People v. Lovete y Umac

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 233473. May 5, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. CRISTINA LOVETE y UMAC, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated May 5, 2021 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 233473 (People of the Philippines v. Cristina Lovete y Umac). — Cristina Lovete y Umac (accused-appellant) challenges in this appeal 1 the Decision 2 dated March 28, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08137, which affirmed the judgment 3 of conviction for the crime of Qualified Theft rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos City, Bulacan, Branch 14 in Crim. Case No. 276-M-2013.

Facts of the Case

This case stemmed from an Information 4 against accused-appellant and Alfie Buston y Estopia (Buston) charging them of the crime of Qualified Theft, the accusatory portion thereof reads:

That on or about the 11th day of January 2013 in the municipality of Guiguinto, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being then a household helper of complainant April Acosta y Vergel in conspiracy with Alfie Bustos y Estopia, having access to the properties thereof, with grave abuse of confidence and breach of trust, with intent of gain and without the knowledge and consent of the owner thereof, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal, and carry away with them jewelries, cash and cellular phone in the total amount of P300,000.00 to the damage and prejudice of the said owner in the said sum of P300,000.00.

Contrary to law. 5

Accused-appellant was arrested while Buston remained to be at large. Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. 6

Version of the Prosecution

The prosecution presented two witnesses: (1) April V. Acosta (Acosta), the employer of accused-appellant; and (2) Eduardo G. Vergel (Vergel), Acosta's father who was living with them. 7 CAIHTE

Acosta was the first to testify. According to her, accused-appellant has been their house helper for almost two years at the time of the incident and that accused-appellant was in charge of taking care of her kids and cleaning and managing the house. On January 11, 2013, she was sleeping when she heard her father shouting and waking her up. She learned from her father that accused-appellant came out of her bedroom carrying a bag and suddenly left the house. 8 She immediately checked her belongings and discovered that the following items were missing:

• Japan Gold Necklace for Men — P100,000.00

• Lady's Ring with Diamond — P8,000.00

• Pulcera with 1 charm heart — P6,000.00

• Adjustable Ring for boy — P6,000.00

• ID bracelet for men — P10,000.00

• One pair of earrings — P4,000.00

• Ring for men — P40,000.00

• Indian necklace from India — P55,000.00

• 18k Lady's bracelet — P20,000.00

• 14k Chain necklace for lady — P22,000.00

• Anklet for lady with heart charm — P5,000.00

• Bracelet for baby — P12,000.00

• Bracelet for baby — P12,000.00

• Pendant with heart diamond green — P5,000.00

• P9,000.00 cash

• Samsung cellphone — P5,000.00

• Cherry mobile cellphone — P2,000.00

• Myphone cellphone — P1,500.00 9

Acosta and Vergel immediately went to the Guiguinto Police Station to report the incident. They informed the police that accused-appellant and Buston live in Valenzuela City. Thus, the Guiguinto police coordinated with the Valenzuela police and they were able to track the whereabouts of accused-appellant. On January 12, 2013, they went to the house of Buston's cousin where they found accused-appellant. Acosta asked accused-appellant about her stolen articles, searched accused-appellant's bag and found some of her stolen jewelries, three cellular phones and P9,000.00 cash inside the bag. Accused-appellant was brought to the police station for investigation. 10

While accused-appellant was incarcerated, Acosta learned that accused-appellant pawned some of her jewelries. She then asked accused-appellant to write a letter authorizing her to redeem the pawned jewelries from M. Lhuillier and Cebuana Lhuillier pawnshops. Acosta was able to redeem P100,000.00 worth of jewelries while the other stolen jewelries valued at P300,000.00 could no longer be traced. Acosta testified that the value of the unaccounted for jewelries were based on their purchase price but she no longer had the copies of their receipts. 11

The next witness presented by the prosecution was Vergel. According to him, he woke up around 1:00 a.m. on January 11, 2013 to go to the bathroom to urinate, as he was in the habit of peeing in the wee hours of the morning. Thereafter, he saw accused-appellant come out of the bedroom of his daughter carrying a bag. He called accused-appellant but she ignored him and immediately went down the stairs. He tried to follow her but he was unable to do so because he was using a cane and had difficulty walking. He then saw accused-appellant come out of the house and ride a tricycle driven by accused-appellant's boyfriend, Buston. He testified that he knew Buston because the latter would often visit accused-appellant in their house and was even allowed to sleep over sometimes. 12

Thereafter, Vergel immediately went back upstairs, woke up his daughter and told her what he had witnessed. Upon knowing that accused-appellant entered her bedroom, Acosta immediately checked her belongings and found that her safety box containing assorted jewelries, cellular phones and money was missing. Then, they reported the incident to the police. 13

Version of the Defense

The defense presented accused-appellant as its lone witness. Accused-appellant denied the charge against her alleging that she had already resigned since January 4, 2013 as she was about to give birth. Before she left, Acosta's husband checked her belongings. Further, she testified that she has good relationship with Acosta's family since Acosta still calls her from time to time to ask about the medication schedule of her children. 14

According to accused-appellant, on January 11, 2013, she received a text message from her friend asking to meet her at Malanday, Valenzuela. When she arrived at the meeting place, she was surprised to see her friend with Acosta. She was told that Acosta will inquire something from Buston, so they went to his apartment. She was alarmed seeing policemen at Buston's house. Acosta then told her that she had stolen Acosta's jewelries and that Buston was her accomplice. She was brought to the police station. Thereafter, she was asked to sign blank papers in exchange for the withdrawal of the complaint against her and Buston. 15

She testified that she was never left alone in the bedroom of Acosta. Every time that she would clean their bedroom, Acosta or her father was present. Further, there were other workers at the house which, at that time, was undergoing repairs and renovations. She cannot think of any reason why Acosta or Vergel would accuse her of stealing despite their amicable relationship. Further, she admitted that when she was arrested, she was carrying a bag containing P9,000.00 cash and three cellular phones belonging to her, her sister and Buston. However, there were no jewelries found inside the bag. 16

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

On January 28, 2016, the RTC issued a Decision 17 finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified theft, the dispositive portion provides:

WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, the Court hereby finds accused Cristina Lovete GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of QUALIFIED THEFT defined and penalized in Article 310, in relation to Article 309, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code and sentences said accused to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the offended party the sum of P300,000.00 representing the total amount taken by the accused.

The accused shall be credited with the entire period which she has undergone preventive imprisonment in accordance with Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code.

As regards accused Alfie Buston y Estopia who still remains at large to date, let an alias warrant of arrest be issued against him. In the meantime, the instant case against accused Alfie Buston y Estopia is hereby archived without prejudice to its revival as soon as said accused is apprehended.

SO ORDERED. 18 (Emphasis and italics in the original.)

The RTC found that all the elements of the crime are present and the prosecution was able to prove accused-appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence, as follows: (1) Vergel saw accused-appellant come out of the room of his daughter carrying a bag; (2) he ran after her but failed to catch her and saw her ride a tricycle driven by accused-appellant's boyfriend, Buston; (3) Acosta and Vergel found that her safety deposit box containing jewelries, cash and cellular phones was missing; (4) when they found accused-appellant, she was in possession of some gold jewelries, three cellular phones and P9,000.00, all belonging to Acosta; (5) accused-appellant signed an authorization letter in favour of Acosta authorizing the latter to redeem the jewelries she pawned to several pawnshops; (6) accused-appellant was the only house helper of Acosta who had access to her bedroom; and (7) accused-appellant's boyfriend, Buston, was sometimes allowed to sleep in the house whenever he would visit her. All these circumstances, when taken together, establish that accused-appellant and Buston were the perpetrators of the crime. 19 DETACa

Further, the RTC ruled that accused-appellant failed to dispute the presumption that a person found in possession of a thing taken in a wrongful act done recently is deemed to be the taker and doer of the whole act, unless he proves that he is the owner thereof. 20

In imposing the penalty, the RTC used as basis the value of the stolen properties amounting to P300,000.00 as alleged in the Information. Applying the provision of Art. 309 of the RPC, the trial court determined the penalty for simple theft at reclusion temporal in its maximum period. As a household helper, accused-appellant was convicted of qualified theft since she abused the trust and confidence reposed upon her by her employer. Punishable by two degrees higher than the penalty for simple theft, accused-appellant was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. 21

Accused-appellant filed her appeal with the Court of Appeals (CA).

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On appeal, the CA affirmed with modification the RTC Decision, viz.:

WHEREFORE, the present appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated January 28, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 14 in Criminal Case No. 276-M-2013 is hereby AFFIRMED with SOLE MODIFICATION that the amount of actual damages to be paid to complainant (Php300,000.00) shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of judgment until full satisfaction.

SO ORDERED. 22 (Emphasis in the original.)

CA agreed with the trial court that based on the circumstances established by the prosecution, the guilt of the accused-appellant was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstantial evidence point to the accused-appellant as the culprit of the crime. 23

Likewise, CA affirmed the penalty of reclusion perpetua having established that accused-appellant committed qualified theft. It found that accused-appellant, as the domestic servant of Acosta, abused the trust reposed upon her by her employer. CA modified the judgment by adding that the award of damages shall be subject to a legal interest of 6% per annum until full payment. 24

Accused-appellant appealed her conviction.

In its Manifestation and Compliance 25 dated February 12, 2018, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) opted not to file a Supplemental Brief and adopted the People's Appellee's Brief 26 filed with the CA. On the other hand, the Public Attorney's Office (PAO), on behalf of the accused-appellant, filed a Supplemental Brief 27 on February 21, 2018.

In her Supplemental Brief, 28 accused-appellant raised two issues. First, the CA erred in ruling that the prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the total amount of the stolen articles is P300,000.00. 29Second, she argued that the provisions of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 10951, passed during the pendency of her appeal, must be applied in her favor. 30 HEITAD

Issue

Whether or not the accused-appellant has been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified theft defined and penalized under Art. 310 in relation with Art. 308 of the RPC.

Ruling of the Court

After a judicious review of the records, the Court finds no sufficient basis to reverse the judgment of conviction of the accused-appellant for Qualified Theft.

To be found guilty of simple theft under Art. 308 of the RPC, the following elements must be present: (1) there is taking of personal property; (2) the property belongs to another; (3) the taking was done with intent to gain; (4) the taking was done without the consent of the owner; and (5) the taking was accomplished without violence or intimidation against persons or force upon things. Under Art. 310, the theft is qualified if ANY of the following circumstances is attendant: (a) the theft was committed by a domestic servant; (b) theft is committed with grave abuse of confidence; (c) the property stolen is a 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 (d) the property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance.

In this case, the prosecution duly established all the elements of simple theft. Further, it was admitted by accused-appellant that she is the house helper of Acosta, thereby upgrading the crime to Qualified Theft.

The taking of personal properties consisting of jewelries, cellular phones and cash owned by Acosta was with intent to gain. The element of intent to gain or animus lucrandi is presumed from the unlawful taking by the offender of the thing subject of asportation. 31 In this case, the prosecution established that accused-appellant entered the room of Acosta and went out of the house carrying a bag. It was immediately discovered that several belongings of Acosta were missing. Thereafter, accused-appellant was found in possession of some of the missing articles belonging to Acosta.

To reiterate, circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict the accused if the following elements concur: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Both the RTC and the CA found that the circumstantial evidence presented in court support the finding that the accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified theft. This Court finds no sufficient justification to reverse such finding.

However, this Court finds that the penalty imposed must be modified under the provisions of R.A. 10951 on the basis of the value of the stolen articles as proven by the prosecution. The Information alleged that the amount of the stolen goods was P300,000.00. 32 However, this Court holds that this entire amount was not proven. Based on the records, the prosecution established the redemption value of the stolen jewelries pawned by the accused-appellant and redeemed by Acosta as evidenced by the Official Receipts issued by the pawnshops, to wit:

Cebuana Lhuillier Pawnshop	-	P18,253.20 33
M. Lhuillier Pawnshop	-	P48,127.50 34
Total:		P66,380.70

 

Adding the redemption price to the P9,000.00 cash recovered, 35 the total proven value of the stolen articles amounts to P75,380.70. The values of the other jewelries and the three cellular phones have not been proven and established and this Court cannot take judicial notice of their values. Hence, the total amount of the stolen articles does not exceed P600,000.00.

Under Art. 309, paragraph 3 of the RPC, as amended by R.A. 10951, the penalty for simple theft shall be:

The penalty of prisión correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the property stolen is more than Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) but does not exceed Six Hundred Thousand Pesos (P600,000.00).

Since the crime is qualified theft, the penalty to be imposed upon accused-appellant must be two degrees higher than the penalty for the crime of simple theft. Hence, the proper penalty to be imposed is prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods.

Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the accused-appellant must only be sentenced to a minimum indeterminate penalty of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prison correccional to a maximum of nine (9) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision mayor.

Likewise, the award of actual damages is modified. With the total proven value of the stolen articles amounting to P75,380.70, less the returned P9,000.00 cash, private complainant Acosta is entitled to actual damages in the amount of P66,380.70. The damages awarded shall earn legal interest of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this judgment until full satisfaction.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated March 28, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08137 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. 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 Cristina Lovete y Umac is sentenced to suffer the penalty of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum to nine (9) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum. Private complainant April V. Acosta is entitled to actual damages in the amount of P66,380.70, which was the amount of the stolen articles supported by evidence.

The award of damages shall likewise be subject to an interest of six percent (6%) per annum reckoned from the finality of this Resolution until full payment.

SO ORDERED." ATICcS

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, p. 11.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes (Former Member of this Court), with the concurrence of Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela; id. at 2-10.

3. Penned by Judge Teodora R. Gonzales; CA rollo, pp. 38-45.

4. Records, p. 2.

5.Id.

6. CA rollo, p. 38.

7.Id. at 38-39.

8. TSN dated February 13, 2014, pp. 6-8.

9. Records, p. 98.

10.Id. at 10-15; rollo, p. 4.

11. CA rollo, p. 39.

12.Id. at 39-40.

13.Id. at 40.

14.Id. at 40-A.

15.Id. at 40-41.

16.Id.

17.Supra note 3.

18. CA rollo, p. 45.

19.Id. at 41-42.

20.Id. at 44.

21.Id. at 44-45.

22.Rollo, p. 10.

23.Id. at 7-8.

24.Id. at 9-10.

25.Id. at 19.

26. CA rollo, pp. 55-60.

27.Rollo, pp. 26-29.

28.Id.

29.Id. at 27-28.

30.Id. at 28-29.

31.People v. Mejares, 823 Phil. 459, 469 (2018).

32. Records, p. 2.

33.Id. at 99.

34.Id. at 100.

35.Id. at 103.