THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 177349. January 17, 2018.]
RYAN ACEBEDO y LOPEZ, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated January 17, 2018, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 177349 (RYAN ACEBEDO y LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.) — This case involves the conviction of the petitioner for qualified theft for stealing boxes of Sun Silk and Cream Silk shampoo sachets allegedly worth P2,275.00 despite his being employed as a mere janitor in the branch outlet of the complainant's department store.
Antecedents
The information dated November 24, 2000 charged the petitioner with qualified theft as defined and penalized under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 41, in Bacolod City in Criminal Case No. 00-21685, 1 alleging:
That on or about the 24th day of November, 2000, in the City of Bacolod, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein accused, being then an employee of Lopue's Department Store-San Sebastian Branch, a corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine Laws, represented by Remegio S. Bermillo, with intent to gain and without the knowledge and consent of the owner thereof, with grave abuse of confidence reposed upon him as such employee, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away Three (3) boxes of Sun Silk and Cream Silk sachet shampoo valued in the amount of Two Thousand Two Hundred Seventy Five & 20/100 (P2,275.20) Pesos, Philippine Currency, belonging to the herein offended party, Lopue's Department Store, to the damage and prejudice of the latter in the aforementioned amount.
Act contrary to law. 2
The CA summarized the evidence of the parties in its assailed decision, 3viz.:
The accused-appellant was an employee of Lopues Department Store in Sebastian Street, Bacolod City. He worked as a janitor in the maintenance section. His employer runs a grocery section in the first floor of a two (2) story building.
The prosecution, during the trial of the case, alleged that accused-appellant, on November 23, 2000, asked for three (3) boxes of shampoo in sachets from merchandiser Allan Belleza which the former alleged was ordered by a customer. Accused-appellant allegedly told the merchandiser not to put price tags on the products ordered. This actuation of accused-appellant aroused the suspicion of the merchandiser which prompted the latter to report such matter to the security officers of the department store.
The Security Officers, Rene Geronimo and Remegio Bermillo immediately placed the accused-appellant under surveillance. They saw the accused-appellant put the three (3) boxes of shampoo in his garbage box which he covered with trash. These security officers further alleged that the accused-appellant then placed his garbage cart near the cashier booth of the grocery section of the store. The following day, on November 24, 2000, they saw the garbage cart already placed near the panel board which is near the entrance to the basement of the store where all the garbage collected passes through. They, then, reported the matter to the store manager who summoned the accused-appellant to his office where he was investigated. Accused-appellant was subsequently brought to the police station where he was charged with the crime of qualified theft.
In his defense, accused-appellant denied having asked for three (3) boxes of shampoo in sachets from merchandiser Allan Belleza. He averred that he only worked as cleaner and janitor and was prohibited from entering the grocery section. He also denied having kept and taken out the boxes of shampoo from the grocery section. He alleged that the garbage he collected is subject to inspection by the store guards before disposal. He claimed that he was forced to admit by the management of the department store that he stole something from the store. 4
Through the decision dated June 29, 2004, the RTC declared the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified theft as charged after trial, disposing:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused Ryan Acebedo y Lopez guilty of the offense charged, and is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day, of prision correccional as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum.
SO ORDERED. 5
The RTC cogently opined as follows:
The crucial element of taking in the crime of theft has been established. The defense expressed the view that the stolen items were not taken out of the premises of the department store, hence, theft could not have been committed. This view is incorrect. The concept of taking, as an element in the offense of theft, does not mean the "taking away" of personal property of another.
In theft, the taking away or carrying away of personal property of another is not required as in larceny in common law. Note: The phrase used in Art. 308, which is "shall take personal property of another" — not shall take away such property.
xxx xxx xxx
In a judicial sense, the consummation of the crime of theft takes place upon the voluntary and malicious taking of the property belonging to another which is realized by the material occupation of the thing whereby the thief places it under his control and in such a situation as he could dispose of it at once. (People vs. Naval, et al., 46 OG, 2641).
When the accused Ryan Acebedo took the three (3) boxes of cream silk and sun silk shampoo in sachets, and kept them hidden in his garbage box, covered with trash and then brought them out of the grocery section, under the pretext that he was putting out the garbage, the taking of the property was complete. It is immaterial that he did not take them out of the premises of the department store, but simply left the garbage box containing the stolen items, near the counter of the grocery section. The fact is he had taken the three (3) boxes of shampoo from the grocery section, without the consent of the owner, which in itself already constitutes unlawful taking. The fact that he hid the stolen items, in the garbage box and covered them with litters of trash, so that he could spirit them away without being detected clearly constitutes unlawful voluntary and malicious taking. There was material occupation of the stolen things. It is immaterial that the stolen items were not taken out of the department store premises. 6
On appeal, the petitioner insisted that the RTC erred in convicting him of qualified theft despite the items having remained under the control and custody of the department store of the complainant up to the time when the store manager interrogated him, thereby indicating that the crucial element of taking had not been established.
In the assailed decision promulgated on March 30, 2006, 7 the CA affirmed the conviction of the petitioner, ruling:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED and the Decision dated June 29, 2004 of the RTC in Bacolod City, Branch 41 in Crim. Case No. 00-21685 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 8
The CA explained its affirmance thuswise:
After a careful analysis of the factual milieu of the case, together with the applicable law and jurisprudence in the premises, we find that the appeal filed in this case is bereft of merit.
There is no denying that, as found by the lower court, the following facts were convincingly proven by the prosecution during the trial of the case:
1. that, on November 23, 2000, accused-appellant asked a merchandiser for three (3) boxes of shampoo in sachets under the pretext that a certain customer had requested for these items;
2. that accused-appellant asked the merchandiser not to put price tags on the products;
3. that the merchandiser conveyed his suspicion to the security officers of the store who immediately placed the accused-appellant under surveillance;
4. that accused-appellant placed the three (3) boxes of shampoo in his garbage box which he covered with the day's trash;
5. that accused-appellant pretended to carry on with his work activities and took his garbage box out of the grocery section and put it near the grocery counter;
6. that, on November 24, 2000, the security officers kept their surveillance of the accused-appellant. They saw the accused-appellant move the garbage box near the panel board. At this point, the security officers decided to act on the situation.
We infer from these facts, considered together and in relation to each other, that accused-appellant is guilty of the crime charged against him.
Articles 308 and 310, respectively of the Revised Penal Code provide:
Who are liable for theft. — Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the latter's consent. x x x
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.
Under Article 308 of the said Code, the elements of the crime of theft are:
1. that there be taking of personal property;
2. that said property belongs to another;
3. that the taking be done with intent to gain;
4. that the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and
5. that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things.
Theft becomes qualified when any of the following circumstances is present:
1. the theft is committed by a domestic servant;
2. the theft is committed with grave abuse of confidence;
3. the property stolen is a (a) motor vehicle, (b) mail matter or (c) large cattle;
4. the property stolen consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation;
5. the property stolen is fish taken from a fishpond or fishery; and
6. the property was taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance.
The crime perpetuated by accused-appellant against his employer is qualified theft. The clear, direct and positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses clearly proved that he committed the crime charged. The accused-appellant, an employee of the department store who enjoyed the trust and confidence of his employer, took personal property from the grocery section with intent to gain without the consent of his employer. The crime is qualified because of the relationship of the accused-appellant with the private offended party. 9
The CA downplayed the relevance of whether or not the stolen goods had been taken out of the premises by pointing out that: "In theft, the carrying away of the thing unlawfully taken is not necessary." 10 As to the defense of denial of the petitioner, the CA observed:
Accused-appellant also interposed the defense of denial. He denied having asked for three (3) boxes of shampoo in sachets from merchandiser Allan Belleza. He even claimed that he was forced to admit by the management of the department store that he stole something from the store.
As a defense, denials are insipid and weak, being easy to fabricate and difficult to disprove; mere denial of involvement in a crime cannot take precedence over positive testimony. For his part, accused-appellant simply denied the charges against him. However, his denials cannot prevail over the testimonies of prosecution witnesses which were full of affirmative assertions. Hence, his denials, particularly when not properly corroborated or substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, cannot prevail over the testimonies of prosecution witnesses who testified on affirmative matters.
Also, where the issue boils down to the credibility of witnesses, the findings of the trial court deserve great respect since it is in a better position to observe the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying in court and to discern its dimensions, both verbal and non-verbal. Well-settled is the rule that where the credibility of witnesses is in issue, the appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court which is in a better position to determine the issue, having the advantage of hearing and witnessing the deportment of the witnesses during the trial, in the absence of any clear showing that the trial court had overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which could have altered the conviction of the accused-appellant. Factual findings of the trial court should not be disturbed on appeal unless for strong and cogent reasons. In the case at bench, there appears no cogent reason why we should not adhere to this rule. Hence, we find no cogent reason to reverse the decision dated June 29, 2004 of the RTC in Bacolod City, Branch 41 in Crim. Case No. 00-21685 finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Qualified Theft under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code.
In view of all the foregoing, we find no reversible error in the appealed Decision. 11
Hence, this appeal.
In the resolution of June 1, 2011, 12 we noted the petitioner's reply to the respondent's comment.
Ruling of the Court
The appeal is partly meritorious.
The Prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner had placed the three boxes of shampoo sachets in his garbage box and covered them with the day's trash; that he pretended to carry on with his work, and in the process took the garbage box out of the grocery section of the outlet branch and placed the garbage box near the grocery counter; and that in the meanwhile, the complainant's security officers, who unknown to him had been keeping his movements under surveillance all along, decided to apprehend him upon seeing him move the garbage box near the panel board.
Based on the established circumstances, therefore, the petitioner committed theft in its consummated stage. Contrary to his insistence, he had already taken and held the garbage box of shampoo in a manner sufficient to enable him to dispose of the items as he had intended even if he had not yet effectively taken the garbage box and its contents of shampoo out of the outlet. That his possession of the garbage bag and its contents was temporary or transitory did not matter, for his ability to appropriate or to dispose of the articles stolen was not decisive.
Nonetheless, the lower courts gravely erred in finding and holding the petitioner guilty of qualified theft. Despite his being then employed as a janitor by the complainant, there was nothing in the evidence of the State that showed that he had gravely abused the confidence of the employer. A janitor whose main function is to see to the orderly collection and disposal of discarded trash was a regular employee with no special confidential or fiduciary relationship with the employer. Consequently, the petitioner could not be properly held guilty of qualified theft.
The penalty for theft under Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code where the value of the stolen articles was P2,275.20 is prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods (i.e., six months and one day to four years and two months). Yet, the law has since been amended in order to adjust the amounts that would be the basis of penalties. Under Republic Act No. 10951, 13 effective September 14, 2017, Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code has been relevantly amended as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
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).
xxx xxx xxx
In the absence of any modifying circumstances, the medium of the penalty is imposable, that is, two months and one day to four months. Hence, the straight penalty of two months and one day of arresto mayor is imposed.
There is no need for restitution or indemnity considering that the articles subject of the theft were recovered by the complainant.
WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS and DECLARES petitioner RYAN ACEBEDO y LOPEZ guilty beyond reasonable doubt of THEFT, and, accordingly, IMPOSES upon him the STRAIGHT PENALTY of TWO MONTHS AND ONE DAY OF ARRESTO MAYOR; and ORDERS him to pay the costs of suit.
No civil liability is fixed against the petitioner considering that the stolen articles were all returned to the complainant.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. CA rollo, pp. 13-30.
2. Records, p. 1.
3.Rollo, pp. 16-24; penned by Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican, with the concurrence of Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr.
4.Id. at 17-18.
5. CA rollo, pp. 29-30.
6. CA rollo, pp. 26-29.
7.Rollo, pp. 16-24.
8.Id. at 24.
9.Id. at 19-21.
10.Id. at 23.
11.Id. at 23-24.
12.Id. at 73.
13.An Act Adjusting the Amount of the Value of Property and Damage on which a Penalty is Based, and the Fines Imposed under the Revised Penal Code, Amending for the Purpose Act No. 3815, otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code, As Amended.