FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 238399. April 28, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.CHE CARAMPATAN y LEOPOLDO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated April 28, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 238399 — (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee v. CHE CARAMPATAN y LEOPOLDO, accused-appellant). — Assailed in this ordinary appeal is the Decision 1 dated October 9, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08170, which affirmed with modification the Decision 2 dated February 24, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 77 in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-13-01028 finding Che Carampatan y Leopoldo (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified theft as defined in Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
The Facts
This case stemmed from an Information dated June 17, 2013 filed before the RTC, charging accused-appellant with the crime of qualified theft, the accusatory portion of which reads:
That on or about the 10th day of June 2013, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, being then employed as houseboy of Amelia Cruz y Bersamina at her residence located at #07 Saint Vincent St., Paradise Village, Project 8, Brgy. Sangandaan, this City, and such have a free access to the different parts of the house and the property stolen, with grave abuse of confidence reposed upon him by her employer, with intent to gain and without the knowledge of the owner thereof, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously take, steal, carry away the following items:
Diamond ring amounting to P100,000.00
Cash money amounting to P150,000.00
Del Pulcera Gold amounting to P150,000.00
Rolex wristwatch amounting to P250,000.00
Gold Bracelet amounting to P30,000.00
All valued in the amount of P680,000.00, Philippine Currency belonging to Amelia Cruz y Bersamina, to the damage and prejudice of the said offended party in the amount aforementioned.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 3
Version of the Prosecution
During trial, the prosecution presented the following witnesses: (1) Amelia Cruz (private complainant); and (2) Evamie Gatchalian. The parties then stipulated as to the matters to be testified by the other prosecution witnesses, pertinently the invitation to the Barangay Public Safety Officers office on June 11, 2013, and the booking of accused-appellant at the police station. 4
The facts are summarized by the CA as follows:
According to the prosecution, accused-appellant was a houseboy of private complainant at their residence. On June 10, 2013, at around 9:00 in the evening, accused-appellant hurriedly left the house of private complainant, without any word as to his whereabouts. Private complainant tried calling his cellphone but the call could not be connected. She also called accused-appellant's relatives, but according to them, they never saw accused-appellant. 5
The next day, accused-appellant had not yet returned. At around 6:30 in the evening, private complainant found missing valuable items from her bedroom, namely: (1) diamond ring worth P100,000.00; (2) gold bracelet worth P150,000.00; (3) Rolex worth P250,000.00; (4) another gold bracelet worth P30,000.00; and (5) cash amounting to P150,000.00.
Upon discovering the missing items. Private complainant reported the incident to the BPSO located at Brgy. Sangandaan, Quezon City.
At around the same time, private complainant received a text from accused-appellant telling her that he was no longer returning. Using her sick daughter as a ruse, private complainant told accused-appellant to come back so he could buy food for her daughter. CAIHTE
Accused-appellant returned to private complainant's residence. Upon his arrival, he was invited to the BPSO office, wherein private complainant confronted him. The BPSO made a body search and found a pouch inside his pocket. Upon opening the pouch, they found private complainant's bracelet and Cebuana Lhuillier Pawnshop documents.
Accused-appellant was then brought to the Quezon City Police District, Talipapa Police Station for investigation and proper disposition. 6
Version of the Defense
On the other hand, the defense presented accused-appellant as its lone witness.
Accused-appellant denied the charges against him and testified that on June 10, 2013 upon returning from Riverside he was arrested and brought to the barangay hall. It was only there that accused-appellant learned of the accusations against him. 7
The Ruling of the RTC
In a Decision 8 dated February 24, 2016, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified theft under Article 310 of the RPC, viz.:
WHEREFORE, accused Che Carampatan y Leopoldo is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime of Qualified Theft as defined in Art. 310 of The Revised Penal Code. He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
On the civil aspect of his criminal case, the accused shall pay complainant Amelia Cruz y Bersamina P150,000.00 with legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum until fully paid.
SO ORDERED. 9
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed 10 the RTC's Decision, which was given due course by the RTC in its Order dated March 14, 2016. 11
The Ruling of the CA
In a Decision dated October 9, 2017, 12 the CA affirmed with modification the RTC's Decision, likewise finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified theft, but finding that the prosecution had only proven that the value of the property taken, i.e., recovered bracelet was only P50,000.00, 13viz.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby PARTLY GRANTED.
Accordingly, the Decision dated 24 February 2016 rendered by Branch 77, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City is AFFIRMED with modification that the accused-appellant Che Carampatan y Leopoldo is directed to pay private complainant Amelia Cruz the amount of PhP50,000.00 with legal interest.
SO ORDERED. 14
Thereafter, accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal 15 dated October 27, 2017 which was given due course by the CA in its Resolution 16 dated January 10, 2018.
In the Resolution 17 dated June 6, 2018, this Court noted the records of the case forwarded by the CA. The parties were then ordered to file their respective supplemental briefs, should they so desire, within 30 days from notice. 18
On August 14, 2018, the Office of the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation in Lieu of Supplemental Brief 19 dated August 10, 2018 on behalf of the People of the Philippines stating that it would no longer file a supplemental brief stating that the issues were already fully and exhaustively discussed in its Brief dated November 23, 2016 filed with the CA. Similarly, on September 5, 2018, the Public Attorney's Office on behalf of accused-appellant filed its Manifestation (in lieu of Supplemental Brief) 20 of even date.
Issue
The sole issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not the prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant is guilty of qualified theft.
Our Ruling
After an exhaustive examination of the records, this Court resolves to deny the instant appeal and affirm the findings of the CA. However, this Court modifies the penalty to be imposed upon accused-appellant pursuant to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10951, 21 in view of the other details of the case, as established during trial.
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.
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 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.
The crime charged against accused-appellant is theft qualified by grave abuse of confidence. In this mode of qualified theft, this Court has stated that the following elements must be satisfied before the accused may be convicted of the crime charged:
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. 22
Both the CA and the RTC found that the prosecution had proved the existence of all the foregoing elements beyond reasonable doubt. We find no reason to disturb their findings.
The CA ruled:
First, it was proved that the subjects of the offense were all personal or movable properties, consisting as they were of jewelry, money and wrist watch. Second, these properties belong to private complainant Cruz. Third, the gold bracelet belonging to Cruz and a Cebuana Lhuillier Pawnshop ticket reflecting that accused-appellant pawned a gold bracelet were found in a pouch inside his pocket. Such possession leads to a fair and reasonable conclusion that accused-appellant took the personal properties with intent to gain, taking into consideration that, fourth, Cruz had not consented to the taking of these valuables. The presence of the fifth element is without question because there is no allegation and proof of the use of violence or intimidation against persons, nor of force upon things. Lastly, accused-appellant admitted in open court that as a houseboy in the household of Cruz, he would do whatever errands he was given, not only in the house but also in the office of his employer. 23
However, with respect to the value of the property taken, the CA and the RTC arrived at different findings. DETACa
In cases involving theft the penalty to be imposed is dependent on the value of stolen personal properties, it is critical to ensure that the penalty is based on the value proven during trial, and not merely on the Information or uncorroborated testimonies presented by the prosecution. 24
We have consistently ruled that an ordinary witness cannot establish the value of jewelry, nor may the courts take judicial notice of the value of the same. 25 The value of jewelry is not a matter of public knowledge nor is it capable of unquestionable demonstration and in the absence of receipts or any other competent evidence besides the self-serving valuation made by the prosecution, 26 the same cannot be considered.
In the instant case, We agree with the conclusions made by the CA that the prosecution had only proven the value of the amount taken to be at P50,000.00 which is the value of the bracelet that was unrecovered and pawned at Cebuana Lhuillier Pawnshop:
The case above-cited echoed the ruling in Merida v. People, which held that in order to prove the amount of the property taken for fixing the penalty imposable against the accused under Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code, the prosecution must present more than a mere uncorroborated "estimate." In the absence of independent and reliable corroboration of such estimate, the courts may either apply the minimum penalty under Article 309 or fix the value of the property taken based on the attendant circumstances of the case.
In the present case, the Court finds that the prosecution failed to prove that the value of the two (2) gold bracelets is indeed PhP180,000.00. Except for the declaration of Cruz, there is no other evidence to prove the valuation of PhP150,000.00 (for the unrecovered bracelet) and Php30,000.00 (for the one which was recovered). The total amount of PhP180,000.00 was used as the basis of the trial court in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua. However, even the court a quo did not state in the assailed Decision its basis in giving credence to the said valuation.
xxx xxx xxx
Accordingly, the Court has to fix the value of the gold bracelets depending on the attendant circumstances herein. Based on documentary evidence presented by the prosecution, the unrecovered bracelet which was pawned by accused-appellant to Cebuana Lhuillier Pawnshop was assessed to have a "principal" of Php50,000.00. This amount is consistent with the testimony of Evamie Gatchalian, the Supervisor in Cebuana Lhuillier Cubao Branch stating that the Del pulcera gold bracelet was "accepted" in the pawnshop for the amount of Php50,000.00[.] 27 (Citations omitted)
Penalty
Although the CA correctly affirmed the guilt of accused-appellant, We deem proper to modify the Decision as regards the imposable penalty in view of the enactment of R.A. No. 10951, which took effect on September 16, 2017 during the pendency of the instant case.
Article 310 of the RPC states that a person convicted of qualified theft should be meted a penalty that is two degrees higher than the penalty for simple theft. In the instant case, considering that the prosecution was only able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the value of the property taken is P50,000.00, the penalty imposable falls under Article 309 (3) of the RPC as amended by R.A. No. 10951:
3. The penalty of prisión 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).
Therefore, pursuant to Article 310 of the RPC, the imposable penalty shall be prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods which has a prison term of 8 years and 1 day to 12 years. 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 RPC, 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. Accordingly, the range of the minimum term that should be imposed upon accused-appellant is anywhere within the period of prison correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period which has a range of 4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 8 years. Accused-appellant should be sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 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.
Lastly, the monetary awards due to private complainant in the amount of P50,000.00, as proved by the prosecution, shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until full payment, pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence. 28
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated October 9, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08170 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant Che Carampatan y Leopoldo is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of qualified theft. Thus, pursuant to Article 309 (3) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 10951, and upon application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, accused-appellant is sentenced to suffer the minimum penalty of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional to a maximum of nine (9) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision mayor.
Additionally, accused-appellant is likewise ORDERED to PAY private complainant Amelia Cruz the sum of P50,000.00 as actual damages, subject to interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid. HEITAD
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
by:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-13; penned by Associate Justice Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob with Associate Justices Normandie B. Pizarro and Danton Q. Bueser, concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 39-44; penned by Acting Presiding Judge Cleto R. Villacorta III.
3.Rollo, p. 3.
4. CA rollo, pp. 39-40.
5.Rollo, p. 4.
6.Id. at 4.
7.Id. at 4-5.
8. CA Rollo, pp. 39-44.
9.Id. at 44.
10.Id. at 12-13.
11.Id. at 14.
12.Rollo, pp. 2-13.
13.Id. at 12.
14.Id.
15. CA rollo, pp. 83-84.
16.Id. at 91.
17.Rollo, pp. 19-20.
18.Id. at 19.
19.Id. at 21-23.
20.Id. at 29-31.
21. 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.
22.Viray v. People, 720 Phil. 841, 850-851 (2013).
23.Rollo, p. 8.
24.People v. Mejares, 823 Phil. 459, 473 (2018).
25.Francisco v. People, 478 Phil. 167, 187 (2004); People v. Paraiso, 377 Phil. 445, 467 (1999); People v. Marcos, 368 Phil. 143, 167 (1999).
26.Id. at 167-168.
27.Rollo, pp. 10-11.
28.People v. Jugueta, 783 Phil. 806, 854 (2016).