7/18/2019 6) Regional Trial Court CO128625
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/6-regional-trial-court-co128625 1/14
ATTY.
ERNESTO
L.
SANTOS,
Republic
of
the
PhiliPPines
COURT
OF
APPEALS
Manila
FOURTH
DIVISION
DIVISION
OF.
FIVE
DELOS
Petitioner,
CA-G.R.
SP
NO'
128625
Members:
CARANDANG,
ChairPerson'
BATO,
JR.,
GONZALES.SISON,
BARRIOS,
and
soRoNGON,
JI
-versus-
REGIONAL
TRIAL
COURT
OF
BAGUIO
GITY
BRANCH
60
AND
BRANGH
7,
AND
UNIVERSITY
OF
MANILA,
REPRESENTED
BY
EMILY D, DE LEON,
ResPondenfs'
Promulgated:
AMENDED
DEGISION
CARANDANG,
J,:
This
resolves
petitioner's
Motion
for
Reconsideration
of
the
Decision
dated
30
iuly
2013
promulgated
V
ttre
Special
.lenth
Division
of
this
Court
denying
petitioie/s-
Petition
for
Certiorari'
The
30
July
201g-Decision
,rtiired
the
Order
dated
1
February
2012
of
the
Baguio
City
Regional
Trial
Court
Branch
7
finding
probable
cause
against
the
p"tition"r
for
the
crime
of
qualified
theft, as well
"=
it'l"
Order
dated
7
Decemb
er
2012
issued
by
Baguio
citv
negional
Trial
court
Branch
60
denying
petitioner's
Motion
for
partii
Reconsideration
and
ordering
his
arrest'
The
facts,
aS
narrated
in the
30
July
2013
Decision,
are
aS
follows:
7/18/2019 6) Regional Trial Court CO128625
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/6-regional-trial-court-co128625 2/14
cA-G.R.
SP
NO.
128625
AMENDED
DECISION
{
petitioner
is
the
son
of
Virgilio
Delos
Santos
(Virgilio).
During
his
lifetime,
Virjitio
served
aJ
President
and
Chairman
of
the
Board
of
TrusteJs
ot
the
University
of
Manila
(UM).
He
died
on
21
January
2008.
sometime
in
May
2007,
petitioner started
the
construction
of
his CTTL Building
in
Baguio
City.
CTTL Building is adjacent
to
the
Benguet
Pines
-
TouriJt
lnn
(BPTI)
rrvhich
is a
business
establishment
owned
and
operated
by
UM'
According
to
the
petitioner,
Virgilio
explicitly
ordered
the
employees
of
6pft
to
assist
him
in all
his
needs
in
the
construction
of
the
CTTL
Building
including
the
use
of
BPTI's
electricity
and
water
supply.
ln
su[port
to
his
claim,
petitioner
presented
the
affidavits
ol
PBTI's
former
employees,
Yolanda
Calanza
and
Josephine Pinera,
as well
as
that
of
her
sister,
Cynthia
Delos
Santos-Chan,
attesting
to
the
fact
that
petitioner
was
permitted
by
his
father to
tap
the
electricity
and
water
supply
BPTI
for
the
construction
of
CTTL
Building.
After
the
death
of
Virgilio,
petitioner's
younger
sister.Ramona
Delos
Santos
filed
a
petition
to
probate
the
purported
holographic
will
of
Virgilio.
This
petition
was
opposed
by
her
siblings,
herein
petitioner and
Cynthia.
on
8
July
2011,
Emily
Dodson
De
Leon,
who
succeeded
Virgilio
as
the
President
of
uM,
filed
a
criminal
complaint
for
quJtinuO
theft
against
the
petitioner.
ln
her
two-page
complaint,
she
accused
the
petitioner,
who
was
allegedly
then
the
manager
and operator
of
BPTI,
of stealing
the
electricity
and
water
supply
of
BPTI
with
a
total
value of
more
or
less
P3,000,000'00'
ln
support
of her complaint,
she
attached
therein
the
two
affidavits
of
Policarpio M. Lacsa,
a
former driver
of
the
petitioner.
ln
his affidavit,
Policarpio
Lacsa
stated
that
sometime
in
July
2007, he
was ordered
by
the
petitioner
to
use
the
electricity
of
BPTI for the
ball cutting,
bending,
and
welding
in
connection
with
7/18/2019 6) Regional Trial Court CO128625
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/6-regional-trial-court-co128625 3/14
cA-G.R.
SP
NO.
128625
AMENDED
DECISION
the
construction
of
GTTL Building;
That when
the
first floor
of
CTTL
Building
was
finished,
petitioner
again
ordered
him
to
make
an
electrical
connection
from
BPTI
to
CTTL
Building;
That
sometime
in
February
2009
he
was
again
ordered
by
the
petitioner
to
connect
the
water
supply
of
BPTI
to
CTTL
Building
for
the
latter's
use for
its
business
operations;
When
he
resigned
in
July
2009,
said
water
connection
was
still
existing;
That
when
he
was
instructed
by the
President
of
UM
in
June
2011
to
check
the
water
connection,
he
found
out
that
the
water
connection
was
still
existing
but
the
electric connection
was
already
cut.
ln
his
Counter-Affidavit,
petitioner
contends
that
his
family
aggregately
owns
98.79%
of
UM;
That
Virgilio allowed
him
to
use
th -
ellctricity
and
water
supply
of
BPTI
for the
construction
of
CTTL
Building;
That
no complaint
was
filed
or opposition
was
aired
by
anyone
as
a
result
of his
use
of
BPTI's
electricity
and
water
supply;
that the
criminal
complaint
against
him
was
only
filed
after
he
fiied
an
opposition
to
the
probate
of
Virgilio's
alleged
holographic
will
initiated by his sister, Ramona'
ln
a
Resolution
dated
29
July
2A11,
the
investigating
prosecutor dismissed
the
complaint
against
the
petitioner
reasoning
that
the
element
of
"lack
of
consent
or
knowledge
of
the
owner"
is absent
in
this
case
because
Virgilio,
while
being
the
President
and
Chairman
of
the
Board of
Trustees
of
UM,
explicitly
allowed
the
petitioner
to
use
the
electricity
and
water
supply
of
UM's
BPTI
T
\-{e6*sqya@m*to*h,is'ola,i
pJaml-
MmsfiL[F,M,ga,iast*th,a*potltio,mer'foe,h,iffi
aQd,-WAF
r
e"upnlU**gfr*EE*TJ.,.*mladg,*-Vi,,r,g
,*$,t}lJ*a[i]{&*
T-ea-iav-eslig,A.tk}g
ru;esge,uler*,*,"f,utrJhFJ
*..,Str4f.eC",*{h,A[**lhg*-.*,gg,mpJaiBHEL.r..f,?if,FC,*'l$
iu,nsiinltiate*fier
.aesugallgn,,tha "-the,
V€U#--Qf-ths,,pile-GlUFi'ty",3nd
wfMed-ly-*sldil*by-*thg.,Reli$gnEf
,g,lloullt,'.,,*[p
eao00*00["0s..
consequenily, complainant
filed her
Motion
for
Reconsideration.
ln a Resolution
on
Review
dated
23
September
2011,
the
City
Proseeutor
of
Baguio
City
reversed
the
29
July
2011
Resolution of the investigating
prosecutor,
The
City
Prosecutor
reasoned
that
it
is
only
UM,
through
its
Board of
Trustees,
which
can
give
a valid
consent
to the
use of
electricity
and
water
supply
3
7/18/2019 6) Regional Trial Court CO128625
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/6-regional-trial-court-co128625 4/14
4
CA-G.R.
SP
NO.
128625
AMENDED
DECISION
of
BPTI.
Further,
petitioner's
defense'of
the
alleged
express
consent
of
Virgilio
is
barred
and
prohibited
under
the
"Dead
Man's
statute"
under
section
23,
Rule
123
0f
the
Rules
of
court'
ln
any
case,
the
city
Prosecutor
adds,
the
petitioner
surreptitiously
and
illegally
continued
to
tap
the
electriciiy
and
water
supply
of
BPTI
even
after
the
completion
of
the
construction
of
CTTL
Building
which
is
beyond
the
period
purportedly
given to
him
by
his
father'
Lastly,
conliOering
ir'rt
petitioner
had
a
direct
hand
n
the
management
of
gFft,
the
City
Prosecutor.stated
that
there
is
a
sufficient evidence
to
establish
a
probable
cause
against
the
petitioner
for
qualified theft'
An
lnformation
was
thereafter
filed
in
court
pursuant
to
the
Resolution
on
Review.
@m*2fu*Sep'[e,rpher..,,2Qt{***thg",[rifll.*n0QUd
i,sqlled,"-,towa
IAOt
.Q,f,
G.[Isst*3,941$tg[.the,&d$lggef*Mmp]Ut,
all WJ
Ag
.Umn*g-RffihM,l
I
.
kbaua*A#US.*[ed,.QIL
*V'9'H''dB&B'
Accordingly, petitioner
filed
an
Urgent Omnibus Motion
for
Judicial
Oeterfiinaiion
of
Probable
Cause,
To
LifUQuash
Warrant
of
Arrest,
and
To
Deferlsuspend
Arraignment
And/Or
Any
Proceedings
before
the
trial
court
arguing
that the
pieces evidence
against
him
are
insufficient
to
establish
probable
cause
for
the
crime
of
qualified theft.
on
1
February
2012,
the
Baguio
RTC
Branch
7
denied
petitioner's
Urgent
Cjmnibus
Motion
ruling
that
a
probable.cause
indeed
exists
for
the
indictment
of
the
petitioner
for
the
crime
of
qualified
theft
considering
that
he
admitted
that
he
caused
the
tapping
of
the
electricity
and
water
supply
of
BPTI
to
his
CTTL
AuiiOing.
However,
the
tiial
courl
granted
petitioner's
prayer
to
post
bail
citilrg
DOJ
Circular
No.
74.
Accordingly,
petitioner
posted
bail
in the
amount
of
P80,000.00'
The
complainant
and
the
petitioner filed
their
respective
Motions
for
Partial
Reconsideration.
The
complainant argued that
the
trial
court
erred
in
granting
the
petitioner
to
post bail
because
DOJ
Circular
No.
74
cannot
override
the
constitution,
Revised
Penal
code,
and
Revised
Rules
of
criminal
Procedure
which
uniformly
provide
that
crimes
punishable
by
reclusion
perpetua
such
as
in this
case
are not
bailable
as
matter
of
right.
On
the
7/18/2019 6) Regional Trial Court CO128625
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/6-regional-trial-court-co128625 5/14
5
cA-G.R.
SP
NO.
128625
AMENDED
DECISION
other
hand,
petitioner reiterated in
'his
Motion
for
Partial
Reconsideration
that
there
is
no
probable.
cause
against
him
for
qualified
theft
because
he
was
auihorized
by
his
father
to
use
the
electricity
and
water
supply
of
BPTI
X"
on
7
Decembe
r
2012,
the
Baguiof.TC
,Branch
60
issued
an
order
denying
p"iitionur's
Motion
io1.
Partial
Reconsideration'
lt
however
found'complainant's
Motion
for
Partial
Reconsideration
meritorious.,l$, reasoneO
that
Memorandum, ,rde1
Ng'
J77,issy,,pd
hu-thp*Q-f[Lg&*g[S.R'f*,[ffild,effi,g".emen'C-qd=Jhe*P'Q**Qil:"qu'lar-I$p
jr:,*f,t*'ffi:B?ffi
*sh*g-Ag.q,6t6"ffi--r;i'roo;B-$''
:"n"^amff
ii1.bflegedin'il're
tnformation
rg;d;t'p[tifi6;ei-G
P3,000,000.00,
petitioner
has
no
right
to
post
bail.
on
15
February
2013,
petitioner
filed
a
Petition
for
certiorari
under Rule
65
of
the
Rules
of
Court
before
this
Court
ascribing
grave
abuse
of
discretion
on
the
part
of
the
trial
courts
for
finding
probable
cause
against
him
for
qualified
theft
and
for
denying
his
prayer
to
Post
bail.
on
30
July
2013,
the
special
Telth
Division
of
this
court
denied
petitioneis
Petition
for
'Ceftiorarifinding
no
grav?
abuse
of
discretion
on
the
part
of
the
trial
court'
The
Special
Te.nth
Division
rulecl
that
petitioner admitted
that
he
used
or
tapped
the
electricty
and
water of
BPTI,
without
the
consent
of
the
Board
of
Trustees of
UM.
His
allegation
that
he
secured
the
consent
of
his
late
father
who
was
then
the
President
and
chairman
of
the
Board
of
Trustees
of
UM
at
the
time
of
the
construction
of
CTTL
is
an
insufficient
defense
because
it
was
only
the
uM's
Board
of
Trustees
which
can
validly
give
authority
to
the
petitioner.
to
use
BPTI's
resources.
With
the
said
admission,
the
Special
Tenth
Division
held
that
it
is
probable
that
the
crime
of
qualified
theft
has
been
committed
and
that
the
petitioner
is
probably
guilty
thereof'
As
to
the
other
issues,
e,g,,
(a)
that
tJM
is
a
family.run
corporation,
(b)
that
petitioner ofenty
and
continuously
used
the
eleictricity
and'water
supply
of
SipT
without
the
complaint
of
UM'
(c)
that
ihe
testimonles
of
his
wifnesses
are
not
barred
under
the
7/18/2019 6) Regional Trial Court CO128625
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/6-regional-trial-court-co128625 6/14
6
CA-G.R.
SP
NO.
128625
AMENDED
DECISION
Dead
Man',s
sfafufe,
the
special
Tenth'Division ruled
that
these
are
matters
of
Jefense
which
should
be
determined
at
the
trial
proper.
on
the
issue
of
the
trial
court's
denial
of
petition."t::.
right
to
bail,
the
Special
Tenth
Division
ruled
that
the
trial
court
did
not
err
in
so
ruling
because
the
prosecution
has
sufficiently
discharged
its
burden
of
proving
inui
tn"
evidence
of
guilt against
the
petitioner
is
strong.
The
SpeJial Tenth Division
fufthlr
ruled
that
Memorandum
Circular
No.
177,
which
amended
DoJ."
circular
No'
70,
is
applicable
in
this
case'
Hence,
BPTI
is
more
than
P50O,OO0.OO,
the
deniit
of the
petitioner's
right
to
bail
is
ProPer.
On22August2ol3,petitionerfiledhisMotionfor
Reconsideration
to the
30
July
2013
Decision
of
the
special
Tenth
Division
reiterating
that
ther"
i.
no
probable
cause
against
him
for
qualified
theft
beJause there
was consent
by
the owner and
major
stockhotder
of
UM,
his
father,
to
use
the
electricity
and
water
supply
of
BPTI,
and
that
there
was
no
intent
to
steal
on
his
part
because
he
believed
in
good faith
that
uM
is
family-owned'
He
Jtnd'Nrg
-oI-the-tnal-cpild*that"
Jhe-va
I
ue
ofr*'te*o*ur,ce,e-,ffi
HHffidY':-
s6
"-:f"fm'
BPJJ*amnunte'd"*to
oi-
tris
bail,
hq*&rgues,"
thgt
rUem,sran,qum*QrqeLlF,*iI7*l-q*PI"f,
n"pMs#less4H#y,$fi?l ?"
l"
'
in$gstftP-s'
Petitioner
also
filed
a
Motion
for
lnhibition
attributing
irregularities
on
in"
part
of
the
members
of
the
Special
Tenth
Division.
on
19
November
2013,
Justice
Nina
G'
Antonio-
Valenzuela
inhibited
herself
from
turirrer
participation
in
th.is
case.
Accordingly,
Justice
Franchito
N'
Diamante
was
selected
by
raffle
as
the
new
tlrird
member
of
the
Special
Tenth
Division.
1-
on
5
March
2014,
the
special
Tenth Division
granted
petitioner's
Motion
for
lnhibition.
lt
however
strongly
denied
the
accusation
of
irregularities
in
promulgating
the
assailed
Decision
holding
that
the
Decision
was
promulgated
only
after
the
parties
were
g"iven
ample
time
to
file
their
respective
pleadings'
7/18/2019 6) Regional Trial Court CO128625
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/6-regional-trial-court-co128625 7/14
7
CA.G.R,
SP
NO.
128625
AMENDED
DECISION
ln
Okabe
probable
cause
in
vs,
Gutierrezl
,
the
SuPreme
this
wise.
Court
defined
"Probable
cause
is meant
such
set
of
facts
and
circumstances
which
would
lead
a
reasonably
discreet
and
prudent
man
to
believe
that
the
offense
charged
in the
lnformation
or
any
offense
included
therein
has
been
committed
by the
person
sought
to
be
arrested.
ln
determining
probable
curie, the
average
man
weighs
facts
and
circumstances
without
resorting
to
the
ealibrations
of
the
rules
of evidence
of
which
he
has
no
technical
knowledge.
He
relies
on
common
sense.
A
finding
of
probable
cause
needs
only
to
rest
on
evidence
showing
that
more
likely
than
not
a
crime
has
been
committed
and that
it
was
committed
by
the
accused.,&nebableryoause*dern'g'n6'gfltgre*t{ffir*"
The
elements
of
qualified
theft
committed
with
grave
abuse
of confidence
are:
1.
Taking
of
personal
ProPertY;
2.
That
the
said
property belongs
to
another;
3.
That
the said
taking
be
done
with
intent
to
gain;
4. That
it
be
done
without
the
owner's
consent;
5.
That
it
be
accomplished
without
the
use
of
violence
or intimidation against persons, nor
of
force
upon
things;
O.
lnaiit
be
done
with
grave
abuse
of
confidence.2
G.R.
No.
l50l 85.
May 27,
2004.
People
v.
Puig,
G.R.
Nos.
l'13654-765,August
28,
2008, 563
SCRA
564,
5701
Roque
v'
People,
C.R.
No. 138954,
November
25,2004,
444 SCRA
98,
120.
ieh
7/18/2019 6) Regional Trial Court CO128625
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/6-regional-trial-court-co128625 8/14
I
CA-G.R.
SP
NO,
128625
AMENDED
DECISION
The
fourth
element
of
the
above-mentioned
crime,
bedonewithouttheowner,Sconsent,isabsentin
i.e.,
that
it
this
case.
holder
and ,P
of
UM
which
in.tu. "n
gw-ns
ita
r
Associated
Bank
v, Pronsroller,
G.R.
No.
148444,
July
14,
2008,
558
SCRA
I13.
4
people,s
Aircargo
and
Warehousing
Co,,
Inc,
vs. Court
of
Appeals,
et
al,,
G.R'
No.
117847'
October
7, i998.
n
P
Hffi
ffi
.glagea
rd
p,f*
rru
stees
ig""[$,"g"n1-<in
behalf
of
the
latter:
It
is
well-entrenched
that
if a
corporation
knowingly
permits
its
officer,
or
any
other
agent,
to
perform
acts
within
the
scope
of
an
apparent
aut'hority,
holding
him
out
to
the
public
as
possessing
po*ui to
do
those
acts,
the
corporation
will,
as
against
any
"person
who
has
dealt
in
good faith
with
the
corporation
through
such
agent,
be
estoppedlrom
denying
such
authority'3
Apparent
authority
is
derived
not
merely
from
practice'
lts
existence
may
be
ascerlained
through
1)
the
general
manner
in
which
the
corporation
holds
out
an
officer
or
agent
as
having
the
power
to
act,
or
in
other
words,
the
apparent
authority
to
act
in
general,
with
which
it clothes
him;
or
2)
the
acquiescence
in
his
Icts
of
a
particular
nature,
with
actual
or
constructive
knowledge
thereof,
witnin
or
beyond
the
scope
of
his
ordinary
powers'o
father,*i
n
itiated by
thei
r:'
sister Ramon
and,
when-
there-
.was''6lrcady
,a
Seriou,
.otpotite-squabble
between'"and
among'othe'members
of
7/18/2019 6) Regional Trial Court CO128625
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/6-regional-trial-court-co128625 9/14
I
cA-G.R.
SP
NO.
128625
AMENDED
DECISION
tbl.e.,B.oar,d
of
Truslees of
UM
that
a complaint
for
qualified
theftwas
f*.-J.""uguinlt
m"
petitioner
as
We
note
in
lhi'E
caEP'
lf the
Board
of
Trustees
of
UM
truly
believed
that
Virgilio'had
nolauthority
to
give consent
on
its
behaif,
it
could
have
overturned
and'
nullified
his
decision
to
allow
the
petitioner
to
use
the
"iactritiiv
r"o
water
suppty
of
its
proper
in
Baguig
9.ly
from
its
,"a"pti"ti':
Tfi'e'"fact
that'ti're
Board
of
Trustees
of
UM
did
not
B,,tercUt
the
petitioner
to
continue
to
openly
use
its
electricity
and
;irt*
--ply
Ouring
the
lifetime
of
Virgilio,
and
even
immediate'ly
ih,6?a"ft;1".i"*rv
rianifests
that
it acquiesced
to
Virgilio's
giving
of
Cd'ffient
to
the
Petitioner'
'
rlndeed,
the
records
show
that
UM's
Board
of
Trustees
clothed
Virgilio
with
such
apparent
authority
to
act
on
behalf
of
UM.
Private
respondent
admitted
this
when
it adduced
the
affidavit
(used
during
the
preliminary
investigation
stage
of
the
complaint
a
guo)
of
petitioner's sister, Ramona,
who
is
the current Chairman
of
the
Board
of
Trustees
of
the
UM,
to
wit.
"They
failed to
appreciate
the
fact
that
it
was
even
my
father
who
shouldered
his
grandchildren's
expenses'
This
was
evidenced
by
a certification
issued
by
the
President
and
Chief
of
Academic
Officers,
copy
o'f
which
is
attached
hereto
as
Annex
"8"
attesting
that
my
brother's
second
mistress
has
been
receiving
monthly allowance
from
the
university
in
the
amount
of
.Nine
Thousand
Eight
Hundred
Twenty
Five
Pesos'
xxx."6
By
giving
virgilio
an
apparent
authority,
UM',s
Board
of
Trustees
-"rnn-ot
no*
deny
and
repudiate
the
legal
effect
of
virgilio's
consent
given
to
the
petitioner to
use the
electricity
and
*r[",
supply
of
AFft.
The
element
of
lack of
owner's
consent'is
thus glaringiy
absent
in
this
case.
,
Dr.
Emily
D.
De Leon,
who
is
the representative
of UM
in this
case.
6
Affidavit
of Maria
Corazon
Ramona
Llamas
Delos
Santos,
Annex
"C"
of
Annex
"6"
of
private
respondent's
Comment
dated22
May
2013'
Records,
p'760'
7/18/2019 6) Regional Trial Court CO128625
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/6-regional-trial-court-co128625 10/14
10
CA-G.R.
SP
NO.
128625
AMENDED
DECISION
Thethi'rdelement,i.e.,thatthesaidtakingbedonewith
irqtent,,to
gain
is
likewise
absent
in
this
caSe'
Even
assuming
a:,rguendo
that
Vir.gilio
was
not
duly
authorized
by
the
Board
of
T
ustees
of
UM
to"give
its
consent
io
the
petitioner
and
the
latter
grred
when
he
solJly
relied
on
his
father's
consent
without
further
securing
the
au-thot,tv
of
the
,Board
of
Trustees
of
UM'
his
bona'
,fide,belief
that
he
lrad
authority
from
the
real
owner
of
the
electr,icity
and
water
supply
will
noi
make
him
culpable-of
the
crime
o,fiqug:fifled
theft
because
he
was
acting
with
a
color
of
authority
or
a,,s.er-mb.lance
of
right
to
do such act'
For
a charge
of
crime
to
prosper, the
accused
must
have
,b:een
shown
to
have
acted
with
a
genuine
criminal
intent'7
'lf
he
was,,acting
unde
r
a
bona
fide
belietltrat
he
has
a
claim
or title
to
the,,,-,th,ing.,
allegedly
stolen,
the
criminal
intent
is
missimg'8
Goriollaril.y,.
petii[n"i',
claim
of
right
on
the
basis
of
the
permissiop
,giuen-,.b,y..",h1s
father n.egates
criniinal
intent
on
his
pailt'
ln
People
-vs.
Mantucos,
the
Supreme
Courl
held:
..ltisclaimedinthiscasethatthetimberinquestion
UeiongeO
to
Teodoro
David
and
that
the
accused
.ornitt"d
robbery
in
removing
it
from
his
possession.
We
find,
however,
from
all
the
evidence
in
the
case,
that
the
accused
has
proved
sufficient
to deprive
his
act
of
criminality'
He
has
of
.th"eft..be,cause.
the.
e,lement
of
i,n*effido-'gaizuisJacki
ng.
Th
us :
US
vs. Domingo
Viera,
G'R.
No,
861.
December
2A,1902'
Pit-og
vs. teopte,
et
al', G.R.
No.
76539'
October
I
l,
1990'
G,R.No.
10005.
November9,
l9l4'
G.R.
No.
163921,27
January
2006.
The
Manluco
ruling
was
reiterated
in
Alfonso
Gaviola
vs'
P
e
o
p
l
el
o,
w
h e
re
i n
t
hc--SupfiQrilzuQo"urt
heldJhat'if
.on
e'
h
As
s
cied
:
:
i
n
g*roO*"itn
in
taking
a
personal
property
belonging
to
another.under
Ior*msnest-"belief
that
he
has
a
right
to take
possession
of
it'
then
1
8
9
t0
at
lvu
(Underscoring
Ours,)
7/18/2019 6) Regional Trial Court CO128625
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/6-regional-trial-court-co128625 11/14
11
cA-G.R.
SP
NO.
12862s
AMENDED
DECISION
"For
one
to
be
guilty
of
theft'
the
accuse-d
musthaveanintent-tosteal(animusfurandi)
per.onrf
property,
meaning
the-
intent
to
deprive
another
of
his
ownershifi/lavuful
possession
.
ol
p"iton"f
property
which
intent
is
apart
from.'
,but
lon.rrr"ni
*itn
the
general
criminal
intent
which
is
,n
"rr"ntial
elemeit
of
a
felony
of
dolo
(dolos
irtiii
The
animo
being
a
state
of
the
mind
may
O"
pi',ru*O
by
direct
oi
circumstantial
evidence'
inclusive
of
the
manner
and
conduct
of
the
accused
before,
during
and
after
the taking of
the
personal
pi"p"riv.
Geieral
criminal
intent
is
presumed
or
interred'
from
the
very
fact
that
the
wrongful
act.
is
done
since
one
is
presumed
to
have
willed
the
natural
consequences
of
his
own
acts'
Likewise'
animus
furandi
is
presumed
from
the
taking
of
personal
property
without
the
consent
of
the
owner
or
lawful
possessor
thereof'
The
same
may
be
rebutted
by
the
accused
by
evidence
that
he
took
the
personal
property under
a
bona
fide
belief
that
he
owns
the
ProPertY'
ln
Black
v. State,
the
State
Supreme
Court
of
Alabama
ruled
that
the
open
and
notorious
taking,
without
any
attempt
at
concealment
or
denial,
but
an
avowal
of
the
taking,
raises
a
strong
lresumption
that
there
is
no
anim
us
furandi'
But'
if
ine claim
is dishonest,
a
mere
pretense, taking
the
property of
another
will
not
protect the
taker:
a
mere
irre
own"r.
Still,
if
the
claim
is
dishonest,
pretense, it
will
not
protect
the
taker'"
The
oist
of
the
offense
is
the
intent
to
rofhi
"
lbid.
Ours.)
7/18/2019 6) Regional Trial Court CO128625
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/6-regional-trial-court-co128625 12/14
12
CA-G.R.
SP
NO.
128625
AMENDED
DECISION
B$tit:ioner
openly
and
avowedly
used
BPTI's
electricity
and
water
supply
under
the
bona
fide
belief
that
he
was
allowed
and
authotized
by
his
father
to
use
the
same'
Hils'father
owned
70'79%
sf,the
shares
of
stocks
of
UM
and
was
at
that
time
its
President
,eirnd;.ehailTr?r.l
of
the
Boa;d.
As
explain'ed
above,
the
Board
of
Trtlstees
had
given
Virgilio
an
apparent
authority
to
do
so
as
s,hown
,by
the
fict
that
it
allowed
Viigilio
to
treat
the
finances
of UM
ag,;iif,they
were his own
personal [roperty.
dt
did''
not
revoke
this
dUthor,ity
while
Virgilio
was
still
alive
or
even
imle iately
th:ereafter.
T,tte,,,a,ljegJtion
therefore
that
petitioner
had
the
intention
to,deprive
UM
of ii"
personal
property is
negated
by
the
fact
that
'filedi,relied
in
good
faith
on
his
fathe/s
authority
to
use
BPT'l's
',dlectri,city,and
water
suPPIY.
ffilfiiocle,nis*adrmission
of
usi.ng
BFTI s
electricity
and-
wa'ter
.suppJy
has
two
parts.
Th,e
fipst
parl
is
that
he
used
them
for
the
,eonstruction
of
his
building;
The
second
part
is,
he
was
duly
a;u:thorized
to
do
so
by
his
iather
whom
he
believed
in
good
faith
Wasl,,,the
reat
'Owner
Of
the
said
property' l.n"'d'isoussi'ng
this
ad:mission,
we:"rofl.llrot
just
focus
on
its
first
part
without
equally
,,consldering
the
iecond-
part
theresf.
l,{x\ffe-take
i,nto
consideration
the,,.
secon-d
paft,
it
wiit
show
that
petitioner
appropriated
the
propertv
of
gPft
by
virtue
of
the
authorrity
given
by
the
property's
nepu,ted
owner.
The
element
of
intent
to
gain
is
thus.
absent
:6(*6ause,pe.titioner
had
a
valid
justification
in
using
the
electricity
e;iild:;w,ater'
suPPlY
of
BP'TI'
M[r6ldo
not
agree
with
the
ruli,ng
of
the
trial
court
that
the
,d,efenses
of
the
petitioner are
evidentiary
in
nature
which
can
only'
,be,,threshed
out
during
trial
proper.
'U'nder
Section
6,
Rule
112
of
t'he,Rules
of
Court,
thJtrial
court,
in evaluating
the
resolution
of the
proseeutor
and
its
supporting
evidence
for the
purpose
of issuing
a
ijuar,r,ant
of
arrest,
"'may
immediately
dismiss
the
case
if the
evid,en,ce
on
record
clearly
fails
to
establish
probable
cause'"
't'n
#
this
case, the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion
when
i{,'.s}j,f,,
not dismiss
the
case
despite
the
fact
that
there
was
no
proba,ble
cause
to
ind,iet
the
petitioner
for
qualified
theft
because
tlErel:i
lements
of
intent
to
gain
and
lack
of
owne,r's
consent
are
rmissing.
Tt{:;br+rpetitioner
his
no
other
defenses
than
what
he
'arlready
pres"nied
thus
far.
Tdi'su,bject
him
to the
rigors
of the
trial
7/18/2019 6) Regional Trial Court CO128625
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/6-regional-trial-court-co128625 13/14
13
CA-G.R.
SP
NO.
128625
At'"4ENDED
DECISION
ainid,require
him
to
present
the same
setof
evidence again
despite
the,,,clear
absence
of
some
of
the
essential
elements
of
the
crime
of4ualified
theft
would
just
be
a
futile
exercise
and
a
waste
of
the
tr,iah,courtis
precious
time
and
resoqrqes'
.
robable
cause
to
issue
a
warrant
o:f
arrest
pertains
to
facts
,ahd,:,eircumstances
which
would
lead
a
reasonably
discreet
and
p,Eudent
person
to
believe
that
an
offense
has
been
committed
by
imiitberSon
sought
to
be
arrested.l2
Trhdrigenera'l
rule.
is
that
app6llate
courts
do
not review the
factual findings
of
the trial
court,
wh;ch,,i,nclude
the
determination
of
probable
cause
for
the
issuance
of,rwarrant
of arrest.13
BUf
when
it
is
necessary
to
prevent
the
misuse
of
the
strong
arm
of the
law
or
to
protect
the
orderly
admirn,istration
of
justice,
We
cannot
shirk
from
Our
duty
to
S6rutinize
the
records
of
this
case
in
order
to
protect
the
innocent
aEainst
a
hasty,
malicious
and
oppressive
prosecution'
WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's
Motion
for
Reconsideration
is
GRANTED.
The
assailed
Orders
of
the
trial
courts are
SET
ASIDE.
The
Complaint
for
Qualified
Theft
against
the
petitioner
is
DISMISSED
for lack
of
probable
cause
and
the
warrant of
arrest
against
him
is
QUASHED.
SO
ORDERED.
-,r, GitlA[.
9lQN,i3
ROSMARI
D.
CARANDANG
Associate
Justice
WE
CONCUR:
i.;.l.ili:1,'il-
SI l[{;
tr
RAMON
M.
BATO,
JR.
Associate
Justice
r..r'i
lti:' ,.'iL
Liif.':fi;.,1
MARLEN
E GONZALES-SISON
Associate
Justice
Webb
v.
De
Leon,247
SCRA
652
(1995).
Chester
De
Joya
vs.
Judge
Placido
C.
Marquez, G.R.
No'
162416,
January
31,2006.
7/18/2019 6) Regional Trial Court CO128625
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/6-regional-trial-court-co128625 14/14
14
CA-G.R.
SP
NO.
.128625
AMENDED
DECISION
oBlfilNltt:
$l$N["il
MANUEL
M.'BARRIOS
Associate
Justice
PBIGIFIAI.'
SISf'ni;A
EDWIN
D.
SORONGON
Associate
Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant
to
Articte
vllt,
section
13
0f
the
constitution,
it
is
hereby
certified-inrt
the
conclusions
in
the
sbove
decision
were
reached
in
consultation
before
the
case
was
assigned
to
the
writer
of
the
opinion
of
the
Couft.
CIn"Is{}'lAE
$lQltt
,{
ROSMARI
D.
CARANDANG
Associate
Justice
Chairperson,
4ft
Division
crnrtrteffiuE
coPYr
'/A
l'arrr
Rosarlorfihea
Mea
E'
Binrllt
oivi{iorr
Cierk
oi
Court
COURT
OF
APPEALS