People v. Dag-Uman y Villanosa

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 247656. December 6, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.JOSEPHINE DAG-UMAN y VILLANOSA, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated06 December 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 247656 (People of the Philippines v. Josephine Dag-Uman y Villanosa). — On appeal 1 is the June 7, 2018 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09230 that affirmed the November 17, 2016 Decision, 3 Branch 100 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antipolo City, in Criminal Case No. 12-43672. The RTC and CA found accused-appellant Josephine Dag-Uman y Villanosa (Dag-Uman) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Qualified Theft.

Version of the prosecution:

On December 20, 2011, Romulo Ignacio (Romulo) and Lucia Ignacio (Lucia) (collectively, spouses Ignacio), hired Dag-Uman as a stay-in house helper. Dag-Uman, an elementary graduate from Mindanao, was referred to the spouses Ignacio by their former house helper, Jen, who left their employ to return to Zamboanga del Sur. 4

Lucia strictly instructed Dag-Uman to never entertain anyone on the phone or allow visitors inside the house without the former's consent. This is in light of the news regarding the prevalence of the dugo-dugo gang. The said crime syndicate targets unsuspecting house helpers in obtaining the cash and valuables of the homeowners. The members of the gang pressure the house helper to surrender the homeowner's money or valuables under the guise that a family member had been hurt and there is an urgent need to pay for the hospital expenses. 5

Two days later, two ladies, who introduced themselves as Dag-Uman's sister and sister-in-law, visited Dag-Uman. Lucia offered them merienda and even joined in the conversation. Dag-Uman's sister also mentioned the syndicates who victimize house helpers. Lucia reminded to Dag-Uman not to fall victim to the modus operandi of the dugo-dugo gang. 6

On February 2, 2012, the spouses Ignacio went to the Immigration Office in Intramuros, Manila. Before departing, Lucia reminded Dag-Uman never to entertain visitors or telephone calls from strangers. 7

At around 4 p.m. of the same day, the spouses Ignacio returned home. When Lucia entered the house, Dag-Uman told her, "Ate, nadisgrasya lahat-lahat ang mga pera at alahas nyo. Naibigay ko lahat!" (Ate, all your money and jewelry are gone. I gave them all away). 8

Lucia immediately ran to the bedroom. She found the door open and the doorknob broken. At that time, Romulo, who had just parked the car, entered the house and saw the condition of the bedroom door. The spouses Ignacio likewise discovered that their vault was forcibly opened and the valuables inside were gone. 9

When Lucia asked Dag-Uman about what happened, the latter informed her that a person who claimed to be Lucia's co-worker called and told her that the spouses Ignacio got injured in a car accident. The said individual allegedly instructed Dag-Uman to gather all the cash and jewelry of her employers and to deliver the items to him at St. Peter's Church in Commonwealth, Quezon City. Dag-Uman followed the instructions. 10

Lucia inspected the house and Dag-Uman's bedroom. She saw money bills scattered on Dag-Uman's bed amounting to $30.00 and P500.00. 11 Meanwhile, Romulo sought the assistance of the village's security guards and the Cainta Police. An inventory of the stolen items was made. The police officers brought Dag-Uman to the police station and subsequently charged her with Qualified Theft. 12

Version of the defense:

Dag-Uman alleged that after the spouses Ignacio left on February 2, 2012, an individual claiming to be Lucia's co-worker called to inform her that her employers figured in an accident and were in critical condition in the hospital. The man allegedly instructed her to take the money and jewelry from the vault which could be found inside her employers' bedroom and to bring it to St. Peter's Church in Commonwealth. She took a cab to reach the church and handed over the valuables to the man, who in turn told her to go back home. At around 4 p.m., she was shocked to see her employers when they came home because she truly believed that they figured in an accident. She then told them what transpired but instead, she was brought to the police station and was charged. 13

The Information:

In an Information 14 dated February 6, 2011, Dag-Uman was charged with Qualified Theft under Article 310, in relation to Article 309, of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The accusatory portion of the Information reads:

That, on or about the 2nd day of February 2012, in the Municipality of Cainta, Province of Rizal, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being then employed as house helper of spouses Romulo and Lucia Ignacio, with intent to gain and grave abuse of confidence and without the knowledge and consent of the owner thereof, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and carry away the following items[,] to wit:

One (1) Carat Ring Diamond — $7,000.00

Guard Ring Diamond — 1,300.00

Cluster Diamond — 1,800.00

Diamond Engagement Ring — 900.00

One (1) set Diamond Ring — 2,600.00

Two (2) pairs Diamond Earring — 200.00

Diamond Ring (Men's ring) — 1,100.00

One (1) set pearl, necklace, ring and earring — 900.00

One (1) pc. five (5) baht necklace — 700.00

Two (2) pcs. two (2) baht necklace — 400.00

Three (3) gold necklace (14 carats) — 300.00

24 carat gold coins bracelet — 400.00

Three (3) bangles bracelet — 300.00

Five (5) pairs earrings — 300.00

Two (2) Gucci watch — 190.00

One (1) Rolex watch — $1,600.00

HP Laptop Computer with DSL Box — 999.00

Couch [Coach] bag — 350.00

Cash — $1,600.00

Cash — P234,000.00

all in the total amount of US$32,839.00 and [P]234,000.00, owned by said complainant-spouses, to the owner's damage and prejudice.

CONTRARY TO LAW.15

During her arraignment, Dag-Uman entered a plea of "not guilty." 16

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:

In its Decision 17 dated November 17, 2016, the RTC ruled that Dag-Uman stole the properties without the consent of the spouses Ignacio, and is thus guilty of Qualified Theft. 18 The RTC found that Dag-Uman acted with discernment notwithstanding her educational background when she: (a) destroyed the bedroom lock; (b) forcibly opened the vault using a hammer; (c) took the cash; (d) left only small bills; and (e) took the jewelries which appeared expensive. Additionally, she went to Quezon City, which is about an hour away from the house. This showed that she was familiar with the area despite her claim that she has been in Metro Manila for only two months. 19 The RTC took note of the values of the stolen properties presented by the prosecution through the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses and the photographs submitted. 20

The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Josephine Dag-Uman y Villanosa guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Qualified Theft and she is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of RECLUSION PERPETUA and ORDERED to indemnify the private complainants, Romulo and Lucia Ignacio, the amount of [P1,231,495.30] representing the value of the stolen property.

The preventive imprisonment of the accused shall be credited in her favor.

SO ORDERED. 21

Aggrieved, Dag-Uman appealed 22 to the CA and assigned the following errors:

I

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF QUALIFIED THEFT DESPITE THE FACT THAT SHE HAD NO INTENT TO COMMIT IT.

II

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE VALUE OF THE PERSONAL PROPERTIES ALLEGEDLY TAKEN BY THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT IS ONE MILLION TWO HUNDRED THIRTEEN THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED NINETY-FIVE PESOS AND THIRTY CENTAVOS (P1,213,495.30) DESPITE THE FACT THAT NO PROOF OF RECEIPT WAS PRESENTED TO PROVE THE OWNERSHIP AND VALUE OF THE SAME. 23

Dag-Uman argued that there was no intent to gain. She took the properties under the honest belief that her employers were hurt and that these would defray the hospital expenses. 24 She emphasized that she was a victim of a syndicate 25 and that she had no criminal intent to commit the felony. 26 She added that she did not act with discernment when she destroyed the lock of the bedroom and forcibly opened the vault using a hammer. 27 Additionally, Dag-Uman pointed out that the spouses Ignacio's initial statements did not allege that she kept some of the money in her bedroom. 28 Also, she asserted that she did not flee 29 and even cried upon seeing her employers alive and well. 30 Moreover, she averred that the prosecution did not produce any receipts to prove the values of the jewelry 31 and the cash. 32

On the other hand, the People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, contended that the prosecution proved Dag-Uman's guilt beyond reasonable doubt as all the elements of Qualified Theft are present. Dag-Uman even chose the pieces of jewelry that looked valuable and real compared to the ones that looked fake. 33 Despite her claim that she was not familiar with the area, she traveled to another city and did not report to the police that she was duped. Additionally, she very well knew that Lucia was not employed thus entertaining the call of Lucia's purported "co-worker" cannot be believed. 34 By taking the properties, intent to gain was presumed. 35 However, the People conceded that the prosecution failed to establish the value of the properties stolen with documentary evidence. 36

Ruling of the Court of Appeals:

The CA, in its assailed June 7, 2018 Decision, 37 held that based on the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses and Dag-Uman's admission, all the elements of Qualified Theft, committed with grave abuse of confidence, are present in this case. 38 The CA ruled that Dag-Uman's defenses of lack of intent to commit the crime or to gain do not hold water. The CA found that the unlawful taking was completed when Dag-Uman gained possession of the money and jewelry through abuse of confidence and without the owners' consent. 39

The CA further noted that only the amount of P234,000.00 which the prosecution managed to substantiate should be considered in determining the penalty. 40 Under Article 310 of the RPC, as amended by Republic Act (RA) 120, 41 the penalty for Qualified Theft is two degrees higher than that specified in Article 309 of the RPC. Article 309, as amended by Section 81 of RA 10951, 42 states that the penalty for property stolen amounting to more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P600,000.00, is prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods. Given that the provisions of RA 10951 are favorable to the accused, it shall have a retroactive effect as provided in Section 100 of the said law. Hence, the imposable penalty shall be prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and in view of the absence of any modifying circumstances, 43 the CA modified the penalty, as follows:

WHEREFORE, the appealed November 17, 2016 Decision of Branch 100 of the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that accused-appellant Josephine Dag-Uman y Villanosa is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of 4 years, 2 months and 1 day of prision correccional to 9 years, 4 months and 1 day of prision mayor and to pay Spouses Romulo and Lucia Ignacio the amount of Two Hundred Thirty-Four Thousand Pesos (P234,000.00) instead of One Million Two Hundred Thirty-One Thousand Four Hundred Ninety-Five Pesos and Thirty Centavos (P1,231,495.31).

SO ORDERED.44

Discontented, Dag-Uman appealed 45 before this Court.

Issue:

Thus, the issue is whether or not Dag-Uman is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Qualified Theft.

Our Ruling

The appeal has no merit.

The Court notes that Dag-Uman did not question the legality of her arrest before entering her plea. 46 Withal, she is deemed estopped from questioning the legality of her arrest since she actively participated in the trial. 47

Relevantly, under Article 308 of the RPC, Theft is defined as follows:

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.

In relation to this, Article 310 of the RPC provides:

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. (Emphases supplied).

In this case, the prosecution charged Dag-Uman with Qualified Theft. "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." 48

As found by both the RTC and the CA, Dag-Uman took the cash and jewelry of the spouses Ignacio without their consent. Dag-Uman did so with grave abuse of confidence since she was a household helper of the spouses Ignacio. In the same way, Dag-Uman cannot validly claim that there was no intent to gain on her part. Jurisprudence teaches that "[i]ntent 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. 49 Actual gain is irrelevant as the important consideration is the intent to gain." 50 In this case, Dag-Uman confessed that she forcibly opened the vault where the cash and jewelries were contained and took the items away. She subsequently gave it to a man at St. Peter's Church in Quezon City. These acts were committed without the consent of the spouses Ignacio. Notably, Dag-Uman herself admitted 51 what she had done during the trial.

Notwithstanding this, the Court notes that had the Information specifically alleged that Dag-Uman used force to open the bedroom door and the vault to steal the personal properties, the felony would have been qualified to Robbery with use of force upon things. 52 Since there was no allegation to that effect in the Information, she can only be convicted of Qualified Theft, since she took the cash and jewelry with grave abuse of confidence and without the consent of the spouses Ignacio.

In any case, there are other circumstances pointing to Dag-Uman's guilt. We quote with approval the findings of the CA, viz.:

Falling victim to a dugo-dugo gang may have been a convenient and clever defense for appellant but certain circumstances in this case make such a defense suspect, incredible and difficult to believe.

First, appellant was sufficiently acquainted with the modus of the dugo-dugo gang as she had been repeatedly warned by Lucia and even by her sister who visited her, about the ruses and ploys of this notorious criminal group, and as observed by Lucia, appellant, an elementary graduate, was smart and quick to follow instructions. Hence, appellant's assertion that she easily fell prey to the familiar scheme of the phone caller, is barely credible.

Second, appellant knew that Lucia was a plain housewife and unemployed, yet she allegedly believed when the person who called claimed to be Lucia's co-worker. 53

Third, appellant claimed to be fairly new in Metro Manila. Oddly though, she did not hesitate to travel for almost an hour from the house of her employers in Cainta all the way to Quezon City. As aptly observed by the trial court, appellant in doing so showed that she acted consciously and with discernment.

Fourth, while it is appellant's submission that she took the money and jewelry to help Lucia and Ignacio defray hospital expenses, she offered no explanation as to why she kept some of the money in her bedroom. Records show that money bills were found scattered on appellant's bed amounting to Thirty US Dollars ($30.00) and Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00). 54

Moreover, Dag-Uman did not call for help, 55 even after realizing what she just did. She took the jewelry even if the person only instructed her to get cash. 56 She also had time to change her clothes to go to St. Peter's Church. 57 These instances showed that she had the presence of mind at the time.

Hence, "[n]ormal human experience, as well as the consistency in and confluence of the testimonies of prosecution witnesses lead to no other conclusion than that accused-appellant, taking advantage of her being a domestic helper of private complainant[s]. . . committed the crime of qualified theft. If she honestly believed that her employer[s] had met an accident and was genuinely worried for [them], she could have easily sought the help of [the neighbors or the security guards nearby]. [As she was previously] warned about the dugo-dugo gang, accused-appellant could have paused to re-assess the situation. She failed to do all these security measures with no convincing justification." 58

Also, We agree with the CA's finding that the prosecution failed to show evidence to prove all of the spouses Ignacio's claims regarding the amount of cash and value of the jewelries stolen. 59 Thus, the penalty imposed by the CA should be affirmed. 60

Furthermore, in a letter 61 dated December 4, 2020 from the Acting Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women, it was confirmed that Dag-Uman is due for release. 62 Nonetheless, Dag-Uman is still ordered to reimburse the spouses Ignacio the amount of P234,000.00, if she has not yet done so. The amount of P234,000.00 shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from date of finality of this Resolution until full payment. 63

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed June 7, 2018 Decision rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09230 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.

While this Court affirms the guilt of accused-appellant Josephine Dag-Uman y Villanosa for the crime of Qualified Theft, the prosecution, however, failed to prove the total value of the stolen items. 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 penalty imprisonment of four years, two months and one day of prision correccional, as minimum, to nine years, four months and one day of prision mayor, as maximum.

Spouses Romulo Ignacio and Lucia Ignacio are still entitled to reparation in the amount of P234,000.00, if not yet paid. The amount of P234,000.00 shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from date of finality of this Resolution until full payment.

However, given that accused-appellant has been confined for almost ten (10) years already since February 2, 2012, she is now due for release, unless she is being detained for a separate charge.

The Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women, Mandaluyong City, is DIRECTED to inform the Court the action he/she has taken within five days from receipt of this Resolution.

SO ORDERED." (Gaerlan and Dimaampao, JJ., on official leave.)

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 14-16.

2.Id. at 3-13. Penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario (now a Member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. and Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin.

3. CA rollo, pp. 54-64. Penned by Presiding Judge Ma. Consejo Gengos-Ignalaga.

4.Rollo, p. 4.

5.Id. at 5.

6.Id.

7.Id.

8.Id.

9.Id. at 5-6.

10.Id. at 6.

11.Id.

12.Rollo, p. 6; records, pp. 6-10, 103-111; TSN, October 3, 2012, pp. 6-17, 36-37.

13.Rollo, p. 6; TSN, November 24, 2015, pp. 2-10.

14. Records, pp. 1-2.

15.Id. at 1.

16.Id. at 22.

17. CA rollo, pp. 54-64.

18.Id. at 58.

19.Id. at 63.

20.Id. at 64.

21.Id.

22.Id. at 9.

23.Id. at 34.

24.Id. at 39.

25.Id. at 43.

26.Id. at 44.

27.Id. at 45.

28.Id.

29.Id. at 46.

30.Id. at 47.

31.Id. at 48.

32.Id. at 49.

33.Id. at 77-80.

34.Id. at 82-83.

35.Id. at 83.

36.Id. at 84-85.

37.Rollo, pp. 3-13.

38.Id. at 7-8.

39.Id. at 8-9.

40.Id. at 11.

41.Entitled "AN ACT AMENDING ARTICLE THREE HUNDRED AND TEN OF ACT NUMBERED THIRTY-EIGHT HUNDRED AND FIFTEEN, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE REVISED PENAL CODE, AS AMENDED." Approved: June 14, 1947.

42.Entitled "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." Approved on July 24, 2017.

43.Rollo, pp. 11-12.

44.Id. at 12-13.

45.Id. at 14-16.

46.People v. Solomon, G.R. No. 246579 (Notice), February 19, 2020, citing Veridiano v. People, 810 Phil. 642, 654 (2017).

47.Id., citing Padilla v. Court of Appeals, 336 Phil. 383, 400-401 (1997).

48.People v. Santos, G.R. No. 237982, October 14, 2020.

49.Id., citing People v. Jennie Manlao y Laquila, G.R. No. 234023, September 3, 2018.

50.Id., citing People v. Mejares, 823 Phil. 459, 469 (2018).

51.TSN, October 3, 2012, pp. 36-37.

52.See: Viray v. People, 720 Phil. 841, 851-852 (2013).

53.See: TSN, August 10, 2016, p. 12.

54.Rollo, pp. 8-9.

55.TSN, August 10, 2016, pp. 6, 14.

56.Id. at 8.

57.Id. at 9.

58.People v. Mejares yValencia, supra note 50 at 469-470.

59.TSN, October 3, 2012, pp. 24-29, 38. October 8, 2014, p. 16.

60.See People v. Santos, supra note 48.

61.Rollo, p. 35.

62.People v. Mejares, supra note 50.

63.See People v. Santos, supra note 48.