Lanuza y Salazar v. People

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 221208. March 2, 2016.]

JOSE JOEL LANUZA Y SALAZAR, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated02 March 2016 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 221208 (Jose Joel Lanuza y Salazar, Petitioner v. People of the Philippines, Respondent)

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioner Jose Joel Lanuza y Salazar (Lanuza) seeking to reverse and set aside the July 3, 2015 Decision 1 and the October 27, 2015 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 35359, covering two cases for carnapping and qualified theft.

The Facts

It appears from the records that Lanuza was charged with the crimes of violation of Section 2 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6539 otherwise known as the "Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972," and Qualified Theft before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 52, City of Manila (RTC). The accusatory portions of the Informations alleged as follows:

Criminal Case No. 08-262916:

That on or about December 14, 2006, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, with intent to gain and without the knowledge and consent of the owner thereof, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away one (1) unit of motor vehicle as described below:

Make/Type	:	Mitsubishi L300 Van
Year/Model	:	1996
Motor No.	:	4D56A-P9717
Chassis No.	:	L039PYZI-11996
Plate No.	:	DWK-501
Color	:	White

 

valued at P450,000.00, which was then parked along Claro M. Recto, Avenue corner Evangelista St., Quiapo, this City, owned by OMNI Logistics Corporation, represented by Evelyn Marubine Magtibay y Calzita, to the damage and prejudice of the said owner in the aforesaid amount of P450,000.00, Philippine Currency.

Contrary to law. 3

Criminal Case No. 08-262917:

That on or about December 14, 2006, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, with intent to gain and without the knowledge and consent of the owner thereof, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away assorted Sony electronic products valued in the total amount of P547,544.00, belonging to OMNI Logistics Corporation, represented by Evelyn Marubine Magtibay y Calzita, to the damage and prejudice of the said owner in the aforesaid amount of P547,544.00, Philippine Currency.

Contrary to law. 4

When arraigned, Lanuza pleaded not guilty to both charges. After the pre-trial was terminated, a joint trial on the merits followed. CAIHTE

Version of the Prosecution

As summarized by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) in the Appellee's Brief, 5 the People's version of the events is as follows:

On 14 December 2006, accused-appellant Jose Joel Lanuza reported for work as delivery driver for OMNI Logistics Corporation. On or about 11:30 a.m., Lanuza and Joel Jardinel drove from the OMNI warehouse, located at Balintawak, Quezon City, on a Mitsubishi L300 van with plate number DWK-501, to Manila for the delivery of various Sony appliances to designated consignees.

After arriving at Isetann Recto at around noontime, Lanuza parked the van while Jardinel unloaded three (3) television sets and three (3) television racks that they were set to deliver to Pacific Electronics. At around 2:20 p.m., however, Jardinel could no longer find the whereabouts of their delivery truck. After searching for the latter but to no avail, and after failing to reach accused-appellant, through the latter's cellular phone, Jardinel called Evelyn Magtibay, OMNI Distribution Supervisor, to explain the situation. Upon Jardinel's second call to Magtibay at around 3:30 p.m. that same afternoon, the latter instructed Macario Iguiron, OMNI dispatcher, to fetch Jardinel and aid in the search of accused-appellant and the missing company van.

Jardinel and Iguiron scoured impounding areas in Manila with the hope of finding their lost vehicle as well as the goods loaded thereon but failed to locate the same. Thus, at about 8:00 p.m., Magtibay resolved to relay the matter to OMNI's Head Office, and was thereafter instructed to report the loss to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in Manila.

Magtibay arrived at the NBI Office at about 11:00 p.m. of the same night where she met OMNI's General Manager and Human Resources Managers to officially report the incident. They, thereafter, proceeded to the headquarters of the Traffic Management Group (TMG) of the Philippine National Police (PNP) at Camp Crame, Quezon City where a Radio Voice Alarm was correspondingly issued.

On 15 December 2006, OMNI's representatives obtained accused-appellant's home address from the AB&N Agency after apprising the latter of the loss of their van and the goods carried by accused-appellant as delivery driver for OMNI.

On 16 December 2006, OMNI, through Magtibay, formally lodged a complaint against accused-appellant at the Theft and Robbery Section of the Western Police District (WPD). It also submitted the lost vehicle's Official Receipt No. 31197842 and its Certificate of Registration to the WPD's Anti-Carnapping Section in order for a Flash Alarm to be issued. On the same day, Major Arevalo, Chief of the WPD Theft and Robbery Section, and Captain Carpio formed a team to facilitate the investigation of the said incident.

On 21 December 2006, several police officers and representatives from OMNI, namely Macario Iguiron and Daniel David, proceeded to accused-appellant's address at 45 San Matias, Sto. Tomas, Pampanga. Initially, the police officers were told by accused-appellant's father that the latter was not in the premises. After a short discussion however, it turned out that the accused-appellant was merely hiding at the second floor of the same house.

After talking to accused-appellant, he was brought to the WPD, where Magtibay identified him as the same person who drove the missing delivery van loaded with Sony products from the OMNI warehouse on the day of the 14th of December. At around 4:30 p.m. of the same day, accused-appellant was brought to the Manila Prosecutors's Office for inquest proceedings. After the same, he was transported back to the WPD.

On 22 December 2006, Major Arevalo informed OMNI that accused-appellant divulged the possible location of the lost vehicle and goods. Acting promptly on the said information, the police operatives proceeded sometime around noontime of the same day at the house of a certain Noel Lopez, which was located at Block 4, Lot 42, Dalia Street, Royal Meadows Subdivision, Mexico, Pampanga. Upon arriving at the said house, they found most of the missing items. Several smaller items, amounting to around Two Hundred Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty Eight Pesos (P205,948.00) were unrecovered. The delivery van, however, remain unrecovered. The recovered products worth Three Hundred One Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Six Pesos (P301,596.00), were inventoried and cross-referenced with houseway bills, delivery orders and return delivery orders in the possession of OMNI's representatives in order to render an exact accounting of the retrieved goods before the same were turned over to OMNI's representative, Daniel David. 6 DETACa

Version of the Defense

In the Appellant's Brief, 7 Lanuza denied the charges against him and gave the following version:

At 8:00 o'clock in the morning of December 14, 2006, Joel Lanuza reported for work at OMNI Logistics Corporation where he was employed as a driver. He was forced to make deliveries, notwithstanding the fact that it was a Monday and the van that he was to drive has a plate number 501. At around 9:00 o'clock to 10:00 o'clock in the morning, he, along with his helper Joel Jardinel, left the company premises to deliver products somewhere in Quiapo and Recto. While they were in Blumentritt, they were stopped by a traffic enforcer for violation of the color coding scheme. The said traffic enforcer removed the plate number of the van but allowed him to proceed with a promise that he will go back to fetch the traffic violation receipt. They proceeded to Recto where Jardinel unloaded the products to be delivered. He told him that he will just go back to the traffic enforcer to retrieve the plate number and the traffic violation receipt. Upon arrival thereat at around 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon, he waited for about an hour before, the traffic enforcer arrived and gave him the receipt. Thereafter, he went back to Jardinel at Isetann Recto and arrived there at around 4:20 o'clock in the afternoon. He had difficulty in finding a proper parking place and he drove around while looking for Jardinel, but he was not able to see the latter. At around 6:00 o'clock in the evening, he called up the OMNI Logistics office and was able to talk to their dispatcher. He informed the office about what happened and that he cannot find Jardinel. He was told that Jardinel called up their office earlier informing them that he carnapped the van he was driving and that he was being put in an alarm with the police officers. He then tried to call the office of AB&N Corporation but he was not able to talk to anyone. Out of confusion, he decided to go home to Pampanga and ask help from his father who is a police officer.

At around 11:00 o'clock in the evening, while he was at their home in Pampanga, someone for the HR Department of AB&N called to ask about his whereabouts. He was told not to leave the place and that they will go there. Miss Shaha, AB&N's supervisor, arrived the following day at around 6:00 o'clock in the morning and left at around 9:00 o'clock in the morning. Nothing really transpired during the said visit, he was just repeatedly told not to leave their home. Two days after, the supervisor from OMNI Logistics arrived at their house along with police officers. An inventory of the products was made and he was brought by the police officers to the Western Police District at United Nations Avenue for investigation. Upon arriving thereat, no investigation took placed but he was detained for two (2) or three (3) days and thereafter released. After several months, a police officer came to their house with a warrant of arrest and arrested him again. 8

The Ruling of the RTC

On October 19, 2012 the RTC rendered its Judgment 9 finding Lanuza guilty as charged. It ruled that the prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt the elements of carnapping under Section 2 of R.A. No. 6539 as well as the elements of qualified theft defined and penalized under Article 308 in relation to Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The trial court did not lend credence to Lanuza's denial for want of sufficient and competent proof. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, this Court hereby renders judgment, as follows:

(1) Finding accused JOSE JOEL LANUZA y SALAZAR guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 08-262916 for violation of Section 2, Republic Act No. 6539, also known as the "Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972." Accordingly, said accused is meted an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months. Moreover, he is ordered to restitute private complainant OMNI Logistics Corporation the sum of P200,000.00 by way of temperate damages as compensation for the latter's unrecovered delivery van bearing Plate No. DWK-501; and

(2) Finding accused JOSE JOEL LANUZA y SALAZAR guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 08-262917 for Qualified Theft. Since the value of the Sony products taken by him amounts to P547,544.00, he is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal. Furthermore, accused is ordered to restitute the private complainant the sum of P205,948.00 representing the value of the unrecovered Sony products.

SO ORDERED. 10 aDSIHc

Not in conformity, Lanuza appealed the October 19, 2012 judgment of the RTC before the CA.

The Ruling of the CA

The CA found no cogent reason to reverse the findings of facts and conclusions reached by the RTC and thus, affirmed the convictions of Lanuza for carnapping and qualified theft. The fallo of the CA decision reads:

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision of the court a quo is AFFIRMED together with the award in favor of OMNI to be paid by the accused of P200,000.00 as temperate damages for the value of the unrecovered vehicle and the amount of P547,544.00 representing the value of the unrecovered Sony products with interest at 6% per annum from finality of this decision until full payment.

SO ORDERED. 11

Lanuza moved for a reconsideration of the July 3, 2015 Decision, but his motion was denied by the CA in its October 27, 2015 Resolution.

The Issues

Unfazed, Lanuza filed the present petition and raises the following

ISSUES:

I

WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT ALL THE ELEMENTS OF CARNAPPING AND QUALIFIED THEFT WERE SUFFICIENTLY PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

II

WHETHER OR NOT THE AWARD OF TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P200,000.00) AS TEMPERATE DAMAGES FOR THE VALUE OF THE UNRECOVERED VEHICLE AND THE AMOUNT OF FIVE HUNDRED FORTY-SEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED FORTY-FOUR PESOS (P547,544.00) REPRESENTING THE VALUE OF THE UNRECOVERED PRODUCTS HAS FACTUAL BASIS. 12

Carnapping Duly Proved

Despite Lanuza's vigorous protestations, the Court agrees with the conclusion of the RTC and the CA that the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt his guilt for the crime of carnapping.

Section 2 of R.A. No. 6539, as amended, defines "carnapping" as "the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter's consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things." The elements of carnapping are thus: (1) the taking of a motor vehicle which belongs to another; (2) the taking is without the consent of the owner or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons or by using force upon things; and (3) the taking is done with intent to gain. 13

Evidence on record showed that Lanuza, as a delivery driver for complainant OMNI, brought out the 1996 Mitsubishi L-300 van with plate no. DWK-501 owned by said complainant on December 14, 2006 to deliver various Sony products to the latter's designated consignees but did not return said delivery van on the same day as he was supposed to. Instead, Lanuza brought the van and the goods contained therein to a house in Mexico, Pampanga, somewhere that neither OMNI nor AB&N Agency has knowledge or access to.

Unlawful taking, or apoderamiento, is the taking of the motor vehicle without the consent of the owner, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things; it is deemed complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same. 14 While it is true that the nature of Lanuza's possession of the subject Mitsubishi L-300 van was initially lawful as he was hired as a delivery driver and was entrusted with the possession thereof, his act of not returning the motor vehicle to OMNI's warehouse in Balintawak, which is contrary to company practice and against the owner's consent, transformed the character of the possession into an unlawful one. Evelyn Magtibay, OMNI's Distribution Supervisor, even lodged a complaint against Lanuza before the Theft and Robbery Section of the Western Police District for the loss of the subject Mitsubishi L-300 van, which confirmed that his continued possession of the van was without OMNI's authority.

No Qualified Theft

The Court, however, finds that the courts a quo erred in convicting Lanuza of the crime of qualified theft.

Settled is the rule that an appeal in a criminal case throws the whole records of the case open for review and it is the duty of the appellate court to correct, cite and appreciate errors that may be found in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or not. 15 Given the unique nature of an appeal in a criminal case, an examination of the entire records of the case may be explored for the purpose of arriving at a correct conclusion as the law and justice dictate.

Article 308 in relation to Article 310 of the RPC describes the felony of qualified theft:

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. ETHIDa

xxx xxx xxx

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 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 the plantation, fish taken from a fishpond or fishery or property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance. [Emphasis supplied]

For the successful prosecution of qualified theft (theft committed with grave abuse of confidence), the prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt the following elements: (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. 16

It was established in Criminal Case No. 08-262917, through the positive and credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, that in the morning of December 14, 2006, OMNI entrusted Lanuza with the distribution and delivery of its assorted Sony electronic products worth P547,544.00 which were loaded inside said complainant's Mitsubishi L-300 van with plate no. DWK-501. But instead of delivering the Sony products to OMNI's designated consignees as he was tasked to do, Lanuza disappeared with the delivery van along with the Sony items loaded therein. Lanuza exploited that trust reposed in him by OMNI to enrich himself to the latter's damage and prejudice. No violence, intimidation or force upon things attended the unlawful taking of the Sony products.

While the designation of the offense charged in the Information docketed as Criminal Case No. 08-262917 was qualified theft, a careful perusal of the allegations therein would show that Lanuza was charged with simple theft only. The Court notes that the circumstance of grave abuse of confidence was never alleged in the said Information. To warrant the conviction and, hence, imposition of the penalty for qualified theft, there must be an allegation in the information and proof that there existed between the offended party and the accused such high degree of confidence or that the stolen goods have been entrusted to the custody or vigilance of the accused. 17 TIADCc

It matters not how conclusive and convincing the evidence of guilt may be, an accused cannot be convicted in the courts of any offense, unless it is charged in the complaint or information on which he is tried, or necessarily included therein. 18 An accused may be convicted only of the crime charged in the information, or of that necessarily included therein. 19 Further, the Court is not unmindful of the rule that "the real nature of the criminal charge is determined, not from the caption or the preamble of the Information nor from the specification of the law alleged to have been violated — these being conclusions of law — but by the actual recital of facts in the complaint or information." Accordingly, without the allegation of the circumstance of grave abuse of confidence, Lanuza can only be held accountable for the crime of simple theft under Article 308 in relation to Article 309 of the RPC. The Court takes this occasion to remind prosecutors to use extreme care in formulating and wording Informations to include all the elements of the crime charged.

In his attempt at exculpation, Lanuza insisted that the prosecution failed to prove intent to gain. He claimed that there was no intention on his part to take the delivery van and its contents and that he just got confused. Upon learning that an alarm was issued over the Mitsubishi L-300 van with plate no. DWK-501 which had been reported as carnapped, he went to Sto. Tomas, Pampanga, to seek the help of his father, who was a policeman, in returning the delivery van and the merchandise loaded therein. Lastly, he pointed out that his disclosure to the AB&N Agency of his whereabouts after the incident and the fact that he never left his home in Pampanga would lead to a reasonable inference that he was innocent as no criminal was expected to commit a crime and tell his whereabouts after its commission.

Lanuza's position does not persuade.

Intent to gain or animus lucrandi is an internal act, presumed from the unlawful taking of the motor vehicle, 20 which Lanuza failed to overcome with evidence to the contrary. Actual gain is irrelevant as the important consideration is the intent to gain. 21 The term "gain" is not merely limited to pecuniary benefit but also includes the benefit which in any other sense may be derived or expected from the act which is performed. 22 Hence, the mere use of the thing which was taken without the owner's consent constitutes gain. 23

The Court quotes with approval the following observation of the CA on this score:

Since the van together with the Sony products loaded therein were brought to Sto. Tomas, Pampanga without the consent of OMNI and despite the lapse of more than four (4) days, accused did not make effort to bring them back to OMNI, were it not for the fact that he was arrested and the electronic products recovered, intent to gain becomes obvious. Suffice it to state that if the accused intended to return the vehicle and the items therein, he could have done so as his father who is a policeman could have helped him. Thus, the presumption of animus lucrandi had not been overturned. 24

The lame defense of denial was all that Lanuza could offer against the prosecution evidence. Denial is a negative and self-serving evidence that requires to be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility. 25 Otherwise, it cannot overcome the testimony of the prosecution witness/es who testified on affirmative matters. 26 Apart from his testimonial assertion in the case at bench, no credible corroborating evidence was presented by Lanuza to bolster his denial or to back his version. As aptly ruled by the RTC, viz.:

Parenthetically, this Court cannot give credence to accused's claim of innocence. Indeed, despite the latter's narrative that December 14, 2006, was a Monday and that he was apprehended by a traffic enforcer due to his violation of the so-called "color coding" traffic scheme because the subject vehicle had a plate number ending in "1", this Court takes judicial notice of the fact that December 14, 2006, was a Thursday. For the same reason, Lanuza's claim that he lost the TVR (traffic violation receipt) allegedly issued by the traffic enforcer deserves scant consideration. More importantly, accused has not satisfactorily explained why he never took steps to return the OMNI delivery van and its contents prior to his apprehension by the police authorities on December 20, 2006. Worse, as shown by the Certificate of Non-Recovery dated March 17, 2009, issued by Police Chief Superintendent Orlando M. Mabutas, Director, Highway Patrol Group, accused has not returned the subject vehicle and that it has not yet been recovered as of said date. Similarly, some Sony products taken by the accused remain unrecovered. 27

In the face of the overwhelming and positive evidence against Lanuza, the Court finds that his conviction should be sustained. Also, the fact that he told AB&N Agency where he was staying after the incident and that he never left his home in Pampanga cannot be considered as an indication of his innocence. Unfortunately for Lanuza, there is no case law holding non-flight as an indication or a conclusive proof of innocence. 28

The RTC, as affirmed by the CA, correctly imposed in Criminal Case No. 08-262916 (for simple carnapping) the penalty of fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months, as maximum, which was within the range of the imposable penalty under Section 14 of R.A. No. 6539:

SEC. 14. Penalty for Carnapping. — Any person who is found guilty of carnapping, as this term is defined in Section Two of this Act, shall, irrespective of the value of motor vehicle taken, be punished by imprisonment for not less than fourteen years and eight months and not more than seventeen years and four months, when the carnapping is committed without violence or intimidation of persons, or force upon things x x x. [Emphases and Underscoring Supplied]. SDAaTC

For the crime of simple theft, the penalty shall be based on the value of the things stolen. 29 Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code reads:

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

1. The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the thing stolen is more than 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos; 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 year for each additional ten thousand pesos, but the total of the penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty 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. [Emphasis supplied]

The basic penalty when the value of the stolen item exceeded P22,000.00 is the maximum period of the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods which is 8 years, 8 months and 1 day to 10 years of prision mayor. To determine the additional years of imprisonment, the difference after deducting P22,000.00 shall be divided by P10,000.00, disregarding any amount less than P10,000.00. The value of the Sony products stolen by Lanuza was P547,544.00. Said valuation was duly established by the testimonial and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution. Besides, not a scintilla of proof was proffered by the defense to dispute the correctness of the same. Thus, 52 years shall be added to the basic penalty. The penalty for simple theft, however, cannot go beyond 20 years of reclusion temporal, and such will be Lanuza's sentence.

Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty next lower prescribed by law for theft, which is prision mayor in its minimum and medium period should be applied. Thus, the minimum of the indeterminate penalty should be anywhere from 2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 6 years, while the maximum should be 20 years of reclusion temporal. In light of the foregoing, the Court determines that Lanuza should be sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of five (5) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum for the crime of simple theft.

The Court finds that the courts a quo were correct in awarding temperate damages of P200,000.00 for the value of the unrecovered Mitsubishi L-300 van with plate no. DWK-501, the same being just and proper under the circumstances obtaining in this case. Finally, the Court affirms the imposition of interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the damages awarded from the date of finality of this decision until fully paid in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence. 30

WHEREFORE, the October 19, 2012 Judgment of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 52, City of Manila, in Criminal Case Nos. 08-262916-917 is hereby MODIFIED to read as follows:

WHEREFORE,

(1) in Criminal Case No. 08-262916, finding accused JOSE JOEL LANUZA y SALAZAR guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 2, Republic Act No. 6539, also known as the "Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972," the Court sentences him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from Fourteen (14) Years and Eight (8) months, as minimum, to Seventeen (17) Years and Four (4) months, as maximum; and to restitute the private complainant OMNI Logistics Corporation the sum of P200,000.00 by way of temperate damages as compensation for the latter's unrecovered delivery van bearing Plate No. DWK-501; and

(2) in Criminal Case No. 08-262917, finding accused JOSE JOEL LANUZA y SALAZAR guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Simple Theft, the Court sentences the accused to an indeterminate penalty ranging from Five (5) Years of prision correccional, as minimum, to Twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum; and to restitute the private complainant the sum of P205,948.00 representing the value of the unrecovered Sony products.

All amounts are subject to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid. (J. Brion on leave)

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Penned by Associate Justice Leoncia Real-Dimagiba, with Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios and Associate Justice Maria Elisa Sempio Diy, concurring; rollo, pp. 33-43.

2. Id. at 45-46.

3. Id. at 65.

4. Id. at 66.

5. Id. at 84-98.

6. Id. at 89-90.

7. Id. at 47-64.

8. Id. at 55-56.

9. Penned by Judge Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas; id. at 65-82.

10. Id. at 82.

11. Id. at 42-43.

12. Id. at 21.

13. People v. Lagat, 673 Phil. 351, 366 (2011).

14. People v. Bustinera, G.R. No. 148233, June 8, 2004, 431 SCRA 284, 295.

15. People v. Kamad, 624 Phil. 289, 299 (2010).

16. People v. Mirto, 675 Phil. 895, 906 (2011).

17. Viray v. People, G.R. No. 205180, November 11, 2013, 709 SCRA 227, 238-239.

18. Canceran v. People, G.R. No. 206442, July 1, 2015.

19. People v. Manalili, 355 Phil. 652, 684 (1998).

20. People Ellasos, 358 SCRA 516, 527 (2001).

21. Ringor v. People, G.R. No. 198904, December 11, 2013, 712 SCRA 622, 632.

22. 3R. Aquino & C. Grino-Aquino, The Revised Penal Code 206 (1997).

23. Villacarta v. Insurance Commission, 188 Phil. 497, 503 (1980).

24. Rollo, p. 41.

25. People v. Astrologo, 551 Phil. 916, 928 (2007).

26. People v. Rivera, 414 Phil. 430, 457 (2001).

27. Rollo, pp. 80-81.

28. People v. Diaz, 443 Phil. 67, 89 (2003).

29. People v. Moreno, 425 Phil. 526, 543 (2002).

30. People v. Garchitorena y Camba, 614 Phil. 66, 94 (2009).