1. LILY SY, Petitioner, vs. HON.

SECRETARY OF
JUSTICE MA. MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ, BENITO
FERNANDEZ GO, BERTHOLD LIM, JENNIFER SY,
GLENN BEN TIAK SY and MERRY SY, Respondents.

G.R. No. 171579 November 14, 2012

Facts:

 In a Complaint-Affidavit filed by, petitioner Petitioner,

Lily Sy, she claimed that in the morning of December
16, 1999, respondents Benito Fernandez Go and Glenn
Ben Tiak Sy, together with "Elmo," a security guard,
went to petitioner's residence at the 10th Floor, Fortune
Wealth, 612 Elcano St., Binondo, Manila and forcibly
opened the door, destroyed and dismantled the door
lock then replaced it with a new one, without
petitioner's consent.
 She, likewise, declared that as a diversionary ruse,
respondent Jennifer was at the lobby of the same
building who informed petitioner’s helper Geralyn
Juanites that the elevator was not working. Glenn and
Benito’s act of replacing the door lock appeared to be
authorized by a resolution of Fortune Wealth Mansion
Corporation’s Board of Directors, namely, respondents
Glenn, Jennifer, William Sy (William), Merlyn Sy
(Merlyn), and Merry Sy (Merry).
 In the evening of the same date, petitioner supposedly
saw Benito, Glenn, Jennifer, Merry and respondent
Berthold Lim (Berthold) took from her residence
 numerous boxes containing her personal belongings
without her consent and, with intent to gain, load them
inside a family-owned van/truck named "Wheels in
Motion." The same incident supposedly happened in
January 2000 and the "stolen" boxes allegedly reached
34, the contents of which were valued at
P10,244,196.00.
 Respondents Benito and Berthold denied the
accusations against them. They explained that
petitioner made the baseless charges simply because she
hated their wives Merry and Jennifer due to
irreconcilable personal differences on how to go about
the estates of their deceased parents then pending
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila,
Branch 51. They also manifested their doubts on
petitioner’s capability to acquire the personal
belongings allegedly stolen by them.
 Respondents questioned petitioner’s failure to report
the alleged incident to the police, considering that they
supposedly witnessed the unlawful taking. They thus
contended that petitioner’s accusations are based on
illusions and wild imaginations, aggravated by her ill
motive, greed for money and indiscriminate
prosecution.

Prosecutor’s Resolution:

 Assistant City Prosecutor Jovencio T. Tating (ACP

Tating) recommended that respondents Benito,
Berthold, Jennifer, Glenn and Merry be charged with
 Robbery In An Uninhabited Place; and that the charges
against William Go(the alleged new owner of the
building), and "Elmo Hubio" be dismissed for
insufficiency of evidence.
 ACP Tating found that the subject condominium unit is
in fact petitioner’s residence and that respondents
indeed took the former’s personal belongings with
intent to gain and without petitioner’s consent. He
further held that respondents’ defenses are not only
contradictory but evidentiary in nature.

RTC Manila, Branch 19:

 On motion of Jennifer, Glenn and Merry, the RTC

ordered a reinvestigation on the ground of newly-
discovered evidence consisting of an affidavit of the
witness. Prosecution sustained its earlier conclusion
and recommended the denial of respondents’ motion
for reconsideration.

Secretary of Justice:

 Then Secretary Simeon A. Datumanong (the Secretary)

reversed and set aside the ACP’s conclusions and the
latter was directed to move for the withdrawal of the
Information against respondents.
 The Secretary stressed that the claimed residence of
petitioner is not an uninhabited place under the penal
laws, considering her allegation that it is her residence.
  Neither can it be considered uninhabited under Article
300 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), since it is located
in a populous place.
 The Secretary opined that the elements of robbery were
not present, since there was no violence against or
intimidation of persons, or force upon things, as the
replacement of the door lock was authorized by a board
resolution.
 It is likewise his conclusion that the element of taking
was not adequately established as petitioner and her
helper were not able to see the taking of anything of
value. If at all there was taking, the Secretary
concluded that it was made under a claim of ownership.
 Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

Court of Appeals:

 Petitioner went up to the Court of Appeals (CA) in a

special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court.
 CA rendered a Decision granting the petition and,
consequently, setting aside the assailed Secretary’s
Resolutions and reinstating the OCP’s Resolution with
the directive that the Information be amended to
reflect the facts as alleged in the complaint that the
robbery was committed in an inhabited place and that
it was committed through force upon things.
 On motion of respondents, the CA rendered an
Amended Decision, setting aside its earlier decision and
reinstating the DOJ Secretaries’ Resolutions.
  It concluded that as part-owner of the entire building
and of the articles allegedly stolen from the subject
residential unit, the very same properties involved in
the pending estate proceedings, respondents cannot, as
co-owners, steal what they claim to own and thus
cannot be charged with robbery.

Issue:

WON the respondents, being a co-owner with the

petitioner of the subject property, can be charged of
robbery.

Ruling:

NO, respondents cannot be charged of robbery.

What is involved here is a dispute between and among

members of a family corporation, the Fortune Wealth
Mansion Corporation. Petitioner Lily Sy and respondents
Merry, Jennifer, and Glenn, all surnamed Sy, are the
owners-incorporators of said corporation, which owns and
manages the Fortune Wealth Mansion where petitioner
allegedly resided and where the crime of robbery was
allegedly committed.

As part-owners of the entire building and of the articles

allegedly stolen from the 10th floor of said building, the
very same properties that are involved between the same
parties in a pending estate proceeding, the respondents
cannot, as co-owners, be therefore charged with robbery.
The fact of co-ownership negates any intention to gain, as
they cannot steal properties which they claim to own.

x x x Animus lucrandi or intent to gain is an

internal act which can be established through the
overt acts of the offender. The unlawful taking of
another’s property gives rise to the presumption
that the act was committed with intent to gain.
This presumption holds unless special
circumstances reveal a different intent on the part
of the perpetrator x x x.

Taking as an element of robbery means depriving the

offended party of ownership of the thing taken with the
character of permanency. The taking should not be under a
claim of ownership. Thus, one who takes the property
openly and avowedly under claim of title offered in good
faith is not guilty of robbery even though the claim of
ownership is untenable. The intent to gain cannot be
established by direct evidence being an internal act. It must,
therefore, be deduced from the circumstances surrounding
the commission of the offense.

In this case, it was shown that respondents believed in

good faith that they and the corporation own not only the
subject unit but also the properties found inside. If at all,
they took them openly and avowedly under that claim of
ownership. This is bolstered by the fact that at the time of
the alleged incident, petitioner had been staying in another
unit because the electric service in the 10th floor was
disconnected.

Hence, even if it was assumed that private respondents

took the said personal properties from the 10th floor of the
Fortune Wealth Mansion, they cannot be charged with
robbery because again, the taking was made under a claim
of ownership.

Respondents should not be held liable for the alleged

unlawful act absent a felonious intent. "Actus non facit
reum, nisi mens sit rea. A crime is not committed if the
mind of the person performing the act complained of
is innocent.
2. G.R. No. 200922 July 18, 2012

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,

vs. CESAR CONCEPCION y BULANIO, Appellant,

The Case:

Criminal case filed against accused, CESAR

CONCEPCION y BULANIO, conspiring together,
confederating with his co-accused ROSENDO OGARDO,
JR. Y VILLEGAS, for the crime of robbery with homicide
under Art. 294 of the RPC.

Prosecution’s version of facts:

 Private complainant, JENNIFER ACAMPADO Y

QUIMPO, was walking down a street which seemed to
be deserted at that time, when a male person riding at
the back of the driver of a motorcycle whom she later
identified in open court as accused Cesar Concepcion,
snatched her brown bag. The black motorcycle came
from behind her. As the motorcycle sped away, the
accused even raised and waved the bag that he snatched
from Jennifer who was unable to do anything but just
cry and look at the snatcher so much so that she
recognized him in the process.
 Meanwhile, while prosecution witness Joemar de Felipe
was driving his R & E Taxi, in the same vicinity, he
witnessed the subject snatching incident. As the
accused was waving the bag at Jennifer, he blew his
horn. Ogardo drove faster so that de Felipe gave a chase
and kept on blowing his horn. Eventually, Ogardo lost
 control of the motorcycle and it crashed in front of his
taxi, sending its two occupants to the pavement. De
Felipe immediately alighted from the taxi with the
intention to arrest the snatchers. At that juncture, some
policemen from the Kamuning Police Station 10, EDSA,
Kamuning, Quezon City, arrived. Seeing that the
snatchers were badly injured, the policemen brought
them to the East Avenue Medical Center, Quezon City
where Ogardo later expired.

Defense’s Version of Facts:

 Accused denies participation in the snatching incident

and contends that he and his companion, Rosendo
Ogardo, were riding in a motorcycle when suddenly
there was this chasing by another motorcycle. A taxi
bumped their motorcycles and Rosendo was thrown to
the gutter. Rosendo was severely injured. The police
brought them to the East Avenue Medical Center
where Rosendo died. Thereafter, he was brought to the
police station where a woman pointed to him as
snatcher. A case for robbery with homicide was filed
against him on the same day.

RTC Quezon City, Branch 81:

 RTC found Concepcion guilty beyond reasonable doubt

of the crime of robbery with homicide and sentenced
him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with all
accessory penalties provided by law, and to reimburse
private complainant Jennifer Q. Acampado (Acampado)
 the amount of ₱ 3,000 representing the cash, jewelry
and other personal items taken from her.
 RTC declared that all elements of the crime of robbery
were duly proven. The prosecution sufficiently
established the identity of Concepcion as the person
who snatched Acampado’s bag because Concepcion was
positively identified by the victim Acampado and
Joemar de Felipe (de Felipe), who both had no ill-
motive to falsely testify against Concepcion.

Court of Appeals:

 The Fourth Division of the Court of Appeals (CA)

affirmed in toto the RTC Decision.

Issue:

WON the snatching of the shoulder bag in this case is

robbery or theft.

Ruling:

Robbery vs. Theft

Article 293 of the RPC defines robbery as a crime

committed by "any person who, with intent to gain, shall
take any personal property belonging to another, by means
of violence against or intimidation of any person, or using
force upon anything." Robbery with homicide occurs when,
by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of
homicide shall have been committed.

Theft, on the other hand, is committed by any person

who, with intent to gain but without violence against or
intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take the
personal property of another without the latter’s consent.

In People v. Omambong, the Court distinguished

robbery from theft. The Court held:

Had the appellant then run away, he would

undoubtedly have been guilty of theft only,
because the asportation was not effected against the
owner’s will, but only without his consent;
although, of course, there was some sort of force
used by the appellant in taking the money away
from the owner.

xxxx

What the record does show is that when the

offended party made an attempt to regain his
money, the appellant’s companions used violence
to prevent his succeeding.

xxxx

The crime committed is therefore robbery and

not theft, because personal violence was brought to
bear upon the offended party before he was
definitely deprived of his money.

In this case, the prosecution failed to establish that

Concepcion used violence, intimidation or force in
snatching Acampado’s shoulder bag. Acampado herself
merely testified that Concepcion snatched her shoulder bag
which was hanging on her left shoulder. Acampado did not
say that Concepcion used violence, intimidation or force in
snatching her shoulder bag. Given the facts, Concepcion’s
snatching of Acampado’s shoulder bag constitutes the crime
of theft, not robbery. Concepcion’s crime of theft was
aggravated by his use of a motorcycle in committing the
crime. Under Article 14(20) of the RPC, the use of a motor
vehicle as a means of committing a crime is a generic
aggravating circumstance.

Based on the RTC Decision’s statement of facts which

was affirmed by the CA, Concepcion’s co-conspirator,
Rosendo Ogardo, Jr. y Villegas (Ogardo), who was driving
the motorcycle, died because he lost control of the
motorcycle and crashed in front of de Felipe’s taxi. Since
Concepcion, as passenger in the motorcycle, did not
perform or execute any act that caused the death of Ogardo,
Concepcion cannot be held liable for homicide.
3. CENON R. TEVES, Petitioner, – versus –

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and DANILO R.

BONGALON, Respondents.

G.R. No. 188775 August 24, 2011

PEREZ, J .:

Facts:

On November 26, 1992, a marriage was solemnized

between Cenon Teves (Cenon) and Thelma Jaime-Teves
(Thelma) at the Metropolitan Trial Court of Muntinlupa
City, Metro Manila.

Thelma left to work abroad and she only come home to the
Philippines for vacation. While on vacation , she was
informed that her husband marry another woman Edita
Calderon (Edita) , so she go to the NSO and secured a copy
of Certificate of Marriage indicating that her husband and
Edita contracted marriage on December 10, 2001.

Danilo Bongalon (Danilo), uncle of Thelma filed a

complaint accusing Cenon of committing bigamy.

Petitioner was charged with bigamy defined and penalized.

During the pendency of Bigamy Case, RTC rendered a

decision declaring the marriage of Cenon and Thelma null
and void on the ground that Thelma is physically
incapacitated to comply her essential marital obligations
pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code. Said decision
became final by virtue of a Certification of Finality.
Cenon filed a motion of reconsideration of the decision,
alleging that since his previous marriage was declared null
and void, there is in effect no marriage at all, and thus,
there is no bigamy to speak of.

CA was correct in affirming the conviction of petitioner,

Cenon was legally married to Thelma on 26 November 1992
and he contracted a second or subsequent marriage with
Edita on 10 December 2001 and the finality of the decision
declaring the nullity of his first marriage with Thelma was
on June 27, 2006.

Issue:

Whether or not the declaration of nullity of his previous

marriage can be made to retroact to the date of the
bigamous marriage.

Held:

No

The Court held, petitioner case the complaint was filed

before the first marriage was declared nullity.

The crime of bigamy was committed by petitioner on 10

December 2001 when he contracted a second marriage with
Edita. The finality on 27 June 2006 of the judicial
declaration of the nullity of his previous marriage to
Thelma cannot be made to retroact to the date of the
bigamous marriage.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review
is DENIED and the assailed Decision dated 21 January 2009
of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED in toto.