Qualified Theft 1h572b

QUALIFIED THEFT -

when you say inamin niya lahat, how was this done, in writing? before law enforcement officers or a notary? what you should do is to reach out to the owner on how to settle the matter. offer as much as a downpayment you can afford and the rest in installments. qualified theft is a serious crime. the punishment for her acts, if proven, is reclusion perpetua. bail will not be allowed unless the evidence of guilt is strong.

-

-

-

-

or hire a good lawyer! i just handled a similar case but it was a bank. if records were faked,then that IS NOT qualified theft but falsification which has a MUCH LOWER penalty. nd that is classic falsification. that is not qualified theft. QT is non-bailable at that amount. falsification allows bail. I say this to you so that you can have leverage in dealing with the owner, and he will realize that he should settle. good luck. hi atty..seek lang po ako ng legal advise regarding po sa case ko..my subpeona po kasi on sept 11 and 18 and pinapasubmit po ako ng counter affidavit kaya lang po nareciv ko yung subpeona last friday lang september 7..pwede ko po ba yun i request for extension kasi..kanino po ako mgpapagawa nun..my kinausap po akong atty sa pao ang sabi niya sakin diko na kailangan mag submit ng counter affidavit kasi inamin ko po yung ksalanan..need po your advice..thank you so much..god bless

my relative company filed a case against her for qualified theft and falsification of documents in connection of unauthorized withdrawal of saving..the falsification of document is dismissed for lack of merit..but the dicision of prosecutor to charge her a qualified theft.why?

-

-

Last edited by simple on Fri Feb 22, 2013 2:04 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : wrong words)

_____________

How is Theft Qualified? What are its Elements? How does the Penalty Differ? Many commit theft, but a few get prosecuted, or apprehended. Or conversely, maybe many commit theft, because too few get prosecuted, much less sent to jail. In most instances, if the perpetrator is at all identified, victims tire out and withdraw the complaint, or simply lose interest and stop attending the mandatory Preliminary Investigation, thus, causing the dismissal of the case. In yet other instances, while victims are able to identify the perpetrator, the latter, strangely, always seem to outrun the authorities, and before the latter could warm up, the former could be hundreds of miles away in one of the thousands of islands in the Philippines—enjoying his loot on the beach—or he could go real big, if he knows the drill, and fly out of the country, never to return again.

That’s not even to mention that even if the thief is caught, or is daring enough to stand trial on plea of not guilty, he has all in the law and the Constitution in his favor. For one, the quantum of proof in a criminal case, which theft is, is guilt beyond reasonable doubt or moral certainty. What does this mean? This means that a thief need only create a doubt to escape culpability or prison, since no one can be convicted on even the most tenuous of doubts. If he has been in the business long enough and has amassed enough, he could get himself a good lawyer to even more stack the odds in his favor. Also, let us consider that the latter half of the enumeration of bill of rights, all of it, under Article Three of the 1987 Constitution pertains to the rights of the accused. These rights are designed to limit the power of the State, and thus, stretch the chances of the accused to escape even prosecution. You see, a thief is one pampered son of a bitch! However, a warning to the thieves: downplay it at your own risk. Despite these facts, Theft is a very serious felony, which conviction can easily get you 6 years to ten years of jail time. And when committed with any of the circumstances cited under Art. 310 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC)—making it Qualified—you could easily raise the stakes to the possibility of spending a lifetime in prison, depending on your age. Qualified Theft carries a prescribed penalty of two degrees higher than that prescribed and imposed on simple theft under Art. 308, RPC. Given that, it is easy to getreclusion perpetua or maximum imprisonment under the RPC. Let us talk about Qualified Theft—its nature and penalty—as discussed in the Court’s decision in one case. To read the case click here. xxx The facts as charged in the information. That in or about and during the period comprised between April 28, 1998 and May 2, 2002, inclusive, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent of gain and without the knowledge and consent of the owner thereof, take, steal and carry away the total amount of P797,187.85 belonging to VIDEO CITY COMMERCIAL, INC. and VIVA VIDEOCITY, INC. represented by MIGUEL Q. SAMILLANO, in the following manner, to wit: by making herself the payee in forty-two pre-signed BPI Family Bank checks in the of Video City Commercial and Jefferson Tan (the latter as franchise[e]) and encashing said checks in the total amount of P797,187.85, for her personal benefit, to the damage and prejudice of said owner in the aforesaid amount of P797,187.85, Philippine Currency. That the said accused acted with grave abuse of confidence, she being then employed as bookkeeper in the aforesaid firm and as such was privy to the financial records and

checks belonging to complainant and was actually entrusted with the said financial records, documents and checks and their transactions thereof in behalf of complainant.

3

Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty. Trial thereafter ensued. Summarily, the prosecution proved the following facts: Video City Commercial, Inc. (VCCI) and Viva Video City, Inc. (Viva) were sister companies which managed a chain of stores known as Video City. These stores, some company-owned while others were operated in t ventures with franchisees, were engaged in the sale and rental of video-related merchandises. During the period of April 28, 1998 to May 2, 2002, petitioner was the ing clerk and bookkeeper of VCCI and Viva. One of her duties was to disburse checks for the s she handled. She was assigned to handle twelve (12) Video City store franchise s, including those of Tommy Uy, Wilma Cheng, Jefferson Tan and Sharon Cuneta. As regards the franchisee Jefferson Tan, who was out of the country most of the time, Tan pre-signed checks to cover the store’s disbursements and entrusted them to petitioner. The pre-signed checks by Jefferson Tan were from a current maintained tly by VCCI and Jefferson Tan at BPI Family Bank, Sta. Mesa. There was also an existing agreement with the bank that any disbursement not exceedingP20,000.00 would require only Tan’s signature. 4

Convicted by the RTC, and affirmed by CA, Accused filed a petition for review on Certiorari under Rule 45 raising the following issues: 1. WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME OF QUALIFIED THEFT. 1-a. WHETHER THE PHRASE “X X X SHALL TAKE THE PERSONAL PROPERTY OF ANOTHER WITHOUT THE LATTER'S CONSENT X X X” IN ARTICLE 308 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 310 OF THE SAME CODE WOULD REQUIRE AS AN ELEMENT OF “QUALIFIED THEFT” AN ESTABLISHED PROOF OF “OWNERSHIP” OF THE PROPERTY ALLEGEDLY STOLEN? 1-b. WHETHER IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THE DUE EXECUTION AND AUTHENTICITY OF THE ALLEGED SIGNATURES OF THE ACCUSED IN THE CHECKS BE FULLY ESTABLISHED AND IDENTIFIED AND IF NOT SO ESTABLISHED AND IDENTIFIED, THE SAME WOULD BE A FATAL FLAW IN THE EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION WHICH INEVITABLY WOULD LEAD TO ACCUSED’S ACQUITTAL? 1-c. WHETHER THE FAILURE TO ESTABLISH AND AUTHENTICATE OR IDENTIFY THE SIGNATURES OF THE ACCUSED ANNIE MIRANDA AND JEFFERSON TAN CONSTITUTED A FATAL FLAW IN PROVING THAT THE ACCUSED AND JEFFERSON TAN WERE THE AUTHORS OF SAID SIGNATURES? 1-d. [WHETHER THE] CONCLUSION OF FACTS BY THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS ARE NOT ED BY EVIDENCE. 1-e. WHETHER THE CHECKS AND VOUCHERS PRESENTED AS EVIDENCE NOT IN THEIR ORIGINALS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED ISSION BY THE COURT A

QUO, THERE BEING NO SUFFICIENT FACTS ADDUCED TO JUSTIFY THE PRESENTATION OF XEROX COPIES OR SECONDARY EVIDENCE. 8

Essentially, the issue for our resolution is whether the CA correctly affirmed petitioner’s conviction for qualified theft. Petitioner insists that she should not have been convicted of qualified theft as the prosecution failed to prove the private complainant’s absolute ownership of the thing stolen. Further, she maintains that Jefferson Tan’s signatures on the checks were not identified by any witness who is familiar with his signature. She likewise stresses that the checks and vouchers presented by the prosecution were not original copies and that no secondary evidence was presented in lieu of the former. The Court held: The appeal lacks merit. A careful review of the records of this case and the parties’ submissions leads the Court to conclude that there exists no cogent reason to disturb the decision of the CA. We note that the arguments raised by petitioner in her petition are a mere rehash of her arguments raised before, and correctly resolved by, the CA. The elements of the crime of theft as provided for in Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code are as follows: (1) that there be taking of personal property; (2) that said property belongs to another; (3) that the taking be done with intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. Theft becomes qualified when any of the following circumstances under Article 310 is present: (1) the theft is committed by a domestic servant; (2) the theft is committed with grave abuse of confidence; (3) the property stolen is either a motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle; (4) the property stolen consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation; (5) the property stolen is fish taken from a fishpond or fishery; and (6) the property was taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance. Here, the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the amount of P797,187.85 taken does not belong to petitioner but to VCCI and that petitioner took it without VCCI’s consent and with grave abuse of confidence by taking advantage of her position as ant and bookkeeper. The prosecution’s evidence proved that petitioner was entrusted with checks payable to VCCI or Viva by virtue of her position as ant and bookkeeper. She deposited the said checks to the t maintained by VCCI and Jefferson Tan, then withdrew a total of P797,187.85 from said t 9

10

11

12

using the pre-signed checks, with her as the payee. In other words, the bank was merely the instrument through which petitioner stole from her employer VCCI. We find no cogent reason to disturb the above findings of the trial court which were affirmed by the CA and fully ed by the evidence on record. Time and again, the Court has held that the facts found by the trial court, as affirmed in toto by the CA, are as a general rule, conclusive upon this Court in the absence of any showing of grave abuse of discretion. In this case, none of the exceptions to the general rule on conclusiveness of said findings of facts are applicable. The Court gives weight and respect to the trial court’s findings in criminal prosecution because the latter is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses in person and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. Absent any showing that the lower courts overlooked substantial facts and circumstances, which if considered, would change the result of the case, this Court gives deference to the trial court’s appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses. 13

14

15

Does the Complainant need to be the owner of the personal property stolen? Moreover, we agree with the CA when it gave short shrift to petitioner’s argument that full ownership of the thing stolen needed to be established first before she could be convicted of qualified theft. As correctly held by the CA, the subject of the crime of theft is any personal property belonging to another. Hence, as long as the property taken does not belong to the accused who has a valid claim thereover, it is immaterial whether said offender stole it from the owner, a mere possessor, or even a thief of the property. In any event, as stated above, the factual findings of the courts a quo as to the ownership of the amount petitioner stole is conclusive upon this Court, the finding being adequately ed by the evidence on record. However, notwithstanding the correctness of the finding of petitioner’s guilt, a modification is called for as regards the imposable penalty. On the imposition of the correct penalty, People v. Mercado is instructive. Pursuant to said case, in the determination of the penalty for qualified theft, note is taken of the value of the property stolen, which isP797,187.85 in this case. Since the value exceeds P22,000.00, the basic penalty is prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods to be imposed in the maximum period, that is, eight (8) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to ten (10) years of prision mayor. To determine the additional years of imprisonment to be added to the basic penalty, the amount of P22,000.00 is deducted from P797,187.85, which 16

17

yields a remainder ofP775,187.85. This amount is then divided by P10,000.00, disregarding any amount less than P10,000.00. The end result is that 77 years should be added to the basic penalty. However, the total imposable penalty for simple theft should not exceed 20 years. Thus, had petitioner committed simple theft, the penalty would be 20 years of reclusion temporal. As the penalty for qualified theft is two degrees higher, the trial court, as well as the appellate court, should have imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Defenses There are a number of legal defenses that may apply in theft cases, even if the underlying facts the claim that the defendant took property from another party without permission. For instance, the alleged theft could have stemmed from an honest misunderstanding of ownership or done under duress. As with any criminal case, it really depends on the specific facts. Assuming that a taking of property by the individual accused actually did occur, here are a few of the more typical defenses that may apply in theft (or larceny) cases. Claim of Right or Ownership of Property An individual who is accused of stealing property may have a valid defense if they are able to establish that they had a good faith belief the property they took was theirs or that they had a valid claim to it. Although a somewhat straightforward defense, it is not as simple as just claiming "I thought it was mine." Typically a defendant will need to provide evidence ing their claim. Intoxication It may be possible to successfully defend theft charges if a defendant is able to establish that he or she was intoxicated at the time the alleged theft occurred. Regardless of the type of intoxication, alcohol, chemicals or drugs, if an individual was unable to form the required intent to steal (for example, in their intoxicated state, they mistakenly thought an item belonged to them), they may have a viable intoxication defense. For instance, if you are charged with theft after mistakenly taking someone's expensive leather coat (thinking it was yours) because you were too drunk to notice, you may have a valid defense. However, you still would need to provide proof. Return of Property as a Defense People often wonder if returning stolen property can provide a defense to theft or prevent charges from being brought in the first place. Returning stolen property generally does not provide a defense to a charge of theft. Still, doing so can definitely paint a more sympathetic picture to a prosecutor for purposes of a possible plea deal, and also may help with reducing the penalties in a case.

A different and viable defense may exist, however, if a defendant is able to establish they had the intent to return the property at the time it was taken and actually could do so. It is fairly common to defend theft charges by claiming the property was just being "borrowed." Similarly, you may be able to defend against theft charges if you simply forgot to return something you borrowed. Entrapment The defense of entrapment applies when an individual commits a crime, but was induced to do so by someone in order to prosecute the target. In a theft case, the entrapment defense could apply if the idea or intent to steal came from the entrapping person, the entrapment victim is lured into committing the theft, all with the goal of apprehending and prosecuting the targeted individual. Free Case Review by a Criminal Defense Attorney If you're shopping and you accidentally take merchandise to the bathroom or put a store item in your purse, you can easily be charged with theft. Theft defenses range from innocent mistake to intoxication to entrapment, but none are valuable if you don't plead them in the right way at the right time. So if you've been charged with theft or another criminal offense, you should immediately seek out a free case review with an experienced criminal defense attorney.

Republic of the Philippines Supreme Court Manila SECOND DIVISION PEOPLE THEPHILIPPINES, Appellee,

OF

Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, PERALTA, BERSAMIN, ABAD, and MENDOZA, JJ.

- versus -

REYNALDO

BAYON

G.R. No. 168627

y

Promulgated:

RAMOS, Appellant.

July 2, 2010

x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

PERALTA, J.:

This an appeal from the Decision[1] dated May 31, 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 28161. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 104 in Criminal Case No. Q-03-116291, finding appellant Reynaldo Bayon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified theft.

On March 31, 2003, appellant Reynaldo Bayon was charged with theft in an Information[2] that reads:

Criminal Case No. Q-03-116290

That on or about the 29th day of March 2003, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with intent of gain and without the knowledge and consent of the owner thereof, take, steal and carry away the following, to wit:

one (1) Rado Diastar wrist watch worth ---- P12,000.00 one (1) Seiko Divers watch worth -----------P 2,000.00 one (1) bolo of undetermined value Total -----------------P14,000.00

belonging to EDUARDO CUNANAN Y CANDELARIA to the damage and prejudice of the said owner in the aforesaid amount of P14,000.00 Philippine Currency.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

On the same day, appellant was also charged with qualified theft in another lnformation[3] that reads:

Criminal Case No. Q-03-116291 That on or about the 29th day of March 2003, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, being, then a stay-in helper of ARTURO LIMOSO Y LOOT at his residence located at No. 45 Belmonte Street, New Manila, this City, and as such has free access to the different rooms of the said house, with grave abuse of confidence, 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 the following items, to wit:

one (1) white gold Rolex wrist watch worth ------ P300,000.00

one (1) Jordan gold wrist watch worth ------------- 65,000.00 five (5) pcs. gold ring worth ------------------------ 125,000.00 two (2) pcs. gold necklace worth P25,000.00 each 50,000.00 ---------------Total --------- P540,000.00

all in the total amount of P540,000.00 Philippine Currency, belonging to ARTURO LIMOSO Y LOOT, to his damage and prejudice in the amount aforementioned.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

When arraigned on May 6, 2003, appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges.[4] The pre-trial was terminated without stipulations. Thereafter, t trial of the cases ensued.

The prosecution presented three witnesses, namely, private complainants Atty. Arturo Limoso and Eduardo Cunanan, and Police Officer Paul Greg Esparta. It dispensed with the testimonies of Police Officers Marmando Pallasigue and Edmund Rizon, in view of the stipulation of the parties as follows: (1) the police officer recovered a Rolex watch from a person in Bulacan; (2) the complainant was never present in all the stages of the search for the watch; (3) the police officer turned over the watch to the complainant; and (4) the accused was not assisted by counsel during the search for the watch. [5] The parties also stipulated on the existence of the Affidavit[6] of Police Officer Marmando Pallasigue.

The defense presented the appellant as its lone witness.

The evidence of the prosecution established that on February 10, 2002, private complainant Atty. Arturo Limoso, after suffering a stroke, hired appellant as his masseur and stay-in helper in his house located at No. 45 Belmonte Street, San Jose Compound, New Manila, Quezon City.[7]

At about 7:30 a.m. of March 29, 2003, private complainant Eduardo Cunanan, who was a tenant in one of the rooms of Atty. Limoso's house, reported to Atty. Limoso the loss of his two wristwatches: a Seiko Diver's watch worth P2,000.00 and a Rado Diastar watch worth P12,000.00. Atty. Limoso assured Cunanan that he would investigate the matter. Thereafter, Atty. Limoso asked his household helpers, including appellant, regarding the missing wristwatches. When confronted by Atty. Limoso, appellant denied any involvement in the loss of Cunanan's wristwatches.[8]

A few hours later, Atty. Limoso suspected that he could also be a victim of theft. So he went to his locker, and discovered that the key to his vault was missing. He placed the said key on the wall with his other keys. However, he was able to open his vault using his duplicate key. He then found that his Rolex watch worth P300,000.00, Jordan gold watch worth P65,000.00, five gold rings worth P125,000.00 and two pieces of gold necklace worth P50,000.00 that were all kept inside the vault were missing.[9]

Atty. Limoso became suspicious that appellant was the one responsible for the theft after he made an inquiry from the security guards of the compound. He was informed that appellant used to leave his house at 10:00 p.m. and returned at around 4:00 a.m. the following day; that appellant used to borrow money from the household helpers of the neighboring houses; and that most of the time appellant was nowhere to be found. Moreover, as the one massaging him (Atty. Limoso), appellant had access to his room.[10] Atty. Limoso again confronted appellant and told him to just return the stolen things with no questions asked. Appellant replied that he was not the one responsible for the theft. Atty. Limoso then reported the incident to the police.[11]

At about 4:00 p.m. of March 29, 2003, the police arrived at Atty. Limoso's house. Appellant could not be found, and all his clothes were gone. The police stayed in the house until the evening. At about 10:00 p.m., the police were tipped off that appellant was at the guardhouse. They immediately proceeded to the guardhouse, apprehended appellant, and brought him to the police station.[12]

At the police station, appellant was investigated without the assistance of a counsel. Through the investigation, the police was able to trace Atty. Limosos Rolex watch to a sidewalk jeweler, who, upon being investigated, told the police that the watch was already sold to another person. Atty. Limoso recovered the stolen Rolex watch after payingP20,000.00 to the buyer who lived in Bulacan. Atty. Limoso, however, did not recover his Jordan gold watch, rings and necklaces.[13]

Appellant interposed the defense of denial. He testified that, at about 7:00 p.m. of March 29, 2003, he was at the house of his employer, private complainant Atty. Arturo Limoso, at No. 45 Belmonte Street, San Jose Compound, New Manila, Quezon City. At about 8:00 p.m., while he was at the guardhouse of the compound and talking to the security guards assigned there, he was suddenly arrested by the police and was brought to the police station. He did not know the reason for his arrest. Although he was informed of his rights, he did not know what they meant.[14]

On February 17, 2004, the trial court rendered a Decision [15] finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified theft in Criminal Case No. Q-03-116291, but he was acquitted of the same crime in Criminal Case No. Q-03-116290 on the ground of reasonable doubt. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused, REYNALDO BAYON Y RAMOS, guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. Q03-116291 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 him to an indeterminate penalty of ten years and one day of prision mayor, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, as well as orders him to return the Jordan gold watch worth P65,000.00, the five gold rings worth P125,000.00 and two pieces of gold necklace worth P25,000.00 [each] to Atty. Arturo Limoso or pay the value thereof.

In Criminal Case No. Q03-116290, judgment is hereby rendered acquitting Reynaldo Bayon y Ramos of the offense charged on ground of reasonable doubt.

SO ORDERED.[16]

The trial court stated that the prosecution did not offer any direct evidence that appellant stole the missing items belonging to complainants Eduardo Cunanan and Atty. Limoso. It held that appellants statement of ission during the custodial investigation was inissable against him, because he was not assisted by counsel; hence, there is doubt as to appellants guilt in Criminal Case No. Q-03116290 for theft of the watches and bolo owned by private complainant Eduardo Cunanan.

However, in Criminal Case No. Q-03-116291 for theft of the valuables of Atty. Limoso, the trial court found that appellants culpability was proven by the prosecution through the following pieces of circumstantial evidence: (1) as a stayin helper of Atty. Limoso, appellant had access to Atty. Limoso's room, where his vault containing the missing pieces of jewelry were kept, and where the key to the vault was placed; and (2) upon discovery of the loss of the missing items, the police could no longer find appellants clothes in Atty. Limosos house.

Appellant appealed the trial courts decision to the Court of Appeals, contending that the trial court erred in convicting him in Criminal Case No. Q-03116291. He asserted that the circumstantial evidence presented against him by the prosecution was insufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and that

there was nothing whatsoever that would link him to the commission of the crime of theft.[17] In its Decision[18] dated May 31, 2005, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court with modification in the penalty imposed. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:

UPON THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THIS CASE, THUS, the Decision appealed from is AFFIRMED, subject to the MODIFICATION that the accusedappellant is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with all the accessories of the penalty imposed under Article 40 of the Revised Penal Code.[19]

Hence, this appeal by appellant.

The main issue is whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in finding appellant Reynaldo Bayon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified theft in Criminal Case No. Q-03-116291.

The petition is granted.

Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code defines the crime of theft as follows:

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.

The elements of the crime of theft are: (1) that there be taking of personal property; (2) that said property belongs to another; (3) that the taking be done with intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things.[20]

Under Article 310[21] of the Revised Penal Code, theft becomes qualified if committed by a domestic servant, or with grave abuse of confidence, or if the property stolen is a 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.

In this case, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts conviction of appellant based on circumstantial evidence. For circumstantial evidence to be sufficient for conviction, the following conditions must be satisfied: (a) (b) (c)

There is more than one circumstance; The facts from which the circumstances are derived are proven; and The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[22]

Circumstantial evidence suffices to convict an accused only if the circumstances proved constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion that points to the accused, to the exclusion of all others as the guilty person; the circumstances proved must be consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with any other hypothesis except that of guilty.[23]

In this case, appellant was convicted of the crime of qualified theft based on these pieces of circumstantial evidence:

(1) As a stay-in helper of Atty. Arturo Limoso, the [accused-appellant] had access to the latter's room where his vault containing the missing items was kept and where the key to the vault was placed;

(2) Upon discovery by Atty. Limoso of the loss of the missing items, the police could no longer find in Atty. Limoso's house the clothes of the [accusedappellant.][24]

The Court finds that the pieces of circumstantial evidence relied upon by the appellate court are insufficient to convict appellant of the crime of qualified theft. In the first circumstance, the Court notes that appellant was not the only stayin helper of Atty. Limoso, as the latter testified that he had two housemaids. [25] Although Atty. Limoso testified that only appellant, as his masseur, had access to his room, this is doubtful, considering the Filipino lifestyle, in which a household helper is normally tasked to clean the room of his/her employer. Further, in the second circumstance, the disappearance of appellants clothes from Atty. Limosos house after the discovery of the loss of the aforementioned valuables cannot be construed as flight by appellant, since appellant was talking with the guards in the compound where Atty. Limosos residence was located when he was arrested by the police. The two pieces of circumstantial evidence cited by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court do not form an unbroken chain that point to appellant as the author of the crime; hence, their conclusion becomes merely conjectural. Notably, the prosecution failed to establish the element of unlawful taking by appellant. Since appellants statement during the custodial investigation was inissible in evidence as he was not assisted by counsel, [26] the prosecution could have presented the person to whom appellant allegedly sold the pieces of jewelry as witness, but it did not do so. It could have been the missing link that would have strengthened the evidence of the prosecution.

The general rule is that factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are not to be disturbed by this Court. However, the Court may disregard such findings of the trial and appellate courts (1) when they are grounded on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; and (3) when the findings of fact are conclusions without mention of the specific evidence on which they are based or are premised on the absence of evidence.[27]

The Court finds the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the trial and appellate courts in convicting appellant to be insufficient in proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt absent any substantial evidence of unlawful taking by appellant.

The burden of proving the guilt of the accused rests on the prosecution; the accused need not even offer evidence in his behalf.[28] The constitutional mandate of innocence prevails, unless the prosecution succeeds in proving by satisfactory evidence the guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the accused. [29] It failed to do so in this case.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated May 31, 2005 in CA-G.R. CR No. 28161, convicting appellant Reynaldo Bayon y Ramos of the crime of qualified theft, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant Reynaldo Bayon is ACQUITTED of the crime charged on reasonable doubt. The City Warden of the Quezon City Jail, EDSA, Kamuning, is DIRECTED to cause the release of Reynaldo Bayon from confinement without DELAY, unless he is being lawfully held for another cause, and to INFORM the Court of his release or the reasons for his continued confinement within ten (10) days from notice of this Decision.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.

DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice WE CONCUR: ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice Chairperson

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice Associate Justice JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA Associate Justice ATTESTATION I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice Second Division, Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairpersons Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.

RENATO C. CORONA Chief Justice



Designated as an additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, per Raffle dated June 1, 2009. [1]

Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao, with Associate Justices Edgardo F. Sundiam and Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente, concurring; rollo, pp. 2-14. [2]

Records, pp. 2-3.

[3]

Id. at 4-5.

[4]

Id. at 29.

[5]

Id. at 64.

[6]

Exhibit D, id. at 13.

[7]

TSN, June 16, 2003, pp. 4-5.

[8]

Id. at 6-7; TSN, August 26, 2003, pp. 3-4.

[9]

TSN, June 16, 2003, pp. 7-8, 12-13; TSN, July 28, 2003, p. 4.

[10]

TSN, June 16, 2003, p. 10.

[11]

Id. at 9, 11.

[12]

Id. at 11-12.

[13]

TSN, June 16, 2003, pp. 12-13; TSN, September 3, 2003, pp. 9-10; TSN, September 8, 2003, pp. 5-6.

[14]

TSN, January 6, 2004, pp. 2-4.

[15]

CA rollo, pp. 30-39.

[16]

Id. at 38-39.

[17]

CA Decision, rollo, p. 10.

[18]

Rollo, pp. 2-14.

[19]

Id. at 14.

[20]

Astudillo v. People, G.R. Nos. 159734 & 159745, November 30, 2006, 509 SCRA 302, 324.

[21]

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 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. [22]

People v. Castro, G.R. No. 170415, September 19, 2008, 566 SCRA 92, 100.

[23]

Id.

[24]

CA Decision, rollo, p. 11.

[25]

TSN, July 28, 2003, p. 4.

[26]

The Philippine Constitution, Art III. Sec. 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived, except in writing and in the presence of counsel. xxxx (2) Any confession or ission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inissible in evidence against him. (Emphasis supplied.) [27]

Arce v. People, 429 Phil. 328, 334 (2002).

[28]

Id. at 335.

[29]

Id. at 336.