

Roque

v'

People,

C.R.

No. 138954,

November

25,2004,

444 SCRA

98,

120.

ieh



I

CA-G.R.

SP

NO,

128625

AMENDED

DECISION

The

fourth

element

of

the

above-mentioned

crime,

bedonewithouttheowner,Sconsent,isabsentin

i.e.,

that

it

this

case.

holder

and ,P

of

UM

which

in.tu. "n

gw-ns

ita

r

Associated

Bank

v, Pronsroller,

G.R.

No.

148444,

July

14,

2008,

558

SCRA

I13.

4

people,s

Aircargo

and

Warehousing

Co,,

Inc,

vs. Court

of

Appeals,

et

al,,

G.R'

No.

117847'

October

7, i998.

n

P

Hffi

ffi

.glagea

rd

p,f*

rru

stees

ig""[$,"g"n1-<in

behalf

of

the

latter:

It

is

well-entrenched

that

if a

corporation

knowingly

permits

its

officer,

or

any

other

agent,

to

perform

acts

within

the

scope

of

an

apparent

aut'hority,

holding

him

out

to

the

public

as

possessing

po*ui to

do

those

acts,

the

corporation

will,

as

against

any

"person

who

has

dealt

in

good faith

with

the

corporation

through

such

agent,

be

estoppedlrom

denying

such

authority'3

Apparent

authority

is

derived

not

merely

from

practice'

lts

existence

may

be

ascerlained

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

Icts

of

a

particular

nature,

with

actual

or

constructive

knowledge

thereof,

witnin

or

beyond

the

scope

of

his

ordinary

powers'o

father,*i

n

itiated by

thei

r:'

sister Ramon

and,

when-

there-

.was''6lrcady

,a

Seriou,

.otpotite-squabble

between'"and

among'othe'members

of



I

cA-G.R.

SP

NO.

128625

AMENDED

DECISION

tbl.e.,B.oar,d

of

Truslees of

UM

that

a complaint

for

qualified

theftwas

f*.-J.""uguinlt

m"

petitioner

as

We

note

in

lhi'E

caEP'

lf the

Board

of

Trustees

of

UM

truly

believed

that

Virgilio'had

nolauthority

to

give consent

on

its

behaif,

it

could

have

overturned

and'

nullified

his

decision

to

allow

the

petitioner

to

use

the

"iactritiiv

r"o

water

suppty

of

its

proper

in

Baguig

9.ly

from

its

,"a"pti"ti':

Tfi'e'"fact

that'ti're

Board

of

Trustees

of

UM

did

not

B,,tercUt

the

petitioner

to

continue

to

openly

use

its

electricity

and

;irt*

--ply

Ouring

the

lifetime

of

Virgilio,

and

even

immediate'ly

ih,6?a"ft;1".i"*rv

rianifests

that

it acquiesced

to

Virgilio's

giving

of

Cd'ffient

to

the

Petitioner'

'

rlndeed,

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

guo)

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

my

father

who

shouldered

his

grandchildren's

expenses'

This

was

evidenced

by

a certification

issued

by

the

President

and

Chief

of

Academic

Officers,

copy

o'f

which

is

attached

hereto

as

Annex

"8"

attesting

that

my

brother's

second

mistress

has

been

receiving

monthly 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

Trustees

-"rnn-ot

no*

deny

and

repudiate

the

legal

effect

of

virgilio's

consent

given

to

the

petitioner to

use the

electricity

and

*r[",

supply

of

AFft.

The

element

of

lack of

owner's

consent'is

thus glaringiy

absent

in

this

case.

,

Dr.

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'760'



10

CA-G.R.

SP

NO.

128625

AMENDED

DECISION

Thethi'rdelement,i.e.,thatthesaidtakingbedonewith

irqtent,,to

gain

is

likewise

absent

in

this

caSe'

Even

assuming

a:,rguendo

that

Vir.gilio

was

not

duly

authorized

by

the

Board

of

T

ustees

of

UM

to"give

its

consent

io

the

petitioner

and

the

latter

grred

when

he

solJly

relied

on

his

father's

consent

without

further

securing

the

au-thot,tv

of

the

,Board

of

Trustees

of

UM'

his

bona'

,fide,belief

that

he

lrad

authority

from

the

real

owner

of

the

electr,icity

and

water

supply

will

noi

make

him

culpable-of

the

crime

o,fiqug:fifled

theft

because

he

was

acting

with

a

color

of

authority

or

a,,s.er-mb.lance

of

right

to

do such act'

For

a charge

of

crime

to

prosper, the

accused

must

have

,b:een

shown

to

have

acted

with

a

genuine

criminal

intent'7

'lf

he

was,,acting

unde

r

a

bona

fide

belietltrat

he

has

a

claim

or title

to

the,,,-,th,ing.,

allegedly

stolen,

the

criminal

intent

is

missimg'8

Goriollaril.y,.

petii[n"i',

claim

of

right

on

the

basis

of

the

permissiop

,giuen-,.b,y..",h1s

father n.egates

criniinal

intent

on

his

pailt'

ln

People

-vs.

Mantucos,

the

Supreme

Courl

held:

..ltisclaimedinthiscasethatthetimberinquestion

UeiongeO

to

Teodoro

David

and

that

the

accused

.ornitt"d

robbery

in

removing

it

from

his

possession.

We

find,

however,

from

all

the

evidence

in

the

case,

that

the

accused

has

proved

sufficient

to deprive

his

act

of

criminality'

He

has

of

.th"eft..be,cause.

the.

e,lement

of

i,n*effido-'gaizuisJacki

ng.

Th

us :

US

vs. Domingo

Viera,

G'R.

No,

861.

December

2A,1902'

Pit-og

vs. teopte,

et

al', G.R.

No.

76539'

October

I

l,

1990'

G,R.No.

10005.

November9,

l9l4'

G.R.

No.

163921,27

January

2006.

The

Manluco

ruling

was

reiterated

in

Alfonso

Gaviola

vs'

P

e

o

p

l

el

o,

w

h e

re

i n

t

hc--SupfiQrilzuQo"urt

heldJhat'if

.on

e'

h

As

s

cied

:

:

i

n

g*roO*"itn

in

taking

a

personal

property

belonging

to

another.under

Ior*msnest-"belief

that

he

has

a

right

to take

possession

of

it'

then

1

8

9

t0

at

lvu

(Underscoring

Ours,)



11

cA-G.R.

SP

NO.

12862s

AMENDED

DECISION

"For

one

to

be

guilty

of

theft'

the

accuse-d

musthaveanintent-tosteal(animusfurandi)

per.onrf

property,

meaning

the-

intent

to

deprive

another

of

his

ownershifi/lavuful

possession

.

ol

p"iton"f

property

which

intent

is

apart

from.'

,but

lon.rrr"ni

*itn

the

general

criminal

intent

which

is

,n

"rr"ntial

elemeit

of

a

felony

of

dolo

(dolos

irtiii

The

animo

being

a

state

of

the

mind

may

O"

pi',ru*O

by

direct

oi

circumstantial

evidence'

inclusive

of

the

manner

and

conduct

of

the

accused

before,

during

and

after

the taking of

the

personal

pi"p"riv.

Geieral

criminal

intent

is

presumed

or

interred'

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

lawful

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

lresumption

that

there

is

no

anim

us

furandi'

But'

if

ine claim

is dishonest,

a

mere

pretense, taking

the

property of

another

will

not

protect the

taker:

a

mere

irre

own"r.

Still,

if

the

claim

is

dishonest,

pretense, it

will

not

protect

the

taker'"

The

oist

of

the

offense

is

the

intent

to

rofhi

"

lbid.

Ours.)



12

CA-G.R.

SP

NO.

128625

AMENDED

DECISION

B$tit:ioner

openly

and

avowedly

used

BPTI's

electricity

and

water

supply

under

the

bona

fide

belief

that

he

was

allowed

and

authotized

by

his

father

to

use

the

same'

Hils'father

owned

70'79%

sf,the

shares

of

stocks

of

UM

and

was

at

that

time

its

President

,eirnd;.ehailTr?r.l

of

the

Boa;d.

As

explain'ed

above,

the

Board

of

Trtlstees

had

given

Virgilio

an

apparent

authority

to

do

so

as

s,hown

,by

the

fict

that

it

allowed

Viigilio

to

treat

the

finances

of UM

ag,;iif,they

were his own

personal [roperty.

dt

did''

not

revoke

this

dUthor,ity

while

Virgilio

was

still

alive

or

even

imle iately

th:ereafter.

T,tte,,,a,ljegJtion

therefore

that

petitioner

had

the

intention

to,deprive

UM

of ii"

personal

property is

negated

by

the

fact

that

'filedi,relied

in

good

faith

on

his

fathe/s

authority

to

use

BPT'l's

',dlectri,city,and

water

suPPIY.

ffilfiiocle,nis*adrmission

of

usi.ng

BFTI s

electricity

and-

wa'ter

.suppJy

has

two

parts.

Th,e

fipst

parl

is

that

he

used

them

for

the

,eonstruction

of

his

building;

The

second

part

is,

he

was

duly

a;u:thorized

to

do

so

by

his

iather

whom

he

believed

in

good

faith

Wasl,,,the

reat

'Owner

Of

the

said

property' l.n"'d'isoussi'ng

this

ad:mission,

we:"rofl.llrot

just

focus

on

its

first

part

without

equally

,,consldering

the

iecond-

part

theresf.

l,{x\ffe-take

i,nto

consideration

the,,.

secon-d

paft,

it

wiit

show

that

petitioner

appropriated

the

propertv

of

gPft

by

virtue

of

the

authorrity

given

by

the

property's

nepu,ted

owner.

The

element

of

intent

to

gain

is

thus.

absent

:6(*6ause,pe.titioner

had

a

valid

justification

in

using

the

electricity

e;iild:;w,ater'

suPPlY

of

BP'TI'

M[r6ldo

not

agree

with

the

ruli,ng

of

the

trial

court

that

the

,d,efenses

of

the

petitioner are

evidentiary

in

nature

which

can

only'

,be,,threshed

out

during

trial

proper.

'U'nder

Section

6,

Rule

112

of

t'he,Rules

of

Court,

thJtrial

court,

in evaluating

the

resolution

of the

proseeutor

and

its

supporting

evidence

for the

purpose

of issuing

a

ijuar,r,ant

of

arrest,

"'may

immediately

dismiss

the

case

if the

evid,en,ce

on

record

clearly

fails

to

establish

probable

cause'"

't'n

#

this

case, the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion

when

i{,'.s}j,f,,

not dismiss

the

case

despite

the

fact

that

there

was

no

proba,ble

cause

to

ind,iet

the

petitioner

for

qualified

theft

because

tlErel:i

lements

of

intent

to

gain

and

lack

of

owne,r's

consent

are

rmissing.

Tt{:;br+rpetitioner

his

no

other

defenses

than

what

he

'arlready

pres"nied

thus

far.

Tdi'su,bject

him

to the

rigors

of the

trial



13

CA-G.R.

SP

NO.

128625

At'"4ENDED

DECISION

ainid,require

him

to

present

the same

setof

evidence again

despite

the,,,clear

absence

of

some

of

the

essential

elements

of

the

crime

of4ualified

theft

would

just

be

a

futile

exercise

and

a

waste

of

the

tr,iah,courtis

precious

time

and

resoqrqes'

.

robable

cause

to

issue

a

warrant

o:f

arrest

pertains

to

facts

,ahd,:,eircumstances

which

would

lead

a

reasonably

discreet

and

p,Eudent

person

to

believe

that

an

offense

has

been

committed

by

imiitberSon

sought

to

be

arrested.l2

Trhdrigenera'l

rule.

is

that

app6llate

courts

do

not review the

factual findings

of

the trial

court,

wh;ch,,i,nclude

the

determination

of

probable

cause

for

the

issuance

of,rwarrant

of arrest.13

BUf

when

it

is

necessary

to

prevent

the

misuse

of

the

strong

arm

of the

law

or

to

protect

the

orderly

admirn,istration

of

justice,

We

cannot

shirk

from

Our

duty

to

S6rutinize

the

records

of

this

case

in

order

to

protect

the

innocent

aEainst

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

Theft

against

the

petitioner

is

DISMISSED

for lack

of

probable

cause

and

the

warrant of

arrest

against

him

is

QUASHED.

SO

ORDERED.

-,r, GitlA[.

9lQN,i3

ROSMARI

D.

CARANDANG

Associate

Justice

WE

CONCUR:

i.;.l.ili:1,'il-

SI l[{;

tr

RAMON

M.

BATO,

JR.

Associate

Justice

r..r'i

lti:' ,.'iL

Liif.':fi;.,1

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

31,2006.



14

CA-G.R.

SP

NO.

.128625

AMENDED

DECISION

oBlfilNltt:

$l$N["il

MANUEL

M.'BARRIOS

Associate

Justice

PBIGIFIAI.'

SISf'ni;A

EDWIN

D.

SORONGON

Associate

Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant

to

Articte

vllt,

section

13

0f

the

constitution,

it

is

hereby

certified-inrt

the

conclusions

in

the

sbove

decision

were

reached

in

consultation

before

the

case

was

assigned

to

the

writer

of

the

opinion

of

the

Couft.

CIn"Is{}'lAE

$lQltt

,{

ROSMARI

D.

CARANDANG

Associate

Justice

Chairperson,

4ft

Division

crnrtrteffiuE

coPYr

'/A

l'arrr

Rosarlorfihea

Mea

E'

Binrllt

oivi{iorr

Cierk

oi

Court

COURT

OF

APPEALS

Documents

6) Regional Trial Court CO128625