PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FERNANDO PANTE Y RANGASA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT,
GARCIA, R. R. J.:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. Finding the accused REALITO BELLEZA, “GUILTY” beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Theft defined and penalized under Article 308, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code and taking into account the presence of privilege mitigating circumstance of minority and imposing upon him the indeterminate penalty of 4 months and 1 day of arresto mayor as minimum to 5 years, 4 months and 1 day of prision correccional as maximum. The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are ordered to pay the private complainant Dawson Word the sum of P52,500.00 as actual damages.
2. Finding the accused CHRISTOPHER MALCO, “NOT GUILTY” of the crime of theft under Article 308, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Similarly, the father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are ordered to pay the private complainant Dawson Word the sum of P25,000.00 as actual damages since the accused was still a minor when the crime was committed.
3. Finding the accused FERNANDO PANTE, “GUILTY” beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Theft under Article 308, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code and imposing the penalty of imprisonment ranging from 2 years 4 months and 1 day of prision correccional as minimum to 9 years and 1 day of prision mayor as maximum. He is ordered to pay the private complainant Dawson Word the sum of P59,120.00 as actual damages.
SO ORDERED.[2]
THE FACTS
In an Information3 dated June 1, 2005 filed before the RTC of Pili, Camarines Sur, appellant Fernando Pante and accused minors Realito Belleza and Christopher Malco were charged with the crime of Theft defined and penalized by Article 308, par. 2, subpar. (1) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), committed as follows:
That [sometime] on December 11, 2004, in barangay Palestina, Pili, Camarines Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the said accused, conspiring, confederating and helping one another, without the consent of the owner, nor force, violence or intimidation, after having found the amount of US$4,550.00 or (P254,800.00) and P27,000.00, belonging to Dawson D. Word, and without delivering the same to its owner or authority, and once in possession of said amount, with intent to gain, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, covert the said amount for their own personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of Dawson D. Word.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.
Upon arraignment, all three (3) accused entered separate pleas of not guilty to the charge.
Trial on the merits ensued thereafter.
The prosecution presented four (4) witnesses, namely: private complainant Dawson Word; minor Florante Baal; SPO4 Pedro Corporal; and SPO4 Jovito de Castro.
The version of the prosecution may be summarized as follows:
On December 10, 2004, private complainant, an American national, and his maid dropped by the People’s Mart in Naga City, Camarines Sur to buy fish using their car. He had with him the amount of $4,550.00 and P27,000.00 bundled together in a rubber band which was placed on his lap. He always brings big amounts of money ready for the hospitalization and medicines of his son, Jon Paul Word. He gave P1,000.00 to his maid for the fish. While he was arranging his money inside the car, his maid arrived. He placed his money in between his legs and drove back home to his apartment in Barangay Palestina. Upon arrival, he parked his vehicle in front of his residence and got off his car totally forgetting his money placed between his legs. As such, the bundled money fell on the road near his vehicle. At around 5:30 a.m. of the following day, minor Florante Baal, a worker in the bakery of the Belleza family located just across the apartment of private complainant was sitting near the bakery’s gate. He noticed a bundle of money bills around three (3) inches thick wrapped in a rubber band lying on the ground near private complainant’s car. He then saw accused Realito Belleza, while riding his bicycle, go near the car and picked up the money before heading inside his house. That same morning, private complainant realized that he had lost his money and looked for the same. He went outside his apartment particularly inside the car but could no longer locate it. With the help of his landlord, he conducted his own investigation and learned that Baal saw accused Realito pick up the bundled money bills under his vehicle. Baal also confided that accused Realito warned him not to tell anyone about the find especially private complainant.[4] This prompted private complainant to go to the house of the Bellezas and talk to the father of accused Realito about the return of the money. However, the family denied any involvement in the loss of private complainant’s money.
On December 21, 2004, private complainant went to the police complaining about his lost money. Upon investigation, it was found that the finder of the money was accused Realito. The police then went to the house of the Bellezas where accused Realito admitted that he found the money under the vehicle of private complainant which was parked in front of his apartment.[5] He also averred that part of the money was shared with his cousin, accused minor Christopher Malco and appellant Fernando Pante, a worker in the Belleza family’s bakery business. His parents also decided to return the money amounting to $1,300 dollars as shown by the Receipt[6] signed by his father Joselito Belleza, Sr. On the same day, the police went to the house of accused Malco who also admitted having received $500 but could no longer return the same because he already spent it. Thereafter, the police proceeded to appellant Pante’s house at Hibago, Ocampo, Camarines Sur who likewise admitted that accused Realito gave him a share in the amount of $1,700 dollars. Out of this amount, appellant Pante only returned $300 dollars, cash of P4,660.00 pesos, one (1) unit of JVC Component, and one (1) gas stove with a tank. Appellant Pante also gave a receipt[7] from Monton Hardware showing that he bought construction materials. However, some of these items were already used so the police did not bother to get them. All the returned money and items from the three (3) accused were turned over to private complainant and listed in the receipt[8] dated December 21, 2004.
On January 10, 2005, private complainant’s son Jon Paul Word died at the Aquinas University Hospital in Legazpi City, Albay as shown by his Certificate of Death[9].
The defense presented its witnesses, namely: accused Realito; his mother Amanda Belleza; accused Malco; and appellant Pante.
Accused Realito testified that at the time of the incident he was only sixteen[10] (16) years old. He clarified that what he found was only thirty (30) pieces of $100 US dollars bills and no peso denomination. He found the money on the ground in the early morning of December 11, 2004 while riding his mountain bike outside their gate. He put the money in his pocket and continued to deliver bread. He kept it in his cabinet so that if somebody will look for it, he could return it. He then went to his cousin, accused Malco, to inquire on what to do with the money. While he and accused Malco were conversing, appellant Pante overheard them. Being the only adult, appellant Pante told them to get the money and go to the tree house. On their way there, appellant Pante grabbed the money and counted it. Appellant Pante got seventeen (17) pieces of $100 US dollar bills. Five (5) pieces were given to accused Malco while the remaining $2,350 was kept by accused Realito. Appellant Pante went home with his share and never returned.
Amanda Belleza, mother of accused Realito, testified that on December 20, 2004, his son told them that he found thirty (30) pieces of dollars. This prompted her husband to report the same to the police authorities. She also denied having bought new appliances, toys, and truckload of flour for their bakery business.
Accused Malco, who was only seventeen (17) years old at the time of incident, admitted that accused Realito gave him $500 dollars on the same day private complainant lost his money. However, he returned the whole amount so that accused Realito could give it back to private complainant. He added that he was not tempted to spend it because it was not his.
Appellant Fernando Pante, who was then twenty-nine (29) years old, testified that around 6:30 p.m. of December 11, 2004, he saw accused minors Realito and Malco passed by the back of the bakery carrying several items such as a playstation and new shoes. He inquired from the two where they got the money and learned that accused Realito found some dollars. He admitted having received ten (10) dollar bills from accused Realito as his “balato”. He kept it inside his pocket and asked permission to go home. He decided to keep first the money for four (4) days but exchanged it to pesos. He bought a JVC component, a gas stove with a tank and a CD cassette. On December 21, 2004, while he was attending the construction of his house, the police came and demanded the return of the money lost by private complainant. He told his wife to get the remaining $300 dollars and P4,660.00 pesos and turned it over to the police. He also returned the JVC component and the gas stove with a tank. A receipt for the same was issued by the police.
In the assailed Judgment[11] dated May 15, 2013, the court a quo found appellant Pante and accused Realito guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Theft defined and penalized under Article 308, par. 2, subpar. (1) of the Revised Penal Code. The prosecution was able to prove that private complainant lost his dollar bills in the amount of $4,550 US dollars and was found by accused Realito. Instead of informing the authorities or returning it to the owner, he shared part of the find to accused Malco and appellant Pante. They cannot deny that they have no interest in the money because they kept it and spent part of the money by buying several items. They only returned the remaining money and the items they bought when the police investigators arrived. All of the accused were held civilly liable to pay the unreturned amount of private complainant. The court a quo, however, acquitted accused Malco from any criminal liability because there was an admission on his part that he was only given a share and that he knew who the owner was. He was only civilly liable for failure to return the money. The pertinent portions of the assailed Judgment are quoted:
x x x
This Court is convinced that the private complainant lost dollar bills in the amount of $4,550 but not as to the peso denomination since he did not present any document that would prove that aside from the dollar bills, peso bills were included in the bundle of money lost. Accused Belleza admitted the bundle of money found by him was only in dollar denominations. The three accused divided it, Pante got $1,700, Malco got $500 and Belleza got $2,350.This Court found Realito’s actions inconsistent with his claim that he had no intention to take the money for his personal gain. The Court is also not convinced that the parents of Realito had no knowledge that their son found the money. It should be noted that one day after the private complainant lost his money, the Belleza family bought truckload of flour, baking ingredients, appliances, toys and cellphones. They had no justification as to where the money came from. For reasons only known to them, they never bothered to inform the authorities about the money. The private complainant even had a talk with the father and beg for the return of his money since he needed it for the medication of his son, who was at that time in the hospital, Realito and his parents pretended to hear nothing. Were it not for the investigation of the police, accused would not have admitted and returned the money. Their act indicated that they had no intention to return the money. Because of the incident, private complainant’s son eventually died.
On the part of the two other accused, they knew from the very start that the money was not theirs and that it was only found by Realito. Pante even told the two minors that they will not return the money. They admitted in open Court that they are aware of a provision in law that if somebody found a lost property, they have the obligation to return it to its owner or if the owner is unknown, to report it to the authorities. In this case, instead of doing so or encouraging Realito to return the money to the private complainant or to the authorities, Pante, who was of age, got his share and went home.
Given accused’s admission to having found money, keeping it in their possession without informing the authorities about the same and spending part of it, plus the positive evidence submitted by the prosecution, accused’s denial that they have no interest in the money cannot be given credence.
Under the law, delay in the delivery of lost property to the local authorities is immaterial, when the finder surrendered it voluntarily to the owner when the latter came to their house to get it. In this case, the return of Belleza of the partial amount to the owner cannot be considered voluntary since the private complainant had occasions when he went to the house of the accused and beg for the return of his money. That happened the day after his money was lost. The return was only made by the accused when the police investigators arrived.
In the case of Pante, the return was not also voluntary since he already knew that the private complainant was looking for his money. In fact, Belleza and Malco testified that they went to the house of Pante to get the money but the latter told them that they will not return the money to the private complainant. Pante admitted his liability only when the police investigator who went to his house. The element of voluntariness is wanting in the case of Belleza and Pante. What was evident is the presence of the element of “Intent to gain”. x x x.
Also under the law, a person is guilty of theft as a finder of lost property who retained part of it with intent to gain. In this case, although the accused returned part of the money, they are still liable for the unreturned part.
For accused Christopher Malco, this Court finds him civilly but not criminally liable because, while he could not return the money given to him since he already spent it, there was admission on his part that he was given part of it and that he knew who the owner was. He admitted his liability when the police investigators came to his house.
Accused Belleza and Pante are both criminally and civilly liable but as for Malco, he is only civilly liable. In the case of Belleza and Malco, who were both minors when they committed the crime, the provisions of Article 2180 of the Civil Code should apply thus, the father and, in the case of his death or incapacity, the mother are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company.[12]
Only appellant Pante filed a Notice of Appeal[13] from the decision of the court a quo and raised the lone assignment of error[14], to wit:
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FACT THAT HIS GUILT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
THE ISSUE
The sole issue in the instant case is whether or not the court a quo correctly found appellant Pante guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Theft defined and penalized under Article 308, par. 2, subpar. (1) of the RPC.
THE COURT’S RULING
The appeal is bereft of merit.
Appellant Pante contends that private complainant did not actually witness the alleged taking of his money, let alone his participation and involvement in the said taking. He did not also present any proof that he had, indeed, in his possession the said amounts. His knowledge of appellant’s involvement in the loss of his money was based solely on accused Realito’s averments. It was Belleza who found and actually took the money for himself, while appellant was not aware of its origins. In fact, upon learning of the money’s origins, appellant Pante quickly returned what was left in his possession.
We disagree.
The court a quo correctly held appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Theft defined and penalized under Article 308, par. 2, subpar. (1) of the RPC.
The felony of theft is defined under Article 308 of the RPC, viz.:
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:
- Any person who, having found lost property, shall fail to deliver the same to the local authorities or to its owner;
x x x
(Emphasis supplied)
To prove this kind of theft, it is necessary to show the following elements: (1) the finding of lost property; and (2) the failure of the finder to deliver the same to the local authorities or to its owner.[15]
In the instant case, all the elements of the crime of theft are present. The prosecution was able to prove through their witnesses that on December 10, 2004, private complainant lost dollar bills in the amount of $4,550.00 which were bundled in a rubber band. It was likewise shown that his money fell under his car after he got off his vehicle going to his apartment. The next day, accused Realito was able to pick up the dollar bills and shared it with co-accused Malco and appellant Pante knowing that the said money does not belong to them. They had the opportunity to return or deliver the lost property to its owner or to the local authorities having been in possession of the same for several days, but failed to do so. They were only forced to admit to the crime when the police authorities were already involved. The accused were able to return only a part of the money.
The testimony of private complainant that he lost his money was corroborated by minor Florante Baal who saw accused Realito pick up the money under the car of private complainant. The testimonies of SPO4 Pedro Corporal and SPO4 Jovito de Castro also confirmed the loss and that accused Realito found it and shared the same with accused Malco and appellant Pante.
The court a quo correctly gave full credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses after finding their answers to the questions both on direct and cross-examination to be candid and unwavering. The age-old rule is that the task of assigning values to the testimonies of witnesses and weighing their credibility is best left to the trial court which forms first-hand impressions as witnesses testify before it.[16] It is thus no surprise that findings and conclusions of trial courts on the credibility of witnesses enjoy, as a rule, a badge of respect, for trial courts have the advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses as they testify.[17] There was also no evidence to show any dubious reason or improper motive why the prosecution witnesses would testify falsely against the accused in the said crime.
Appellant Pante, who was already of age at the time of the incident, was also proven to have the intent to gain from the share he got from accused Realito. In People vs. Rodrigo[18], the Supreme Court held that in this kind of theft, intent to gain is inferred from the deliberate failure to deliver the lost property to the proper person, the finder knowing that the property does not belong to him.[19] The Revised Penal Code does not require knowledge of the owner of the lost property.[20] As long as the accused knew or had reason to know that the property was lost, it was his duty to turn it over to the authorities, regardless of whether or not he knew who was the owner of the lost property.[21]
Here, it was proven that appellant Pante got $1,700 dollars as his share from the find. No less than appellant Pante himself admitted in open court that he knowingly received a share from the lost money and exchanged it to pesos. Out of the amount, he admitted having bought one (1) unit of JVC Component, one (1) gas stove with tank, CD casette and several construction materials. He was only able to return $300 dollars and P4,660.00 pesos. The pertinent portions of appellant Pante’s testimony are quoted:
(DIRECT EXAMINATION OF APPELLANT FERNANDO PANTE) Q What happened after you saw Realito Belleza and Christopher Malco arrived passing by the back of the bakery? A I saw that they bought many things. x x x A I inquired from them where they got the money to buy those things. Q What was their answer? A Realito told me that he found some dollars at the Capitol complex while he was delivering bread. ATTY. ARMEA: Q What else did Realito Belleza tell you if any Mr. Witness? WITNESS: A He told me that he would give me a share. Q So what did Realito Belleza do after he told you that he will also give you a share? A He got some dollars from his pocket and he counted ten (10) pieces $100 bill, ma’am. Q What did he do with the ten (10) pieces of dollar bill? A He counted and gave it to me as my share. x x x Q What did you do after you received $1,000.00 from Realito Belleza? A I kept it inside my pocket and after that I asked permission to go home to Ocampo. x x x Q For how long did you keep the money with you Mr. Witness? A I kept it for four (4) days, ma’am. Q What happened after four (4) days, Mr. Witness? A I found the courage to exchange the dollars into our Philippine currency and spent it. Q What did you do with the money, Mr. Witness? A I bought appliances, JVC component, stove with tank and CD cassette, ma’am. Q What happened next Mr. Witness particularly on December 21, 2004? A On December 21, 2004 at around 1:00 p.m. While I was attending to the construction of my house where I bought construction materials two (2) . . . policemen arrived together with Realito Belleza and Christopher Malco. x x x A The police approached and told me that I was given money by Realito Belleza and the owner wanted to get it back. Q So what did you do after you were told that the owner wanted to get the money back? A It was my wife, Tin, who kept the dollar so I told her that Tin we need to give back the dollar. Q So what happened after x x x? A My wife gave the dollar to me and I turned over it to the police including the money in my wallet. Q How much money did you give to the Police Officer in all? A $300 and Philippine money P4,660.00, ma’am. Q What happened to the appliances and construction materials which you bought? A After I turned over the money to the police officer, I went with them to the house of Mr. Word. Q Mr. Witness what happened to the construction and appliances which you bought? A I told Mr. Word that I will return all the things that I bought. Q Did you finally return the things you bought? A Yes and when return to Ocampo to the said Police Officer together with all the things that I bought. Q What happened to the things that you bought? A I returned it to Mr. Word and the Police Officer issued a receipt, ma’am.[22]
The deliberate failure of appellant Pante to deliver the lost property to the proper person knowing that it does not belong to him clearly shows that he had the personal intention to gain from the money.
Appellant Pante’s alleged voluntary return of the remaining money after he learned of its origins cannot be given credence. Delay in the delivery of the lost property is immaterial it appearing the it was only returned after the police arrived in his house. By taking custody of the money, appellant Pante has the obligation of restoring the thing to its owner or to the authorities. However, he failed to do so and blatantly disregarded the need of the owner to use the money. He even told the two accused minors that they should not return the money. Had the police not arrived to question them, he would still have continued keeping and using the money owned by private complainant. Worse, the money was supposed to be used for the medication of private complainant’s son.
The court a quo likewise correctly ordered appellant to pay the amount of P59,120.00 which is still unreturned to private complainant. Under Article 105[23] of the Revised Penal Code, the restitution of the thing itself must be made whenever possible.
Anent the penalty imposed upon appellant which is imprisonment ranging from two (2) years four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to nine (9) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, the same should be modified to two (2) years four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to thirteen (13) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
The basic penalty for theft under Article 309 of the RPC is prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods to be imposed in the maximum period since the amount stolen exceeded P22,000.00. To determine the additional years of imprisonment prescribed in Article 309 (1), the amount of P22,000.00 should be deducted from P59,120.00 which is the unreturned amount of appellant Pante. The net amount should then be divided by P10,000.00, disregarding any amount below P10,000.00. Thus, three (3) years must be added to the basic penalty of the maximum period of prision mayor minimum and medium periods. The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods has a range of six years (6) and one (1) day to ten (10) years. Its maximum period is eight (8) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to ten (10) years.[24] Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum term could be thirteen (13) years while the minimum term would fall under the next lower penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods which ranges from two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day to six (6) years, to be imposed in any of its periods. Hence, the penalty of the court a quo should be modified to two (2) years four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to thirteen (13) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The Judgment dated January 23, 2013 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 33, Pili, Camarines Sur finding accused-appellant Fernando Pante y Rangasa guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Theft defined and penalized by Article 308, par. 2, subpar. (1) of the Revised Penal Code and to pay private complainant Dawson Word the amount of P59,120.00 as actual damages is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION in that appellant is ordered to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of two (2) years four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to thirteen (13) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
SO ORDERED.
Dimagiba, L. R., and *Sempio Diy, M. E., JJ., concur.
* Acting Junior Member per Officer Order No. 15-15-ABR.
[1] Decision penned by Presiding Judge Marvel C. Clavecilla, Rollo, pp. 35-46.
[2] Rollo, pp. 45-46.
[3] Record, pp. 1-2.
[4] Affidavit of Dawson Word, Record, p. 27.
[5] Joint Affidavit, Record, p. 11.
[6] Record, p. 189.
[7] Record, pp. 190-191.
[8] Id., p. 188.
[9] Id., p. 192.
[10] Id., p. 78.
[11] Supra, note 1.
[12] Rollo, pp. 42-44.
[13] Record, p. 345.
[14] Rollo, p. 20.
[15] People v. Rodrigo, L-18507, March 31, 1966.
[16] People v. Alvin del Rosario, G.R. No. 189580, February 9, 2011.
[17] Ibid.
[18] G.R. No. L-18507, March 31, 1966.
[19] Reyes, Luis B., The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 15th Ed. 2001, p. 701 citing the case of People v. Rodrigo, 16 SCRA 475.
[20] Reyes, Luis B., The Revised Penal Code: Book Two, 15th Ed. 2001, p. 700 citing the case of People v. Panotes, et al., C.A., 36 O.G. 1008; People v. Silverio, C.A., 43 O.G. 2205.
[21] Ibid.
[22] TSN dated August 10, 2011, pp. 6-10.
[23] ART. 105. Restitution–How made. – The restitution of the thing itself must be made whenever possible, with allowance for any deterioration, or diminution of value as determined by the court. The thing itself shall be restored, 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 who may be liable to him.
x x x x x x x x x
[24] People v. Bago, G.R. No. 122290, April 6, 2000; Pideli v. People, G.R. No. 163437, February 13, 2008.