888 Phil. 235
PERALTA, C.J.:
Criminal Case No. R-PSY-14-08614-CR[3] for Qualified TheftIn his Judicial Affidavit[21] dated December 8, 2014, Bañares stated that accused-appellant was the Officer In Charge (OlC)-Property Accountant of Dasman Realty for its Dasman Residences project whose duties and responsibilities include, among others, the following:
That on or about the 13th day of September, 2011, in Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, Yolanda P. Santos, while being an OIC property accountant under the employ of the private complainant Dasman Realty and Development Corporation, represented by Ronald B. Bañares, with intent to gain and with grave abuse of confidence reposed upon her by the said private complainant, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal, and carry away the amount of PHP12,935.00 belonging to the aforenamed private complainant without the latter's knowledge and consent to its damage and prejudice in the aforesaid amount of PHP12,935.00
Contrary to law. Criminal Case No. R-PSY-14-08615-CR[4] for Qualified Theft
That on or about the 12th day of January, 2012, in Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, Yolanda P. Santos, while being an OIC property accountant under the employ of the private complainant Dasman Realty and Development Corporation, represented by Ronald B. Bañares, with intent to gain and with grave abuse of confidence reposed upon her by the said private complainant, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal, and carry away the amount of PHP100,000.00 belonging to the aforenamed private complainant without the latter's knowledge and consent to its damage and prejudice in the aforesaid amount of PHP100,000.00.
Contrary to law. Criminal Case No. R-PSY-14-08616-CR[5] for Qualified Theft
That on or about the 24th day of January, 2012, in Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, Yolanda P. Santos, while being an OIC property accountant under the employ of the private complainant Dasman Realty and Development Corporation, represented by Ronald B. Bañares, with intent to gain and with grave abuse of confidence reposed upon her by the said private complainant, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal, and carry away the amount of PHP45,200.00 belonging to the aforenamed private complainant without the latter's knowledge and consent to its damage and prejudice in the aforesaid amount of PHP45,200.00.
Contrary to law.
Criminal Case No. R-PSY-14-08617-CR[6] for Qualified Theft
That on or about the 2nd day of February, 2012, in Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, Yolanda P. Santos, while being an OIC property accountant under the employ of the private complainant Dasman Realty and Development Corporation, represented by Ronald B. Bañares, with intent to gain and with grave abuse of confidence reposed upon her by the said private complainant, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal, and carry away the amount of PHP17,716.00 belonging to the aforenamed private complainant without the latter's knowledge and consent to its damage and prejudice in the aforesaid amount of PHP17,716.00.
Contrary to law.
Criminal Case No. R-PSY-14-08618-CR[7] for Qualified Theft
That on or about the 14th day of February, 2012, in Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, Yolanda P. Santos, while being an OIC property accountant under the employ of the private complainant Dasman Realty and Development Corporation, represented by Ronald B. Bañares, with intent to gain and with grave abuse of confidence reposed upon her by the said private complainant, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal, and carry away the amount of PHP60,000.00 belonging to the aforenamed private complainant without the latter's knowledge and consent to its damage and prejudice in the aforesaid amount of PHP60,000.00.
Contrary to law.
Criminal Case No. R-PSY-14-08619-CR[8] for Qualified Theft
That on or about the 17th day of March, 2013, in Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, Yolanda P. Santos, while being an OIC. property accountant under the employ of the private complainant Dasman Realty and Development Corporation, represented by Ronald B. Bañares, with intent to gain and with grave abuse of confidence reposed upon her by the said private complainant, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal, and carry away the amount of PHP58,014.00 belonging to the aforenamed private complainant without the latter's knowledge and consent to its damage and prejudice in the aforesaid amount of PHP58,014.00.
Contrary to law.
Criminal Case No. R-PSY-14-08620-CR[9] for Qualified Theft
That on or about the 23rd day of April, 2012, in Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, Yolanda P. Santos, while being an OIC property accountant under the employ of the private complainant Dasman Realty and Development Corporation, represented by Ronald B. Bañares, with intent to gain and with grave abuse of confidence reposed upon her by the said private complainant, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal, and carry away the amount of PHP30,000.00 belonging to the aforenamed private complainant without the latter's knowledge and consent to its damage and prejudice in the aforesaid amount of PHP30,000.00.
Contrary to law.
Criminal Case No. R-PSY-14-08621-CR[10] for Qualified Theft
That on or about the 29th day of May, 2013, in Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, Yolanda P. Santos, while being an OIC property accountant under the employ of the private complainant Dasman Realty and Development Corporation, represented by Ronald B. Bañares, with intent to gain and with grave abuse of confidence reposed upon her by the said private complainant, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal, and carry away the amount of PHP300,000.00 belonging to the aforenamed private complainant without the latter's knowledge and consent to its damage and prejudice in the aforesaid amount of PHP300,000.00.
Contrary to law.
Criminal Case No. R-PSY-14-08622-CR[11] for Qualified Theft
That on or about the 29th day of June, 2012, in Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, Yolanda P. Santos, while being an OIC property accountant under the employ of the private complainant Dasman Realty and Development Corporation, represented by Ronald B. Bañares, with intent to gain and with grave abuse of confidence reposed upon her by the said private complainant, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal, and carry away the amount of PHP100,000.00 belonging to the aforenamed private complainant without the latter's knowledge and consent to its damage and prejudice in the aforesaid amount of PHP 100,000.00.
Contrary to law.
Criminal Case No. R-PSY-14-08623-CR[12] for Qualified Theft
That on or about the 8th day of November, 2012, in Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, Yolanda P. Santos, while being an OIC property accountant under the employ of the private complainant Dasman Realty and Development Corporation, represented by Ronald B. Bañares, with intent to gain and with grave abuse of confidence reposed upon her by the said private complainant, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal, and carry away the amount of PHP 110,000.00 belonging to the aforenamed private complainant without the latter's knowledge and consent to its damage and prejudice in the aforesaid amount of PHP 110,000.00.
Contrary to law.
Criminal Case No. R-PSY-14-08624-CR[13] for Qualified Theft
That on or about the 8th day of December, 2012, in Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, Yolanda P. Santos, while being an OIC property accountant under the employ of the private complainant Dasman Realty and Development Corporation, represented by Ronald B. Bañares, with intent to gain and with grave abuse of confidence reposed upon her by the said private complainant, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal, and carry away the amount of PHP58,014.00 belonging to the aforenamed private complainant without the latter's knowledge and consent to its damage and prejudice in the aforesaid amount of PHP58,014.00.
Contrary to law.
Criminal Case No. R-PSY-14-08625-CR[14] for Qualified Theft
That on or about the 1 lth day of December, 2012, in Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, Yolanda P. Santos, while being an OIC property accountant under the employ of the private complainant Dasman Realty and Development Corporation, represented by Ronald B. Bañares, with intent to gain and with grave abuse of confidence reposed upon her by the said private complainant, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal, and carry away the amount of PHP50,000.00 belonging to the aforenamed private complainant without the latter's knowledge and consent to its damage and prejudice in the aforesaid amount of PHP50,000.00.
Contrary to law.
Criminal Case No. R-PSY-14-08626-CR[15] for Qualified Theft
That on or about the 7th day of January, 2013, in Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, Yolanda P. Santos, while being an OIC property accountant under the employ of the private complainant Dasman Realty and Development Corporation, represented by Ronald B. Bañares, with intent to gain and with grave abuse of confidence reposed upon her by the said private complainant, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal, and carry away the amount of PHP58,014.00 belonging to the aforenamed private complainant without the latter's knowledge and consent to its damage and prejudice in the aforesaid amount of PHP58,014.00.
Contrary to law.
Criminal Case No. R-PSY-14-08627-CR[16] for Qualified Theft
That on or about the 19th day of January, 2013, in Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, Yolanda P. Santos, while being an OIC property accountant under the employ of the private complainant Dasman Realty and Development Corporation, represented by Ronald B. Bañares, with intent to gain and with grave abuse of confidence reposed upon her by the said private complainant, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal, and carry away the amount of PHP30,000.00 belonging to the aforenamed private complainant without the latter's knowledge and consent to its damage and prejudice in the aforesaid amount of PHP30,000.00.
Contrary to law.
On July 14, 2014, warrants of arrest were issued against accused-appellant.[17] Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty on the charges against her.[18] Trial on the merits ensued.
Private complainant Dasman Realty and Development (Dasman Realty) is a corporation engaged in realty and development business.[19] Prosecution witness Ronald Bañares (Bañares) is one of the officers/employees designated to represent Dasman Realty in the proceedings of this case, as evidenced by the Secretary's Certificate presented in open court.[20] He is also the bookkeeper of Dasman Realty who was tasked to review the original and acknowledgment receipts issued in connection with the sale transactions of the corporation as well as the collection of payment for association dues and utilities.
1. To collect from the buyers the payments for units sold;Prompted by a report alleging that accused-appellant failed to account for and remit various payments received by her from clients to Dasman Realty, the latter issued a Memorandum dated July 11, 2013[22] authorizing Bañares to conduct a recording and bookkeeping review of the sale transactions and payment receipts due to the corporation under the accountability of accused-appellant. Upon evaluation of the original receipts and acknowledgment receipts as well as records of transactions, Bañares discovered that within the period of August 2011 to July 2013, fourteen (14) receipts,[23] the aggregate value of which amounted to One Million Twenty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Three Pesos and 33/100 (PI,029,893.33) under the accountability of the accused-appellant were unremitted to Dasman Realty.[24]
2. To collect from the tenants the payments for association dues;
3. To issue receipts for the payments received;
4. To account and liquidate all payments received/collected; and
5. To liquidate and remit all payments received/collected.
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises considered, the Court finds the [accused-appellant] YOLANDA P. SANTOS, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for Qualified Theft and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with eligibility for pardon.Aggrieved, accused-appellant filed an appeal and sought the reversal of her conviction before the CA. However, in the assailed decision of the appellate court, the latter denied her appeal. The dispositive portion of the CA decision reads:
The [accused-appellant] is also ordered to indemnify the private complainant, DASMAN REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, the amount of One Million Twenty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Three Pesos and 33/100 (P1,029,893.33) as stated in the Information which represents the total value of the unremitted payments that were received by the [accused-appellant] in her capacity as the former OIC-Property Accountant of the complainant information plus legal interest computed from the filing of the information until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.[31]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated August 17, 2016 of the RTC, Branch 118, Pasay City in Criminal Cases Nos. R-PSY-14-08614-CR to R-PSY-14-08627-CR is hereby AFFIRMED.Hence, this petition for review on certiorari, raising the sole issue of:
SO ORDERED.[32]
The crime of theft is defined under Article 308 of the RPC, to wit:Thus, the elements of qualified theft punishable under Article 310 in relation to Article 308 of the RPC are as follows: (1) there was a taking of personal property; (2) the said property belongs to another; (3) the taking was done without the consent of the owner; (4) the taking was done with intent to gain; (5) the taking was accomplished without violence or intimidation against person, or force upon things; and (6) the taking was done under any of the circumstances enumerated in Article 310 of the RPC, i.e., with grave abuse of confidence.
Article 308. Who are liable for theft. - Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence, against, or intimidation of neither persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the latter's consent.
Theft is likewise committed by:
1. Any person who, having found lost property, shall fail to deliver the same to the local authorities or to its owner;
2. Any person who, after having maliciously damaged the property of another, shall remove or make use of the fruits or objects of the damage caused by him; and
3. Any person who shall enter an enclosed estate or a field where trespass is forbidden or which belongs to another and without the consent of its owner, shall hunt or fish upon the same or shall gather fruits, cereals, or other forest or farm products.
On the other hand, Article 310 of the RPC reads:
Article 310. Qualified Theft. - The crime of theft shall be punished by the penalties next higher by two degrees than those respectively specified in the next preceding article, if committed by a domestic servant, or with grave abuse of confidence, or if the property stolen is motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle or consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation, fish taken from a fishpond or fishery or if property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance. (Emphasis Ours)
Clearly, accused-appellant was entrusted only with the material or physical (natural) or de facto possession of the thing, thus, her misappropriation of the same constitutes theft.[34] A sum of money received by an employee in behalf of an employer is considered to be only in the material possession of the employee.[35]
x x x x Q What did you do with the money when you receive it? A Actually ma'am, every time we received the money we turn it over to the cashier. Q And when was this official receipt issued? A This was issued September 13, 2011 ma'am. Q And Ms. Witness when was the money received turned over to your cashier? A The same date ma'am Q And what is your proof in saying that the money was received by your cashier? A Because there is a record ma'am.
Q What is the record book!? A Record Book Receiving Payments.[33] (Emphasis Ours) x x x x
Further, the prosecution likewise sufficiently established the element of intent to gain on the part of accused-appellant based, to wit:
Atty. Dasig-
Q Madam witness, in this customer remittance record where you record your collections, am I correct? AYes, sir.
Q And whenever you remit your collections to the cashier, Nemia Macaldo, you present this customer remittance record to her and for the cashier to sign that she received the amounts you listed here, am I correct? A Yes, sir. Q Madam witness, can you tell us, the fourteen (14) official receipts here, can you tell us if you have recorded these in this customer remittance record? A This was unremitted. Q You said your collections, you have to record in this customer remittance record. The question is, will you please look at these official receipts and tell us where in this customer remittance record you recorded these official receipts and acknowledgment receipts. A A Actually, sir, these remitted amounts were the receipts given by Mr. Dejon for me to record to be remitted to Macaldo. THE COURT Q The question is, where in this customer remittance record are the fourteen (14) receipts which are the subject matter of these cases. Where? A They are not there, your Honor. ATTY. DASIG Q They are not there. Madam witness, after you received the demand letter of Dasman Realty, you made a reply in the form of a sworn statement as your described it, am I correct? A Yes, sir. Q And in your reply or your sworn statement, you were asking the management for you to return the amounts you have not remitted out of your salary, am I correct? A Because it is your instruction. Q Just answer yes or no. A Yes. Q And the management rejected your proposal, am I correct? A Yes, sir. (Emphasis Ours) x x x x
From the foregoing, it can readily be seen that accused-appellant's testimonies were plagued with inconsistencies, which just showed her criminal intent to take the cash collections. Accused-appellant's defenses, i.e., from alleging that she turned-over the payments to Macaldo, next to Engr. Dejon, to merely following instructions to issue acknowledgement receipts instead of official receipts, to window-dressing, are all self-serving because they were unsupported by evidence. Accused-appellant was the one tasked to collect the payments from Dasman Realty's clients as in fact she did receive the cash payments as she herself admitted that all the initials in the subject official receipts and acknowledgment receipts are her own initials, yet, there was no proof that said amounts of monies she received were remitted to Dasman Realty. Likewise, the fact that the "taking" was accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons, or force upon things was undisputed. Thus, based on the foregoing circumstances, intent to gain is apparent on the part of the accused-appellant. Intent to gain or animus lucrandi is an internal act which can be established through the overt acts of the offender, and is presumed from the proven unlawful taking.[44] Actual gain is irrelevant as the important consideration is the intent to gain.[45]
ATTY. DULAY- QAccording to Mr. Bañares, you received subject amounts stated in official and acknowledgment receipts, what can you say about that? AActually ma'am I am only the one who signed that with my initial QSo, Ms. Witness in Criminal Case No. R-PSY-14-08614-CR marked as Exhibit "D" for the prosecution and Exhibit "D-2" your signature, I'm showing this to you Ms. Witness Exhibit "D" to "D-2", is that your signature? AMy initial ma'am. QAnd Ms. Witness according to this O.R. how much was the sum of pesos? AP12,935.00 ma'am. QYou received this money? A Yes, ma'am.Q What did you do with the money when you received it? A Actually, ma'am, every time we received the money we turn it over to the cashier. Q And when was this official receipt issued? A This was issued September 13, 2011 ma'am. Q And Ms. Witness when was the money received turned over to your cashier? A The same date ma'am Q And what is your proof in saying that the money was received by your cashier? A Because there is a record ma'am. Q What is the record book? A Record Book Receiving Payments. Q And who received the payments remitted to the cashier? A Actually, I turned over the money to Engr. Dejon and Engr. Dejon in turn turned over the money to Ms. Macaldo. Q. And who is this Engr. Dejon? A Engr. Dejon is the administrator of Dasman Realty & Development Corporation ma'am. Q Where is he now? A He's already dead. Q When did he die? A October 4, 2012 ma'am. Q What happened to him? A He was hospitalized, he died suddenly. Q Ms. Witness you turned over the payments to Engr. Dejon, is that authorized by your company? A Yes, ma'am Q And who witnessed the payments of customers are being turned over to Engr. Dejon? A here were three (3) of us, Engr. Dejon, me and one assistant. Q So, would you have any idea as to where Engr. Dejon put the money that you have turned over to him? A Actually it's like this ma'am, everything that we have turned over to him, he will turn over to Ms. Macaldo, that is the procedure. Q And Ms. Macaldo is aware of the fact that it is Engr. Dejon who was receiving money that you have collected? A Yes, ma'am. Q Is Ms. Macaldo still connected with Dasman Realty to date or at present? A Yes, ma'am.[40] x x x x Q So, Ms. Witness, do you know after you turned over the said amount to Engr. Dejon, do you know where Engr. Dejon would give his money to? A To Ms. Macaldo ma'am. Q Nalalaman po ninyo? A Opo, ma'am. Q Alam ninyo? A Opo ma'am. Q Was the money or where the money received by Engr. Dejon given to Ms. Macaldo in your presence? A No, ma'am. Q So, you have no idea? How did you know that the money received by Engr. Dejon was or were received by Ms. Macaldo? A Because it is the process ma'am. That's the instruction given to us by our administrator, Mr. Dasig because I am only the OIC of Property Accountant. So, the instructions were for us to give the money to Engr. Dejon.[41] x x x x Q Would you please tell the Honorable Court why was (sic) the acknowledgment receipt instead of an Official Receipt? A Because that was given to us instead of a receipt. Q And who gave you that instruction? A From the accounting officer. Q Who was the accounting officer? A Arnold Reblando? Q Did you not find it unusual that Mr. Reblando was (sic) or instructed you to use acknowledgment receipts instead of official receipts? A All of that it was for tax receipts. Q Ms. Witness you were informed that it was for tax receipts? A Yes, ma'am. Q And it is to conceal the real sales income of Dasman Realty. Am I correct? A Yes, ma'am. Q So, may I invite you to Exhibit "J" under R-PSY-14-08620-CR, the acknowledgment receipt no. 0443, dated April 23, 2012, Would you be able to identify the initial marked by the prosecution as their Exhibit "J-2"? A Yes, ma'am. Q And whose initial is that? A That 's my initial ma'am? Q What date is that? ATTY. DULAY- Your Honor, may we move that it be noted that the acknowledgment receipt has no date, your Honor? COURT- Which acknowledgment receipt? Is that the only acknowledgment receipt? ATTY. DULAY- Marked by the prosecution as their Exhibit "J", your Honor. It has no date. Q Ms. Witness, who made this notation in red ink? A I do not know ma'am. COURT- Who made it? ATTY. DULAY-
This was not her.
Q Who made this?
A I do not know ma'am.
ATTY. DULAY-
Your Honor, may we move that it be noted that there's a red ink, a notation which says note: unremitted. Q And from whom did you receive the money? A From unit 507 ma'am. Q And for how much? A P30,000.00 pesos ma'am. Q In all these receipts, did any of the persons who made those payments make any complaints at Dasman Realty? A Yes, ma'am. Q May I invite your attention to Exhibit "K", Acknowledgment Receipt No. 0942 dated May 29, 2013 and Exhibit "K-2", was marked for the prosecution and what do you see under Exhibit "K-2" A The receipt is with my initial ma'am. Q And from where did you receive payment? A From Mary Ann Mondres, ma'am. Q And how much was the payment made by Mondres? A The amount is P300,000.00 ma'am. Q And to whom did you turn over the amount made by Ms. Mondres? A The same to Engr. Dejon ma'am.[42] x x x x Q The said collection was turned over to whom? A Kasi ganito po yan ma 'am. hong mga resibo nato since namatay na si Engineer, kasi hindi king naman poi tang ma 'am yung na find out naming na hindi ni-remit ni Engineer. So, ang instruction po sakin ni kuya Arnold is magkaroon ng window dressing. Kung baga uunahin bayaran muna yung mga hindi nabayaran ni Engineer. Instruction nya yon sakin kasi nagsabi na ako eh. Sabi ko bakit may mga resibong ganito? COURT- Ms. Witness, just answer the question asked of you? ATTY. DULAY- Q So, Ms. Witness, according to you there was a window dressing? A Yes, ma'am. Q What do you mean by window dressing? A Window dressing means, to remit previous payments which should be remitted by Engr. Dejon to update the old payments. COURT-
Q That were not remitted? A Yes, that were not remitted, your Honor. ATTY. DULAY- Q So, Ms. Witness, when you received new instruction, what did you do, if any? A I followed the instruction ma'am. Q So, Ms. Witness, this time under Exhibit "M", the acknowledgment Receipt No. 0673, how much was the money involved here? A P110,000.00 ma'am. Q What did you do with the P110,000.00 collection? A When I found out that some of the previous receipts were not remitted by Engr. Dejon, and from the instruction of Mr. Arnold Reblando to make a window dressing, so what I did was, to remit previous receipts just to update some receipts. x x x x Q Why did you have to do that Ms. Witness? A Because that is the instruction to do that ma'am? Q Whose instruction? A From Arnold Reblando ma'am. Q So, from that date, November 8, 2012, you were already on the monies that you received were applied to monies received by Engr. Dejon not turned over to Dasman Realty? A Yes, ma'am.[43] x x x x
Art. 309. Penalties. - Any person guilty of theft shall be punished by:Thus, if the value of the property stolen is over Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) but does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00), as in Criminal Case Nos. R-PSY-14-08614-CR and R-PSY-14-08617-CR where the amounts stolen are P12,935.00 and P17,716.00, respectively, the penalty under Article 309 (4) of the RPC, as amended, is arresto mayor in its medium to prision correccional in its minimum period. However, by virtue of Article 310 of the RPC, qualified theft shall be punished by the penalties next higher by two degrees which is prision mayor in its medium period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period which has a prison term of 8 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months. There being no aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the range of the penalty that must be imposed as the maximum term should be prision mayor in its medium period to reclusion temporal minimum in its medium period, or from 10 years, 2 months and 21 days to 12 years, 5 months and 10 days. Thereafter, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the range of the minimum term that should be imposed upon accused-appellant is anywhere within the period of prision correccional in its medium period to prision mayor in its minimum period which has a range of 2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 8 years. Accordingly, for Criminal Case No. R-PSY-14-08614-CR and Criminal Case No. R-PSY-14-08617-CR, accused-appellant should be sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 2 years, 4 months and 1 day of prision correccional, as minimum, to 10 years, 2 months and 21 days of prision mayor, as maximum.
"1. The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the thing stolen is more than One million two hundred thousand pesos (P1,200,000) but does not exceed Two million two hundred thousand pesos (P2,200,000); but if the value of the thing stolen exceeds the latter amount, the penalty shall be the maximum period of the one prescribed in this paragraph, and one (1) year for each additional One million pesos (P1,000,000), but the total of the penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty (20) years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be.
"2. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the value of the thing stolen is more than Six hundred thousand pesos (P600,000) but does not exceed One million two hundred thousand pesos (P1,200,000).
"3. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the property stolen is more than Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000) but does not exceed Six hundred thousand pesos (P600,000).
"4. Arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period, if the value of the property stolen is over Five thousand pesos (P5,000) but does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000).
"5. Arresto mayor to its full extent, if such value is over Five hundred pesos (P500) but does not exceed Five thousand pesos (P5,000).
"6. Arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if such value does not exceed Five hundred pesos (P500).
"7. Arresto menor or a fine not exceeding Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000), if the theft is committed under the circumstances enumerated in paragraph 3 of the next preceding article and the value of the thing stolen does not exceed Five hundred pesos (P500). If such value exceeds said amount, the provisions of any of the five preceding subdivisions shall be made applicable.
"8. Arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine of not exceeding Five thousand pesos (P5,000), when the value of the thing stolen is not over Five hundred pesos (P500), and the offender shall have acted under the impulse of hunger, poverty, or the difficulty of earning a livelihood for the support of himself or his family."
Art. 310. Qualified theft. - The crime of qualified theft shall be punished by the penalties next higher by two degrees than those respectively specified in the next preceding article.
Criminal case | Amount unrem itted/stolen | Penalties under Art. 309 of the RPC, as amended by RA 10951 | Penalties applying Indeterminate Sentence Law |
1. Crim. Case. R-PSY-14- 08614-CR | P12,935.00 | Arresto mayor in its medium to prision correccional in its minimum period, if the value of the property stolen is over Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) but does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00). | 2 years, 4 months and 1 day of prision correccional, as minimum, to 10 years, 2 months and 21 days of prision mayor, as maximum. |
2. Crim. Case. R-PSY-14- 08615-CR | P100,000.00 | Prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the property stolen is more than Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) but does not exceed Six hundred thousand pesos (P600,000.00) | 4 years, 2 months and 1 day of prision correccional, as minimum, to 9 years, 4 months and 1 day of prision mayor, as maximum. |
3. Crim.Case.R- PSY-14- 08616-CR | P45,200.00 | Prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the property stolen is more than Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) but does not exceed Six hundred thousand pesos (P600,000.00) | 4 years, 2 months and 1 day of prision correccional, as minimum, to 9 years, 4 months and 1 day of prision mayor, as maximum. |
4. Crim. Case. R-PSY-14- 08617-CR | P17,716.00 | Arresto mayor in its medium to prision correccional in its minimum period, if the value of the property stolen is over Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) but does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00). | 2 years, 4 months and 1 day of prision correccional, as minimum, to 10 years, 2 months and 21 days of prision mayor, as maximum. |
5. Crim. Case. R-PSY-14-08618-CR | P60,000.00 | Prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the property stolen is more than Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) but does not exceed Six hundred thousand pesos (P600,000.00) | 4 years, 2 months and 1 day of prision correccional, as minimum, to 9 years, 4 months and 1 day of prision mayor, as maximum. |
6. Crim. Case. R-PSY-14- 08619-CR | P58,014.00 | Frisian correctional in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the property stolen is more than Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) but does not exceed Six hundred thousand pesos (P600,000.00) | 4 years, 2 months and 1 day of prision correccional, as minimum, to 9 years, 4 months and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum. |
7. Crim. Case. R-PSY-14- 08620-CR | P30,000.00 | Frisian correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the property stolen is more than Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) but does not exceed Six hundred thousand pesos (P600,000.00) | 4 years, 2 months and 1 day of prision correccional, as minimum, to 9 years, 4 months and 1 day of prision mayor, as maximum. |
8. Crim. Case. R-PSY-14- 08621-CR | P300,000.00 | Prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the property stolen is more than Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) but does not exceed Six hundred thousand pesos (P600,000.00) | 4 years, 2 months and 1 day of prision correccional, as minimum, to 9 years and 4 months and 1 day of prision mayor, as maximum. |
9. Crim. Case. R-PSY-14- 08622-CR | P100,000.00 | Prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the property stolen is more than Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) but does not exceed Six hundred thousand pesos (P600,000.00) | 4 years, 2 months and 1 day of prision correccional, as minimum, to 9 years and 4 months and 1 day of prision mayor, as maximum. |
10. Crim. Case. R-PSY-14- 08623-CR | P110,000.00 | Prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the property stolen is more than Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) but does not exceed Six hundred thousand pesos (P600,000.00) | 4 years, 2 months and 1 day of prision correccional, as minimum, 9 years and 4 months and 1 day of prision mayor, as maximum. |
11. Crim. Case. R-PSY-14- 08624-CR | P58,014.00 | Prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the property stolen is more than Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) but does not exceed Six hundred thousand pesos (P600,000.00) | 4 years, 2 months and 1 day of prision correccional, as minimum, 9 years, 4 months and 1 day of prision mayor, as maximum. |
12. Crim. Case. R-PS5-14-08625-CR | P50,000.00 | Prision correccional in its ninimum and medium periods, if the value of the property stolen is more than Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) but does not exceed Six hundred thousand pesos (P600,000.00) | 4 years, 2 months and 1 day of prision correccional, as minimum, to 9 years, 4 months and 1 day of prision mayor, as maximum. |
13. Crim. Case. R-PSY-14- 08626-CR | P58,014.00 | Frisian correctional in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the property stolen is more than Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) but does not exceed Six hundred thousand pesos (P600,000.00) | 4 years, 2 months and 1 day of prision correctional, as minimum, 9 years, 4 months and 1 day of prision mayor, as maximum. |
14. Crim. Case. R-PSY-14- 08627-CR | P30,000.00 | Prision correctional in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the property stolen is more than Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) but does not exceed Six hundred thousand pesos (P600,000.00) | 4 years, 2 months and 1 day of prision correctional, as minimum, to 9 years, 4 months and 1 day of prision mayor, as maximum. |
There seems to be a perceived injustice brought about by the range of penalties that the courts continue to impose on crimes against property committed today, based on the amount of damage measured by the value of money eighty years ago in 1932. However, this Court cannot modify the said range of penalties because that would constitute judicial legislation. What the legislature's perceived failure in amending the penalties provided for in the said crimes cannot be remedied through this Court's decisions, as that would be encroaching upon the power of another branch of the government. This, however, does not render the whole situation without any remedy. It can be appropriately presumed that the framers of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) had anticipated this matter by including Article 5, which reads:In his book, Commentaries on the Revised Penal Code, Guillermo B. Guevara opined that in Article 5, the duty of the court is merely to report to the Chief Executive, with a recommendation for an amendment or modification of the legal provisions which it believes to be harsh. Thus:
ART. 5. Duly of the court in connection with acts which should be repressed but which are not covered by the law, and in cases of excessive penalties. - Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it may deem proper to repress and which is not punishable by law, it shall render the proper decision, and shall report to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reasons which induce the court to believe that said act should be made the subject of penal legislation.
Ln the same way, the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, such statement as may be deemed proper, without suspending the execution of the sentence, when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by the offense.
The first paragraph of the above provision clearly states that for acts bourne out of a case which is not punishable by law and the court finds it proper to repress, the remedy is to render the proper decision and thereafter, report to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reasons why the same act should be the subject of penal legislation. The premise here is that a deplorable act is present but is not the subject of any penal legislation, thus, the court is tasked to inform the Chief Executive of the need to make that act punishable by law through legislation. The second paragraph is similar to the first except for the situation wherein the act is already punishable by law but the corresponding penalty is deemed by the court as excessive. The remedy therefore, as in the first paragraph is not to suspend the execution of the sentence but to submit to the Chief Executive the reasons why the court considers the said penalty to be non-commensurate with the act committed. Again, the court is tasked to inform the Chief Executive, this time, of the need for a legislation to provide the proper penalty.
(a) In Criminal Case No. R-PSY-14-08614-CR, two (2) years, four (4) months and 1 day of prision correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years, two (2) months and twenty one (21) days of prision mayor, as maximum.The Court further ORDERS Yolanda Santos to pay to Dasman Realty and Development Corporation an interest of 6% per annum on the aggregate amount of P1,029,898.33 to be reckoned from the finality of this judgment until full payment thereof.
(b)In Criminal Case No. R-PSY-14-08615-CR, four (4) years, two (2) months and 1 day of prision correccional, as minimum, to nine (9) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum;
(c) In Criminal Case No. R-PSY-14-08616-CR, four (4) years, two (2) months and 1 day of prision correccional, as minimum, to nine (9) years and four (4) months and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum;
(d) In Criminal Case No. R-PSY-14-08617-CR, two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years, two (2) months and twenty (21) days of prision mayor, as maximum;
(e) In Criminal Case No. R-PSY-14-08618-CR, four (4) years, two (2) months and 1 day of prision correccional, as minimum, to nine (9) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum;
(f) In Criminal Case No. R-PSY-14-08619-CR, four (4) years, two (2) months and 1 day of prision correccional, as minimum, to nine (9) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum;
(g) In Criminal Case No. R-PSY-14-08620-CR, four (4) years, two (2) months and 1 day of prision correccional, as minimum, to nine (9) years, four (4) months and 1 day of prision mayor, as maximum;
(h) In Criminal Case No. R-PSY-14-08621-CR, four (4) years, two (2) months and 1 day of prision correccional, as minimum, to nine (9) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum;
(i) In Criminal Case No. R-PSY-14-08622-CR, four (4) years, two (2) months and 1 day of prision correccional, as minimum, to nine (9) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum;
(j) In Criminal Case No. R-PSY-14-08623-CR, four (4) years, two (2) months and 1 day of prision correctional, as minimum, to nine (9) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum;
(k) In Criminal Case No. R-PSY-14-08624-CR, four (4) years, two (2) months and 1 day of prision correctional, as minimum, to nine (9) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum;
(1) In Criminal Case No. R-PSY-14-08625-CR, four (4) years, two (2) months and 1 day of prision correctional, as minimum, to nine (9) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum;
(m) In Criminal Case No. R-PSY-14-08626-CR, four (4) years, two (2) months and 1 day of prision correctional, as minimum, to nine (9) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum.
(n) In Criminal Case No. R-PSY-14-08627-CR, four (4) years, two (2) months and 1 day of prision correctional, as minimum, to nine (9) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum.