Upload
delys-inn
View
218
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 1/72
REPUBLIC
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES
SIIPREME
COURT
MANILA
PEOPLE
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES,
Petitioner,
-
versus
-
G.R.
No.
220685
(CA-G.R.
SP
No.
128625;
Court of
APPeals,
Former
Fourth
Division
-
Division
of
Five)
ERNESTO
L.
DELOS
SANTOS,
x_____--
1"-:l'l31ll;
The
PEOPLE,
through
private complainant
University
Manila
and
with
the
conformity/ratification
of
the
office
the
Solicitor
General,
by
counsel,
respectfully
states:
PREFATORY
settled
is
the
rule
that
"x
x
x
in
an
action for
certiorari,
the
primordial
task
of
the
[appellate]
lcfourt
is
to
ascertain
whei:ther
the
lower
court
xxx
acted
with
grave
abuse
of
discretion
amounting
to
excess
or
lack
of
jurisdiction
in the
exercise
of
iudgment,
such
that
the
act
was
done
in
capricious,
whimsical,
arbitrary
or
despotic
manner'
In
a
petition
for
certiorari,
the
iurisdiction
of
the
appellate
court
is
narrow
in scope.
It
is
limited
to
resolving
only
errors
of
j
u
risd
ictio
n
."1
of
of
A
fortiori,
the
assailing
the
trial
court's
office
of
a
certiorari
Petition
finding
of
Probable
cause
for
159()22.28
April
2005,451
SCRA
205'
515'
1
PETITION
FOR
NEYTETY
ONCEBTIOBABI
UNDENN
I
Clt,rtt
r'. Court
o.f
.4ppeal.s,
G.R.
No.
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 2/72
issuance
of
warrant
of
arrest
is
merely
to
determine
whether
the
same
has
factual
and
legal
bases
and
are
sufficient
to
indict
respondent
for
the
crime
charged.
It
is
beyond
the
ambit
of
the
certiorari
petition
to
rule
on
the
credibility
of
the
witnesses
and
the
probable
value
of the
evidence so far
presented
bY
the
Parties.
HERE,
there
exists
probable
cause
for
issuance
of
warrant
of
arrest
against
accused-respondent
for
Qualified
Theft
based
on
the
following
undisputed
facts:
a.ACCUSED-RESPONDENTCoNCLUSIVELY
ADMITTED
IN
HIS
COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT2
THAT
DURING
HIS
STINT AS
THE
GENERAL MANAGER
AND
OPERATOR
OF
PRIVATE
COMPLAINANT
UM'S
BPTI,
HE
CAUSED
THE
TAPPING
OF
BPTI'S
WATER
AND
ELECTRICITY
TO
BE
USED
IN
THE
CONSTRUCTION
OF
HIS
NEARBY
CTTL
BUILDING.
b.PERTHECERTIFICATIONISSUEDBYUM'S
CORpORATE
SECRETARY,3
NO
UM
BOARD
RESOLUTION
WAS
ISSUED
AUTHORIZING
ACCUSED-RESPONDENT
TO
TAP
WATER
AND
ELECTRICITY
FROM
BPTI
TO HIS
CTTL
BUILDING.
C.ONTOPOFALL,ACCUSED-RESPONDENT,S
SURREPTITIOUS
ELECTRICAL
AND
WATER
TAPPING
WERE
MADE
BY
HIM
WITHOUT
THE
KNOWLEDGE
NOR
CONSENT
OF
THE
UM
BOARD
OF
TRUSTEES.
Rightly
so,
considering accused-respondent's
aforesaid
conclusive
admission,
and
based
on
solid
factual
premises
backed
up
by
evidence,
the
OCP-Baguio
City
thus
found
probable
cause
to
indict
respondent
for
Qualified
Theft
in its
Resolution
on
Review
dated
23
September
zOL1a
and
Second
Resolution
on
Review
date
d
23
November
2011s.
On
respondent's
appeal,
such
administrative
probable cause
finding
was
affirmed
by
the
DOJ
in
its
Resolution
dated
09
June
20156.
Moreover,
the
RTC
-
Baguio
City
7
and
60
later
found
probable cause
for
issuance
of
warrant
of
arrest
'
Pl"as"
see
Aturex
"C"
hereof.
t
pl"o."
scc Ccrtiflcalion
clatcd 07
July 201
I issued
by
UM's
Cot'pot'ate
Sccrctary
Atty.
Diosdatlo
C' Madrid,
attaclrctl
as Atruex
to UM's
Criminal
Cornlllaint,
Anuex
"B"
het'cof'
4
PI"r,."
scc Arrncx
"F" hcrcof.
5
Pl"naa
sce Arrucx
"1" hcreof'.
t'
Plan."
scc Anr.rcx
"l(" helco'l'.
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 3/72
against
respondent
vis-tr-vis
the
charge
for
Qualified
Theft.T
O;
,"rpondent's
petition
for
certiorari,
the
Court
of
Appeals
ISpecial
Tenth
Division]
likewise
unanimously
affirmed
the
trial
courts'
judicial
determination
of
probable
cause
for
issuance
of
warrant
of
arrest
againlt
respondent,
and
accordingly
denied
his
certiorari
petition'B
In
its
assailed
split
3-2
Amended
Decision
dated
2
November
2014
and
Resolution
dated
0B
August
2015,
the
court
of
Appeals'
[Former
Fourth
Division
-
Division
of
Five]
majority
nonetheless
reversed
and
set
aside
the
trial
courts'
above
probable cause
finding.
This
by
practically
accepting
hook
line
and
sinker
accused-respondent's
defenses,
to
wit:
(a)
his
father
Dr.
Virgilio's
alleged consent
to
his
taking
of
water
and
electricity
fiom
BPTI;
(b)
bona
fide
or
good faith;
and
(c)
lack
of
intent
to
gain.
Contrary
to
the
Court
of
Appeals'
[Former
Fourth
Division
-
Division
of
Fivel
majority's
erroneous
supposition
and/or
theory
however,
these
hotly
contested
factual
issues
of
consent
to
the
taking,
good
faith
and
lack
of
intent
to
gain are matters
of
defense
that
ought
to
be
resolved
by
the
trial
court
after
a
full
blown
trial
on
the
merits.
worse,
aside
from
being
premature
such
factual
findings
are
even
prima
facie
belied
by
the
records'
Indeel
,
by
resolving
the
same
this
early,
worse
ahead
of
trial,
ii
effectively
weighed
the
credibility
of
the
parties'
respective
witnesses
and
determined
the
probative value
of
the
evidence
so
far
proffered
by
the
parties.
In
doing
so,
the
Court
of
Appeals'
[Former
Fourth
Division
-
Division
of
Five]
majority
had
thereby
acted
as
if
it
was
a
trial
court,
and
worse
indubitably
went
beyond
its
certiorari
j
u
risd
iction.
HENCE,
THIS
PETITION.
NATURE
OF
THE
PEJITION
This
is
a
petition
for
review on
certiorari under
Rule
45,
LggT
Rules
of
Civil
Procedure,
as
amended,
seeking
to annul
and
set
aside
the
Court
of
Appeals'[Fourth
?
Pl"n."
see
Anucxes
"L" antl
"Q"
trereof.
t
Pl"n."
sec Atrtrcx
"V" helcttf'.
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 4/72
Division-DivisionofFive]3-2AmendedDecisiondated
2L
November
20L4,
unO
Court
of
Appeals
[Former
Fourth
Division-
Division
it
Fivel
3-2
Resolution
dated
128August20t5inCA.G.R.SPNo,t2B265,entitled
*Atty.
Ernesto
L.
Detos Santos
vs'
RTC
-
Baguio
City'
Br'
60
and
8r,7,
and
tJniversity
of
Manila,
represented
by
Emity
D,
De
Leon,,,
certified
true
copies
of
the
said
CA
Decision
a
nd
Resolution
a
re
attached
hereto
as
Annexes
"A"
and
"A-1"'
On '
Private
comPlainant
UM
received
u
.opy
or
the
court
of
Appeals'
IFourth
Division
Division
of
'Fivel
first
assailed
Decision
dated
21
November
20L4
in
CA-G.R.
sP
No.
L28265
which
reversed
and
set
aside
the
previous
court
of
Appeals'
[special
Tenth
Division]
Decision
dated
30
July
2aL3
'
nullified
the
trial
courti'
finding
of
probable
cause
for
Qualified
Theft
against
accused-respondent,
dismissed
tire
complaint and
quashed
the warrant
of
arrest
against
accused
respondent,
for
which
private
complainant
UM
timely
moved
for
reconsideration
thereof
on
L7
December
2O14.
on
16
September
2o15,
private
complainant
uM
receiveO
a copy
of
the
Court
of
Appeals'
IFormer
Fourth
Division
Division
of
Fivel
second
assailed
Resolution
dated
28
August
2015
denying
its
motion
for
reconsideration;
hence
had
till
O1
October
2O15
within
wh
ich
to
file
with
th
is
Honora
ble
cou
rt
a
petition for
review
on
certiorari
under
Rule
45'
on
01
octob
er
2015,
on
behalf
of
the
People
of
the
Philippines,
private
complainant
UM,
on
meritorious
grounds,
moved
for
extension
of
thirty
(30)
days
from
Of
October
2015
or
till
31
October
2O15
within
which
to
file
this
instant
petition
for
review
on
certiorari.
on
the
same
day
of
01
october
20L5,
the
osc,
thru
Assistant
Solicitor
General
Bernard
G'
Herna
ndez,
had
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 5/72
assured
DoJ
Prosecutor
General
claro
A'
Arellano
that
the
OSG
shall
ratify
or
give its
conformity
to
private
colplainant
UM,s
motion
for
exiension
of
time
to
file
petition
for.
review
on
certiorari,
and
this
instant
petition
for
review
on
certiorari.e
THE
PARTIES
Petitioner
People
of
the
Philippines
is
represented
herein
by
the
office
of
the
solicitor
General
("osc',)
pursuant
to
section
35
(1),
chapter
-_L2,
Title
III,
Book
IV,
Administrative
Code
of
t987,
with
office
address
at
No
'
L34
Amorsolo
street,
Legaspi
Village,
L229
Makati
city.
Private
complainant
University
of
Mania
(*uM',)
is
an
educational
institution
duly
organized
and
existing
under
philippine
laws,
with
office
addiess
at
No.
546,
M.V.
Delos
Santos
street,
sampaloc,
Manila.
It
may
be
served
notice
and
processes
through
its
counsel
Madrid
Danao
and
carullo,
at
suite
1609
Jollibee
Plaza,
F.
Ortigas,
lr'
Road,
Ortigas
Center,
1605
Pasig
CitY.
Respondent
Ernesto
L.
Delos
santos
is
of
legal
age,
Filipino
and
residing
at
No.
108
Cenacle
Drive,
Senville
subdivision,
Tandang
sora,
Quezon
city,
where
he
may
be
served
notice
and
processes.
He
may
be
alternatively
served
notice
and
processes
through
his
counsel
Atty.
Filibon
Fabela
Tacardon
of
Tacardon
and
Partners,
dt
Unit
501,
West
Mansion
Condominium,
West
Avenue
cor.
Zamboanga
Street
LtO4
Quezon
CitY.
STATEMENT
OF
FACTS
AND
ANTECEDENT
PROCEEDINGS
1.
Sometime
in
1913,
the
University
of
Manila
was
organized
and
established
by
Dr.
Mariano
V.
Delos
Santos,
hi;
brother
Dr.
Apolinario
Delos
Santos,
Dr.
Buenaventura
Bello,
Atty.
Antonio
Rivera
and
Maria
Delos
Santos.
2.
Per
its
Articles
of
Incorporation,
uM
was
incorporated
as
an
ordinary
corporation.
Through
the
years,
',
plc,rsc
sec
tlrc
OSG's
lcttcr.tlatcd
0l
Octobcr
2015
to the
DOJ,
attrched
as
Annex
to this
instatrt
Petition's
Vcrificntion
antl Ccltificatiolt
Against
Notr-Forutn
Shopping.
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 6/72
the
UM
Board
of
Trustees
immediate
members
of
the
included
individuals
who
are
not
Delos
Santos
familY.
3.PursuanttothepurposesunderitsAmended
Articles
of
Incorporation,
specifically
the
establishment
and
operation
of
tourist
inns,
private
respondent
UM
established
in
Baguio
City
the
Benguet
Pines
Tourist
Inn
("BPTI")'
a
business
entity
without
i[s
own
juridical
personality'
4.SometimeinMay2ooT,respondent-ErnestoL.
Delos
santos
-
("respondent"),
then
being
the
General
tutunugur
and
operator
of
BPTI,
as
well
as
Executive
vice
President
and
Vice-Chairman
of the
UM
Board
of
Trustees
and
university
Registrar,
commenced
the
construction
of
his
CTLL
Building,
rit.'i.l'1
is
nearby
or
adjacent
to
BPTI'
consequently,
sometime
in
Ju ly
2007
,
respondent
instructed
policarpio
M.
Lacsa
("Lacsa"),
then
his
driver,
to
use
the
electric
current
of
BPTI
for
the
ball
cutter,
bender
and
welding
that
were-
being
used
for
the
construction
of
his
CTTL
Building.'o
However,
this
without
any
authorization/coisent
from
nor
knowledge
of
the
UM
Board
of
Trustees."
5,
When
the
first
floor
of
his
CTLL
Building
was
finished,
respondent
then
ordered
Lacsa
to
make
an
electrical
connection
coming
from
BPTI
going
to
the
basement
of
the
CTLL
BuitJini,
to
which
the
tdtter
obeyed'12
Again,
this
was
made
without
any
authorization/consent
from
nor
knowledge
of
the
UM
Board
of
Trustees.
6.
On
2t
January
2008,
respondent's
father,
Dr.
Virgilio
Delos
Santos
("Dr.
Virgilio"),
died'
Prior
to
his
deJth,
Dr.
Virgilio
was
the
Chairman
of
the
Board
of
Trustees
and
7O.7go/o
controlling
stockholder
of
UM'13
7.
During
his
period
of
illness,
Dr.
Virgilio
was
not
in
good
terms
wittr
respondent.
In
fact,
Pr.
Virgilio
never
reconciled
with
respondent
until
his
death'14
t0
pleasc
scc
policnrpio
Lacsa's
Altclavit
tlatcd
07 July
2011,
attached
as
Atrncx
to
UM's
Criniinal
CotnPatry, Anncx
"B"
hcrcot.
rr
pleasc
scc
Ccrtificatitu
tlatcd
07
July
20ll
issued
by
UM's
Corporatc
Secretary
Atty.
Diostlndo
G'
Madritl,
attachcd
as
Atrucx
to
UM's
Crinrinal
Conrplaint,
Anncx
"B"
hercot'
Ir
I'crlicarpit'r
Lacsa's
Alliclavit
clatcd
07 July
201 l,
Supru"
rr
plcasc.cc
Anncxcs
"2" t<t"2-C"
ol'rcspontlcnt's
Courttcr-At'titlavit,
Anncx
"C"
hcrcof"
la
plcusc
scc
Atlclavit
clated
0l
Scptcrribcr
2008
of
Ma.
corazon
Ramoua
l-lanras
Dclos
Siintos
antl
Sinurtlllaang
Salaysay
clatccl
0g
August
20ll
of
Eiccta
Dacuan
Alcvalo
attachcd
its
Anncxcs
to UM's
Reply-Aflidtvit,
Anncx
"D"
hcrcof.
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 7/72
B.SometimeinFebruary2009,-respondentinstructed
Lacsa
to
connect
the
water
supply
of
GTLL
Building
to
the
water
installation
of
BpTI
for
the
purpose
of
making
water
supply
to
the
second
floor
of
CTLL
Building,
which
respondent
intended
to
open
for
tourist
who
will
be
spending
the
valentine,s
day
therein.ls
Again,
this
tapping
of
water
supply
from
BPTI
was
without
an
authorization
from
the
UM
Board
of
Trustees.
g.
At
their
meetings
held
on
18
May
2011
and
t5
June
20L7,
the
members
of
the
uM
Board
were
informed
that
BPTI,
then
under
the
management
of
respondent,
had
incurred
an
operation
net
loss
of
php711,555.13.
It-appears
that the
said loss,
among
others, was due
to
the fact
that
respondent
was'competing
with
the
business
of
BPTI'
Worse,
it
appears
that
resp-ondent
was
diverting
the
guests
of
BpTI
to
his
Dely's
Inn
iocated
at
the
CTTL
Building
and
the
employees
of
BPTI
were
even
required
by
respondent
to
serve
in
his
DelY's
Inn.
10.
on
16
July
2011,
Dr.
Emily
D.
De
Leon
("Dr.
De
Leon,,),
President
of
private
complainant
uM,
went
to
Baguio'to
check
BPTI
and
its
personnel.
She
was
authorized
Oyine
UM
Board
of
Trustees
to
check
and
verify
the
various
anomalies
allegedly
committed
by
respondent
while
he
was
managing
BPTI,
and
to
renovate
the
BPTI
premises'
There,
Dr.
De
Leon
came
to
know
about
the
25
booklets
of
missing
receipts
of
BPTI
which
occurred
while
respondent
was
the
General
Manager
and
Operator
of
BPTI'
11.
about
the
him
upon
Worse,
Dr.
De
Leon
was
then
apprised
by
Lacsa
illegai
water
and
electrical
connections
made
by
instiuctions
of
resPondent.
16
L2.
Thus,
pursuant to
its
Board
Resolution
dated
15
June
Z}tt,
UM,
through
its
Presidert,
Dr'
De
Leon,
filed
on
0B
luly
2011
a
criminal
complaintlT
for
Qualified
Theft
with
the
Office
of
the
City
Prosecutor
of
Baguio
City
(*OCP-
Baguio
city"),
docketed
as
NPS
Docket
No.
INV-11-01553.
This was
subsequently
raffled
to
investigating ACP
Ma'
Nenita
A.
Opiana.
ls
Policalpio
Lacsa's
Ailidrvit
datcd
07
July
201
l, Stqru.'
ro
plcasc
sec thc
Aflldavit
datcd
07.luly
zot
t otDr'.'Enrily
De
Leon,
attached
as
Atr.ex
to UM's
Criminal
ConWlaint,
Annex
"B"
licrctlt.
',
A
",.,1ry
o1.
UM's
Criutinal
Contplaint
with
Annexcs
is attachcil
lrercto
as
Anltex
"8".
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 8/72
13.
On
28
July
zoLt,
respondent
filed
his
counter-
affiOavit'u
wherein
he
categorically
admitted
that
he
actually
caused
the
tapping
of
water
and
electricity
from
BPTI
to
his
CTTL
'euilaing.
However,
by
way
of
defense,
respondent claimed
that
his tapping
of
water
and
electricity
from
BPTI
to
his
CTTL
Building
were
made
with
the
consent
or
permission
of
his
father,
Dr.
Virgilio,
majority
stockholder
of
UM.
L4.
In
its
reply-affidavit,le
UM
through
Dr.
De
Leon
pointedly
debunked
the
purported
consent
or
permission
of
Dr.
Virgilio
and
asserted
that
the
same
is
even
barred
or
prohibiGd
under
the
"Dead
Man's
Statute"
rule.
Dr.
De
Leon
further
pointed
out that
the
sworn
statements
of
respondent's
witnesses
are
highly
self-serving
considering
that
Yolanda
calanza
and
Josephine
Penera
are
employees
of
respondent,
and
Cynthia
Delos
Santos-Chan,
sister
of
respondent,
is
his
co-oppositor
to
the
probate
of
Dr.
Virgilio's
holographic
will
pending before
the
RTC-Manila.
She
alJo
pointed
but
that
the
UM
Board
of
Trustees
did
not
authorize
nor
consent
to
respondent's
tapping
of
water
and
electricity
from
BPTI
to
his
CTTL
Building.
15.
However,
in
the
OCP-
Bag
u io
CitY
complaint
for
Qualified
its
Resolution
dated
29
July
20l- 20,
thru
ACP
OPiana
dismissed
the
Theft
for
lack
of
Probable
cause.
16.
On
19
August
Z}fi,
UM
timely
moved
for
reconsideration2l
of
the
Resolution
dated
29
July
ZOLL.
On
23
August
ZOLI,
UM
filed
its
Amended
Motion
for
Reconsideration
dated
22
August
20
",
which
respondent
opposed23.
L7.
In
its
Resolution
on
Review
dated
23
September
2O
LL'o,
the
OCP-Baguio
City
thru
ACP
Rolando
T.
Vergara
reversed
the
earlier
resolution
of
ACP
Opiana
and
found
probable
cause
to
indict
respondent
for
the
crime
of
Qualified
Theft.
'8
A
cr',1ry
of rcspttndcttt's
Coirntcr-Att'idavit
is
attachccl
ltcrcto as
AIlllex
"C"'
"'
A nuj',y
of UM's
Reply-Aflidavit
rvitlr Anncxcs
is
attached
hereto
as
Attllex
"D"'
'u
Pl.or"
."" Anncx
"F",
rcspondcnt's
Petition
fil'Ccrtiorari
dated
l5
Fcbluary
2013, Anncx
"R"
hc|eol
2l
Pl"nsc
sec A11cx
"G", rcsporrclcnt's
Pctitiou
lirr
Cct'tiorru'i
dttcrl
l5 Fcblunty
2013,lbitl."
:2
A
colry
olUM's
Anrcndcd
Motion
hrr
Rcconsitleration
rlatcd
22 August
20
ll with Atrtrcxcs
is
attachecl
lrct'eto as
.A.nnex
"E".
2r
Pl"ase
scc Ap1cx
"l",
rcspondcnt's
Pctition
lirrCcrtiot'ari
daterl
l-5 Fcbluary
2013,Srtpru..
,rA"npyoltlre
OCP-BaguioCity'sResolutiononRcviewtlatccl
23Scpteutber20llisattachedheretcrasAnnexo'F".
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 9/72
18.
Thereafter,
the
corresponding
information2s
for
Qualified
Theft
was
filed
with
RTC-Baguio
city,
docketed
as
criminal
case
No.
32306-R
entitled
"
People
of
the
phitippines
vs.
Ernesto
Delos
santos
y
Llamas'"
The
case
was
subsequently raffled
to
Branch
7
thereof
then
presided
by
J udge
Mona
Lisa
V.
Tiongson-Tabora
'
19.
By
virtue
of
the
Warrant
of
Arrest26
issued
by
Judge
Tiongson-Tabora,
respondent
was
arrested
on
27
Septem
ber
20
1
1
.
20.Meantime,on24octoberZott,respondent
moved
for
reconsiderationZT
of
the
OCP-Baguio
City's
Resorution
on
Review
dated
23
september 2011, which
uM
opposed2s.
ZL.
Respondent
likewise
moved
for
inhibition2e
of
the
entire
ocP-Baguio
city
from
further
taking
part
in
the
proceedings.
rtris
however
was
denied
by
the-
oCP-Baguio
City
per
its
Resolution
dated
t7
November
201130'
22.
In
its
second
Resolution
on
Review
dated
23
November
201131,
the
OCP-Baguio
City
thru
Deputy
City
Prosecutor-In
Charge
Gloria
Caranto-Agunos
denied
respondent's
motion
for
reconsideration'
23.
Respondent
then
appealed
via
petition
for.
review
with
the
DOJ
becretary
the
OCP-Baguio
City's
resolutions,
to
which
UM
commented.32
23.L
In
its
recent
Resolution
dated
09
June
201S33,
the
DOJ,
thru
Prosecutor
General
Claro
A.
Arellano,
dismissed
respondent's
petition
for
review.
15
Annex
'oG" ltereol.
ro
p
l"nse
scc
Anncxcs
'.
L"
and
"
M
",
rcspondcnt's
Pctition
f'ol Ccltiorari
datcd
I
5 Fcbrunry
2013
,
Strpxr
' '
17
plca."
scc
Anncx
"O",
rcspondcnt's
Petition
{br
Celtiolari
datcd
l5 Fctrruary
2013,
Strpro..
^n
.,rp,,rttUM's
Opposition
datcd
05
Novcrnbcr20ll
with
Atrtrcxcs
is
attachcd
hcrcto
as
Anllex'ol.l'n'
'opt"n."
scc
Auncx
"P",
r'cspondctrt's
Pctition
{br Ccrtiorari
datcd
l5
Fcbruary
2013,
Suptu"
3,,
plcase
scc
Anncx
"R",
respondcnt's
Pctition
lirr
Ccltiorari
datctl
l5
Fcbrtraty
2013,
Supro..
,'e'"-,,rrv.'"i,rl"
ocp-ringuio
City's
Sccond
Rcsolution
on
Rcvicrv
datcd
23
Novctrttrcr
2013
is attaclrctl
hercto
as
Attnex
o'1".
3'
A
.,,1]y
ol'UM',s
DOj
Cturnrcnt
datcd
02 Janua|y
20I2
is attached
ltelcto
as
Annex
"'1"'
tt
Artnex
"l("
hcrcol.
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 10/72
24.
Meanwhile,
on
03
october
2011,
respondent
filed
with
RTC-Baguio
city,
Branch
7
an
urgent
omnibus
Motion
dated
30
Septembei
2011,
(i)
for
judicial
determination
of
probable
cause;
(ii)
to
lift/quash
warrant
of
arrest;
and
(iii)
to
defer/suspend arraignment and/or any
proceedings3a'
On
04
October
Z0tt,
res[ondent
filed
an
Urgent
Supplemental
Motion3s.
25.
In
her
Order
dated
01
February
2OL236
J
udge
Tiongson-Tabora
denied
respondent's
sought
declaration
of
lack
of
probable
cause,
but
surprisingly
granted
his
motion
to
post
bail
ruling
that
h"
instant
ftrulified
Theft
charge
involving
PhP3Million
is
NOT
a
"NON-
BAILABLE',
offense.-Respondent
was
then
hastily
released
from
custody
pursuant
to
the
Order
of
Release
dated
02
Februa
ry
20 237
.
26.
Thereafter,
at
his
scheduled
arraignment
held
on
06
February
2O 2,
respondent
pleaded
"NOT
GUILTY'38
to
the
crime
charged
of
Qualified
Theft'
27.
Subsequently,
both
respondent,
and
the
Prosecution
thru.private
complainant
UM,
moved
for
partial
reconsideration3e
of
the
Order
dated
01
February
20L2.
On
L7
February
20L2,
the
Prosecution
filed
an
Urgent
Supplemental
Motion
for
Partial
Reconsideration.a0
28.
Pending
resolution
of
the
parties'
motions
for
partial
reconsideration,
uM
then
moved
for
inhibition
of
)udge
Tiongson-Tabora,
which
respondent
opposed'
In her
Order
dated
05
October
2012,
Judge
Tiongson-Tabora
inhibited
herself
from
handling
the
case.
Thereafter,
the
case
was
re-raffled
to RTC-Baguio
City,
Branch
60
then
presided
by
Judge
Edilberto
Claravall.
3t
Irlcasc
scc
Arrncx
"T",
rcsponclcnt's
Pctition
lor
Ccrtiorali
datcd
l5 Fcbruary
2013,
Supro..
3t
lrleasc
sce
Auncx
"U",
rcspondcnt's
Pctition
fbr Certiorari
datcil
l5 February
2013,
Srtpru..
roAcol,yolthcRTC-BaguioCity,BranchT'sOldclclatccl
0t
Fcbrtrary20l2isattachetl
hel'ctoasAItnex"L"'
37
Alutex
"Mo'hcrcol.
t8Arrt,"*
"Nt'
lrereol'.
,,enu"*".
"V"
anrl
"W",
rcsl;onclcnt's
Pctition
lirl
Ccltiorari
clatcd
l5
February
2013,
Supro..
A
copy
of
UM's
Motion
fbr
Partial
Rcconsitlcratittn
is attachcd
liercttl
as Annex
o'0".
loAlrnex
"Poo
ltercof'.
l0
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 11/72
29.
subsequently,
Judge.
claravall
issued
his
order
dated
07
December
2OL2o',
the
dispositive
portion
of
which
reads:
*WH
EREFORE,
all the
foregoing
premises
considered,
the
Motion
for
Partial
Reconsideration
filed
by
the
accused
Ernesto
delos
Sa
ntos
is
DENIED
for
lack
of
merit'
However,
the
Motion
for
Partial
Reconsideration
filed
by
the
Private
Complainant
is
GRANTED'
The
Order
of
the
Court
dated
FebruarY
,
20L2
granting
the
accused
the
right
to
bail
is
recalled
'
Consequently,
the
bail
posted
by
the
accused
in
the
amount
of
P80,000'00
and
covered
by
Official
Receipt
No'
t275OB7
is
hereby
cancelled.
Let
the
aforementioned
amount
be
returned
to
the
payor
upon
proper
presentment
of
the
official
receipt
covering
the
said
payment'
Lastly,
let
a
new
wirrant
be
issued
against
accused
Ernesto
Delos
Santos."
(Emphasis
in
bold
suPPlied)
30.
Since
respondent
remains
at
large
and
there
is a
great
possibility of
flight,
the
Prosecution
moved
for
issuance
of
u
Hold
Departure
brder
against
him.
This
Judge
Claravall
granted
in
its Order
dated
13
February
20L3'
31.
Respondent
then
filed
with
the
Court
of
Appeals
a
petition
for
certiorari
under
Rule
6542
dated
15
February
2Ot3 seeking
the
nullification
of
RTC-Baguio
City,
Bfanch
7's
Order
dated
01
February
}OLL
and
Branch
60's
Order
dated
07
December
2012.
This
was
docketed
as
CA-G.R.
SP
No.
L28625,
and
raffled
to
the
Tenth
Division
thereof.
CA
Resolution
respondent's
to
admit
his
32.
dated
22
certiorari
replyaa
to
petition.
ResPondent
UM's
comment,
which
,,A
co1.,y
oI
RTC-Baguio
City,
Branclr
(r0's
Ortlcr
rlatctl
07 Dcccntbcr
2012 is
attaclrctl
ltereto
as
Anllex
"Q"
4'Arr,r"*
tt
l{tt
hcrcol.
{-t
A,trte*
'oStt
lrercof'.
44
Anna*
o'T"
ltcrcot'.
45
Artrru*
o'U"
ltcrcclf.
l1
Thereafter,
in
comPliance
with
the
March
20L3,
UM
commenteda3
to
then
moved
UM
opposed.as
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 12/72
33.
On
30
July
2013,
the
court
of
Appeals
[special
Tenth
Divisionl
u
nanimously
issued
its
Decisiona6,
the
dispositive
portion of
which
reads:
"WHEREFORE,
the
instant
Petition
is
DENIED.
The
Order
dated
December
7,
I:OLZ
of
the
Regional
Trial
Court,
Branch
7
of
Baguio
City
is
hereby
AFFIRMED
in
toto.
The
case
is
accordingly
REMANDED
to
the
trial
court
for
further
proceedings'"
34.
Thereafter,
respondent
moved
for
inhibition
of
the
Justices
of
the
court
of
Appeals
fspecial
Tenth
Division],
which
UM opPosed.
35.
Subsequently,
respondent
moved
for
reconsiderationaT
of
the
CA
Decision
dated
30
July
2013,
UM
then
filed
its
comment/oppositionae
thereto,
to
which
respondent
rePlied.ae
36.
Meantime,
after
several
postponements,
the
RTC-
Baguio
city,
Branch
60
was able
to
conduct
the
pre-trial
conference
of
the
case
on 26
February
20L4,
at
which
accused-respondent
dramatically
changed
his
defense
claiming
that:
*'
x x
x
he
did
not
steal
the
electrical
and
water
facility
of
the
Benguet
Pines
Tourist
Inn
because
the
tapping
made
by
the
accused
was
made
on
the
transformer
of
Benguet
Pines
Tourist
Inn
and
not
on
its
electric meter
of
Benguet
Pines
Tourist Inn'
x
x
x"5o
37.
Despite
the
fact
that
respondent's
accusations
were
baseless
and
unfounded,
on
05
March
2014,
the
Court
of
Appeals'
[Former
Special
Tenth
Division]
Justices
Acosta,
Lampas
Peralta
and
Antonio-Valenzuela
inhibited
from
further
handling
the
case.
4t'Annex
"Vtt
hcrcof.
"
Artu"*
"W"
ltct'ctll.
48
Annu*
ttX'o
licrcol.
o'
Arrrra*
"Y"
hcrcol.
,,
Cnpv
of
thc RTC
-
Baguio
City,
Blanch
(r0's
Prc-Trirl
Orrlel
clatctl
2(r
Fcbrualy
2014
is attachecl
hcl'cto
as
Annex
.(zr1
,
t2
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 13/72
38.
The
case
was
thus
re-raffled
to
the
cA
Fourth
Division.
surprisinglY,
voting
3-2,
the
court
of
Appeals
[Fourth
Division-Oivision
F ve]
issued
its
Amended
Decision
dated
2t
November
20
4u',
the
dispositive
portion
of
which
reads:
*WHEREFORE,
Premises
considered,
petitioner,sMotionforReconsiderationis
GRANTED.
The
assailed
Orders
of
the
trial
courts
are
SET
ASIDE.
The
Complaint
of
Qualified
Theft
against
the
petitioner
is
DISMISSED
for
lack
of
probable
cause
and
the
warrant
of
arrest
against
him
is
QUASHED."
39.
Thus,
on
17
December
20
L4,
UM
timely
moved
for
reconsiderationsz
of
the
said
Amended
Decision
dated
2
November
2014,
which
respondent
opposed's3
40.
On
28
August
2015,
the
Fourth
Division
-
Division
of
Fivel,
UM's
motion
for
reconsideration.sa
HENCE,
THIS
PETITION.
Court
of
ApPeals
[Former
again
voting
3-2,
denied
GROUNDS
FOR
ALLOWANCE
1.
5'
Plcasc scc
Anncx
"A"
hcrcof.
5t
Anltex
"AA"
ltcrcot'.
5t
Arrrre*
toBBot
hcrcot.
Ja
Pl"ns".scc
Antrcx
"A-1" hcreot'.
OF
THE
PETITION
I
THE
COURT
OF
APPEALS'
IFORMER
FOURTH
DIVISION
-
DIVISION
OF
FIVE]
MA]ORITY
WENT
BEYOND
ITS
CERTTORARI
JURISDICTION
IN
ISSUING
ITS
SPLIT
3-2
AMENDED
DECISION
DATED
27
NOVEMBER
2OL4
AND
RESOLUTION
DATED
28
AUGUST
20L5,
IN
THAT:
IN
CRIMINAL CASES,
THE
TRIAL
COURT
HAS
THE
EXCLUSIVE
ORIGINAL
]URISDICTION
TO
TRY,
13
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 14/72
2,
HEAR
AND
RESOLVE
CONFLICTING
FACTUAL
ISSUES.
EXCEPT
IN
ORDINARY
APPEAL,
THIS
POWER
CANNOT
BE
PREMATURELY
ARROGATED
BY THE
COURT
OF
APPEALS
IN
A
MERE
CERTIORARI
PETITION.
WORSE,
THE
COURT
OF
APPEALS'
IFORMER
FOURTH
DIVISION
Drvlsloru
oF
FIVEI
MAJoRITY's
FINDINGS
OF
*IMPLIED
AUTHORITY",
BONA
FIDE
BELIEF
OR
GOOD FAITH,
AND
LACK
OF
INTENT
TO
GAIN
HAVE
NO
FACTUAL
AND/OR
LEGAL
BASIS.
II
THE
COURT
OF
APPEALS'IFORMER
FOURTH
DIVISION
_
DIVISION
OF
FIVE]
MA]ORITY
GRAVELY
ERRED
IN
REVERSING
THE
OCP-BAGUIO
CITY/DO]'S
ADMINISTRATIVE
FINDING
OF
PROBABLE
CAUSE
AND
THE
RTC-
BAGUIO
CITY,
BRANCH
7
AND
60'5
DETERMINATION
OF
PROBABLE
CAUSE
FOR
ISSUANCE
OF
WARRANT
OF
ARREST,
IN
THAT:
RE:
CONFLICTING
FACTUAL
ISSUES
IF
AT
ALL,
THE
DISPUTED
FACTUAL
ISSUES
HERE
OUGHT
TO
BE
HEARD,
TRIED
AND
RESOLVED
FIRST
BY
THE
TRIAL
COURT,
NOT
YET
BY
THE
COURT
OF
APPEALS.
THE
FOLLOWING
ARE
THE
CONFLICTING
FACTUAL
PROPOSITIONS
OF
THE
PARTIES:
1
.
RESPON
DENT
CLAIM
ED THAT
HIS
FATHER
DR.
VIRGILIO
CONSENTED
TO
HIS
TAKING
OF
WATER
AND
ELECTRICITY
FROM
UM'S
BPTI
TO
HIS
CTLL
BUILDING.
IN
CONTRA,
UM
DENIED
THE
SAME
ASSERTING
t4
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 15/72
2.
THAT
IT
WAS
HIGHLY
IMPROBABLE,
IF
NOT
IMPOSSIBLE,
CONSIDERING
THE
BREWING
ANIMOSITY
BETWEEN
RESPONDENT
AND
DR.
VIRGILIO
EVEN
PRIOR
TO
THE
TIME
OF
THE
SUBJECT
TAKING
IN
2OO7
UP
TO
DR.
VIRGILIO'S
DEATH
IN
2OOB.
THE
COURT
OF
APPEALS'
IFORMER
FOURTH
DIVISION
DIVISION
OF
FIVE]
MA]ORITY'S
SWEEPING
CONCLUSION
THAT
THE
UM
BOARD
HAD
THEREBY
IMPLIEDLY
AGREED
OR
ACQUIESCED,
IS
HIGHLY
INAPPROPRIATE
AS
THE
TRIAL
COURT
HAS
NOT
FACTUALLY
RULED
THEREON
YET.
CONTRARY
TO
THE
COURT
OF
APPEALS'
IFORMER
FOURTH
DIVISION
DIVISION
OF
FIVE]
SPECIOUS
THEORY,
RESPONDENT'S
ALLEGATIONS
ON
DR.
VIRGILIO'S
ALLEGED
CONSENT
AND
THE
UM
BOARD'S
IM
PLIED
ACQUIESCENCE
ARE
HIGH
LY
DISPUTED
FACTUAL
MATTERS
THAT
CAN
ONLY
BE
VENTILATED
AND
RESOLVED
IN
A
FULL
BLOWN
TRIAL
BEFORE
THE
TRIAL
COURT.
AS
A
MATTER
OF
PROBABLE
CAUSE,
AS
BETWEEN
RESPONDENT'S
DEFENSIVE
CLAIM
VERSUS
UM'S
CONTRA,
THE
TRIAL
COURTS'
FINDING
OF
PROBABLE
CAUSE
MUST
PREVAIL.
RE:
THE
COURT
OF
APPEALS'
[FORMER
FOURTH
DrVrSroN
DrvrsroN
oF
FrvEI
MAJORITY'S
CONCLUSIONS
3.
4.
t5
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 16/72
ON
IMPLIED
AUTHORITY,
BONA
FIDE
BELIEF
OR
GOOD
FAITH,
AND
THE
ABSENCE
OF
THE
ELEMENT
OF
INTENT
TO
GAIN
THAT
WERE
USED
TO
OVERTURN
THE
TRIAL
COURTS'
FINDING
OF
PROBABLE
CAUSE,
ARE
INAPPROPRIATE
IN
THE
CERTTORART
PETITION'
THE
COURT
OF
APPEALS'IFORMER
FOURTH
DIVISION
-
DIVISION
OF
FIVE]
MAJORITY'S
EXCULPATING
CONCLUSIONS
SOLELY
UPHOLDING
RESPON
DENT'S
DEFENSES
OF
DR.
VIRGILIO'S
PURPORTED
CONSENT
TO
THE
TAKING
,
BONA
FIDE
BELIEF
OR
GOOD
FAITH,
AND
LACK
OF
INTENT
TO
GAIN,
ARE
HIGHLY
INAPPROPRIATE
IN
A
CERTIORARI
CONSIDERING
THAT:
PETITION,
THE
OFFICE
OF
CERTIORARI
IS
MERELY
TO
DETERMINE
WHETHER
OR
NOT
THE
TRIAL
COURT'S
FINDING
OF
PROBABLE
CAUSE
HAS
FACTUAL
AND
LEGAL
BASES.
IT
IS
NOT
WH
ETH
ER
RESPON
DENT'S
CLAIM
VERSUS
THAT
OF
UM
IS
CORRECT,
WHICH
CAN
ONLY
BE
RESOLVED
BY
THE
TRIAL
COURT IN
A
FULL
BLOWN
TRIAL.
WITHOUT
ANY
ABUSE,
LET
ALONE
GRAVE,
THE
TRIAL
COURTS'
FINDING
OF
PROBABLE
CAUSE
IS
WELL GROUNDED
UPON
THE
FOLLOWING:
A.
AS
CONCLUSIVELY
ADMITTED
BY HIM
IN HIS
COU
NTER-
AFFIDAVIT,
RESPONDENT
HAD
CAUSED
THE
TAPPING
OF
AND
DIVERTED
WATER
AND
5.
6.
l6
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 17/72
ELECTRICITY
FROM
UM'S
BPTI
TO
HIS
CTLL
BUILDING'
B.
RESPONDENT
HAD
TAKEN
WATER
AND
ELECTRICITY
FROM
UM'S
BPTI
WITHOUT
THE
CONSENT
OF
THE
UM
BOARD'
C.
RESPONDENT'S
DEFENSE
THAT
HE
TOOK
WATER
AND
ELECTRICITY
WITH
TH
E
CONSENT
OF
HIS
*DECEASED'
FATH
ER
DR.
VIRGILIO,
IS
FOREVER
BARRED.
D.
RESPONDENT'S
DEFENSE
OF
LACK
OF
INTENT
TO
STEAL
IS
EVIDENTIARY
IN
CHARACTER
AN
D
SHOU
LD
BE
BETTER
VENTILATED
AND
HEARD
IN
A
FULL
BLOWN
TRIAL.
7.
IF
AT
ALL, THE
HOTLY
CONTESTED
FACTUAL
ISSUES
OF
DR.
VIRGILIO'S
CONSENT
TO
THE
TAKING,
GOOD
FAITH
AND
LACK
OF
INTENT
TO GAIN
ARE
INDEED
MATTERS
OF
DEFENSE
THAT
OUGHT
TO
BE
RESOLVED
BY
THE
TRIAL
COURT
IN
THE
TRIAL
PROPER.
III
THE
COURT
OF
APPEALS
ISPECIAL
TENTH
DIVISION]
CORRECTLY
RULED
IN
ITS
RESOLUTION
DATED
30
JULY
2013
THAT
RESPONDENT
IS
NOT
ENTITLED
TO
BAIL
AS
A
MATTER
SINCE:
1.
PER
THIS
HONORABLE
COURT'S
RU
LING
IN
PEOPLE
OF
TH E
PHILIPPINES
VS,
HU
RUEY
CHUN
(G.R.NO. 158064.30
JUNE
2005;
462
SCRA
499,510-515)
AND
t7
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 18/72
OTHER
ESTABLISHED
]URISPRUDENCE,
THE
INSTANT
CRIMINAL
CHARGE
AGAINST
RESPONDENT
FOR
QUALIFIED
THEFT
IN
THE
AMOUNT
OF
PHP3,OOO,OOO.OO
PER
SE
IS
A
NON'
BAILABLE
OFFENSE,
AS
THE
PENALTY
THEREFOR
IS
RECLUSION
PERPETIJA
PER
ARTICLE
310
IN
RELATION
TO
ARTICLE
309,
REVISED
PENAL
CODE.
PER
EXISTING
DOJ'S
BAIL
BOND
GUIDE
FOR
QUALIFIED
THEFT,
NO
BAIL
SHALL
BE
RECOMMENDED
FOR
THE
SUB]ECT
CHARGE
OF
QUALIFIED
THEFT
WHERE
THE
VALUE
OF
THE
PROPERTY
STOLEN
IS
PHP3
MILLION,
MORE
OR
LESS.
DISCUSSTON
I
THE
COURT
OF
APPEALS'IFORMER
FOURTH
DIVISION
_
DIVISION
OF
FIVE]
MAJORITY
WENT
BEYOND
ITS
CERTIORARI
JURISDICTION
IN
ISSUING
ITS
SPLIT
3-2
AMENDED
DECISION
DATED
2T
NOVEMBER
2OI4
AND
RESOLUTION
DATED
28
AUGUST
20T5,
IN
THAT:
In
Viudez
II
vs,
court
of
Appealsss,
this
Honorable
Court
had
exPlicitlY
exPlained:
"It is
well
to
remember
that
there
is
a
distinction
between
the
preliminary inquirY,
which
determines
Probable
cause
for the
issuance
of
a
warrant
of
arrest;
and
the
preliminary
investigation
proper/
55
G.R.
Nr,. 152889.
05 Junc
2009;
5lt8 SCRA
345'
356-357,
l8
2.
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 19/72
which
ascertains
whether
the
offender
should
be
held
for
trial
or
be
released'
The
determination
of
Probable
cause
for
Purposes
of
issuing
a
warrant
of
arrest
is
made bY
the
judge.
The
preliminary
investigation
proper
whether
or
not
there
is
reasonable
ground to
believe
that
the
accused
is
guilty
of
the
offense
charged
is
the
function
of
the
investigating
prosecutor.
As
enunciated
in
Baltazar
v'
People,
the
task
of the
Presiding
judge
when
the
Information
is
filed
with
the
court
is
first
and
foremost
to determine
the
existence
or
non-
existence
of
probable
cause
for
the
arrest
of
the
accused.
Probable
cause
is
such
set
of
facts
and
circumstances
as
would
lead
a
reasonably
discreet
and
Prudent
man
to
believe
that the
offense
charged
in
the
Information
or
any
offense
included
therein
has
been
committed
bY
the
Person
sought
to
be a
rrested.
In
determining
probable cause,
the
average
man
weighs
the
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.
Probable
cause
demands
more
than
suspicion;
it
requires
less
than
evidence that would
justifY
conviction."
(
Em
P
hasis
in
supplied)
19
bold
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 20/72
corollary,
in
serapio
vs,
sandiganbayat.uu,
this
Honorable
Court
had
unequivocally
stated:
"Absent
any
showing
of
arbitrariness
on
the
Part
of
the
prosecutor
or
anY
other
officer
authorized
to
conduct
preliminaly
investigation,
COURTS
AS
A
RULE
MUST
bTTTN
TO
SAID
OFFICER'S
FINDING
AND
DETERMINATION
OF
PROBABLE
CAUSE,
since
the
determination
of
the
existence
of
probable
cause
is
the
function
of
the
prosecutor."
(Emphasis
in
capital
and
bold
suPPlied)
Additionally,
in
People
vs,
Tees7,
this
Honorable
Court
had
emphaticallY
decreed
:
t'xxx
A
magistrate's
determination
of
probable
cause
for
the
issuance
of
a
search
warrant
is
paid
great
deference
by
a
reviewing
court,
AS
LONG
AS
THERE
WAS
SUBSTANTIAL
BASIS
FOR
THAT
DETERMINATION.
Substantial
basis
means
that
the
questions
of
the
examining
judge
brought
out
such
facts
and
circumstances
as
would
lead
a
reasonably
discreet
and
prudent man
to
believe
that an
offense
has
been
committed,
and the
objects
in
connection
with
the
offense
sought
to
be
seized
are
in
the
Place
sought
to
be
searched."
(Emphasis
in
capital
and
bold
suPPlied)
THUS,
just
like
the
prosecutor's
administrative
finding
of
probable cause
and
the
trial
court's
determination
of
probable cause
for
the
purpose
of
issuance
of
search
warrant,
as
long
as
the
trial
court's
determination
of
probable
cause
for
issuance
of
warrant
of
arrest
is
amply
supported
by
sufficient
facts
and
evidence,
the
5"
C.R.
Nr.,. 148769,28
Jantraly
2003; 39(r
SCRA
458,
468-469.
57
G.R.
No.
14054(t-47.20
January
2003;395
SCRA
419,
437-438.
20
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 21/72
appellate
in
a
mere
court
cannot
interfere,
Iet
alone
reverse
it,
certiorari
Petition
'
HERE,
in
its
Resolution
on
Review
dated 23
September
2011,
the
OCP-Baguio
City,
through
ACP
Rolando
T'
Vergara,
found
pronante
cause
against
respondent
for
Qualified
Theft,
ratiocinating
:
"After
careful
consideration
of
the
totality
of
the
evidence
submitted
on
record
by
both
parties,
we
find
for
the
complaint
University
of
Manila.
Atty.
Delos
Santos'
defense
of
alleged
exPress
consent
of
his
late
father
is
barred
and
prohibited under
the
"Dead
Man's
Statute"
Pursuant
to
Section
23,
Rule
13O
of
the
Rules
of
Court.
The
Supreme
Court
gives
reason
for
this
rule
that
"a
death
has
closed
the
tips
of
one
party,
the
policY
of
the
law
is
to
close
the
liPs of
the
other".
Nevertheless,
assuming
for
the
sake
of
argument
that
AttY.
Delos
Santos'
claim
that
his
father
gave
him
express
consent
to
make
such
electrical
and
water
connections
is
true,
bY
his
own
categorical
admission
and
as
stated
by
his
witnesses,
such
consent
of
his
late
father,
if
there
was
dtry,
was
onlY
limited
to
the
period
of the
construction
of
the
CTLL
building.
However,
even
after
the
comPletion
of
the
CTLL
building,
AttY.
Delos
Santos
did
not
disconnect
the
subject
electrical'
and
water
connections,
as
in
fact,
he
surrePtitiouslY
and
illegally
continued
to
make
use
of
the
same,
to
the
grave
damage
and
prejudice
of
the
UM.
This,
despite
the fact
that
sometime
in
March
ZOLO;
he
aPPlied
with
and
was
granted
bY
the
Baguio
Water
District
water
service
connection
for
his
CTLL
building
but
apparently
did
not
Push
through
2l
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 22/72
with
it for
the
obvious
reason
that
he
could
get
electricitY
and
water
from
the
BPTI
at
the
expense
of
the
UM.
More
imPortantlY,
since
the
matter involved
corPorate
property,
it
was
not
within
his
iather's
sole
decision
to
allow
him
to
tap
electrical
and
water
services
from
the
UM's
BPTI'
It
indubitably
required
the
approval
of
the
majoritY
of
the
board
of
directors
of
the
UM.
ClearlY,
AttY'
Delos
Santos
has
fallen
to
presentr ds
there was
none,
any
board
resolution
aPProving
such
electrical
and
water
connections.
The
inevitable
conclusion
therefore
is that
the
same
were
made
without
the
knowledge
and
consent
of
the
UM,
the
fact
being
that
the
UM
is an
educational
juridical
entity
with
a
personality
distinct
and
seParate
from
its
stockholders
and
the
same
was
created
Pursuant
to
the
corporation
law
bY
its
incorporation.
Being
a
corporation,
the
stockholders
have
only
an
inchoate
right
to
the
corporation's
ProPerties,
It is,
therefore,
misleading
for
AttY.
Delos
Santos
to
saY
that
the
UM
is
established
and
owned
bY
his
family
as a
juridical
entitY
which
owns
the
BPTI.
AttY.
Delos
Santos'
legal
PrePosition
that
the
UM
is a
close
corPoration
is
not
tenable
as
under
Section
96
of
the
Corporation
Code,
and
educational
institution,
like
the
UM,
cannot
be
incorPorated
as
a
close
corporation.sB
XXX
XXX
(Emphasis
in
bold
suPPlied)
XXX.,,
t*At
pp.
2-J,
Anncx
"l-"'hcrcot.
22
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 23/72
Thereafter,
in
resolving
respondent's
motion
for
reconsideration,
the
ocP
Baguio
city,
thru
Deputy
city
prosecutor
I;
Charge
Gloria
Caranto
Aquino,
affirmed
such
probable
cause
finding
in
its
second
Resolution
on
Review
dated 23
November
201L,
holding:
"We
reiterate
here
that:
ResPondent-movant
AttY.
Delos
Santos'
claim
that
his
taPPing
and
consumption
of
electricity
and
water
from
the
Benguet
Pine
Tourist
Inn
which
is
owned
by
the
complainant
University
of
Manila
was
with the
express
consent
of
his
late
father
Virgilio
D'
Delos
Santos
has
been
and
should
be
considered
as
barred
and
Prohibited
under
the
"Dead
Man's
Statute"
under
Section
23,
Rule
13O
of
the
Rules
of
Court'
ObviouslY,
Dr.
Virgilio
D.
Delos
Santos
being
alreadY
dead,
there
is
no
way
for
him
(Dr.
Virgilio
D.
Delos
Santos)
to
confirm
respondent-
movant's
claim
of
"consent"
given
by
his
late
father.
XXX
xxx
XXX
Respondent-movant
should
have
seriously
considered
the
fact
that
BPTI
is
owned
bY
comPlainant
UM
which
is
governed
bY
its
Board
of
Trustees
and,
as such,
it
is onlY
the
said
board
that
has
authority
to
give
valid
consent
to
his
use
of
electricity
and
water
from
BPTI
for
several
years
at
the
expense
of
complainant
UM'
But
he
did
not
ever
seek
such
required
consent
and
authority
from
the
Board
of
Trustees
where
he is even
a
member
and
Vice-Chairman.
Fu
rther,
the
decla
rations
of
witnesses
Dr.
Maria
Corazon
Ramona
Ll.
Delos
Santos
and
UM
23
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 24/72
employee
Electa
D.
Arevalo
would
r".io,.rsly
negate
resPondent-
movant's
allegation
of
consent
bY
his
late
father
Dr.
Virgilio
D'
Delos
Santos
for
his tapping
of
electricity
and
water
from
BPTI
owing
to
their
apparent
severe
estranged
relationshiP
as
father
and
son
way
back
2OO3
or
even
before,
in
that,
all
throughout
the
seasons
of
his
later
father's
being
on
his
sick
bed,
he,
and
even
his
sister
Dr.
CYnthia
Ll,
Delos
Santos-Chan,
were
rejected
by
their
father
to visit
him
because
them
ore
his
death
will
be
accelerated
due
to
the
stress
in
seeing
them
instead
of
recovering.
THUS,
WITH
him
THE
APPARENT
SERIOUS
ESTRANGED
RELATIONSHIP
WHICH
LASTED
UP
TO
THE
TIME
OF
DEATH
OF
THEIR
FATHER,
NOT
ANYONE
OF
RIGHT
MIND
CAN
PLAUSIBLY
CONCLUDE
THAT
RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT-
MOVANT
CAN
OBTAIN
THE
GENEROUS
CONSENT
OF
HIS
FATHER
FOR
THE
TAPPING
AND
UTILIZATION
OF
ELECTRICITY
AND
WATER
FROM
BPTI
AND
DIVERTING
rr To
CTLL
BUTLDTNG.
ALSO,
rT
WOULD
NOT
BE
NECESSARY
FOR
HIS
FATHER
TO
INSTRUCT
JOSEPHINE
PINERA
AND
YOLANDA
CALANZA,
WHO
ARE
MERE
EMPLOYEES
OF
UM
THEN
ASSIGNED
AT
BPTr,
TO
EXTEND
SUPPORT
TO
RESPONDENT-MOVANT
TO
INCLUDE
HIS
ELECTRIC
AND
WI\TER
NEEDS
WHEN
HE
WAS
THEN
THE
GENERAL
MANGER
AND
OPERATOR
OF
BPTI
AND
SAID
TWO
EMPLOYEES BEING
HIS MERE
SUBORDINATES.
SUCH
IS
RATHER
UNREAL
AND
CONTRARY
TO
NATURAL
EXPERIENCE.
24
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 25/72
We
note
the
untimelY
demise
his
late
father
Dr.
Virgilio
D.
Delos
Santos
on
JanuarY
21,
2008.
Yet,
he
did
not
at
any
time
thereafter
ever
seek
such
required
consent
and
authority from
the
Board
of
Trustees
of
UM'
Also,
the
fact
that
the
Board
of
Trustees
of
U
M
has
alreadY
exPresslY
Pointed
out
and
acted
against
his
aPParent
conflict
of
interest
in
his
management
of
BPTI
and
subject
to
verification
his
u
na
uthorized
tapping
and
use
of
electricitY,
witer,
and
other
suPPlies
from
BPTI
to
his
CTLL
building
and
DelY's
Inn,
he
should
have
comPletelY
disconnected
and
removed
his
said
tapping
installations
from
the
BPTI
immediatelY
or
soon
after
the
resolutions
of
the
Board
contained
in
the
Secretary's
Certificate
dated
June
15r
2011
was
sent
bY
the
Corporate
SecretarY
to
BPTI
through
fax
transmission
in
the
late
afternoon
of
said
date
and
that
is
whether
or
not,
at
that
time,
his
CTLL
building
is
still
undergoing
construction.
But
he
did
not
do
so
even
with
and
desPite
the
fact
that
in
march
2O1O
he
was
able
to
get
an
approved
water
service
connection
with the
Baguio
Water
District
for
his
CTLL
building.
THE
INEVITABLE
FINDING
THAT
CAN
BE
HAD
UNDER
THE
CIRCUMSTANCES
IS
RESPONDENT
THAT
MOVANT
UNLAWFULLY
TOOK,
WITH
INTENT
TO GAIN,
ELECTRICITY
AND
WATER
FROM
BPTI
WITHOUT
CONSENT
AND
AT
THE
EXPENSE
AND TO
THE
DAMAGE
AND
PREJUDICE
OF
COMPLAINANT
UM
WHICH
OWNS
THE BPTI.
25
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 26/72
Because
electricitY
and
water
from
BPTI
is
corPorate
ProPertY
of
complainant
UM,
it
would
onlY
be
the
Board
of
Trustees
of
UM
that
ca
n
consent
for
a
nd
authorize
respondent-movant
to
tap
electrical
and
water
utilities
from
BPTI'
Apparently,
there
was
no
board
resolution
whatsoever
aPProving
such
electricitY
and
water
were
made
without
the
knowledge
and
consent
of
the
UM
which
in
fact,
is
an
educational
juridical
institution
having distinct and
separate
personality
from
its
stockholders
under
the
CorPoration
Code'
As
such
juridical
entity
or
corporation,
the
stockholders'
inchoate
right
to
the
corporate
ProPerties
would
be
vested
on
them
onlY
upon
its
dissolution
and
liquidation
of
its
assets
or
ProPerties.
Further,
it
would be
misleading
to
claim
that
UM,
which
owns
the
BPTI,
is
considered
as
a
familY
owned
or
closed
corporation
considering
that,
under
Section
96
of
the
Corporation
Code,
the
UM,
being
an
educational
institution,
cannot
be
incorporated
as
a
close
corporation'
That
being
the
case,
only
valid
consent
or
authority from the Board
of
Trustees
of
comPlainant UM
can
permit resPondent-movant
to
lawfully
take
and
avail
of
electricity
and
water
from
BPTI.
XXX
XXX
XXX
Likewise,
we agree
with
the
finding
in the
Resolution
on
Review
that
considering that
resPondent-
movant
had
a
direct
hand
in
the
management
of
BPTI
in
his
caPacitY
as
general
manager
thereof
and
that
he did
not
in any
manner
denY
26
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 27/72
that
while
he
was
the
manager
and
oPerator
of
the
establishment,
and
being
then
a
stockholder
a
nd
member
of
the
Board
of
Trustee
of
the
comPlaina
nt
U
niversitY
of
Manila
which
owns
BPTI,
and
that
as
such
manager
and
oPerator
of
BPTI
and
stockholder
and
member
of
the
Board
of
Trustees
of
comPlainant
UM,
he
had
direct
and
full
access
to
the
entire
Premises
and
buildings
of
BPTI,
that
he
took
electricitY
and
water
from
BPTI
during
the
Period
covered
from
2OO7
and
divert
the
same
to
his
own
CTLL
building
and
which
electricity
and
water consumption
of
his
CTLL
building
and
DellY's
Inn
which
is
housed
therein
was
Paid
for,
not
bY
him
or
his
later
father
Dr.
Virgilio
D'
Delos
Santos
who
died
on
JanuarY
2L,
2OO8,
but
bY
complainant
UM,
the
commission
of
the
offense
charged
against
him
was
attended
bY
the
qualifYing
circumstance
of
grave
abuse
of
the
confidence
rePosed
uPon
him
bY
complainant
University
of
Manila'
"se
(Emphasis
in
capital
and
bold
supplied)
on
respondent's
appeal
via
petition
for
review,
the
DOl,
thru
Prosecutor General Claro
A.
Arellano,
affirmed
in
its
Resolution
dated
0B
June
20L5
such
probable cause
finding
of
the
OCP-Baguio
City,
holding:
"This
resolves
the
petition
for
review
of
the
t'Resolution
on
Review",
as
well
as
the
'tsecond
Resolution
on
Review"
of
the
City
Prosecutor
of
Baguio
City
in
the
above-
captioned
case,
both
upholding
the
finding
of
probable
cause
for
qualified
theft
against
respondent-appellant
Atty.
Ernesto
L'
Delos
Santos.
5"At
pp.
I4- l(r, Anrrex
"l'l
hclcot.
27
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 28/72
WE
HAVE
JUDICIOUSLY
REVIEWED
THE
RECORDS
OF
THIS
CASE
VIS-A.WS
THE
ARGUMENT
IN
RESPON
DE
NT-APPELLANT'S
PETITION,
BUT WE DID NOT FIND
ANY
COMPELLING
GROUND
OR
REASON
TO
REVERSE
OR
MODIFY
THE
FINDINGS
AND
CONCLUSION
OF
THE
INVESTIGATING
OFFICE,
WHICH
CORRECTLY
RULED
THAT
THE
ESSENTIAL
ELEMENTS
OF
THE
CRIME
OF
QUALIFIED
THEFT
ARE
PRESENT
IN
THE
CIRCUMSTANCES
OF
THIS
CASE'
Hence,
Pursuant
to
Section
12
of
Department Circular
No.
70
dated
July
3,
2000,
this
petition
may
be
dismissed
motu
proprio
since
there
is
no
showing
that
the
investigating
office
committed
any
reversible
error
in
the
questioned
resolutions'
WHEREFORE,
the
Petition
for
review
is
hereby
DISMISSED.'60
(Emphasis
in
capital
and
bold
suPPlied)
Thereafter,
in resolving
respondent's
motion
for
declaration
of
lack
of
probable
cause
for
issuance
of
warrant
of
arrest,
the
RTC-Baguio
City,
Branch
7
in its
Order
dated
01
February
2012,
found
probable
cause
against
respondent
for
Qualified
Theft,
ratiocinating
:
"Probable cause
is
the
existence
of
such
facts and
circumstances
as
would
excite
the
belief
in a
reasonable
mind
that
a
crime
has been
committed
and
that
the
respondent
is
probably
guilty
thereof
and
should
be
held
for
trial.
In
the
present
case,
the Court
agrees
with
and
affirms
the
findings
of
the
investigating
prosecutor,
Assistant
City
Prosecutor
Rolando
T.
Vergara,
that
probable cause indeed
exists
for
the
indictment
of
the
accused
for
the
crime
of
qualified
theft
considering
that
he
himself admitted
that
he
cause
the
tapping
of and
diverted
electricity
t'oAnncx
"t("
hcrcof'.
28
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 29/72
and
water
from
the
Benguet
Pines
Tourist
Inn
(BPTI)
which
is
owned
by
the
UniversitY
of
Manila
(UM)
to
the
CTLL
building
which
he
owns
without the
consent
of
aPProval
of
the
Board
of
UM.
Like
the
investigating
prosecutor, the
Court
finds
that
the
defense
relied
upon
bY
the
accused,
that
is,
that
the
ta
PPi
ng
a
nd
diversion
was
with
the
consent
of
his
late
father,
Fr'
Virgilio
D.
Delos
Santos
is
barred
and
Prohibited
under
the
"Dead
Man's
Statute"
under
Section
23,
Rule
13O
of
the
Rules
of
Court,
Dr.
Delos
Santos
could
not
possibly
confirm
the
claim
of the
self-serving
allegation
of
the
accuse
d,"61
(Emphasis
in
bold
supplied)
Subsequently,
ruling
on
respondent's
motion
for
partial
reconsideration
of
the Order
dated
01
February
20L2,
the
RTC-Baguio
City,
Branch
60 affirmed
in its
Order
dated
07
December
2012
the
above
finding
of
probable cause
of
RTC-
Baguio
City,
Branch
7
,
decreeing:
"The
issue
raised
by
the
accused
in
his
Partial
Motion
for
Reconsideration
must
first be
resolved
considering
that
the
same
involves
the
question
on
whether
or
not
probable
cause
exists
to
indict
him
of
the
crime
charged
in
the
information.
It
must be
pointed
out that
the accused
is
charged
with
the
crime
based
on
the
existence
of
a
probable
cause.
Probable
cause
is defined
as
a
reasonable
ground
of
presumption
that
a
matter
is, or
may be,
well-founded
in
such
a state of
mind
as
would
lead
a
person
of ordinary
caution
and
prudence
to
believe
or
entertain an
honest
or
strong
suspicion
that
a
thing
is
so.
It
is
a
lso
defined
as
such
facts as
a
re
sufficient
to engender
a
well-founded
belief that a
crime has been
committed
t"
Al
1r.
2. Arrrrcx
"L"
hcr'.'ol'
29
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 30/72
a
nd
that
resPondents
a
re
Proba
blY
guilty thereof.
There
are
two
kinds
of
determination
of
Probable
cause;
executive
and
judicial'
In
the
case
at
bar,
Probable cause
against
the
accused
has
alreadY
been
determined
under
both
instances'
THE
CONTENTIONS
OF
THE
ACCUSED
IN
HIS
PRESENT
MOTION
ARE
EVIDENTIARY
IN
NATURE.
THE
SAME
ARE
BETTER
APPRECIATED
IN
A
FULL.BLOWN
TRIAL
OR
IN
A
MORE
APPROPRIATE
MOTION.
THE
PRESENCE
OR
ABSENCE
OF
THE
ELEMENTS
OF
THE
CRIME
IS
EVIDENTIARY
IN
NATURE
AND
IS
MATTER
OF
DEFENSE
THAT
MAY
BE
PASSED
UPON
ON
A
FULL'BLOWN
TRIAL
ON
THE
MERITS'"62
(EmPhasis
in
caPital
and
bold
suPPlied)
Further,
in
ruling
on
respondent'S
petition for
certiorari,
the
Court
of
AppeatJ ;Special
Tenth
Divisionl
in
its
30
July
2Ot3
Decision
then
unanimously
denied
respondent's
certiorari
petition,
and
affirmed
in
toto
the
above
trial
courts'
finding
of
probable cause
against
respondent
for
Qualified
Theft,
holding:
*HERE,
WE
FIND
NO
GRAVE
ABUSE
OF
DISCRETION
COMMITTED
BY THE TRIAL
COURT
IN
AFFIRMING
THE
INVESTIGATING
PROSECUTOR'S
FINDING
OF
PROBABLE
CAUSE
TO
HOLD
ERNESTO
FOR
TRIAL
FOR
QUALIFIED
THEFT.
XXX
XXX
XXX
In this
case,
Ernesto
never
denied
having
used
or
taPPed
the
electricity
and
water
of
BPTI;
alleging
only
that
the
same
was
t't
At
p. 2,
Anncx
"Q"
hcrcot.
30
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 31/72
made
with
the
consent
of
his
late
father
Virgilio,
who,
at
the
time
the
construction
of
the
CTLL
Building
commenced,
served
as
President
of
UM.
The Pivotal
issue
therefore
is
whether
the
prosecutor
and
the
trial
court
has
reason
to
believe
that
Ernesto's
taking
of
electricity
and
water
constitutes
qualified
theft'
WITH
ERNESTO'S
ADMISSION,
THE
COURT
AGREES
THAT
IT
IS
PROBABLE
THAT
THE
CRIME
OF
QUALIFIED
THEFT
HAS
BEEN
CorrtMrrrED
AND
THAT
ERNEsro
rs
PROBABLY
GUILTY
THEREOF.
TO
reiterate,
We
are
not
here
concerned
with
the
finding
as
to
whether
all
the
elements
of
qualified theft
have
been
sufficiently
Proven
to
warrant
a
conviction,
because
to
require
the
same
would
already
be
beyond
the
scope
of
the
prosecutor
and
the
trial
court's
task
of
determining
probable cause,
as
these
are
matters
which
are
ProPerlY
addressed
in
a
full
blown
trial.63
XXX
XXX
XXX,,
(Emphasis
in
capital
and
bold
supplied)
Despite
such
sound
disquisitions,
the
Court
of
Appeals
IFormer
Fourth
Division-Division
of
Five]
nonetheless
i"u"rt"d
and
set
aside
the
foregoing
OCP-Baguio
City/DOl's
administrative
finding
of
probable cause,
and
the
RTC
Baguio
City,
Branch
7 and
60's
determination
of
probable
cause
for
issuance
of
warrant
of
arrest,
as
affirmed
no
less
by
the Court
of
Appeals
[Special
Tenth
Division].
HOWEVER,
the
Court
of
Appeals'IFormer
Fourth
Division-Division
of
Fivel majority went
beyond
its
cerfiorari
jurisdiction
in
issuing
its
assailed
split
3-2
Amended
Decision
and
Resolution,
in
that:
t'tAt
1rp.
t0-12,
Anncx
"V"
ltct'cof
31
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 32/72
1.
IN
CRIMINAL
CASES,
THE
TRIAL
COU
RT
HAS
TH E
EXCLUSIVE
ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION
TO
TRY,
HEAR
AND
RESOLVE
CONFLICTING
FACTUAL
ISSUES.
EXCEPT
IN
ORDINARY
APPEAL,
THIS
POWER
CANNOT
BE
ARROGATED
BY
THE
COURT
OF
APPEALS
IN
A
MERE
CERIIORAR/
PETITION.
In
criminal
cases,
the
trial
court
has
the
exclusive
original jurisdiction
to
trY,
hear
and
resolve
the
parties'
connicting
factual
issues.
This,
upon
its
due
determination
of
probable
cause
vis-ir-vis
the
issuance
of
the
corresponding
warrant
of
arrest.
This
power
cannot
be
arrogated
by
the
appellate
court
in a
mere
certiorarf
petition
where
the
sole
issue
is
"grave
abuse".
The
only
time
that
the
appellate
court
can
review
the
factual
findings
of
the
trial
court
is
when
the
decision
on
the
merits
is brought
to
it
on
ordinary
appeal.
This
ordinary
appeal
however
is only
possible
when
a
full
blown
trial
shall have
been
conducted
and
held by
the
trial
court.
l\H
El\D
OF
TRIAL
a
nd
WORSE,
IN
A
M
ERE
CERTIORARI
WHERE
THE
ISSUE
IS
MERELY
"GRAVE
ABUSE",
the
Court
of
Appeals'
fFormer
Fourth
Division
Division
of
Fivel
majority
had
indubitably
resolved
already
the
conflicting
factual
allegations
of
the
parties.
It effectively
weighed
the
credibility
of
the
parties'
respective
witnesses
and
determined
the
probative
value
of
the
respective
evidence
presented
by
them,
matters
ripe
only
in ordinary
appeal.
The Court
of
Appeals'
[Former
Fourth
Division
Division
of
Fivel
majority,
for
reasons
known
only
to them,
have
accepted
hook,
line and
sinker
respondent's
factual
defenses/allegations.
This despite
the
fact
that
these
factual
matters
were
explicitly:
A.
DENIED
AND
CONTROVERTED
BY
UM,
MORE
SO,
ARE
BELIED
BY
THE
RECORDS;
b.
BRUSHED
ASrDE
BY THE
OCP
-
BAGUTO
CrrY
/
DOJ AND
THE
RTC BAGUTO
CrrY,
BRANCH
7
AND 60
AS
DEFENSIVE
TRII\BLE
ISSUES
OF
FACT;
AND
32
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 33/72
c,
HELD
BY
THE
COURT
OF
APPEALS',
[SPECTAL
TENTH
DrVrSroNI
AS
*MATTERS
OF
DEFENSE
BETTER
AIRED
DURING
THE
TRIAL
PROPER".
Clearly,
in
resolving early
the
contested
factual
issues,
the
Court
of
Appeals
[Former
Fourth
Division
Division
of
Fivel
had
thereby
acted
as
if
it was
a
trial
court,
and
worse
went
beyond
its
certiorari
jurisdiction.
In
point,
in
Marcos-Araneta
vs, court
of
A,ppealslo,
this
Honorable
Court
had
decreed
that
the
Court
of
Appeals,
in
its
exercise
of
its cerfiorari
jurisdiction
under
Rule
65,
is
limited
to
reviewing
and
correcting
errors
of
jurisdiction,
eruditely
explaining:
"Clearly
then,
THE
CA
OVERSTEPPED
ITS
BOUNDARIES
WHEN/
IN
DISPOSING
OF
PRIVATE
RESPONDENTS'
PETITION
FOR
0ERTTORART,
rT
DrD
NOT
CONFTNE
ITSELF
TO
DETERMINING
WHETHER
OR NOT
LACK
OF
JURISDICTION
OR
GRAVE
ABUSE
OF
DISCRETION
TAINTED
THE
ISSUANCE
OF
THE
ASSI\rLED
RTC
ORDERS,
BUT
PROCEEDED
TO
PASS
ON
THE
FACTUAL
ISSUE
OF
THE
EXISTENCE
AND
ENFORCEABILITY
OF
THE
ASSERTED
TRUST.
IN
THE
PROCESS,
THE CA
VIRTUALLY
RESOLVED
PETITIONER
IRENE'S CASE
FOR
RECONVEYANCE
ON
ITS
SUBSTANTIVE
MERITS
EVEN
BEFORE
EVIDENCE
ON
THE
MATTER
COULD
BE
ADDUCED.
Civil
Case
Nos.
3341-L7
and
3342-L7
in
fact
have
not
even
reached
the
pre-trial
stage.
To
stress,
the
nature of
the
trust
allegedly
constituted
in
Irene's
favor
and
its
enforceability,
being
evidentiary
in
nature, are
best
determined
by
the
trial
court.
The original
complaints
and
the
amended
complaint
certainly
do
not
even
clearly
indicate
whether
the
t''
C.R. No.
l-5409(r.22 August
200ii; 5(r3 SCRA,4l,5u-59.
1)
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 34/72
asserted
trust
is
implied
or
express'
To
be
sure,
an
express
trust
differs
from
the
i'-Pfi"J
varietY
in
-l"t':
of
the
manner
of
Proving
its-
existence'
Su
relY,
the on'i of
factuallY
determining
whether
the
trust
altegeiiv"'Ettablished
in
favor
of
Irene,
if
one
was
indeed
established,
was
implied
or
express
Pro#iil'-
;trtains'
at
the
first
intttn"l,
t;
the
trial
court
and
not
to
th"-
ippellate
court
in
a
special
civil
action
for
certiorari
'
as
here'
In
the
absence
of
evidence
to
Prove
or
;it;;;;"
the
constitution
and
n"""tiarilY
the
existence
of
the
trust
agreement
between
lrene'
on
one
h;;d,
and
the
Benedicto
GrouP'
on
the
other,
the
aPPellate
court
"urrnot
intelligentlY
Pass
upon
the
issue
of
trust'
A
Pronouncement
on
saia
itt'"
of
trust
rooted
on
sPeculation
and
conjecture'
if
p.op..iy
challenged'
must,
be
struck
down.Soitmustbehere"'(EmPhasis
in
bold
suPPlied)
ContrarytotheCourtofAppeals,.[FormerFourth
Division -
Division
of
Fivel
majority's
stance6s,
while
Marcos'
Araneta
had
different
factual
milieu
from
the
instant
case'
the
enunciated
ruling
therein
is
clearly
relevant
and
applicable
to this
case'
clearly,
far
from
limiting
itself
in
resolving
whether
the
triar
courts
had
gravery
abr]sed
their
discretion
in
finding
probable
cause
for
issuance
of
warrant
of
arrest
against
accused-respondent,
the
Court
of
Appeals,
fFormer
Fourth
Division -
Division
of
Fivel
majority
delved
already
with
the
merits
of
the
case
as
it
alr"udy
ruled-
in
favor
of
accused-
respondents'
controverted
factual
defenses'
This
logically
presupposedtheweighingoftheparties,evidenceand
determining
the
credibility
of
parties'
respective
witnesses'
which
however
were
highly
inappropriate
and
improper
at
this
stage
of
the
Proceedings'
t''
At
p. 3,
Anttcx
"A-1"
hcrcol'
34
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 35/72
2,
WORSE,
THE
COURT
OF
APPEALS'
IFORMER
FOURTH
DIVISION
DIVISION
OF
FIVE]
FINDINGS
OF
*IMPLIED
AUTHORITY",
BONA
FIDE
BELIEF
OR
GOOD
FAITH
AND
LACK
OF
INTENT
TO
GAIN
HAVE
NO
FACTUAL
nrup/oR
LEGAL
BASIS.
As
the
OCP-Baguio
City/DOl'
ihg
nfC
Baguio
City'
Branch
7
unJ
OO
uni
the
3-b
unanimous
Court
of
Appeals
[speciat
renln-
biririon]
hio
spoken
on
the
existence
of
probable cause
against_r"rponolnt,,it.then
behooved
upon
the
Court
of
Appeals trornier
Fourth
?i'1't]?l-:'P-'l't'on
of
Fivel
to
heed
[f.,"i,
.alt.
This,
as
such
determination
of
probable
cause
is
well
"g-;";"ded
on
palpable
valid
facts,
alueil
contested
bt
respondent.
This
matter
of
exercise
of
discretion
oughi'hur"
butn
the
only
issue
in
the
certiorari
petition.
Specifilalty.
on
the
matter
of
grave
abuse
only.
It
cannot
go
beYond'
AccordinglY,thesplit3-2AmendedDecisiondated2t
November2oL4andResolutiondated28August20l5
upholdingrespond"n{,factualpropositionsandtherefore
reversing
the
RTC
Baguio
city,
Branch
7
and
60
judicial
finding
of
probable
cause
for
issuance
of
warrant
of
arrest
against
accused
l.urpondunt,
and
the
court
of
Appeals'
[SpecialrerrtrrDivision]3-0unanimousDecisiondated30
July
2013,
is
UNPROCEDURAL.
It
resolves
substantive
issuesinanimproperandinappropriatemanner'
divesting
and
tLipping
the
original
and
exclusive
jurisdiction
of
the
-triaicourt
to
hear,
try
and
decide
factual
issues.
II
THE
COURT
OF
APPEALS'
IFORMER
FOURTH
DIVISION
-
DIVISION
OF
FIVE]
MAJORITY
GRAVELY
ERRED
IN
REVERSING
THE
OCP-BAGUIO
CITY/DOJ'S
ADMINISTRATIVE
FINDING
OF
PROBABLE
CAUSE
AND
THE
RTC-
BAGUIO
CITY,
BRANCH
7
AND
60'5
DETERMINATION
OF
PROBAtsLE
CAUSE
35
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 36/72
FOR
ISSUANCE
OF
ARREST,
IN
THAT:
WARRANT
OF
IF
AT
ALL,
THE
DISPUTED
FACTUAL
ISSUES
HERE
OUGHT
TO
BE
ET?:
TRIED
AND
RESOLVED
FIRST
BY
THE
TRIAL
COURT,
NOT
YET
BY
THE
COURT
OF
APPEALS.
THE
FOLLOWING
ARE
THE
CONFLICTING
FACTUAL
PROPOSITIONS
OF
THE
PARTIES:
1.
RESPONDENT
CLAIMED
THAT
HIS
FATHER
DR.
VIRGILIO
CONSENTED
TO
HIS
TAKING
OF
WATER
AND
ELECTRICITY
FROM
UM'S
BPTI
TO
HIS
CTLL
BUILDING.
IN
CONTRA,
UM
DENIED
THE
SAME
ASSERTING
THAT
IT
WAS
HIGHLY
IM
PROBABLE,
IF
NOT
IMPOSSIBLE,
CONSIDERING
TI-IE
BREWING
ANIMOSITY
BETWEEN
RESPONDENT
AND
DR.
VIRGILIO
EVEN
PRIOR
TO
THE
TIME
OF
THE
SUBJECT
TAKING
IN
2AO7
UP
TO
DR.
VIRGILIO'S
DEATH
IN
2OOB.
In
its
assailed
Amended
Decision,
the
court
of
Appeals
[Fourth
Division
Division
of
Five]
seemed
to
have
supposed,albeiterroneously,thatrespondent,S.fatherDr.
virgilio
had
consented
to
his'taking
of
water
and
electricity
fro
[r
U
M's
BPTI
to
h
is
CTLL
Bu
ild
i
ng
,
viz
':
"The
fourth
element
of
the
above-
mentioned
crime,
i.e.,
that
it
be
done
without
the
owner's
consent,
is
absent
in
this
case.
Petitioner's
use
of
the
electricity
and water supply
of
BPTI
was
done
wittr
the
consent
and
imprimatur
of
his
father,
Virgilio,
who
was
at
that
time
the
maioiitY
stockholder
and
President
and
if'.ruirrnan
of
the
Board
of
Trustees
of
UM
which
in
turn
owns
BPTI'
36
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 37/72
The
peculiar
circumstances
of
this
case
permit
a
conclusion
that
Virgilio
was
given
an
aPParent
authoritY
bY
the
Board
of
Trustees
of
UM
to
giYe
such
consent
on
behalf of
the
latter'"66
Despiteprivatecomplain3ntUM'.pointedargumentin
its
motion
iot
reconsideration
against
such
erroneous
supposition,theCourtofAppeals[FormerFourthDivision-
DivisionofFive]didnotevenbothertoexplainthesamein
its
Resolution
OlteO
2B
Aug;ti
2015.
There,
it
nonchalantly
reiterated
its
say-so
finding:
"Petitioner's
use
of
the
electricity
and
water
supply
of
BPTI
was
with
the
consent
of
nis
fatner
who
was
at
that
time
the
mujotity
stockholder
and
President
and
Cfrairman
of
the
Board
of
Trustees
of
UM'
virfitio
Delos
Santos
gave
his
consent
to
his"
son
(herein
petitioner)
to
use
BPTI's
eleciricity
and
water
supply
in
2OO7
'
f
nereafter,
and
until
Virgilio's
death
in
ZOOA,
tfre
Board
of
Trustees
of
UM
did
not
object
to
or
repudiate
said
consent'"67
RECoRDSwoULDHoWEVERsHoWTHATFAR
FRoMBEINGASETTLEDFACTUALISSUE,
RESPoNDENT,SFACTUALALLEGATIoNTHATHIS
FATHERDR'VIRGILIoHADCoNSENTEDToHIS
TAKINGoFWATERANDELECTRICITY,WAS
POINTEDLY
CONTROVERTED
AND
DISPUTED
BY
UM'
In
its
amended
motion
for
reconsideration
of
the
ocP-
Baguio
City,s
Resolution
dated
29
July
2011,
UM
had
explicitly
contested
respondent's
aforesaid
allegation'
to
wit:
"More
on
the
issue
of
consent,
the
SinumPaang
SalaYsaY
executed
by
Electa
D'
Arevalo
(attached
to
the
noelo
[sic])
would
negate
any
such
cot
sent
nV
AttY.
Virgilio
de
los
Santos
to
itre
tapping
of
electricity
and
water
bY
AttY.
Ernesto
de
los
Santos.
Said
affiant
stated:
t'o
At
1r.
8,
Atrtrcx
"A"
hcrcof'.
t''
At
lr.
(r
Anncx
"A"- 1"
hcrcof
-1
I
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 38/72
'11.
Noong
MaY
3,
2003
siYa
(referring
to
Virgilio
de
los
Santos)
ay
mahospi[al
ulit
sa
kanyang
sakit
na
prostate
cancer
sa
Medical
Center
Manila.
Ako
uli
ang
nag-alaga
at
nabantay
sa
kanya.
Ang
bilin
sa
akin
ay
away
iyong
bibisita
hin
siya
ng
ka
nya
ng
,
asawa
at
mga
anak
na
sina
AttY'
Ernesto
de
los
Santos
at
Dr.
Cynthia
de
los
Santos
Chan'
Baka
siYa
raw
aY
mas
lalung
mamatay
kaysa
gagaling''
'9.
Sa
tuwing
ako
aY
inuutusan
ni
Dr.
Virgilio
de
los
Santos
na
bibili
ng
mga
prutas
sa
Binondo
o
ibang
lugar
ang
bilin
niya
sa
akin
ay
ako
lang
daw
ang
Aapat
bibili
ng
kanyang
mga
prutas
at
huwag
iutos
sa
iba
pati
ang
kanyang
mga
anak
dahil
baka
lasunin
daw
siya''
The
aforequoted
facts
would
show
the
estranged
relationship
of
Virgilio de
los
Santos
with
his
son
Ernesto
de
los
Santos
dating
back
2OO3
or
even
before.
With
this
seemingly
irreconcilable
estranged
relationship,
which
lasted
up
to
the
time
of
death
of
Virgilio
de
los
Santos,
would
anYbodY
in
his
right
mind
PlausiblY
conclude
that
Ernesto
de
los
Santos
can
get
the
consent
of
Virgilio
de los
Santos
to
the
utilization
and
taPPing
of
electricity
and
water
from
BPTI
and
diverting
it
to
CTLL
Building?
And
would
Virgilio
de
los
Santos
instruct
Josephine
Pinera
and
Yolanda
Calanza,
who
are
mere
emPloYees
of
U,M.
assigned
then
at
BPTI,
to
extend
suPPort
to
Ernesto
de
los
Santos
to
include his electrical
and
water
needs
when
Ernesto
de
los
Santos
was
then
the
manager
and
operator
of
BPTI
and
these
two
(Penera and
Calanza)
were
his
mere
subordinates
who
would
Kow-tow
3B
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 39/72
to
whatever
he
(Ernesto)
wants
to
do
there?
It
would
be
very
f
unnY
and
--
indeed
ridiculous
for
the
subordinates
to
be
authorizing
their
boss
to
tap
electricitY
and
water'
ihi;
is
reailY
against
the
everYdaY
exPerience
of
mankind
and
belongs
to
the
miraculous'
Furthermore,
when
Virgilio
de
los
Santos
got
sick
alreadY
he
refused
sine
then
to
see
Ernesto
de
los
Santos
and
CYnthia
de
los
Santos-Chan
'
The
affidavit
of
Maria
Corazon
Ramona
L'
de
los
Santos
on
this
score
states:
'It
was
onlY
when
mY
father
was
sick
that
he
refused
to
see
them'
He
said
that
he
might
die
early
because
of
the
stress
of
seeing
mY
brother
and
sister.'
(Se
Rollo,
Affidavit
of
Ramona
Delos Santos,
par'
))""uu
(Emphasis
in
bold
suPPlied)
IN
FACT,
in
its
comment
to
respondent,s
CA
petition
for
certiorari,
Utr4
had
categorically
asserted:
"Furthermore,
it
is
extant
from
the
affidavits
executed
by
Electa
D'
Arevalo
and
Ma.
Corazon
Ramona
Ll'
Delos
Santosthattherelationshipofpetitioner
and
his
deceased
father
had
already
soured
prior
to
the
death
of
the
latter'
The
alleged
consent
given
-
bY
petitioner'J
deceased
father
is
therefore
iiigtrly
dubious.
In
the
natural
order
of
things,
persons
whose
relationship
is
estringed
would
necessarily
refuse
.to
give
c6nsent
or
extend
benefit
to
the
ottrer.
Interestingly,
petitioner
had failed
to
refute,
hence
deemed
to
have
admitted
such
fact."6e
t'*
At
pp.
(r-7,
Anncx
"E"
hclcof.
t"'
At
pp.
22-23,
Anncx
"S"
lrcrcol.
39
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 40/72
IFATALL,FARFROMBEINGSETTLEDASTHECoURT
oFAPPEALS,IFoRMERTounTTTDIVISIoNDIVISIoNoF
FrvEl
un:onliy
HAD
rnnorrrEouslY
suPPosED
IT
TO
BE'
WHETHERoRNoTDR.vrnclr-ToHADCoNSENTEDTo
RESPoNDENT,STAKINGoFWATERANDELECTRICITY,IS
CLEARLYAHoTLYDISPUTEDANDCoNTESTED
FACTUALIssUEnesoIvABLEoNLYVIAFULLBLoWN
TRIAL.
2.
THE
COURT
OF
APPEALS'
IFORMER
FOURTH
DIVISION
blvtstorv
oF
FIVEI
MA]ORITY'S
SWEEPING
CONCLUSION
THAT
THE
UM
BOARD
HAD
THEREBY
IMPLIEDLY
AGREED
OR
ACQUIESCED,
IS
HIGHLY
TruNPPNOPRIATE
AS
THE
TRIAL
COURT
HAS
NOT
FACTUALLY
RULED
THEREON
YET.
TheCourtofAppeals,[FourthDivisionDivisionof
Fivel
majority
further
assever-atea
in
its Amended
Decision:
"Virgilio,
with
the
acquiescence.
of
the
goard
of
Trustees
of
UM,
gave
hLt
consent
to
the
petitioner
to
use
BPTI's
electricity
and
water
supply
in
2OA7
'-
Thereafter,
and
until
the
death
of
Virgilio
in
2008,
the
Board
of
Trustees
of
Ufvt OiO
not
object
to
or
repudiate
the
said
act
of
Virgilio.
In
other
words,
the
Board
did
not
Put
an
end
to
this
arrangement
which
could
give
it
sufficient
ground
to
file
a
criminal
case
against
the
petitioner
of
the
latter
cSntinued
to
use
that
water
suPPIY
despite
the
clear
prohibition
by
the
Board
of
Trustees
of
the
university'
It
was
only
in
2011,
when
petitioner
and
Cynthia
opposed
the
Probate
pioceedings
of
the
estate
of
their
father
initiated
ny
tneir
sister
Ramon
[sic]
and
when
there
was
alreadY
a
serious
corporate
squabble
between
and
among
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 41/72
the
members
of
the
Board
of
Trustees
of
UM
tfrit
a
complaint
for
qualified
theft
was
filed
against
the
petitioner
as
We
note
in
this
case'
If
the
Board of
Trustees
of
UM
trulY
believedthatVirgiliohadnoauthorityto
give
consent
on
lts
behalf
it
could
have
overturnedandnullifiedhisdecisionto
allowthepetitionertousetheelectricity
and
water
supply
of
its
property-
in
Baguio
City
from
its
inception'
The
fact
that
the
Board
of
Trustees
of
UM
did
not
prevent
the
petitioner
to
continue
to
openly
use
its
electricity
and
water
trppiy
during
the
lifetime
of
Virgilio'
and
even'immediatelythereafter'clearly
manifeststhatitacquiescedtoVirgilio,s
giving
of
consent
to
the
petitioner'"70
In
its
assailed
Resolution
dated
28
August
2015,
the
Court
of
Appeals'
fFormer
Fourth
Division
-
Division
of
Five]
majoritY
then
merelY
rePeated:
"The
Board
of
Trustees
of
UM
could
haveeasilyoverruledandnullifiedVirgilio,s
decision
to
allow
the
petitioner
to
use
its
electricity
and
water
supply
in
Baguio
litV'
The
fact
that
the
Board
of
Trustees
of
UM
did
not
prevent
the
petitioner
to
continue
to
openiy
use
its
electricity
and
water
,uppiy
during
the
lifetime
of
Virgilio,
and
even
lmmediately
thereafter
lasting
for
four
y"urr,
clearly
manifests
that
it
acquiesced
[o
Virgilio's
giving
of
consent
to
the
petitioner.
It
was
only
after
a
serious
iamity/corporate
squabble
that
happened
between
and
among
the
corporate
directors
that
the
criminal
case
was
filed
against
petitioner.
It
is
well-entrenched
that
if
a
corporation knowingly
permits
its
officert
or
any
other
agent,
to
perform
acts
within
the
scope
of
an
apparent
authority,
holding
him
out
to
the
pubiic as
possessing
power
to
do
those
acts,
the
corporation
will,
as
against
'"
A,
pp.
[i-9,
Anncx
"A"
lrcrcot'
4l
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 42/72
any
person
who
has
dealt
in
good
faith
with
the
corporation
through
such
.
agent'
be
estopped
from
denying
such
authority'
APParent
authoritY
is
derived
not
merely-iro*
ptuttice'
Its
existence
may
be
ascertlined
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
Z)
th;
acquiescence
in
his
acts
of
a
Particular
nature,
with
actual
or
constiuctive
knowledge
thereof'
within
or
beyond
the
scope
of
his
ordinary
powers'
Virgilio's
apparent
authority
to
juggte
tl"
funls
of
u'M
with
his
own
funds
is
clearly
demonstrated
bY
UM's
own
attached
evidence,
to
wit"
"They
failed
to
appreciate
the
fact
that
it
was
even
mY
father
who
shouldered
his
grandchildren's
expense.
This
was
evidenced
bY
a
certification issued
by
the
President
and
Chief
of
Academic
Officer'
copy
of
which
is
attached
hereto
as
Annex
"8"
attesting
that
mY
brother's
second
mistresJ
has
been
receiving
monthly
allowance
from
the
University
in
the
amount
of
Nine
Thousand
Eight
Hundred
TwentY
Five
Pesos'
xxx"
By
giving
Virgilio
an
aPParent
authority,
UM's-
Board
of
Trustees
cannot
nowdenyandrepudiatethelegaleffectof
Virgilio,sconsentgiventothepetitionerto
use
the
electricity
and
water
supply
of
BPTI."71
Again,theCourtofAppeals,IFor.T"'FourthDivision
Division
of
Fivel
majority
ha'd
accepted
hook,
line
and
sinker
respondent's
uit"guiiont
in
his
CA
certiorari
petition
and
motion
for
reconsideration.
IT
TREATED,
ALBEIT
UNPROCEDURALLY,
RESPONDENT,S
ALLEGATIONS
AS
UNDISPUTED
GOSPEL
TRUTHS.
7'
At
1r1.,.
(r-7.
Atrrrcx
"A-1"
ltcrcof
42
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 43/72
SUCH
ALLEGATIONS
WERE
HOWEVER
CATEGORICALLY
CONTRADICTED
BY
UM'
PER
THE
SUFFICIENTDoCUMENTARYANDCoNTRoVERTING
AFFIDAVITEVIDENCESUBMITTEDBYUMDURING
PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATIoN,
PLUS
RESPoNDENT,S
OWN
CONCLUSIVE
ADMISSIONS
IN
HIS
AFFIDAVIT'
IT
IS
WELL
ESTABLISHED
THAT:
(i)
RESPONDENT
HAD
TAKEN
WATER
AND
ELECTRICITY
FROM
UM'S
BPTI
TO
HIS
CTLL
BUILDING;
(ii)
THrS
TAKTNG
WAS
WTTHOUT
THE
CONSENT
OF THE UM
BOARD
OF
TRUSTEES,
AS
IN
FACT,
THEY
HAD
NO
KNOWLEDGE
NOR
HAD
ACQUIESCED
TO
RESPONDENT,S
TAKING;
AND
(iii) RESPONDENT
wAs
MANAGER
OF
UM,S
THE
GENERAL
BPTI
AND
AT
THE
oFFTCER/STOCKHOLDER
OF
UM
TIME
OF
SAID
TAKING.
THEsE
SHoULD
HAVE
BEEN
ENOUGH
VIS-A-VIS
THE
DETERMINATION
OF
PROBABLE
CAUSE
FOR
ISSUANCE
OF
WARRANT
OF
ARREST
AGAINST
RESPONDENT
FOR
QUALIFIED
THEFT'
woRSE,
the
court
of
Appeals'[Former
Fourth
Division
-
Division
of
Fivel
majority's'f'actual
findings
are
even
bereft
of
any
factuat
and
legil
bases.
It
bears
stressing
that:
1)THEUMBoARDoFTRUSTEESHAD
DISCOVERED
RESPONDENT
SURREPTITIOUS
TAKING
ONLY
SOMETIME
IN
JUNE
aOLL,
FOR
WHICH
THEY
IMMEDIATELV
RESOLVED
TO
INITIATE
A
QUALIFIED
THEFT
COMPLAINT
AGAINST
RESPONDENT
IN
]ULY
2c-LL72.
2)
RESPONDENT
WAS
ABLE
TO
CONCEAL
THIS
ILLEGALTAKINGANDTHEFToFWATERAND
ELECTRICITY
AS
HE
WAS
THE
GENERAL
MANAGER
OF
UM'S
BPTI
WHEN
THE
SUBJECT
ILLEGAL
WATER
AND
ttrtrbctrtPrcsiclcntDr..EntilyD.DcLconanrlPolicarpitrM.Lacsa,arrtlUM's
Corp.rirtc
Sccrctary
Atty.
Dios(la(lo
c.
Marlrid's
Ccrtitlcation,
attachcd
ns
Atrncxcs
to
UM's
CornPlaint'
Anncx
"B"
hcrcol-
43
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 44/72
ELECTRICALcoNNEcTIoNsWERETAPPEDFRoMUM,S
BPTIToRESPoNDENT,s-crulBUILDINGIN2ooT
UNTIL
NTSPONDENT
WNb
REMOVED
AS
SUCH
ON
15
luNE
2011'
3)FARFRoMBEING*oPENLY,,ASTHEcoURT
oF
APPEALS',
[FOURTH
DrvrsroN
DrvrsroN
oF
FIVE]MAJoRITYHADsPEcIoUsLYCHARACTERIZED
RESPONDENT',STnTTTc,THEPTCTURESoFTHE
SUBJECT
ILLEGAL
WATER
AND
ELECTRIC
coNNEcTIoNsWoULDsHoWTHATTHESAMEWERE
CONSPICUOUSLY
HIDDEN
FROM
THE
PUBLIC'
INCLUDING
BPTI'S
EMPLOYEES'
TO
AVOID
DETECTION.,,
ApartfrombeingPRoCEDURALLYINAPPRoPRIATE,
the
Court
of
npp"uls;
;Former
Fourth
Division
Division
of
Fivel
majority's
factual
findings
even
ahead
of
trial
that
the
UM
Board
of
Trustees
had
imItieOly
agreed
or
acquiesced
to
respondent's
subject
taking,
is
BELIED
BY
THE
RECORDS'
3.
CONTRARY
TO
THE
COURT
OF
APPEALS'
IFORMER
FOURTH
DIVISION
-
DIVISION
OF
FIVEI
MA]ORITY,S
THEORY,
SPECIOUS
RESPONDENT'S
ALLEGATIONS
ON
DR.
VIRGILIO'S
ALLEGED
CONSENT
AND
THE
UM
BOARD'S
IMPLIED
ACQUIESCENCE
ARE
HIGHLY
DISPUTED
FACTUAL
MATTERS
THAT
CAN
ON
LY
BE
VENTILATED
AND
RESOLVED
IN
A
FULL
BLOWN
TRIAL
BEFORE
THE
TRIAL
COURT'
A
F)RTI)RI,
contrary
to
the
Court
of
Appeals,
[Former
Fou
rth
Division
Division
of
Fivel
majority's
sweeping
conclusion,
the
alleged
consent
of
Dr'
Virgilio
to
respondent's
taking
5nO
the
correlative
UM
Board
of
Trustees,
purporteJ
implied
acquiescence
therefor,
are
highly
disputed
factual
matters
that
can
only
be
ventilated
and
resolved
in
a
full
blown
trial
before
the
7r
lrl"asc
sec
A,ucxcs
"5","5-A" antl
"5-B",
UM's
DOJ
C.ttltlrcttt,
Anlrcx
"'l"
hcrcot''
44
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 45/72
trial
court.
DefinitelY,
the
Court
of
l\ppeals
I
Former
Fourth
oivision
-
pivision
or
Fivel
cannot
put'
finis
to
such
controversial
factual
issues
on
a
mere
petition
for
certiorari,
rt
is
contriry
to
the
existing
procedural
rules
and
settled iurisPrudence'
Rightlyso,initsorderdatedOTDecember20t2,the
RTC-Baguio
City,
Branch
60
had
concluded:
"xxx
There
are
two
kinds
of
determination
of
Probable
cause;
executive
and
iudicial'
In
the
case
at
bar,
probable
cause
against
the
accused
tras
already
been
determined
under
both
insta
nces
'
The
contentions
of
th;
accused
in
his
Present
motion
are
evidentiary
in
nature'
The
same
are
better
afPreciated
in
a
full-
blowntrialorinamoreappropriate.
motion.
The
Presence
or
absence
of
the
elemenis
of
the
crime
is
evidentiary
in
nature
and
is
matter
of
defense
that
may be
Passed
uPon
on
a
f
ull-blown
trial
on
the
merits.
n74
TEmphasis
in
bold
supplied)
Also,initsDecisiondated30July2013,IhqCourtof
Appeals
[Special
Tenth
Division]
had
correctly
ruled:
"xxx
With
Ernesto's
admission,
the
Court
agrees
that
it
is
probable
that
the
crime
-of
qualified
theft
has
been
committed
and
that
Ernesto
is
probably
guilty thereof.
To
reiterate,
We
are
not
here
concerned
with
the
finding
as
to
whether
all
the
elements
of
qualified
theft
have
been
sufficientlY
Proven
to
warrant
a
conviction,
because
to
require
the
same
would
alreadY
be
beYond
the
scope
of
the
prosecutor
and
the
trial
-
court's
task
of
determining
probable
cause,
as
these
are
matters
which
'u
At
p.
2, Anncx
"Q"
hclcof.
45
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 46/72
XXX
(EmPhasis
in
4.
AS
A
MATTER
OF
CAUSE,
AS
RESPONDENT'S
XXX
bold
suPPlied)
PROBABLE
BETWEEN
DEFENSIVE
inafull
XXX,,
ca
use, as
between
UM's
contra,
the
RTC
-
are
ProPerlY
addressed
blown
trial.Ts
CLAIM
VERSUS
UM'S
CONTRA,
THE
TRIAL
COURTS'
FINDING
OF
PROBABLE
CAUSE
MUST
PREVAIL.
Settledistherulethatindeterminingtheexistenceof
probableCause,certaintyofguiltisnotrequired.Itis
sufficient
that
the
pieces
of
evidence
as
presented
would
excite
a
reasonanie
belief
that
the
crime
charged
is
committed
and
that
the
respondent
is
probably
guilty
thereof.
In
Metropolitan
Bank
&
Trust
company
vs'
Ai;r*ie;7u,
this
Honorable
court
thus
ruled:
"x x x
Probable
cause
is
a
reasonable
ground
of
presumption
that
a
matter
is'
or
;;;t
b€,
well
founded
on
such
a
state
of
facis
in
the
mind
of
the
prosecutor
.
as
would
lead
a
person
of
ordinary
caution
and
prudence
to
believe,
or
entertain
an
honest
or
strong
suspicion,
that
a
thing
is
so.
The
term
dbes
not
mean
"actual
or
positive
cause"
nor
does
it
imPort
absolute
certainty.
It
is
merely
based
on
opinion
and
reasonable
belief'
Thus'
i
finaing
of
probable
cause
does
not
require
an
inquiry
whether
there
is
sufficient
evidence
to
Procure
conviction.
It
is
enough
that
it
is
believed
that
the
act
or
omission
complained
of
constitutes
the
offense
chargea."
(Emphasis
in
bold
supplied)
As
a
matter
of
Probable
respondent's
defensive
claim
versus
]ltt
',1;,^i,iti;;';)ffii200e;
5ri4
scRA
63r,
(,40-(,41
citi'gpitttpitt,s.
sutrttisutiltnv,r,
G.R'
No'
l0leTtt'
07
April
1993;
221
SCRA
349'
360'
46
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 47/72
BaguioCity,BranchTand60,sfindingofprobableCause
must
Prevail.
As
eloquently
pointed
out
by
CA
lustice
Marlene
Gonzales-Sison
in
her
diisenting
opinion
to
the
assailed
Amended
Petition:
"I
must
emPhasize
that
PETITIONER
ACTUALLY
ADMITTED
THAT
WHILE
SERVING
AS
AN
OFFICER
OF
U.M.
AND
MANAGER
AND
OPERATOR
OF
BPTI/
HE
CAUSED
THE
TAPPING
OF
BPTI'S
WATER
AND
ELECTRICITY
TO
BE
USED
IN
THE
CONSTRUCTION
OF
HIS
BUILDING.
HE
ALSO
ADMITTED
THAT
THIS
WAS
WITHOUT
ANY
AUTHORIZATION
FROM
U'M"S
BOARD
OF
TRUSTEES'
In
mY
oPinion,
SUCH
ADMISSION
MUST
LEI\D
TO
THE
CONCLUSION
THAT
PETITIONER
PROBABLY
COMMITTED
QUALIFIED
THEFT'
THE
ACTS
DETAILEO
TN
THE
ADMISSION
COMPLETES
ALL
THE
ELEMENTS
OF
QUALIFIED
THEFT,
AND
SUPPORTS
fnr
ALLEGATToNS
oF
THE
PRTvATE
RESPONDENT,"
Petitioner's
admission
admits
the
followingl
first,
there
is
a
taking
of
personJl
ProPertY,
that
-
is
electricitY
and
water;
second,
that
said
personal
property
belonging
to
another,
U.M.:
third,
Petitioner
tapped
into
those
resources
with
intent
to
gain,
i.e.,
allow
him
to
avoid
incurring
costs
for
such
water
and
electricitY,
while
using
the
same;
fourth,
that
there
was
no
consent
bY
the
owner,
in this
case,
private
respondent
U.M'
acting
ih.ongh
its
board
of
trustees,
to
the
taking;
fifth,
that
Petitioner
accomPlished
the
deed
without
resort
to
violence
or
force
uPon
47
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 48/72
things,
because
allegedlYr-
hit-
tapplng
was
with
the
Permission
of
tri"'t"tE
father;
and
sixth,
that
th-ere
was
grave
abuse
of
discretion'
since, during
the time that
he
utilized
BPTI's
water
and
electricity'
he
was
occuPYing
executive
positions
in
the
dePrived
owner-
corporation,
[J.M.'
Petitioner
qualifies
his
admission
by
his
defense
that
his
late
father
permitted
him
to
taP
into
BPTI'
He
presents
witnesses
which
maY
corroborate
the
grant
of
authority'
HOWEVER,
AT
THIS
STAGE
OF
THE
PROCEEDTNGS,
rT
MUST
BE
RECALLED,
rs
oNLY
CONCERNED
WITH
THE
DETERMINATION
OF
PROBABLE
CAUSE'
IT
HAS
ALREADY
BEEN
HELD
THAT
DURING
THIS
STATE,
IT
IS
INAPPROPRIATE
TO
RULE
ON
THE
CREDIBILITY
OF
STATEMENTS
COMING
FROM
THE
ACCUSED
AND
HIS
WITNESSES'
WHICH
APPROPRIATELY
LIES
WITHIN
THE
PROVINCE
OF
TRIAL
PROPER.
MOREOEVER,
EVEN
IF
THESE
WITNESSES
ARE
CREDIBLE'
THE
HYPOTHETICAL
TRUTH
OF
THEIR
STATEMENTS
WOULD
STILL
NOT
CHANGE
THE
FACT
THAT
fJ.M.,
AS
A
CORPORATE
ENTITY,
NEVER
CONSENTED
TO
ALLOW
PETITIONER
TO
TAP
INTO
BPTI'S
RESOURCES.
IT
IS
BASIS
THAT
A
CORPORATION
HAS
A
PERSONALITY
SEPARATE
AND
DISTINCT
FROM
ITS
OFFICERS
AND
STOCKHOLDERS.
Petitioner
buttresses
his
defense
by
alleging
that
private
respondent
U'M'
is
actually
a
closely-held
corporation
run
by
his
family,
such
that
it
can
be
bound
by
the
actions
of
his
later,
which
is
considered
the
head
of
the
familY'
Petitioner
likewise
laments
that
the
48
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 49/72
prosecution
never
even
reviewed
the
reCords
of
Private
resPondent,
its
history,
and
its
unusual
arrangement
to
remove
any
doubt
that
it
was
a
close
corporation.
Again,
with
due
resPect
to
-t 9
majorily,
I
find
THAT
TH
ESE
oeirrubes
cANNor
BE
vALTDATED
AT
THrS
STATE.
ONCE
MORE,
THEY
ARE
ALREADY
EVIDENTIARY
IN
NATURE;
SUCH
STATEMENTS
REQUIRE
THE
PRESENTATION
OF
WTiTUESSES
WHO
MAY TESTIFY
ON
HOW
U.M.
OPERATES,
AND
REQUIRE
AS
WELL
THE
ASSESSMENT
OF
DOCUMENTARY
EVIDENCE
ON
ITS
NATURE
AS
A
CORPORATION.
EVIDENTIARY
MATTERS
MUST
BE
PRESENTED
AND
HEARD
DURING
TRIAL.
THE
ESSENTIAL
DIFFERENCE
OF
PROCEEDINGS
TO
DETERMINE
PROBABLE
CAUSE
AND
TRIAL
PROPER,
TO
MY
MIND,
SHOULD
ALSO
BAR
US
FROM
DETERMINING
BASED
ON
EVIDENCE
THAT
PETITIONER
HAD
NO
INTENT
TO
STEAL
(GIVEN
HIS
FATHER,S
PERMTSSToN)
AND
THAT
HIS
FATHER
WAS
EXTRAORDINARY
GENEROUS
TO HIS
CHILDREN.
UNFORTUNATELY,
THESE
DEFENSES
REST
ON
A
CONSIDERATION
OF
FACTUAL
MATTERS
AND
THE
TESTIMONIES
OF
WITNESSES,
WHICH
AGAIN
ARE
ALL
PROPER
FOR
TRIAL.
"77
(Emphasis
in
capital
and
bold
suPPlied)
This
was
amply
supported
by
cA
Justice
Manuel
M'
Barrios
in
his
sepaiate
dissenting
opinion
to
the
assailed
Amended
Decision
elucidating:
TrAt
1r1-,.
9-l 1,
CA
Justicc
Gonzirlcs-Sison's
Dissorlting
Opinion,
Attttcx
"A"
hcreol
49
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 50/72
*It
is
mY
view
that
resPondent
judge
did
not
act
arbitrarily
in
finding
the
existence
of
probable
cause
since
it
ii
conceOeO
fact
that
petitioner
-
while
anofficerofU.M.andmanager/operalrlr
of
BPTI
taPPed
and
utilized
BPTI's
water
and
electricity
for
the
construction
of
his
own
building
and
that
he
admittedly
gained
material
benefit
therefrom.
In-dubitably,
the
elements
of
Qrulified
Theft
can
be
deduced
from
tirese
admitted
facts,
and
certainly,
to
find
the
existence
of
probable
based
thereon cannot
be
considered
abuse of
discretiofl,
ffiuch
less,
grave'
THE
DEFENSE
OF
PETITIONER
THAT
HE
ACTED
WITH
THE
CONFORMITY
OF
HIS
LATE
FATHER
WHO
WAS
THEN
MAJORITY
SHAREHOLDER
OF
COMPLAINANT
CORPORATION
IS
A
DISPUTED
FI\CT,
AND
RESPONDENT
JUDGE
woulD
NOT
YET
BE
rN
A
POSrrro-N
TO
CONSIDER
THE
SAM
7174
(Emphasis
in
capital
and
bold
supplied)
RE:
THE
COURT
OF
APPEALS'
IFoRMER
FOURTH
DrvrsroN
brvrsroru
oF
FrvEI
MAJORITY'S
CONCLUSIONS
ON
IMPLIED
AUTHORITY,
BONA
FIDE
BELIEF
OR
GOOD
FAITH,
AND
THE
ABSENCE
OF
THE
ELEMENT
OF
INTENT
TO
GAIN
THAT
WERE
USED
TO
OVERTURN
THE
TRIAL
COURTS'
FINDING
OF
ARE
PROBABLE
CAUSE,
INAPPROPRII\TE
IN
THE
CERZORAR.T
PETITION.
THE
COURT
OF
APPEALS'
IFORMER
FOURTH
DIVISION
_
DIVISION
OF
FIVE]
"
At
p. 2,
CA .ltrsticc
Bat'rios'
Disscntiltg
Opinion,
Anncx
"A"
hcrcol'
50
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 51/72
MAJORITY'S
EXCULPATING
CONCLUSIONS
SOLELY
UPHOLDING
RESPONDENT'S
DEFENSES
OF
DR.
VIRGILIO'S
PURPORTED
CONSENT
TO
THE
TAKING
,
BONA
FIDE
BELIEF
OR
GOOD
FAITH,
AND
LACK
OF
INTENT
TO
GAIN,
ARE
HIGHLY
INAPPROPRIATE
IN
A
CERTIORARI
PETITION,
CONSIDERING
THAT:
In
the
first
assailed
Amended
Decision,
the
court
of
Appeals'
[Fourth
Division
-
Division
of
Five]
majority
further
opined:
"The
third
element,
i.€.,
that
the
saidtakingbedonewithintenttogain
is
likewise
absent
in
this
case'
Even
assumingarguendothatVirgiliowasnot
dulY
auttroiized
bY
the
Board
of
TrusteesofUMtogiveitsconsenttothe
petitioner
and
the
latter
erred
when
he
solelyreliedonhisfather'sconsent
withoutfurthersecuringtheauthority
fromtherealoWneroftheelectricity
and
water
suPPIY
will
not
make
him
culpableofthecrimeofqualifiedtheft
because
he
was
acting
with
a
color
of
authority
or
a
semblance
of
right
to
do
such
act."7e
The
Court
of
Appeals'
[Former
Fourth-Division
of
Five]
majority
repeated
in
the
second assailed Resolution
dated
28
hugust
2015
the
foregoing
erroneous
thesis,
saying:
"For
a
charge
of
crime
to
Prosper,
the
accused
must
have
been
shown
to
have
acted
with
a
genuine
criminal
intent.
If
he
was
acting
under
a
bona
fide
belief
that
he
has
a
claim
or
title
to
the
thing
allegedly
stolen,
the
criminal
intent
is
missing.
Petitioner's
claim
of
right
on
the
basis
of
the
permission
given
by
his
'''
Al
1r.
l().
Anrrcx
"A"
hclcol'.
5l
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 52/72
father
negates
criminal
intent
on
his
part. He
openly
used
BPTI's
electricity
and
water
supply
under
the
bona
fide
belief
that
he
was
allowed
and
authorized
bY
his
father
to
use
the
same.
His
father
owned
majority
of
the
shares
of
stocks
of
UM
and
was
at
that
timeitsPresidentandChairmanofthe
Board.
He
practically
controlled
and
ran
thebusinessaffairsoftheuniversity.As
explainedabove,theBoardofTrustees
had
given Virgilio
an
apparent
authority
to
d;
so
as
shown
bY
the
fact
that
it
allowedVirgiliototreatthefinancesof
UM
as
if
theY
were
his
own
Personal
property.
It
did
not
revoke
this
authority
while
Virgilio
was
still
alive
or
even
immediatelythereafter.Theallegation
therefore
that
Petitioner
had
the
intentiontodepriveUMofitspersonal
property
is
negated
by
the
fact
that
he
relied
in
good
faith
on
his
father's
authority
to
use
BPTI's
electricity
and
water
suPPlY".Bo
WE
BEG
TO
DISAGREE.
The
court
of
Appeals'
IFormer
Fourth
Division
Division
of
Fivel
maiority's
exculpating
conclusions
solely
upholding
1."rpond"nrt
defenses
of
Dr.
Virgilio's
purported
consent
to
the
taking
,
bona
fide
belief
or
good
faith,
and
lack
of
intent
to
gain
are
inappropriate
in
a
certiorari
petition,
considering
that:
5.
THE
OFFICE
OF
CERTIORARI
IS
MERELY
TO
DETERMINE
WHETHER
OR
NOT
THE
TRIAL
COURT'S
FI
N
DING
OF
PROBABLE
CAUSE
HAS
FACTUAL
AND
LEGAL
BASES.
IT
IS
NOT
WHETHER
RESPONDENT'S
CLAIM
VERSUS
THAT
OF
UM
IS
CORRECT,
t"
At
1',p.
7-tl,
Anncx
"A-1"
hercot
52
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 53/72
WHICH
CAN
ONLY
BE
RESOLVED
BY
THE
TRIAL
COURT
IN
A
FULL
BLOWN
TRIAL.
It
is
well
settled
that
the
office
of
certiorari
is
merely
to
determine
whether
the
court,
body
or
tribunal
has
gravely
abused
its
discretion,
amounting
to
lack
or
in
excess
of
jurisdiction, in
issuing
its
assailed
order
or
resolution'
Aotlv ,
in
Brito
vs.
office
of
the
Deputy
ombudsman
ror
ti)iiur,
this
Honorable
Court
had
categorically
ruled:
"In
cert
iorari
proceedings
under
Rule
65
of
the
Rules
of
Court,
the
inquirY
is
limited
essentiallY
to
wlrether
or
not
the
Public
respondent
acted
without
or
in
excess
of
its
jurisdiction or
with
grave abuse
of
discretion'
A
tribunal,
board
or
officer
acts
without iurisdiction
if
it/
he
does
not
have
tha
legal
Power
to
determine
the
case.
There
is
excess
of
jurisdiction
where,
being
clothed
with
the
Power
to
determine
the
case,
the
tribunal,
board
or
officer
overstePs
its/his
authoritY
as
determined
bY
law'
And
there
is
grave
abuse
of
discretion
where
the
tribunal,
board
or
officer
acts
in
a
capricious,
whimsical,
arbitrary
or
desPotic
manner
in
the
exercise
of
his
judgment
as
to
be
said
to
be
"quiralent
to
lack
of
jurisdiction"'
(EmPhasis
in
bold
suPPlied)
In
the
same
vein,
in
Chan
vS,
Cottrt
of
Appealsu',
this
Honorable Court
had
amply
elucidated:
"x x
x
in
an
action
for
certiorari,
the
Primordial
task
of
the
Court
is
to
ascertain
whether
the
lower
court
as
a
8r
G.R.
No.
li35l2.l0
Juty
2007;
527
scRA
224,229,
8r
G.R.
No. l5()922.2tt
April
201(r;
451
scltA
502,
515-516.
53
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 54/72
quasi-iudicial
body
acted
with
grave
abuse
of
discretion
amounting
to
excess
or
lack
of
jurisdiction
in
the
exercise
of
its
judgment, such
that
the
act was done
in
a
caPricious'
whimsical,
arbitrarY or
desPotic
manner.Inapetitionforcertiorari'the
jurisdiction
of
the
appellate
court
is
narrow
in
scope'
It
is
limited
to
resolving
only
errors
of
jurisdiction'
It
is
not
to
itray
at
will
and
resolve
questions
or
issues
beyond
its
competence'
such
as
an
error
of
judgment which
is
defined
as
one
in
wtriih
ftre
court
or
quasi-judicial
body may
commit
in
the
exercise
of
its
jurisdiction.Anerrorofjurisdictionisone
where
the
acts
complained
of
were
issued
withoutorinexcessofjurisdiction.Thereis
excessofjurisdictionwherethecourtor
quasi-judicial
body,
being
clothed
with
the
po*"ito
determine
the
case,
oversteps
its
authority
as
declared
by
law"'
(Emphasis
in
bold
suPPtied)
Thus,
the
crux
of
respondent's
CA
certiorari petition
was
merely
to
determine
whether
or
not
the
RTC
-
Baguio
city,
Branch
7
and
60
gravely abused
their
discretion
in
finding
probable
cause
against
accused-respondent
for
Qualified
Thcft.
NOTHING
IVONT
NOTHING
LESS'
It
bChOOVCS
AN
inquiry
only
as
to
the
sufficiency
of
the
factual
and
legal
bases
of
the
trial
courts'finding
of
probable
cause.
clearly,
it
was
beyond
the
ambit
of
respondent's
cA
certiorari
petition
to
determine
whether
his
claim
versus
that
of
uM
is
correct,
as
to
call
the
application
of
weight
of
evidence
and
credibility
of
witness.
If
at
all,
this
matter
can
only
be
addressed
by
the
trial
court
in
a
full
blown
trial.
6.
WITHOUT
ANY
ABUSE,
ALONE
GRAVE,
THE
COURTS'
FINDING
PROBABLE
CAUSE
IS
G
ROU
N
DED
U
PON
FOLLOWING:
LET
TRIAL
OF
WELL
THE
54
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 55/72
AS
CONCLUSIVELY
ADMITTED
BY
HIM
IN
HIS
COUNTER-
AFFIDAVIT,
RESPONDENT
HAD
CAUSED
TH
E
TAPPING
OF
AN D
DIVERTED
WATER
AND
ELECTRICITY
FROM
UM'S
BPTI
TO
HIS
CTLL
BUILDING.
RESPONDENT
HAD
TAKEN
WATER
AND
ELECTRICITY
FROM
UM'S
BPTI
WITHOUT
THE
CONSENT
OF
THE
UM
BOARD.
RESPONDENT'S
DEFENSE
THAT
HE
TOOK
WATER
AND
ELECTRICITY
WITH
TH
E
CONSENT
OF
HIS
*DECEASED"
FATHER
DR.
VIRGILIO,
IS
FOREVER
BARRED.
D.
RESPONDENT'S
DEFENSE
OF
LACK
OF
INTENT
TO
STEAL
IS
EVIDENTIARY
IN
CHARACTER
AND
SHOULD
BE
BETTER
VENTILATED
AND
HEARD
IN
A
FULL
BLOWN
TRIAL,
In
order
that
a
person
may
be
held
liable for
Qualified
Theft,
the
following
elements
must
concur:
a.
There
must
be
a
taking
of
personal
property;
b.
That
the
said
property
belongs
to
another;
c.
That
the
taking
be
done
with
intent
to
gain;
d.
That
it be
done
without
the
owner's
consent;
e.
That
it
be
accomplished
without
the
use
of
violence
or
intimidation
against persons,
nor
of
force
upon
things;
and
o2
f.
That
it be
done
with
grave
abuse
of
confidence.u'
s3
People
vs.
Puig,G.l{.
Nos.
173(t54-7(t5.28
August
2008;
563
SCRA
5(r4'
tt70
55
A.
B.
C.
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 56/72
HERE,
the
above
elements
of
Qualified
Theft
are
all
present:
Astothefirstrequisite,withrespecttotleelement
of
"taking",
thffia
emphatically
affirmed
and
:^ 1.
'l.r
;"ffi"i
',r.lra
respondent
instructed
him
sometime
in
July
2007
to
use
the
electric
current
of
BPTI
for
the
bail
cutter,
bender,
and
ior
welding
because
at
that
time
respondent
was
constructing
his
GTTL
Building'
Lacsa
also
affirmed
and
confirmed
that
-*hun
the
first
floor
of
CTTL
building
was
finished,
,"r[onO"nt
ordered
him
to
make
an
electrical
connection
coming
from
BPTI
going
to
the
basement
.of
crrl
Building
which
6"
obeyed;
-
after
making
the
.electrical
connection,
the
place
of
work was
transferred
to
the
basement
of
the
br1_
building
and
there
the
ball
cutting,
bending
and
welding
using
th;
electric
current
from
BPTI
was
done;
he
p"rtoiully
kiew
this
because
he
(Lacsa)
also
worked
there
for
respondent
as
operator
of
the
ball
cutter,
bender
and
welder
for
some
time'
Furthermore,
Lacsa,
the
eyewitness
to
the
unlawful
taking
done
by
respondent
also affirmed
and
confirmed
in
his
,il,orn
affidavit
that
respondent
also
instructed
him
to
connect
the
water
supply
of
CTTL
Building
to
the
water
installation
of
BprI
sometime
in
February
2009
purpgsely
to
make
supply
of
water
to
the
second
floor
of
CTLL
Building
*r-,,i.r.'
respondent
then
intended
to
open
for
wguld-be
tourists
or
checkers
on
14
February
2009
(Valentinels
Day);
when
Lacsa
left
the
employ
of
respondent
in
July
2009,
such
water
connection
was
still
in
operational
and
existing;
when
he
(Lacsa) was
instructed by Dr.
De
Leon,
President
of
U'M',
to
iheck
the
water
connection
sometime
in
June
20LL,
h€
still
saw
and
found
out
that
the
water
connection
is still
there,
however,
the
electric
connection
was
already
cut,
but
nonetheless
the
electric
wire
which
was
then
used
to
connect
the
electric
current
with
BPTI
is
still
there'
Realizing
that
he
cannot
effectively
rebut
the
statements
of
Lacsa,
respondent
even
conclusively
admitted
in
his
Counter-Affidavit
that
he
actually
took
electric
current
and
water
from
BPTI
and
used
it
in
the
construction
of
his
CTTL
Building.
56
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 57/72
ClearlY,
the
foregoing
admission
more
than
sufficientlY
the
element
of
"unlawful
taking"
evidence
and
conclusive
established
the
existence
of
As
to
the
second
requisite,
with
respect
to
the
element
ttrat
tf'e
said
'tpersonal
property
belongs
to
another",
witness
Lacsa
affirmed
and
confirmed
in
his
sworn
affidavit
that
the
electric
current
and
water
were
taken
from
BPTI
which
in
turn
is
owned
by
UM.
This
was
duly
admitted
by
respondent
in
his
counter-Affidavit.
So,
there
is
also
more
than
sufficient
basis
of
the
existence
of
probable
cause
on
this
score.
As
to
the
third
requisite,
with
respect
to
-the
element
that
'tf'e
ta[ing
be
done
with
intent
to
gain",
petitioner
benefited
from
the
electric
current
and
water
as
he
used
them
in
constructing
his
GTLL
Building.
This
is affirmed
and
confirmed
likewise
nv
Lacsa
in
his
sworn
affidavit
and
duly
admitted
by
respondent
in
his
Counter-Affidavit'
By
"gain"
is
meant
not
only
the
acquisition
of
a
thing
useful
to
the
pul"poses of
life
but
also
the
benefit
which
in any
other
sense
*uy
be
derived
or
expected
from
the
act
which
is
performed.Bo
As
to
the
fourth
requisite,
with
respect
to
the
element
"withOut
the
OWner'S
Consent",
the
Sworn
affidavit
of
Dr.
De
Leon
attested
to
the
fact
that
the
Board
of
Trustees,
which
is
the
corporate
governing body
of
UM
pursuant to sec.
23 of
the
corporation
code,
did
not
consent
and
in fact
does
not
know
the
said
illegal
connections
and
so
said
installations
were
not
legal
up
to
the time they
were
disconnected.
Furthermore,
the
Certification
of
Atty'
Diosdado
G.
Madrid,
a
member
of
the
Board
of
Trustees
and
Corporate
Secretary
of
the
UM,
attested
to
the
fact
that
since
11
August
2006
to
date,
records
of
the
meetings
of
the
UM
Board
has
shown
no
passage
of
any
resolution
authorizing
respondent,
or CTLL
Building
Dely's
Inn,
to
connect
the
water
and
electrical
connections
of
the
BPTI
to
respondent's
CTLL
Building.
As
to the
fifth
requisite,
with
respect
that
*it
be
accomplished
without
the
use
the
element
violence
or
s4
Ant,,nio
Crcgoris,
Fultlanrcntals
of Criminal
Law
Rcvicw,
1997
Ed.,
p.759,
citing
People
vs.
Fentattdez.3tJ
O'C'
9lt-5.
to
of
57
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 58/72
intimidation
against
persons,
nor
force
upon
things",
the
documenta.y
*O
testimonial
evidence
presented
in
the
case
negated
the
use
of
violence
of
intimidation
against
persons
nor
force
upon
things
in
the
taking
of
the
electric
current
and water.
As
to
the
sixth
requisite,
with
respect
to
the
element
that
.'it
be
done
rmith
grave
anGe
of
confidence",
respondent
had
duly
admitted
in
tris
Complaint
for
Forcible
Entry
with
Damages,
docketed
as
civil
case
No.
13540
filed
with
the
Munic'Ipal
Trial
Court
of
Baguio
City
ut
at
the
trial
of
the
subject
incident
he
was
the
General
Manager
and
operator
of
BPTI
owned
by
UM.
His
admission
is
considered
a
judicial
admission
sin."
ih"
complaint
was
verified
and
filed in
court'
The
fact
that
respondent
was
managing
BPTI.
is
also
bolstered
by
the
Minutes
of
the
Board
of
Trustees'
Regular
Meeting
held
on
15
June
2011
wherein
it
is
stated
that
the
uM
Board
of
Trustees
passed
a
resolution
removing
respondent
from
the
management
and
operation
of
BPTI'
As
to
the
seventh
requisite,
with
respect
to
the
damage
srrtffilson
of
respondent's unlawful
taking-
with
grave
abuse
of
confidence
of
the
water
and
electr-'icity,
the
electric
and
water
consumptions
of
the
BPTI
in
2006
and
2011
when
the
illegal
connections
were
not
yet
made
or
were
already
cut
when
compared
vis-d-vis
the
water
and
electric
consumptions
of
BPTI
from
2OO7
up
to
2010
would
show
the
actual
loss
incurred
by
the
UM
by
reason
of
said
illegal
and
unauthorized
connections'
From
the
electric
and
water
consumptions
of
BPTI
for
the
period
2OO7
to
2010
should
be
deducted
the
regular
electric
and
water
consumptions
every
year
of
BPTI
and
the
difference
is
the
amount
of
loss
stolen
by
respondent
from
UM
every
year.
This
amount
must
be
multiplied
by
the
number
of
years
the
illegal
connections
were
existing,
which
amounted
to
Php3
Million,
more
or
less'
Thus,
in
its
order
dated
01
February
20L2,
the
RTC-
Baguio
City,
Branch
7
well
founded
probable
cause
against
respondent
for
Qualified
Theft,
explaining:
"Probable
cause
is
the
existence
of
such
facts
and
circumstances
as
would
excite
the
belief
in a
reasonable
mind
that
a
crime
has
been
committed
and
58
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 59/72
that
the
respondent
is
probably
guilty
thereof
and
should
be
held
for
trial'
In
the
present
case,
the
Court
agrees
with
and
affirms
the
findings
of
the
investigatingprosecutor,AssistantCity
Prosecutor
Rolando
T'
Vergara,
that
probable
cause
indeed
exists
for
the
indictment
of
the
accused
for
the
crime
of
qualified
theft
considering
that
he
himself
admitted
that
he
cause
the
tapping
of
and
diverted
electricity
and
*itet
from
the
Benguet
Pines
Tourist
Inn
(BPTI)
which
is
owned
bY
the
UniversitY
of
Manila
(UM)
to
the
CTLL
building
which
he
owns
without
the
consent
of
aPProval
of
the
Board
of
UM.
Like
the
investigating
prosecutor,
the
Court
finds
that
the
defense
relied
upon
bY
the
accused'
that
is,
that
the
taPPing
and-
diversion
was
with
the
consent
of
his
late
father,
Fr.
Virgilio
D'
Delos
Santos
is
barred
and
Prohibited
under
the
"Dead
Man's
Statute"
under
Section
23,
Rule
t3O
of
the
Rules
of
Court.
Dr'
Delos
Santos
could
not
possibly
confirm
the
claim
of
the
self-serving
allegation
of
the
accused.'Bs
(Emphasis
in
bold
supplied)
On
the
other
hand,
in
its
Order
dated
07
December
20L2,
the
RTC-Baguio
City,
Branch
60
duly
affirmed
the
above
finding
of
probable
cause,
ratiocinating:
"The
issue
raised
by
the
accused
in
his
Partial
Motion
for
Reconsideration
must
first
be
resolved
considering
that
the
same
involves
the
question
on
whether
or
not
probable
cause
exists
to
indict
him
of
the
crime
charged
in
the
information.
It
must be
pointed
out that
the
accused
is
charged
with
the
crime
based
on
the
existence
of
a
probable
cause.
Probable
cause
is
defined
as
a
*t
At
p. 2, Anncx
"L"
hcrcol'.
59
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 60/72
reasonable
ground of
presumption
that
a
matter
is,
or
may
be,
well-founded
in
such
a
state
of
mind
as
would
lead
a
person of
ordinary
caution
and
prudence
to
believe
or
entertain
an
honest
or
strong
suspicion
that
a
thing
is
so'
It
is
also
defined
as
such
facts
as
are
sufficient
to
engender
a
well-founded
belief
that
a
crime
has
been
committed
and
that
resPondents
are
ProbablY
guitty
thereof.
There
are
two
kinds
of
determination
of
Probable
cause;
executive
and
judicial.
In
the
case
at
bar,
Probable cause
against
the
accused
has
alreadY
been
determined
under
both
instances'
The
contentions
of
the
accused
in
his
present
motion
are
evidentiary
in
nature.
The
same
are
better
appreciated
in
a
full-blown
trial
or
in
a
more
approPriate
motion.
The
presence
or
absence
of
the
elements
of
the
crime
is
evidentiary
in
nature
and
is
matter
of
defense
that
may
be
Passed
upon
on
a
full-
Uo*n
trial
on
the
merits.B6"
(Emphasis
in
bold
suPPlied)
FROM
THE
FOREGOING,
it is
daylight
clear
that
the
trial
courts'
finding
or
probable cause
had
sufficient
and
strong
legal and
factual
bases,
to
wit:
AS
CONCLUSIVELY
ADMITTED
BY
HIM
IN
HIS
COUNTER-
AFFIDAVITBT,
RESPONDENT
HAD
CAUSED
THE
TAPPING
OF
AND
DIVERTED
WATER
AND
ELECTRICITY
FROM
UM'S
BPTI
TO
HIS
CTTL
BUILDING.
PER
RECORDS,
RESPONDENT
HAD
TOOK
WATER
AND
ELECTRICITY
FROM
UM'S
BPTI
WITHOUT THE
CONSENT
OF
THE UM
BOARD
OF
TRUSTEESBB.
st'
At
1.,p.
2, Anncx
"Q"
Itcrcof.
s'
Anncx
"C"
lrcrcol.
s*
pl"a*"
scc
Ccr.(ilication
tlatccl
07
July
20ll issuctl
try UM's
Cotltoratc
Sccrctary
Atty.
Diosilado
G. Math'id,
attachctl
as
Arrncx
to
UM's
Crinrinal
Conrlllaint,
Allltcx
"B" lrcrcol'.
A.
B.
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 61/72
c.
D.
RESPONDENT'S
DEFENSE
THAT
HE
TOOK
WATER
AND
ELECTRICITY
WITH
THE
CONSENT
OF
HIS
FATHER
DR'
VIRGILIO'
IS
BARRED
AND
PROHIBITED
PER
THE
RATIoNALEoFTHE*DEADMAN,SSTATUTE"
RULE.
ALSO,
RESPONDENT'S
DEFENSE
OF
LACK
OF
INTENT
TO
STEAL
IS
EVIDENTIARY
IN
CHARACTER
AND
SHOULD
BE
BETTER
APPRECIATED
IN
A
FULL
BLOWN
TRIAL'
7.
IF
AT
ALL,
THE
HOTLY
CONTESTED FACTUAL
ISSUES
OF
DR.
VIRGILIO'S
CONSENT
TO
THE
TAKING,
GOOD
FAITH
AND
LACK
OF
INTENT
TO
GAIN
ARE
INDEED
MATTERS
OF
DEFENSE
THAT
OUGHT
TO
BE
RESOLVED
BY
THE
TRIAL
To reiterate
at
the
expense
of
broken
record,
the
hotly
contested
factual
issues
of
Dr.
virgilio's
consent
to
respondent's
taking,
the
uM
Board
of
Trustees'
implied
acquiescence
thereior,
and
respondent's
bona
fide
belief
or
good
faith
vis-d-vis
that
he
took
water
and
electricity
with
the
consent
of
the
actual
owner
thereof,
are
truly
matters
of
J"i"nr"
that
ought
to
be
resolved
by
the
trial
court
at
the
first
instance,
not
by
the
Court
of
Appeals
on
a
mere
certiorari
Petition.
Specifically,
respondent's
defense
of
bona
fide
belief
or
good iaith
does
not
overcome
the
existence
of
probable
cause
of
the
crime
of
Qualified
Theft
against
him'
Good
faith
is
a
matter
of
defense
which
is
best
ventilated
in
a
full
blown
trial
before
the
trial
court.
As
held
by
this
Honorable
court
in
Andres
vs,
Cuevasgs:
"Notattt
dignum
is
Petitioners'
ventilating
before
this
Court
the
merits
of
their
defenses'
The
issue
of
whether
they
acted
in
good faith
is
best
determined,
however,
during
the
trial
proper.
This
is
not
the
occasion
for
the
full
PE
8e
c.R. No.
l50tt(r9.09.lLurc
2005;4(r0
SCRA
38,
52-53
6l
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 62/72
and
exhaustive
display
of
their
evidence'
The
Presence
or
absence
of
the
elements
of
the
crime
is
evidentiary
in
nature
and
is
a
matter
of
defense
that
may be
passed
upon
after
a
full-blown
trial
on
the
merits'
In
fine,
the
validitY
and
merits
of
a
party's
defense
or
accusation'
as
well
as
iamissibility
of
testimonies
and
evidence,
are
better
ventilated
during
trial
proper
than
at
the
preliminary
invesiiguiio,t
level"'
(Emphasis
in
bold
suPPlied)
In
fact,
in
the
cases
of
US
vS.
Manluco,
et
al.eo
and
Gaviola
vs,
iuo-pti'r--which
were
cited
by
the
Court
of
Appeals,
IFourth
Division
Division
of
Five]
majority
in
its
assailed
Amended
Decision,
accused'claim
of
honest
belief
or
good faith
was
only
weighed
and
ru-led
upon
by
the
trial
cou
rt
after
a
full
blown
tfnt
.
Evidently,
this
is
not
the
case
here.
1.
III
THE
COURT
OF
APPEALS
ISPECIAL
TENTH
DIVISION]
CORRECTLY
RULED
IN
ITS
RESOLUTION
DATED
30
JULY
2OL3
THAT
RESPONDENT
IS
NOT
ENTITLED
TO
BAIL
AS
A
MATTER
OF
RIGHT
SINCE:
PER
THIS
HONORABLE
COURT'S
RULING
IN
PEOPLE
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES
VS,
HU
RLTEY
CHUN
(G.R. NO.
158064'
30
IUNE
2005;
462
SCRA
4gg,51o-515)
AND
orHER
ESTABLISHED
J U
RISPRU
DENCE,
THE
INSTANT CRIMINAL
CHARGE
AGAINST
RESPONDENT
FOR
QUALIFIED
THEFT
IN
THE
""
N.r.
l(X)0-5.09
Novcntbcr
l9l4;2ti
Phil
3(rl'
')r
C.R.
Nn.
16392'7.27
January
200(r;
4tt0 SCRA
436'
62
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 63/72
AMOUNT
OF
PHP3,OOO,OOO.OO
PER
SE
IS
A
NON.BAILABLE
OFFENSE,
AS
THE
PENALTY
THEREFOR
IS
RECLUSION
PERPETI,JA PER
ARTICLE
310
IN
RELATION
TO
ARTICLE
309,
REVISED
PENAL
CODE.
oNTHEFACTS,respondentWaSchargedherefor
having
stolen
water
and
electricity
with
grave
abuse
of
confidence
in
the
amount
of
php
3,000,000.00
which,
as
per
Article
310
in
relation
to
Article
309,
Revised
Penal
code
is
punishable
by
reclusion
perpetua.
This,
since
the
penalty
for
tf',"ft
under
Art.
309
reads,
in
Part:
'txxx
1.
The
penalty of
prision
maYor
in
its
minimumandmediumperiods'ifthevalue
of
the
thing
stolen
is
more
than
12'000
pesos
but
does
not
exceed
22'OOO
pesos;
but
if
the
value
of
the
thing
stolen
exceedsthelatteramount,thepenalty
shall
be
the
maximum
Period
of
the
one
prescribed
in
this
paragraph'
and
one
Year
for
each
additional
ten
thousand
Pesos,
but
the
total
of
the
PenaltY
*irict
may
be
imPosed
shall
not
exteed
twenty
years'
In
such
cases/
and
in
connection
with
the
accessory
penalties
which
may
be
imposed
and
for
thepurposeoftheotherprovisionsofthis
Code,
the
penalty
shall
be
termed
prision
maYor
or
reclusion
temporal,
as
the
case
may
be;
x x
x
(Emphasis
in
bold supplied)
Verily,
since
respondent
stands
charged
with
having
unlawfully
took
electricity
and
water
in
the
staggering
amount
of
PhP3,000,000.00
the
maximum
penalty
prescribed
thereof
under
Article
309
should
first
be
applied,
which
is
imprisonment
of
reclusion
temporal
or
twenty
(20)
years. Since
respondent
committed
the
same
in
grave
abuse
of
confidence as
UM's
then
General
Manager
and
Operator
of
its
BPTI,
h€
falls
under
the
graver
felony
of
Qualified
Theft,
which,
under
Article
310,
imposes
a
specific
penalty
two
degrees
higher
than
that
applicable
.in
theft.
Accordingly,
under
the
table
of
penalties
in
Article
76,
Revised
Penal
63
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 64/72
code,
the
penalty
of
reclusion
perpetua
at
the
very
least
is
imposable
on
respondent'
Aptly,
in
Peopte
of
the
Philippines
vs'
Cafialese2
'
this
Honorable
court
had
explicitly
treio
that the
penalty for
Qualified
Theft
under
Article
310
of
the
Revised
Penal
code'
taking
into
consideration
the
value
of
the
property
stolen,
is
reclusionperpefuawiththeaccessoryp"laltJof-dlath'with
ni
porrinitity
of
pardon
before
the
lapse
of
40
years.
AccordinglY,
Per
Section
13",
Philippine
Constitution,
respondent
is
not
matter
of
right
since
he
stand
charged
reclusion
perpetua
as
imposable
penalty'
Article
III,
t9B7
entitled
to
bail
as
a
of
an
offense
with
RespondentnonethelesscitedinhisCAcertiorari
petition
the
case
of
cenzon
vs.
Abad
sanfos
to
bolster
his
position
that
he
is
entitled
to
bail
as
a
matter
of
right'ea
Cenzon
however
is
inapplicable
and
irrelevant
in
this
case
as
the
crime
involved
therein
was
large-scale
or
syndicated
estafa
under
P.D.
No.
B18,
NOT
Qualified
Theft.
what
is
controlling
then
in
this
case
involving
the
crime
of
Qualified
Theft
of
water
and
electricity
in
the
gnount
of
nnpi,000,000.00,
is
the
case
of
Peopte
of
the
Philippines
vs.
Hu
nuey
Chun.'u
There,
this
Honorable
Court
ruled
that
since
the
imposable
penalty
for
the
crime
charged
therein
of
QUALIFIED
THEFT
in
the
amount
of
P762,076'35
is
reclusion
perpetua,
the
accused-respondent
was
NOT
entitled
to
bail
as
a
matter of
right'
2.
PER
EXISTING
DOJ'S
BAIL
BOND
GUIDE
FOR
QUALIFIED
THEFT,
NO
BAIL
SHALL
BE
RECOMMENDED
FOR
THE
SU
BJ
ECT
CHARGE
OF
QUALIFIED
THEFT
SINCE
THE
VALU
E OF
TH
E
PROPERTY
"r
G.R.
No.
1263
19.
l2
octobcr'
l9()8i297
SCRA
(167,
676-67'\'
')3
..Scction
13.
All
pcrsons,
cxcept
those
chnrgetl
rvith
ol'l'elrses
grunishable
by
reclusiolt
perpetun
rvhen
cvitlence
of
guilt is
strong,
shall,
trclorc
coriviction,
bc
trailablc
by
sutlicicrit
sut'ctics,
ot'.bc
t'clcasccl
otr
t'cctlgtrizaltcc
as
tlay
[re
ltr.ovi.dccl
try
law.
Thc
righl
to
bail
shail
not_.trc
inuairccl
cvcn
whcn
thc..pfivilcgc
..,f
thc
wlit
of
habcas
cttt'1ttts
is
susltcnrlctl.'Exccssivc
bail
shall
not
bc
rccluirccl".
(Enlphasis
in
bold
suppliccl)
;ip',",,**irrtru-],
pp. 45-4ti,
rcspoutlcnt's
Pctition
ftrr Ccrtiorari
datcd
l5
Fcbruaty
2013,
Anncx
"R"
hc|cof''
"5
G.R.-N.,.
15tt064.30
Junc
2005:462
SCRA
498'
510-5
l5'
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 65/72
STOLEN
IS
PHP3
MILLION,
MORE
OR
LESS'
SectionL,President,sMemorandumorderNo.tTT
states:
*SECTloNl.Nobailshallberecommended
forthecrimeofqualifiedtheftwherethe
adequate
value
of
the
property
stolen
is
five
hundred
thousand
(P500,000'00)
and
above.
"
The
provision
or
text
of
Memorandum
order
No'
L77,
specifically is literally
and
categorically
clear
wITHOUT
ANY
ciunlrgbarroru
oR
CoNprrrOru
that
no
bail shall
be
recommendeJ
for
qualified
theft
where
the
value
of
the
stolen
property
is
PhP500,000.00
and
above.
It
means
what
it
says
and
it says
what
it
means
In
consequence,
since
respondent
was
charged
for
eualified
Theft
of
stolen
water
and
electricity
which
aggregate
value
is
in
the
amount
of
PhP3,000,000.00,
he
is
therefore
not entitled
to
bail
as
a matter
of right'
IN
FACT,
in
its
fairly
recent
Memorandum
order
No'
63,
series
of
2'013,
the
office
of
the
President
revoked
Memorandum
order
No.
L77,
Series
2005
and
reiterates
the
previous DOI
Circular
No.
29,
Series
of
2005
mandating
that
;'prrrsuant
to
the
provisions
of
existing
laws,
fio
bail
shall
be
recommended
fo,r
the
offense
of
quatified
theft,
whether
consummated,
frustrated
or
attempted,
where
the
value
of
the
propertY
is
P222,000.00
or
more."
In
any
event,
whether
under
Memorandum
Order
No'
L77,
Series
of
2005
or
DOI
Circular
No.
29,
Series
of
2005,
the
subject
charge
of
Qualified
Theft
involving
Php3
Million,
more
or
less,
is
clearly
a
NoN-BAILABLE
OFFENSE.
PRAYER
wHEREFORE,
the
PEOPLE
respectfully
prays
that
this
Petition
be
GIVEN
DUE
COURSE,
and
after
due
proceedings,
the
Court
of
Appeals'
[Former
Fourth
Division
-
biririon
of
Fivel
Amended
Decision
dated
2L
November
65
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 66/72
2014
and
Resolution
dated
28
August
2015
in
cA
-G'R'
sP
No.L2B625,b€REVERSEDANDsETASIDE,andinlieu
thereofanewDecisionbeIssUEDREINSTATINGAND
AFFIRMINGINToTotheCourtofAppeals,[SpecialTenth
Divisionl
Decision
dated
30
July
2013'
other
reliefs
just
and
equitable
are
likewise
prayed
for'
PasigCityfortheCityofManila,l2October20l5'
MADRID
DANAO
&
CARULLO
Counsel
for
Private
Complainant
UM
Suite 1609
t6/F,
Jollibee
Plaza
F.
Ortigas
Jr.
Road
(ex-Emerald
Avenue)
O
rti
g
as
Ce
nter,
Pasi
g
Citv-1
60
5./,
l:? i"-. )".'
L3t43
Tel.
Nos.
(oz)
631
-7s51
I
QZ)
706-331s
By:
RAINI
.
MADRID
Roll
No.
32365
pTR
No.
038101b
/
OL-07-15
/
Pasig
city
Lifetime
IBP No.
05343
/
05-03-05
/
Quezon
MCLE
Compliance
No.
IV
-
0016867
I
O4-75-20L3
/
/
:{A',^'f
.
-
LVINI
A.
CARULLO
City
Pasig
CitY
PTR
No.
Lifetime
MCLE
ComPliance
Roll
No.
48458
03810L2
I
07-07-15
/
Pasig
CitY
IBP
No
.
03773
/
06-28'04
/
RSM
No.
IV
-
001-6869
/04-15-20L3
/Pasig
City
Copy
furnished:
COURT
OF
APPEALS
(By
Personal
Service)
Ma.
Orosa
Street
Ermita,
1000
Manila
[CA-G.R.
5P
No.
128625]
oFFrcE
oF
THE
soLrcrroR
GENERAL
(By
personal
service)
(ASG
BERNARD
G.
HERNANDEZ)
No.
134
Amorsolo
Street
Legaspi
Village,
1299
Makati
CitY
RTC-BAGUIO
CITY,
BRANCH
60
(By
Registered
Mail)
Hall
of
Justice
ComPlex
Baguio
CitY
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 67/72
RTC-BAGUIO
CITY,
BRANCH
7
(By
Registered
Mail)
Hall
of
Justice
ComPlex
Baguio
CitY
RTC-BAGUIO
CITY,
BRANCH
5
(By
Registered Mail)
Hall
of
lustice
ComPlex
Baguio
CitY
ATTY.
FILIBON
FABELA
TACARDON
(By
Registered
Mail)
TACARDON
AND
PARTNERS
Counsel
for
ResPondent
Unit
501,
West
Mansion
Condominium
West Avenue
cor.
Zamboanga
Street
ItO4
Quezon
CitY.
ERNESTO
L.
DELOS
SANT
OS
(By
Registere:d
Mail)
Respondent
108
Cenacle
Drive,
Senville
Subdivision
Tandang
Sora,
Quezon
CitY
In
compliance
with
Section
11,
Rule
13 of
the
L997
Rules
of
Civil
procedure,
counsel
respectfully
manifests
that
service
of
the
foregoing
Petition
for
Review
on
Certiorari
was
done
by
regiiterJO
mail,
personal
service
not
being
practicable
at
the
present
time,
due
to
distance
and
unusually
heavy
volume
of
pleadings
which
have
to
be
filed
by
our
office
messengers.
>A&//{
ALVIT\I
A.
CARULLO
AAC/jcb/UM-1.3928
EXPLANATION
67
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 68/72
VERIFICATION
AND
CERTIFICATION
OF
NON.FORUM
SHOPPING
I,DR,EMILYD.DELEoN,oflegalageandwithofficeaddress
at
546
M.V.
Delos
Santos
Street,'samplloc,
Manila,
after
having
been
duly
sworn
to
in
accordance
with
law,
hereby
depose
and
state
that:
1.
I am
the
incumbent
President
of
the
university
of
Manila
("UM"),
private
complainant
in
the
above
case'
2.
For
and
on
behalf
of
the
uM
per
attached
Secretary's
Certificate
and
with
the
conformity
of
the
Office
of
the
Solicitor
General
(*OSG'),
I
have
caused
the
preparation
uld
filing
of
the
foregoing
Petition
for
Review
on
Certiorari
under
Rule
45
with
the
Supreme
Court.
3.
I have
read
and
understood
the
contents
thereof
and
the
facts
herein
alleged
are
true
and
correct
of
my
own
personal
knowledge
and/or
on
authentic
documents'
4,Tothebestofmyknowledge,nosimilaractionor
proceeding
is
pending
in
the
supreme
court,
the
court
of
Appeals
or
different
divisions
thereof,
or
any
other
court,
tribunal'
or
quasi-
judicial
agency,
except
tt're
originating
criminal
case
No'
32306-R'
entitled
"people
Of
ine
Philippines
vs.
Erne-sto
Delos
Santos",
now
pendingbeforeRTC-BaguioCity,Branch5;andCA-G.R.SPNo'
L28625,
entitled
"Atty.
Ernesto
L.
Delos
santos
vs'
Regional
Trial
court
of
Baguio
city,
Branch
60
And
Branch
7,
and
university
of
Manila
represented
by
D;.
Emity
D.
De
Leon",
Court
of
Appeals-Manila
IFormer
Fourth
Division-Division
Of
Five]'
5.
Should
it
come
to
my
knowledge
that
a
similar
action
or
proceeding
has
been
filed
or
is
pending before
the
supreme
court,
the
court
of
Appeals,
the
different
divisions
thereof,
or
any
other
court,
tribunal,
or
quasi-judicial
agency,
I
hereby
undertake
to
notify
the
court or tribunal
taking
cognizance
of
the
above-entitled
case
of
such
fact
within
five
(5)
dayi
from
receipt
of
such knowledge.
6.
Iam
Section
5,
Rule
7
executing
this
sworn
statement
in
compliance
with
of
the
LggT
Rules
of
Civil
Procedure
DR.
E
D.DEL
Affiant
at
CF
N
"'@tr-ryt:ab
R
tl
U
BS
Doc.
No.
(ft/J;
Paqe
No.
'
4l;.
so-or
No.-48
Series
of
2015.
.N[x
[nw,ffilffi
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 69/72
SECRETARY'S
CE
RTIFICATE
I,ATTY.DIOSDADOG'MADRID'oflegalage'Filipinoandwithoffice
address
at
546
n.v.-ouro,
santos
sil"J-,1umput6c,
uinita
after
having
been
first
sworn
in
accordance
with
law'
do
hereby
certify:
1'IamthedulyelectedandincumbentCorporate.Secretaryofthe
Universtty
of
Manila
("corporation;;'-a
corporation
duly
organized
and
existing
under
PhiliPPine
laws'
7.
As
Corporate
Secretary'
I
am
the
cus,todian
of
the
records
of
the
Corporation,
includ-iiI,,"-*i"rtes
of
itre
meetings
of
its
Board
of
Directors'
3.ThatataRegularMeetingoftheboardofTrusteesoftheCorporation
held
on
september
6,20L5,
at
whicti
meeting
a.quorum
was
present
and
acting
throughout, the
foiio*ing
resolutions
were
approved'
among
others:
*RESOLVED,
that
the
Corporation'
with
t ''u
endorsement
of
tt''"
-OCp-eaguio
City/DOJ
and
the
.onr"o|.rn.itvortr-.'"officeortr'"SolicitorGeneral,shall
appeal,
via
Petition
for
Review
on
Certiorari
under
Rule
45,
with
the
Supreme
Court
the
Court
of
Appeals'
IFourth
Division
-
Division
of
Five]
Amended
Decision
dated
21
November
2074
and
Resolution
dated
28
nugustZOISinCA-G'R'SPNo'tZB625'entitled"Atty'
Ernesto
L'
Delos
Santos
vs'
RTC-Baguio
City'
Branch
60
,r;-):indllniversityofManila'representedbyDr'
EmitY
D'
De
Leon"'
RESOLVED
FURTHER,
as
it
is
hereby
resol-ve.d'
thatDr.EmilyD.DeLeon,incumbentPresidentofthe
Corporation,
be
auth
orized'
as
she
is
authorized'
to
sign
ror.
-*J
on
behalf
of
the
Corporation'
the
Motion
for
Extension
of
Time
to
File
Petition
for
Review
on
Ceriior;ri
under
Rule
45'
and
the
main
Petition
for
Review
on
Certiorari
under
Rule
45
and
any
and
all
pteaaings
in
the
said
case'
and
such
other
papers
or
documentsnecessary/incidentaIand/orproperin
resPect
thereto"'
4.Theforegoingresolutionshavenotbeenaltered,modifiedorrevoked
and
that
the
same are
still
in
full
force and effect'
5.IamexecutingthisCertificateforwhateverlegitimatepurpose/sit
may
serve
INWITNESSWHEREOFI\-I,hBvshereuntosetmyhandthis
#,ui'--
iTtAi{;I'L'6t
ArrY.
DrosDAD{o.'o'*'6
CorPorate
S{cretarY
.
sEP
2
3
201f
RE
PU
BLIC
o
"n
3[
*t1
ill:']"
vr?Yffi
ffi :1:)i.":.*"'.T[;:,',T%""il,iJ li,","":""iHT'::'io"ou"uu'Z''
Issued
on
June
5,
2009.
oor.
no.
/6€
eage
t\o.
'/S
BookNo.
'
0^11
Series
of
2O74.O
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 70/72
t<epub n
(b[['[ru
fff,
filnl
n,['
t.[re
I] ['tillSritlrtes
e#
nrl
fruffiifl
qryr;ftflr[r
I
r11:i:lii:0l'-
lTIH
.'l;i
lit:l,il:[ii\l-
i,i.,,-..;lrr-l'i
['$1G]
.
i)l1il';i
i;f
,
2015
OcT
-2 Al'LSi-'|5
/
/
,,u
October-1,201$.
RECEIVEDBY,*X,;-*
.,,,',
,,,,,,
ON. Cll/r"ntt}
A. IlEtELLAIlilO
Prosi:ci
rt or
C elieretl
Depart.r'rterr
L
ol
.ltts;i.ice
Mar-riliL
J-,r.i',,::r- cieLtei| Sllti)lr.:jf1JrlrL'
'-:l-1.
201;;
recllieeli-ir:g
iegai
r,ri:isisLancc
t.rirlii-ive
to i-i,.: 1.t Tnciorseillel-it
t-iateci
Sepl,:Lirl:er
21
,
:;:)l5
cif'
Ragr-tio Cit1,
Irr"osecLitor
lilrtri:i- l\4antte1
Sagrsago in
CA-G.F:.
SF'l\o.
l')8ri:15
enrir.lr:r-l
".A,1.t'1-.
Iii-riesto
I-.
De
lus
,'Jantos
\rsi. [i'1'C-Bag-urio
Cit1r, Branch
60
ancl 7 and
LIrriv.:r'sit],
of
Maililer,
l"epresentecl
1r),
Dt.
Er-nihr de
I-,f:or-l
"
Dear
Pr^lrsc'':1.11.r-rr-
{
i
ener^ai Ar-e11ano,
Or-r
i:icirLclniicr
24, ?015,
t-lre
Office
receirrecl
lroi-rr
suirjecr
letter rt'l'rit:h
tn,'as
r-olrted
tc
the
nndersignecl's
Dirzision
as
a
lre\^i
cErse
assignnrerrI
on
lieplerr-rber
28,
2015,
ancl
r,rzhich
reacls:
'l'lris
refers to
tlre
al,tzrched
I
"L
Inclorsernent
rlaied
September
?1,
2015 of
City Prosecutor
Dhler
N4anuel
Sagsago,
Office
of
Cit1,
Prosecutor
ol
Rarglrio
Cit1,,
relattirre
1o
CA-G.lR.
SP
No.
1286-115
entitlecl
Att1r. ]jpr-resio
I-. De
I-os
Santos
1,1_:1-sl,1si
ftTC-Eaguir;
(_]ii.1,,
Branch
50 eLnci
7,
Ilnirrersi[1,
of
\4nni1a,
represented
lt5,
p;.
Emil1,
li.
Dc'I-eon.
We
have
gorxri
arver the
record
of tXre
cii.s*
;.1:llrt
'rxre
ccrrlcrlr
wi.th
the
o,pirri*n
ofl
Cit5r
trlrjos:s+uutsr
Elrtter
lldanrnel Sagsago
ttrrat
the
(:*$le
be irrought
befc,re
tfue
Court
of Appeals
on
a tretition
fr:r
Certinrari.l
I
entphasis
srrplrlierl
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 71/72
\A/e
sr_rpport
his
r-eclriest
for
the
filing
ol
Lhe
serid
petitior-r.
It
is
tl-ier-efure
recli_restecl
of
,\ror-lr
goocl
office
to
rc-:ttcler
Lls
116111-
ieeal
assistarrce
on tlie
ritatter.
'l'hairi<
\ron.
A
|et-rtsi,ll
of
the
atteichecl
clocurnents
to
saicl
iett-er
shours
tl-rat
the
ci,rst:
ltas
erjr-eacly
11".,r
aclrrerselr,,
acljuclicatel
iri;-;Lr;.
-bo.rri
ol:
Al:t:eiils.
f*lettc,:,
i1'etrer,
rl
]retitiolr
for
reirievi,
on
cen.jor.ari
rnritii
th.-:
srr-ii'.:-r,:
r--'.or-rr
i..s.riaL
nhCI,'r.
i,r
ir,:.[itio-i-i
foi-
ce*iol-ar-i
rriiitir
t]rr:
cor,tr-r
oi.
A-i:p,:
uri
s
riJ.'r
c,u
I
cj
1_r,:
prLri-s
ite
:i.
(-11-iserrieclh,,
trre
office
of
tire
city
prosec.-ltor,
Bagr-rio
cit3.
11*n
trot
beeLr
fulr-nis;rrecr
a
cop\,r
of
the
court
of
Appears,
crispositio,s
o,
tlre
ci:1rie,
'i.e..,
Arrrenclecl
rlecision
promlllgrt.a
on
Norrember
2r,
20.1'l
arrd
Rescrlnl-jon
pron-rulgarlerl
n'
A.rg..-.,ft
zs,
201s,
becanse
t_rre
People
is
liot
a
1::art1'
to
saicr
ca.se.
Tl-rus,
rlre
have
no
recri.,i.g
periocl
io
ille
tli*
lretitiorr
fcir
i-sviE14r
on
cei^i-iorari.
In
aril'Z
.1\re
11t,
resf
aLssr,rrecl
that
tirat
we
vtrill
give
olrr
cottfot-tttit'1'
1-o
1lie
motiou
l'or
e:rl.ensiion
of
time
to
l.iie
petirio,
for
revieu'
ancl
Fctii-iorr
for
revieur
urhrrcir
trre
private
resp.,clent
Un
jrrer-sir.5,
o[
]\4crr-r
jla
r,rrill
file.
El,:-,sI
regetrcIs.
Vet1,
truI1r
)ro1-lrs,
,'\
(
t.^
tsERMfu:}}mn-*^ruDEn
,4sslslarz
t
Soli cit or-
Generctl
,-/_?;_;
i
-...-l'
..i
\lz\/'l'Z/11
Clar.,\rcllrirrrr
rc
lrr.l,s
Sa,t.s
vs.
ll.l,C,
I;agrr:,
&
L1l\,1/0?6
109
7/23/2019 Petition for Review Under Rule45
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/petition-for-review-under-rule45 72/72
AFFIDAVIT
OF
SERVIGE
l,
JAIME
M.
TAYAG,
a
paralegal
of
MADRID
DANAO
&
CARULLo,
with
office
1609,
1GlF
Jollibee
Plaza,
F.
ortigasir'
Road
(ex-Emerald
Ave')'
ortigas
Oenter'
Pasig
been
duly
sworn
to
in
accordance
witl-'
t'*'
hereby
depose
and
state:
address
at
Suite
City,
after
having
That
on
ln
G.R.
No.
220685
[CA-G.R'
SP
No'
1286251'
Sanfos"
pursuant
to
Sections
6, 7
and
13 of
Rule
Bv
Personal
Service:
COURT
OF
APPEALS
Ma.
Orosa
Street
Ermita,
1000
Manila
ICA-G
R.
SP
No'
128625]
OFFICE
OF
THE SOLICITOR
GENERAL
(ASG BERNARD
G.
HERNANDEZ)
No.
134
Amorsolo
Street
Legaspi
Village,
1299
Makati
CitY
Bv
Reqistered
Mail:
RTC.BAGUIO
CITY,
BRANGH
60
Hall
of
Justice
ComPlex
Baguio
CitY
RTC.BAGUIO
CITY,
BRANCH
7
Hall
of Justice
ComPlex
Baguio
CitY
RTC.BAGUIO
CITY,
BRANCH
5
Hall
of
Justice
ComPlex
Baguio
CitY
ATTY.
FILIBON
FABELA
TACARDON
TACARDON
AND
PARTNERS
Counsel
for
ResPondent
Unit
501,
West
Mansion
Condominium
West
Avenue
cor.
Zamboanga
Street
1104
Quezon
CitY.
ERNESTO
L.
DELOS
SANTOS
Respondent
108
Cenacle
Drive,
Senville
Subdivision
Tandang
Sora, Quezon
CitY
entitled
"People of
the
Phitippines
vs'
Atty'
Ernesto
L'
Delos
t
g
of
tl',"
t
ggZ
Rutes'of
Civil
Procedure'
as
follows:
of
Pasig
City
as
evidenced
by
Registry
Receipt
Nos'
and
hereto
attached
y
depositing
FIVE
(5)
copies
at
the
Ortigas
Post
Office