Bondame v. People

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 208994. March 13, 2019.]

ANALYN BONDAME, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 13, 2019which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 208994 (ANALYN BONDAME, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.) — Upon a judicious review of the records, we DENY the petition for review on certiorari assailing the May 25, 2012 1 decision in CA-G.R. CEB CR No. 00903 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision dated May 21, 2008 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 8, Cebu City, finding herein petitioner guilty of the crime of qualified theft.

The petitioner contended that the CA erred in affirming the judgment of the RTC despite the incredible, improbable and speculative testimony of the prosecution witnesses.

We are not convinced.

Prefatorily, the thrust of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is the resolution of only questions of law. Any peripheral factual question addressed to this Court is beyond the ambit of this mode of review. Indeed, well-entrenched is the general rule that the jurisdiction of this Court in cases brought before it from the CA is limited to reviewing or revising errors of law. 3

Herein petitioner raised not only questions of law but also of facts as We are being asked to recalibrate the evidence adduced by the parties and to reevaluate the credibility of witnesses. On this ground alone, the petition should be dismissed. 4 But We deem it proper to delve into the merits of the present petition considering that an appeal in a criminal case throws the whole case wide open for review. 5

Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) pertinently provides:

ART. 308. 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 CAIHTE

Under Article 310 of the same code, the existence of grave abuse of confidence raises the offense to qualified theft, thus:

Art. 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 withgrave 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 the plantation or 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)

Therefore, 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; [and]

6. That it be done with grave abuse of confidence. 6

Here, the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner took the bundle of Twenty Peso (P20.00) bills from the sales collection of RS Petron Service Station without the owner's consent. Such taking was committed with grave abuse of confidence since the petitioner took advantage of her position as a cashier. The prosecution witness, Socorro, a fellow cashier, categorically stated that she saw the petitioner take the bundle of Twenty Peso (P20.00) bills amounting to Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00), hid it in a tray used by the cashiers as a receptacle for collections, and brought the same with her to the restroom. Another witness, Gina, corroborated Socorro's testimony.

In support of her quest for acquittal, the petitioner attempted to cast doubt on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, and claimed that the evidence offered by the prosecution merely consisted of testimonies which were either incredible for being contrary to common human experience or purely speculative.

When it comes to the credibility of witnesses, the trial court's assessment deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence. The reason is obvious. Having the full opportunity to observe directly the witnesses' deportment and manner of testifying, the trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to properly evaluate testimonial evidence. 7

Noteworthy also that the CA affirmed the findings of the RTC. It is settled that when the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon this Court. 8 The petitioner had failed to convince Us to stray from this doctrine.

Albeit the correctness of the petitioner's guilt, We deem proper to modify the decision as regards the imposable penalty in view of the enactment of R.A. No. 10951. 9

The penalty for qualified theft is based on the value of the property stolen, which in this case is Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00). Article 310 of the RPC states that a person convicted of qualified theft should be meted a penalty that is two (2) degrees higher than the penalty for simple theft. The imposable penalty for simple theft based on the amount of the property stolen is arresto mayor in its full extent. 10 Thus, the penalty for qualified theft is two (2) degrees higher, that is prision correccional in its medium period.

Following the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum period should be within the range of the penalty next lower than that prescribed by Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 10951, while the maximum period shall be within the range of the medium period of the imposable penalty, in the absence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Thus, the maximum penalty may be taken from the medium period of prision correccional medium, or from 2 years, 11 months and 11 days to 3 years, 6 months and 20 days while the minimum may be taken from prision correccional minimum, or from 6 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months. DETACa

The RTC, as affirmed by the CA, imposed the penalty of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day as minimum, to nine (9) years, four (4) months and one (1) day as maximum. Pursuant to Section 100 of R.A. No. 10951, the amendment to Article 310 in relation to Article 309 of the RPC, shall have retroactive effect to the extent that it is favorable to the accused. Accordingly, the Court modifies the penalty imposed on petitioner to imprisonment of 6 months and 1 day of prision correccional, as minimum, to 2 years, 11 months, and 11 days of prision correccional, as maximum.

WHEREFORE, We DENY the petition for review on certiorari; AFFIRM the decision of the Court of Appeals dated May 25, 2012 and resolution dated July 23, 2013 in CA-G.R. CEB CR No. 00903 with MODIFICATION that the petitioner is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of 6 months and 1 day of prision correccional, as minimum, to 2 years, 11 months, and 11 days of prision correccional, as maximum.

SO ORDERED." Jardeleza, J., no part due to prior action as Solicitor General; Javier, J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated March 11, 2019.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 27-40, penned by then CA Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justice Pampio A. Abarintos and Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes.

2.Id. at 44-50; penned by Presiding Judge Macaundas M. Hadjirasul.

3.Pideli v. People, G.R. No. 163437, February 13, 2008, 545 SCRA 236, 246-247.

4.Id. at 247.

5.People v. Alzona, G.R. No. 132029, July 30, 2004, 435 SCRA 461, 471.

6.People v. Cahilig, G.R. No. 199208, July 30, 2014, 731 SCRA 414, 424.

7.People v. Escultor, G.R. Nos. 149366-67, May 27, 2004, 429 SCRA 651, 661.

8.People v. Aguila, G.R. No. 171017, December 6, 2006, 510 SCRA 642, 661.

9. An Act Adjusting the Amount or 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.

10. Section 81 of the said Act amended Article 309 of the RPC, to wit:

   Section 81. Article 309 of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows:

   Art. 309. Penalties. — Any person guilty of theft shall be punished by:

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).