TAHIMIK RAMIREZ, PETITIONER VS. HON. NICASIO YATCO, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Tahimik Ramirez versus Yatco

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari with a prayer for a preliminary mandatory injunction, brought by Tahimik Ramirez against Judge Nicasio Yatco of the Court of First Instance of Quezon City and against Bulkley, Dunton Paper (Far East) Company, Incorporated. Ramirez asks the Supreme Court to annul an order of the trial court directing the restitution of a stolen Oldsmobile car to the offended party in a criminal case for qualified theft. The case matters because it fixes the reach of the restitutionary power of a criminal court over the thing that is the very object of the crime, even when that thing is found in the hands of a third person who claims to have bought it in good faith.

Procedural History

An information for qualified theft was filed against Edgardo Reyes and others before the Court of First Instance of Quezon City. The car was seized from Ramirez by virtue of a search warrant issued by Judge Roman Cansino, Junior of the Municipal Court of Manila. In the criminal case, Bulkley, Dunton Paper (Far East) Company, Incorporated filed a petition praying that the car be restituted to it as owner under Article 105 of the Revised Penal Code. Ramirez filed a written opposition, claiming to be a purchaser for value under Article 559 of the Civil Code and arguing that the remedy sought was not the proper one. After hearing and an ocular inspection, the trial court, through Judge Yatco, issued an order on November 25, 1961 directing the restitution of the car to Bulkley. Because of what the petition describes as the apparent hostility of the trial court, Ramirez did not file a motion for reconsideration and instead came directly to the Supreme Court on certiorari with preliminary mandatory injunction. The Supreme Court gave due course to the petition and granted the writ upon the filing of a bond of 5,000 pesos, commanding the restoration of the motor vehicle to Ramirez or to Judge Cansino. Bulkley chose to deliver the car to the Municipal Court of Manila, which later directed that it be delivered to Ramirez, subject to the order of the Supreme Court. Bulkley then moved that the car be returned to the Municipal Court or placed under the custody of Major Alfredo Ocampo, but the Supreme Court deferred action until the case was decided on the merits.

Facts

An Oldsmobile car, apparently belonging to Bulkley, Dunton Paper (Far East) Company, Incorporated, disappeared. An information for qualified theft was filed against Edgardo Reyes and others before the Court of First Instance of Quezon City. The car was later seized from Tahimik Ramirez, who allegedly bought it in good faith from Bachrach Motor Company, by virtue of a search warrant issued by Judge Roman Cansino, Junior of the Municipal Court of Manila and served by Major Alfredo Ocampo of the Special Operations Division of the Department of National Defense.

In the meantime, Bulkley filed in the criminal case a petition praying that, since it owned the stolen car and the case had already been decided resulting in the conviction of the accused, an order be issued directing that the car be restituted to it as owner pursuant to Article 105 of the Revised Penal Code. Ramirez opposed, claiming to be a purchaser for value under Article 559 of the Civil Code and insisting that the proper remedy was a separate civil action in which ownership could be litigated.

After due hearing and an ocular inspection of the car to determine that it was the same vehicle seized under the search warrant, the trial court issued the disputed order of November 25, 1961, ordering Major Ocampo to restore the car to Bulkley or its duly authorized representative. The trial court relied on Article 105 of the Revised Penal Code, in view of the fact that the criminal case had already been decided resulting in the conviction of the accused.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the restitution of the stolen car to the offended party under Article 105 of the Revised Penal Code, even though the car was then in the possession of a third person who claimed to have acquired it by lawful means.
• Whether or not the fact that the car was under the custody of the Municipal Court of Manila at the time of the order deprived the trial court of jurisdiction over the car.

Applicable Provisions

Article 105 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

The restitution of the thing itself shall be made by the court whenever possible, even though it be found in the possession of a third person who has acquired it by lawful means, saving to the latter the action he may have against the proper person who may be liable to him.

This is the very provision the trial court applied and the Court construes, because it authorizes restitution even against a third person who acquired the thing lawfully, saving to that person his separate action.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court did not commit any abuse of discretion. Article 105 provides that restitution of the thing itself shall be made by the court whenever possible, even though it be found in the possession of a third person who has acquired it by lawful means, saving to the latter the action he may have against the proper person who may be liable to him. The only exception is when the thing has been acquired by a third person in a manner which bars the action for its recovery. The Court noted that there is no claim that Ramirez falls within the exception. The trial court did precisely what Article 105 provides: after deciding the criminal case and convicting the accused, and after satisfying itself that the offended party was the respondent company, it ordered restitution subject only to the requirements of that article.

On the second issue, the Court held that the fact that the car was under the custody of the Municipal Court of Manila at the time the order was issued is of no moment, considering that the car is the very subject of the case then being ventilated. If the car was placed under the custody of the Municipal Court of Manila, it was merely as an incident of the search warrant issued by it, in order that its possession may be retrieved and placed under the control of the authorities. This did not deprive the trial court of its jurisdiction over the car.

Doctrine

A criminal court that convicts the accused may order the restitution of the thing itself whenever possible, even though it be found in the possession of a third person who has acquired it by lawful means, saving to that third person the action he may have against the proper person who may be liable to him. The only exception is when the thing has been acquired by a third person in a manner which bars the action for its recovery. The custody of the thing by another court, taken merely as an incident of a search warrant, does not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction over the thing that is the very subject of the criminal case. The third person's claim of ownership is not lost; it is reserved to him in an appropriate action.

Disposition

The petition was denied, the writ issued by the Supreme Court was dissolved, and the order of restitution was left standing, without prejudice to the right of Ramirez to assert his ownership in an appropriate action.

Remember This

Memorize the rule of Article 105: restitution of the thing itself shall be made whenever possible, even though it be found in the possession of a third person who has acquired it by lawful means, saving to the latter his action against the proper person. Examiners use this case to test whether a criminal court may order restitution against a good-faith purchaser, and whether the custody of the thing by another court defeats the jurisdiction of the court trying the crime.